Why aren’t Catholic Churches as ornate as Orthodox/Byzantine churches?

[PennyinCanada]

I think that instead of seeing icons and statues as decorations, they should be seen as visual catechism. Children take in all these images while looking around in church.

We are absolutely bombarded with images 7 days a week from the world. It’s a beautiful thing to come into the church and find images of the Gospels, the saints, our Lord. Plus the smell of candles and incense. It all helps to prepare our minds and hearts to enter into the mystery of our salvation.

One Byzantine church we visit out of town has statues of angels blowing trumpets outside as you come up the stairs. There is an angel holding a seashell of blessed water when you come in. At the tabernacle there is an angel on each side kneeling with their head down holding a ‘torch’ of lights and 2 other angels also holding a torch of lights. All of these things helps us to leave our cares on the altar and think of heavenly things.

Here are a few thumbnail photos if you want to have a look…
http://www.immaculate.ca/Photos/A Coutu Photos/A Coutu Thumbnails.htm

 

[babochka]

One Byzantine church we visit out of town has statues of angels blowing trumpets outside as you come up the stairs. There is an angel holding a seashell of blessed water when you come in. At the tabernacle there is an angel on each side kneeling with their head down holding a ‘torch’ of lights and 2 other angels also holding a torch of lights. All of these things helps us to leave our cares on the altar and think of heavenly things.

Here are a few thumbnail photos if you want to have a look…
http://www.immaculate.ca/Photos/A Coutu Photos/A Coutu Thumbnails.htm

This is a beautiful church, but I had to look it up to verify that it is, indeed, Byzantine (Ukrainian). It is nearly impossible to tell from the look of it, with all the statues, stations of the cross, etc.

(The pictures hardly do it justice! The exterior and grounds are also stunning.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know they are out there because there have been some magnificent churches build in the last few years, but I wonder how difficult it is to find an architect who has the vision to design an ornate church? It’s all part of the expense.

It’s hard to find an architect who knows his stuff. I had a brief experience with that. Our parish inherited a significant amount of money. The question was whether to spend it on a sort of parish social center or on the church itself.

I favored the latter, and got a promise of help from two architects of national repute who offered to do it on a budgeted scale, who are skilled in utilizing new materials in traditional (but not quite “old”) ways. One of them, unfortunately has died since, but the other one is still in the business.

The one who died is Henry Menzies. I think his site is now down. The other is Duncan Stroick. Take a look below. Again, you’ll notice he does not replicate 19th century architecture or from any period particularly, but he does use traditional themes. Much of his materials are modern materials that are far cheaper than the “real thing”.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=stroik+architect&qpvt=stroik+architect&FORM=IGRE

Like a fool, I offered to pay the fee of either of them, but was turned down (lucky) in favor of the adult recreation building which, of course, was modernistic and ugly. But I will say the Knights, who have their fish fries there, do a good job on the fish!

But beauty is not always expensive. Henry Menzies (God rest his soul) was a sort of retrofit specialist. He would take an ugly “modern” church and turn it into a thing of art. Stroick sometimes does the same thing, but he does a lot of total builds.

Parishioners (and the priests) need to WANT beautiful and inspiring structures.

 

[otjm]

The two Churches come from different cultures.

 

[phil19034]

Peeps:

Money.

Ornateness costs lots of money.

I know they are out there because there have been some magnificent churches build in the last few years, but I wonder how difficult it is to find an architect who has the vision to design an ornate church? It’s all part of the expense.

There are now a number of architects & designers who specialize in Catholic Churches, creating some very beautiful ones.

 

[phil19034]

Money.

Ornateness costs lots of money.

I don’t really think that’s it.

I do think there is a perception of cost, but I don’t don’t think money really is the issue.

I think it really has to do with the architects.

After World War II, a minimalistic approach to architecture emerged. Look at high rise buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s. They ugly and bland.

1940s and before, they are beautiful.

Pretty much from the 1950s thru the 1970s, architecture sucked. And while the 1980s and 1990s lead to better looking skyscrapers, smaller buildings were still functional.

I would say that it wasn’t until the 2010s where beauty has started to become king in small buildings.

Also, I would argue that modernist art also plays a role. Modern Art just doesn’t lend itself well to the Church.

Finally, people don’t take the same pride in their Parishes anymore. Not enough people care about having the best looking Parish. When you have a blue collar, working people… they often take pride in what they build. While white collar people often look at dollars. So it no surprise to me that suburban Parishes are often the most ugly. And even worse, when the suburb has a beautiful 1800s Church, but they white wash the inside, painting over all the art and removing all the statues (like they did at the beautiful Church at Villanova University). The outside of that Church is gorgeous, the inside is now hideous.

 

[Rhubarb]

The local Catholic church in my town is super ornate. Full of statues and the Stations of the Cross. There’s a big wooden sculpture of the Blessed Virgin carved with a chainsaw, donated by the family of my 5th grade teacher outside it. It’s easily the most beautiful church I’ve ever been in.

