Should traditions of religious life be allowed to influence parish life?

[Melchior_1]

This is something I was thinking would be the case also - that if the pastor or bishop belongs to a certain religious community, that it would filter into to his decisions about parish life.

Isn’t it true that popes wear white now because Pope X (who was it?) was a Dominican? What did popes wear before that? Same as cardinals?

Pope Pius V changed the Pope’s clothes to white, because becoming the Pope does to remove you from the first order of the Order of Preachers. Further, he also started the long-running trend of the Papal Preacher being a Franciscan due to his (and all Dominicans) love of the Franciscan Order.

Pope Pius X was a Secular Franciscan, by the way.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, there can be organic changes due to the influence of Religious.

However, I don’t think when we’re discussing things here on CAF, one should say, well this religious order does it this way.

I presume there are reasons why Religious do things a certain way. It doesn’t mean those reasons apply or should apply to parishes, unless again, it is a Parish staffed by Religious.

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, there can be organic changes due to the influence of Religious.

However, I don’t think when we’re discussing things here on CAF, one should say, well this religious order does it this way.

I presume there are reasons why Religious do things a certain way. It doesn’t mean those reasons apply or should apply to parishes, unless again, it is a Parish staffed by Religious.

Sometimes I agree, however I do take some issue when someone says things like “open concept alters are a modern invention!” when the Bennies have been doing it for one thousand years.

The religious isn’t a vacuum, there’s going to be overlap.

 

[TimothyH]

The bishop of Savannah Georgia is a Fanciscan. OFM.

The Most Reverend Gregory J. Hartmayer, OFM Conv.

Prior to becoming bishop last year he spent 16 years in the Archdioces of Atlanta as Pastor of two different parishes, one not to far from me.

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is a great deal to be learned from the Religious. Stability. Obedience. Humility. Deference. Silence. Stillness. Perseverance. Vigilance.

-Tim-

But this does not concern personality or character qualities. I am not talking about that. It concerns tangible practices and “stuff.”

When the Pope, or a Bishop, places a Benedictine in charge of something, you can expect Benedictine flavors. When an Benedictine Oblate or Secular Franciscan gets assigned something, you can expect certain flavors. When a Pope is in a Third Order, epxect some of that to happen. A Lay Dominican stays within his/her original parish. They bring Dominican spirituality to the parish they belong to. If a Lay Dominican happens to take on a leadership role, obviously they’re going to utilize and promote a charism.

Using your example of ABCDEFGHIJKLETSGOBACKTOC, if a Benedictine is in charge of designing a Church, where do you think the Tabernacle will be placed? For the Benedictine, it’s been ABC for 1000 years. Like I’ve said before, back then when the Franciscans were moving Tabernacles, that was seen as a “modern invention”, just like some of the stuff people say about “Spirit of Vatican II” and whatnot.

There’s a lot of richness to be drawn from the entire Church, and we have seen that throughout the years. If something is an authentic practice and it has been thought out by a parish, why can it not be adopted?

We MUST examine Religious and parish traditions separately, even if they share commonalities. I never said that they cannot influence each other–in fact I have said that probably five times already–but I did say, and I stand by it, that these “sharings of tradition” should be done naturally and organically, and not in some committee-sanctioned, agenda-driven “Let’s do that cause they do it/Let’s do that cause we did it 1400 years ago” attitude. In other words, if it happens, it happens. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t

Let me use my rosary example again. Do people pray the rosary “because the Dominicans do it?” No, they pray it because it is a good prayer to deepen one’s spiritual life. No bureaucratic committee sat down and said, “Oh, the Dominicans do it so it MUST be good for us too!” It just… happened. Naturally. Organically. Which is perfectly fine and good. Yet when these decisions are made to shove the tabernacle in a corner somewhere, for example, the decision usually is made by some bureaucratic committee that uses the terse and clearly unintelligent argument, “But the Benedictines do it.” So what? Does that make it okay for a parish? In itself, no. Could the practice nevertheless be good for a parish? Yes, but not on those grounds. It would have to be justified in some other way.

