Crystal Cathedral board endorses offer from Diocese of Orange

[Aeolian]

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.

All too often those “preferences” are based on ignorance. Like it or not, modern/postmodern art is not purely subjective. There is objectively good and bad designs of all genres. If you said “I personally hate the Crystal Cathdral’s design” and then went on to explain why in your opinion, I could respect that. But for people to take pot shots and say “The Crystal Cathedral is ugly” or “It’s not suited for Catholics worship” is really nothing more than a display of simple ignorance and parroting of others.

 

[Aeolian]

I’m going to bet, you’re over 55 and under 80, right?

41, almost 42.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

But again we shouldn’t have to spend every day at the Cathedral or have to have a background in architecture to understand that a building is beautiful and fit for God’s house. (I went to college whose abbey church was in the brutalism style, but the time I left I was fond of of the austerity and how the architecture drew on inwards, probably because you didn’t want to look outwards). But in God’s house we should be able to just walk in or just look at it and see the beauty. Even people who prefer modern architecture don’t walk into a Romanesques or a Gothic church and say it is ugly. It is still beautiful though one might prefer modern architecture. I don’t know if the Crystal Cathedral is one of those buildings or not, but it certainly is a concern to some people.
Here is a picture of what I was referring to when I say brutalism. People certainly walk into this church and declare it ugly.
http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/g...es/collegeville_st-john-abbey_holtkamp_lg.jpg

 

[Dale_M]

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.

I don’t think that viewpoint can be justified. Surely you are not saying that a radical shift in the meaning of Catholic architecture took place 50 or so years ago?

 

[Dale_M]

(I went to college whose abbey church was in the brutalism style, but the time I left I was fond of of the austerity and how the architecture drew on inwards

Certainly it is austere, and not something which is emotionally appealing. When in college I objected to the Brutalist architecture of my university, but I do understand its spiritual relevance, especially in the monastic tradition.

 

[psr13]

All too often those “preferences” are based on ignorance. Like it or not, modern/postmodern art is not purely subjective. There is objectively good and bad designs of all genres. If you said “I personally hate the Crystal Cathdral’s design” and then went on to explain why in your opinion, I could respect that. But for people to take pot shots and say “The Crystal Cathedral is ugly” or “It’s not suited for Catholics worship” is really nothing more than a display of simple ignorance and parroting of others.

No, it’s not based on ignorance. It’s based off of what people like. A whole bunch of people are educated on architecture and still find most modern architecture to be horrendous. You are very offensive. Fine, you think it’s beautiful. Don’t talk down to those who disagree with you.

 

[Aeolian]

But again we shouldn’t have to spend every day at the Cathedral or have to have a background in architecture to understand that a building is beautiful and fit for God’s house. (I went to college whose abbey church was in the brutalism style, but the time I left I was fond of of the austerity and how the architecture drew on inwards, probably because you didn’t want to look outwards). But in God’s house we should be able to just walk in or just look at it and see the beauty. Even people who prefer modern architecture don’t walk into a Romanesques or a Gothic church and say it is ugly. It is still beautiful though one might prefer modern architecture. I don’t know if the Crystal Cathedral is one of those buildings or not, but it certainly is a concern to some people.
Here is a picture of what I was referring to when I say brutalism. People certainly walk into this church and declare it ugly.
http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/g...es/collegeville_st-john-abbey_holtkamp_lg.jpg

The fact still remains that someone making the statement that the Crystal Cathedral is “ugly” (or worse), that it is not suitable for Catholic worship, etc. is OBJECTIVELY wrong and that reflects poorly on them. Unless they are able and willing to tell us why with authoritative back-up (and not just their personal opinions), they need to qualify their statements as just being their personal preferences so they can be discounted and not taken seriously.

I would suggest there are a sizable number of people who prefer modern/postmodern architecture who grin and bear Romanesque and Gothic. They don’t care for either style but they are aware that it’s just their personal preference and that both styles still have redeeming value (as does modern/postmodern.) They might voice the opinion that they don’t care for either style, that neither style is “beautiful” in their eyes, but they wouldn’t be as apt to make the unqualified statements we read here.

