Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in L.A

[Maxirad]

What should Catholics think of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles? It has received much criticism.

 

[babochka]

What should Catholics think of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles? It has received much criticism.

I don’t think Catholics should think anything in particular about the Cathedral. Some love it and some don’t. It isn’t to my personal taste, but there’s nothing wrong with it that isn’t a matter of taste.

 

[SMHW]

What should Catholics think of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles? It has received much criticism.

Not sure if this thread will stay around long…

But here are my thoughts on it.

Most of the criticisms of the Cathedral are about how the way it looks makes them feel. While we can think about how we feel, we have to make sure our thoughts do not let our feelings get out of control.

When it comes to strict adherence to what we think are architectural norms for church buildings you will find that many of the world’s most famous and beloved Cathedrals have some major deviations.

I personally am not a huge fan of the modern look in architecture (in general, not just as it pertains to churches.) I wonder how many Catholic colleges have schools of architecture?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

What should Catholics think of any cathedral? They should respect it as the House of God, and the seat of a bishop, a successor to the Apostles.

 

[tafan]

What should Catholics think of any cathedral? They should respect it as the House of God, and the seat of a bishop, a successor to the Apostles.

All true, none of which preclude having an opinion on the architecture and art.

 

[Brassring]

If it has a tabernacle to repose the Blessed Sacrament, then it is a sacred place, and I couldn’t care any less how it looks.

But, I’m not hard to please.

 

[tawny]

What should Catholics think of any cathedral? They should respect it as the House of God, and the seat of a bishop, a successor to the Apostles.

Agree; a House of God is a House of God; regardless of the architecture involved.

 

[babochka]

What should Catholics think of any cathedral? They should respect it as the House of God, and the seat of a bishop, a successor to the Apostles.

 

[twf]

What SHOULD Catholics think? They should think that it is a canonically erected cathedral of the Catholic Church…a temple of the Lord and the seat of a metropolitan archbishop.
What MAY Catholics think? Its in poor taste…or its a beautiful breakthrough in sacred architecture…or its mediocre…or…

 

[Estevao]

I saw a video tour of this putative Cathedral once where the vlogger could not find the tabernacle and had to ask several people before he could find where it was. I was shocked at this, but I’ve never seen this in practice. In my diocese every tabernacle is right in the center, easily seen.

 

[GEddie]

It’s not my diocese, by almost 3,000 miles, and so I’ve no strong opinion about it.

I’ve heard it referred to as the “Taj Mahoney.”

I kind of like the symbolism of the architecture and the tapestries (the people wherein representing average-sinners from the diocese). In any case, to my mind, modern is a perfectly valid style for building and art. Not everything in the Holy Church needs to be High Mediaeval in inspiration.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Solomonson]

What should Catholics think of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles? It has received much criticism.

That it’s one of the premiere edifices in the world in which to actually experience the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I was extremely critical of its design – particularly when compared to the other options that were considered (some were gorgeous!) and my belief that any truly monumental cathedral in California should be based on the California Mission design. I also think the final price tag is absurdly high.

That was before I attended several Masses there over the years – especially the Easter and Christmas Vigil Masses. Let me be very specific: Many cathedrals do a far better job of showing off themselves. None that I have been to do a better job of showing off the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In a sense I view OLA as a “sound stage” for the celebration of the Mass.

The US’s most famous (and arguably most beautiful) cathedral is St. Pat’s in NYC. Stunningly gorgeous outside and inside. Yet it’s plumbed with CCTV so people can actually see and hear the celebration of Mass on TV monitors mounted throughout its interior. The acoustics are far from world class and its “bowling lane” configuration doesn’t exactly facilitate Holy Communion. Nor does its lack of environmental controls facilitate a focus on what’s going on in the sanctuary.

OLA is just the opposite. It looks like an unimpressive avant garde office building on the outside. But the interior – from its entry ambulatory, to its large baptistery, to its superior acoustics, superior seating angles, huge sanctuary, etc., etc. – while far from beautiful, are designed like a theater – all to support what’s going to take place upon the altar of sacrifice. It does a stunningly good job at that.

I think the best of all would be an OLA structure built at a tiny fraction of the cost with better decorations.

