I quit reading the Angelus like 10 years ago. Could you tell me who the author of the article is?

This is the type of issue where the modernist has a lot of plausible deniability for the average church-goer.

It's quite difficult to prove that the reason for the total rejection of traditional Catholic art and architecture is the rejection of Catholic doctrine.

However, a little bit of reflection makes it very clear - these buildings seem to be empty of spiritual significance, they do not seem like dwelling places for God, because they're built by people who do not believe in God, certainly not the God of Catholicism.

Paradoxically many trads have the opposite problem.

They can see what's wrong with the modern styles of art, architecture and music in churches, but they can't understand why it's wrong.

So long as their conciliarism is given a traditional veneer they have a hard time understanding the problems.

Sorry, Bowler, for the delay. The author is Dr. Marie-France Hilgar

This is the type of issue where the modernist has a lot of plausible deniability for the average church-goer.

It's quite difficult to prove that the reason for the total rejection of traditional Catholic art and architecture is the rejection of Catholic doctrine.

However, a little bit of reflection makes it very clear - these buildings seem to be empty of spiritual significance, they do not seem like dwelling places for God, because they're built by people who do not believe in God, certainly not the God of Catholicism.

Paradoxically many trads have the opposite problem.

They can see what's wrong with the modern styles of art, architecture and music in churches, but they can't understand why it's wrong.

So long as their conciliarism is given a traditional veneer they have a hard time understanding the problems.

This inability to perceive why modern styles of art, architecture and music
in churches are wrong shows up in other rites, too, like Eastern rites and
even Orthodox to some degree.  I know of Armenian and Coptic Orthodox
churches where stained glass windows look like a page out of the 1970s
playbook.  When I see it I can only think "forgettable," and "why would
they bother to do this?"  Isn't a stained glass window something that
should lift the viewer's heart and mind to God?  Why would anyone put a
stained glass window into a church when it can equally remind the viewer of
his prurient interests or self-love or subjectivity or greed or attachment to
sin, as it can any of the saints or Gospels or even mysteries of the Rosary?

When I have asked those who made the decision, their only excuse is
that they wanted a "modern look."  So it's the spirit of the world invading
our churches.

.


I recall studying about this structure in architecture class, and it was this,
along with others like it, that convinced me I would have nothing to do
with further studies in architecture.  I could find photos of the others, I'm
sure.  Even today, I would be much more interested in photos of the old
church that was on this site, destroyed in World War II, and the stones of
which were re-used in this structure.  The process described on the linked
website (source of photos - galinsky) as "a membrane of concrete 4cm
thick sprayed on to expanded metal (*) by cement gun" (*lath* is missing
word) is the same process that is used to line the walls of a mineshaft or
a subway tunnel.  It is not a process that lends itself to artistic medium,
but just 'gets the job done.'  It is called "Gunnite" and it is not pretty.  It
is only utilitarian, not art.

Thanks for these links!



The Ecclesia Militans post:


Angelus Promotes Modernism
Jun 2, 2013

What is the purpose of art? The purpose of art is to produce beauty which will raise one’s thoughts to God. Architecture is one form of art with many examples which meet this criterion.

 

The March/April 2013 issue of The Angelus contains an article entitled “Ecclesiastical Architecture” which presents an overview of Catholic architecture. The article gives a brief history of architectural designs from the 5th to the 20th century. Key features of each design are mentioned in an objective fashion; no one design is given preference.

 

Within the discussion of the 19th and 20th centuries, one church is singled out – the chapel of Notre Dame du Haut in Ronchamp designed by the Franco-Swiss architect Le Corbusier. The author describes the chapel as “one of the most important examples of twentieth-century religious architecture”. Three photographs are included, showing an asymmetrical building that looks like a mushroom with a silo.

In architecture, as in all other forms of art, the created work is meant to raise one’s thoughts to God. For example, the height and depth of the Baroque cathedrals demonstrate how this can be done. By including the chapel of Notre Dame du Haut on the list of good examples, this article has the audacity to claim that this chapel fits the criterion of good Catholic art. The implication is that we should accept this type of art and learn from it.


 

To see photos of this chapel, view this link. As an aside, try to find the tabernacle. I could not.

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/ronchamp/

 



Consider also this quote from the architect noted on the website: “Here we will build a monument dedicated to nature and we will make it our lives’ purpose.” Since when is a Catholic church dedicated to nature?

 

Further, the issue of The Angelus is dedicated as ‘A Catholic Primer on Art”. It is intended to instruct the reader on Catholic art. This article should come with a warning of what not to accept as true Catholic art.

 

Instead, the article serves as an example demonstrating that the SSPX has accepted modernist ideas.

 

Sister Constance

The author of the article asks if anyone can locate the Tabernacle.  I might have.  There appears to be a sanctuary lamp hanging between the altar and the paschal candle.  There also appears to be a square object on the wall next to it.  That might be the Tabernacle.  

I suspect the tabernacle is in the dark cave on the right side behind the
candles and under the tall window.  There is  a little rectangular object
on the wall inside the cave, barely visible.  That's probably the tabernacle.
It would be high enough off the floor to be convenient for use.  
Alternatively, it could be simply a hole in one of these very thick walls,
such as behind the candles and therefore not visible from this angle.  It
might be that tiny square on the wall to the right of the altar, about the
same distance on the right as the 'sanctuary lamp' is on the left.  The
rectangle on the floor to the left of the paschal candle is too low to the
floor to be practical. I'd say that's a table they use for cruets and patten
and finger towel.

This structure reminds me a lot of Mohony's so-called cathedral, where
you can't find the tabernacle, and the reason is, it's not visible.  It's in a
separate 'room' all by itself, and it looks more like a brass plated ice
sculpture half melted than anything like a tabernacle.  Of course, it cost
tens of thousands of dollars.

Neil,

I think you are right. In the larger picture you posted, what I took for the Tabernacle looks like a shadow.