Friday, August 26, 2011

WHY DO WE DO THIS WITH CHURCHES WE BUILD OR RENOVATE TODAY?



Problems I see:

1. Not enough height for the altar
2. Not enough room in front of the altar for EF or weddings or RCIA
3. Confusion about art placement and crucifix placement
4. Clutter, clutter, clutter, esepcially chairs
5. Rinky dink candles

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

And three lanes for communion, too!

"Do you want Friars with that?"

Anonymous said...

Not enough attention is paid to proportions in church architecture today - or in architecture in general. Older churches are beautiful because they seem to have a more artistic sense of proportion and emphasis. That's why a modern church built of expensive materials can still look like crap compared to a rectangular Victorian church filled with cheap catalog items.

People pay a lot of attention to the details, but not to how they are assembled or placed.

Jack Wayne

Frajm said...

Do I want Friars with that, well of course I'd have to be politically correct and say yes since my bishop-elect is one! YIKES.

Anonymous said...

LOL!! Yes, he is!

The style of church building in the Photo reminds me of a grotto, or cave. I think that is on purpose. The more 'traditional' churches draw your attention coward and upward. In smaller churches where you can easily see the celebrant you may also have statuary and art of saints looking down. That is inspiring. In the grand cathedrals where the view may be difficult from the back of a crowd the inspiration to look upward is even more pronounced. They were designed when the spirit of the mass was less communal and more to be in communion with God. I think that is a point people subconsciously understand and the priority is important to them.

rcg

Anonymous said...

Just saw this in our diocesan new paper, the diocese of Orange County Californis is attempting to buy the Crystal Cathedral of televangelist Robert Schuler. It seats 2900 and I bet has a jumbotron for the prayers and amplifiers for the banjos.

rcg

Frajm said...

RCG, Banjos!!! YIKES, but I would be very intrigued as to how a "Catholicization" of the Krystal Kathedral (Krystals is a great cheap hamburger place in the south) would look!

Anonymous said...

Hard to imagine. Maybe they will have 'space stations' of the cross. The Ely Cathedral has no colored stained glass and only gray stone so the difference is mainly the era. I hope they do a good job of it.

Robert Kumpel said...

I would like to see Communion rails restored. If you go into any church that has one, they do not "shut the laity out" as some insist. They have gates/openings. And, the presence of Communion rails also shows an openness to continuity because they make it easier for the Extraordinary form, which the Holy Father insists was never abrogated. Some new churches are being built with such rails, like the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Frajm said...

I agree about Communion rails and that there should be continuity in how one receives Holy Communion in both the EF and OF expressions of the Mass. I think that kneeling and receiving on the tongue have a long enough history in the Church to justify going back to these. However, that should not stop a priest from giving Holy Communion to someone who wishes to stand.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Father insists there was no abrogation but . . . .

"Ordinaries must ensure that all priests and people of the Roman Rite, 'notwithstanding the pretense of any custom, even immemorial custom, duly accept the Order of Mass in the Roman Missal' was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship itself.

The full citation is as follows:

Congregation for Divine Worship Notification Conferentia Episcopalium (28 October 1974). Notitiae 10 (1974) 353.

The CDW would have authority under canon law to declare authoritatively what its own decrees mean.

Henry Edwards said...

"However, that should not stop a priest from giving Holy Communion to someone who wishes to stand."

I don't explicitly recall ever attending an EF Mass at which no one received Holy Communion while standing. Nor a case in which the priest appeared to inquire what the reason was, whether it really was because of physical infirmity.

So far as I know, this business of attempting to force people to conform to other people's posture preferences is a strictly Novus Ordo thing.

Anonymous said...

I have been surprised that the kneeling versus standing has been so controversial. Same for receiving communion in hand or on the tongue. I have had friends refused communion for kneeling or for wanting to receive the host on the tongue. In my case I have generated a small amount of confusion by not holding out my hand for the host but never reached the level of scandal. One of my daughters made the mistake of holding out her hand at a Latin mass and was surprised when the host was PLACED on her lips swiftly and with prejudice by the young priest. I had to smile an she maintained her composure very well. The point of the event is the presence of God; not about
me. I am grateful to the handsome young priest who gave the host to my daughter kneeling and am also grateful to the goofy priest who gave the bad homily for sharing the presence of God. I am fortunate to have a choice but am humbled that they do this for us. I desire this communion so would Lilly do a back flip if asked. My only concern would be that the demands not pose an obstacle to someone who is still wobbling along the path.

Thee eis a saint, I don't recall his name, who was hung and thought dead. When he was being drawn and quartered he revived as they sliced into his chest and cried out "Lord! What would you do with my heart?" It may be a bit of an imposition to stand or kneel and it may be contrary to sound teaching; but what a reward for my endurance!

rcg