Can Somebody Just Weep With Me?

[Cherie]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1309439063' post='2260752']
4. The tabernacle is lost in a sea of white and removes focus even though it is a gilded brass.
[/quote]

You make some very good points, but I would have to say I disagree with this one. Maybe it's just because the tabernacle is the first thing I look for when I step into a church, but it seems to me to be the thing that stands out the most.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1309439063' post='2260752']

The inherent issue is that in theology man is never the end, but rather God is. This is one of the hallmark errors of Protestantism. It is a sort of positivism which invaded Catholic thought after Vatican Council II wherein the communal aspect of worship became the central focus whereas the God-centered became a relegation of the past and "old thinking."

1. The step up into the sanctuary, through the altar rail, which signifies a separation of the world from the otherworldly
2. The canopies over the pulpit and the cathedra immediately draw our eyes upward
3. The three steps which lead up to the altar itself.
4. The vertical nature of the raredos draws our eyes from the mensa and gradine toward the heavens
5. The painting of the sanctuary draws the eyes upward to look at the ceiling which shows a triangle to represent the Trinity.

Whereas when we look at the second we see:

1. A lack of altar rail which immediately opens the space to the congregation, making the steps up an after thought.
2. The white wash of paint brings the sanctuary down and focuses the eyes on the contrasting furniture (music stand, candlesticks on the floor, celebrant's (sic. presider's) chair. This is a style employed by photographers when they want the subject to be the focus and not the surroundings, they will have a white backdrop with a white floor.....thereby causing focus to be leveled on the subject at hand.
3. The altar is white, which washes out the mensa and creates a focus not looking upward, but rather focusing down on mosaics under the mensa.
4. The tabernacle is lost in a sea of white and removes focus even though it is a gilded brass.
5. The movement of the altar rail behind the altar is an afterthought in looking at the photo and completely lost.
6. The contrasting "banners" or "tippets" point downward further focusing the eyes downward.

If the Mass is first a way to worship God, why was the focus moved from looking upward to looking down at man? It is a shift in theology. It is a shift in view of how we are to take the liturgy of the Church. It is part of the hermeneutic of rupture and inconsistent with Catholic thought.

Horizontal theology is man focused.
Vertical theology is God focused.
[/quote]

There are many forms of acceptable architecture for the Church. Gothic architecture for instance does a great job pointing up towards God, but it is definitely period architecture and a relatively brief period at that. I don't know if it's just the angle of the photograph but one of the first things I look at are the little circles at the top... the columns are certainly a vertical design element.

You mention the communal vs. worship aspect of the Mass, well, both aspects are important. It seems we can never reach the proper balance in the Church - we swing from one extreme to the other. Stripping out the communal aspects and Mass-as-meal is just as illegitimate as ignoring the Mass as a Holy Sacrifice. Orthodox traditional Catholicism takes into account both. Altar rails, canopies etc are all innovations in Church design - and cool innovations, too! But they are by no means required.

Besides a few key design elements, most church architecture and decoration comes down to taste. It is bad practice to try to present one's one personal taste as "the" proper preference for a Catholic and all else semi-heretical. That's a rigidity the Church in the West has never had, thank goodness, although the Orthodox churches certainly have that problem.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1309438252' post='2260747']
I do admit, I think the second picture does look like a lovely church. Although the first one might be "prettier," and more grand than the second, I have certainly seen far, far worse.

I do understand that you're upset - if doing a renovation, why couldn't they have kept it the same, you know? But it's my opinion that, at least according to the picture, while it is much simpler than it used to be, it seems it has kept the general "integrity" of the church. Like I said, I have seen [i]far, far[/i] worse renovations. Instead of being upset, please try to count your blessings. There are very few churches anymore that look as lovely as your renovated church; I would give anything to be able to regularly attend a church that looked like that. I think it's a travesty (to say the least) what they often do when "renovating" Catholic churches, but it seems at least for your church, that sadness mighty be better spent weeping over the vast majority of Catholic couples who contracept, or those Catholics who don't attend Mass every Sunday or receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation regularly, for instance.
[/quote]great post!