The same thing can be said about Eastern and Western practices influencing each other. If a Roman parish wanted to install an iconostasis, the argument, “But the Easterners do it,” utterly fails. Does that mean a Roman parish can’t have an iconostasis? No. It just means that that argument is completely baseless and shows a lack of thought. It has to be justified in some other way.

My point is that we can’t go around saying, “Now hmmmm, what Religious thing am I going to start doing at my parish today?” That is fake and superficial and smacks of the same “change change change” attitude that happened after Vatican II. Again, for probably the eleventh time, Religious and parish practices can influence each other, but it should be done in a very natural, organic way, and not an attitude obsessed “change change change for the sake of change.” If it happens, it happens. If not, it doesn’t. “Because the Religious do it” does NOT mean that it is necessarily a good idea for parishes, and vice versa.

However, this is about principles, not specific examples.

This is something I was thinking would be the case also - that if the pastor or bishop belongs to a certain religious community, that it would filter into to his decisions about parish life.

Isn’t it true that popes wear white now because Pope X (who was it?) was a Dominican? What did popes wear before that? Same as cardinals?

Of course it would. But, for example, Cardinal Sean of Boston doesn’t sit down and dictate, “Okay now, every new parish church MUST look like a Capuchin chapel because I’m a Capuchin.” Perhaps in a consultation with a pastor the Cardinal might make some suggestions based on his Religious life, but inorganic mandates are not dictated by him.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sometimes I agree, however I do take some issue when someone says things like “open concept alters are a modern invention!” when the Bennies have been doing it for one thousand years.

The religious isn’t a vacuum, there’s going to be overlap.

They are clearly a modern invention in parish churches for the most part. That is the point. Again, we must examine Religious and parish traditions separately.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I am hearing two different things that I think are reconcilable. I’m using “offended” in quotes because I think the conversation hear has been very civil.

1. People who have a connection to a religious tradition get “offended” when something in their tradition is said to be modern or an innovation.
2. People in secular parish life get “offended” when changes are defended soley on the basis of being an aspect of religious life.

Is that accurate?

 

[Melchior_1]

Your example of the Rosary is a bit flawed, because the Dominicans took it with them wherever they went and started doing it, including in parishes. People may have seen it, and the devotion took off without the Dominicans even being there; “hey, look at this super cool devotion! Lets do it!”. Much like the Divine Mercy devotion, if we want a more current example.

Is your concern more that “committees” and whatnot will implement things? Or a “council”?

Don’t get me wrong, I can understand the concern that you have. The implementation of several items after Vatican II was poorly done. Even simple things like “this is where this is coming from, it’s actually authentically Catholic” would have helped. Now we have inherent distrust of actions happening. People who are traditionalists don’t want what happened before repeated. People who are charismatic feel like traditionalists are overly hostile, and are worried that what happened to traditionalists will happen to them. I am beyond happy that the SSPX is back in the family, but I have a feeling that the SSPX would not want people like me within the Church. Then there’s people who are just sitting there in the pew have no idea whats happening behind the scenes sometimes. You say “SSPX” to some people, and they’re all like “huh?”

So yeah, I get where you’re coming from. But we shouldn’t have a kneejerk reaction based off of a kneejerk reaction.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am hearing two different things that I think are reconcilable. I’m using “offended” in quotes because I think the conversation hear has been very civil.

1. People who have a connection to a religious tradition get “offended” when something in their tradition is said to be modern or an innovation.
2. People in secular parish life get “offended” when changes are defended soley on the basis of being an aspect of religious life.

Is that accurate?

