Veridicus Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Why can't Catholics build beautiful churches anymore? Just within my own diocese it seems as if the inspiring older churches have dwindling attendance (mostly due to their position downtown or way out in the boonies) and thus are in greater danger of being razed or reduced to chapels, while recently constructed ugly churches have burgeoning numbers of parishioners. It seems as if in 200 years there will only be ugly churches left to represent the glory of God and the splendor of His Bride. Based on my discussions with clergy, it seems Church architectural decline preceded the liturgical changes of the Second Vatican Coucnil by several decades. I have tried to look into Church documents regarding Church architecture and as far as I can tell "Inter Oecumenici" (1964) is the first document which prescribes the kind of things I see in the modern building of churches. Among these changes are the movement of the altar away from the back wall (so the presider can encircle it and celebrate versus populum), the removal of minor altars, and a place of prominence for the choir. But why the removal of minor altars? Why the paucity of statuary and abundance of banners? Why the placement of the presider's chair where the tabernacle/high-altar used to be? Why are the tabernacles hidden in side chapels where no one can find them (in my own experience a tabernacle was in a closet/chapel at the opposite end of church from the main altar so I had to do a 180 to genuflect...which is why most parishioners don't bother genuflecting in this church anymore)? Why the removal of statuary and iconography? It really depresses me to see pictures of what my diocese's churches used to look like. I just don't understand why my poor-as-dirt, illiterate, immigrant farming ancestors could muster the money, time, and talent to build inspiring beautiful Catholic edifaces in the 1800s but now we only seem capable of building obtuse-angled, tabernacle-hiding, kneeler-lacking, banner-ridden, statueless sterile-white-walled spaceships? I mean is it just a lack of money? A lack of inspiration? Are we only hiring Protestant/Free-Mason architects? Is it confusion in how the architecture and liturgy are supposed to interplay? What are we lacking that my sub-junior-high-school-education-level great grandparents so clearly understood? Todd W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 This is only my opinion, but I think money has a lot to do with it. Not just in the building process, but at the design stage. Churches built 200 years ago didn't have to comply with zoning or the American's with Disabilities Act, or fire codes for that matter. There was a time when Churches with ornate finishings could be left open 24 hours a day without fear. Now that kind of thing attracts thieves and desecration. I also think that we are in a place of trying to fit in or please the widest array of individual tastes. I am hopeful the church will undergo the same renaissance that baseball parks are going through currently. There was a time that they were making these cookie cutter, plain ballparks. The old Shea stadium comes to mind. Now they are building great new parks that embrace the feel of the old time parks. They are much more expensive, but worth the effort. I think we will have a time when the Church does the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Architecture carries with it much meaning and philosophy (and with Churches theology). There is great confusion and very poor philosophy and theology in the Church right now. Many of the people who would building the Churches right now were either not catechized or catechized very poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 +J.M.J.+ moving to open mic to facilitate a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 [quote name='Theoketos' date='15 October 2009 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1255619683' post='1985831'] Architecture carries with it much meaning and philosophy (and with Churches theology). There is great confusion and very poor philosophy and theology in the Church right now. Many of the people who would building the Churches right now were either not catechized or catechized very poorly. [/quote] Catechesis and philosophy are definitely at a low point in the Catholic Church. But why does "Inter Oecumenici" call for removal of minor altars from churches? Why the architectural emphasis on the people performing music in the liturgy? I mean this is a Church doc, not some random dude's interpretation. Inter Oecuminici: "[i]II. MAIN ALTAR 91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central... III. CHAIR FOR CELEBRANT AND MINISTERS 92. In relation to the plan of the church, the chair for the celebrant and ministers should occupy a place that is clearly visible to all the faithful and that makes it plain that the celebrant presides over the whole community. Should the chair stand behind the altar, any semblance of a throne, the prerogative of a bishop, is to be avoided. IV. MINOR ALTARS 93. There are to be fewer minor altars and, where the design of the building permits, the best place for them is in chapels somewhat set apart from the body of the church. V. ALTAR APPOINTMENTS 94. At the discretion of the Ordinary, the cross and candlesticks required on the altar for the various liturgical rites may also be placed next to it. VIII. PLACE FOR CHOIR AND ORGAN 97. The choir and organ shall occupy a place clearly showing that the singers and the organist form part of the united community of the faithful..."[/i] What change in theology precipitated the necessity to remove minor altars and place musicians in the front of the church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='15 October 2009 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1255628449' post='1985899'] Catechesis and philosophy are definitely at a low point in the Catholic Church. But why does "Inter Oecumenici" call for removal of minor altars from churches? Why the architectural emphasis on the people performing music in the liturgy? I mean this is a Church doc, not some random dude's interpretation. Inter Oecuminici: "[i]II. MAIN ALTAR 91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central... III. CHAIR FOR CELEBRANT AND MINISTERS 92. In relation to the plan of the church, the chair for the celebrant and ministers should occupy a place that is clearly visible to all the faithful and that makes it plain that the celebrant presides over the whole community. Should the chair stand behind the altar, any semblance of a throne, the prerogative of a bishop, is to be avoided. IV. MINOR ALTARS 93. There are to be fewer minor altars and, where the design of the building permits, the best place for them is in chapels somewhat set apart from the body of the church. V. ALTAR APPOINTMENTS 94. At the discretion of the Ordinary, the cross and candlesticks required on the altar for the various liturgical rites may also be placed next to it. VIII. PLACE FOR CHOIR AND ORGAN 97. The choir and organ shall occupy a place clearly showing that the singers and the organist form part of the united community of the faithful..."[/i] What change in theology precipitated the necessity to remove minor altars and place musicians in the front of the church? [/quote] Good questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Some people like modern architecture. Here is an example of a contemporary Church building: [img]http://www.ctlcathedral.org/images/home.