 

[Peeps]

With respect, your dislike of “modernism” in architecture is your personal opinion. It is valid, yes, and you are not doing anything wrong to hold this opinion. But that’s what it is–an opinion.

Many people LOVE modern architecture! in our city, we have some gorgeous buildings and homes that were build using modern architecture, including some church buildings (Protestant).

You say that modernism doesn’t lend itself well to the Church. Well, I don’t agree with that. Modernist art usually doesn’t depict Jesus and His disciples and the Blessed Mother in Renaissance garb–I think that’s kind of weird! Because it isn’t “photographic,” modern art enables us to imagine and picture Jesus’s personhood and His attributes, but not His true-to-life appearance, which no one really can describe with accuracy (although I tend to believe that He looked like the image in the Shroud of Turin).

Again, you may not like it, but it’s not improper.

And frankly, I don’t care in the least about having the best-looking parish! I would like to be known for having the most LOVING parish where Jesus is seen not only in the Blessed Sacrament, but in the lives of the parishioners! I would like my parish to be known as a House of Prayer, where people flock for salvation, education, sanctification, Holy Communion, baptism of children, and finally, a Christian funeral.

And I would also like my parish to be the most physically well-designed building in town–with ecologically and economically-friendly utilities (especially heating and cooling), bathrooms with toilets and sinks that work and that are UPSTAIRS, not down in the basement as they are in so many Catholic parishes!, offices that are inviting and computer-friendly, a sanctuary with adequate pews and comfortable kneelers for even the tallest and smallest people, a library or literature/study room, a gathering place (we called them “fellowship halls” in the Protestant churches, and the one I grew up in had a fireplace!), and lots of classrooms for Bible studies, RCIA, Religious Ed, etc

 

[TomH1]

The cause may be complex but I think that many misinterpreted Vatican II and in a misguided spirit of ‘renewal’ a lot of beauty was ripped out of churches that had it.

Nowadays the trend seems to be a way from decoration and ornateness, smaller altars, fewer (or no statues) and other sacred images.

I do not think finances can be blamed as some have said. Our forebears were not as affluent as we generally are nowadays but managed to build beautiful churches. I think it a great insult to their memory and their contributions to have stripped out the churches they paid to have built.

 

[anon48198893]

Vatican II liberated Byzantine and Eastern Catholic rites from excessive Latinization and encouraged them to recover their authentic traditions. Simultaneously, the Council initiated a modernization program that saw the Catholic liturgy and sanctuary radically transformed. Aggiornamento! Many Roman Catholic churches came to emulate Protestant sanctuaries, with white wall, severely diminished presence of statues, the removal of the tabernacle from the center of the parishes, etc and so forth.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

For Ash Wednesday I attended Mass at the one parish in town that wasn’t “renovated” after Vatican II. It’s just a completely different feeling in that church. So beautiful. Such a sense of peace, and stillness, and reverence. What a tragedy that all that beauty was lost in so many churches in the 1960s and 70s.

 

[tafan2]

few things come to mind:

No one loves traditional churches more than I, and I think it is a great tragedy how many of the old churches were “renovated” and stripped of much of their beauty. This is wrong even from a purely architectural point of view. What other old beautiful buildings are scandalized to make them appear modern? Not very many.

As to the issue of money, I do not buy into that money is the driving factor for lack of beauty in Churches, particularly devotional religious art, stained glass, etc. I base this on several things. Until the mid-20th century, Catholics as a whole in the US were not as wealthy as protestants, they were the latest arrivals on the boats. Yet, the Catholics who were largely working class in the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century build up so much in this country: beautiful churches, schools, hospitals, great universities. Its amazing that a largely immigrant class of people accomplished so much in 100 years. Now we are as wealthy as anyone else in this country and we say we do not have the money? I don’t buy it.
Having been through the complete process of building a new church in a relatively poor parish, I can tell you what the money issue is: people will not give to build something ugly, they will give and give and give to build something beautiful.

As to new churches being built, I actually do not think we should be trying to copy architectural styles from 150-200 years ago and reproduce those churches. Church architecture evolves just like secular architecture does, it always has. So I do not mind a modern architecture church. But we got it so wrong for 40 years, all of the churches built from the 70s through the 90s were downright ugly, and the backlash is that people now want a new church to look like they did 100 years ago. That’s not the right answer either. Fortunately things have improved in churches built the last 10-15 years. A modern style church can be built beautifully, and it can have beautiful religious artwork in it that inspires, educates, focuses our devotions, etc. Unfortunately, there are not that many places in the country that are building new churches as the Church is not growing everywhere. So we are largely left with the early attempts to build modern churches that are great failures.

 

[tafan2]

Another trend that has developed in this part of the country, which I forgot to mention. Churches that were built in the 70s and 80s and 90s are now having millions of dollars spent on being remodeled in an attempt to fix them. This has already happened in 4 parishes in this diocese, and I know of 2 more which are raising a capital campaign to do likewise. It tells you how much we got wrong with respect to church architecture when a parish spends 5 million dollars fixing a church that is only 20 years old (in one case I believe it was only 15 years old).

