Those glorious medieval cathedrals

[Lepanto]

Church buildings are every bit as much a part of liturgy as music, the rubrics, and the sacramentary. Like every other part of the liturgy, the buildings within which we worship affect what we believe.

My, my, look at what we have lost.

linternaute.com/sortir/sorties/architecture/cathedrales/diaporama/13.shtml

The 20th and 21st centuries will go down in history as the Dark Ages of church architecture.

Just venting…

 

[dove51]

Amen. I think that the traditional, historical imagery of Catholicism is one of our biggest pros. It certainly drew me back into the church, knowing that saints prayed in these places for centuries, and famous art was made to glorify God in these buildings. I sigh when I look at big, modern, angular churches–I just can’t seem to pray very well in such an atmosphere. Makes me all the more determined to go back and see the cathedral in Toledo, my favorite.

 

[Chuy]

Some in every generation have looked at current ("modern’) architecture and ignorantly turned their noses up at it. This has happened to great works by great architects including people like Frank-Lloyd Wright, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and lesser qualified men like the padres of Alta California who created the (now) beloved Mission Style out of necessity.

In fact I am certain the designers/builders of Bourges Cathedral (the one you posted) were judged negatively by some who did not like its modern approach (for its time.) They would have been far happier with a duplication of Chartres Cathedral – and the world would have been worse off had their tastes prevailed.

I think a great deal of today’s church architecture will stand the test of time. Certainly not all, but a great deal. Sure, some people will post the same old photos of those structures they find to be ugly. More often than not however they fail to make any point with their efforts, other than voicing their personal tastes.

I think the focus now in church architecture is placing the sacraments of the Church as the focus of any structure – most especially the Blessed Sacrament and not the building itself.

Catholics also aren’t big givers and I think in some cases that strongly influences what is built today. Just imagine how much the construction and maintenance costs are on the structure you posted pictures of. In fact, NO buildings like that are built in the free world anymore because the billion(s) required are no longer being collected…

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah yes, the arcitecture issue.
A few thoughts. I believe that the mantra of modern arcitecture is that “form follows function,” and this is precisely where modern Catholic church buildings (so-called) have utterly failed. The “function” of a Catholic church building is to say to everyone (believer and non-believer alike) that “this is the house of God.” (and, indeed, to BE that reality which those words express)Whether you are standing inside the walls or outside, that message must be clear. The problem with modern “churches” is that they utterly fail to say this. What kind of a God would choose to live in such an ugly building? A lifeless building houses a dead god.

It is true that as tastes change, there will always be those who prefer that architecture not change, but when it comes to Catholic churches, this is far from a statement of ignorance–rather it is a lament for the direction in which the Church is unfortunately headed. There is an excellent book by Michael Rose “Ugly as Sin” which clearly outlines just WHY modern church arcitecture is unsuitable for Catholic churches.
While styles have certainly changed over the years, and over the miles, a constant remains. Catholic churches must have 3 characteristics to be proper churches. 1. verticallity (causing the worshipper and onlooker to look upwards to God) 2. Iconography to express the truths of the faith and 3 permanance (a temporary building houses a temporary religion).

Catholic churches, going back as far as archeology can determine, have always had these 3 characteristics. Though style, building materials, colors, size, etc. may all vary, those 3 principles must hold.

Modern so-called churches (as a whole) fail in all 3 of these categories. Modern churches do not cause the visitor to look upward to God, but instead to look horizontally at each other, or even worse, to look down upon God. Modern churches tend to be devoid of all iconography, replacing it with the symbolism of a great absence, or look like buildings that could just as easily house a swimming pool or a basketball court. Modern buildings lack any permanance. They tell the visitor that the faith practiced here was thrown up at the last moment, for the least expense, and is subject to be replaced by the whims of the next generation. “If this church thing doesn’t work out, we can always tear it down and build a strip-mall” is the message made loud and clear by modern church architecture.

Since The Church is built with Christ as the Cornerstone, on the Rock of Peter, held together by the mortar of the Sacraments, and paid for with the blood of martyrs, our church buildings should express no less.

Fashions change. The faith does not. Churches can certainly be made with modern materials, and architecture is an ever-evolving art. But when that art fails to accommplish its goals, we need not accept unsuitable church buildings under the excuse of “times change”

 

[Rawb]

In fact I am certain the designers/builders of Bourges Cathedral (the one you posted) were judged negatively by some who did not like its modern approach (for its time.) They would have been far happier with a duplication of Chartres Cathedral – and the world would have been worse off had their tastes

How funny that you would say that, as both churches are built on the basillica plan, feature flying buttresses, and show the gothic influences so pervasive of the period. They’re very, very similar churches. The towers being the only obvious difference between the two.