[Cam42]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1309441533' post='2260766']
There are many forms of acceptable architecture for the Church.

[...]

Stripping out the communal aspects and Mass-as-meal is just as illegitimate as ignoring the Mass as a Holy Sacrifice. Orthodox traditional Catholicism takes into account both. Altar rails, canopies etc are all innovations in Church design - and cool innovations, too! But they are by no means required.

[...]

It is bad practice to try to present one's one personal taste as "the" proper preference for a Catholic and all else semi-heretical. That's a rigidity the Church in the West has never had, thank goodness, although the Orthodox churches certainly have that problem.
[/quote]

Yes, there are many forms of [b]acceptable [/b]architecture within the Church, but prior to the reforms put in place after Vatican Council II all of these forms had a vertical nature. The idea of horizontal theology was not common place until after the reforms put in place after Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II never envisioned this movement away from vertical theology.

The idea of the Mass being a meal was never the focus of the Church's view on the Mass until the Consilium. Prior to that any allusions to the Mass-as-meal, was metaphor for the sacrificial action which took place. However, the reforms after Vatican Council II "legitimized" the metaphor, which is not a traditional Catholic view. The Last Supper was not the first Mass, it instituted the Eucharist. But to view the Last Supper as the first Mass can only be seen as a metaphor for the Sacramental action which was completed by the PDR of Christ, which is the true institution of the Mass; for without the PDR, the Last Supper has no meaning.

Also, the communal aspect of the Mass is ALWAYS to be subject to the sacrifical. They are never on the same level. The Sacred action of Christ in the PDR is the basis for all of Eucharistic Sacramental theology. To commune together is to express that solidarity, but the Mass exists and is celebrated where even there is only one person...the priest. For the priest will unite with all of Holy Mother Church, not merely with those around him.

So, to try to make the communal aspect of the Mass equal to the Sacrificial, is a flawed view. The communal is always subject to the Sacrifical. That is what the Church has taught for 2000 years, despite the mechanations of the Consilium and it's heirs. This all flows down to architecture...when it is horizontal, the Sacrificial aspect is subject to the communal and that is a wrong headed and incorrect view of Sacramental theology.

[Cam42]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1309439722' post='2260755']
You make some very good points, but I would have to say I disagree with this one. Maybe it's just because the tabernacle is the first thing I look for when I step into a church, but it seems to me to be the thing that stands out the most.
[/quote]

Many Catholics today don't though...and this downplaying of architecture plays a big part in the hermeneutic of rupture.

[MarisStella]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1309432402' post='2260731']
necessary renovation or not, there is no reason to remove all that beauty you see present in the 1934 picture. There has been a deliberate movement from moderrnists within the Church to destroy the beauty, to destroy the splendor, to not give God the most we puny little humans can give. Look back to the cathedrals of the past. The Catholics back in those days spared no expense. Church buildings are supposed to reflect the glory of God. Look at the church Mother Angelica built. Look at the church the DSMME built. Look at what the Nashville Doms built. They give a lesson to all of us on what a church should look like. Its not just a building. There is nothing more uglier than modernist church architecture. And sometimes, modernizing a church takes millions. Why not spend that amount on making it more grand, rather than producing a sterile, decoration-free, image-free, bland environment? Yes, in the above photo, the modern version of that Church looks "okay" enuff. But I see no reason at all why they couldn't have left it alone.
[/quote]

Amen.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1309410826' post='2260678']
Show me ONE thing that I have said that is at odds with the Catholic Church and I'll recant it. Show me.
[/quote]
[b]CCC 1889:[/b] "Without the help of grace, men would not know how "to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse." [b]This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights.[/b] It requires the practice of justice, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving: "Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it."

[MarisStella]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1309438252' post='2260747']
I do admit, I think the second picture does look like a lovely church. Although the first one might be "prettier," and more grand than the second, I have certainly seen far, far worse.

