The Modernist Horror

[WH1988]

After months frequenting a relatively orthodox parish in Oporto (my homecity, in Portugal, where we don’t have a single latin mass, neither NO nor EF), this Saturday I went to the ‘new’ church of my home Parish - Parish of Santo Ovídio, in Vila Nova de Gaia, Diocesis of Oporto.

This is the first time I went there for a long time. During this last year I began understanding better the concept of hermeneutic of continuity, as well as it’s relation with architecture and liturgy.

I knew the church was very very ugly, and that it resembled a synagogue, but I decided to go there anyway, in order to go to the mass.

When I reached the place, I was once again amazed by how ugly the Church is, and I noticed that there is a pattern which is common - a phallic patern - which is outrageous. And, yes, nevermind it is exactly like an ugly synagoge. I decided to take a picture in order to show you.

Notice the shape of the church tower in relation with the church, and notice the trees - it’s a pattern that you’ll see plently of times if you visit the church.

http://www.phormiga.net/dadvci/Imagem(146).jpg
‘Church’ of Santo Ovídio, today.

Inside it doesn’t get any better. I found a picture of the altar in the website of the Diocesis of Oporto, where I found an amusing description of it, which can only be a joke:

Pode concluir-se que o “retábulo” da nova igreja de Santo Ovídio constitui uma mais valia. É uma peça notável de Arte Sacra Moderna, de inquestionável qualidade. - “Thus, we conclude that the ‘retable’ of the new church of Saint Ovidio is a valueable asset. It’s a notable piece of Modern Sacred Art, of inquestionable quality.”

http://www.diocese-porto.pt/iportucalense/IMAGES/estrut1.jpg
A Catholic Church or a Masonic Convention Centre?

Desperated with the presence of two altar girls, I decided to listen to the Mass on the ‘chapel’ of the Sacrary. For the first time, I noticed how ugly it is. I didn’t find appropriate to take a picture, but I made a draw in order to show you how ugly it is.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/4797/sacrriome3.jpg
The best I could do on MS Paint

Once again, a phallic pattern, with some cheap kind of metal. The sacrary is just a big block of cheap metal, with a new age candle in front of it, and two bars of the same metal supporting six candles, three on each side.

I noticed that there isn’t any confessionary or place where you could get a confession.

For the first time on my life, I felt what I called ‘religious suffering’. It was horrible to endure that Mass, and I don’t think I have enough patience to enter that awful, scary place again.

This is a true Modernist horror - how could anyone feel drawn to Catholicism with such a … erm… ‘church’?

Post Scriptum: Those awful concrete blocks with four holes that you see in the second picture cover the entire church.

 

[LilyM]

‘Phallic pattern’? That building is no more phallic than ANY church that has a bell-tower. Although admittedly it is ugly.

A synagogue? What makes you say that? And so what if it did look like a synagogue? Our Lord and the sainted Apostles worshipped at many synagogues, but never at a Catholic church, unless possibly you count the catacombs which possibly were being used in their time.

A Masonic centre? That’s ridiculous. How can you dare to compare the altar upon which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered with a Masonic centre? By that very fact, it is nothing like any other type of building on the face of the earth. Christ’s presence makes the church holy, whatever it looks like.

How do you know there are no confessionals (not ‘confessionarys’)? You may not have been able to see them, that doesn’t mean they weren’t there of course. Did you ask anyone? Did you even look to see if there were any scheduled times listed for confession, since if there were then it’s 99% certain that there are confessionals in which to hear it?

 

[WH1988]

‘Phallic pattern’? That building is no more phallic than ANY church that has a bell-tower. Although admittedly it is ugly.

I know, but the architect seems to have some obcession with the phallic patern. It’s really everywhere - including in the tabernacle.

A synagogue? What makes you say that?

It reminds me of a synagogue.

A Masonic centre? That’s ridiculous. How can you dare to compare the altar upon which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered with a Masonic centre? By that very fact, it is nothing like any other type of building on the face of the earth. Christ’s presence makes the church holy, whatever it looks like

I’m not comparing the Altar, which isn’t even ugly, but that piece of … which is on the wall, which doesn’t have dignity to be on a Catholic Church.

