: SACRED SPACES: HOW DOES CHURCH ARCHITECTURE COMMUNICATE THE SACRED? ______________________________ A Paper Presented to Anselm Ramelow, O.P. Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology ______________________________ In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Course PHRA 4322 Philosophical Aesthetics II ______________________________ by Mark R. Peters December 16, 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...................................................................................................................................3. A. Sacred Architecture.................................................................................................................6. 1. Architectural Expression and Symbols.......................................................................7. 2. Causal Implications......................................................................................................8. B. Actuosa Participatio................................................................................................................9. 1. The Non-Church.........................................................................................................10. 2. A Return to Dwelling..................................................................................................13. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................14. Bibliography................................................................................................................................17. INTRODUCTION The Catechism of the Catholic Church underscores the point that the construction of Christian churches is not simply for gathering but that it signifies and makes “[...] visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.” Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 2000, Paragraph 1180. In the Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar, the rubrics state that “the very nature of church demands that it be suited to sacred celebrations, dignified, evincing a noble beauty, not mere costly display, and it should stand as a sign and symbol of heavenly realities.” James R. Cardinal Knox, Prefect, Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar,” Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship (Liturgy Office England & Wales, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc, 1978) 5. https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/RDCA.pdf Cf.: Steven Schloeder, “What Happened to Church Architecture?” Second Spring (March 1995): 29. From the early centuries when it became lawful for Christians to build churches, or they commandeered existing Roman judicial courts and basilicas, Catholic churches have been iconic reminders of the sacred amid the secular– as the sacramentally symbolized reality of God’s presence among his people. Ibid., 29. Notwithstanding, beginning in the post WWII construction boom these visual reminders symbolizing heavenly realities began to disappear in modern Catholic church construction and many existing church interiors were altered to fit a new Modernist narrative promulgated by certain Church liturgists and welcomed by contemporary architects eager to make bold visual statements. Innovative church architectural theories embraced a stark and minimalist public architecture. Modernism’s divorce from all things traditional brought hard cold lines to modern church structures while overemphasizing utility. Michael Rose, Ugly as Sin Why They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces–and How We Can Change Them Back Again (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2001), 136-137. Critics faulted modern churches for being “designed for agnostics” and Pope John Paul II declared upon entering one Roman church: “There is little sense of the sacred in these modern churches.” Duncan G. Stroik, “Transcendence, Where Hast Thou Gone?” in Transcending Architecture Contemporary Views on Sacred Space Contemporary Views on Sacred Space, edited by Julio Bermudez, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 2015), 242. Styles of churches through the centuries reflect that particular culture’s artistic skills, available materials, and its theological expression of Christ manifesting himself in the world. Roman, Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque styles of architecture all express the ecclesiastical piety of Christians from that time and place. A particularly “Catholic architecture” does not exist per se since the Church as its transcendent reality is not confined to any particular time and place. Church architecture’s departure in the last several decades from providing witness to the sacred is rooted in a post-Enlightenment materialist, reductionist, socialistic anthropology. This philosophical spirit was marked by a general turn toward the subjective–toward a focus on the “inner man” and the respective interpretations of his place within the cosmic order through a hermeneutic that apodictically repudiated the Gospel’s supernatural elements. In the nineteenth century a post-Enlightenment Christology emphasized an ethical self-consciousness over the presumption of a revealed morality. In the twentieth century’s architectural turn church spaces became a gathering place for congregants to determine for themselves what their “well-ordered liturgical life” would be through their social interactions. These changes, as will be discussed below, were largely predicated on a faulty interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium’s promotion of “active