If Catholic architecture had grown from what we had previously, as it did up till modern times, we would still have beautiful churches, IMO. Ave Maria Oratory, for example, has a modern feel to it but honors the architectural tradition from where it gets it’s inspiration. images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/74432c16-53cd-46d5-86ab-511457ec0ef4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM237Z&h=600&w=400&sz=50&hl=en&start=13&um=1&usg=__N6Eg8QBdflrToJn_SznFNVVulCs=&tbnid=KGc_FEh6hz_ZNM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAve%2BMaria%2BOratory%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DRNWM,RNWM:2008-06,RNWM:en%26sa%3DN

We’re not calling for duplications of gothic cathedrals. There are many other styles available, and even building on the past themes can create beautiful structures, but a complete break with tradition is giving us churches that are, to quote the book, “Ugly as Sin”.

 

[muffinmojo]

Some in every generation have looked at current ("modern’) architecture and ignorantly turned their noses up at it. This has happened to great works by great architects including people like Frank-Lloyd Wright, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and lesser qualified men like the padres of Alta California who created the (now) beloved Mission Style out of necessity.

In fact I am certain the designers/builders of Bourges Cathedral (the one you posted) were judged negatively by some who did not like its modern approach (for its time.) They would have been far happier with a duplication of Chartres Cathedral – and the world would have been worse off had their tastes prevailed.

The difference is that there are objective and subjective reasons for declaring architecture bad. Yes, it can be objective. Many modern buildings, by their very purpose and intent, are opposed to Catholic worship, because they are designed to enhance the harsh angles of shadow, the sterile minimalism, and a sense of ‘oneness’ for the congregation. Among churches, even those of the traditional stripe, there are some that I don’t like. Examples would be some of the really gaudy baroque churches in Germany, or the common Romanesque styles of Italy. Just because i dislike them, however, does not blind me to the fact that they are fine pieces of architecture, worthy of housing the literal flesh of the Son of God. The focus of the design is to draw people’s minds and hearts to God, not to express a 60’s hippie or postmodern philosophy. I agree that some would reject the new no matter what it looked like, but it is entirely possible that modern design principles could be used to create a new architectural style that was worthy of Catholic churches. I probably would not like it, seeing as how I prefer the warmth of high Gothic cathedrals, but if the design objectively focused on promoting proper and good worship of the congregation, the emphasis on God, it is not anyone’s place to criticise how this is done. Modern churches simply do not do this, however.

Catholics also aren’t big givers and I think in some cases that strongly influences what is built today. Just imagine how much the construction and maintenance costs are on the structure you posted pictures of. In fact, NO buildings like that are built in the free world anymore because the billion(s) required are no longer being collected…

This is untrue. Many of the new classical revival churches had similar buildings costs to modern buildings.

There are MANY buildings like this being constructed in the modern world. Google ‘Thomas Aquinas college Holy Trinity Chapel’ or the new shrine in the archdiocese of st louis. Also, the Kennerick-Glennon seminary has been renovated in the Gothic style. The sShrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament(The EWTN church) was built only decades ago. It is possible, very possible, and cost effective.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

he sShrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament(The EWTN church) was built only decades ago. It is possible, very possible, and cost effective.

The Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament was built less than ten years ago, and it has inspired similar projects around the country. Here in the pagan Pacific Northwest where Catholics number around 5-7% of the population, they’re still building (with a couple of exceptions) ugly new churches with stark, undecorated sanctuaries that look like semicircular parliament chambers. Interestingly, when people want to get married, they seek out what few neo-Gothic churches we have left. Architecture is a form of evangelism: does a church building try to honor God or its architect? To quote from the movie, “if you build it, they will come.”

 

[zagjames]

And yet there are some who are supporting the building of and others who are building historically minded and beautiful buildings:

www.stroik.com

thomasgordonsmitharchitects.com/

and many many others which you can find links to on this site under the architects section:

dellachiesa.com/

 

[Chuy]

Ah yes, the arcitecture issue.
A few thoughts. I believe that the mantra of modern arcitecture is that “form follows function,” and this is precisely where modern Catholic church buildings (so-called) have utterly failed. **The “function” of a Catholic church building is to say to everyone (believer and non-believer alike) that “this is the house of God.” ** (and, indeed, to BE that reality which those words express)Whether you are standing inside the walls or outside, that message must be clear. The problem with modern “churches” is that they utterly fail to say this. What kind of a God would choose to live in such an ugly building? A lifeless building houses a dead god.

