What do you think of my parish's new church design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Filii_Dei said:
The upper half of the interior actually looks quite nice, though it looks more appropriate in a modern museum. A real pity about the chairs though, and what’s that microphone doing in the centre? Reminds me of one of those university forums.

The exterior is just rubbish, is all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What is the matter with the chairs? They work at St. Peters Basilica and they can even be purchased with kneelers. Pews are a relatively late addition to Catholic churches coming from the Anglo arm of the Church.

Certain Orthodox Christians get terribly upset at the existence of pews or chairs (except against the back wall for the old and the ill) because of “tradition.” Almost have to feel sorry for some of them because attending Divine Liturgies in a place like Greece or Russia isn’t always the most wonderful experience in terms of people constantly moving around in the church. If Catholics were to be uber-traditional they would demand bare floors as well.
 
Filii_Dei said:
The upper half of the interior actually looks quite nice, though it looks more appropriate in a modern museum. A real pity about the chairs though, and what’s that microphone doing in the centre? Reminds me of one of those university forums.

The exterior is just rubbish, is all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What kind of church is this?
It is not Catholic, is it?
 
Colt said:
Amen. There is certainly room for comments as far as personally not favoring one design or another but you’re absolutely right. All too often I hear church designs being attacked with comments like “modernist”, “progressive” and “liberal.” Yet if you really question the complainer the diatribes typically distill down personal taste.
Click to expand...
The Church has rules and traditions which guide the design and construction of Churches. Furthermore, churches are meant to be “prayers in stone.” Therefore, when Churches are built in a way which purposefully disregards the rules and traditions of the Church, we can rightly question the theology they are attempting to present. As we all know, the way we pray affects what we believe. So when our “prayers in stone” do not accurately reflect the beliefs of the Church, they run the risk of distorting our teachings and dampening the understanding of the faithful.

There have been throughout history many different styles of Church architecture which accurately reflect Catholic thought. We may have our personal preferences. But our problem with non-traditional churches do not just boil down to personal taste; they boil down to the flawed teaching of the faith such buildings embody.
 
Filii_Dei said:
The first floor plan is definitely questionable. Slanted pews will give the poor parishoners a neckache and a great deal of disorientation. I would have no issues with it if it were in a circular church like the Pantheon, but this isn’t a circular church! There’s no need to slant the pews. 🤷

Apart from the disgraceful pews and east end walls, though, I would refrain from calling the first floor plan ‘modern’ without any description of the rest of the building. Did you know some of the earliest and most beautiful churches were in a basilica layout? 😉 In any case, I’m not an ardent supporter of the basilica layout for new parishes. When celebrated versus populum, it makes the mass look a bit like a performance on a stage in a school hall, although it makes more sense when you’re celebrating ad orientem.

The second floor plan, however, does well for me. For a choir loft to work out, there must be a good high ceiling. Like the others, though, I do have an issue with the altar being so far forward. The poor priest will need to trek a long way to get to the altar from his chair. They can certainly afford to push it further back. What I really do like, though, is the allowance they made for further expansion when your parish eventually grow, and I’m sure it will grow when they are gifted with such a beautiful building. Don’t get your hopes up about side chapels though. I don’t see much room in your new parish for them, but I suppose they don’t have much money to go around. 😦

In my worthless opinion, appointments like stained glass windows and murals can wait for later. I take the view that it is more important that a parish with a limited budget should make a good long-term investment in a good floor plan. The roots of the architectural design must be both faithful to tradition and strong in utility. Windows can be replaced any time, but foundations can’t. Though if the stained glass are directly transplanted from the old church, then why not? 😉
Click to expand...
The first floor plan will not be used. It was decided early on that no other plan except cruciform will be used, and that was a very early rendition. Thankfully, things have been… “refined” due to many things since then, and the new (now somewhat old) design is the late-end product so far, and is the design on which the final model mockup was built from, and will most likely be followed as closely as possible when building.

