Round Churches --yeah or nay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Kat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My home parish was remodeled in the semi-circular mode, and I like it a lot. Not a bad seat in the place, so to speak. Our neighboring parish is brand new, and is also semi-circular, and has statues, stained glass accross one side, and a huge crucifix in the front. It also has padded kneelers, which as I get older, I appreciate. The only thing I don’t like about it is a huge round holy water font in the back, which is very unhandy. They would have been better served with separate ones at the point of exit. Otherwise, very nice.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
To which I reply, in a total rip-off from Fidelis:

"ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia–the abuse of something good does not, as a consequence, invalidate it’s proper use."
Click to expand...
As your quotes says --its proper use. To the well formed in the Faith–the church will retain its proper use --the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass—yet to those who have bad and/or false understanding of the nature of the Mass the design could emphasis --the Mass as meal.
 
There’s a parish in my diocese that was built in 1975, and is octagonal in shape. It has a high altar, two side altars, and lots and lots of statues, as well as pews in a square arrangement. It is pastored by an old Benedictine Priest from a nearby monastery, and it is one of the two indult parishes in the diocese–they turned it from a typical “round church” to a very sacred place.

-ACEGC
 
Walking_Home said:
As your quotes says --its proper use. To the well formed in the Faith–the church will retain its proper use --the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass—yet to those who have bad and/or false understanding of the nature of the Mass the design could emphasis --the Mass as meal.
Click to expand...
’

You’re grasping at straws. Round doesn’t have that much, if any, impact. Since you’re asserting it, you prove it.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
’

You’re grasping at straws. Round doesn’t have that much, if any, impact. Since you’re asserting it, you prove it.
Click to expand...
I am saying that to those with bad/false catechisis it can have. The Church Herself acknowledges that the “meal” aspect is causing a problem. Add a dinning room atmosphere to bad/false understanding of the Mass–and you have Mass as a “meal”.
 
If there were a poll on this thread, I would vote “nay.” After reading Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy, my I now have a deeper understanding of the reason for traditional church architecture.

However, I will concede that the most important aspect of the parish is a traditional priest, and secondly, a traditional congregation. We often go to Mass at St. Jerome here in Waco, and it is a round church, but the people are strongly pro-life, and the Eucharist is treated with great respect (tabernacle respectfully located behind the altar and both species offered). On the down-side, they’re not offering the TLM.
 
Walking_Home said:
I am saying that to those with bad/false catechisis it can have. The Church Herself acknowledges that the “meal” aspect is causing a problem. Add a dinning room atmosphere to bad/false understanding of the Mass–and you have Mass as a “meal”.
Click to expand...
And there’s the answer: bad catechesis is to blame and the only thing TO blame, because a rectangular or cross shaped building isn’t going to suddenly make the poorly catechized into the well-catechized. Round churches have nothing to do with it, because round churches have nothing to do with dinning rooms. As for dinning room atmosphere, that goes to catechesis and any shaped church can have either good or bad catechesis. I’ve never been in a church that had a dinning room atmosphere and I’ve never been in a round dinning room.

This is one more example where so-called traditionalists take a knee-jerk stand on something that they think is, at best, an “innovation” or, at worst, “modernism” without having all the facts in front of them (like the terribly interesting fact that there are ancient round churches, that we’ve had round churches for a loooooooooong time, that they might even be called, shhhhh, wait for it, “traditional!”) and then doggedly sticking to their “proofs” even after the facts are laid in front of them and they haven’t a logical/historical/and/or theological leg upon which to stand.

You assert that round churches emphasize the “meal” aspect, that in today’s climate, a round church can have a negative impact. Prove it.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And there’s the answer: bad catechesis is to blame and the only thing TO blame, because a rectangular or cross shaped building isn’t going to suddenly make the poorly catechized into the well-catechized. Round churches have nothing to do with it, because round churches have nothing to do with dinning rooms. As for dinning room atmosphere, that goes to catechesis and any shaped church can have either good or bad catechesis. I’ve never been in a church that had a dinning room atmosphere and I’ve never been in a round dinning room.

This is one more example where so-called traditionalists take a knee-jerk stand on something that they think is, at best, an “innovation” or, at worst, “modernism” without having all the facts in front of them (like the terribly interesting fact that there are ancient round churches, that we’ve had round churches for a loooooooooong time, that they might even be called, shhhhh, wait for it, “traditional!”) and then doggedly sticking to their “proofs” even after the facts are laid in front of them and they haven’t a logical/historical/and/or theological leg upon which to stand.

You assert that round churches emphasize the “meal” aspect, that in today’s climate, a round church can have a negative impact. Prove it.
Click to expand...
Yes–bad catechisis is at the core----but a church with the Altar at the front does not in any way or form— re-enforce and emphasize the “meal” aspect of the Mass. On the other hand—a church where the Altar is surrounded by the people — like a dinning table would be at home — would. You may deny it all you want–in which ever way or form—but you cannot disprove–that to one with a malformed understanding of the Mass–where the Mass is a “meal” — the Altar in the center emphasises the meal.
 
