Modern Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrushedByAngels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrushedByAngels

Guest
My home church where I am a member is designed in the Spanish Renaissance style with two towers and a Spanish tile roof. Three sets of bronze doors open to the vestibule which is flanked by chapels dedicated to St. Anthony and St. Theresa. The impressive main Altar of the Sacred Heart made of Carrara marble occupies a niche over 40 feet in height which is painted with a mural of the twelve apostles and surmounted by a depiction of the crucifixion. The intricate hand painted ceiling and frescoes are another treasure of our church. Perhaps the most defining features of the church decoration are the magnificent stained glass windows depicting the life of the Blessed Mother, the so-called “Marian windows”.

I moved out of the area and went to a few churches closer (within 7 miles) of my new home and all three are very protestant looking in my opinion. I saw pictures pre-remodel of them, and they were beautiful. Now they are very plain with big stages. Looks like I’m at a concert instead of mass.🤷

Why are they remodeling the churches in this style and do you like it?
 
In our Archdiocese, almost every church that had at least some resemblence of tradition was remodeled or completely removed in favor of 50’s and 60’s “automotive barn” style construction.

The few that remain are under constant threat of some modernist proposal to remove them.

I currently drive 120 miles each way to celebrate the EF. Regretfully, its is in one of those very modern style churches. Hopefully that will change this year.

I place a reverent liturgy first, then I look for beauty in the church itself. Steel beamed “barns” don’t cut it with me.

But that is just my humble opinion.

God Bless
 
The wonderfully majestic and classic churches we all love to attend were once modern style churches. Many times churches have to be utilitarian because they must serve multiple uses. We were founding members of our last parish. In the beginning we met in a bowling alley, then an auditorium/theater at a local college. Within a few years we built a Parish Live Center and held Mass in the gym/parish hall. We returned this past weekend to their new church. It is a cruciform church with columns. It is wonderful!
 
ByzCath said:
Ugly, just as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
Okay, everything is subjective. How stupid of me to forget I am writing in MMXI. Then tell the nice Byzantine priest to put an icon designed by Robert Maplethorpe up in your church.
 
BrushedByAngels said:
Why are they remodeling the churches in this style

That is the proverbial $64,000 question.

Reason number one: Blasphemy. The designers of these churches, and the abstract junk they put in them, is a covert way of denying the truths they don’t like. My church is an example. They installed tiffany-esque windows of the life of Christ. Yet, though these were expensive, the artist omitted halos around the heads of the saints, the Blessed Virgin and the Christ. The message is that they are holy, but not too holy.

Whenever an artist depicts a holy person, or especially the crucifixion, in a minimalist, sloppy manner, the message is that the passion is not miraculous, not clear, not rationally linked to the sacrifice of the mass. This is blasphemy.

Number two: Pride. Going back to the windows, who gave the artist the right to decide, in the face of 1500 years to the contrary, not to depict the halos?

Number three: Cowardice. If the bishop wanted apples, and I brought a bushel of comoposted oranic material, deeply nitrogenous, he would not pay me, and rightly so. At any stage in the process of design or remodelling, the bishop, priest, and parish council could say to the architect: do the job we paid you to do, or go without your pay. The job is to build a Catholic church. We have 1700 years of practice, howbeit we forgot how in 1965?

The architect is a servant, and should be treated accordingly.

Number four: Self hate. They do not want to be in a building that reflects the faith. They do not want a building that looks like our ancestors’ churches, lest we face their judgment on our conduct and our values. They want a building that reflects the appeasing, slackadaisacal wonderbreadism that is the essence of modern life. Heaven forfend we find ourselves in a building that makes us want to believe, that would lead to changes, and we must not have changes, at least not ones that matter.
and do you like it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Just because YOU don’t like a particular style does not make it either irreverant, or “protestant”. Styles change. They always have, and they always will.

Different people like different things. I don’t like a lot of the ultra modern churches, but i can see the beauty in them. I personally prefer the Gothic style, but unless I can find some multi-millionairs to finance the building of a church “My Way” , I doubt if anyone would actually build one that way.