I will say, the results of the work has been , to varying degrees, rather impressive. Its impossible to fix a church that was completely of the wrong form, but they have been surprisingly successful. The bishop told one pastor, after the work was done: “I did not think anyone could make St XYZ beautiful, but you did”.

 

[twf]

If anyone wants to experience a boatload of ornate Latin churches, just visit Rome. There’s one on every street corner and most are just as ornate as a Byzantine temple.

 

[Ioannes_L]

Many Roman Catholic churches came to emulate Protestant sanctuaries, with white wall, severely diminished presence of statues, the removal of the tabernacle from the center of the parishes, etc and so forth.

Not just Protestant sanctuaries, some churches were and are made in a mix of Protestant and Byzantine style.

 

[Dovekin]

think it is a great tragedy how many of the old churches were “renovated” and stripped of much of their beauty.

Churches that were built in the 70s and 80s and 90s are now having millions of dollars spent on being remodeled in an attempt to fix them…I will say, the results of the work has been , to varying degrees, rather impressive.

What exactly is different about these two situations? In the first it is a “great tragedy” that someone decided to renovate some churches. In the second it is “rather impressive” that someone decided to renovate some churches.

Abbot Suger of St Denis in Paris promoted a movement toward “beautiful churches” 900 years ago that created the Gothic style. Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux at the same time wrote that people should not notice their church surroundings, keeping their eyes to themselves to avoid being tempted by worldly rhings.

We will always have a variety of architectural styles as long as people build churches. All will be loved by some and hated by others. All will be criticized, more unmercifully the more important the Church is. Decadent Baroque decoration is not what everyone wants, nor is Shaker simplicity. I do not think those differences in taste should bring out condemnations or ridicule. I might have to start praising the unadorned Cistercian styles of St Bernard, or the more austere Carthusian styles, if people get too kitschy.

 

[Fets]

I love to hear stories about Churches built in the turn of the century. “This was the Italian parish. It was built mostly by men of this parish.” Lots of the ornate-ness was handcrafted by poor Italian laborers. Yeah, people don’t have craft skills like they used to, but maybe that’s part of the problem.
Anyways, for most of Church history (when Churches were really beautiful), poor people had Churches that were equally beautiful as big Cathedrals, if smaller. I’ve been to small poor Catholic Churches with beautiful buildings, statues, stained glass. And then a big new Church in a rich suburb is attrocious and modern. And nothing about it is distinctly Catholic.

 

[Italia19]

In a way yes I am. Churches are sacred places which should reflect the glory of god and encourage a prayerful mood, the modernistic design of too many Catholic Churches nowadays does not achieve that.

 

[phil19034]

With respect, your dislike of “modernism” in architecture is your personal opinion. It is valid, yes, and you are not doing anything wrong to hold this opinion. But that’s what it is–an opinion.

Many people LOVE modern architecture! in our city, we have some gorgeous buildings and homes that were build using modern architecture, including some church buildings (Protestant).

You say that modernism doesn’t lend itself well to the Church. Well, I don’t agree with that. Modernist art usually doesn’t depict Jesus and His disciples and the Blessed Mother in Renaissance garb–I think that’s kind of weird! Because it isn’t “photographic,” modern art enables us to imagine and picture Jesus’s personhood and His attributes, but not His true-to-life appearance, which no one really can describe with accuracy (although I tend to believe that He looked like the image in the Shroud of Turin).

Again, you may not like it, but it’s not improper.

And frankly, I don’t care in the least about having the best-looking parish! I would like to be known for having the most LOVING parish where Jesus is seen not only in the Blessed Sacrament, but in the lives of the parishioners! I would like my parish to be known as a House of Prayer, where people flock for salvation, education, sanctification, Holy Communion, baptism of children, and finally, a Christian funeral.

And I would also like my parish to be the most physically well-designed building in town–with ecologically and economically-friendly utilities (especially heating and cooling), bathrooms with toilets and sinks that work and that are UPSTAIRS, not down in the basement as they are in so many Catholic parishes!, offices that are inviting and computer-friendly, a sanctuary with adequate pews and comfortable kneelers for even the tallest and smallest people, a library or literature/study room, a gathering place (we called them “fellowship halls” in the Protestant churches, and the one I grew up in had a fireplace!), and lots of classrooms for Bible studies, RCIA, Religious Ed, etc

I think you totally mis-understood me.

Let’s define terms.

The “Modern architecture” I’m talking about was the late 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. In the 1980s started the “post modern” era where there are a TON of beautiful buildings.

The “post modern” era started with skyscrapers first, which are totally breathtaking. But it took a while for it to be applied to the smaller buildings, which is now happening.

Again, I said the new buildings they are building today are gorgeous

The ugly architecture I’m talking about are like this 1951 high rise: Example of building from Facebook

Now, SOME of the office building skyscrapers from that era look a lot better today because they have had a face life with new windows, etc. However, many of the residential buildings have not.

Anyway, it was that type of architecture I was talking about. Not the beautiful buildings being built today.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

All the statues were removed??? WHY???(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)