They could have built or upgraded 100 (or 200?) locations around the US instead of this, which would have served a much greater swath of the American Trad Catholic population. I would have preferred to see that.
When you spend what they've spent on this project -- you BETTER get SOMETHING out of the deal. I certainly HOPE it's nice! A lot of Trad Catholics (specifically, SSPX-attending Trads) in a lot of places gave up their own much-needed local chapel upgrades to make this St. Mary's monument happen.
I still think building monuments in a time of persecution and crisis is the height of foolishness. We should be multiplying catacombs and humble chapels (including tiny homes or 1-room cabins to host travelling priests short term) instead, to maximize how many souls can be cared for. They should be concerned about stability, efficiency, frugality of ministering to souls -- not glory in the eyes of the world.
A free standing altar?
Sure. When the time comes, they can face the people to offer a 1965-style hybrid Mass. LOL.I agree. What is the difference between this and a Luther table? And why is the church not structured like the standard rectangle that churches have always sat in? Why a cross? Any examples of this structure pre-1970?
There's something that seems off to me about the fact that the altar has a cinder block core.
Sure. When the time comes, they can face the people to offer a 1965-style hybrid Mass. LOL.I have seen refurbished altars installed the same way. I think the rule is that it has to be masonry path of contact to the ground. Besides you wouldn't want his built with wood, too unpredictable and can be attack by pests. Using blocks of stone would be an installation nightmare. Besides finding a true mason trade is hard to come by these days. The biggest risk would be unsupported top altar slab that shift over time and cracked. Altars were installed to last forever. Technically, cinderblock is the best approach.
There's something that seems off to me about the fact that the altar has a cinder block core.
I still think building monuments in a time of persecution and crisis is the height of foolishness.
And why is the church not structured like the standard rectangle that churches have always sat in? Why a cross? Any examples of this structure pre-1970?In the city where I live, the three churches built in the mid 1800's are built in the form of a cross (which inside allows for five altars) facing east.
Looks Modernist as shit.it looks like they are using color in place of the lack of detail. They couldn't afford ornate detail so they just added a splash of color to make it special. It draws my eyes to focus on what is below vs. above.
Looks Modernist as shit.Very much so. To think of all the beautiful European cathedrals that could have served as a model - if this was not a time of ongoing crisis to throw away so much money that could be better spent. But this is the NEOsspx after all.
In the city where I live, the three churches built in the mid 1800's are built in the form of a cross (which inside allows for five altars) facing east.Good info. Thank you!Cathedrals were always built in East-West direction, with head (apse) facing East and feet (narthex) facing West. Cathedrals can be used as rudimentary compasses if you are lost in an European town or city.
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d3af58d35e0da80b4a5d4bc31a63e9d8)If you tilt your head right, you may see this diagram of a cathedral resembles a human body with arms spread (transept). This is no coincidence; it symbolizes the crucifix.
it looks like they are using color in place of the lack of detail. They couldn't afford ornate detail so they just added a splash of color to make it special. It draws my eyes to focus on what is below vs. above.I'm not saying I don't like some of that, I love icons, but it has that Novus Ordo iconography that you'd find in most NO churches these days, so it has that taint to it.
it looks like they are using color in place of the lack of detail. They couldn't afford ornate detail so they just added a splash of color to make it special. It draws my eyes to focus on what is below vs. above.
Reply #8
And why is the church not structured like the standard rectangle that churches have always sat in? Why a cross? Any examples of this structure pre-1970?
You can address me directly. “This person” is participating in the conversation.
This person needs to get out more.
You can address me directly. “This person” is participating in the conversation.
It was asked of the forum: "Any examples of this structure pre-1970?" I was providing examples, with dates, for the benefit of the forum, they weren't meant for just a single individual. I do sincerely apologize if SoldierOfChrist felt offended.Oh the down thumbing certainly wasn’t aimed at the cathedral, or even your list of cruciform architectural examples from before the time of the Novus Ordo. It was your referring to me in the third person and not in a nice way. It seemed unnecessarily rude. I also saw that someone down thumbed my question on the first page of this thread, and deduced that it was you. My apologies if I was wrong in that assumption. I do leave the house quite often, but rarely get instructed on historical ecclesiastical architecture while I am out and about. Thank you for the suggestion. I will give it a try and see what happens.