You’re wrong. While that is a quality that is certainly appreciated it is not the primary function of a church building. Its primary function is to facilitate people in receiving the sacraments of the church.

It is true that as tastes change, there will always be those who prefer that architecture not change, but when it comes to Catholic churches, this is far from a statement of ignorance–rather it is a lament for the direction in which the Church is unfortunately headed. There is an excellent book by Michael Rose “Ugly as Sin” which clearly outlines just WHY modern church arcitecture is unsuitable for Catholic churches.

I think in many cases it’s the cry of those who do not understand design/architecture nor the history of either one. As far as Rose’s polemical work, I don’t take it seriously given his own background and the audience he panders to.

While styles have certainly changed over the years, and over the miles, a constant remains. Catholic churches must have 3 characteristics to be proper churches. 1. verticallity (causing the worshipper and onlooker to look upwards to God) 2. Iconography to express the truths of the faith and 3 permanance (a temporary building houses a temporary religion).

Oh? Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles excels in all three of your measures yet people like you decry its existence.

Catholic churches, going back as far as archeology can determine, have always had these 3 characteristics. Though style, building materials, colors, size, etc. may all vary, those 3 principles must hold.

Where is this written?

Modern so-called churches (as a whole) fail in all 3 of these categories. Modern churches do not cause the visitor to look upward to God, but instead to look horizontally at each other, or even worse, to look down upon God. Modern churches tend to be devoid of all iconography, replacing it with the symbolism of a great absence, or look like buildings that could just as easily house a swimming pool or a basketball court. Modern buildings lack any permanance. They tell the visitor that the faith practiced here was thrown up at the last moment, for the least expense, and is subject to be replaced by the whims of the next generation. “If this church thing doesn’t work out, we can always tear it down and build a strip-mall” is the message made loud and clear by modern church architecture.

You’re simply mistaken. While I don’t think there is anything sacred about your three chosen measures, both OLAC in LA and the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland excel in all three. The massive concrete OLAC makes St. Pat’s look like a temporary gingerbread building.

Since The Church is built with Christ as the Cornerstone, on the Rock of Peter, held together by the mortar of the Sacraments, and paid for with the blood of martyrs, our church buildings should express no less.

And?

Fashions change. The faith does not. Churches can certainly be made with modern materials, and architecture is an ever-evolving art. But when that art fails to accommplish its goals, we need not accept unsuitable church buildings under the excuse of “times change”

What you don’t see to grasp is that your personal taste (or Rose’s) is not the arbiter of what is good and what is bad architecture…

 

[Chuy]

The Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament was built less than ten years ago, and it has inspired similar projects around the country. Here in the pagan Pacific Northwest where Catholics number around 5-7% of the population, they’re still building (with a couple of exceptions) ugly new churches with stark, undecorated sanctuaries that look like semicircular parliament chambers. Interestingly, when people want to get married, they seek out what few neo-Gothic churches we have left. Architecture is a form of evangelism: does a church building try to honor God or its architect? To quote from the movie, “if you build it, they will come.”

While I sorta like the exterior and plaza (very Assisi/Franciscan) from what I have seen on TV and on the web, the interior is a bad example of what’s known as “catalog design.”

Just order a bunch of catalogs and order the most expensive of everything, even if the stuff is ugly or doesn’t go together. The result is a very disjointed, garish look.

It might look better in person. Hopefully it does.

Around here when people get married, they seek out one of the California Missions – extremely simple (and beautiful) structures.

 

[Chuy]

The difference is that there are objective and subjective reasons for declaring architecture bad. Yes, it can be objective. Many modern buildings, by their very purpose and intent, are opposed to Catholic worship, because they are designed to enhance the harsh angles of shadow, the sterile minimalism, and a sense of ‘oneness’ for the congregation. Among churches, even those of the traditional stripe, there are some that I don’t like. Examples would be some of the really gaudy baroque churches in Germany, or the common Romanesque styles of Italy. Just because i dislike them, however, does not blind me to the fact that they are fine pieces of architecture, worthy of housing the literal flesh of the Son of God. The focus of the design is to draw people’s minds and hearts to God, not to express a 60’s hippie or postmodern philosophy. I agree that some would reject the new no matter what it looked like, but it is entirely possible that modern design principles could be used to create a new architectural style that was worthy of Catholic churches. I probably would not like it, seeing as how I prefer the warmth of high Gothic cathedrals, but if the design objectively focused on promoting proper and good worship of the congregation, the emphasis on God, it is not anyone’s place to criticise how this is done. Modern churches simply do not do this, however.