participation” in the liturgy. Rose, Ugly as Sin, 141. This initiative was carried out by, for example, white-washed church interiors, https://arquitecturaviva.com/assets/uploads/obras/51459/av_imagen_vertical.jpeg?h=1ccf3 the stripping of ancient iconic works, https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cc/5a/14/cc5a146123884bb2f8ebcf8a2df7acc0.jpg and the overall sense of impermanence and banality. https://www.featureshoot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMG_8997.jpg Schloeder writes that twentieth century Western Catholics lost the language of church architecture, i.e., they lost the grammar and syntax that had developed over the seventeen previous centuries. This loss is constitutive of the disconnect between modern architecture and Catholic Tradition. The church building did little or nothing to point beyond itself. Schloeder, “What Happened to Church Architecture?”, 40. These modern churches have become in E.A. Sövik’ own words– “non-churches”, i.e., “monovalent meetinghouses”. Duncan G. Stroik, “Spontaneous Shrines and Temporary Churches,” Technology Trends & Innovation Survey 19, no. 3 (May/June 2013): 2. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, when the supernatural is removed what is left is the unnatural, and so by removing the spiritual symbolic language one “denies the whole person: including our capacities for memory and imagination.” Ibid., 27-29. This paper will look at Catholic church architecture in light of its traditional liturgical iconographic language There is no implication here that the sacred does not exist among other religion’s architectural structures. and how modern church architecture departed from this tradition as an expression of modernity’s anthropology. By contrasting these architectural frameworks, the reader will gain a greater sense of how the sacred is either conveyed or withheld through architecture. A. Sacred Architecture What is a sacred building predicated upon? Is the dwelling space sacred because of the structure’s intended function or are sacred functions only fitting within certain architectural configurations? The sacred is set apart from the profane as an inviolable manifestation of God’s holy transcendent order. The psalmist further delineates between the sacred and the profane viz., between the godly and the ungodly, in terms of how accurate their thoughts are about Him. The Bible. King James Version, Psalm 10:4. “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.” Applied to architecture, sacredness has an aesthetic sense. One may experience a numinous pleasure being in the presence of an ancient cathedral. A sacred building’s architecture communicates the transcendent–it possesses certain otherworldly qualities that bind men and women to their God. In this place of mediation, the material world is offered up to heaven to become the domus Dei The Aramaic word ‘mishkan’ is derived from the Hebrew ‘shekinah’ used to describe God’s dwelling or sensed presence when in close proximity to it. Cf.: Exodus 25:8 “And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.” and Exodus 40:34 “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” See: Hamed Khosravi, “Theology of a Form.” AA Files, no. 77 (2020): 184. and the porta coeli. The sacred and the beautiful are interchangeable. Beauty immediately attends the eternal and the latter’s manifestation in the divine. We can speak of the sacred in terms of the beautiful through the language of timelessness. Sally Essawy, “The Timelessness Quality in Architecture,” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 6, no. 2 (February 2017): 265. This is the link that gives root to the architecturally beautiful. Its principal rootedness is what guides the central search for meaning in all persons. Many possible definitions can be given for this ineradicable sense of architectural beauty: vital, whole, coherent, comfortable, exact, egoless, eternal–even so, despite definitions, it remains nameless since it belongs to the ineffable. Essawy, 265-266. Yet from this vague vantage point there are methods for aesthetic analysis; and as an artform architecture can be rendered intelligible in its intent to be applied to the sacred. 1. Architectural Expressions and Symbols In Moses’s encounter with God two forms of legislation were given: laws for the people and plans for the temple. Both corresponded to building a body to host the presence of God’s breath (spirit) below. The Law arranged the visible facts of society that would embody the invisible God while the other form laid out the physical space for the temple in which God’s spirit would dwell. God’s instructions to build a temple is summed up in two parts: an altar on the east side and a tent on the west side. This simple spatial arrangement symbolized the two transactions between heaven and earth with the priest mediating between them. The altar’s purpose was to refine matter, i.e., the priest “raised flesh into heaven” while the purpose of the tent was to materialize meaning coming down from above. “Together, the altar and the tent were technologies that transformed matter into meaning an vice versa.” Mathieu Pageau, “The Language of Creation– Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis,” (Matthieu Pageau, Copyright 2018), 97-98. The temple ordered material parts analogous to written language. Like the written word, the parts collected for the construction of the temple were arranged by the rules revealed. That architecture can function as a language derives from the notion that elemental forms present rules for the ordering and assembling of parts (syntax) constituting meaning (semantics), within a context that has its own relational constraints when deployed (pragmatics). Saul Fisher, "Philosophy of Architecture," Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), 4. As is true with other artforms, architectural objects express meaning. As for a semantics-inspired view applied to Catholic church architecture, each component part of the architectural structure bears significance. The internal design of a Catholic church conveys meaning to the faithful through its functional layout (vestibule, choir, sanctuary, altar, tabernacle and baldacchino) while externally it conveys its significance by means of its identity or exemplification to the outside world, e.g., its cross-topped dome. Fisher, "Philosophy of Architecture," 4. 