Good question! Unfortunately I don't have a good answer. Many Catholics today who love Tradition will attribute this sad fact to Vatican II, but the conciliar documents themselves just don't bear it out. However, some at the Council took ideas such as aggiornamento too far, following the popular trends of the day in post-conciliar reforms. One example I find incredible, only a few years before Vatican II, Pope Pius XII wrote against these trends, only to be ignored after the Council: "[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (Mediator Dei, 62)
I agree, I think the problem is architects presenting plans in the modern style, which the church agreed to as they wanted to look up to date. Whole swathes of our towns in England were subject to demolition, the old replaced with the new and trendy. Dreadful buildings which are themselves largely gone now. Ultimately I think they forgot what churches are for - God.
McNamara discusses the prevalence of modernism in Catholic architecture in the book I cited in this article, I would highly recommend it if you would like more in-depth information. Michael Davies, in his pamphlet "The Catholic Sanctuary: And The Second Vatican Council," specifically compared the views of the Protestant revolutionaries with those who wanted to "reform" Catholic architecture after the Council; the similarity is striking and disconcerting. In my opinion, although the Liturgical Movement had many positive qualities, by the time of Vatican II many of its proponents were not trying to preserve and emphasize tradition but were criticizing Catholic art and architecture in themselves, as though tradition had corrupted them from their original purity - another Protestant concept. Modern architecture was seen as more domestic and akin to the supposed "house-churches" of the apostles, or at least more "relevant" to today.
Thanks for the tip. Last week I visited a couple of churches where Anglo saxons in the 7th century had gone to Roman sites to deconstruct, move and re-erect Roman arches in their new churches. So impressive and so contrary to the modernistic view of churches - do have a look at my substack if you want to see some pics.
Will do! As an American, there are few old churches to see, especially where I have lived, though the southwest has some colonial-era Spanish churches that are very beautiful. I would love to visit England someday and see some of its ancient churches, though I know most of them are now Anglican, or left to ruin by Henry VIII. Hopefully someday the Church will return to sacred architecture rooted in tradition and beauty. See my article for Missio Dei on the Sagrada Familia for what is to me an example of a creative but traditional modern church.
Given all these principles from Vatican II, how on earth did we end up with the monstrous carbuncles that are new and re-ordered churches?
Good question! Unfortunately I don't have a good answer. Many Catholics today who love Tradition will attribute this sad fact to Vatican II, but the conciliar documents themselves just don't bear it out. However, some at the Council took ideas such as aggiornamento too far, following the popular trends of the day in post-conciliar reforms. One example I find incredible, only a few years before Vatican II, Pope Pius XII wrote against these trends, only to be ignored after the Council: "[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (Mediator Dei, 62)
I agree, I think the problem is architects presenting plans in the modern style, which the church agreed to as they wanted to look up to date. Whole swathes of our towns in England were subject to demolition, the old replaced with the new and trendy. Dreadful buildings which are themselves largely gone now. Ultimately I think they forgot what churches are for - God.
McNamara discusses the prevalence of modernism in Catholic architecture in the book I cited in this article, I would highly recommend it if you would like more in-depth information. Michael Davies, in his pamphlet "The Catholic Sanctuary: And The Second Vatican Council," specifically compared the views of the Protestant revolutionaries with those who wanted to "reform" Catholic architecture after the Council; the similarity is striking and disconcerting. In my opinion, although the Liturgical Movement had many positive qualities, by the time of Vatican II many of its proponents were not trying to preserve and emphasize tradition but were criticizing Catholic art and architecture in themselves, as though tradition had corrupted them from their original purity - another Protestant concept. Modern architecture was seen as more domestic and akin to the supposed "house-churches" of the apostles, or at least more "relevant" to today.
Thanks for the tip. Last week I visited a couple of churches where Anglo saxons in the 7th century had gone to Roman sites to deconstruct, move and re-erect Roman arches in their new churches. So impressive and so contrary to the modernistic view of churches - do have a look at my substack if you want to see some pics.
Will do! As an American, there are few old churches to see, especially where I have lived, though the southwest has some colonial-era Spanish churches that are very beautiful. I would love to visit England someday and see some of its ancient churches, though I know most of them are now Anglican, or left to ruin by Henry VIII. Hopefully someday the Church will return to sacred architecture rooted in tradition and beauty. See my article for Missio Dei on the Sagrada Familia for what is to me an example of a creative but traditional modern church.