Walking_Home said:
Yes–bad catechisis is at the core----but a church with the Altar at the front does not in any way or form— re-enforce and emphasize the “meal” aspect of the Mass. On the other hand—a church where the Altar is surrounded by the people — like a dinning table would be at home — would. You may deny it all you want–in which ever way or form—but you cannot disprove–that to one with a malformed understanding of the Mass–where the Mass is a “meal” — the Altar in the center emphasises the meal.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to disprove it, you have to prove it, because YOU’RE the one making the assertion!

And using YOUR logic (I wouldn’t ever claim it as my own),
a table at the front could as EASILY be construed as a buffet table, thus STILL leading to an equally malformed understanding of the Mass. Thus, the crux of the problem, regardless of architecture, is catechesis.
 
We attend a parish that has a round Church. Built in the 70s.

But I’m willing to bet that if you step inside you will agree that it ranks as one of the most beautiful churches you’ve encountered - not in the traditional sense but still beautiful and gives glory to God.

It is a brick building where every 5th or so brick is a brick made of stained glass. The base color of glass brick is blue (various shades). The ones behind the altar (around a very large and traditional crucifix) are red or yellow or bright orange, very tightly clustered. These red/yellow/orange brings then radiate from behind the alter mixing with the blue and thin out as you go around the church. This is not on a small scale but the whole building, floor to ceiling (30 feet highish?) all the way around.

The artistic idea is that the light, heat, and love of Christ radiates from the Tabernacle and Crucifix and permeates the cold of the world. At least that’s what I think the artistic intention is. In the daytime when the light shines through all of the glass it is a sight to behold.

Anyway, the church has a very nice prominent tabernacle, stations of the cross, lots of statues (saints and others), a large picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and outside a statue/font dedicated to the Blessed Mother (new in the last 2 years).

At the end of the entrance vestibule (which is a rectangular attachment to the main church) is a large traditional stained glass window from the old church building.

But to see the Church from the outside you would never even imagine how beautiful it could be. From the outside it looks like the roof is help up by a bunch of huge golf tees. But don’t judge a book by its cover.

Well my point is that it is not the shape of the Church building that matters but rather the people (Pastor, Associates, Deacons, congregation, staff, Bishop, etc.).

By the way, the Church building is (or at least was at one point) in the Guiness Book of World records for having the most stained glass windows.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I don’t have to disprove it, you have to prove it, because YOU’RE the one making the assertion!

And using YOUR logic (I wouldn’t ever claim it as my own),
a table at the front could as EASILY be construed as a buffet table, thus STILL leading to an equally malformed understanding of the Mass. Thus, the crux of the problem, regardless of architecture, is catechesis.
Click to expand...
Only in the malformed mind—could the Altar at the front be a “buffet table”----not becuase the designed itself leads to it and enforces it.

Now --you asking me to prove it—if you cannot see the connection in the configuration of a dinning room and the configuration of those round churches with the Altar in the center—then you are limiting yourself.
 
orionsbelt said:
We attend a parish that has a round Church. Built in the 70s.

But I’m willing to bet that if you step inside you will agree that it ranks as one of the most beautiful churches you’ve encountered - not in the traditional sense but still beautiful and gives glory to God.

It is a brick building where every 5th or so brick is a brick made of stained glass. The base color of glass brick is blue (various shades). The ones behind the altar (around a very large and traditional crucifix) are red or yellow or bright orange, very tightly clustered. These red/yellow/orange brings then radiate from behind the alter mixing with the blue and thin out as you go around the church. This is not on a small scale but the whole building, floor to ceiling (30 feet highish?) all the way around.

The artistic idea is that the light, heat, and love of Christ radiates from the Tabernacle and Crucifix and permeates the cold of the world. At least that’s what I think the artistic intention is. In the daytime when the light shines through all of the glass it is a sight to behold.

Anyway, the church has a very nice prominent tabernacle, stations of the cross, lots of statues (saints and others), a large picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and outside a statue/font dedicated to the Blessed Mother (new in the last 2 years).

At the end of the entrance vestibule (which is a rectangular attachment to the main church) is a large traditional stained glass window from the old church building.

But to see the Church from the outside you would never even imagine how beautiful it could be. From the outside it looks like the roof is help up by a bunch of huge golf tees. But don’t judge a book by its cover.

Well my point is that it is not the shape of the Church building that matters but rather the people (Pastor, Associates, Deacons, congregation, staff, Bishop, etc.).

By the way, the Church building is (or at least was at one point) in the Guiness Book of World records for having the most stained glass windows.
Click to expand...
It sounds beautiful. Of course, it is not the shape of the church that matters. It is what transpires in that church that matters.
 
Walking_Home said:
Only in the malformed mind—could the Altar at the front be a “buffet table”----not becuase the designed itself leads to it and enforces it. No, that’s because your logic is faulty (remember, I said it was YOUR logic, not any that I would claim).