I also didn't want to appear to be "calling anyone out" as I was genuinely surprised that there would be a Catholic, especially a traditional one, who was unaware that the cruciform floor plan has been a very traditional architectural footprint of Catholic church buildings for centuries, even the preferred form it might be said. Typically, when it wasn't used it was because of the extra expense, the larger space wasn't needed, or the lot wasn't wide enough. There are also many older churches that don't have a transept on either side of the nave but they may have a sacristy extending on one side of the sanctuary, a Mother's Chapel (crying room) and/or a baptistry extending on the other side, and a small asp behind the altar, which gives the building a cruciform shape.
The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was pictured, had its cornerstone set in 1920 by James Cardinal Gibbons. It is well worth a visit if anyone ever has the opportunity, and contains more than 80 shrines and chapels. I was rather shocked that someone would down thumb it.
Another example of the cruciform plan pre-1970 is St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, which was constructed between 1506 and 1626.
It was asked of the forum: "Any examples of this structure pre-1970?" I was providing examples, with dates, for the benefit of the forum, they weren't meant for just a single individual. I do sincerely apologize if SoldierOfChrist felt offended.
I also didn't want to appear to be "calling anyone out" as I was genuinely surprised that there would be a Catholic, especially a traditional one, who was unaware that the cruciform floor plan has been a very traditional architectural footprint of Catholic church buildings for centuries, even the preferred form it might be said. Typically, when it wasn't used it was because of the extra expense, the larger space wasn't needed, or the lot wasn't wide enough. There are also many older churches that don't have a transept on either side of the nave but they may have a sacristy extending on one side of the sanctuary, a Mother's Chapel (crying room) and/or a baptistry extending on the other side, and a small asp behind the altar, which gives the building a cruciform shape.
The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was pictured, had its cornerstone set in 1920 by James Cardinal Gibbons. It is well worth a visit if anyone ever has the opportunity, and contains more than 80 shrines and chapels. I was rather shocked that someone would down thumb it.
Another example of the cruciform plan pre-1970 is St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, which was constructed between 1506 and 1626.
With regards to the National Shrine, do you have any information on these embellishments?I would refer one to https://www.nationalshrine.org/art-architecture/ (https://www.nationalshrine.org/art-architecture/). I'm uncertain about what your question or concern is. As said, the cornerstone was laid by James Cardinal Gibbons in 1902. The project was conceived by the entire body of U.S. bishops after they declared Our Lady under the title of the Immaculate Conception as the Patroness of the United States in 1846. Since its beginning the Shrine has received the praise and support of every Supreme Pontiff: Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII ... I'll not go any further with this group :-). If none of them had a problem with its design I'm not going to.
One difference in the Immaculata will be a free-standing altar. For many of us, it may be foreign or even a novelty. In fact, for the full solemnity of the liturgy, a free-standing altar is ideal (as one can witness if you visit the main churches of Rome.) As the Old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains: "Hence it [the high altar] must stand free on all sides, allowing ample room for the consecrator to move around it. As its name indicates, the high altar, being the chief place for the enactment of the sacrificial function, is to be prominent not only by its position but also by the richness of its material and ornamentation." As a practical example, the priest, during a High Mass, will now be able to incense around the entire altar, not simply the front.
It seems really strange for the SSPX to build a $50million church and not give it a high altar.
"The Great Dome is one of the two visual hallmarks of the National Shrine. Covered in glistening polychrome tiles, it is not only visually stunning, but a physical representation of spiritual truths. It features Marian symbols, each within a six-pointed Star of David, which represents the royal House of David, the Judaic lineage of Mary. "
(https://i.imgur.com/P5N1bCL.png)
By itself, per se, I have no issues with a freestanding altar. St. Peter's and many churches have them set up that way.
It's just that with the new orientation of SSPX, we can't help being suspicious about it and can already imagine Mass versus populum as some kind of concession, which this altar layout makes possible without having to put the old Luther table in front of the old Catholic altar that many NO churches have had to do.
I agree. What is the difference between this and a Luther table? And why is the church not structured like the standard rectangle that churches have always sat in? Why a cross? Any examples of this structure pre-1970?
It appears that he has done at least one Lutheran church as well as a Methodist one.
The Immaculata was designed by Civium, headed by David Heit, which has absolutely no proven record in classical church design despite Heit having graduated from Notre Dame during Thomas Gordon Smith's tenure. And it shows. And it also shows how far we have fallen from having a sense of what is truly traditional and beautiful from how 95%+ of traditionalists who see this church become hyperbolically effusive. And to criticize any aspect of it from a traditional standpoint is to invite every form of ad hominem and absurd accusation. It's topsy-turvy.