2. Causal Implications Churches have causal implications that exceed other architectural structures. The integrity of their structure provides dimensions of meaning such that from the aesthetic sense a response within the person is able to connect with his or her moral sense and thereby becoming the efficient cause for change in the world. For example, someone may have an experience that leads to a lifelong moral change after having made a visit to a Catholic church. Fisher refers to “socio-psychological evidence” suggesting that architectural objects cause behavior, and that much of architectural design is predicated on this claim. Although he offers no references to this claim one can intuitively apply this observation to churches vis-à-vis with individual’s testimonials. The timing of that psycho-dynamic moment was more likely to have occurred having entered that church rather than had she entered a shopping mall. There is an intra-space dialogue that the pilgrim enters into between the vestibule and the mysterious inner parts of the church–between the nave and the sanctuary and in his or her presence within the vertical expanse of the church. In the Genesis account after Jacob’s encounter with the angel, he awakes from sleep and marks that place as the house of God and the gate of heaven by turning the stone vertically toward heaven. “And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.” KJV Gen.28:18. Verticality in church architecture invokes the sense of sacred from its fitting proportion to the rest of the building in a way that a skyscraper does not. See: Rose, Ugly as Sin, 62-64. The church’s inner structural layout creates the space for the statuary of particular shrines, the wall-space for sacred art, and the ambiance present from stained-glass light; these all possess their own intra-dialogue in their witness to sacred Tradition. As it was observed by the twelfth century Abbot Suger of St. Denis, “art leads minds from material to immaterial things.” Rose, 70. Through contemplation of sacred art at home within this sacred dwelling space the sense of awe becomes the precursor to faith. Consequentially, this inner movement effects the wider community contingent upon the architecture’s structural purpose as it is ordered toward a greater fullness of the human being. From within a person’s existence (esse) as he or she becomes more completely present, i.e., “self-consciousness in the order of knowledge and self-determination in the order of action” W. Norris Clarke, Person and Being, (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1993), 25. , one communicates being to others in a fuller actuality. In its good possessed, the church as an architectural form communicates its perfection as far as possible in its being. A church structure as God’s dwelling place communicates this reality to the believer as he or she more fully becomes the dwelling place of God’s spirit. B. Actuosa Participatio The intent of Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) was to promote a greater congregant participation in the Liturgy. The misapplication of its intent resulted in the innovative architectural designs and disfigurement of existing, (dare one say desecration), of churches. Rose attributes this widespread iconoclastic movement to a mistranslation of the Latin word ‘actuosa’ which was translated from SC as ‘active’. One example from SC’s paragraph 14 reads: “De liturgica institutione et de actuosa participatione prosequendis” where actuosa has both the internal, contemplative and the external, active (activa) sense. “The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation” “Activa” excludes the contemplative sense. Rose, fn.78, 141. SC’s English translation goes on to say: “Therefore, in all their apostolic activity, pastors of souls should energetically set about achieving it [active participation] through the requisite pedagogy.” Austin Flannery, Ed. Vatican Collection Volume 1 Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1992), 8. Thus, the removal of crucifixes, (replaced with the Greek +) statues, tabernacles, high altars with ornate reredos, communion rails, baldacchinos, and aisle shrines were removed–justified by arguing these structures would distract people from active participation in the Mass.” Rose. 141. Among the further absurdities of this line of reasoning, in some cases, pews and kneelers were removed and the church front doors replaced with glass– all justified as impeding active participation. This is a dematerialization or dissolution of boundaries– as the merging and mixing of the interior and exterior spaces. Abbot Boniface Luykx, one of the drafters of SC lamented that a good many churches were destroyed– “in the name of [active participation of] the