I stopped reading after your “60’s hippie” comment.

This is untrue. Many of the new classical revival churches had similar buildings costs to modern buildings.

There are MANY buildings like this being constructed in the modern world. Google ‘Thomas Aquinas college Holy Trinity Chapel’ or the new shrine in the archdiocese of st louis. Also, the Kennerick-Glennon seminary has been renovated in the Gothic style. The sShrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament(The EWTN church) was built only decades ago. It is possible, very possible, and cost effective.

You are wrong.

The great basilicas and cathedral of Rome, Hagia Sophia and other gorgeous and timeless buildings would be in the billions today. Heck, even Yankee Stadium II was 1.25 BILLION.

Those gingerbread gothics would be more than $500M. I doubt St. Pats could be build (in NYC) for $500M today. I read a report one time that when it was built (when building was cheaper and easier) it still cost the equivalent of $275M

EWTN’s shrine was not built long ago. It was completed within the last 5-10 years.

OLAC on the other hand was $190M – with more than a third of that going for extreme seismic considerations.

I have been to Thomas Aquinas College’s chapel. Nice but nothing earth-shaking to me – in design or size.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I stopped reading after your “60’s hippie” comment.

You are wrong.

The great basilicas and cathedral of Rome, Hagia Sophia and other gorgeous and timeless buildings would be in the billions today. Heck, even Yankee Stadium II was 1.25 BILLION.

Those gingerbread gothics would be more than $500M. I doubt St. Pats could be build (in NYC) for $500M today. I read a report one time that when it was built (when building was cheaper and easier) it still cost the equivalent of $275M

EWTN’s shrine was not built long ago. It was completed within the last 5-10 years.

OLAC on the other hand was $190M – with more than a third of that going for extreme seismic considerations.

I have been to Thomas Aquinas College’s chapel. Nice but nothing earth-shaking to me – in design or size.

Ok. So, even then, presuming they cost more. In America alone, we have 60 million Catholics. We are the richest we have EVER been in history, in terms of monetary value.

For example, the Basilica of St. Josaphat in Milwaukee, WI was built by Polish immigrants. Literally. They, the average-churchgoer built it. They hired an architect and builder, and the builder told the parishioners how to construct it. That was in 1901 - when the USA hardly had any strong Unions, workers worked longer hours, and people had 8 kids and lived in tiny houses. To say that we cannot build these beautiful churches is a LIE.

(paragraph break, because the Basilica does not deserve the insult of being in the same paragraph as the cathedral below)

That Mahoney cube thing in LA could have been far far more beautiful for the exact same cost. Nothing prevents the building of beautiful churches, aside from horrendous architects, and stupid bishops/priests.

PS - The renovation of the Basilica, although done in Milwaukee, was done tastefully, and it seems that the altars were preserved. I highly recommend a visit if you’re in my beautiful hometown!

 

[FrDavid96]

You’re wrong. While that is a quality that is certainly appreciated it is not the primary function of a church building. Its primary function is to facilitate people in receiving the sacraments of the church.

I think in many cases it’s the cry of those who do not understand design/architecture nor the history of either one. As far as Rose’s polemical work, I don’t take it seriously given his own background and the audience he panders to.

Oh? Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles excels in all three of your measures yet people like you decry its existence.

Where is this written?

You’re simply mistaken. While I don’t think there is anything sacred about your three chosen measures, both OLAC in LA and the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland excel in all three. The massive concrete OLAC makes St. Pat’s look like a temporary gingerbread building.

And?

What you don’t see to grasp is that your personal taste (or Rose’s) is not the arbiter of what is good and what is bad architecture…

One at a time:
No, I am not mistaken. I said that the function of a Church is to testify to the Glory of God and to in fact be the place that houses that reality. The faith of the community is likewise an essential element of a church building. The cathedral of St. Basil in Moscow and the church of Hagio Sophia ceased to be places of worship and therefore ceased to be Churches. They became museum pieces without a worshiping community. That element can be restored, however. At the same time, it is a fallacy to say that a church is merely a structure to provide shelter from the elements. In order to facilitate people receiving the Sacraments, they should be rightly disposed. A proper atmosphere is (not absolutely necessary in the strictest sense) but still important to place people in the right sense of mind to receive the Sacraments and to worship.

