"New" Cathedral in Haiti...

[OraLabora]

That’s an exaggeration of the traditionalist position. Traditionalists would like Catholic churches to look like Catholic churches; not school assembly halls or the bridge of the Starship Enterprise: The Next Generation.

Large numbers of Catholics have fallen for the advertiser’s lie: that New = Better, Modern = Good.

Just as many have fallen for the advertiser’s lie that Old = traditional, Modern = Modernist.

Suit the object to its purpose. Start from the basics:

1. Do we need a new church? If yes:
2. How should it look, given our budget?

Which brings us to

1. What is a church for?

A: A church should evoke religious awe, enhance the rites performed there and be a fit offering to your god in itself (assuming you want favours from him/her/it).

Therein lies the issue.

This church evokes religious awe in me (it’s better in person than in pictures):



But this one has the opposite effect, I find it hard to feel religious awe in it:



Both Benedictine abbey churches. But that’s my subjective opinion, based on the Benedictine tradition of simplicity and enhancement of natural elements such as light.

And that’s the point. It’s subjective. But we can’t ignore that our Church has many traditions within it. It seems many equate simplicity with non- or anti-Catholic design, but in fact it simplicity has a very long tradition in monasticism. Moreover those churches belong to their respective communities. The second church was gifted to the community by Americans after they accidentally bombed the original in WWII. No doubt they feel obligated to care for that gift.

Excusing bad architecture (and bad liturgy) by seeking out examples from different periods and contexts is disingenuous at best.

Who said anything about excusing bad architecture or bad liturgy? In both churches in the pics I posted, the liturgy is chanted reverently in Gregorian chant. But I consider the second one, if not bad architecture, then at least poor taste in decor, again my opinion, because it doesn’t respect the Benedictine tradition of relative austerity. The first one as I mentioned was designed especially to accommodate the monastic liturgy as it exists today (not as it existed prior to Vatican II). Just because it is post-Vatican II does not make it automatically bad liturgy or bad architecture.

My point, which you seem to have largely missed, is that every era has had its depravities, and to cite that today’s architecture is bad because our era’s depravities, while ignoring the influence of depravities of the past eras because we like that era’s architecture better, is disingenuous at best. My point is that we should evaluate the architecture on its merits (or demerits), not by trying to impute some moral failing on the (modern) architects. No point in trying to justify it based on bizarre notions of evil influences, it’s more honest to simply admit “I find modern architecture hideous” but respect those who, like myself, like it when it’s well done, without the over-the-top accusations of the architecture somehow being an expression of evil. And vice-versa. Just because I don’t find religious awe in the second church while others do, does not give me the right to find flaws in the moral character of those who designed it or prefer to worship in it.

That they worshipped in the catacombs in Rome 120AD doesn’t excuse a sterile barn in Gary Indiana in 2012.

On the other hand if the sterile barn is all the community can afford, who are we to dismiss it? It may be all they have now until they can raise funds for something better. Many monasteries that bought a farm to get started, set up their first chapel in an an actual barn. St-Wandrille, a Benedictine monastery in France, saw it’s 12-century church fall into ruins centuries ago. They couldn’t afford to rebuild in that grand style, so they celebrated Mass in what is now the chapter room until they found a 14th century barn somewhere and rebuilt it on their site stone by stone and beam by beam. I don’t particularly like it, the acoustics (by their own admission) stink, but it’s theirs, and theirs is a foundation dating back to the 10th century or so (with a period in exile due to French clerical laws).

One of the most reverent OF Masses I ever attended was in a hideous “community centre” type contraption of a building. I admit it was truly awful, a mid-60s disaster. Maybe God agreed because eventually it burned to the ground . The parish merged with a neighbouring parish with a more “traditional” church (built in the early 50s, in which they ruined the interior by moving the altar out of the sanctuary into the middle of the church, and putting pews in the sanctuary, but I digress, that’s another story altogether).

