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.**
.