Why Is Interior Liturgical Architecture So Poor?

[LoyalViews]

How do you see heresy in church architecture, blessed by bishops?

Modernism is an art movement, I am not talking about the heresy.

 

[Stylites]

Please give a citation as to the official source of your supposition that it was God’s Choice that He Jesus our Saviour should be born in the way you describe.

. . . The world might have expected the Son of God to be born in an inn; a stable would certainly be the last place in the world where one would look for him. The lesson is: divinity is always where you least expect to find it. So the Son of God made man is invited to enter into his own world through a back door.

Sure it was His own choice. He could have been born the princely son of King Herod if He wanted to. He could have manifested the first Real Presence in cosmopolitan Rome or Athens if He so chose. He could have just skipped sinful humanity altogether, or secretly come to the least likely of places, a dirty manger, and quietly lived His life in a place where ‘nothing good comes from it.’

 

[Exorcist]

I don’t buy the lack of money conjecture as being the exclusive reason why architecture is poor in a number of increasing modern Catholic Churches.

Over a decade ago I purchased a book entitled “Ugly As Sin” by Catholic journalist Micheal S. Rose. Granted he doesn’t give all the answers but you get a good depiction of how aspects of sacredness in architecture have gradually diminished and watered down from the former beauty of traditional Catholic Churches.
corjesusacratissimum.org/2009/04/book-review-ugly-as-sin-why-they-changed-our-churches-from-sacred-places-to-meeting-spaces-and-how-we-can-change-them-back-again-michael-s-rose/

Part of this IMHO comes from an overall lack of Faith itself. A sense of architectural reverence, awe and sacredness has faded or all together vanished.

Rose’s work is a polemic based on his own tastes and prejudices. His background is finance not architecture and certainly not the liturgy. He clearly does not grasp the fact that older designs WERE limited by available materials and designs.

 

[Exorcist]

Coming from a Protestant background, yes, I would say that I strongly associate circular or semicircular churches with the Evangelical megachurch movement. I recall images of my childhood church which, while not hideous, was nevertheless rather homely and more like an auditorium than a church. I think when a Catholic is an ex-Protestant, he sometimes is very offended when Catholic things “seem” Protestant. I am thankful for my Protestant experience inasmuch as I was brought up with the Christian God. If you have been Catholic all your life and don’t have much experience in Protestant worship spaces, I suggest this might be the reason for your experiences. However, I in no way presume to be an expert on Protestant church architecture; there are many examples which put Catholic churches to shame.

Excellent design is excellent design. Note my design priority again: “…churches should be primarily designed to best facilitate the faithful’s exposure (of all five senses) to the sacrifice taking place atop the altar…” I couldn’t care less if certain design elements seem “Protestant” to some. although I can see how such prejudices would impinge upon church design.

Can you give examples of circular or semicircular churches constructed in the last century that would rival the quality and beauty of a church constructed in a more traditional shape and style? For that matter, can anyone? I am not convinced that there is no example, but I imagine it is hard to build such a structure.

I agree that a rectangular church does not necessarily make a great worship space, but I also think churches in the round generally have much baggage that is difficult to overcome without making an antitradition statement. I do not know of a single example of circular church done in a way that respects the architectural tradition of the Church and is well-conformed to the liturgical traditions and rubrics of the Church.

In Catholic church architecture, I would say the ideas behind forms are often just as important as the end product.

Your “church in the round” = “bad” equation is simply prejudicial. As I said my ideal church would not be a church in the round but there is nothing that says they cannot be beautiful.

One extreme example and one of my all-time favorite churches anywhere is the Basilica of Saint Pious X in Lourdes, France. For its intended function it’s a world class design. In its own way it most certainly is beautiful. Based on the tenor of your comments I suspect you won’t be able to grasp that but you should still make an effort to do so.

Finally, a “church in the round” differs little from a church with a main nave, twin transepts and a presbyterium. Before you retort, stop and think on what I just said.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Excellent design is excellent design. Note my design priority again: “…churches should be primarily designed to best facilitate the faithful’s exposure (of all five senses) to the sacrifice taking place atop the altar…” I couldn’t care less if certain design elements seem “Protestant” to some. although I can see how such prejudices would impinge upon church design.

Your “church in the round” = “bad” equation is simply prejudicial. As I said my ideal church would not be a church in the round but there is nothing that says they cannot be beautiful.