The first design was actually just a transposed cruciform design, though in all actuality the interior itself was just the rectangular part. Basilicas are all good and well, and they work out magnificently well in some churches, but usually end up giving a log schoolhouse feel in many cases.

I would assume that there will be a high ceiling, because a choir loft will, indeed, be included. I am going to mention the sanctuary qualm I have the next time we have a meeting. Perhaps it would even be cheaper to save on marble flooring for the sanctuary and just add a few more pews. There actually is going to be a chapel in the building next to that one.

We already have all of the “pretty” implements, so we’re just going to install them, which I’m very happy with.
Colt said:
Amen. There is certainly room for comments as far as personally not favoring one design or another but you’re absolutely right. All too often I hear church designs being attacked with comments like “modernist”, “progressive” and “liberal.” Yet if you really question the complainer the diatribes typically distill down personal taste.
Click to expand...
However, it seems that those parishes that decide to use flippantly modern architecture do so not to preserve anything, not because they particularly love the airport terminal feel, but because they want to make a political statement. Those “modernist” boxes aren’t exactly cheap, either.
 
Maybe instead of complaining about our churches we should be grateful that we have a church to go and pray in without the fear of it being destroyed or us being persecuted for going there. Just sayin’. :rolleyes:
 
🤷

I think they’re both beautiful… modern looking or old looking.

Either way, it’s all a matter of personal taste. The way some people are talking here, you’d think making a Church that doesn’t look the way you want it to, is a sin or an insult to God or something.

I think bashing Churches for their appearance, and making assumptions about the priests and people who attend “that awful looking thing” is a lot more insulting.

But then again, this is in the traditionalist section… so I guess I’m out of place to say I think both look pretty and to say I think bashing the ones YOU don’t think look pretty is offensive. :rolleyes:
 
Irish_Eyes_826 said:
Maybe instead of complaining about our churches we should be grateful that we have a church to go and pray in without the fear of it being destroyed or us being persecuted for going there. Just sayin’. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hmmm…

I too think that is a WONDERFUL idea. 👍

Anyone else agree?

…Anyone? 🙂
 
Debora123 said:
I don’t understand this thread…

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it kind of… shallow… maybe even offensive to speak so badly about certain Catholic Churches because you think they are ugly? (…Calling a Church “this thing?” Really??) After all, they are the house of God, regardless of whether or not they are of your particular taste or standard of appearance… you’re there to worship God, first and foremost. :confused:

I dunno… there’s just something about throwing around pictures of Catholic Churches and saying “ewww this is UGLY” that doesn’t quite sit right… 🤷
Click to expand...
While I agree with the spirit of your post, the fact is that church architecture has been so bad the past several decades that the Vatican has decided to take action by forming the Liturgical Art and Sacred Music Commission under the Congregation for Divine Worship to instruct dioceses on proper church construction.
Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Benedict XVI, consider this work as “very urgent”. The reality is staring everyone in the eyes: in recent decades, churches have been substituted by buildings that resemble multi purpose halls. Too often, architects, even the more famous ones, do not use the Catholic liturgy as a starting point and thus end up producing avant-garde constructions that look like anything but a church. These buildings composed of cement cubes, glass boxes, crazy shapes and confused spaces, remind people of anything but the mystery and sacredness of a church. Tabernacles are semi hidden, leading faithful on a real treasure hunt and sacred images are almost inexistent. The new commission’s regulations will be written up over the next few days and will give precise instructions to dioceses. It will only be responsible for liturgical art, not for sacred art in general; and this also goes for liturgical music and singing too. The judicial powers of the Congregation for Divine Worship will have the power to act.
Click to expand...
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/architettura-architecture-arquitectura-10121/
 
Debora123 said:
🤷

I think they’re both beautiful… modern looking or old looking.

Either way, it’s all a matter of personal taste. The way some people are talking here, you’d think making a Church that doesn’t look the way you want it to, is a sin or an insult to God or something.

I think bashing Churches for their appearance, and making assumptions about the priests and people who attend “that awful looking thing” is a lot more insulting.

