How come the LA Cathedral costs so much?

[MrTheosis]

Care to share your thoughts on the Crystal Cathedral that is going to be taken up by the Diocese of Orange?

The Christ Cathedral campus was a remarkably good buy. If the Diocese of Orange does not go too far in their remodeling of it, it will certainly become a Catholic landmark, thanks be to God.

 

[zz912]

I suspect you have never attended a Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.

While I lament what it might have been, while I am bothered by what it cost and while I truly dislike its strong association with Roger Mahony, it’s hardly a “hideous” structure. Far from it.

I don’t believe that anyone who has actually attended Mass there – especially a special Mass like the Easter Vigil Mass would make such a comment.

It’s sad to see people judging a cathedral based on photos and possibly a bit of video.

Nope, haven’t attended Mass there, but fail to see how that changes anything. Attending Mass would change the look of the Cathedral. And it looks awful. Again, it looks like a museum of modern art, instead of a Cathedral.

 

[MrTheosis]

Nope, haven’t attended Mass there, but fail to see how that changes anything. Attending Mass would change the look of the Cathedral. And it looks awful. Again, it looks like a museum of modern art, instead of a Cathedral.

Unfortunately I don’t think you understand what’s going on at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. I certainly did not until I attended several Masses there. For anyone to truly understand, they would have to attend a few liturgies there.

In the simplest terms, many cathedrals/churches are about being monumental and beautiful works in themselves. Their “ministry” is to show-off (and I mean this in a good way) on behalf of God.

The focus of the Cathedral or Our Lady of the Angels is not to look intrinsically beautiful but to facilitate and support the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a truly wondrous way. When you go to a big Mass at the cathedral your focus is not on a beautiful building but on the Eucharist in a very stunning way. The building melts away. It becomes all about the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father.

The building’s designer knew what he was doing.

The architect did this through the exquisite use of geometry/space, lighting, sonic engineering, materials, etc. A prime example would be the ambulatory that people walk-up as they enter the cathedral. It truly does serve to isolate the cathedral from the noisy outside. It also gives the faithful a minute or two to leave the world behind and to focus their thoughts as they prepare for Mass.

Experiencing the cathedral gives insight as to why it looks like it does. Are there things I would change to suit my own personal taste? Sure, but there are also plenty of qualities that I would retain.

In the end you need to remember that you judgement of looking “awful” is based on your own personal taste and very little practical understanding of this specific structure.

 

[SMHW]

The focus of the Cathedral or Our Lady of the Angels is not to look intrinsically beautiful but to facilitate and support the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a truly wondrous way. When you go to a big Mass at the cathedral your focus is not on a beautiful building but on the Eucharist in a very stunning way. The building melts away. It becomes all about the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father.

I would have to agree with this.

 

[Kielbasi]

Its very specialized work and few are really qualified to do it.

Here in Pittsburgh, the gothic 1st Baptist Church had their tall steeple removed, repaired on their lawn and replaced and the cost was a million bucks.

The altar and other items at the LA cathedral were works of art that were fabricated somewhere else, shipped to LA and then they had to figure out how to get it in there and make adjustments. And it all has to be done extra precise, because the idea is for the building to last hundreds of years in an earthquake zone.

I’m not suprised the costs are very high for any of this.

 

[zz912]

Unfortunately I don’t think you understand what’s going on at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. I certainly did not until I attended several Masses there. For anyone to truly understand, they would have to attend a few liturgies there.

In the simplest terms, many cathedrals/churches are about being monumental and beautiful works in themselves. Their “ministry” is to show-off (and I mean this in a good way) on behalf of God.

The focus of the Cathedral or Our Lady of the Angels is not to look intrinsically beautiful but to facilitate and support the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a truly wondrous way. When you go to a big Mass at the cathedral your focus is not on a beautiful building but on the Eucharist in a very stunning way. The building melts away. It becomes all about the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father.

The building’s designer knew what he was doing.

The architect did this through the exquisite use of geometry/space, lighting, sonic engineering, materials, etc. A prime example would be the ambulatory that people walk-up as they enter the cathedral. It truly does serve to isolate the cathedral from the noisy outside. It also gives the faithful a minute or two to leave the world behind and to focus their thoughts as they prepare for Mass.

Experiencing the cathedral gives insight as to why it looks like it does. Are there things I would change to suit my own personal taste? Sure, but there are also plenty of qualities that I would retain.

In the end you need to remember that you judgement of looking “awful” is based on your own personal taste and very little practical understanding of this specific structure.

All that could have been done without making the outside of the Cathedral look so ugly.

 

[MrTheosis]

All that could have been done without making the outside of the Cathedral look so ugly.

That’s not true.

First, the structure itself is not “ugly.” It’s inaccurate to say that. It might be accurate to say that it’s mundane, asymmetrical, overly utilitarian, blah, etc., but it’s not ugly.

Aside from that however the aforementioned ambulatory, the medieval “light shafts” that bring sunlight into the cathedral and a host of other features do dictate in large part what the outside looks like.

Yes, it most certainly could have looked different. But substantially better? Not really.

In the end, people are going to hate and there’s not a darned thing anyone can say to change that. I do suspect that attending this coming Easter Vigil Mass at the cathedral would change 9 of 10 hater’s minds however.

 

[zz912]

That’s not true.

First, the structure itself is not “ugly.” It’s inaccurate to say that. It might be accurate to say that it’s mundane, asymmetrical, overly utilitarian, blah, etc., but it’s not ugly.

It is incredibly accurate to state that the Cathedral is ugly. You may disagree with my opinion, but your opinion on the appearance of the Cathedral is just a valid as mine.