S
Seamus_L
Guest
The book Ugly As Sin :Why They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces and How We Can Change Them Back Again by Michael Rose sums it up much better than I can.
- Status
Z
zab
Guest
There is no way a parish could build such beautiful churches without the sacrifices of their parishioners. I’m just wondering if people today are as generous with their sacrificing as people were in the past when they built such marvelous places of worship.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
L
laszlo
Guest
God will show through the future.
My opinion is that the reverence has to be full, toward Christ’s different presences (Church, Eucharist, Revelation) and through the means like architecture, postures, music.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I agree completely but as we can see with the different Rites (Latin and Byzantine just to name two) there are vaild differences.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Coptic Church in Hayward California:
antonius.org/
What’s the name? I visit family in the East Bay from time to time and wouldn’t mind checking it out.
antonius.org/
What’s the name? I visit family in the East Bay from time to time and wouldn’t mind checking it out.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
The interior of Christ the Light in Oakland is colored very much like the chapel of Mills College in Oakland. The chapel is light cedar wood and concrete, is round, and has almost no obvious Christian features, other than the requisite Protestant style “chancel” with pulpit, choir space and a lovely organ.
Bishop Cummins, 2nd of Oakland, now emeritus, had been the Catholic chaplain at Mills College in the 60s when the chapel was built. I asked him if he had had his architect visit the college chapel for ideas. He demurred and did not answer.
As to Grace Cathedral, please note that it is Anglican, not Protestant. However for a great example of Protestant Gothic, look at First Presbyterian in Oakland. It looks like a bigger version of St. Margaret Mary, also in Oakland. Both churches have lovely Gothic exteriors and dissapointing interiors.
Bishop Cummins, 2nd of Oakland, now emeritus, had been the Catholic chaplain at Mills College in the 60s when the chapel was built. I asked him if he had had his architect visit the college chapel for ideas. He demurred and did not answer.
As to Grace Cathedral, please note that it is Anglican, not Protestant. However for a great example of Protestant Gothic, look at First Presbyterian in Oakland. It looks like a bigger version of St. Margaret Mary, also in Oakland. Both churches have lovely Gothic exteriors and dissapointing interiors.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Architecture and the interior design of churches is a matter of faith, not in the sense of dogma, but in the sense of being an issue that concerns faith. We express faith by communication. That is why councils have dealt with art, that is why the Bible deals with art, and the construction of holy places. That is why Tolstoy wrote a whole book about art, in which he dealt with its ecclesiastical applications.ByzCath; [QUOTE said:
It was a major issue with Islam, as well as in the Reformation, for goodness’ sake.
It is hard to see, in light of all this, how the problem of improper church architecture and art can be dismissed as mere opinion. To do so is on a par with dismissing improper use of language in the liturgy, such as loose translations. In the 1980s, innovators defended their promiscuous use of language on the basis that speech is also relative, that idiom is mere opinion.
The disconnect between a church such as the cathedral in LA and what we preach is blatant. Catholics say, against much of humanity, that moral law, revelation and miracle are facts to be perceived, appreciated and applied. The eucharist is not a memorial, it is the actual body of our Lord.
Catholic faith is objective. But, when we have a Cristus that is practically unidentifiable and a totally anonymous, almost androgynous Madonna in a cathedral that is indistinguishable from an office building, the conveyed message or such art is 180 degrees opposite from what our faith actually preaches.
It begs the question, why would anyone create such things?
W
Warrenton
Guest
Quite apt, and stated in a very funny way.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Remember the Name of the Rose? Is the name or the thing signified by the name more important?
You posted a link to Sagrada Familia. It is easy to find a link to the LA Cathedral.
W
Warrenton
Guest
This is an interesting position. But I remain perplexed by the course the debate has taken.
Why would anyone who disagrees that traditional art and architecture are superior vehicles for teaching faith and morals not meet theit head on? One would naturally expect a challenger to say, “No, a church with no steeple is better than all the Salisburys put together.” Or, “A church with a blank white wall behind a plain table is infinitely superior to all the rood screens, reredos, and high altars ever built.”
But that is not what happened.
What happened is odd, at least as a matter of rhetoric.
What has happened is that the contrary position can be stated thus: “All is mere opinion, we cannot therefore judge.”
It is now suggested that the matter of what our churches look like, and what they contain is on a par with COTH and COTT. Does this shed light on the debate?
Possibly. Does any Catholic think that COTH is better than COTT? Surely, many think it more convenient, in the way a drive thru McDonalds is more convenient in today’s world than going in to Chez Ronald and ordering one’s Friday Fillet de Peche en Francais, in a dinner jacket or pearls. Even COTH supporters don’t usually say that as a matter of reverence, or tradition, or even concept, COTH is “better” than COTT.