**
One thing I find odd. Most who negatively judge the OLA have never been inside of it, much less have actually attended a Mass inside of it.**

 

[babochka]

That it’s one of the premiere edifices in the world in which to experience the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I was extremely critical of its design – particularly when compared to the other options that were considered (some were gorgeous!) and my belief that any truly monumental cathedral in California should be based on the California Mission design. I also think the final price tag is absurdly high.
…

OLA is just the opposite. It looks like an unimpressive avant garde office building on the outside. But the interior – from its entry ambulatory, to its large baptistery, to its superior acoustics, superior seating angles, huge sanctuary, etc., etc., while far from beautiful, are designed like a theater – all to support what’s going to take place upon the altar. It does a stunningly good job at that. I think the best of all would be an OLA structure built at a tiny fraction of the cost with better decorations.

This is exactly what I’ve heard from many others who have experienced Mass in the Cathedral. I’ve only driven by the outside and seen pictures of the inside. My shallow impression of the place is negative, but I’ve also heard from a number of people who shared my opinion - until they attended Mass there.

I hope to someday attend Mass there and expand upon my opinion.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I saw a video tour of this putative Cathedral once where the vlogger could not find the tabernacle and had to ask several people before he could find where it was. I was shocked at this, but I’ve never seen this in practice. In my diocese every tabernacle is right in the center, easily seen.

“In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.” - General Instructions of the Roman Missal [314]

 

[Memaw]

What should Catholics think of any cathedral? They should respect it as the House of God, and the seat of a bishop, a successor to the Apostles.

I love the name of that Cathedral. I wonder how many know that the original name of Los Angeles was the “City of Our Lady of the Angels”. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Solomonson]

I saw a video tour of this putative Cathedral once where the vlogger could not find the tabernacle and had to ask several people before he could find where it was. I was shocked at this, but I’ve never seen this in practice. In my diocese every tabernacle is right in the center, easily seen.

That’s quite odd. The adoration chapel (which is very clearly marked and has an entire wall made of glass) is located just inside of the cathedral (entering from the main ambulatory) to the right.

 

[Solomonson]

I love the name of that Cathedral. I wonder how many know that the original name of Los Angeles was the “City of Our Lady of the Angels”. God Bless, Memaw

The name of the cathedral was approved by the Holy See well before WWII. It just never got built.

 

[Solomonson]

All true, none of which preclude having an opinion on the architecture and art.

Agreed. The notion that people shouldn’t voice personal opinions about sacred architecture is wrong.

 

[twf]

I saw a video tour of this putative Cathedral once where the vlogger could not find the tabernacle and had to ask several people before he could find where it was. I was shocked at this, but I’ve never seen this in practice. In my diocese every tabernacle is right in the center, easily seen.

This is not unusual for grand cathedrals, especially those which receive a lot of tourists. You’ll find this to be the case in Rome. Often the Tabernacle is reserved in a special chapel off to the side somewhere. This is not a novel practice.
On the other hand, for the average parish church, I strongly agree that the tabernacle should be “front and centre”. In fact, in Vancouver the Archbishop has mandated such. (Though the cathedral is, again, a bit of an exception…though the tabernacle is still readily visible from basically any location).

 

[twf]

That it’s one of the premiere edifices in the world in which to actually experience the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I was extremely critical of its design – particularly when compared to the other options that were considered (some were gorgeous!) and my belief that any truly monumental cathedral in California should be based on the California Mission design. I also think the final price tag is absurdly high.

That was before I attended several Masses there over the years – especially the Easter and Christmas Vigil Masses. Let me be very specific: Many cathedrals do a far better job of showing off themselves. None that I have been to do a better job of showing off the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In a sense I view OLA as a “sound stage” for the celebration of the Mass.

The US’s most famous (and arguably most beautiful) cathedral is St. Pat’s in NYC. Stunningly gorgeous outside and inside. Yet it’s plumbed with CCTV so people can actually see and hear the celebration of Mass on TV monitors mounted throughout its interior. The acoustics are far from world class and its “bowling lane” configuration doesn’t exactly facilitate Holy Communion. Nor does its lack of environmental controls facilitate a focus on what’s going on in the sanctuary.

OLA is just the opposite. It looks like an unimpressive avant garde office building on the outside. But the interior – from its entry ambulatory, to its large baptistery, to its superior acoustics, superior seating angles, huge sanctuary, etc., etc. – while far from beautiful, are designed like a theater – all to support what’s going to take place upon the altar of sacrifice. It does a stunningly good job at that.

I think the best of all would be an OLA structure built at a tiny fraction of the cost with better decorations.

**
One thing I find odd. Most who negatively judge the OLA have never been inside of it, much less have actually attended a Mass inside of it.**

Yet, the beauty of traditional sacred architecture does inspire one during the celebration of Holy Mass…it is part and parcel of the experience. When I am sitting in a glorious cathedral, my soul is uplifted and edified by the beauty which is, itself, a reflection of God’s beauty.