Lots of people complain about the church style, but I always ask, "Were you involved during the planning stages for building this church. Almost invariably, the answer is “NO”. My parish just built a huge new church. My wife and i both joined the committee planning and designing that church. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we got some things.

Nobody is going to go around tearing down the alters, etc. And frankly, if the style of the building would keep you away from Mass, your faith is awfully weak!
 
This seems to be reversed. It is the fact of irreverance that enables the observation that the church is irreverantly built.

It does not take any more money to build a gothic church than a modern church. The Goths had a lot less money than we do, and built better churches.
Nobody is going to go around tearing down the alters, etc.
Click to expand...
Sadly, that it not the case in much of the country. If your area is free from this levelling, it is lucky.
And frankly, if the style of the building would keep you away from Mass, your faith is awfully weak!
Click to expand...
This needs to be qualified. If the church is designed in a way that insults the faith, then to support that church when there are reasonable alternatives is to approve the insult, which is sinful.

If Catholics left unsuitable churches, the bishops, priests and councils who build them would soon get the message.
 
Warrenton said:
True, but they were never ugly.
Click to expand...
You know those great soaring Gothic cathedrals in Europe, though? “Gothic” was originally applied as a disparagement of their barbarity – a term of opprobrium not much above “Vandal” (think of the Visigoths). So in fact they were ugly.

It’s an open question, I think, whether all beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the beauty of some things (Hilary Swank, say, or the Sydney Opera House, or a Matisse) is relative, and reasonable people can disagree without either’s being “wrong”; and possibly there are some things (Michelangelo’s Pieta? the Iliad? Mount Fuji?) whose beauty is objective. If indeed the latter category exists at all, though, the scope of the former must be large enough that, for instance, Reims Cathedral lies in it and not among the objectively-beautiful. The same applies to high polyphony (condemned in the Counter-Reformation) and plenty of other thing which, today, we think are just the cat’s meow and are stupefied to be told that anyone might ever have thought they were barbaric novelties.

Personally, I have no doubt that there are some things, if probably not many, and of course I have no idea which, that today we think of as controversial, new, and of aesthetic value that is at best highly suspect (Frank Gehry’s buildings? Tadao Ando’s? Roy Lichtenstein’s art? Banksy’s?) which, in 400 years, will be esteemed to be the height of unquestionable merit.
 
I have been thinking about the churches that are within a 10 mile radius of my home. There are many,(at least 20 off the top of my head)
and they run the gamut from gothic style to ultra-modern,
albeit,* “modern”* in the 1960’s-70’s style.😛

My diocese has also renovated (or* “wreckovated”*, as some in my community say)
quite a few parishes, as well as the Cathedral, to very mixed reviews.

We have a few churches, that are very old, and were once the center of ethnic neighborhoods in my city, that are full of what I call (affectionately 😉 *),“Catholic eye-candy”, *the beautiful side altars, carved wood, lots of marble, frescoes, beautiful stained glass.

Most are what I would call *“simply Catholic”, *modest in decoration, a couple of stautes, usually a tabernacle behind the altar, a prominent crucifix.

And then there are a few that are, IMHO, just plain awful. Usually done in “the round” or some variation, modern style crucifix done in the abstract style, giant “jacuzzi style” baptismal fonts and fonts with waterfalls set up for the Easter season!:eek:

And as I thought of all of them, The one church I dislike the most, as far as architecture, and that even I find to be not very orthodox in it’s liturgy or leadership
(which is saying something! 😉 I am far from what most on this sub-forum would consider orthodox, but I am starting to see the error of my ways!😛 )
is the only one that has Perpetual Adoration! :hmmm: :whistle:
 
BrushedByAngels said:
My home church where I am a member is designed in the Spanish Renaissance style with two towers and a Spanish tile roof. Three sets of bronze doors open to the vestibule which is flanked by chapels dedicated to St. Anthony and St. Theresa. The impressive main Altar of the Sacred Heart made of Carrara marble occupies a niche over 40 feet in height which is painted with a mural of the twelve apostles and surmounted by a depiction of the crucifixion. The intricate hand painted ceiling and frescoes are another treasure of our church. Perhaps the most defining features of the church decoration are the magnificent stained glass windows depicting the life of the Blessed Mother, the so-called “Marian windows”.