The problem is not that theologians do not understand architecture, but rather than architects do not understand the theology or liturgy of the Church, or they choose to ignore these. Form follows function. Without an understanding of the function, or with a false sense of that function, the result is an inadequate church building.

I haven’t been to the LA cathedral, but I have seen photos. The building could easily be turned into a warehouse and few people would know the difference. The inside of the building (in the photos I’ve seen) is a vast emptiness.

Whether you admit it or not, the 3 elements articulated by Michael Rose are in fact found always found in Catholic churches until modern times. They do so in different ways. The spires and pointed arches of Gothic architecture are by no means the only way of expressing verticallity, but this does not change the fact that a sense of looking upward to God is a necessary element, regardless of how that’s expressed.

You’re wrong to assume that I’m trying to advance my personal tastes. That’s not at all the case. Style and materials, etc. may (and certainly do) change. In fact, they must change. It is entirely possible to have a modern form of architecture that beautifully expresses the reality of a church building. I have seen a few in my days.

The problem with the majority of “modern” churches is that they are built around certain fallacies:

1. The church is only a shelter from the elements
2. The church is only the people gathered, and the building is irrelevant (that leads to the sense of utter emptiness when it is not “occupied” by the congregation)
3. The church should be devoid of all but the most minimal iconography (I once heard someone say that Vatican II required that there be no more than 1 statue in any church)

There is an unfortunate trend in modern architecture to place the Sanctuary below the level of the congregation–based apparently on the theory that a church should resemble a theatre. This misunderstanding causes us to look down upon God, to place ourselves above Him. Is this not a problem? Form follows function. If we are called to be humble before God, should we not then be looking up at Him rather than down?

You make a point of saying that requiring the 3 elements is wrong, yet you say nothing to dispute them. Please articulate just why these elements are not necessary. I’m listening, and I’m willing to hear what you have to say.

What do you think constitutes a proper church building? I’m most curious to know.

Finally, let me express that I have nothing against modern architecture itself, my complaint is only in the form that it takes (in most cases). I look forward to new architectural forms, but I think that Catholics have a right to buildings which adequately express the fact that we look up to God, we are a sacramental people who are part of the Church both on earth and in Heaven, and our faith is solid and permanent. Catholics are often asked to pay for and to maintain church buildings. They should be getting their money’s worth.

 

[Chuy]

Ok. So, even then, presuming they cost more. In America alone, we have 60 million Catholics. We are the richest we have EVER been in history, in terms of monetary value.

So?

What percentage of those 60M+ are active? What percentage actually attend Mass? How much do we give per person on average? Nothing so far…

For example, the Basilica of St. Josaphat in Milwaukee, WI was built by Polish immigrants. Literally. They, the average-churchgoer built it. They hired an architect and builder, and the builder told the parishioners how to construct it. That was in 1901 - when the USA hardly had any strong Unions, workers worked longer hours, and people had 8 kids and lived in tiny houses. To say that we cannot build these beautiful churches is a LIE.

I am very aware of St. Josephat’s. What’s your point? In no way is St. Josephat’s the same caliber as the Bourges Cathedral Before you suggest other people are lying, recall what I originally said:
*“Catholics also aren’t big givers and I think in some cases that strongly influences what is built today. Just imagine how much the construction and maintenance costs are on the structure you posted pictures of. In fact, NO buildings like that are built in the free world anymore because the billion(s) required are no longer being collected…”
*

That Mahoney cube thing in LA could have been far far more beautiful for the exact same cost. Nothing prevents the building of beautiful churches, aside from horrendous architects, and stupid bishops/priests.

Don’t be ridiculous. It may have been more “beautiful” based on your personal tastes, but you’re not the arbiter of what is beautiful and what is not. Think about it – it’s laughably ignorant to make such a comment.

PS - The renovation of the Basilica, although done in Milwaukee, was done tastefully, and it seems that the altars were preserved. I highly recommend a visit if you’re in my beautiful hometown!

I’ve been to the basilica. Too bad all major church renovations don’t go so swimmingly in Milwaukee…

I’ll bet you have never been to OLAC however. Most people who have don’t make such comments about it.

 

[Chuy]

One at a time:
No, I am not mistaken. I said that the function of a Church is to testify to the Glory of God and to in fact be the place that houses that reality. The faith of the community is likewise an essential element of a church building. The cathedral of St. Basil in Moscow and the church of Hagio Sophia ceased to be places of worship and therefore ceased to be Churches. They became museum pieces without a worshiping community. That element can be restored, however. At the same time, it is a fallacy to say that a church is merely a structure to provide shelter from the elements. In order to facilitate people receiving the Sacraments, they should be rightly disposed. A proper atmosphere is (not absolutely necessary in the strictest sense) but still important to place people in the right sense of mind to receive the Sacraments and to worship.

