J
JReducation
Guest
I’m sorry. I’m not understanding. Can you you elaborate a little. Thanks.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BrokenFortress
Guest
I may be different than some Catholics in that when I moved, I searched out a beautiful church to become a member at. Why? Because as a Protestant, we didn’t have those beautiful churches. I love going to old Cathedrals. I love the history, and the attention to detail that was put into the churches.
The Parish that I now belong to has a relatively new church. I believe it was built in the 90’s. But, it is still beautiful with it’s vaulted ceilings, stained glass and amazing wooden trusses (I think that’s the word…).
But of course there’s nothing wrong with churches that don’t have money for fancy buildings. As what’s important is the presence of Christ.
The Parish that I now belong to has a relatively new church. I believe it was built in the 90’s. But, it is still beautiful with it’s vaulted ceilings, stained glass and amazing wooden trusses (I think that’s the word…).
But of course there’s nothing wrong with churches that don’t have money for fancy buildings. As what’s important is the presence of Christ.
R
reggieM
Guest
An artist, for example, is required by his or her profession to judge the quality of various work, materials, plans. Some are great some are junk. He must evaluate the committment and taste of his patron or sponsor who is commissioning the work. That could be great, well-informed, highly-committed to beauty – or it could be motivated by an agenda (political, social), cheap, lacking taste and entirely domineering but careless towards the output. One should not set out to build without prudently judging the task and the capabilities at hand. One should not engage in business with a person who indicates a lack of trustworthyness.
All of these judgements are necessary.
In the same way, a pastor needs to judge the quality of his flock – as individuals (in the confessional) and as a community. He needs to inspire and encourge them in areas where they need it. Occasionally, he will always need to correct and redirect their focus when it slips.
If he observes, for example, how it seems odd that in 500 familes he only rarely sees a family with more than one child,and he sees 40% of his couples with no children – he needs to make a judgement.
These are not rash judgements. They’re necessary judgements based on the virtue of prudence. Through prudence, we look at reality and analyse it – in order to make good decisions.
If something is bad, we can denounce it.
The problem can be that if any denunciation of bad things (bad quality, bad committment, bad artwork) is automatically categorized as “rash judgement”, then the term “rash” has no meaning. All judgement would be considered “rash” in that case.
But rash judgement means something specific. It means “unconsidered” or “unthinking” or impulsive judgement.
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you for that. Now I understand you and I can agree. On another note, please pray for me. I’m back in the hospital and not doing too well. I’m trying to distract myself with CAF and games.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
reggieM
Guest
I will pray for you Br. JR and ask for graces for a speedy recovery. Thanks for your service to God and to His Church.
L
Layman
Guest
Magnificent churches bypass the need to be able to read, or even hear. You can understand our religion more easily, simply by looking.
They also impress the learned and ignorant alike. They also take you out of the mundane. All good effects.
Makes it easier for the priest to ‘get his message across’, too. They also give glory to God.
People spend 785 quid on a wide-screen TV but how much do they put on the collection plate? Contrast this with cathedrals ‘built by the pennies of the poor’.
Personally, if I were rich, I think I’d build a nice little chapel. I saw a documentary on religion once and saw a few shots of a mosque(?) which had little mirrored disks(?) in the roof. The effect was magnificent.
If you want to save souls I say you should use every means at your disposal. A lot of small effects can lead up to very big ones: the conversion of sinners and the comfort of the pious. **Beautiful churches are, in the end, a cheap and easy way of helping these ends: come inside, and wonder.
**
They also impress the learned and ignorant alike. They also take you out of the mundane. All good effects.
Makes it easier for the priest to ‘get his message across’, too. They also give glory to God.
People spend 785 quid on a wide-screen TV but how much do they put on the collection plate? Contrast this with cathedrals ‘built by the pennies of the poor’.
Personally, if I were rich, I think I’d build a nice little chapel. I saw a documentary on religion once and saw a few shots of a mosque(?) which had little mirrored disks(?) in the roof. The effect was magnificent.
If you want to save souls I say you should use every means at your disposal. A lot of small effects can lead up to very big ones: the conversion of sinners and the comfort of the pious. **Beautiful churches are, in the end, a cheap and easy way of helping these ends: come inside, and wonder.
**
M
manualman
Guest
I can remember many years ago when my parents Milwaukee area parish started planning a totally new church building. It was awful. The architect had absolutely no training or even interest in designing to create a sense of sacred space. The entire focus was on “community”, drawing people together, creating warm gathering space, etc…
It’s not remotely a coincidence that almost EVERY catholic church built in the last 30 years is arranged to have the people looking at each other as much as at the altar. This are explicit architectural goals foisted on us by a small, but seemingly powerful group of litugical architects out there.
It’s not remotely a coincidence that almost EVERY catholic church built in the last 30 years is arranged to have the people looking at each other as much as at the altar. This are explicit architectural goals foisted on us by a small, but seemingly powerful group of litugical architects out there.
