Modern Churches

[Timothysis]

The look of a church is not merely a matter of casual preference for this or that color, this or that shape: the appearance of a church makes a statement about belief. For practical purposes, a church makes a bigger impact than a theologion’s expression of Marian Dogma or Petrine authority. Why? Because a child first sees the church and its contents, which begins to help the child form belief. Only later, if ever, the child may learn about St. Simon de Montfort or the First Vatican Council.

I think the best refutation for this statement is following quote;

Well, everyone’s entitled to his own opinion.

Finally, I agree with you, especially considering that your first quote is nothing but your personal opinion and does not weigh one way or the other on something that can be considered objective.

Take for example this statement: "* the appearance of a church makes a statement about belief. "*

Did you know that during the building of the great cathedrals of Europe differing towns did everything they could to make their cathedral bigger and better than the next town in order to draw more pilgrims/tourists? Did you know that some cathedrals had their ceilings collapse because they tried to go higher than the next town? How, then, does the appearance of a church make a statement about belief when the appearance is rooted in one upping the next town?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Warrenton,

I am trying to understand your point of view.
However, what I keep getting from your posts is that if it is “modern” it is not good, and that modern style churches are everything that is wrong in the chruch today

At one point, you even accuse people of blasphemy, because you do not like a particular architectural style. I am not too sure that I agree with this assesment, especially considering what happens in my own diocese.

I refer you to this post.

I am very interested in your thoughts regarding my last paragraph, and how that fits into your model that modern = “bad”.

 

[Judge_Mental]

I dislike modern architecture in churches. It’s subtractive. ‘We’re going to give you less and you should like it’. And then we expect you to feel religious awe. Or is that old-fashioned?

Add in stylised icons and you can then play the game that’s fun for all the family (not):

“What’s Catholic about it?”

Spot the items that are specifically Catholic. And not. Note the absences. The blandness. The alterations.

It’s like the Church is currently afraid of its own history. Is the hope that by relentlessly chasing after popular culture ‘the young people’ will return? Is it working yet?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I guess that’s one of the good things of living in San Francisco. Buildings in general here are mostly old, so despite “modernized” liturgies, the parish buildings are almost all beautiful. There are only a small handful of modern looking churches. Shoot, even the Protestant churches here look nice.

 

[Judge_Mental]

The current apostasy is blamed by liberals on a lack of catechesis. Well, a mass is a lesson. So is a church. It shows what we believe. A barn with a table altar means the locals are going to have to do a lot more teaching to get across what Catholicism means. And then people forget.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I recently was talking to a Jesuit priest. He remarked to me how the two local Catholic cathedrals (San Francisco, which looks like a washing machine agitator and Oakland, which looks like something from outer space) had none of the powerful spirituality of the lovely St. Ignatius Church in San Francisco. I might expect that from a Jesuit, but then he told me how much he loves Grace Cathedral, the Episcopal cathedral built in French Gothic style.

Sadly, modernity for the sake of modernity yields modernity. These churches cost millions of dollars. The Oakland cathedral cost about $200 Million. I don’t mind the expense, but I do mind the outcome. Across the street from the Oakland cathedral is the lovely red brick St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. It looks timeless after 100 years. I doubt the cathedral will.

Interestingly, there is a Coptic church in Hayward CA, that was built as a very simple concrete Protestant church. The Copts turned it around, put the altar on the eastern side, and made it their own.

 

[Warrenton]

I am very interested in your thoughts regarding my last paragraph, and how that fits into your model that modern = “bad”.

Catholics, left to themselves, tend to more piety. It is telling that the growth of perpetual adoration chapels is a lay movement (at least it is where I live). It has to be, because lay people need to be present 24/7 to adore the Blessed Sacrament.

It is not an accident that perpetual adoration has risen in popularity at the same time, and I think in reaction to, the stripping of our altars, the removal of stations, the removal of side chapels and votive candals, the limitation of confession times, and so on.

In a parish near where I live, the new church is modernistic, “in the round” and quite “contemporatry.” The perpetual adoration chapel, in contrast, is a little Tridentine space! It’s new, of course, but could have been built at any time: altar ad orientem, six candels, proper crucifix, and an altar rail. The pews are arranged laterally.

If they take everything else away, what else can we do but add other things in their place?