1. I would personally not try to offend any Religious tradition because I do not evaluate Religious traditions on their playing field, because I have no right to, as I am not a Religious. I only evaluate Religious practices when they come into parish life, and even then, I only evaluate their appropriateness for parish life, not for Religious life, because: 1) I have no right to and, 2) it doesn’t affect me. I believe it is fully possible to criticize a practice as a “modernist innovation” in a parish context while on the other hand being perfectly acceptable and even traditional in a Religious context. This is because I necessarily evaluate Religious and parish practices separately, even if they are similar or even the same.
2. YES.

This is essentially, I suppose, a boiled-down version of what I have been trying to say all along. I don’t go around bashing Religious practices. I criticize, sometimes vehemently, their prudence in parish life when it is clearly arguable that a particular Religious practice that has been adopted in a parish could be imprudent or inappropriate for whatever reason.

Your example of the Rosary is a bit flawed, because the Dominicans took it with them wherever they went and started doing it, including in parishes. People may have seen it, and the devotion took off without the Dominicans even being there; “hey, look at this super cool devotion! Lets do it!”. Much like the Divine Mercy devotion, if we want a more current example.

Is your concern more that “committees” and whatnot will implement things? Or a “council”?

Don’t get me wrong, I can understand the concern that you have. The implementation of several items after Vatican II was poorly done. Even simple things like “this is where this is coming from, it’s actually authentically Catholic” would have helped. Now we have inherent distrust of actions happening. People who are traditionalists don’t want what happened before repeated. People who are charismatic feel like traditionalists are overly hostile, and are worried that what happened to traditionalists will happen to them. I am beyond happy that the SSPX is back in the family, but I have a feeling that the SSPX would not want people like me within the Church. Then there’s people who are just sitting there in the pew have no idea whats happening behind the scenes sometimes. You say “SSPX” to some people, and they’re all like “huh?”

So yeah, I get where you’re coming from. But we shouldn’t have a kneejerk reaction based off of a kneejerk reaction.

But nevertheless, it was done in an organic, free, natural way. It was not imposed by some bureaucratic committee like, for example, un-find-able tabernacles usually are. That is my point.

Yes, my concern, my entire concern is that some bureaucracy will start “implementing” things without real thought, with arguments based SOLELY on, “The Religious do it,” and, “We did it 1400 years ago.” And my concern is not baseless in fact (not that you said it was, btw), because this has happened quite often in the recent past, although thankfully not much anymore.

I am not particularly concerned about what Vatican II (if that is what you mean by Council) said about church architecture and art. Vatican II had very, very nice things to say about those subjects and very good guidance, guidance which would surprise many, methinks. Again, no snarkiness intended there.

I am thinking about shirking the term “traditionalist” personally. It has a certain “dead” connotation to it. I see my opinions as fully viable ones which will carry into the future quite nicely, as architects like Duncan Stroik (guy’s great!) indicate with their work.

I don’t make kneejerk reactions with these subjects. I try to think about them as much as possible.

 

[OraLabora]

I see the word “organic” used liberally without clearly defining what it means. No suppose it means gradual evolution in this context.

I think though that there is an assumption that such gradual change is all good. However often it isn’t. Let’s just consider the liturgical year for example. Before Pius XII, it grew “organically” to include 18 octaves. That means for more than one third of the year (four full months!) the Divine Office prayed the festive psalms every single day of the week.

Then there were different degrees of feasts: simples, semi-duplex and duplex. And there were major duplex and minor duplex. All with extremely complex rubrics so that really only clergy and choir religious could keep it straight. With use of festive psalms it was actually a rare enough week that the entire psalter was recited. Moreover with so many feasts they kind of lose their meaning. The ordinary ferial office is an anchor point in the liturgy, if you will, its stability.

With such complex liturgy, monasteries needed two classes of monk, one to chant the office and the other to do the manual work with a simpler Office. This broke from the roots of monasticism where St. Benedict was trying to create a community of equals where rank was established only by seniority except for a few leaders like the abbot and prior.