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 October 2009 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1255628912' post='1985902'] Some people like modern architecture. Here is an example of a contemporary Church building: [img]http://www.ctlcathedral.org/images/home.jpg[/img] [/quote] wishing for a barf icon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varg Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='14 October 2009 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1255568461' post='1985564'] Why can't Catholics build beautiful churches anymore? Just within my own diocese it seems as if the inspiring older churches have dwindling attendance (mostly due to their position downtown or way out in the boonies) and thus are in greater danger of being razed or reduced to chapels, while recently constructed ugly churches have burgeoning numbers of parishioners. It seems as if in 200 years there will only be ugly churches left to represent the glory of God and the splendor of His Bride. Based on my discussions with clergy, it seems Church architectural decline preceded the liturgical changes of the Second Vatican Coucnil by several decades. I have tried to look into Church documents regarding Church architecture and as far as I can tell "Inter Oecumenici" (1964) is the first document which prescribes the kind of things I see in the modern building of churches. Among these changes are the movement of the altar away from the back wall (so the presider can encircle it and celebrate versus populum), the removal of minor altars, and a place of prominence for the choir. But why the removal of minor altars? Why the paucity of statuary and abundance of banners? Why the placement of the presider's chair where the tabernacle/high-altar used to be? Why are the tabernacles hidden in side chapels where no one can find them (in my own experience a tabernacle was in a closet/chapel at the opposite end of church from the main altar so I had to do a 180 to genuflect...which is why most parishioners don't bother genuflecting in this church anymore)? Why the removal of statuary and iconography? It really depresses me to see pictures of what my diocese's churches used to look like. I just don't understand why my poor-as-dirt, illiterate, immigrant farming ancestors could muster the money, time, and talent to build inspiring beautiful Catholic edifaces in the 1800s but now we only seem capable of building obtuse-angled, tabernacle-hiding, kneeler-lacking, banner-ridden, statueless sterile-white-walled spaceships? I mean is it just a lack of money? A lack of inspiration? Are we only hiring Protestant/Free-Mason architects? Is it confusion in how the architecture and liturgy are supposed to interplay? What are we lacking that my sub-junior-high-school-education-level great grandparents so clearly understood? Todd W. [/quote]Your avatar is very very scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ok I usually don't like modern churches but I do think this one is lovely, click on the pic for more views. : http://www.astorino.com/studios/religious.php It was built for the College of Cardinals, a spot for them to meditate before they went to pick a new pope. The glass wall highlights the outside stations of the cross backed by the Leonine Wall built in 852. more at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_130432.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 There will be a discussion of liturgy and architecture tommorrow morning- check link. http://networkedblogs.com/p14679912 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='15 October 2009 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1255628449' post='1985899'] Catechesis and philosophy are definitely at a low point in the Catholic Church. But why does "Inter Oecumenici" call for removal of minor altars from churches? Why the architectural emphasis on the people performing music in the liturgy? I mean this is a Church doc, not some random dude's interpretation. Inter Oecuminici: "[i]II. MAIN ALTAR 91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central... III. CHAIR FOR CELEBRANT AND MINISTERS 92. In relation to the plan of the church, the chair for the celebrant and ministers should occupy a place that is clearly visible to all the faithful and that makes it plain that the celebrant presides over the whole community. Should the chair stand behind the altar, any semblance of a throne, the prerogative of a bishop, is to be avoided. IV. MINOR ALTARS 93. There are to be fewer minor altars and, where the design of the building permits, the best place for them is in chapels somewhat set apart from the body of the church. V. ALTAR APPOINTMENTS 94. At the discretion of the Ordinary, the cross and candlesticks required on the altar for the various liturgical rites may also be placed next to it. VIII. PLACE FOR CHOIR AND ORGAN 97. The choir and organ shall occupy a place clearly showing that the singers and the organist form part of the united community of the faithful..."[/i] What change in theology precipitated the necessity to remove minor altars and place musicians in the front of the church? [/quote] Inter Oecuminici does not call for the removal of existing side altars. It merely states that, if a new church OF church is to be built, then any side altars should be in separate chapels. Obviously none of this applies to churches built exclusively for the EF, which has an entirely different set of liturgical regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat22 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 here's the new cathedral for my hometown [img]http://www.diogh.org/cocathedral/DIOGH-Houston%20Catherdral%2001%20rev01a-MED.jpg[/img] not TOO bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 It is sad how modern churches can look. I remember in one of my theology classes in high school we looked at pictures of this one church how it looked before Vatican II and I thought that it looked so beautiful. Then it kept getting renovated to look more and more plain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzo Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) I agree that the modern churches are not attractive, or inspiring. They often look like "pizza huts" to me. Unfortunately, I think there was a reaction to pre-Vatican II piety which the guidelines you quote are a perfect example. I believe there were those who thought our churches had too many altars, too many statues, etc. But we seem to have gone to the opposite extreme. I am hoping that the revival of the EF may cause us to rethink what has been done to our churches. I live near Georgetown University and the Jesuits there seem to have had a field day ripping out the old altars and woodwork. Thank God they haven't taken out the stained glass windows in Dahlgren Chapel which I think are exceptionally beautiful. I can't find any pictures though. Someone should post those online somewhere. On a more positive note I just noticed Georgetown actually has TWO Tridentine Masses each week now! Imagine Jesuits saying the Latin liturgy! One has to hope! S. Edited October 15, 2009 by Skinzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now