Crystal Cathedral board endorses offer from Diocese of Orange

  • Thread starter Thread starter SonCatcher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe architecture in general should be expressive of human emotion, inasmuch as the purpose of the activity it houses intends it to be. Modern architecture by its very nature is intended to squash emotion by rendering things in as much of a utilitarian manner as possible. Would you want to go to a highrise office building to go to mass? Do you find that a particularly emotive or transcendent setting?

I actually quite like modern architecture, and I have no qualms with it. I live in a modern house with modern furniture, in fact. However, I find it very poor at helping to elevate oneself to the transcendent. It is quite possible to like something or be indifferent towards it while acknowledging its inappropriateness in certain settings.

If church architecture was intended 500 years ago to be in the “current style,” then I imagine most cathedrals would be made of mud, wood and thatch.
“…Modern architecture by its very nature is intended to squash emotion by rendering things in as much of a utilitarian manner as possible…”

Can you cite an authoritative source to back-up your comment? Please, no Mike Rose footnotes. The fact is your comment is erroneous and I can cite more than reference.
 
So if we’re re-naming the thing, how about “Transfiguration” Cathedral, or “Our Lady’s Luminous Mysteries” Cathedral? Something light-related?
“Our Lady’s Luminous Mysteries” <— Are you being serious? If “Crystal Cathedral” can’t be used how about something that actually mentions Jesus Christ? How about simply “Cathedral of Jesus the Christ”?
 
I am so happy the Diocese of Orange purchased this wonderful cathedral and campus and at such a bargain price, thanks be to God!
 
“…Modern architecture by its very nature is intended to squash emotion by rendering things in as much of a utilitarian manner as possible…”

Can you cite an authoritative source to back-up your comment? Please, no Mike Rose footnotes. The fact is your comment is erroneous and I can cite more than reference.
Nope. And I have no clue who Mike Rose is. Modern architecture is cold and unemotional. How is that erroneous?
 
I’m a Catholic layman from Orange County, and was going to submit this to our local paper’s Religion section. I thought I’d post it here first (or INSTEAD) in its entirety as The Register will edit for space and sometimes that changes the whole feel of the article.

It was aimed at a mixed audience (whereas HERE it is mostly Catholics) and used humor as well as insights to make its points and entertain. Not preaching to the choir.

Your comments will be appreciated. My article follows:

In the never ending war of good vs. evil even churches fall short of perfection. Sometimes VERY short, and even Jesus warned us of “weeds in the field”. But a church must always point the way to heaven and be headed there under the guidance of God’s spirit.

Yes, there are problems in both the Catholic Church and the Crystal Cathedral; but when in Christ, they are allies – with more in common than a CC abbreviation. Sudden thought: Calvary Chapel is a CC too! As Calvary’s Chuck Smith ages and disagrees with at least one pastor child of his – I wonder, will the Diocese propose a purchase/swap of the Calvary campus for a parish to be named later?

I’m a Catholic who has always liked seeing that big cross from the tower shining out - even before the “Crystal Cathedral” part of the ministry was built. I saw it as a front porch “ministry” outreach to the unchurched that did an excellent job of practical things that blessed the community with youth groups, charity, counseling, and pageants that called our minds to the “Glory of Christmas” and the “Glory of Easter”. And of course televised worship that included hymns and sermons - and more informally guest speakers. It was years before I learned of that ministy’s “Dutch Reformed” affiliation.

As a volunteer at St. Callistus (down the street) we jokingly called ourselves the “stucco Cathedral” back in the days before THAT “new church” was built.

I remember Reverend Schuller having Bishop Sheen as a guest speaker, and installing TVs throughout the Cathedral when Pope John Paul II visited LA. In the midst of that week, in an astounding moment of Ecumenism that somehow never made the big news or led to his congregation fleeing, came this quote …

“It’s time for Protestants to go to the shepherd [Pope] and say 'what do we have to do to come home?” Dr. Robert H. Schuller, Los Angeles Herald Examiner, September 19, 1987.