 

[JReducation]

What would be interesting is if there’s a tendency to embrace modernity for its own sake and rejecting older styles just because they’re old.

I believe that the Church is trying to encourage new forms of art and architecture that speak of the sacred. In other words, it’s not a matter of rejecting the old as much as a matter of embracing and Christianizing that which is contemporary rather than ignore it. The Church has never ignored the arts and sciences. It’s not about to start now.

There is the issue of culture too. For example, in the case of Haiti, the cathedral was built by French missionaries. The new cathedral is being built by Haitian religious…

You see this a lot in Latin America and in the Southwestern USA. The early churches were built either by the Spanish aristocracy, which meant very elaborate and rich European looking edifices. Then there were the Franciscan missions that the friars built, which were very so simple. They were so simple that when the Anglo secular bishops went West, the ordered that changes be made to the mission chapels and churches. For example, the introduced communion rails, which Franciscans never use. The bishops introduced a lot of statuary, which Franciscans don’t use. Franciscans use frescos more than statues. It’s an Italian thing. They introduced kneelers, which Franciscans don’t use, because Franciscan parishioners don’t kneel. They didn’t kneel until 1970 when the Pauline Mass was imposed on the Franciscans.

My point is that the original missionaries built one thing and the next generation of nationals either built something more according to their culture or refurbished what was there to fit their culture.

But then that Pope unfortunately put those silly fig leanes on many of the statues.

That was a huge blunder in my book.

I know that Bl. John Paul had them taken off the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. I don’t remember if they took them off the statues too. It may be the case, because this person had just come back from Rome declaring the Vatican to be another Sodom.

Yeah, it’s a bit odd, but like Brother says- the beautiful churches do cost a lot of money.

It has nothing to do with beauty. It has to do with the architecture. The materials are not commonly available. The artists and artisans who did the work no longer exist. There are fire and health codes that have to be met. To get all of this together costs more money today than it did originally.

We have to remember that originally, many of these churches were copies of European Churches. St. Patrick is not an original. You’ll find 100 like it in Europe. The design was free. The labor was almost free. The local immigrants either did the work themselves or donated the money to get it done. That’s not the case today. Today’s Catholic donates less money, rarely has these kinds of artistic skills, but demands more.

I’m reminded of the lady who complained to me because our brothers often wear clericals instead of habits. I just looked at her and said, “I’m so glad to hear that you want to give each brother $300.00.” She looked at me all confused. I continued. “Each habit costs $300.00. That’s why each brother has only one.” With $300 you can buy a lot of clothes at Target. St. Francis would roll over in his grave if he knew how much we spend to look poor.

The same happens with buildings. If we built a Gothic friary and chapel, Francis of Assisi would roll over in his grave or he may just rise from it to give us a good tongue lashing. The cost would be enormous. Since we don’t get that kind of money in donations, that means that we have to sacrifice money from educations funds and medical funds, which are the only monies that are not being used.

I like what is happening with some churches in the US. Folks are simply physically MOVING entire churches from areas with declining catholic populations to other places.

I have not heard of that, but it’s clever. I know one local Jesuit Church where they kept the facade and windows. They built an entire new church building. It’s very classical on the outside and very modern on the inside. The best thing that they did was take out those bloody pillars that cut your view if sat in the side naves. We no longer need to build like that. We have other means to hold up a roof.

That’s an exaggeration of the traditionalist position. Traditionalists would like Catholic churches to look like Catholic churches; not school assembly halls or the bridge of the Starship Enterprise: The Next Generation.

I believe that to want a Catholic Church that looks like a church is reasonable. However, we also have to admit that traditionalists tend to protest about too many things. After a while, those of us in positions of authority just stop listening. It becomes overwhelming, overbearing, intrusive and impossible to make so many people happy. They can get just as bad as groups like Catholics in the Call to Action movement. The list of what displeases them is three times longer that that which pleases them. If I have two lists in my hands, one from the left and one from the right and I try to please both, it’s not going to happen.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Just as many have fallen for the advertiser’s lie that Old = traditional, Modern = Modernist.