There is also the matter of people rendering conclusions based on a few on-line photos in place of a visit. That’s very bad form. People should know better than to do that. When they don’t it once again reflects poorly on them. The picture you posted is not the Crystal Cathedral. I’ve never seen the structure in real life and I would want to before I would issue a public judgement of the structure unless I did so with qualifiers, the first one being that I making the comment based on a single snapshot.

The structure sort of reminds me of a small version of the Basilica of St. Pius X. The BSPX is precisely the sort of structure that some will judge as being “ugly” (or worse) without understanding its setting or its mission which both help to make the structure beautiful in a very intrinsic sense.

 

[Aeolian]

No, it’s not based on ignorance. It’s based off of what people like. A whole bunch of people are educated on architecture and still find most modern architecture to be horrendous. You are very offensive. Fine, you think it’s beautiful. Don’t talk down to those who disagree with you.

“What people like” is based to a large degree on their collective knowledge. I suspect those who “are educated on architecture” would be more apt to state that they don’t prefer modern/postmodern architecture for stated reasons and not simply that modern/postmodern architecture is “horrendous.” I hope you can see that distinction.

When I see people here hatefully attack the Crystal Cathedral sans any constructive commentary or qualifiers that does make me sense ignorance. You might indeed find that offensive and that’s OK because needs to point out the unsubstantiated attacks.

Modern/postmodern architecture isn’t my favorite style of architecture. Not by a long shot. But the Crystal Cathedral “project” is very dear to me. I see an objectivity beautiful (which can be supported with authoritative commentary) and famous structure on a remarkable Christian campus that is being purchased by the Church for something like $.15 on the dollar. A campus that will serve the Church well in Orange County, CA. These facts have made the structure and the campus very dear to me.

 

[jilly4ski]

“What people like” is based to a large degree on their collective knowledge. I suspect those who “are educated on architecture” would be more apt to state that they don’t prefer modern/postmodern architecture for stated reasons and not simply that modern/postmodern architecture is “horrendous.” I hope you can see that distinction.

When I see people here hatefully attack the Crystal Cathedral sans any constructive commentary or qualifiers that does make me sense ignorance. You might indeed find that offensive and that’s OK because needs to point out the unsubstantiated attacks.

Modern/postmodern architecture isn’t my favorite style of architecture. Not by a long shot. But the Crystal Cathedral “project” is very dear to me. I see an objectivity beautiful (which can be supported with authoritative commentary) and famous structure on a remarkable Christian campus that is being purchased by the Church for something like $.15 on the dollar. A campus that will serve the Church well in Orange County, CA. These facts have made the structure and the campus very dear to me.

However, it sounds like you think the cathedral is beautiful because of your own biases and involvement in the project rather than based on objective criteria. Just like I am fond of the other church because of my personal connection to it, though I have no bones calling it ugly. (Objective beauty in the human mind has to do with symmetry and “correct” proportions). And authoritative commentary isn’t a really big point on your side, if it was, all architecture would be considered beautiful because there is an expert somewhere who will say so.

I don’t know if this building his those features that would make it objectively beautiful. I do know that the scaffolding look, up on the ceiling (probably holding the lights and sound system) is ugly and distracting for what would otherwise be a nice view of the shapes of the glass and outside, and the stadium seating reminds me of a concert or show rather than Mass. However, I will say that this Cathedral looks nicer than most of the others in that area of CA, and there probably are some inherent beauty in some parts of the building. The diocese got it for a great deal and should make the most of it, and make it as fit for the Catholic Mass as they can.

 

[SonCatcher]

This should satisfy those calling for a greater level of “transparency” in the Church! :tiphat:

 

[SonCatcher]

There has been some back-and-forth regarding “suitability” of a given structure for celebrating Mass.

Please recall that over Church history, we have celebrated the mysteries in the open, in caves, in converted pagan temples, in grand buildings and in simple huts. None of these is truly “suitable” for true worship of the Great God. All of them are remembered fondly by our Church who have worshipped as a minority, as the majority, in freedom, in persecution, in poverty and in excess.

The building is irrelevant. The Mass is what is important.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

There has been some back-and-forth regarding “suitability” of a given structure for celebrating Mass.