Yet you could qualify this gradual change by this artificial criteria of “organic”.

Pius X was actually the pope in recent history who started radical changes to the liturgy with his Roman Gradual of 1908 which ended the wars on chant interpretation, and with a radical new Divine Office that was a clear break from monastic tradition.

Pius XII was nearly as bold. He reduced the liturgical calendar to three octaves, removed many vigils, and abolished the rank of semi-duplex feasts. Vatican II completed this liturgical house cleaning. The liturgical year was much simplified, there are only three degrees of feast, and though the Divine Office psalter is on a 4-week cycle, you can often get through most of the psalter in that period, and for monastics on a monastic psalter on a 1 or 2 week cycle, within one cycle. And now the public liturgy of the Church is within easy grasp of the laity.

So this notion that all change that is “organic” is good does not always ring true. Sometimes the changes are just accretions whose reasons are lost in the mists of time. And sometimes the more radical spring cleanings bring fresh air into the liturgy.

Was Vatican II all good? Of course not. Not all the changes were easy to assimilate. The abbey I’m affiliated with had to radically restructure and absorb lay monks into the ranks of the professed, and of course as we know many with an agenda abused and continue to abuse the liturgy. That though, is something the bishops need to address.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I see the word “organic” used liberally without clearly defining what it means. No suppose it means gradual evolution in this context.

I think though that there is an assumption that such gradual change is all good. However often it isn’t. Let’s just consider the liturgical year for example. Before Pius XII, it grew “organically” to include 18 octaves. That means for more than one third of the year (four full months!) the Divine Office prayed the festive psalms every single day of the week.

So this notion that all change that is “organic” is good does not always ring true. Sometimes the changes are just accretions whose reasons are lost in the mists of time. And sometimes the more radical spring cleanings bring fresh air into the liturgy.

Was Vatican II all good? Of course not. Not all the changes were easy to assimilate. The abbey I’m affiliated with had to radically restructure and absorb lay monks into the ranks of the professed, and of course as we know many with an agenda abused and continue to abuse the liturgy. That though, is something the bishops need to address.

Yes, this is all good and whatnot, and true I might add, but I might point out that no one said that all gradual change is good. I never said that. I’m sorry if it was implied, as that was not intended.

My point regarding the nature of change itself (not related to any one in particular) is that harsh, very quick, bureaucratic change as regards church architecture, art, etc., is practically ALWAYS bad. And that slow, gradual change is almost ALWAYS the better choice. I do not mean to say that all “accretions,” as you put it, should be retained in the liturgy. I am not talking about an end product, I am talking about the process by which decisions are made.

And for a final point, I am not sure that this has as much to do with Vatican II as much as it does with after-the-fact hijackers, at least as regards architecture and art.

Again, not about the end product. This is about how decisions regarding architecture and art and stuff are made by parish bureaucracies with poor argument skills. Although that’s not to say I don’t have a lot to criticize about the products themselves.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes, this is all good and whatnot, and true I might add, but I might point out that no one said that all gradual change is good. I never said that. I’m sorry if it was implied, as that was not intended.

My point regarding the nature of change itself (not related to any one in particular) is that harsh, very quick, bureaucratic change as regards church architecture, art, etc., is practically ALWAYS bad. And that slow, gradual change is almost ALWAYS the better choice. I do not mean to say that all “accretions,” as you put it, should be retained in the liturgy. I am not talking about an end product, I am talking about the process by which decisions are made.

And for a final point, I am not sure that this has as much to do with Vatican II as much as it does with after-the-fact hijackers, at least as regards architecture and art.

Again, not about the end product. This is about how decisions regarding architecture and art and stuff are made by parish bureaucracies with poor argument skills. Although that’s not to say I don’t have a lot to criticize about the products themselves.

The Church herself has not always changed gradually.