It appears that he has done at least one Lutheran church as well as a Methodist one.I don't mean to be pedantic, but please re-read what I said. I did not say they have never designed a "church". I said that they have absolutely no proven record in classical church design, which they patently don't. Heit's designs for the other "churches" are completely modern. St. Stanislaus incorporates some classical elements but is otherwise a completely modern design.
https://www.civiumarchitects.com/sacred
I would refer one to https://www.nationalshrine.org/art-architecture/ (https://www.nationalshrine.org/art-architecture/). I'm uncertain about what your question or concern is. As said, the cornerstone was laid by James Cardinal Gibbons in 1902. The project was conceived by the entire body of U.S. bishops after they declared Our Lady under the title of the Immaculate Conception as the Patroness of the United States in 1846. Since its beginning the Shrine has received the praise and support of every Supreme Pontiff: Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII ... I'll not go any further with this group :-). If none of them had a problem with its design I'm not going to.
In case anyone forgot Jesus was a Jєω.........
In case anyone forgot Jesus was a Jєω.........(https://media3.giphy.com/media/fGX80AAczeBEOOwEoK/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b952f0ff897718361716b4870622716191305b67a343&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)
It appears that he has done at least one Lutheran church as well as a Methodist one.
https://www.civiumarchitects.com/sacred
"project conceived" ≠ "vetted every detail, including the stars of Rempham"
"praise and support of the Shrine" ≠ "aware of every detail, including the stars of Rempham"
In view of the diabolical significance of the Star of Rempham, I'm calling "bullsh*t" on your attempt to infer that a litany of Popes and Cardinal Gibbons specifically knew of and "imprimatured" the Stars of Rempham.
Unless you can provide verifiable references that your cited prelates explicitly endorsed the Star of Rempham, I conclude that you have attempted to mislead readers at CI. Of course, artists have inserted all manner of hidden messages and occult symbolism (and personal insults), but the mere fact that some subversives managed to sneak such elements into art and architecture is NOT a Magisterial endorsement of such symbolism and you should NOT soft-soap their use by attempting to implicate innocent prelates as accomplices.
If you already had in hand some Magisterial endorsement of the Star of Rempham, you'd be expected to have adduced it with your first defense of its use. If you can belatedly scrounge up such an endorsement, I'd be quite interested to see it.
Meanwhile the Star of Rempham is so well-docuмented in its ancient diabolical origins and adoption by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan (deceitfully as a Star of "David"), it barely warranted a blurb at https://judaism.is/paganism.html#star (https://judaism.is/paganism.html#star)
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/130/298/479/original/86e8bfd19a14e438.png)
Think for 2 seconds.(https://i.imgur.com/xigXeOS.png)
That symbol is found everywhere. Jєωs didn't even start using it as a specifically "Jєωιѕн symbol" until the middle ages. If you're condemning that SSPX basilica because it has that shape on it then you condemn the SSPX because they would know the design of something so prominent. It isn't like it's tucked away behind a statue or something. It's extremely prominent and obvious. Think for 2 seconds.
"project conceived" ≠ "vetted every detail, including the stars of Rempham"
"praise and support of the Shrine" ≠ "aware of every detail, including the stars of Rempham"
In view of the diabolical significance of the Star of Rempham, I'm calling "bullsh*t" on your attempt to infer that a litany of Popes and Cardinal Gibbons specifically knew of and "imprimatured" the Stars of Rempham.
Unless you can provide verifiable references that your cited prelates explicitly endorsed the Star of Rempham, I conclude that you have attempted to mislead readers at CI. Of course, artists have inserted all manner of hidden messages and occult symbolism (and personal insults), but the mere fact that some subversives managed to sneak such elements into art and architecture is NOT a Magisterial endorsement of such symbolism and you should NOT soft-soap their use by attempting to implicate innocent prelates as accomplices.
If you already had in hand some Magisterial endorsement of the Star of Rempham, you'd be expected to have adduced it with your first defense of its use. If you can belatedly scrounge up such an endorsement, I'd be quite interested to see it.
Meanwhile the Star of Rempham is so well-docuмented in its ancient diabolical origins and adoption by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan (deceitfully as a Star of "David"), it barely warranted a blurb at https://judaism.is/paganism.html#star (https://judaism.is/paganism.html#star)…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oMYtADn_xh8I dislike the roof. Sheet metal roofs......looks like colourbond.