Your post implies that my views on church architecture are perhaps extreme. I am not surprised. However, I am only advocating for what was common up until a few years ago, and for what had been common for the past 1700 years or so. It is the new architecture and art that in reality is extreme. An unrecognizable Christ in a Catholic Church? That is what is actually extreme.

It is the extemists’ method, however, to impose their “modest proposal” on everyone, and then feign shock when Catholics object.

 

[vsedriver]

Why are they remodeling the churches in this style and do you like it?

Our parish church was built in the late 19th century of German Gothic architecture. It was beautifully decorated with stenciling, large stainglass windows, beautiful statues and gorgeous wooden altars. The central altar had a beautiful redodos with statues of St. Boniface and St. Patrick. (lots of German and Irish railroaders) Two beautiful angels knelt at the altar’s side.

Then in the 1920’s the church said that wood wasn’t a suitable material for the altar, that marble was more appropriate. So the 3 wood altars were ripped out along with the communion rail which all matched the choir loft’s wooden facade. The beautiful wooden redodos was ripped out and an ugly red velvet canopy put in it’s place with a large crucifix hanging in the center. Most of the statues were removed.

Everything stayed the same till the early 70’s. Then our church was modernized. I won’t go into detail but if you can imagine 1970 hippy art in a gothic style church it was enough to make you puke. They painted over all the beautiful stenciling so we had stark white plain walls. The cross was attached to a wooden backgound. Mary and Joseph were removed from the side altars and placed on the side walls while back lit panels took the statues original place. To make matters worse, the beautiful bass relief Stations of the Cross were replace with Alexander Calder style mobiles.

Need I go on?

40 years later we are restoring our church. I’ve been blessed to be on the committee overseeing the restoration. The stenciling is back, a new wooden redodos has been designed. Mary and Joseph are going back on the side altars. It’s costing our small parish a small fortune. But it will be worth it.

I have nothing against the use of modern art forms in liturgical settings as long as they can still inspire awe, holiness, and respect for the Eucharist. But even good art can become bad art if it fails to convey the proper message.

 

[Warrenton]

Did you know that during the building of the great cathedrals of Europe differing towns did everything they could to make their cathedral bigger and better than the next town in order to draw more pilgrims/tourists? Did you know that some cathedrals had their ceilings collapse because they tried to go higher than the next town? How, then, does the appearance of a church make a statement about belief when the appearance is rooted in one upping the next town?

You’re right. The great cathedrals were a waste of time, lacked any connection with the faith except superstition, and were virtual death traps.

That is, unless that is just another opinion that can never be verified.

 

[Warrenton]

their opinion is different from yours.

 

[vsedriver]

I recently was talking to a Jesuit priest. He remarked to me how the two local Catholic cathedrals (San Francisco, which looks like a washing machine agitator and Oakland, which looks like something from outer space) .

I had to see these, I couldn’t believe they could be that bad… they are that bad.

 

[Warrenton]

s. Well, a mass is a lesson. So is a church. It shows what we believe. A barn with a table altar means the locals are going to have to do a lot more teaching to get across what Catholicism means. And then people forget.

I love this.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I recently was talking to a Jesuit priest. He remarked to me how the two local Catholic cathedrals (San Francisco, which looks like a washing machine agitator and Oakland, which looks like something from outer space) had none of the powerful spirituality of the lovely St. Ignatius Church in San Francisco. I might expect that from a Jesuit, but then he told me how much he loves Grace Cathedral, the Episcopal cathedral built in French Gothic style.

I actually posted a thread here years ago showing a picture of St. Mary of the Assumption and Grace Cathedral and asked participants to guess which one was Protestant and which one was Catholic. I’m sure you can guess how the polling went.

Sadly, modernity for the sake of modernity yields modernity. These churches cost millions of dollars. The Oakland cathedral cost about $200 Million. I don’t mind the expense, but I do mind the outcome. Across the street from the Oakland cathedral is the lovely red brick St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. It looks timeless after 100 years. I doubt the cathedral will.

I have to admit that the interior of Christ the Light in Oakland is sort of awesome, despite the central layout. Something very cryptic about it. The exterior is just an eyesore. Something of a hybrid between a UFO (as you mentioned) and a wannabe Crystal Cathedral.

Interestingly, there is a Coptic church in Hayward CA, that was built as a very simple concrete Protestant church. The Copts turned it around, put the altar on the eastern side, and made it their own.

