The two churches you linked do look nice/adequate. Especially the St. Gregory Church in the Christmas photos.
But at the same time, I do not think cost is really the issue. I’ve been to churches that barely have any statues of saints. And I do not mean churches that are there for the use of Carmelites or something that is in the grounds of a order.
Wouldn’t you say that there is atleast an active attempt today to try and move away toward a more a bare looking architecture that tends to stem from an incorrect idea of the theology/ontological reality of what a Church should be?
I think perhaps it is also not accurate to refer to something as that was old, so it must be good.
Now as you said, having good religious is extremely important. But having a Church that is reflective of its ontological reality and theology behind the liturgy for an example can be more enriching to the faithful and perhaps even a method of Catechesis.
So I am not saying that churches need to be built to be extravagant. If you don’t have the money, what can you do. In that event, you will try to at least satisfy the bare minimum accurately (have a proper altar for an example). But it just cannot be the standard for building churches.
What you see all too often today is the move toward keeping things bare. Perhaps people have forgotten that when one enters a Church, they do enter in to a heavenly reality, especially when they celebrate the liturgy.
I understand that a church should inspire us toward the transcendent. What I’m finding is a resistance among you to believe that the Benedictine, Franciscan and Carmelite schools of art and architecture can do this and have done this for 1,000+ years.
You’re not going to get a parish built by any of these orders that will look like St.Patrick in NY. You will get a parish church that will be very boxy, with little or no statues at all, no candles, a cross or an icon instead of a crucifix, no communion rail, basic seating, stained glass, and a table style altar. If it’s Franciscan, it will have the Blessed Sacrament at front and center and a statue of St. Francis where you would normally have the Blessed Mother or both, St. Francis and the Blessed Mother.
You may get them to take on a parish that comes with a church and they’re not going to change it around too much, because it’s already built. If it’s not broken, why fix it? As things do need replacing, they will be replaced with whatever reflects the school of spirituality of the order that runs the parish.
The one thing that people on CAF seem to resist is the idea that when a religious order takes on a parish, it’s because the bishop has made a commitment with the major superior that the parishioners will buy into the spirituality of the order or they can move. In other words, the order is not expected to adapt to the parishioners’ spirituality, because 2500 families rarely have a common spirituality. One of the reasons that bishops like giving parishes to orders is precisely because of the unifying effect. Over the years, you can see how the families in the parish make the spirituality of the order their own. Then, when it’s time for the order to leave, they don’t want to trade them in for another group.
I fail to see why the resistance. Why can’t we simply accept that we’re always going to have both, the very elaborate churches built by diocesan clergy and clerks regular and the bare bones churches built by friars and monks. They all serve as parish churches, places of pilgrimages, spiritual centers, university chapels and more.
I’ll give you a simple example. Franciscan University has more than 10 chapels. Not a single one of those chapels has railings. They have no statues other than Mary and Francis, a table type altar, a tabernacle on a pedestal, stained glass and bear walls. Why? Not because it’s modern. Just the opposite. Because it’s tradition. The students who attend that university have to learn to pray and worship as the friars do or go down the street to the local parish run by the Salesians and pray their way. I think it’s the Salesians that’s the closest parish. I always get the Oblates of St Francis de Sales and the Salesians confused. But you folks understand my point.
There is no need to resist. If we were speaking about something ugly, that’s a whole other story. There are things that are ugly regardless of their time period. Baroque is ugly. The canopy over the main altar at St. Peter’s in Rome is ugly. The design for cathedral in LA is ugly, but not because it’s modern.
I showed you folks two very modern churches that are very beautiful. St. Gregory’s is visually deceptive. From the outside, it looks much smaller. When you get inside, it seats 1500 people and there is not a single column holding up the ceiling which is incredibly large. It’s an engineering masterpiece. Bl. John XXIII is very pretty on the outside, but too small. It only sits 1,000 at a time. They always have people standing.
Now we’re getting Bl. John Paul II chapel. That’s going to be a Spanish design on the outside and Carmelite on the inside. I expect a lot of straight lines inside. The Carmelite school is minimalistic. It should be nice, because the Spanish exterior and the Carmelite interior should complement each other, since this is an OCD chapel and they’re a Spanish Order. It will serve the retreat house.
The Franciscan chapel that serves the local retreat house is made of stones, with a wooden ceiling, wooden benches, a tabernacle on a pedestal, a stone altar and a large San Damiano cross, which I have to admit needs touching up. The colors are bleaching out.
Please pray for me then. I need it!!