I don’t know if there ever was a follow up to that suggestion or dialogue, but Christians seeking to be more united is what Jesus prayed for and Paul preached. Among Christians the “we should be one” urge is quite strong; and yet most agree “we” must unite more at the HIGHEST common denominator (Christ Himself) than the lowest (sacrificing much truth for “unity” with groups whose teachings are divergent to the point of contradiction).

There was Schuller’s “possibility” thinking and “good news”, while across Orange County at Calvary Chapel the “possibility” that Jesus was coming back NOW in an apocalypse loomed in counterpoint. The local Catholic Church was led by several Bishops during these same past decades and is about to get another.

Both the “possibilities” and the “stay awake” reminders from our Christian allies are good ones for Catholics. And are visited often in the Church’s weekly and daily liturgies - with ministerial homilies from the parish priests. The faith of course is even bigger than these two important things. And unity is possible. Diversity too as (a Catholic example) Dominicans and Franciscans emphasize different virtues and are not the same, yet love each other and serve the same one Lord with respect for one another.

The media covering “religion” often favors news of real estate deals, business, and whatever juicy scandals or schisms are about. But like Noah’s ark the church is a human built but divinely sustained vehicle that can guide us through to heaven (St. Peter’s insight not mine).

Boiling things down (not always proper but a good beginning and reminder) we are to love God and our neighbors with all our hearts; do good and not evil; and not be OVERLY committed to the things of “this world” which will end.

As a Catholic I joyfully invite anyone and everyone to be welcomed into the Church (actually, Jesus, who founded it, has already invited all; sometimes we “servants” don’t get this word out enough).

Here’s hoping the Bishop doesn’t sell off all 68 parishes to seal the deal and hide the tabernacle in an undisclosed location to “preserve ecumenism and the architectural tradition of the historic site” !

On a more serious, less cynical note, Jesus prayed for his followers to be one - so may we all strive to be one in HIS spirit as “Priority ONE”.
Sublime. Thank you. You clearly “get it” and you have lived it as a neighbor of the Crystal Cathedral. So very refreshing compared to the hateful and ignorant “I hate that thing” postings.
 
I have no problem with Dr. Schuller. I think he is a nice man. I have no problem with his building this building for his ministry, more power to him.

I do not see any place in Catholic Church architecture for such a structure ( I say the same thing about the Cathedral in Liverpool - the Catholic one. The Anglican one is magnificent).
“I do not see any place in Catholic Church architecture for such a structure”

What does that even mean? 🤷
 
Modern architecture is cold and unemotional. How is that erroneous?
Well, it is a sweeping generalization. I think your description may be true regarding the work of certain architects, but I don’t think it is true of all modern architecture. The reaction against the Mies van der Rohe glass and steel box happened several decades ago.

The Crystal Cathedral is an example of that rejection of the"form follows function" aesthetic. Its high ceiling, its shape, its attempt to maximize light and transparency are all determined to bring an emotional response among those within it.
 
Well, it is a sweeping generalization. I think your description may be true regarding the work of certain architects, but I don’t think it is true of all modern architecture. The reaction against the Mies van der Rohe glass and steel box happened several decades ago.

The Crystal Cathedral is an example of that rejection of the"form follows function" aesthetic. Its high ceiling, its shape, its attempt to maximize light and transparency are all determined to bring an emotional response among those within it.
Yes! So very true. There is a HUGE difference between the work of Philip Johnson and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Each architect also displayed a huge range within their own work. To suggest the Crystal Cathedral is “cold and unemotional” is truly to show that one really isn’t aware of what’s going on.
 
Yes! So very true. There is a HUGE difference between the work of Philip Johnson and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Each architect also displayed a huge range within their own work. To suggest the Crystal Cathedral is “cold and unemotional” is truly to show that one really isn’t aware of what’s going on.
If you go back several pages on this thread you will see some examples of brutalism used in Churches back in the early 60s. I think this is why people object to modern architecture when it is used in church buildings (I know all architecture was once new). Because it is a fad, and will soon be seen as ugly and crass. And yes, while you can find some beauty or at least a utility for the building if you spend enough time there, it shouldn’t take a detailed study of a Church to find that it is beautiful and that it is the house of God.
 