But then again, this is in the traditionalist section… so I guess I’m out of place to say I think both look pretty and to say I think bashing the ones YOU don’t think look pretty is offensive. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
But this isn’t in the traditional Catholicism forum though. It’s in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, and I placed it here for a broader audience.

I don’t think buildings are inherently beautiful just because they’re used as churches. I think that’s silly to say, and overly romantic. If someone does like the modern style of architecture for what it is and also traditional styles for what they are, I think that’s fine, but to say that the qualifier for a building being beautiful is that it is a church is very silly.

We have traditions in church architecture not because we like to preserve old stuff and be vintage, but because they have proven themselves as worthy of conveying the faith as a “prayer in stone,” as mburn puts it. Even considering the Art Deco style, which didn’t come into being until the 1920s (so it isn’t exactly traditional by any means), that is a gorgeous choice for a church. But there is a certain line in popular architecture that was drawn in the 1950s or 1960s that seems to scream, “This is not right for church architecture.”

I like modern architecture. I’d live in a modern or post-modern house, and I think those styles fit very well with museums and malls and civic buildings and whatnot. But not with churches.
 
maber43 said:
Ugh!!! :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Another wrong photo! I don’t understand why you people keep posting the wrong photos! This is obviously a photo of a set from an Indiana Jones movie. I think a big round rock rolled down and almost got Indy in this one.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Another wrong photo! I don’t understand why you people keep posting the wrong photos! This is obviously a photo of a set from an Indiana Jones movie. I think a big round rock rolled down and almost got Indy in this one.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl:

Good one, best response to the HORROR of that “cathedral.” Yes, it really is a cathedral.

Ok, since you liked it so much, here is another angle.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Debora123 said:
Guess not 😃
Click to expand...
I respect the undertone of what you’re saying. I’m not saying we should go around and burn every Catholic church built in a modern style and murder the architects. I just maintain that criticizing a building artistically and criticizing the people inside it are two different arguments.
 
Here is what I posted:
Colt said:
Amen. There is certainly room for comments as far as personally not favoring one design or another but you’re absolutely right. All too often I hear church designs being attacked with comments like “modernist”, “progressive” and “liberal.” Yet if you really question the complainer the diatribes typically distill down personal taste.
Click to expand...
And you replied with:
PrayForMeStJude said:
The Church has rules and traditions which guide the design and construction of Churches. Furthermore, churches are meant to be “prayers in stone.” Therefore, when Churches are built in a way which purposefully disregards the rules and traditions of the Church, we can rightly question the theology they are attempting to present. As we all know, the way we pray affects what we believe. So when our “prayers in stone” do not accurately reflect the beliefs of the Church, they run the risk of distorting our teachings and dampening the understanding of the faithful.
Click to expand...
Like it or not the churches people on these forums loved to attack are typically designed and built well within the guidelines of the Church. That leaves personal taste. While you might not like something, there may be 100 that do. You’re not the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. The Catholic Church is through the teaching magisterium.
PrayForMeStJude said:
There have been throughout history many different styles of Church architecture which accurately reflect Catholic thought. We may have our personal preferences. But our problem with non-traditional churches do not just boil down to personal taste; they boil down to the flawed teaching of the faith such buildings embody.
Click to expand...
“…accurately reflect Catholic thought” according to whom? You? It doesn’t work that way. If the local bishop does approve the design then it effectively does come down to personal taste.
 
The best explanation for much of modern architecture I have ever seen was written by Tom Wolfe. He maintained that most of it is a “conversation among architects”. They are showing each other how innovative they can be. Oh, there are some among the intelligentsia who know the language, but even most of them only pretend to know. The ordinary people who pay for it, of course, hate it, but are expected to “take it like a man.”

Phillistine that I undoubtedly am, I have a lot of trouble seeing it any other way.
 
Gah! It looks mod! D:< OH NO!

Don’t let them ruin another church! Just because it’s after the 60s doesn’t mean to make it look like a plain piece of garbage. wince
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top