The function of a church is not “is to testify to the Glory of God.” It is to facilitate the celebration of the sacraments, most specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The problem is not that theologians do not understand architecture, but rather than architects do not understand the theology or liturgy of the Church, or they choose to ignore these. Form follows function. Without an understanding of the function, or with a false sense of that function, the result is an inadequate church building.

So you say. I think Dr. Moneo clearly has a profound understanding of the Mass and the Church to create what he did. Having never visited OLAC you wouldn’t know of course.

I haven’t been to the LA cathedral, but I have seen photos. The building could easily be turned into a warehouse and few people would know the difference. The inside of the building (in the photos I’ve seen) is a vast emptiness.

Say no more. Once someone admits to that, the rest of their comments are noise when it comes to OLAC.

Whether you admit it or not, the 3 elements articulated by Michael Rose are in fact found always found in Catholic churches until modern times. They do so in different ways. The spires and pointed arches of Gothic architecture are by no means the only way of expressing verticallity, but this does not change the fact that a sense of looking upward to God is a necessary element, regardless of how that’s expressed.

I won’t discuss Mike Rose’s work. He’s a book keeper who writes reductionist polemics aimed at the sort of people I work to avoid.

Nevertheless, those 3 elements are present in OLAC…

You’re wrong to assume that I’m trying to advance my personal tastes. That’s not at all the case. Style and materials, etc. may (and certainly do) change. In fact, they must change. It is entirely possible to have a modern form of architecture that beautifully expresses the reality of a church building. I have seen a few in my days.

So? Thus far you have done nothing buy give your personal opinion of what is good and what is bad.

The problem with the majority of “modern” churches is that they are built around certain fallacies:

1. The church is only a shelter from the elements
2. The church is only the people gathered, and the building is irrelevant (that leads to the sense of utter emptiness when it is not “occupied” by the congregation)
3. The church should be devoid of all but the most minimal iconography (I once heard someone say that Vatican II required that there be no more than 1 statue in any church)

Again, so you so. Any proof to support your assertions?

What I will say that is that there are things more important than the building – namely the Blessed Sacrament, the faithful and most importantly the representation of the Ultimate Sacrifice at Calvary.

There is an unfortunate trend in modern architecture to place the Sanctuary below the level of the congregation–based apparently on the theory that a church should resemble a theatre. This misunderstanding causes us to look down upon God, to place ourselves above Him. Is this not a problem? Form follows function. If we are called to be humble before God, should we not then be looking up at Him rather than down?

You seem to have reached a false conclusion. Perhaps the conclusion you wanted to reach?

I think the gently sloped floors of OLAC are wonderful. They give a wonderful view of the altar with absolutely zero area/lecture hall feel. Yes, I find a clear view of the sanctuary/altar to be an extremely big plus in church design.

You make a point of saying that requiring the 3 elements is wrong, yet you say nothing to dispute them. Please articulate just why these elements are not necessary. I’m listening, and I’m willing to hear what you have to say.

And you do nothing to prove your personal tastes. What I do find odd is the OLAC absolutely excels at these three qualities (by any unbiased measure) yet you denigrate the structure. Why?

What do you think constitutes a proper church building? I’m most curious to know.

Finally, let me express that I have nothing against modern architecture itself, my complaint is only in the form that it takes (in most cases). I look forward to new architectural forms, but I think that Catholics have a right to buildings which adequately express the fact that we look up to God, we are a sacramental people who are part of the Church both on earth and in Heaven, and our faith is solid and permanent. Catholics are often asked to pay for and to maintain church buildings. They should be getting their money’s worth.

Ummm, ok…

 

[FrDavid96]

The function of a church is not “is to testify to the Glory of God.” It is to facilitate the celebration of the sacraments, most specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

So you say. I think Dr. Moneo clearly has a profound understanding of the Mass and the Church to create what he did. Having never visited OLAC you wouldn’t know of course.

Say no more. Once someone admits to that, the rest of their comments are noise when it comes to OLAC.

I won’t discuss Mike Rose’s work. He’s a book keeper who writes reductionist polemics aimed at the sort of people I work to avoid.

Nevertheless, those 3 elements are present in OLAC…

So? Thus far you have done nothing buy give your personal opinion of what is good and what is bad.

Again, so you so. Any proof to support your assertions?