Yes! So very true. There is a HUGE difference between the work of Philip Johnson and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Each architect also displayed a huge range within their own work. To suggest the Crystal Cathedral is “cold and unemotional” is truly to show that one really isn’t aware of what’s going on.
that is the problem of modernism. they appeal to emotions of the people. this is dangerous. we are not to be a people who are lead by emotions but by the Truth, the beauty of God, reasoning and faith. emotions can be crushed and people become desiluded.
 
If you go back several pages on this thread you will see some examples of brutalism used in Churches back in the early 60s. I think this is why people object to modern architecture when it is used in church buildings (I know all architecture was once new). Because it is a fad, and will soon be seen as ugly and crass. And yes, while you can find some beauty or at least a utility for the building if you spend enough time there, it shouldn’t take a detailed study of a Church to find that it is beautiful and that it is the house of God.
No.

You cannot equate good modern/postmodern design to what you term “brutalism used in Churches back in the early 60s.” That’s simply not accurate yet that doesn’t keep people from trying to make the association.

Good modern/postmodern design is no more a “fad” than Romanesque or Gothic. Good design is objective but sadly many lack the backgrounds to ascertain what is good and bad. Their response all too often is to reject and even attack that which they do not understand.
 
that is the problem of modernism. they appeal to emotions of the people. this is dangerous. we are not to be a people who are lead by emotions but by the Truth, the beauty of God, reasoning and faith. emotions can be crushed and people become desiluded.
Pardon me?

At one time Gothic was “modern” design. Before that Romanesque was “modern design” and before that Byzantine was “modern design.” Each one attacked (and in some cases still attacked) during their development.

I’m not even sure what you are talking about when you comment about “emotions.”
 
“I do not see any place in Catholic Church architecture for such a structure”

What does that even mean? 🤷
What it means is that Catholic Churches are (last 50 years excepted) designed to aid in the worship of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This structure is designed for Protestant services and the accomodation of TV viewers.
 
It’s very sad (but not at all unexpected) to see people attack the Crystal Cathedral. It takes a fair amount of knowledge to accurately judge the design of a structure when it comes to modern and postmodern architecture and a great many simply lack such knowledge knowledge. People tend to attack that which they do not understand.

Most people would say (for example) that St. Patrick’s in NYC is a good looking building. They might not like Gothic architecture but most would say it’s good looking. Its proportions are striking, particularly in the setting it’s in. It’s made of seemingly high quality materials with a lot of detail. It’s symmetrical and very easy to grasp. Even more important it’s a storied and beloved building that most people have heard of.

On the other hand it takes a lot more knowledge and exposure (actually visiting the edifice and doing so at different times of the day and year and not simply looking at a photograph) to realize what was going on in (this case) Philip Johnson’s head when he designed the Crystal Cathedral. Much, much easier to simply attack that which one does not fully understand. That which which is foreign to one’s experiences. The painful part is that in the process the confused critics telegraph their ignorance along the way. This is especially true when they attack an internationally known masterpiece like the Crystal Cathedral by a master architect like Philip Johnson.

I like the Crystal Cathedral and I LOVE the overall campus which was purchased at a rock-bottom price. Go ahead and keep judging that which you do not understand and I will continue to silently laugh at you.
No, people just have preferences. I despise most modern architecture, while my husband prefers modern architecture. Just because you like it and are laughing at us doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to think it’s ugly and not befitting a Catholic cathedral.
 
What it means is that Catholic Churches are (last 50 years excepted) designed to aid in the worship of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This structure is designed for Protestant services and the accomodation of TV viewers.
Not true.

As someone said from the Diocese the building is an artist’s canvas. It could be configured to properly support the celebration of the Mass with very little time and effort. The inside could also be fully remodeled. But to suggest the structure itself was designed “for Protestant services and the accomodation of TV viewers” to the exclusion of the celebration of the Mass (with or without video for television) is simply not true.

I think it would be a great idea if the Diocese televised a Sunday Mass from there.
 
I’ve been in it.It is a beautiful building.
The whole campus it quite remarkable. I remember thinking if the campus had a picnic grounds, some recreation for the kids and something to do for adults (fellowship? Bible studies? movies?) after Mass each Sunday would be like a mini-retreat. Just spend the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top