This is something that has been in my mind for a bit and came up in the pictures Forum just recently. It is not a pet peeve of mine or anything. I was just wondering what others thought and knew about the topic.

Why are "newer" churches not built in the "traditional" style? By that I mean a rectangle with the altar at the far end, facing the correct compass direction of course, with a fairly tall ceiling or dome over the altar and stained glass windows on the sides? I understand heating/cooling bills would mean the lower the ceiling, the lower the bills. But surely, with modern products (heat pumps, etc.) a good architect can achieve a balance of traditional versus modern.

I personally can't stand the churches that resemble a courtroom, more than a church. This is mostly an RC type of construction, at least in my experience. I haven't seen an Eastern church built to that degree. Some have been more "in the round" than a traditional approach. But they weren't "in the round" to such a degree that it looked like a courtroom. There is one RC church in my town that resembles an elementary school gymnasium/cafeteria or all purpose room. I particularly feel uncomfortable there. The chairs are connected at the sides of the seat and can be removed completely from the sanctuary. Which only adds to the feeling of a school multi-purpose room.

What are your thoughts? Any opinions? Any answers to the ceiling question?
I love big domes above the altar with a nice, big painting of Christ the Pantocrator looking down on me. It takes my breath away.

Tim

Dear Tim,

This has been expressed in different threads many times (atleast by me!)

I totally agree with you. It is hard to feel the presence of God in architecture that does not make you feel as if you are in a special, holy space.

I pray that in the next few decades all of the ugly suburban modern RC churches will be demolished and replaced with the beauty (Gothic, Romanesque, statuary, real votive candles, etc.) that once characterized that faith tradition and set it apart from American Protestant denominations rather than mimicked them.

In Christ,
Alice

Someone was sharing at Bible Study the other day about her nine year old niece, they are Roman Catholic. They were visiting her family and took her to a very modern RC Church, the child was totally disinterested, paid no attention to anything, and made noise the whole time. The next week, they took her to traditional RC Church with the very old architecture, statues, and windows in it. Their niece sat still the whole time, paid attention to everything, and talked about it for days.

Think that speaks LOUDLY about the difference in architecture.

I always say "Which church would you rather be married in? Then, why would you want less for the Marriage Feast of the Lamb?"

Would you rather be married here?
[Linked Image]

Or here?
[Linked Image]

Both of these churches are within an hour from my house. The ugly modernist one was just built. The website reads that there are liturgical dancers! The other one is Assumption Greek Orthodox Church in West County St. Louis.

I'm sorry, but it's like comparing apples and oranges, they're both fruit but of a different tree. You cannot compare a Greek Orthodox Church to a Roman Catholic Church. They liturgical styles and theologies are different and cannot be compared to each other for preferred space.

I think for a newly built church, they kept some very traditional elements and is much more tasteful than some other churches I have visited. It's much better than the church of a priest friend of mine in Grove City, PA. For those who are unfamiliar with Grove City, it's very Reformed Protestantism. Beloved Disciple Church looks like a typical Assembly of God church from the outside and when you get inside, although it has some nice qualities, it is a very odd church. The tabernacle is off to the left side of the nave in a weird little "room." Nothing in the sanctuary is centered...liturgically it drives me crazy! Here's a link, there are no good pictures on the site. http://www.beloved-disciple.com/

Fine, how about this one instead of the Greek Orthodox Church?

[Linked Image]

St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis.

BREATHTAKING!!!!

Now THAT is a church!!!

Absolutely! Good point, Pani Rose....

Hi Tim:

The church you are describing may well be a multi purpose set up. Here in the south there are parishes that take this route due to the lack of funds to build both a parish hall and a church. My family and I used to attend St. Luke the Evangelist RC church here in Raleigh and that is what was done at that church until we had the funds to build a proper church and parish hall. My wife can remember when she was a little girl attending Our Lady of Lourdes here in Raleigh with her family and going to Mass in the school gymnasium. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do if the money isn't there.

I changed rite and at my parish we have Divine Liturgy at a RC school in their chapel that is essentially a room that has been converted. That being said our Divine Liturgy is still a glorious experience. Perhaps one day when we have enough money and are no longer a mission we will have a proper church.

I will agree with you that there are churches that will leave you disappointed but try to remember why you are there and what is happening.