The old has been damaged or destroyed, the modern is interestingly homogenous. If modern churches were truly the fruit of inspiration, they would not be so barren or so weirdly constructed. The authors would make some effort to remind the laity of their patrimony, for the sake of education, if nothing else.

This church evokes religious awe in me (it’s better in person than in pictures):

But this one has the opposite effect, I find it hard to feel religious awe in it:

Then you are in a minority.

The first one does not look Catholic. It’s hard to tell what is it is, really; which denomination, which religion, even?

Given a choice of having one or the other, most Catholics would choose the latter.

A church is a building where heaven is supposed to be brought to earth. It should look like that.

 

[JReducation]

The old has been damaged or destroyed, the modern is interestingly homogenous. If modern churches were truly the fruit of inspiration, they would not be so barren or so weirdly constructed. The authors would make some effort to remind the laity of their patrimony, for the sake of education, if nothing else.

Then you are in a minority.

The first one does not look Catholic. It’s hard to tell what is it is, really; which denomination, which religion, even?

Given a choice of having one or the other, most Catholics would choose the latter.

A church is a building where heaven is supposed to be brought to earth. It should look like that.

Do you understand Benedictine Spirituality and liturgy?

 

[QuestingKnight]

Do you understand Benedictine Spirituality and liturgy?

No, I don’t. The first picture doesn’t look particulary Catholic or notably Christian. If you build a school it’s a good idea if it looks like one and not a mausoleum, especially if you want people to learn in it; it should have fittings that assist its purpose. Likewise, a church should look like a church.

If you’ve got the money and the will you can make church look like a ship, a rocket, a school hall or Kubla Khan’s pleasure dome. However, if you want to educate, inspire and perform religious rituals in it, it should build on what your forebears did and exploit cultural references.

 

[malphono]

Then you are in a minority.

The first one does not look Catholic. It’s hard to tell what is it is, really; which denomination, which religion, even?

Given a choice of having one or the other, most Catholics would choose the latter.

A church is a building where heaven is supposed to be brought to earth. It should look like that.

If I read this comment correctly, what I’ll call “overly-ornate” (actually, I prefer to say “LOUD”) baroque and rococo are supposed to be objectively superior to the the understated and simple? Sorry but, no, it’s NOT OBJECTIVE at all. This is one of those things which, as OraLabora has already said, is SUBJECTIVE. IOW, it’s a matter of taste.

FWLIW, according to my taste, I generally prefer the simple, (even if it’s “modern” provided it’s **tastefully **done), particularly in a monastic/conventual setting. But even in a public (read: parish) setting, I will take relatively simple Gothic or the more austere Romanesque over the cacophony of any baroque or rococo church any day of the week. At the same time, though, I will admit that the so-called “modern” in a parish church can get out-of-hand very easily (and I care not if the church in question is in the charge of Franciscans, Benedictines, or any other Order or religious congregation. It remains a parish church and not a conventual one, ergo any conventual considerations do not really come into play.). Yet it can be tasteful, provided it’s done with appropriate consideration to tradition, and not just because the architect wants to make some kind of statement. The big problem come in when the contracting party(s) intend to make some sort of “neo-Catholic” statement, and that last goes far beyond the subjective.

Sorry for the ramble, but there’;s my :twocents: for this thread.

 

[OraLabora]

Then you are in a minority.

Did you take a poll?

No, I don’t. The first picture doesn’t look particulary Catholic or notably Christian.

If you did, you’d understand why it is in keeping with Catholic tradition adapted to the post-conciliar liturgy (particularly Mass which is concelebrated). There are more pictures here:

Saint-Benoît-du-Lac abbey church (pictures 14-20)

The monks of Clear Creek, which incidentally only celebrate the EF Mass and use the pre-conciliar Monastic Divine Office, also have an austere church (recently built)



Incidentally what makes the first church “Catholic” is the community that inhabits it, a very orthodox Benedictine community of the Solesmes congregation. I was just there this evening for Vespers, chanted in Latin.