Reems have been written -officially and unofficially -about the COTH/COTT issue. From what I understand, the basic “fault line” is similar to the one this thread straddles.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I’m in the habit of classifying pretty much any non-Catholic denomination from Western Christendom under the banner ‘Protestant’, though I understand many Anglican’s reservations about the term, so sorry for any offense I may have caused.
St. Margaret Mary’s is where I attend the EF from time to time. I don’t know that I’d call the interior disappointing. It’s a bit on the plain side relative to an elaborate Cathedral. Though SMM is a small church, the interior is undoubtedly Catholic
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Absolutely no offense taken. Sadly the movement “upward” among Anglicans is being slowed or reversed by the new tendencies toward understanding human reality in terms of passing fads. I speak mainly of the emancipated view of scripture that allows for gay marriage, easy divorces of non-gays married (I have no problem, no problemo, with gay divorce). I am not speaking directly of ordination of women, which offends me more from the standpoint of decorum than doctrine.
As to St. Margaret Mary, I have affection for the church, though I have been inside only a few times. It is about a block from my Junior High School, and I remember the day I discovered this jewell next to the freeway. I have seen pictures of Latin masses there, and I know Bishop Cummins once lived in its rectory when he was chancellor of the Oakland diocese. One day, when I can spare the time at noon, I intend to go and shock with my Anglo-American academic Latin pronunciation.
By the way, First Presbyterian is at the corner of Broadway and 27th, in what remains of Oakland’s auto row. It is quite charming from the outside.
As to St. Margaret Mary, I have affection for the church, though I have been inside only a few times. It is about a block from my Junior High School, and I remember the day I discovered this jewell next to the freeway. I have seen pictures of Latin masses there, and I know Bishop Cummins once lived in its rectory when he was chancellor of the Oakland diocese. One day, when I can spare the time at noon, I intend to go and shock with my Anglo-American academic Latin pronunciation.
By the way, First Presbyterian is at the corner of Broadway and 27th, in what remains of Oakland’s auto row. It is quite charming from the outside.
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
I have no idea what you mean by that ^^^^ anyways both Churches are modern in terms of architecture and both Churches look very nice. God Bless!
M
mark_avery
Guest
We as people because we are cloaked with Christ are just so!
Churches whether liked or not without your need for the eucharist is it not just paternal or somehow an expedient self desire!
But yes where (name removed by moderator)ut could be given over then so so!
Churches whether liked or not without your need for the eucharist is it not just paternal or somehow an expedient self desire!
But yes where (name removed by moderator)ut could be given over then so so!
Z
zab
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe, but there should be something there that makes it recognizeable as a Catholic Church. One usually has no problem recognizing a mosque or a synagogue.
Z
zab
Guest
No maybe about it when questioning the recognition of our church as being a Catholic Church.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Let me be clear. I am not saying that a church needs to be ornate. The Cistercians had an unadorned style of church building. An example is Fontenay, in France. The baroque church of Carolus Boromeus on Antwerp is at the other end of the spectrum. Both are recognisable as Catholic places of worship, and appropriately so.
The simplified abbeys were honest because they communicated the poverty of the monks.
The exuberance of the baroque was honest because it communicated the enthusiasm of the counter-reformation (in short: “We survived!”).
I do not know what church you attend, so I cannot subject it to any critique. Let us take instead the architecture of LA Cathedral. Is it honest? LA is not poor, and it is enthusiastic, about almost anything secular. Thus, why would a nondescript style be appropriate? The disengenuosness of its design is plain to see from its own webpage, where it says it intentionally has no ethnic affiliation, and then says it has an affiliation with “native” (ie, Mexican) ethnic trends. Such doublespeak is un-Catholic.
The statue of our Lady in LA Cathedral simply defies description in Catholic terms. By creating an image that is devoid of a halo, devoid of her royal gowns, devoid of her crown, devoid of her Son, devoid of any recognizably human or loving aspect, the artist conveys an idea so attenuated that it amounts to myth. The pagan symbols on the cathedral doors are created with more realism than our Lady. There is not even a scriptural basis for her depiction, and the one given on the website is demonstrably false: it claims to be taken from Revelation, but the image does not conform to the description in the book itself.
The brazeness of the falsehood incipient in these modern churches is breathtaking.
V
vsedriver
Guest
The Lady in the LA Cathedral does have a halo and is standing on a crescent moon. The halo is made from the hole in the back wall behind the figure.
That said the figure itself appears to be a man in a Japanese robe so I’d say the artist failed to convey clearly the concept of who this person is supposed to be. Nothing about this remotely suggest it is Mary, it doesn’t even suggest it is a woman.
W
Warrenton
Guest
The artist added just enough to create an argument. Just enough to say the the inquisitor, “Look there’s a moon and a halo (of sorts).” That kind of thing goes in the same category as Henry IV’s quip. “Paris is worth a mass.”
And as a Catholic, who knows what Our Lady of Guadalupe looks like, I am supposed to be content with that rubbish?
- Status