There is nothing that can compare to an old church built in the old Gothic or Byzantine style but it costs mucho dinero these days to do that and a parish might not be able to afford it.

In Christ:
Einar

The picture doesn't do it justice at all. I went to my first "traditionalist" Latin Mass* a couple of weeks ago. The whole experience knocked my socks off.

*My first Latin Mass was in a stripped down, but still beautiful church where my wife and I were married. The priest is the only one who was still allowed to use the 1962 Missal before the issuing of Summorum Pontificum in my diocese.

Michael Rose wrote the book called "Ugly As Sin: Why They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces and How We Can Change Them Back Again".

I strongly recommend it for anyone intersted in this particular subject.

Monomakh

Dr. Eric,

If you're from The Most Corrupt State, by which I suppose you mean Illinois (LOL - sorry guys!), and you're in the Chicagoland area, you might consider visiting the St. John Cantius, which offers both the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo in great solemnity and in harmony with the spiritual heritage of the Roman Church.

Oh, by the way..."Church of the Beloved Disciple" is somewhat of a strange name for a Catholic parish. Coming from a Protestant background, it's always sort of irked me to refer to the Holy Apostles as "disciples;" I believe that it is oftentimes implicitly a rejection of calling them "apostles."

Alexis

It looks like a mall.

I'm much farther south. For traditional churches it's either Belleville, IL or St. Louis, MO. I try to avoid Chicago as much as possible. Although I did attend a seminar near Midway this weekend.

I love Chicago...


Alexis

Chicago is my favorite city - there is nothing to compare with walking North Michigan and admiring the architechure.

Many years,

Neil

Chicago is waaay too crowded for me.

To have been in some of the churches that have closed and been sold is enough to bring one to tears.

Dr. Eric,
From the photo St. Clare's doesn't look so bad to me. It's kind of hard to see but it brings to mind a chapel that may be used by a cloistered order. In my mind anyway there ARE some churches there is no excuse for. They leave you wondering "What were they thinking?". I understand there are costs involved and many churches were built in a hurry to serve a burgeoning suburban population but there is no excuse for some of the churches being built today.

God Bless,
Bill

This is about the worst I've seen ever. In the first paragraph click on "slide show" to view the YELLOW HOUSE architecture, yes that's right, YELLOW HOUSE (with green shutters) they call a Roman Catholic Church...

http://www.popejohnxxiiiparish.com/

Don't care for the outside, but the inside, while plain, isn't too bad. I like the Seraphim.

Pope John XXIII Parish is located in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio. This parish did not exist ten years ago.

I suspect that their situation is like that of many new parishes. They are worshipping in what will later become the Parish Hall.

It is likely that they will build a better Church in a couple of decades.

A parish about 5 miles from where I live was founded in the 1950s and worshipped in what is now the parish hall for nearly forty years until they could build a proper church.

I think that parish is done very tastefully (minus some of the color choices), it has a classic element. I am reminded of some of the renderings I saw of house churches from the first Christian century. I get the feeling that is what they may have been aiming for. I think the inside is very elegant.

If I were pastor of the Church I would begin raising money to build a separate church proper and use that for the parish center...I do not believe this is their plan from what I gather from the website.

Alexis and Neil

Thank you for your kind words regarding the city of my birth. Unfortunately, Chicago is a far cry from the beautiful city it once was 80 or more years ago. We've lost countless churches, and other magnificent buildings, boulevards, lagoons and ponds from parks, public greenhouses and flowerbeds, and a general sense of beautification. Men like Frederick Law Olmsted, Daniel Burnham, Jens Jensen, Henry Schlacks, William LeBaron Jenney, Montgomery Ward and Louis Sullivan gave us one of the most beautiful cities in North America, but we've done a very poor job of maintaining.

Now to modern churches. The Eastern churches of today may not be as impressive as the ones built 70 or more yrs ago, but at least they are not without beauty. Fortunately, Eastern Christians have for the most part, rejected modern art. Roman Catholics on the other hand have embraced it, nd consequently we seldom see a new RC church that isn't ugly as sin.

The building does have a classic simplicity. It does have a basic cruciform floorplan, but from the outside looks like a hall for receptions or other events.

I like the color choices.
Sort of Ukrainian.
Yellow outside and blue inside.

The Lord made all the colors and put them together in His rainbow.