 

[JReducation]

No, I don’t. The first picture doesn’t look particulary Catholic or notably Christian. If you build a school it’s a good idea if it looks like one and not a mausoleum, especially if you want people to learn in it; it should have fittings that assist its purpose. Likewise, a church should look like a church.

If you’ve got the money and the will you can make church look like a ship, a rocket, a school hall or Kubla Khan’s pleasure dome. However, if you want to educate, inspire and perform religious rituals in it, it should build on what your forebears did and exploit cultural references.

Let’s see if I can help you out here. There are three schools of spirituality that are Minimalists: Benedictine, Carmelite and Franciscan. Before I go any further, the second picture of the chapel that is very plain is what St. Benedict, St. Francis and St. Albert would command to have built. It was their teaching that a chapel or a church should have nothing in it but the altar, the cross and the choir stalls. The Franciscans had the tabernacle. The others did not. The tabernacle was in a separate space, adjacent to the main sanctuary.

The reason for minimalism in these three schools is to prompt the individual, lay and religious to seek detachment from all external forms of piety and seek interior union with the divine. Vocal prayers were limited to the LOTH and the mass. There was no community rosary, devotions, novenas, etc. Images were limited to the crucifix, during special holy days there would be a statue. It could be the Blessed Mother, St. Joseph or one of the other saints. There was never an abundance of statues, because these attract attention to the environment.

If you ever attended the liturgy at one of these houses you would have seen the men wearing their cowls up until the Canon, so as not to see. The women would wear the veil over their faces so as not to see. There is no need to embellish the church, because your attention should inward, not outward. Your desire should be to get away from what pleases your senses. You must deprive the senses.

In order to deprive the senses, the chapels and church are build very sparse. This tradition was carried over into Protestantism by Martin Luther. We must remember that Luther was an Augustinian. Between the Augustinians, Benedictines and Franciscans, there is a lot of cross over. This tradition is not Protestant, but very Catholic and very ancient.

Also, today, lay people rarely go to mass at a religious house. We have parishes. There was a time where there were no such places as parishes. The monastery church was the local church. If there were friars instead of monks and nuns, the local church was the friary chapel. People understood this spirituality. They grew up surrounded by these religious. You must remember that people were not as mobile as they are today.

When I grew up, I grew up in a town where there was one Catholic Church and one Catholic school run by Capuchin Franciscans. If you had seen it, I’m guessing, from your posts, that you would have found it to be Protestant. To us it was not Protestant. It was Franciscan. Everyone in the parish knew a great deal about Francis of Assisi and his teachings. The kids in the school knew about Francis of Assisi. The Solemnity of St. Francis was a holy day of obligation for that parish. The school kids went to mass and then home.

Today, the majority of people are very mobile. They don’t necessarily stay in one parish do not necessarily use the local church as the reference point for their social life. Even if they had religious, they would not see them except Sundays and maybe for special functions during the week, which are not often. That was not always the case.

People who grew up with diocesan priests, did grow up with very ornate churches. Diocesan priests do not follow any particular spiritual master. They’re not bound to any particular spirituality. That’s why we call them secular priests. They are of the world. They incorporated into church architecture and art, a great deal of secular art and music.

It does not look secular to us, because we don’t live during the time of these men. But to those who lived during their time, these were very modern expressions of Catholic architecture. To those who came from the small towns where all they had were Benedictines, Carmelites or Franciscans, Notre Dame of Paris was overwhelming. Some were impressed in a positive way and others in a negative way.

The point is this chapel certain does point to God for those who know the school of St. Benedict, be they lay, religious or cleric.

 

[Cristiano]

Is this too minimalist or too ornate?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is sublime!!! :harp::heaven:

I would love, love , LOVE to be able to worship in this space every week!!!