One extreme example and one of my all-time favorite churches anywhere is the Basilica of Saint Pious X in Lourdes, France. For its intended function it’s a world class design. In its own way it most certainly is beautiful. Based on the tenor of your comments I suspect you won’t be able to grasp that but you should still make an effort to do so.

Finally, a “church in the round” differs little from a church with a main nave, twin transepts and a presbyterium. Before you retort, stop and think on what I just said.

I do not think a church in the round is necessarily and absolutely bad. I think they usually are in practice and wonder whether it is worth the effort, money, and wounding common sensibilities as to what Catholic architecture looks like to fix what isn’t broken.

I rather find the Basilica to be like the sad underside of an overpass bridge. The effect of upside down ship’s hull is immediate, however.

 

[centurionguard]

Excellent design is excellent design. Note my design priority again: “…churches should be primarily designed to best facilitate the faithful’s exposure (of all five senses) to the sacrifice taking place atop the altar…” I couldn’t care less if certain design elements seem “Protestant” to some. although I can see how such prejudices would impinge upon church design.

Your “church in the round” = “bad” equation is simply prejudicial. As I said my ideal church would not be a church in the round but there is nothing that says they cannot be beautiful.

One extreme example and one of my all-time favorite churches anywhere is the Basilica of Saint Pious X in Lourdes, France. For its intended function it’s a world class design. In its own way it most certainly is beautiful. Based on the tenor of your comments I suspect you won’t be able to grasp that but you should still make an effort to do so.

Finally, a “church in the round” differs little from a church with a main nave, twin transepts and a presbyterium. Before you retort, stop and think on what I just said.

I find a Catholic Church in round very distracting. Not only does everybody see the Altar in the middle but you see distractions in the congregation face first. Oh look so and so is late again, Oh I think he, she is waving at me. Ugg! I’d do far better attending a Mass in this kind of architecture with eyes closed in meditation during the entire Mass. Opps can’t do that cause someone would think I was sleeping.

 

[CatholicLife]

Here in the Diocese of Phoenix we have the weirdest churches in probably the whole United States! Most of our parishes were built in the 70.s and 80’s and reflect the hideous modern architecture that was popular at the time. Thank God that in the last few years under Bishop Olmsted, we have returned to a more traditional style of church architecture.
St. Margaret Mary Parish was consecrated last year.

 

[tabycat]

I think you are being a bit harsh in your assessment of people who sit in the back of the nave. Often, these are the elderly, and that Long Walk down to the front of the nave is simply too much for them. Watch–you’ll see that the priests or the EMHC bring Holy Communion back to these dear ones.

Some of these same elderly people, as well as many young people, have “elimination” disorders, and may need to make a quick dash for the bathroom–that’s a very common reason for sitting near the back of the nave.

Also, handicapped people tend to sit in the back, or people with injuries. When I had my foot surgeries. I sat in the back to save my energy for the walk to the front to receive Holy Communion.

Another likely possibility is that families with rambunctious young children sit in the back so that they can make repeated trips out to the narthex when the children become restless.

Another possibility is that people who need to leave Mass immediately after it’s completed will sit near the back . Yes, some of these people are just eager to get home to the game. But many have legitimiate reasons for leaving early–a family dinner (if you’re the woman, you may be COOKING that dinner), a job, caring for a loved one who is ill or disabled, providing music for another parish, an appointment, etc. Yes, it would be lovely to have the free time to sit quietly and pray after the Mass, but many people just don’t have that luxury.

Finally, a lot of shy people sit in the back because they don’t want to call attention to themselves by walking down an aisle.

I hope some of my post helps you to see others in a good way.

One of the things that people who are hard of hearing can do is ask the ushers if ear phones or headphones are available. We have a box full of these in our parish, and they make it so much easier to hear the Mass.

:tiphat::harp:

 

[Richard320]

Here in the Diocese of Phoenix we have the weirdest churches in probably the whole United States! Most of our parishes were built in the 70.s and 80’s and reflect the hideous modern architecture that was popular at the time. Thank God that in the last few years under Bishop Olmsted, we have returned to a more traditional style of church architecture.
St. Margaret Mary Parish was consecrated last year.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6257718749_5e66421539_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6039/6257703011_af574b8044_b.jpg

That’s really nice!

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s really nice!

I think so as well. One small point which I think might have not been the best idea, however, is locating the Stations of the Cross so high. Minor quibble!

 

[Stylites]

I find a Catholic Church in round very distracting. Not only does everybody see the Altar in the middle but you see distractions in the congregation face first. Oh look so and so is late again, Oh I think he, she is waving at me. Ugg! I’d do far better attending a Mass in this kind of architecture with eyes closed in meditation during the entire Mass. Opps can’t do that cause someone would think I was sleeping.