What I will say that is that there are things more important than the building – namely the Blessed Sacrament, the faithful and most importantly the representation of the Ultimate Sacrifice at Calvary.

You seem to have reached a false conclusion. Perhaps the conclusion you wanted to reach?

I think the gently sloped floors of OLAC are wonderful. They give a wonderful view of the altar with absolutely zero area/lecture hall feel. Yes, I find a clear view of the sanctuary/altar to be an extremely big plus in church design.

And you do nothing to prove your personal tastes. What I do find odd is the OLAC absolutely excels at these three qualities (by any unbiased measure) yet you denigrate the structure. Why?

Ummm, ok…

As for the function of a Church. Yes the Mass is a primary function. I certainly said as much, but in different words, and in an expanded way. That doesn’t change the fact that a church is also “the house of God.” Saying that it is the place for Mass (& indeed the othe Sacraments) and that it is the House of God are in fact, saying the same thing. We cannot seperate the two.

I’ve never been to the North Pole either, but I understand it’s pretty cold. Perhaps you’ll tell me that I’m reaching a false conclusion on that as well?

I just visited the cathedral’s own website to view the photos. I take back, rescind, and most of all regret my earlier comment that it could be mistaken for a warehouse from the outside. My apologies to warehouses.

Until now, I have not given my “personal opinion” on what is good or bad. I have made objective observations about what is appropriate or inappropriate. There are styles of traditional architecture which I personally don’t like (Romanesque and Baroque for example), yet I have no objection to them. My personal favorite is Gothic, but I would (probably) find it utterly out-of-place in say a small southwestern town where Spanish Mission might be a good choice. I have been to St. Peters in Rome. Personally, I didn’t like it. I appreciated, and admired it. It is beautiful and awe-inspiring, but I didn’t like it. That doesn’t mean that I think it’s a bad design for a church. Likewise, the fact that I don’t like the looks of the LA cathedral is not my reasoning behind saying that it is a bad design for a church.

I am perfectly open to new, even yet unimagined, styles of Church design. I look forward to them. I embrace them. I have said as much in earlier posts, but I’ll repeat that here nonetheless. But at the same time, I will continue to hold to the principle that a Church building must express the realities of the faith (verticallity, sanctity, and permanence).

To answer your last question, here are my “problems” with the LA cathedral:

1. It does not look like a church. Yes, that’s sentiment, I admit it. But it’s not entirely so. Except for the cross in front, the building looks like it might house anything large. It doesn’t say to the passerby “this is the house of God.” Rather it seems to intentionally evoke a lack of purpose.
2. The outside looks “unfinished” and not in a positive way. It doesn’t look like a “work in progress” which the Church is until the end-of-time (which might be a theme worth pursuing). I can’t decide between saying that there seems to be pieces missing, or there seems to be extra pieces that have yet to be removed.
3. It is lacking in any sense of order and/or balance. The building evokes thoughts of chaos, lack of planning, uncertainty. Those are not what we should be thinking when we think of the Church founded by Christ, Logos.
4. Instead of appearing welcoming, it looks, well, “freightening” It makes me think that if I went in, it might collapse on top of me. The Church in the spiritual sense, provides shelter. That’s not the impression I get from the building.
5. The door on the side reminds me of a subway entrance with the stairs going in the wrong direction. It looks like it is swallowing the worshippers. The location of the door on the side rather than the middle has a two-fold effect. One doesn’t know if he is in fact looking at the front of the building (or the back, or the side), and it doesn’t appear to belong “to” the building. It could just as easily serve as the entrance to the parking garage. One can never be sure.
6. It lacks a sense of permanence. And yes, I mean that objectively. Instead of evoking the idea that the faith has been around for 2000 years, and will be until the end of time, it looks more like an archeological dig gone sour. Keep digging and you might find some long dead, long forgotten religion, but whatever used to be here, it has long since fled.
   That’s jus the outside.

 

[rjs1]

The Orthodox have strong views on changing the liturgy and changing the design of churches because they see both as expressions of the unchanging truths of a constant God.

Many modern church buildings express a humanist, agnostic philosophy.

Fr David is completely correct that one of the functions of the Church building is to lift the heart heavenward, to glorify God. The ancient church design was based on the temple of the Old Testament with its Holy of Holies, which in the New Covenant is where the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered.

Writers for Catholic Answers have explained how the church and the celebration of mass reflect the court of Heaven where the Lamb is constantly shown and intercedes for mankind.

The medieval churches illustrate this beauitifully.