Is this too minimalist or too ornate?
http://www.ilbelcasentino.it/Pieve_strada_G/PIEVE-STRADA-612.jpg

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

It does draw your eyes and your heart up to Him, does it not?

 

[Cristiano]

This is sublime!!! :harp::heaven:

I would love, love , LOVE to be able to worship in this space every week!!!

Are you telling me that you like that protestant innovation called “pews”?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Are you telling me that you like that protestant innovation called “pews”?

:bigyikes:

I know, I know!! You start the fire, I’ll go get the stake!!

 

[Cristiano]

:bigyikes:

I know, I know!! You start the fire, I’ll go get the stake!!

Woman I said steak not stake!

Oops, I forgot that today is Friday.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Is this too minimalist or too ornate?

In itself, it works. It is not “too” anything.

 

[QuestingKnight]

This church is bare. That church is ornate. The trend in all Catholic churches is toward the bare and the sterile. Bare of ornament and sterile of vocations. Observe what has happened in Catholicism since the 60’s. Texts with minimalist pictures, churches with minimal decoration, orders and dioceses with few if any vocations. These are related.

I say that an ornate church is objectively better for catechesis, worship and giving glory to God, for those that need conversion. Which is lay people. Religious are educated. They have made vows. They are poor. They are in ‘the business’. We assume they don’t need this.

I don’t need to take a poll. The derision that greets the latest Bauhaus church is sample enough.

One should always check where one gets one’s ideas. It’s no accident that there’s a ‘family resemblance’ in modern churches. It’s from the mass mind. A fashion. And fashion can date very quickly. What’s trendy today is corny tomorrow. This leaves a parish with a building that is off-putting before people walk in the door. A bad return for $X million dollars and the pennies of the poor.

 

[OraLabora]

In itself, it works. It is not “too” anything.

It works, my only beef against it is that it lacks natural light.

 

[JReducation]

Is this too minimalist or too ornate?
http://www.ilbelcasentino.it/Pieve_strada_G/PIEVE-STRADA-612.jpg

It is very beautiful. The one problem that these buildings have is that those who are sitting to the sides have their view blocked by the pillars. You have to get there early to get a good seat or you’re going to be looking at a pillar during mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

it works, my only beef against it is that it lacks natural light.

CANDLES!!! yay

 

[OraLabora]

This church is bare. That church is ornate. The trend in all Catholic churches is toward the bare and the sterile. Bare of ornament and sterile of vocations. Observe what has happened in Catholicism since the 60’s. Texts with minimalist pictures, churches with minimal decoration, orders and dioceses with few if any vocations. These are related.

I say that an ornate church is objectively better for catechesis, worship and giving glory to God, for those that need conversion. Which is lay people. Religious are educated. They have made vows. They are poor. They are in ‘the business’. We assume they don’t need this.

I don’t need to take a poll. The derision that greets the latest Bauhaus church is sample enough.

One should always check where one gets one’s ideas. It’s no accident that there’s a ‘family resemblance’ in modern churches. It’s from the mass mind. A fashion. And fashion can date very quickly. What’s trendy today is corny tomorrow. This leaves a parish with a building that is off-putting before people walk in the door. A bad return for $X million dollars and the pennies of the poor.

OK let’s look at older bare:

Chapel of Notre-Dame-de-Caillouville at St-Wandrille Abbey, France built by the monks’ own hands from 1952-1968:



Going back in bit for a time, the chapter room which was their “acting” chapel for many years after the original church fell into ruin, and it returned to that duty temporarily during renovations of the “new” abbey church (actually a 13th century barn relocated to the abbey grounds) in 2010:



Link to the page showing their current abbey church:

Abbey church (St-Wandrille)

Going back in time the 10th century chapel of St. Saturnin located on the abbey grounds:



Bare is nothing new in Catholic tradition, and it is not a modern trend.