Now --you asking me to prove it—if you cannot see the connection in the configuration of a dinning room and the configuration of those round churches with the Altar in the center—then you are limiting yourself.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you’re the one trying to exclude round churches, so it’s only logical to say that YOU are the one limiting yourself. I haven’t excluded any particular shape or limited myself to anything, yet (except logic).
 
orionsbelt said:
We attend a parish that has a round Church. Built in the 70s.

But I’m willing to bet that if you step inside you will agree that it ranks as one of the most beautiful churches you’ve encountered - not in the traditional sense but still beautiful and gives glory to God.

It is a brick building where every 5th or so brick is a brick made of stained glass. The base color of glass brick is blue (various shades). The ones behind the altar (around a very large and traditional crucifix) are red or yellow or bright orange, very tightly clustered. These red/yellow/orange brings then radiate from behind the alter mixing with the blue and thin out as you go around the church. This is not on a small scale but the whole building, floor to ceiling (30 feet highish?) all the way around.

The artistic idea is that the light, heat, and love of Christ radiates from the Tabernacle and Crucifix and permeates the cold of the world. At least that’s what I think the artistic intention is. In the daytime when the light shines through all of the glass it is a sight to behold.

Anyway, the church has a very nice prominent tabernacle, stations of the cross, lots of statues (saints and others), a large picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and outside a statue/font dedicated to the Blessed Mother (new in the last 2 years).

At the end of the entrance vestibule (which is a rectangular attachment to the main church) is a large traditional stained glass window from the old church building.

But to see the Church from the outside you would never even imagine how beautiful it could be. From the outside it looks like the roof is help up by a bunch of huge golf tees. But don’t judge a book by its cover.

Well my point is that it is not the shape of the Church building that matters but rather the people (Pastor, Associates, Deacons, congregation, staff, Bishop, etc.).

By the way, the Church building is (or at least was at one point) in the Guiness Book of World records for having the most stained glass windows.
Click to expand...
That does sound beautiful. I guess when I started the thread, I never knew such “round” churches existed --I mean, that were modern AND beautiful. The modern round churches I’ve always seen are very bare and void of any Catholic statues and traditions.
I have been enlightened!!
 
JKirkLVNV said:
On the contrary, you’re the one trying to exclude round churches, so it’s only logical to say that YOU are the one limiting yourself. I haven’t excluded any particular shape or limited myself to anything, yet (except logic).
Click to expand...
Nope–I am not excluding them—just bringing up that the Church has already acknowledged we have a problem with Mass as “meal” and to the malformed mind --the Altar in center enforces this malformation,.
 
orionsbelt said:
We attend a parish that has a round Church. Built in the 70s.

But I’m willing to bet that if you step inside you will agree that it ranks as one of the most beautiful churches you’ve encountered - not in the traditional sense but still beautiful and gives glory to God.

It is a brick building where every 5th or so brick is a brick made of stained glass. The base color of glass brick is blue (various shades). The ones behind the altar (around a very large and traditional crucifix) are red or yellow or bright orange, very tightly clustered. These red/yellow/orange brings then radiate from behind the alter mixing with the blue and thin out as you go around the church. This is not on a small scale but the whole building, floor to ceiling (30 feet highish?) all the way around.

The artistic idea is that the light, heat, and love of Christ radiates from the Tabernacle and Crucifix and permeates the cold of the world. At least that’s what I think the artistic intention is. In the daytime when the light shines through all of the glass it is a sight to behold.

Anyway, the church has a very nice prominent tabernacle, stations of the cross, lots of statues (saints and others), a large picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and outside a statue/font dedicated to the Blessed Mother (new in the last 2 years).

At the end of the entrance vestibule (which is a rectangular attachment to the main church) is a large traditional stained glass window from the old church building.

But to see the Church from the outside you would never even imagine how beautiful it could be. From the outside it looks like the roof is help up by a bunch of huge golf tees. But don’t judge a book by its cover.

Well my point is that it is not the shape of the Church building that matters but rather the people (Pastor, Associates, Deacons, congregation, staff, Bishop, etc.).

By the way, the Church building is (or at least was at one point) in the Guiness Book of World records for having the most stained glass windows.
Click to expand...
I WISH this parish would put pictures up of its church. It’s in the round, and the walls are basically all of stained glass and stone “lace” work…it reminds me of the stained glass effect of Sainte Chapel in France, filled with light. And despite the fact that it’s got a questionable round church, it manages to be fiercely pro-life parish and to have Eucharistic devotion. We should remind them that they don’t actually believe in the Real Presence (well, they couldn’t, could they, what with Mass in the round?:rolleyes:).
 
Walking_Home said:
Nope–I am not excluding them—just bringing up that the Church has already acknowledged we have a problem with Mass as “meal” and to the malformed mind --the Altar in center enforces this malformation,.
Click to expand...
I hope you stretch before you make these leaps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top