How do you know there are no confessionals (not ‘confessionarys’)? You may not have been able to see them, that doesn’t mean they weren’t there of course. Did you ask anyone? Did you even look to see if there were any scheduled times listed for confession, since if there were then it’s 99% certain that there are confessionals in which to hear it?

Because I know that in my Parish there are no confessions avaiable to the public. If you want to confess, you have to beg to the Priest, which will usually accept. He will invite you to his office, give you a chair and order you not to kneel - been there, done that.

 

[DAPDN]

I fail to see anything Catholic at that place of worship. And if I may add, I think that that place is no apropriate place to celebrate a Holy Mass. The only thing trully catholic that could possibly reside in that place of worship is Jesus Christ, on the tabernacle…

 

[WH1988]

Where I mention ‘sacrary’, replace it for ‘tabernacle’. Error of translation

 

[LilyM]

I fail to see anything Catholic at that place of worship. And if I may add, I think that that place is no apropriate place to celebrate a Holy Mass. The only thing trully catholic that could possibly reside in that place of worship is Jesus Christ, on the tabernacle…

I see no phallic pattern in anything you’ve posted. Unless the bell-tower counts, which being square rather than round is distinctly un-phallic. Unless you want to provide more pictures then I can certainly see nothing that looks remotely phallic except to your overactive imagination.

And the fact that JESUS DOES LIVE THERE isn’t enough for you? Who else ‘resides’ in a Church anyway, I’d like to know … and what else makes it holy, makes it a Church or even makes it truly Catholic, but His presence in the Eucharist (which is the source and summit of our faith) within?

If the Shepherds and wise men could come to worship Him in a smelly old stable in Bethlehem, simply because that’s where He was, then how dare you turn up your dainty little noses at a decent, though admittedly not good-looking and very plain, building?

It’s not like they’re saying Mass in a toilet or something.

Now of course having no scheduled confession times is a scandal, depending on the circumstances of the priest (if he is looking after numerous parishes then we might make some allowances, for example) and does, of course, make it more plausible that there are no confessionals.

 

[WH1988]

I see no phallic pattern in anything you’ve posted. Unless the bell-tower counts, which being square rather than round is distinctly un-phallic. Unless you want to provide more pictures then I can certainly see nothing that looks remotely phallic except to your overactive imagination.

Sorry, but everything in that church has the pattern: | (sorry.)

And the fact that JESUS DOES LIVE THERE isn’t enough for you?

It is enough for me to endure that architectonic crime for 45 minutes if I have to. Now, liturgy and architecture have an educative purpose. It is the House of the Lord, and it should be as beautiful as possible. People are not robots, and they react to negative stimulations. I can guarantee you - that place is absolutely opressive. All the ugliness, all the modernism invades you and leaves you absolutely down. I am the first to say that Faith isn’t just about feelings, but the House of the Lord isn’t supposed to depress you.

It’s not like they’re saying Mass in a toilet or something.

I have seen toilets more appropriate than this… this… building.

Now of course having no scheduled confession times is a scandal, depending on the circumstances of the priest (if he is looking after numerous parishes then we might make some allowances, for example) and does, of course, make it more plausible that there are no confessionals.

There is a simple justification: modernism. There are at least two priests, the parish has 2-3 daily masses, and they don’t have any other occupation on the diocesis that I am aware of (they aren’t listed on anything but parish priests on the diocesan website, so…). They don’t offer confession, which is typical in Portugal, because there is the common belief, even among priests, that confession isn’t necessary anymore. I could provide you some quotes of some laymen convinced of this fact that I read today on a Portuguese ‘catholic’ forum, but I don’t think it’s necessary.

 

[DAPDN]

I fail to understand how can you consider such a building a decent one, LillyM. At least you recognize that it is really ugly. The problem is not only that - this structure completely cuts off with the so-called hermeneutic of continuity, and with the sacred traditions of the Catholic Church. There is a huge and important connection between the divine and holy architecture. You’re not going to tell me you would have, in your daily prayer, the same proximity and be able to give the proper reverence to Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in this church as in a traditional church, are you?

Now, the fact is that it is the presence of Jesus, in the Eucharist, which makes it holy. But you’re not going to tell me that a Church without His presence at the tabernacle (for some reasons, that might happen - actually, it happens in some chapels and private shrines) would automatically turn into an unholy structure, are you? Because, otherwise, that would allow you to spit, talk in a loud tone of voice, clap your hands or do some other funny business as you would do on the street, or something like that, wouldn’t it?