I moved out of the area and went to a few churches closer (within 7 miles) of my new home and all three are very protestant looking in my opinion. I saw pictures pre-remodel of them, and they were beautiful. Now they are very plain with big stages. Looks like I’m at a concert instead of mass.🤷

Why are they remodeling the churches in this style and do you like it?
Click to expand...
They don’t remodel for the sake of remodeling. Either the previous structure need to be replaced or the parish grew and there is a need for a bigger structure.

My last RC parish is 100 years old and yet you can’t tell it apart from a Lutheran or Baptist church. So this idea of modern (ie. last 40 years) churches looking more protestant is not true. Church architecture is influenced by culture. The Christian culture in North America today is more Protestant.
 
Warrenton said:
Okay, everything is subjective. How stupid of me to forget I am writing in MMXI. Then tell the nice Byzantine priest to put an icon designed by Robert Maplethorpe up in your church.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument, very weak. Earned you a place on the ignore list though.
 
I attended services at a historic church on the Colonial Williamsburg Historical Area site.

The wood throughout was very old the varnish had turned dark from age, the lights were dim, light filtered through the stained glass windows, etc.

I felt like I was walking back into history. For me, that is a very warm and comforting feeling.
 
=BrushedByAngels;7607754]My home church where I am a member is designed in the Spanish Renaissance style with two towers and a Spanish tile roof. Three sets of bronze doors open to the vestibule which is flanked by chapels dedicated to St. Anthony and St. Theresa. The impressive main Altar of the Sacred Heart made of Carrara marble occupies a niche over 40 feet in height which is painted with a mural of the twelve apostles and surmounted by a depiction of the crucifixion. The intricate hand painted ceiling and frescoes are another treasure of our church. Perhaps the most defining features of the church decoration are the magnificent stained glass windows depicting the life of the Blessed Mother, the so-called “Marian windows”.
Click to expand...
I moved out of the area and went to a few churches closer (within 7 miles) of my new home and all three are very protestant looking in my opinion. I saw pictures pre-remodel of them, and they were beautiful. Now they are very plain with big stages. Looks like I’m at a concert instead of mass.🤷
Click to expand...
Why are they remodeling the churches in this style and do you like it?
Click to expand...
BUT: you left out THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM;)

Where is the RESERVATION TABERNACLE LOCATED? Is it Visible to ALL, ALL of the time?

Sounds like an extremely beautiful Church!

God’s Continued Blesings,
Pat
 
MarkThompson said:
You know those great soaring Gothic cathedrals in Europe, though? “Gothic” was originally applied as a disparagement of their barbarity – a term of opprobrium not much above “Vandal” (think of the Visigoths). So in fact they were ugly…
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I was reminded, too. When new, Gothic architecture was despised by many, particularly in Italy, who preferred the comfort of traditional architecture. They considered Gothic architecture to be crass and licentious- totally inappropriate for a church. The advent of the Italian Renaissance and the increased influence of Italian opinion helped bring about the end of new Gothic construction.
 
Dale_M said:
The advent of the Italian Renaissance and the increased influence of Italian opinion helped bring about the end of new Gothic construction.
Click to expand...
That, and the black plague. Nearly all of the great cathedrals were begun prior to the 1340s. Then, construction languished on many throughout the rest of the century. The plague led to instability throughout Europe, which slowed church building.
 
ByzCath said:
Strawman argument, very weak.
Click to expand...
As weak an argument against ugly churches as saying nothing is either ugly or beautiful?

Then I wonder what it means when it says, “I am black but beautiful, o daughters of Jerusalem.”

Perhaps simply that some kings find her pretty, while others don’t. Some kings find her ugly, in fact. Maybe they don’t even think she is black, maybe, after all, she is white, depending on one’s view of the thing. Is anything ever white or black?

Could it be possible that all art was just in vain, ever since the caves at Lescaux?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top