J
JReducation
Guest
If you’e referring to round churches, I don’t like them. I do like the semi-circle for a practical reason. In some fo the wider churches where everyone is facing foward, those on the front side aisle, are fasing a wall and can’t properly see the sanctualy or the priest. I like sitting up in the first five rows. And if you sit up that close you need to be in the center or you end up facing a wall, usually with a very nice saint. But it’s still a wall.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
manualman
Guest
Not so much round as “fan shaped.” Even that doesn’t do it justice because a fan shape COULD be well done to clearly establish the altar as the focal point for all.
But no. Instead, the altar is moved so far into the seating area that people are facing each other as much as they are facing the altar. Perhaps its regional, but this is almost universal in the building built around here in my lifetime.
But no. Instead, the altar is moved so far into the seating area that people are facing each other as much as they are facing the altar. Perhaps its regional, but this is almost universal in the building built around here in my lifetime.
J
JReducation
Guest
Oh see, the fan shape does not bother me. When we were in novitiate we were trained not to look up during the liturgy. We only look up during the homility and consecration. I’m not really attentive to the other folks there.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Califman831
Guest
Usually people are oblivious to the fact that post-Vatican II churches are downright ugly. I been down to the basillica of Guadalupe in mexico. The new building is an ugly flying saucer looking tourist attraction, while the old one felt like a real church which glorified God and not the tourists.
J
JReducation
Guest
I have seen the Guadalupe Shrine in Mexico City and I have to admit that it’s not one of my favorite buildings. I don’t think it’s ugly because it’s modern. I think it’s ugly because it just is. LOL. I’ve seen some very modern and beautiful churches. We have a neighboring parish that was just built and it’s beautiful. It’s a very pretty Spanish style on the outside, but a very spacious and bright inside. There is a harmony between the inside and outside.
The problem with the Shrine of Guadalupe is the shape. It does not fit the surroundings. One important thing about architecture is to make sure that you fit your surroundings. I come from a small colonial town in VA. Someone decided to build modern condos on one of the old streets. They’re beautiful inside, but they are an eye sore on a colonial street.
I think that the idea was to build a church that is functional and alllows for the pilgrims to visit at the same time. But it is an eye sore. I have to agree on that. That being said, you can’t beat the devotion that you see in that place. I was moved at a very deep spiritual level to see people crossing the plaza on their knees carrying their sick children.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
davy39
Guest
While on vacation, my wife and I visited the Abbey of Gethsemini at New Haven, Ky. What a beautiful place! It’s quiet and peaceful and has been there for many years. There was no Mass at the time, but we went into the church to pray anyway. A lot of black and white, and very plain inside, but what a holy place. I don’t think it could be any better if it had a bigger, older church. If you’re in the area, pay a visit. It’s worth the trip.
L
Lepanto
Guest
We all know that there are many, many poor places around the world, and what you describe is not unusual.
What many Catholics find discouraging and even highly offensive, however, is when architects and their patrons who actually do have money design the ugliness into the structure from the beginning. In other words, they INTEND to design ugliness. They wouldn’t call it ugly, of course, but that is the result all the same.
Here, for example, is the paragon of ugliness, and all it cost is $200 million:
pixelmap.com/dma_moneo_02.html
That church with the dirt floor that you visited is I’m sure far more charming then that hulking monstrosity in Los Angeles.
Why can’t we have both – the Eucharist AND beautiful churches? We used to!That church was beautiful, the Eucharist was there and that’s all that really mattered.
C
Califman831
Guest
it looks like a computer cpu with a heatsink attached.
J
JReducation
Guest
OK, this one takes the cake as the strangest building that I have ever seen. I have never seen it in real time. I hope it looks better in real life than in pictures.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
Ghoti
Guest
I agree with you there.
A lot of modern architecture is either empty and vapid – either the glass-and-steel box or the suburban bricky strip-mall/power centre look – or it is based on the “vision” of the particular architectural “artiste”, when in fact the only vision that they should have an eye toward is the Beatific.
I think too many times the design of a modern church is about the architect, not the Lord.
R
reggieM
Guest
I lot of dioceses lost sight of the devotional aspects that have to be a part of the church building. In the newer churches in my diocese, it’s very hard to just pray – it’s a barren and awkward-looking space. The LA cathedral is more horrible than I thought – I can’t believe that design was approved. It’s too bad that many beautiful churches are closing down in the Northeast and congregations are growing in the West and South but they have to have newer, ugly buildings. I wish we could move some churches stone-by-stone to the places where there’s a big growth.
O
odopa
Guest
I agree Ghoti.
A church building should be built to capture the serenity that a worshipper seeks; the architecture should portray peace, serenity and calmness on the eyes, enough to attract one to it and when you enter the feeling should continue.
Yet what do we do? we seek and contract the services of famous architect who are connoiseurs in the secular world and who probably have no clue of what a soul would be seeking for in a church. So, we end up with ugly builidings that do not inspire!
odopa
- Status