Church Architecture

[Resurrexi]

...

Edited May 7, 2009 by Resurrexi

[CatherineM]

Our church is so poor, we can't afford stained glass windows. We have that pukey yellow privacy glass that they use in gas station restrooms. At least we can't look out them during mass to see what the prostitutes are up to. Don't know how we would afford Rococo. Best masses I've ever been to have been held in a parking lot.

[KnightofChrist]

For those that can, yes. Even those that can't should try their best to give God the best they have. What surely must be stopped is the bare and ugly empty looking alters and churches, that look more like office buildings.

[Nihil Obstat]

I always preferred Baroque and Gothic.

Am I missing some fundemental point of this thread? Why would Rococo be particularly preferable?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1860310' date='May 6 2009, 10:47 PM']I always preferred Baroque and Gothic.

Am I missing some fundemental point of this thread? Why would Rococo be particularly preferable?[/quote]

Maybe he prefers French architecture.

[eagle_eye222001]

PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHURCH.

My local parish is bare bone boring.

The ceiling is plain tiles. The walls are bare of everything except the stations of the cross but they aren't enough. The doors are just plain clear boring glass. There's like 2 statues......better than nothing but come on.

I hate boring plain churches.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/creed/track/never+die"]Creed - Never Die[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1860317' date='May 6 2009, 10:52 PM']Maybe he prefers French architecture.[/quote]
French Gothic is majestic.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1860310' date='May 6 2009, 11:47 PM']I always preferred Baroque and Gothic.

Am I missing some fundemental point of this thread? Why would Rococo be particularly preferable?[/quote]

There are some people who don't think that Rococo displays "noble simplicity". I, however, think it is very nobly simple and very fitting for the Roman Rite.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1860327' date='May 6 2009, 10:58 PM']There are some people who don't think that Rococo displays "noble simplicity". I, however, think it is very nobly simple and very fitting for the Roman Rite.[/quote]
You're not implying that it's the only fitting style though, are you? Your poll seems to suggest that.

Like I said, I like Baroque and Gothic. Baroque is quite close to Rococo, I believe, but Gothic is... in a lot of ways an opposite. Austere, I suppose, would be a good word. Impressive though, in a lot of ways. Impressing on one's consciousness.

There are a lot of different kinds of architecture.

[Resurrexi]

I wasn't implying that only Rococo was appropriate. I like Baroque and Gothic architecture, but I especially like the both extravagant and nobly simple Rococo. Perhaps my poll would have better been phrased "Do you think that it is acceptable for churches to be built in the Rococo style?"

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1860336' date='May 6 2009, 11:04 PM']I wasn't implying that only Rococo was appropriate. I like Baroque and Gothic architecture, but I especially like the both extravagant and nobly simple Rococo. Perhaps my poll would have better been phrased "Do you think that it is acceptable for churches to be built in the Rococo style?"[/quote]
I would definitely say that it's acceptable. Beautiful too, or can be. I may take some flak for this, but I think that even a church with a very modern design could be beautiful. Personally I don't like ultra modern architecture, but some people really do. I'm not going to say it's never acceptable, as long as the truly important things are done right.

I developed a theory a while back. I think that churches are, almost without exception, the best examples of whatever form/style of architecture they are built in.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1860343' date='May 6 2009, 08:07 PM']I may take some flak for this, but I think that even a church with a very modern design could be beautiful. Personally I don't like ultra modern architecture, but some people really do. I'm not going to say it's never acceptable, as long as the truly important things are done right.

I developed a theory a while back. I think that churches are, almost without exception, the best examples of whatever form/style of architecture they are built in. [/quote]

you will take flak!

The Church sanctuary is supposed to represent the Holy of Holies because it is where the Most Holy Sacrifice takes place. There is specific architecture necessary for this to happen and very modern design churches do not fit the architecture whatsoever.

I'm not talking like 22ft by 30ft when I say specific architecture necessary though, so don't get me wrong.

It is temple worship, and the architecture of the temple was very specific and [b]very set apart from the architecture of other buildings.[/b] This should not be lost. Church architecture should not be similar to your local Wal-mart.

[Resurrexi]

A lot of modern church architecture is very iconoclastic. We must listen to the Second Council of Nicaea, which decreed:

"We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material,[b] must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars[/b], at home and on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Savior, and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men." (DS 600, emphasis added)

Edited May 7, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

The diocese of Oakland CA finished building its new cathedral:

[img]http://www.christthelightcathedral.org/images/home.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www.christthelightcathedral.org/"][u]Cathedral of Christ the Light (homepage)[/u][/url]

[Maximilianus]

I voted no, I prefer the Romanesque style, followed by Gothic and Spanish Colonial.
Baroque and Roccoco are a toss up for me.

Although I would be ecstatic if the church I attend was replaced by a church built in the Roccoco style.

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't mean just any old ultra modern look when I say 'modern'.
This, for instance, would not be good.
[img]http://www.jetsongreen.com/images/2008/03/31/citycenterloftsrendering0803.jpg[/img]

I just think that conceivably, if the church were built as a church that happened to be modern looking, rather than a modern building that happens to be a church... it could be done.
I've not seen it, but I think it could happen.

[mamalove]

I live in an area where there are very few "new" churches. Most were built in the late 1800's early 1900's and they were built in a gothic style. They are stunningly beautiful. They were built to reflect the time. Many non-church buildings of the same era also have gothic elements to them.

We live in a different era. Should new churches being built reflect our lives from 100 years ago, or should they be a reflection of our lives now?

I am no fan of "ultra-modern" design. But, I think churches being built today can be beautiful, serene, and pleasing to the Lord using some current architectural design standards. Plus, the history of the church begins with an accurate portrayal of the era in which it was built. IMHO

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1860498' date='May 7 2009, 01:58 AM']The diocese of Oakland CA finished building its new cathedral:

[img]http://www.christthelightcathedral.org/images/home.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www.christthelightcathedral.org/"][u]Cathedral of Christ the Light (homepage)[/u][/url][/quote]

Is that like a large movie screen projection, or some kind of etched glass treatment?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1860282' date='May 7 2009, 12:31 AM']...[/quote]

Mind explaining to those who aren't up to speed on their architecture what the Rococo style is? Though I had an idea, I looked it up on wikipedia just make sure... always good to be informed

I answered "No" because churches should be built in a variety of architectural styles, including Rococo, among others.

Edited May 7, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1860343' date='May 7 2009, 01:07 AM']I would definitely say that it's acceptable. Beautiful too, or can be. I may take some flak for this, but I think that even a church with a very modern design could be beautiful. Personally I don't like ultra modern architecture, but some people really do. I'm not going to say it's never acceptable, as long as the truly important things are done right.

I developed a theory a while back. I think that churches are, almost without exception, the best examples of whatever form/style of architecture they are built in. [/quote]

Assuming it is quality art and architecture...

I agree on modern architecture. There can be valid and deeply spiritual reasons for using relatively plain styles. They aren't necessarily a mere rebellion against a previous generations' tastes. Most modern church architecture has been too experimental or too secular, but that doesn't make all of it an abomination.

FWIW, Notre Dame's School of Architecture is all about going back to classical styles.