Monastic theology based on lectio divina and prayerful meditation on scripture saw Aristotlean Philosophy and the application of reason and logic as a huge threat when it was introduced into the Church by specific individuals during the eleventh century. It was highly mistrusted and bishops were excommunicated over the fights which broke out. Now we venerate St. Thomas as Doctor Angelicus.

St. Francis went from stripping off his clothes to having thousands of Friars all over Europe and being canonized a saint in the space of only 22 years.

The Tridentine Mass was imposed on most of the Church with the stroke of the Holy Father’s pen in 1570. He signed the paper and it was law.

Gregorian chant was imposed on some priests who did not want to use it under threat of death by Charlemagne.

Much of what traditionalism holds dear was imposed on the Church, often violently.

-Tim-

 

[iloveangels]

What happened after Vatican II (again, disregarding liturgy itself for sake of argument) was a massive rupture, and that is a historical fact. I am not “afraid of the unknown.” That does not work anyways, because that argument assumes that what is “unknown” is automatically as good as, or better than, what we already have in a given instance. Additionally, it fails on a second level in this instance because I have known for some time now that having the tabernacle in a chapel (assuming that it is truly dignified) is an ancient practice, so it is not “unknown” to me. I have no opinion on the Charismatic Movement other than that, at least for the moment, I see it more genuinely as a personal piety/spirituality movement more than as a broader attempt to “change the Church,” which I appreciate.

…

To some degree I agree with you, and I can tell you how.

Look there is a huge history of religious orders and religious behavior that most Catholics, particularly American Catholics, are not at all aware of. They use it all the time, but usually can’t identify the parts and don’t know where it came from.

In addition, most people don’t belong to religious orders, don’t have a vocation to belong to a religious order, and shouldn’t be in a religious order. The parish church is about teaching the basic faith to Catholics that have a vocation, not to religious life, but to parish life. There is such a thing. In fact, the vocation to parish life is the vocation where most people belong in the Catholic Church!

However, the practice of the Catholic religion is associated almost inextricably to religious orders since many of the earliest and most credible teachers of the faith were members of the religious orders. The Church would be far poorer without them–and in fact, probably couldn’t get along without them. I am speaking of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure, St. Anselm and so on. The formulations of these people are used in all the Catechisms that the Church uses, except the most bizarrely progressive. In addition, the orders are sort of vanguards–examples that the faith can be lived out in its entirety in a dozen or more different ways. And they have provided us with many useful things: the rosary, the nativity scene, the way of the Cross, etc etc. If you get rid of the contributions of the religious orders, you won’t have much left. Even the Cure of Ars was a secular Franciscan, a member of one of the 3 original medieval rules of St. Francis.

If you throw out the contributions of the religious orders, you won’t have much more than the evangelical protestants down the road. No saints, no rosary, no Catechism of the Catholic church…none of that. And in fact, this is exactly what the protestants did do. But none of that is necessary.

The TRICK TO ALL THIS is understanding how to use the theology and the stories of the saints and the devotions that have come down from the saints for the benefit of people who have a vocation to parish life and family life, but no vocation to the life of one of the religious orders. It requires that the devotions are chosen carefully to suit their needs, and that they have access to the Catechism and the Scriptures. Catholics need to do far more with the Scriptures.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Church herself has not always changed gradually.

Monastic theology based on lectio divina and prayerful meditation on scripture saw Aristotlean Philosophy and the application of reason and logic as a huge threat when it was introduced into the Church by specific individuals during the eleventh century. It was highly mistrusted and bishops were excommunicated over the fights which broke out. Now we venerate St. Thomas as Doctor Angelicus.

St. Francis went from stripping off his clothes to having thousands of Friars all over Europe and being canonized a saint in the space of only 22 years.

The Tridentine Mass was imposed on most of the Church with the stroke of the Holy Father’s pen in 1570. He signed the paper and it was law.

Gregorian chant was imposed on some priests who did not want to use it under threat of death by Charlemagne.

