K
Kielbasi
Guest
Not suprising to me, because Malaysia is officially a Muslim country.
Vatican about to establish commission to discourage ugly churches
- Status
C
centurionguard
Guest
It would seem clearly appearent that many people in the Catholic Church do not even know the meaning of modern architecture or the difference between it and traditional architecture in reference to a church. A simplistic meaning would be that modern emphasizes functional and traditional emphasizes beauty. The reason for the traditional style of architecture in the churches of old was to give the impression of Heaven and the grandeur of God since where God is present all of Heaven is also present.
We know that in the Tabernacle is the same God (Jesus) that is in Heaven and around this Tabernacle is the entire heavenly host including the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why we surround the Tabernacle and the altar with statues of angels and saints. This is why we have stained glass windows up high above to bring in colored lights from on high to symbolize the glory of heaven. This is why we had choir lofts in the high back of the church for the singers and organ, which symbolized the singing of the angels at Mass as we know they do but do not hear them. The altar in the Traditional Catholic Church was placed high up on steps so that we looked up at God and a altar rail, or wall was placed around the altar to show that this was a very sacred and holy ground.
All this beauty, however, did sacrifice comfort as these churches were almost impossible to budget heat or cool and it was extremely expensive. Some of these churches took hundreds of years to build and they were built to last to the end of the world, with walls from one to four feet thick.
Strictly speaking; modern churches put emphasis on the function and not beauty, although modern meddling architects would deny this. Often handicapped by financial restraints, time schedules, modern building methods, material availability, and the very talent of the modern tradesmen, the modern architect become very limited to what can and cannot done. Consider just where one would find the talent today to lay huge stones in an arched ceiling or the sculptures to do large massive statues or the masons to do intricate carvings. One would love to see more of these beautiful churches built but can we wait the 20 to 200 years for them or should we do some compromise as is presently seen in many truly Ugly modern Catholic Churches.
Mammoth and Meaningless: The new ‘church’ at Fatima Fall of 1990
cfnews.org/dia-monument.htm
We know that in the Tabernacle is the same God (Jesus) that is in Heaven and around this Tabernacle is the entire heavenly host including the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why we surround the Tabernacle and the altar with statues of angels and saints. This is why we have stained glass windows up high above to bring in colored lights from on high to symbolize the glory of heaven. This is why we had choir lofts in the high back of the church for the singers and organ, which symbolized the singing of the angels at Mass as we know they do but do not hear them. The altar in the Traditional Catholic Church was placed high up on steps so that we looked up at God and a altar rail, or wall was placed around the altar to show that this was a very sacred and holy ground.
All this beauty, however, did sacrifice comfort as these churches were almost impossible to budget heat or cool and it was extremely expensive. Some of these churches took hundreds of years to build and they were built to last to the end of the world, with walls from one to four feet thick.
Strictly speaking; modern churches put emphasis on the function and not beauty, although modern meddling architects would deny this. Often handicapped by financial restraints, time schedules, modern building methods, material availability, and the very talent of the modern tradesmen, the modern architect become very limited to what can and cannot done. Consider just where one would find the talent today to lay huge stones in an arched ceiling or the sculptures to do large massive statues or the masons to do intricate carvings. One would love to see more of these beautiful churches built but can we wait the 20 to 200 years for them or should we do some compromise as is presently seen in many truly Ugly modern Catholic Churches.
Mammoth and Meaningless: The new ‘church’ at Fatima Fall of 1990
cfnews.org/dia-monument.htm
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Pope doesn’t approve purchases of property. This is a misconception of the authority of the Pope. Property of the diocese belongs to a diocese, and thus only the bishop of the diocese would approve the transaction. Unless of course money if is coming from the Vatican, that is the only time anyone from the Vatican will have a say on the transaction.
M
manualman
Guest
You guys don’t know any architects, do you? 
Other than a few enormously inflated egos out there, most architects are desperately in tune with the goals and desires of their client. It is quite simply not an accident that catholic churches built in the last 60 years have been radically different than those that came before. There was a concerted effort and direction GIVEN to architects that changed.
They were directed to re-orient the seating so that the people saw as much of each other as they did the altar. They were directed to remove vertical visual orientations that historically directed the eyes upwards and instead to retain people’s eyes on other parishioners. They were instructed to de-emphasize any sense of separation between the parishioners and the altar. They were instructed to divorce the tabernacle from the altar and move the tabernacle to a place less centrally focused upon. They were instructed to cease placing the choir in an invisible location and move them to a place where they could conduct visible performances.
These changes did not and could not have happened so universally among so many different architects unless there was a driving force. Somebody drove this bus. I smell a conspiracy.
Other than a few enormously inflated egos out there, most architects are desperately in tune with the goals and desires of their client. It is quite simply not an accident that catholic churches built in the last 60 years have been radically different than those that came before. There was a concerted effort and direction GIVEN to architects that changed.
They were directed to re-orient the seating so that the people saw as much of each other as they did the altar. They were directed to remove vertical visual orientations that historically directed the eyes upwards and instead to retain people’s eyes on other parishioners. They were instructed to de-emphasize any sense of separation between the parishioners and the altar. They were instructed to divorce the tabernacle from the altar and move the tabernacle to a place less centrally focused upon. They were instructed to cease placing the choir in an invisible location and move them to a place where they could conduct visible performances.
These changes did not and could not have happened so universally among so many different architects unless there was a driving force. Somebody drove this bus. I smell a conspiracy.
M
manualman
Guest
A short google search reveals the usual suspects.