I do understand that you're upset - if doing a renovation, why couldn't they have kept it the same, you know? But it's my opinion that, at least according to the picture, while it is much simpler than it used to be, it seems it has kept the general "integrity" of the church. Like I said, I have seen [i]far, far[/i] worse renovations. Instead of being upset, please try to count your blessings. There are very few churches anymore that look as lovely as your renovated church; I would give anything to be able to regularly attend a church that looked like that. I think it's a travesty (to say the least) what they often do when "renovating" Catholic churches, but it seems at least for your church, that sadness might be better spent weeping over the vast majority of Catholic couples who contracept, or those Catholics who don't attend Mass every Sunday or receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation regularly, for instance.
[/quote]

Hey, thanks for putting me in my place. I do agree that it is still a beautiful church and I am very blessed. And honestly, it's a Catholic church, where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered daily, and that alone makes it beautiful.

[MarisStella]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1309413540' post='2260697']
At our Latin Mass church, the side chapels were for Mary and Joseph, but nowadays there don't seem to be many of these left. I loved them.
[/quote]

You can't see in the original pictures, but we have beautiful side chapels for Mary and Joseph. They're so beautiful. I'm trying to find a picture where you can see them.
Here's a better picture. It's still hard to see them because of the columns, but you can get the idea.

[img]http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z423/gabbymmm/2831308783_d85945c96c-1.jpg[/img]
[size="1"]
P. S. I didn't want to start anything here and I'm sad that this had to turn into a fight. I probably should have known better but oh well. Anyway, I'm sorry.[/size]

Edited June 30, 2011 by MarisStella

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1309431638' post='2260728']
How's this for simplicity? [url="http://media.dwell.com/images/643*473/pawson-plain-space-Novy-Dvur-interior.jpg"]Cistercian Monastery of Our Lady of Nový Dvůr[/url]
[/quote]

Personally I love it, for me the simpler the better and you can't get simpler than this (unless you had no seating, which wouldn't be a bad thing!). I can totally appreciate that most people will prefer more ornate, decorative churches, but I find them a bit distracting and prefer the minimalist look. All I might add would be a stark, plain cross (there goes my inner Carmelite again!).

[MissScripture]

[quote name='MarisStella' timestamp='1309447535' post='2260806']
You can't see in the original pictures, but we have beautiful side chapels for Mary and Joseph. They're so beautiful. I'm trying to find a picture where you can see them.
Here's a better picture. It's still hard to see them because of the columns, but you can get the idea.

[img]http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z423/gabbymmm/2831308783_d85945c96c-1.jpg[/img]
[size="1"]
P. S. I didn't want to start anything here and I'm sad that this had to turn into a fight. I probably should have known better but oh well. Anyway, I'm sorry.[/size]
[/quote]
If all threads that turn into fights were avoided on PM, no one would ever post for fear of starting a fight. I mean, some things are obvious, but don't beat youself up over this.

[cmotherofpirl]

I definitely prefer the second one, its lovely. I would remove the purple banners however.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1309449405' post='2260828']
I definitely prefer the second one, its lovely. I would remove the purple banners however.
[/quote]
In the second picture she posted, they are a different color, so they are probably changed according to liturgical season. Idk if that would change your preference for them or not, I just thought I'd point out that they don't seem to always be purple.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1309446753' post='2260802']
[b]CCC 1889:[/b] "Without the help of grace, men would not know how "to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse." [b]This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights.[/b] It requires the practice of justice, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving: "Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it."
[/quote]

It runs both ways dUSt. But what does that have to do with the post that you quote?

[MarisStella]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1309449670' post='2260832']
In the second picture she posted, they are a different color, so they are probably changed according to liturgical season. Idk if that would change your preference for them or not, I just thought I'd point out that they don't seem to always be purple.
[/quote]

Yes, she's right. I think they're kind of goofy, but it's not really a big deal.