I love the architecture -- as a house. I would not have painted it yellow, however. Our small OCA parish is nothing remarkable from the outside. It's a small Protestant church the parish bought (Methodist, I believe). The pews were torn out, icons painted on the walls, and a small iconostasis was installed (it's a narrow church). It isn't ugly, however. Just small and unassuming.

We have a variety of church architecture out here on the West Coast, from the infamous Our Lady Queen of the Angels Cathedral in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, to the San Juan Capistrano Mission Basilica, a real gem.

http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca35329.jpeg

vs.

http://www.lectrosonics.com/PressReleases/mission/MBSJCretablo.jpg

Anyone else notice that Beloved is having Scott Hahn speak at the parish?

I'm not sure what this modern Ukrainian Greek Catholic Sobor will look like when it is completed sometime in 2010, but people who have seen it all seem to make the same comment - "its massive !". It lies at the edge of the Dnipro (Dniper) river which flows through the ancient and modern parts of Ukraine's Capital city Kyiv. It was on that shore that IN 988 Grand Prince Volodymyr the Great baptised the people of Rus. It is hoped that that the Sobor will be visited by Greek Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and all Christians from around the world.

These are web camera pictures from various time periods yesterday:

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Sobor - Kyiv, Ukraine [sobor.ugcc.org.ua]

I.F

Looks like the waiting room scene from the movie "Stations of the Train"


http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca35329.jpeg

This is a movie that does not exist, but if Alfred Hitchcock were still around, he would work wonders off this photo alone.

I can imagine sitting there, beset by swarms of bats from the architect's belfry.

The exterior color choice is hideous and, as a church, I can't say that the interior appeals to me much - looking perhaps more Protestant than Catholic, although I think it's very tastefully decorated and appointed.

I will offer, though, that the description of the parish and its website both suggest a very vibrant parish community. As much as I love the physical beauty of our temples and the classic western churches, Latin and Protestant, it is important to remember that, ultimately. a church is the people, the temple is only the place in which the people conduct their worship. I've seen ugly storefront churches, bereft of any fine appointments, and with absolutely impoverished congregations, that were so rich in faith as to have shamed those of us who worship in beautiful religious surroundings.

Many years,

Neil

Well said.

The church in which I worship now is a non-descript, prefabricated light industrial building. At least on the outside. The interior has been converted to a very nice Byzantine temple, complete with a marvelous baptistry, a full iconostasis, a pseudo-dome with pantocrator and lovely wall icons. One of the best of the Ruthenian parishes meets in a converted house, so small that the proskomide has to be performed in the nave. If you go to Rome, you will find many of the nicest churches (e.g. Sta. Prassaeda, Sta. Pudentiana) are either not recognizable as churches or are not visible from the street, other buildings having been erected directly against their exterior walls.

Church exteriors are nothing. The interior makes the church. The traditional Western church is derived from the Roman basilica, which originally was a secular building used for meetings, legal proceedings and even as a market. Characterized by a long axis divided into a central aisle and two side aisles by a row of columns, it has an apsidal end with a raised platform, on which the magistrate would sit to hear petitions. The Jews began using the basilica for synagogues some time in the first century AD, because it was extremely convenient for Jewish worship. Christians followed suit. The apse became the sanctuary, the elevated benches along its inner wall becoming seats for the bishop and his council of presbyters.

The main Christian addition to the style, from the middle ages onward, is the crossing, or the addition of two transcepts at right angles to the main axis of the church (which, canonically, was oriented to the east), but many parish churches were just simple long halls, lacking even side aisles, let alone a crossing.

From the 6th century, almost all Byzantine churches were derived from Justinian's Hagia Sophia, on a cube-circle layout featuring a central dome over the nave, a short narthex, and an apsidal sanctuary. Variations would add more domes with small side chapels.

The main problem with modern church architecture is the same problem with modern architecture generally--the elevation of function over aesthetics. Moreover, the Jews and Christians were able to adopt the basilican floorplan because, at least in part, the Roman basilica was a sacred as well as a secular building (the lines between the two being somewhat blurred back then). Since then, sacred and secular architecture have diverged, just like sacred and secular art, or sacred and secular music. If one attempts today to express the sacred in a secular motif, one usually ends up expressing the secular with religious symbols. It just doesn't work.