Here’s an old article on the subject using retired bishop Rembert Weakland’s cathedral as the poster child of what is wrong nowadays in church architecture.
old.nationalreview.com/weekend/architecture/architecture-spencer082501.shtml
Here’s an old article on the subject using retired bishop Rembert Weakland’s cathedral as the poster child of what is wrong nowadays in church architecture.
old.nationalreview.com/weekend/architecture/architecture-spencer082501.shtml
C
centurionguard
Guest
It would evidently seem clear proponents in the Church have forgotten **The Three Natural Laws of Catholic Church Architecture ** pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/11/three-natural-laws-of-catholic-church.htmlYou guys don’t know any architects, do you?
Other than a few enormously inflated egos out there, most architects are desperately in tune with the goals and desires of their client. It is quite simply not an accident that catholic churches built in the last 60 years have been radically different than those that came before. There was a concerted effort and direction GIVEN to architects that changed.
They were directed to re-orient the seating so that the people saw as much of each other as they did the altar. They were directed to remove vertical visual orientations that historically directed the eyes upwards and instead to retain people’s eyes on other parishioners. They were instructed to de-emphasize any sense of separation between the parishioners and the altar. They were instructed to divorce the tabernacle from the altar and move the tabernacle to a place less centrally focused upon. They were instructed to cease placing the choir in an invisible location and move them to a place where they could conduct visible performances.
These changes did not and could not have happened so universally among so many different architects unless there was a driving force. Somebody drove this bus. I smell a conspiracy.
three natural laws of church architecture – verticality, permanence, and iconography – transcend the different epochs of Christianity; they are qualities present in all the truly great churches of Christendom. They are the foundation, as it were, on which good church architects build churches that succeed in becoming for their own time and for all generations gates of Heaven and worthy houses of God.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Who hated them? Certainly not the Canterbury pilgrims?
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
While the architecture is equally importaant, and ultimately somewhat more important in that it can not be changed easily once it is built, there is an important point missed in the power of this new commission.
The new commission also is ment to correct improper liturgical music and and the paintings on walls (or lack of them).
Those are in many ways aspects that may be somewhat more meaningful or equally so.
I’ve been in a beautiful romanesque italian church with all the beauty you could imagine and had the displeasure of hearing very banal comtemporary secular type music in it and also having most of the original frescoes removed…
And than I’ve also been in the Eastern Orthodox Church mission located above the pizza hut in a rented 2-story strip mall space and heard the most beautiful music sung by a single cantor and a “home made iconostasis” with hand painted greco-roman sacred art.
The message for me is that it’s not just what you have, it is what you do with it.
People can do great things with something ugly. - they can still enrich the liturgical and spiritual beauty intended by Holy tradition and canons, and over time correct architectural deficiencies
People can also do nothing with a beautiful building - they can destroy the liturgical and spiritual beauty it’s ment to conduct.
What really needs to be stimulated is to do something with what currently exists.
And this is where the real tragedy lies. So much CAN be done with what currently exists.
So much authority exerted by hierarchy and clergy that are ignorant or biased, whether on purpose or accidently - against true representation of beauty. A problem that never developed in the Eastern Catholic and E. Orthodox Churches.
This commission is deeply inspiring - if that is it has real power to correct things. I have a good feeling it actually will have some serious power. The tide may be turning, not just “at the top” but among the Church in general.
The new commission also is ment to correct improper liturgical music and and the paintings on walls (or lack of them).
Those are in many ways aspects that may be somewhat more meaningful or equally so.
I’ve been in a beautiful romanesque italian church with all the beauty you could imagine and had the displeasure of hearing very banal comtemporary secular type music in it and also having most of the original frescoes removed…
And than I’ve also been in the Eastern Orthodox Church mission located above the pizza hut in a rented 2-story strip mall space and heard the most beautiful music sung by a single cantor and a “home made iconostasis” with hand painted greco-roman sacred art.
The message for me is that it’s not just what you have, it is what you do with it.
People can do great things with something ugly. - they can still enrich the liturgical and spiritual beauty intended by Holy tradition and canons, and over time correct architectural deficiencies
People can also do nothing with a beautiful building - they can destroy the liturgical and spiritual beauty it’s ment to conduct.
What really needs to be stimulated is to do something with what currently exists.
And this is where the real tragedy lies. So much CAN be done with what currently exists.
So much authority exerted by hierarchy and clergy that are ignorant or biased, whether on purpose or accidently - against true representation of beauty. A problem that never developed in the Eastern Catholic and E. Orthodox Churches.
This commission is deeply inspiring - if that is it has real power to correct things. I have a good feeling it actually will have some serious power. The tide may be turning, not just “at the top” but among the Church in general.
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
Chapel of Sts. Nicholas and Eldrado in the Abbey of Novalesa in Piedmont italy
Not much to look at externally, yet much beauty to see internally.
Oh how times have changed. That is the era to take as inspiration for the present.
Not much to look at externally, yet much beauty to see internally.
Oh how times have changed. That is the era to take as inspiration for the present.
W
Warrenton
Guest
A
andrewstx
Guest
It isn’t neccesary for a church to be expensive to be beautiful.
I think of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco (episcopal).
That church is made of cast concrete mostly for siesmic earthquake reasons. But that made it inexspensive to build, and if you are unaware of the concrete it looks like a beautiful gothic cathedral.
Even though it was built by Anglicans I think it is much prettier than St Mary Catholic cathedral, which locals call the Maytag cathedral.
The original St Marys in Chinatown is the best, but it got too small.
I think of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco (episcopal).
That church is made of cast concrete mostly for siesmic earthquake reasons. But that made it inexspensive to build, and if you are unaware of the concrete it looks like a beautiful gothic cathedral.
Even though it was built by Anglicans I think it is much prettier than St Mary Catholic cathedral, which locals call the Maytag cathedral.
The original St Marys in Chinatown is the best, but it got too small.
- Status