What’s the name? I visit family in the East Bay from time to time and wouldn’t mind checking it out.

 

[Monica4316]

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?

I really dislike these “modern churches”… it reminds me of the Iconoclasm lol

however my church was built in the modern times, but it has beautiful statues, a large crucifix over the Altar (which is a high altar cause they do the Latin Mass there), and there are side altars (our Blessed Mother and St Joseph). There are also statues of Saints around the church, a confessional (in the old style), and altar rails

 

[laszlo]

You’re right. The great cathedrals were a waste of time, lacked any connection with the faith except superstition, and were virtual death traps.

That is, unless that is just another opinion that can never be verified.

In Hungarian in a Benedictine cloister there is a 12th Century Church. One corner needed some restoration and the construction worked removed a statue from that corner. All sided were perfectly carved, even the sides toward the wall, which were never seen by human being. The people in the 12th Century made it for the glory of God, not to please humans.

As for the topic my opinion is that modern churches are not farther away from the Catholic piety, than modern art from the classical art. Go to any art museum, and suffer the modern art section.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In Hungarian in a Benedictine cloister there is a 12th Century Church. One corner needed some restoration and the construction worked removed a statue from that corner. All sided were perfectly carved, even the sides toward the wall, which were never seen by human being. The people in the 12th Century made it for the glory of God, not to please humans.

As for the topic my opinion is that modern churches are not farther away from the Catholic piety, than modern art from the classical art. Go to any art museum, and suffer the modern art section.

I have not shared my opinion on what is beautiful and what is ugly in Church architecture because it is just that, my opinion and my opinion is no more valid or authoritative than anyone else’s opinion.

As for the stupid mapplethorpe icon comment, I ignored it because it is an attempt at the classic straw man fallacy. It also earned that user a place on my ignore list so that I do not have to see any of his further replies, so if anyone wonders why I do not respond when/if he tries to call me out by name that is why.

Building architecture is not a matter of faith. Salvation is not dependent on it. It is not dogma. It is opinion.

There are Churches that I think are not ugly that others think are ugly, there are also Churches that I think are ugly that others do not agree with me.

This topic has nothing to do with edification, it is all about tearing down those we disagree with. This is why I choose to reply in the manner I did.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Yes, I like Sagrada Familia. Why? Because it is a cathedral, and follows the form of a cathedral. It is recognizable as such. In contrast, I vehemently deny the assertion that anywhere a bishop sits, there a cathedral be.

If that definition applies, then many unsavory places are, ipso facto, cathedrals.

Compare the LA thing to Sagrada Familia. The differences would be apparent to a child.

Sagrada Familia falls under the category as “modern” architecture just saying…

 

[laszlo]

Building architecture is not a matter of faith. Salvation is not dependent on it. It is not dogma. It is opinion.

Here is from our pope:

The temples of religions are usually not meeting places for worshipers, but cultic spaces reserved to deity

books.google.com/books?id=Wf0llOhrfY4C&lpg=PP1&dq=ratzinger%20spirit%20of%20liturgy%20text&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=true

I believe this is what we are forgotten in our would. The building has to be the expression of out faith.

For the Jews there was the Temple for God, and the synagogues for meeting. The modern architectures pull down our churches to the level of the synagogues, forgetting the physical presence of our Lord.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is from our pope:

The temples of religions are usually not meeting places for worshipers, but cultic spaces reserved to deity

books.google.com/books?id=Wf0llOhrfY4C&lpg=PP1&dq=ratzinger%20spirit%20of%20liturgy%20text&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=true

I believe this is what we are forgotten in our would. The building has to be the expression of out faith.

For the Jews there was the Temple for God, and the synagogues for meeting. The modern architectures pull down our churches to the level of the synagogues, forgetting the physical presence of our Lord.

Yes that is a valid opinion and a pretty prevalent one, but that does not make it a matter of faith (dogma).

Again, I refrain from stating my opinion so do not assume that I disagree (or even agree) with you on this as that is not my point in posting to this thread.

My point is that Church architecture is not a matter of dogma and there can be, and are, differing opinions on it. Just like CITH and COTT.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

Well the church that is within 5 minute drive from my home actually has chairs (no pews with kneelers) Since I am a kneeler and I like to pray 1/2 hr before mass begins, this was unacceptale to me… so after looking in the windows I left and never went back. This is an example of ‘too modern’ for my taste