people. [T]hey destroyed the inner logic and dynamics of many churches because of a misunderstood principle.” Ibid., 142. See: fn. 79, Abbot Boniface Luykx, “Liturgical Architecture: Domus Dei or Domus Ecclesiae?” Catholic Dossier (May-June 1997). It is notable that SC does not mention architecture. The council assumed existing church architecture as one of her legacies of beauty. These reforms “were justified by the subjective opinions rooted in current architectural theories and innovative liturgical ideas that had never been officially adopted by the Catholic Church.” Ibid. 1. The Non-Church Destruction of Catholic church architecture is an ancient problem. Many periods throughout history have witnessed various assaults on her architectural patrimony. Victor Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame was inspired by how the splendor of the Notre Dame cathedral had been disfigured by the French Revolution’s ideology. Each period had its respective historical contexts within which churches were marred by vandals and worse. However, this present modern period differs in that these disfigurements were done in the name of Catholicism and often by her own shepherds. Rose, fn. 97, See: Fr. Robert Hovda’s 1968 book Church Architecture and Liturgical Reform. The influence of several centuries of Protestant iconoclastic theology and ecclesiology had a subsumable influence on the architectural thinking that prevailed during this period. Concomitantly, the ideas underpinning this contemporary movement, and the Modernist understanding of architectural language, had migrated to America from the thought developed by Bauhaus in the 1920s. This school of thought subjugated the individual to the whole as did the socialists who saw the human person not in natural human relationship but as an interchangeable, replaceable, functional, economic unit for the Industrial State. This philosophy had spawned the “International Style” with mass housing and its ‘human filing cabinet’ high rise housing projects. In this view the modern man is isolated, singular, and so is devoid of innate relationship. Human beings are then sociable rather than naturally social beings. Steven Schloeder 35 imagery The Enlightenment had demystified man and so there was no place for objective transcendental knowledge and still less for the entire classical anthropology of man as a rational, volitional being with capacities for imagination, memory, and aesthetic participation in divine beauty. [...] In the modernist vocabulary, a door is a door. With the modular system, the door is replaceable by window or wall. It has no symbolic value: it cannot speak to the process of entering, threshold, transition, or passage. Due to these limitations it certainly cannot speak... of the person of Christ. Ibid., 36. Spurr notes that dwelling has been, at least since the Renaissance, associated with sacredness and eternity. David Spurr, “An End to Dwelling: Architectural and Literary Modernisms,” In Architecture and Modern Literature (University of Michigan Press, 2012), 53. See: Ruskin’s The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849): “Our God is a household God as well as a heavenly one; he has an altar in every man’s dwelling”. But with these Modernist innovations the ancient notion of dwelling was further demystified by removing the sense of permanent rootedness with a universal space determined by its momentary function. The internal and intrinsic hierarchical meaning of space within church architecture had been removed– consequently the value given to beauty, language, and knowledge was liquidated by a utilitarian philosophy. This utilitarian philosophy was the guiding spirit throughout E.A. Sövik’s Church Architecture and Liturgical Reform (1968). His principal thesis was that neither Jesus nor the Church Fathers wanted elaborate edifices as designated holy places therefore architecture must move beyond what he called a mistaken medieval pattern and return to a fundamental “house of the people” or “non-church”. This was to be a place in which people gather to minister. The prototype for this space came from the early Methodists that had gathered in barns and built their church structures in similar fashion. Sövik had no division of space between sanctuary and nave. The centrum was his simple space for multipurpose activities accommodated by “throwaway” interiors. Rose, 156-157. He placed a premier value on having these spaces be indistinguishable from “secular or profane” buildings. Hence, he used portable chairs, avoided religious artwork, placed a table in the midst of the congregation and arranged chairs around it so as to not give the impression of a division between sanctuary and the nave, further, he removed crucifixes in favor of portable Greek (+ sign) crosses that would be used only during the time of liturgy. Ibid., 151. “These radical innovations were by and large adopted by the Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (EACW) a 1978 provisional draft statement by the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy (BCL) under San Francisco’s Archbishop John Quinn and improperly issued in the name of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, implying the tacit approval of the Holy See.” Space is too limited here to further detail Sövik’s abject destruction of church interiors; suffice it to say that the corrosive effect these innovations had on the minds of Catholics respecting the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice is legion. 