Please recall that over Church history, we have celebrated the mysteries in the open, in caves, in converted pagan temples, in grand buildings and in simple huts. None of these is truly “suitable” for true worship of the Great God. All of them are remembered fondly by our Church who have worshipped as a minority, as the majority, in freedom, in persecution, in poverty and in excess.

The building is irrelevant. The Mass is what is important.

:clapping:

 

[CaptFun]

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.

Thanks for reading and commenting on my lengthy post Aeolian. I had a couple of other “good” observations about the Cathedral, its history, and its architecture.

1. When I first visited the “campus” to hear Vice President Quayle speak (for free) in the main chapel area I was conflicted. At Catholic Churches events like this would usually be held in the parish hall (rather than in “sacred space”). But in walking up to the main building, I noticed for the first time that it was shaped like a Crystal “Noah’s Ark”. You have to see it. It reminded me of the Church/Ark comparison in an Epistle of Peter.
2. Later that day I walked about the grounds of the campus. I didn’t go to the Memorial Grounds or bookstore - but I liked the statue of Job. Something about Noah being alluded to and Job being honored - our Old Testament spiritual ancestors - really moved me.
3. My parents lived at the City Terrace Apartments (sort of next door to the Cathedral), and I enjoyed the occasional tones of the Carillon Bells intoning the time, doing a brief Christmas Carol and reminding us that a Church was there.
4. Many were stunned when “overnight” Schuller got the funding (through contributors) to build the Crystal Cathedral in the first place. He called it a miracle. His Church was famous as the “Tower of Power” program’s home and as a much discussed “drive-in church”. The Cathedral’s building actually made the ministry a bit more traditional.
5. The spires that were added was another opportunity for critics to complain about the money spent. But the ediface catches the sun and sends twinkling rays about to the people driving to Disneyland and Angel Stadium and (I must admit) looks postcard awesome from certain angles.

If it saves the Diocese millions in building costs, helps a longtime friendly Christian neighbor and even ensures just payment to creditors (of a ministry that in its own way was constantly calling people’s attention to Jesus Christ), I am for it.

Maybe an outreach to Chapman College (the other, “losing” bidder) might be in order for use of other parts of the campus. Presuming of course the college doesn’t go loony left and insist on performing a nude version of “Oh Calcutta” or “The Glory of Karl Marx!” Lol.

“Peace on earth, goodwill to men!”

 

[CaptFun]

There has been some back-and-forth regarding “suitability” of a given structure for celebrating Mass.

Please recall that over Church history, we have celebrated the mysteries in the open, in caves, in converted pagan temples, in grand buildings and in simple huts. None of these is truly “suitable” for true worship of the Great God. All of them are remembered fondly by our Church who have worshipped as a minority, as the majority, in freedom, in persecution, in poverty and in excess.

The building is irrelevant. The Mass is what is important.

YES! The Mass is what is important!

The building irrelevant? Well. This is a question to be considered. In World War II my Dad told me Chaplain/priests said Mass outside on the hoods of Jeeps. If there were a movement to make Jeep hoods “churches” now - I’d oppose it. Occasional necessity notwithstanding.

As you seem to allude to - every mass need not be in a copy of St. Peter’s Basilica.

It would seem to me that in “converting” the Crystal Cathedral, a centrally placed tabernacle and altar, crucifix, candles and room for altar servers (with new confessionals somewhere visible) ought to do it.

I would like to see a blessing of the building too. The one really bad/sad thing I remember about the Crystal Cathedral was the horrifying suicide of the man who shot himself at the “altar”. Right about the time the ministry’s financial troubles started hitting the press (I think).

I would rejoice to see a mass at the Crystal Cathedral. In fact, I rejoice to see MORE masses everywhere.

Because as you emphasize, JESUS (and the mass) should be the foremost focus.

 

[SonCatcher]

YES! The Mass is what is important!

The building irrelevant? Well. This is a question to be considered. In World War II my Dad told me Chaplain/priests said Mass outside on the hoods of Jeeps. If there were a movement to make Jeep hoods “churches” now - I’d oppose it. Occasional necessity notwithstanding.

There doesn’t seem to be a strong movement to return to the catecombs, either.

As you seem to allude to - every mass need not be in a copy of St. Peter’s Basilica.