Much of what traditionalism holds dear was imposed on the Church, often violently.

-Tim-

Again, you’re bending words. I never said that the Church has always changed gradually.

I am not talking about “the Church.” I am talking about a very specific couple of things like architecture and [visual, structural] art, which is all I am concerned about here.

Interesting points about monastic theology.

St. Francis. Okay.

The “Tridentine Mass,” from what I have read, was really not very much different at all from the kind of liturgy that most of Europe was using before Quo Primum. But again, my argument isn’t about liturgy as much as it is about architecture and art and things like the Rosary.

I am not concerned about music here. I am concerned about some specific things and how a broader principle applies to them. I would argue that the vast majority of decisions in the Church, whether an act of the Magesterium or at the simple parish level, have been done in an organic, natural way.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You are cutting down the argument to a few things - art, architecture, the rosary. I was thinking of more than just those things when I started the thread. However, that’s OK.

Let’s talk about art and architecture. Whne we contrast them, we often think along the lines of “plain, simple, spare” for religious chapels and “stained glass, stautues, gilt” for parish churches. But is that the true comparision?

Isn’t it more like “stained glass, statues, gold” for cathedrals and “plain,simple, spare” for certain religious chapels with ordinary parish churches falling somewhere in between?

I’ve been to some pretty ancient churches in Eurpoe – not cathedrals, but just ordinary churches, and they aren’t always so beautiful. Certainly, they all had statues (painted very ornate in southern Europe; more severe in northern Europe). But in other ways they were pretty simple.

Ordinary parish life in nowhere France is not going to be like Notre Dame. And here in 21st century US, I just don’t see the same sacrifices being made by the laity that it took to build a cathedral like Notre Dame.

I think also that part of it is maybe just bad explanations on the part of these “art committees” on why they did what they did. And sometimes they just have bad taste, but if no one else steps up to make the decision, we get what we get.

 

[iloveangels]

You are cutting down the argument to a few things - art, architecture, the rosary. I was thinking of more than just those things when I started the thread. However, that’s OK.

Let’s talk about art and architecture. Whne we contrast them, we often think along the lines of “plain, simple, spare” for religious chapels and “stained glass, stautues, gilt” for parish churches. But is that the true comparision?

Isn’t it more like “stained glass, statues, gold” for cathedrals and “plain,simple, spare” for certain religious chapels with ordinary parish churches falling somewhere in between?

I’ve been to some pretty ancient churches in Eurpoe – not cathedrals, but just ordinary churches, and they aren’t always so beautiful. Certainly, they all had statues (painted very ornate in southern Europe; more severe in northern Europe). But in other ways they were pretty simple.

Ordinary parish life in nowhere France is not going to be like Notre Dame. And here in 21st century US, I just don’t see the same sacrifices being made by the laity that it took to build a cathedral like Notre Dame.

I think also that part of it is maybe just bad explanations on the part of these “art committees” on why they did what they did. And sometimes they just have bad taste, but if no one else steps up to make the decision, we get what we get.

This discussion of churches in the USA is often just silly and superficial.

Ordinary parish churches, even in the city of Rome, can be quite plain. Really how ornate they are depended on how much money the people had to construct the church, and what time period it was built in. Different styles occurred at different historical eras. Some of the earliest ones, that would have been the ones untouched by religious orders (because they weren’t yet founded!), are very plain. And some of them are made of scavenged pieces and parts from old Roman stuff, and the parts don’t match.

If you want to know the truth, the most ornate churches in Rome are the ones built during the post-Reformation period and the great majority of them are associated with Religious orders. The obvious example is the great Jesuit church, the Jesu. The Jesuit churches in Rome are among the most ornate and extravagant churches in the city, in fact.