Not everyone’s mind is so easily distracted away from God or so quick to judge others so harshly.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not everyone’s mind is so easily distracted away from God or so quick to judge others so harshly.

I think you are being too harsh. I do not see where centurionguard is judging anyone. More than anything else, centurionguard is pointing out a problem that he has, which I imagine many others share.

 

[triumphguy]

News flash: Round Churches aren’t a new or modernist innovation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Temple_Church,_Temple,London_EC4(2).jpeg

 

[YoungTradCath]

News flash: Round Churches aren’t a new or modernist innovation.

From what I can tell, that church is laid out quite straightly:

http://www.insidethedavincicode.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/temple-church-horz.jpg

The modern iteration of round church is usually quite a novelty, I’d say.

 

[triumphguy]

From what I can tell, that church is laid out quite straightly:

http://www.insidethedavincicode.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/temple-church-horz.jpg

The modern iteration of round church is usually quite a novelty, I’d say.

Not in the original medieval round part it isn’t - that nave is a Victorian addition.

BTW notice the pews are all facing in like a choir.

 

[LoyalViews]

Not in the original medieval round part it isn’t - that nave is a Victorian addition.

BTW notice the pews are all facing in like a choir.

Yes, that’s either the “monastic arrangement” or the “choral arrangement” or some other name that I can’t remember.

I like it, and I have seen round churches that are beautiful, though the altar is not in the middle.

 

[Exorcist]

Not everyone’s mind is so easily distracted away from God or so quick to judge others so harshly.

I very much agree and if it’s a problem simply elevate the sanctuary high enough so the faithful cannot see “through” it to the people sitting on the opposite side.

The belief that a church-in-the-round makes people and not Jesus the focus is simply hogwash.

 

[Exorcist]

Here in the Diocese of Phoenix we have the weirdest churches in probably the whole United States! Most of our parishes were built in the 70.s and 80’s and reflect the hideous modern architecture that was popular at the time. Thank God that in the last few years under Bishop Olmsted, we have returned to a more traditional style of church architecture.
St. Margaret Mary Parish was consecrated last year.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6257718749_5e66421539_b.jpg
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6039/6257703011_af574b8044_b.jpg

While I appreciate you sharing this information, this church certainly does little for me. Why the great distance between the altar and the people? It’s almost as if the sanctuary and baldichino was stuffed into a niche/alcove. The style of the pews also looks off with regard to the style of the building.

Can the people seated in the transepts even see the altar? On the left side they clearly have to look past the ambo to see the altar. Just not my thing. The exterior looks nice. Reminds me of the Basilica of San Juan Capistrano here in California.

 

[Exorcist]

I do not think a church in the round is necessarily and absolutely bad. I think they usually are in practice and wonder whether it is worth the effort, money, and wounding common sensibilities as to what Catholic architecture looks like to fix what isn’t broken.

I rather find the Basilica to be like the sad underside of an overpass bridge. The effect of upside down ship’s hull is immediate, however.

Your comments serve as a failed litmus test to what is good liturgical design and what is not.

 

[Brendan]

Can the people seated in the transepts even see the altar? On the left side they clearly have to look past the ambo to see the altar. Just not my thing. The exterior looks nice. Reminds me of the Basilica of San Juan Capistrano here in California.

Have you every read Pope Benedict’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”?

If not, I think you should. It outlines what the CHurch is trying to accomplish during the Liturgy, and really, none of it involves actually seeing what is going on.

The Liturgy is about interior participation, how we listen to the Word spoke, the lessons of the Homily and the offering of one’s self as a Sacrifice along with the Sacrifice of the Altar offered by the priest.

The long, straight, narrow naves which you object to correspond to the procession of the Church Militant towards the Heavenly promise made visible in the Sanctuary.

One of the great charataristics of the Gothic Cathedrals of Europe was the tremendous vertically of the architecture, it draws the eyes upwards to Heaven and reinforces the transcendant nature of the Mass.

So I think the elements of architecture that you are proposing that the Church emphasize are not really the one’s the Church itself ( as witnessed by Pope Benedict’s book) chooses to stress,.

Or, as I tell my 5 year old when she complains that she can’t see when she kneels down for the Consecration “You are supposed to look with the eyes of your heart, that is where the REAL excitement is happening”

And full disclosure, I’ve got my first degree in Engineering, the second one is a BA in Art History - Ecclesial Architecture