It would seem to me that in “converting” the Crystal Cathedral, a centrally placed tabernacle and altar, crucifix, candles and room for altar servers (with new confessionals somewhere visible) ought to do it.

I would like to see a blessing of the building too. The one really bad/sad thing I remember about the Crystal Cathedral was the horrifying suicide of the man who shot himself at the “altar”. Right about the time the ministry’s financial troubles started hitting the press (I think).

I recall that news now. There is a process for re-consecrating defiled sanctuaries so I am sure this won’t be an impediment.

I would rejoice to see a mass at the Crystal Cathedral. In fact, I rejoice to see MORE masses everywhere.

Because as you emphasize, JESUS (and the mass) should be the foremost focus.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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.

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/architettura-architecture-arquitectura-10121/

 

[JRRTFAN]

41, almost 42.

What do you think about Marty Hagen and Dan Schutte? What do you think about the popular song “Sing a New Church Into Being”?

 

[Aeolian]

However, it sounds like you think the cathedral is beautiful because of your own biases and involvement in the project rather than based on objective criteria. Just like I am fond of the other church because of my personal connection to it, though I have no bones calling it ugly. (Objective beauty in the human mind has to do with symmetry and “correct” proportions). And authoritative commentary isn’t a really big point on your side, if it was, all architecture would be considered beautiful because there is an expert somewhere who will say so.

No. Objectively it’s a beautiful structure to those who have the background to accurately judge it. I have that background but even more important I have read commentary from real experts on specifically this structure which means something despite your comment. That said I may or may not like it, and I can certainly state my like or dislike based purely on my personal feelings but I would display ignorance if I said the building was “hideous” knowing that it was of good design even if I did not like it. I would also be displaying ignorance if I knew nothing about design and still felt the need to publicly judge the edifice rather than say whether or not I personally like it.

Objective beauty deals with a great deal more than symmetry and “correct” proportions…

Now, do I like the church and particularly the campus even more because it is a great bargain? Yes I do. I would really like the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels up in LA if it had cost $21M and not $210M too…

I don’t know if this building his those features that would make it objectively beautiful. I do know that the scaffolding look, up on the ceiling (probably holding the lights and sound system) is ugly and distracting for what would otherwise be a nice view of the shapes of the glass and outside, and the stadium seating reminds me of a concert or show rather than Mass. However, I will say that this Cathedral looks nicer than most of the others in that area of CA, and there probably are some inherent beauty in some parts of the building. The diocese got it for a great deal and should make the most of it, and make it as fit for the Catholic Mass as they can.

Your comments indicate that you have never been inside of the structure. “The scaffolding look, up on the ceiling” is not just up on the ceiling. You’re aware the entire building is a huge frame of welded steel trusses (“scaffolding”) with panes of glass glued to it, right? No, huh?

You comments about the stadium seating (silly) indicates to me that you are really searching for elements to denigrate so I’ll stop here.

 

[jilly4ski]

You comments about the stadium seating (silly) indicates to me that you are really searching for elements to denigrate so I’ll stop here.

Why are you taking this so personally? I said I had never been inside, from the picture I did not like the visible structural materials, however you want to describe it, up on the glass. I thought it distracting. I have been inside a church with stadium seating, a Catholic one, and I thought it was not a good way to spend my time at Mass. Have you ever sat through a Mass in stadium seats?

I did say it was better than the other Cathedrals in the vicinity and said that it probably has some very beautiful places in the building.Thus I am not denigrating the building. I am only pointing out that the whole thing is not pleasing or beautiful in its entirety, and that the diocese got a great deal for a decent serviceable building.

Your continued assertions that you can judge objective beauty and anyone than even slightly disagrees with you is stupid, is not helping your argument. In fact you keep appealing to authority that this building is objectively beautiful (considering not even philosophers can really even define that, it is a big jump) but have not given us any reasons or explanations to believe you or your authorities.

 

[Aeolian]

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/architettura-architecture-arquitectura-10121/

One of the first things that I thought about was the coming huge smile on Pope Benedict XVI’s face when he reviews a dossier on the Crystal Cathedral and approves its purchase. Benedict is a highly educated man not only of theology and philosophy but also of the arts. I have no doubt he will appreciate the structure.