In the United States, people are too cheap to build nice churches, and that’s the bottom line. We’ve never really had nice churches here, with the possible exception of a very few belonging to huge dioceses like Baltimore (which used to be the official head of American Catholicism) or those like Marytown who belong to a religious order. We have always worshipped in glorified garages in the United States. We are not a great culture of builders. Pretty far from it. We have how many McDonald’s franchises in this country? And they all look alike and it bothers virtually nobody.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You are cutting down the argument to a few things - art, architecture, the rosary. I was thinking of more than just those things when I started the thread. However, that’s OK.

Let’s talk about art and architecture. Whne we contrast them, we often think along the lines of “plain, simple, spare” for religious chapels and “stained glass, stautues, gilt” for parish churches. But is that the true comparision?

Isn’t it more like “stained glass, statues, gold” for cathedrals and “plain,simple, spare” for certain religious chapels with ordinary parish churches falling somewhere in between?

I’ve been to some pretty ancient churches in Eurpoe – not cathedrals, but just ordinary churches, and they aren’t always so beautiful. Certainly, they all had statues (painted very ornate in southern Europe; more severe in northern Europe). But in other ways they were pretty simple.

Ordinary parish life in nowhere France is not going to be like Notre Dame. And here in 21st century US, I just don’t see the same sacrifices being made by the laity that it took to build a cathedral like Notre Dame.

I think also that part of it is maybe just bad explanations on the part of these “art committees” on why they did what they did. And sometimes they just have bad taste, but if no one else steps up to make the decision, we get what we get.

Yes, I just tried to make a few examples on my part. However, the conversation doesn’t stop there, of course.

Rather than actually write a detailed response, I will simply link to a website and provide a bit of commentary. Go here and look under the “Churches” and “Church Renovations” headers. Absolutely magnificent structures:

stroik.com/portfolio/

And the best part is that ALL of this work has been done very, very recently, and all of right here in the US of A! Mr. Duncan Stroik is quite possibly my favorite living Catholic architect. What you will notice about his work is that some of it is simple and some of it is quite florid and highly ornate… but it is all very beautiful. Duncan Stroik proves and disproves a lot of things.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes, I just tried to make a few examples on my part. However, the conversation doesn’t stop there, of course.

Rather than actually write a detailed response, I will simply link to a website and provide a bit of commentary. Go here and look under the “Churches” and “Church Renovations” headers. Absolutely magnificent structures:

stroik.com/portfolio/

And the best part is that ALL of this work has been done very, very recently, and all of right here in the US of A! Mr. Duncan Stroik is quite possibly my favorite living Catholic architect. What you will notice about his work is that some of it is simple and some of it is quite florid and highly ornate… but it is all very beautiful. Duncan Stroik proves and disproves a lot of things.

Well if you can get Catholic laypeople to cough up the cash to actually build a beautiful church for every parish, then more power to you. But I’ll believe it when I see it. We can’t even get them to show up at mass about 1/2 the time.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well if you can get Catholic laypeople to cough up the cash to actually build a beautiful church for every parish, then more power to you. But I’ll believe it when I see it. We can’t even get them to put their birth control pills in the trash can.

Most of the most utterly-outdated-yet-only-forty-years-old spaceship churches are the most hideously expensive structures to have the word “Catholic” on their signs.

This is because they require custom everything. Completely custom design, custom materials, expensive “trendy” architect, custom fixtures to fit in with the custom spaceship itself.

Now, about the very small parishes. We often mistake simplicity for ugliness, when it simply doesn’t have to be so. Some of the simplest old country churches are the most beautiful.

 

[iloveangels]

Most of the most utterly-outdated-yet-only-forty-years-old spaceship churches are the most hideously expensive structures to have the word “Catholic” on their signs.

This is because they require custom everything. Completely custom design, custom materials, expensive “trendy” architect, custom fixtures to fit in with the custom spaceship itself.

Now, about the very small parishes. We often mistake simplicity for ugliness, when it simply doesn’t have to be so. Some of the simplest old country churches are the most beautiful.

If you say so. Around here that’s called dumpy.