2. A Return to Dwelling Twentieth century Modernist architecture sought to create a “new interrelation between interior and exterior. Its principles were those of open space, transparency, freedom of movement, the dissolution of mass, the disappearance of historicizing masks and symbols, and the breakdown of hierarchical and domineering spacial effects.” Spurr, 58. This constitutes an architecture bereft of the ancient sense of home. Heidegger’s notion of rootedness in dwelling (wohnen) symbolized by his Black Forest farmhouse is an apt counter-symbol to the modern condition of spiritual homelessness enshrined in this modern church architecture. His point was that human beings are constantly searching for a deeper sense of dwelling and that they must come up with new ways to do so. Man’s homelessness (Heimatlosigkeit) is a problem of consciousness stemming from the real crisis of dwelling in the spiritual sense. Ibid., 54. A sense of dwelling at home has different motifs. Nomadic cultures are at home. What these cultures have in common with a sense of home coming from within fixed structures is that there is a central axial order. The architectural embrace of open non-hierarchical space decenters the axial order and so moves the “dweller away from the hearth...putting him or her at the window, where the gaze is naturally directed outward.” Ibid., 60. At the window there is an interpenetration of the interior and exterior establishing a breakdown of hierarchies that traditionally order the human experience and so also the sovereign symbolic universe reflected in its co-existing artwork. Spurr, 60. However, the problems architectural Modernism have wrought on Catholic churches have proportionately simple solutions relative to their conundrums. This turn begins by restoring a sense of the iconic value of the building itself as a dwelling fit for its being the house of God; and with that a clarity of form that reorients the focus on the central axis–the Tabernacle. Catholics must be re-immersed in the symbolic language that has traditionally been relied upon to communicate the transcendent reality and ideas of the faith. Schloeder suggests that the single most important aspect to be regained is the relationship between function and massing form. Even if there is a general illiteracy in the more subtle iconographic language, throughout the Christian era, and “despite stylistic differences, the intersection of harmoniously intersecting forms, the basilica, the form of a prominent central nave and articulated side aisles with an abutting apse, narthex and campanile” Schloeder, 37-38. are all clearly defined elements distinguishable for their simplicity over a minimalist perspective. The harmony between the interior volume and the exterior form of the church and between the function of the space, its location, and massing will restore the Catholic tradition wherein the church building went beyond its functional necessities for the faithful and was itself in dialogue with the outside world as a “sign of contradiction”. This historical truth was echoed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Feast of Faith: “[T]he church must not settle down with what is merely comfortable and serviceable at the parish level; she must arouse the voice of the cosmos and, by glorifying the creator, illicit the glory of the cosmos itself, making it also glorious, beautiful, habitable and beloved.” Schloeder, 38. CONCLUSION Twentieth century church architectural innovations embody a spirit of nihilism. The myth of dwelling was laid bare by an abstract geometrical conception of space that presents a universal sense of displacement and a radical sense of being uprooted. This architectural nihilism could not possibly be better represented than by its bare interiors and its architectural tabula rasa that resist all traces of the divine dwelling. Spurr, 69-70. The very notion of shelter–of an interior, is negated not only by its bleak interior but also by the absence of difference between interior and exterior, viz., the loss of the person’s interiority who comes to realize his or her radical contingency upon the God who asks to dwell within. The reaction against what was viewed as historical architectural oppressiveness offered instead its negative empty space. One could view this movement paradoxically as a fundamental structural component of sublimation–a sacred space cleared of clutter and filled instead by the virtue of its people thus elevating it to the dignity of the sublime. Bare church interiors in likeness to Methodist’s barns may be taken in a sense of having a work of ascesis in the tradition of St. John of the Cross’s via negativa. But modern forms of ascesis have an essentially social character devoid of the value necessary to fill spaces set aside for the sacred. “Trying to understand ... modern forms of ascesis, whether literary or architectural, are related more to the spirit of the age than to the Holy Spirit.” Spurr, 72. Quoting Theodor W. Adorno, Notes to Literature, Volume One (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1958). To revive the architectural language of the church such that it is given back its voice to instruct the ignorant and guide the faithful our contemporary image-oriented consciousness must be respected and worked from within so that just as light penetrates stain-glass as spirit penetrates matter, so too the beauty of the uncreated Word will more fully dwell within the created. BIBLIOGRAPHY Clarke, Norris W. Person and Being. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1993. Dawson, Peter C. “‘Unsympathetic Users’: An Ethnoarchaeological Examination of Inuit Responses to the Changing Nature of the Built Environment.” Arctic 48, no. 1 (1995): 71–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40511619. Doczi, György. The Power of Limits, Proportional Harmonies in Nature, Art & Architecture. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications, 2005. Essawy, Sally. “The Timelessness Quality in Architecture.” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 6, no. 2 (February 2017): 265-273. https://www.academia.edu/91360813/The_Timelessness_Quality_In_Architecture Fisher, Saul. "Philosophy of Architecture", Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/architecture/. Flannery, Austin. Ed. Vatican Collection Volume 1 Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1992. Gilson, Etienne. Forms and Substance in the Arts. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1966. Gould, Andrew. “Church Architecture Doesn’t Have to Have the Same Objectives as Secular Architecture; An Interview with the Director of the Moscow Architectural Institute, Dimitry Shvidkovsky.” Orthodox Arts Journal D&D Rolla Creative, LLC, November 12, 2020, Accessed September 19, 2018. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/a-professionally-built-iconostasis-for-a-mission-church/. Heatwole, Charles A. “Sectarian Ideology and Church Architecture.” Geographical Review 79, no. 1 (1989): 63–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/215683. Khosravi Hamed. “Theology of a Form.” AA Files, no. 77 (2020): 180–92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27124640. Knox, Cardinal James R. “Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar” Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship (Liturgy Office England & Wales, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc (1978): 1-28. https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/RDCA.pdf Morel, Anne-Françoise, and Stephanie Van De Voorde. “Rethinking the Twentieth-Century Catholic Church in Belgium: The Inter-Relationship Between Liturgy and Architecture.” Architectural History 55 (2012): 269–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43489722. Murray, Placid. “Liturgical Principles for Church Architecture.” The Furrow 13, no. 9 (1962): 499–515. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27658400. Nolan, John R. M. “Modern Church Architecture: The Elements of the Problem.” The Furrow 8, no. 6 (1957): 388–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27657194. Pageau, Mathieu. “The Language of Creation– Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis.” Matthieu Pageau: Copyright 2018. Pellegrino, Michele Card. “Liturgical Renewal and Design of Churches.” The Furrow 20, no. 1 (1969): 31–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27659923. Rapp, Urban. “Modern Church Architecture.” The Furrow 13, no. 11 (1962): 653–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27658434. Rose, Michael. Ugly as Sin Why They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces–and How We Can Change Them Back Again. Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2001. ____________. “Antoni Gaudi: God’s Architect.” The Institute for Sacred Architecture. Vol. 4, Fall 2000. https://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/antoni_gaudi_gods_architect Schloeder, Steven. “What Happened to Church Architecture?” Second Spring March (1995): 27-38. Shepard, Cassim. “Sacred Spaces in Profane Buildings.” Urban Omnibus November 02 (2011): https://urbanomnibus.net/2011/11/sacred-spaces-in-profane-buildings/ Spurr, David. “An End to Dwelling: Architectural and Literary Modernisms.” In Architecture and Modern Literature, 50–72. University of Michigan Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1qv5nb5.6. Sterken, Sven. “A House for God or a Home for His People? The Church-Building Activity of Domus Dei in the Belgian Archbishopric (1952-82).” Architectural History 56 (2013): 387–425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43489740. Sövik, E.A. Architecture for Worship. Augsburg Publishing House, 1973. Stroik, Duncan G. “Spontaneous Shrines and Temporary Churches.” Technology Trends & Innovation Survey 19 no. 3. (May/June 2013): 1-6. www.di.net. ____________. “The History of Sacred Art and Church Architecture.” L’Osservatore Romano Wednesday 21, no. 34 August (2013): 16. ____________. “The Church Building as a Sacred Place.” https://assets.avemariapress.com/migrated_files/pdfs/The_Church_Building_as_a_Sacred_Place_Stroik.pdf. ____________. “Transcendence, Where Hast Thou Gone?” in Transcending Architecture Contemporary Views on Sacred Space Contemporary Views on Sacred Space, edited by Julio Bermudez, (The Catholic University Press Washington D.C., 2015), 239-246. Vatican. Sacrosanctum Concilium, Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI (December 4, 1963). https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_lt.html Vaverek, Timothy V. “Eucharisticum Mysterium 55 & the Four Modes of Presence.” The Institute for Sacred Architecture. Vol. 4, Fall 2000. https://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/eucharisticum_mysterium_55_the_four_modes_of_presence Verkaaik, Oskar. “Religious Architecture: Anthropological Perspectives.” In Religious Architecture: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Oskar Verkaaik, 7–24. Amsterdam University Press, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wp6sx.3. White, James F. “Heresies of Modern Architecture.” Southwest Review 49, no. 1 (1964): 64–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43467577 2