And still, I’m sure you know that the fact that the Lord is not present, at the moment, at a given temple on the tabernacle, will not allow you in anyway to do so, and therefore, I’m sure you would never act like that, given this set of circunstances.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I see no phallic pattern in anything you’ve posted. Unless the bell-tower counts, which being square rather than round is distinctly un-phallic. Unless you want to provide more pictures then I can certainly see nothing that looks remotely phallic except to your overactive imagination.

And the fact that JESUS DOES LIVE THERE isn’t enough for you? Who else ‘resides’ in a Church anyway, I’d like to know … and what else makes it holy, makes it a Church or even makes it truly Catholic, but His presence in the Eucharist (which is the source and summit of our faith) within?

If the Shepherds and wise men could come to worship Him in a smelly old stable in Bethlehem, simply because that’s where He was, then how dare you turn up your dainty little noses at a decent, though admittedly not good-looking and very plain, building?

It’s not like they’re saying Mass in a toilet or something.

Now of course having no scheduled confession times is a scandal, depending on the circumstances of the priest (if he is looking after numerous parishes then we might make some allowances, for example) and does, of course, make it more plausible that there are no confessionals.

I don’t think there’s any sin in disliking the decor of a Catholic Church. One can celebrate Mass on the front of a jeep (I hear it happened a lot in the Army, even pre-VII), so does that mean one must like jeeps?

 

[LilyM]

Now, the fact is that it is the presence of Jesus, in the Eucharist, which makes it holy. But you’re not going to tell me that a Church without His presence at the tabernacle (for some reasons, that might happen - actually, it happens in some chapels and private shrines) would automatically turn into an unholy structure, are you? Because, otherwise, that would allow you to spit, talk in a loud tone of voice, clap your hands or do some other funny business as you would do on the street, or something like that, wouldn’t it?

And still, I’m sure you know that the fact that the Lord is not present, at the moment, at a given temple on the tabernacle, will not allow you in anyway to do so, and therefore, I’m sure you would never act like that, given this set of circunstances.

Of course I agree with all of the above. The church is still Holy, though, because of the presence of Our Lord, even when for a period of time that Presence is gone.

As an analogy - Our Lady is holy because she bore God Incarnate within her. She didn’t cease to be holy after she gave birth to Our Lord and no longer carried Him within her, of course. But that doesn’t mean that His presence wasn’t the cause of her holiness. It just means that the effect of it continued after He was born and out of her body.

Interesting, isn’t it, that most of the places associated with Our Lord - the Holy Sepulchre, the stable of Bethlehem and so on - were turned into churches afterward. You can bet, though, that people flocked to them and worshipped there, long before this happened. It must’ve happened even when the stable was still a stable, and the sepulchre still a cave. Just goes to show how Christ’s presence, rather than handsome buildings, sanctifies a place.

 

[DAPDN]

Yes, LilyM. Yet, this is not a stable, nor a sepulchre. It has nothing to do with that. This is not natural, it’s a bizarre structure, which cuts off, as I said previously, with all of Holy Architecture’s canons. When a Parish decides to build a new church, do you think it’s “okay” to approve such a bizarre design? Don’t you think that when you put together financial means and make a decision of building a new parish church, you should do it right, and not like this?

 

[LilyM]

Yes, LilyM. Yet, this is not a stable, nor a sepulchre. It has nothing to do with that. This is not natural, it’s a bizarre structure, which cuts off, as I said previously, with all of Holy Architecture’s canons. When a Parish decides to build a new church, do you think it’s “okay” to approve such a bizarre design? Don’t you think that when you put together financial means and make a decision of building a new parish church, you should do it right, and not like this?

A sepulchre isn’t natural - Joseph of Aramithea had it ‘built’ for himself. You don’t build something that is natural. A stable isn’t natural either - it’s also an artificially built structure.

And if God cared half as much about the physical surroundings in which He is worshipped as you seem to think He does, He probably wouldn’t choose to be born in a stable in the first place, would He? And if He doesn’t, what gives us any right to?

As for approving a design - people certainly complained and disapproved of St Peters while it was being built, because of the costly and ornate design. Even worse - its massive cost and over-the-top grandeur was a direct influence on the Reformation.