Too many of the modern churches say the exact opposite.

 

[Chuy]

The Orthodox have strong views on changing the liturgy and changing the design of churches because they see both as expressions of the unchanging truths of a constant God.

Many modern church buildings express a humanist, agnostic philosophy.

Fr David is completely correct that one of the functions of the Church building is to lift the heart heavenward, to glorify God. The ancient church design was based on the temple of the Old Testament with its Holy of Holies, which in the New Covenant is where the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered.

Writers for Catholic Answers have explained how the church and the celebration of mass reflect the court of Heaven where the Lamb is constantly shown and intercedes for mankind.

The medieval churches illustrate this beauitifully.

Too many of the modern churches say the exact opposite.

I think there is a high level of ignorance and outright bigotry when it comes to church architecture. OLAC is a prime example. Given it’s location in Downtown LA, replicating St. Pat’s would have looked ridiculous. Sadly that’s just what some were praying for. Thank God their prayers were not answered.

OLAC subordinates itself to the sacraments of the Church – most especially the Mass itself. The use of natural light at OLAC is unmatched. The entrance ambulatory which seems rather far-fetched on paper does work – to helps people make that often difficult transition from the secular to the holy.

The altar, pipe organ, pa system, tapestries, pews, floor, baptismal font, etc. are all magnificent. But they are not garish or needlessly busy. Rather than call attention to themselves they quietly support whatever sacrament is being celebrated within its confines.

The architect simply got too many things right when it comes to OLAC to dismiss it as some do – typically those who have never visited the place.

I hope such get a chance to visit the structure someday and take in a few Masses over a few days. Only then will their opinions mean anything to me – or a great many others.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I think there is a high level of ignorance and outright bigotry when it comes to church architecture. OLAC is a prime example. Given it’s location in Downtown LA, replicating St. Pat’s would have looked ridiculous. Sadly that’s just what some were praying for. Thank God their prayers were not answered.

OLAC subordinates itself to the sacraments of the Church – most especially the Mass itself. The use of natural light at OLAC is unmatched. The entrance ambulatory which seems rather far-fetched on paper does work – to helps people make that often difficult transition from the secular to the holy.

The altar, pipe organ, pa system, tapestries, pews, floor, baptismal font, etc. are all magnificent. But they are not garish or needlessly busy. Rather than call attention to themselves they quietly support whatever sacrament is being celebrated within its confines.

The architect simply got too many things right when it comes to OLAC to dismiss it as some do – typically those who have never visited the place.

I hope such get a chance to visit the structure someday and take in a few Masses over a few days. Only then will their opinions mean anything to me – or a great many others.

Alright, i googled the OLAC.

I came up with this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Virgin_Mary_by_Robert_Graham.jpg

That’s the Virgin Mary? The role model for all womanhood? I’m not even positive the model for that statue WAS a woman. Give me May dressed in blue ANYDAY over this.

And then I got this:
catholictoledo.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-lady-of-angels-cathedral-los.html

It’s big, I’ll give you that. But so is the Cathedral in Cologne, and you can tell, without hesitation that the Cathedral in Cologne is a Cathedral. I’m not even sure where the sanctuary is.

OLAC may have its pros, but the pro “Looks like an authentic Catholic church” is not one of them.

And, no, I shall not be taking myself across the country to see this. I (with few exceptions) don’t even agree to go inside St. John the Evangelist in Milwaukee, because of what [edited] Weakland did to it.

And re: your response on beauty, at least there is artwork to JUDGE inside the Basilica. The interior is practically COVERED with artwork. All I see on the inside of OLAC is the background to CAF’s website - ****** modern liturgical bland. And the people that go to OLAC are the people who want to see that kind of ugly building anyways.

Plus, it was a crime what Weakland did to the Cathedral. An insult and a black eye to any church-going Catholic who has even a semblance of obedience to Church doctrine.

And finally, they spent $250 million making a big, empty, bland cube. They could have renovated St. Vibiana’s, or they could’ve put some art in. But no, they built, as one of those commenters on the blog I posted stated, a glorified train station, or as the other poster said, a warehouse (but of course, at least warehouses don’t lie about what they are trying to do).

[edited]

 

[Chuy]

…But no, they built, as one of those commenters on the blog I posted stated, a glorified train station, or as the other poster said, a warehouse (but of course, at least warehouses don’t lie about what they are trying to do).
**
Chuy, are you even Catholic?**

Take your insult elsewhere. I’m certainly not going to respond to that sorta disingenuous garbage or the rest that comes with it.