$190m Oakland Cathedral Most Expensive Ever

  • Thread starter Thread starter under_the_dome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nohome said:
Why? I didn’t write the Acts of the Apostles, I just quoted them. Are you suggesting that the Bible rejects the Real Presence?

Nohome
Click to expand...
If you accept only those passages, then you reject Real Presence.
 
Nohome said:
Ah, if all matters of faith were so black and white! What passages must I accept with the one I quote?

Nohome
Click to expand...
All passages are to be accepted, including all passages about the Real Presence. Catholic Churches, as you know, contain tabernacles, which house the Real Presence of our Lord–His Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That means that God does in fact live in Temples (Churches) made by human hands. The point of the passage you quoted is that God is not bound to one place, yet He most certainly does live in Catholic Churches.
 
Tom317 said:
All passages are to be accepted, including all passages about the Real Presence. Catholic Churches, as you know, contain tabernacles, which house the Real Presence of our Lord–His Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That means that God does in fact live in Temples (Churches) made by human hands. The point of the passage you quoted is that God is not bound to one place, yet He most certainly does live in Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...
The point I was making with the passage is that man all too often becomes obsessed with the brick and mortar temple and loses sight of the flesh and blood Church. You’ll have to ask God, but I think he prefers to reside in you, not in a building.

Nohome
 
This is an absolute disgrace. $190 million for a hideous cathedral in a diocese that is not in good shape.
 
Nohome said:
The point I was making with the passage is that man all too often becomes obsessed with the brick and mortar temple and loses sight of the flesh and blood Church. You’ll have to ask God, but I think he prefers to reside in you, not in a building.

Nohome
Click to expand...
Yes, and the only way to receive Jesus’ Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity contained in the Eucharist, is to receive Communion in Catholic brick and mortar Churches.
 
Tom317 said:
Yes, and the only way to receive Jesus’ Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity contained in the Eucharist, is to receive Communion in Catholic brick and mortar Churches.
Click to expand...
The early church used people’s homes. It is man-made rules that presently restrict the Eucharist to temples.

I guess I would rather see many, small, functional, community churches than one big “churchzilla”. Playing off the clichet of recent years, what would Jesus build? I’m convinced that building projects such as this is not what he intended for his church (people).

Nohome
 
dympnha said:
This is an absolute disgrace. $190 million for a hideous cathedral in a diocese that is not in good shape.
Click to expand...
This would be a disgrace anywhere. I doubt it is what Jesus intended for his followers.

Nohome
 
The floor plan of our Cathedral of Christ the Light is based on the “vesica pisces”- the intersection of two circles - an ancient sign among many cultures in the East and the West for a gathering place.

Above the main entrance will be a large sculpture that clearly identities the building as a Catholic Cathedral. A cross has been discussed, but there are many rich possibilities to be considered.
Click to expand...
We have to discern the “fish” symbol from within the twin circle, multi-cultural, “ancient” sign. I don’t get it.

And why does there even need to be a discussion about using the Cross to identify the building as Catholic? I would love to know what the other “rich possibilities” are.
 
Nohome said:
The early church used people’s homes. It is man-made rules that presently restrict the Eucharist to temples.

I guess I would rather see many, small, functional, community churches than one big “churchzilla”. Playing off the clichet of recent years, what would Jesus build? I’m convinced that building projects such as this is not what he intended for his church (people).

Nohome
Click to expand...
I agree, I am against the project, as I have said all along.
 
If a diocese spent $190m on a more traditional design, I cannot help but wonder if the people who like the idea of the new Oakland Cathedral would have a fit about it.

Old ways were once new ways, and we shouldn’t expect trends in church architecture to stop evolving. Churches should be dignified, but we don’t have to expect to find a tomb in there or wonder if we’ve left the middle ages yet.

I think modern architecture- like modern art (the kind that really only looks good when it’s made by that special 4yr-old) and modern music (that sounds more like nails on a chalkboard or bugs hitting a windshield)- is ugly. I would rather my diocese spend $190m on a Romanesque or Gothic Cathedral, and make it rival the Cathedrals built when that style was first made popular. I would love a church that makes me feel like I’ve gone back in time several hundred years…but that is a matter of personal preference, not orthodoxy or reverence.
 
I’ve seen the Lady of the Angels Cathedral in LA and to be honest, I was a bit disappointed due to the lack of warmth and traditional Catholic look. It almost looked unfinished.

At the same time, the Cathedral is Spiritual Food for the people. I liked the main area with the collage?? of Saints on both sides. They were all standing and facing the Tabernacle and I swear I couldn’t take my eyes off it. Amazing.
 
m134e5 said:
If a diocese spent $190m on a more traditional design, I cannot help but wonder if the people who like the idea of the new Oakland Cathedral would have a fit about it.

Old ways were once new ways, and we shouldn’t expect trends in church architecture to stop evolving. Churches should be dignified, but we don’t have to expect to find a tomb in there or wonder if we’ve left the middle ages yet.

I think modern architecture- like modern art (the kind that really only looks good when it’s made by that special 4yr-old) and modern music (that sounds more like nails on a chalkboard or bugs hitting a windshield)- is ugly. I would rather my diocese spend $190m on a Romanesque or Gothic Cathedral, and make it rival the Cathedrals built when that style was first made popular. I would love a church that makes me feel like I’ve gone back in time several hundred years…but that is a matter of personal preference, not orthodoxy or reverence.
Click to expand...
The complaint is not about evolving architecture. There are many new Churches across the country that have a new “llo,” while keeping a Catholic base. Go here for an example, take the virtual tour:
stmaryhuntley.org/tour.html
 
blessedtoo said:
And why does there even need to be a discussion about using the Cross to identify the building as Catholic? I would love to know what the other “rich possibilities” are.
Click to expand...
A statue of Jesus or Mary or even St Joseph would certainly be appropriate. Or an action shot of Madonna and Child, or Jesus healing or comforting (fill in blank), or the Holy Family. Perhaps a bishop’s mitre or some Vatican-related imagery, although it’s a bit abstract for me. Representations of the Eucharist would be fitting. Even the fish thing would work, although it’s been appropriated by Protestants to such an extent that it wouldn’t really distinguish the Church as Catholic any more than a simple cross would, and given the floor design you described it would be redundant symbolism anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top