Now that we’re no longer paying its cost off by sending taxes to Rome for its construction as our ancestors did, we think it’s wonderful.

People are fickle in their tastes and opinions, and those who disapprove of a building are just as likely to turn out to be wrong as correct, in the long term.

 

[DAPDN]

God chose to bring His beloved Son to this world in a stable to manifest us the virtue of poverty. Let’s try and see if we can get information concerning the final budget of this church’s project, and the final expenses made in this church’s construction.

 

[LilyM]

God chose to bring His beloved Son to this world in a stable to manifest us the virtue of poverty. Let’s try and see if we can get information concerning the final budget of this church’s project, and the final expenses made in this church’s construction.

Why does that matter? I suppose you think that because you don’t like the looks of a church, that negates the fact that its very existence as a place set apart for Him gives glory to God?

 

[WH1988]

Why does that matter? I suppose you think that because you don’t like the looks of a church, that negates the fact that its very existence as a place set apart for Him gives glory to God?

Yes, it matters. That’s what Pope Benedict has been teaching. As he said regarding liturgical music, we cannot say that “anything goes”.

 

[DAPDN]

No, LilyM, that’s not it. It’s only a matter of principles, great respect for traditions and also for the cult and liturgy, which I think is deeply important and central in the Catholic life. As for the “poverty” theme, I just took it and explored it from your Nativity argument, to show you that a church like the above and the Nativity scene, with the stable, are two completely different things.

 

[JaMc]

One can celebrate Mass on the front of a jeep (I hear it happened a lot in the Army, even pre-VII), so does that mean one must like jeeps?

As the proud owner of a 1946 Willys CJ-2A I will say - yes. Yes it does.

 

[bpbasilphx]

You say it looks like a synagogue or Masonic center.

i’d like to know how many synagogues and Masonic centers you’ve frequented, whose interiors you have inspected, that you would comment on their resemblance with such certainty.

And I’d like to know just WHAT you were doing in such places!

 

[Cinette]

I see no phallic pattern in anything you’ve posted. Unless the bell-tower counts, which being square rather than round is distinctly un-phallic. Unless you want to provide more pictures then I can certainly see nothing that looks remotely phallic except to your overactive imagination.

And the fact that JESUS DOES LIVE THERE isn’t enough for you? Who else ‘resides’ in a Church anyway, I’d like to know … and what else makes it holy, makes it a Church or even makes it truly Catholic, but His presence in the Eucharist (which is the source and summit of our faith) within?

If the Shepherds and wise men could come to worship Him in a smelly old stable in Bethlehem, simply because that’s where He was, then how dare you turn up your dainty little noses at a decent, though admittedly not good-looking and very plain, building?

It’s not like they’re saying Mass in a toilet or something.

Now of course having no scheduled confession times is a scandal, depending on the circumstances of the priest (if he is looking after numerous parishes then we might make some allowances, for example) and does, of course, make it more plausible that there are no confessionals.

I do understand your point regarding the celebration of the Mass in that ugly Church which is so un-Portuguese. I agree that Mass is Mass even if it is in a stable.

I do however understand these young Portuguese men’s frustration because the Church in Portugal has some strange practices. Last year my Parish Priest was in Portugal after a visit to the Holy Land and he said Mass at a Monastry. Would you believe that that part of the Mass when the Priest washes his hands and says “Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin” is now **left out **of the Mass in Portugal!!! :nope:

Now, that a Church should have no Confessional is a scandal. If these young men were to make a protest to the Archbishop I would be prepared to sign. In fact, I think they should we I am sure Catholic Answers would endorse it.

Um abaixo assinado e necessario :yup:

 

[Cinette]

I know, but the architect seems to have some obcession with the phallic patern. It’s really everywhere - including in the tabernacle.

It reminds me of a synagogue.

I’m not comparing the Altar, which isn’t even ugly, but that piece of … which is on the wall, which doesn’t have dignity to be on a Catholic Church.

Because I know that in my Parish there are no confessions avaiable to the public. If you want to confess, you have to beg to the Priest, which will usually accept. He will invite you to his office, give you a chair and order you not to kneel - been there, done that.

I have been in synagogues and they were nothing like that. Certainly the outside of that church looks more like a warehouse! :bigyikes: