How would your 'dream church' look like?

[muffinmojo]

I’ll be the first to admit that this conversation was not simply a “traditionalist’s” blue flame of how horrid and evil OLAC is. It came close with the “awful” and “monstrosity” comments but it wasn’t the typical mindless attack I have come to expect.

I still haven’t heard a valid reason to dislike the design of the OLAC but at least one person was big enough to admit they disliked it because it somehow offended their personal taste…

I dislike it because I consider the outside lacks the asthetic value to show the proper respect and ambience due to God- this is from the outside, mind you. The siding as far as I can tell is some variety of wood siding, the type that cheap housing developments use. The shape is asymmetrical and doesn’t show the grace and subtley of the great cathedrals of Europe and elsewhere. It’s not so much the modern style, as modern styles can be good(all things were modern at one point), it is that the current modern style does not focus the mind as older styles (sometimes) did. For example, I am also not the biggest fan of the baroque style, because I think the gaudy colors and ridiculous scroll work done EVERYWHERE draws attention away from the God on the altar. OLAC, on the inside, has a similar effect with its chandoliers, and the squared out space with blank walls and a tiny altar brings the focus down rather than up(as far as I can tell from pictures, again). The area behind the altar is not contemplative or uplifting, it is a blank, flat wall. Being blank and flat is not it’s problem, as a church does not need to be expensive or intricately carved to be a good church. The problem is that the natural inclination is to feel in ‘community’ as a group, listening to a speach or show of somekind. Now, this could be fixed through, as you say, a renovation of the furnishings and a well-conducted liturgy. Ad orientem worship would probably remove almost all of the negatives. The unremarkable shape of the inside and ceiling gives a sense of sterility and utilitarianism that in the modern age reminds us of a hospital or a college lecture hall.

 

[muffinmojo]

I am a big advocate for Rood screens! They were dropped in the post trent period because of Jesuit influences in the liturgy. Jesuits replaced the Rood screens with Altar Rails. The Carthusian monastary in england has a rood screen still to my knowledge, as does a newer briggitine monastary in Oregan.

Eh…why? I’ve never quite understood the point of them. Before you say it, yes, I get WHY, but I don’t understand the good of it. It doesn’t add mystery or respect…it just makes people stare a big wall while priests do mysterious things.

Traditions are only good so long as they serve as ‘railing’ to keep us on the roadway of salvation.

 

[aristotle]

Of course they are. But it gets awfully old hearing comments like “awful”, “monstrosity” and “hideous” with absolutely no explanation.

Translated: “Absolutely no explanation I personally like or would agree with”. Fair enough. I think it’s hideous. You think it’s beautiful. At least much of it is representational.

At least this time 1 or 2 admitted that their comments were based on their own personal tastes and not any sort of design or architectural standards or parameters.

“Design/architectural standards” are in this case the personal tastes of the architects, I suppose. They may like it. I don’t. And, in fact, quite a few professional architects don’t either. It’s not too hard to find strong criticism of Wright in any of his manifestations.

I also appreciate them mentioning their dislike of the founder of the cathedral as it clearly underscores him as being the true genesis of their dislike of the structure.

Hardly. The heterodoxy of His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony has nothing to do with my distaste for the Cathedral design from the outside. I didn’t even know he founded the Cathedral. I had a similar reaction (though not as pronounced) to the Orthodox Cathedral in Denver. But the inside was stunning. Maybe the same is true with this Cathedral, but I can’t tell from your pictures; it looks like an airplane hanger to me. Again, though, it’s hard to tell from pictures; standing there would be better, and I’d be happy to, once an orthodox Cardinal is there.

To suggest it is a Christian act to judge a cardinal of the Church is wrong. Take that up with your spiritual adviser.

No judging. Just saying what I see. Just like I don’t judge mountains to be tall, I don’t judge Cardinals to be heterodox. Some just plainly are, just like some mountains are tall. And my spiritual adviser has no trouble with calling things as they are, and certainly not with my reference to His Grace.

As for your hit-and-run style of posting, I find it cowardly.

Which I interpret as Spiller wishing to talk more about this topic. But likely we should start a new thread for this (at least for the aspect of discerning the public statements of Cardinals).

 

[Spiller]

I dislike it because I consider the outside lacks the asthetic value to show the proper respect and ambience due to God- this is from the outside, mind you.

But WHY do you feel that way?

The siding as far as I can tell is some variety of wood siding, the type that cheap housing developments use.

The entire building is tinted, poured-in-place architectural concrete that has been bead-blasted and sanded. Quite pricey – designed to last a minimum of 500 years. A feeling of “permanence” permeates the grounds.

The shape is asymmetrical and doesn’t show the grace and subtley of the great cathedrals of Europe and elsewhere.

So you say. Why? Opps – you haven’t answered my first question yet.

It’s not so much the modern style, as modern styles can be good(all things were modern at one point), it is that the current modern style does not focus the mind as older styles (sometimes) did. For example, I am also not the biggest fan of the baroque style, because I think the gaudy colors and ridiculous scroll work done EVERYWHERE draws attention away from the God on the altar.

OLAC is not “modern.”

OLAC, on the inside, has a similar effect with its chandoliers, and the squared out space with blank walls and a tiny altar brings the focus down rather than up(as far as I can tell from pictures, again).

Are you making this up as you go along? The mensa of the altar alone is a 8’x10’x10" thick slab of marble that weight six tons. It’s clear you have never been to this structure. The “chandeliers” are somewhat unfortunate – they are not part of the original design, but each one carries a speaker and were needed to give OLAC the finest sound system of any church in the USA – and likely the entire world.

The area behind the altar is not contemplative or uplifting, it is a blank, flat wall. Being blank and flat is not it’s problem, as a church does not need to be expensive or intricately carved to be a good church.

No again. It’s not a “blank, flat wall.” It’s 7 tapestries that cost more than most suburban churches – or the gaudiest of reredos

Of course if is understated to keep the focus on the altar on not on a fancy wall foof.

The problem is that the natural inclination is to feel in ‘community’ as a group, listening to a speach or show of somekind. Now, this could be fixed through, as you say, a renovation of the furnishings and a well-conducted liturgy. Ad orientem worship would probably remove almost all of the negatives.

LOL!!

The unremarkable shape of the inside and ceiling gives a sense of sterility and utilitarianism that in the modern age reminds us of a hospital or a college lecture hall.

That’s laughable… That was the comment that put your posting over the top…

Dr. Moneo spent a great deal of time orienting the building on the lot (check it out on Google Earth sometime) with the positioning of the entrance ambulatory and the shape of the sanctuary and the nave – there is not a single right angle in the entire building – very much on purpose.

You couldn’t be more wrong – while the room is 58,000 square feet with an 90’ tall ceiling, it feels much smaller and not boxy, utilitarian or angular in the least. Dr. Moneo clearly did his homework in this area. You are flat-out wrong on this one – but then again you have clearly never visited the venue – else you wouldn’t make such a comment…

Your posting really shows why I wonder about those who feel the need to attack the building without ever visiting it. It’s clear you really have no idea what it would be like to stand next to this building…

 

[Spiller]

Is it even possible for you to be polite or understanding to someone? He wrote a very charitable and reasonable post, and you respond with this?? It drips with superiority…please try and reread it and others among your posts and see it from our perspective.

What, the hit-and-run job?

 

[aristotle]

It’s 7 tapestries that cost more than most suburban churches – or the gaudiest of reredos
http://www.olacathedral.org/zoom/images/altar2.jpg

This right here actually isn’t terrible. Just a well-fit tabernacle, and you could have ad orientem worship in Latin there quite beautifully. Maybe even out of the 1962 Missal. You would need a lot of incense, to fill the whole sanctuary.

I wonder if His Grace would be willing to celebrate such an extraordinary Mass in such an extraordinary building.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The entire building is tinted, poured-in-place architectural concrete that has been bead-blasted and sanded. Quite pricey – designed to last a minimum of 500 years. A feeling of “permanence” permeates the grounds.

You still haven’t told us the objective reasons why we should consider this building beautiful.

I just read that this building cost $200 million, so I guess your term “quite pricey” would fit. I don’t know what Dr. Moneo got, but if he got the AIA norm, he got $12 million. Perhaps he discounted his fee some, though.

Evidently the archdiocese of Los Angeles paid out $720 million in “priest abuse” lawsuits in the past two years alone.

The two together are nearly a billion dollars. Must be a very wealthy diocese.

 

[patrick457]

My dream church? Big, Byzantine, with lots of gold and icons. Kind of like St. Sophia Orthodox Cathedral in California, beautiful.

http://www.cathedralsofcalifornia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_0205web-blog.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2173/2045936739_96411ccaa2.jpg

Beautiful!

To be frank, I prefer more those icons that are painted (or, some would say, ‘written’) in the ‘traditional’ manner than those more true-to-life ones, but here it works quite well.

 

[ruslan]

I haven’t seen all that many churches, but I think even beyond my characteristic favorites, I have to go with the “New Cathedral” in St. Louis is Byzantine in style and adornment.(I don’t know why) congregational and altar spaces, yet with little, prayer nooks and crannies seemingly all over the place. Lots of surprises. Well lit from windows high in the dome. It’s beyond beautiful. It almost seems beyond the work of human hands.
I have never seen St. Francis De Sales in St. Louis, but I’ll take the previous poster’s word for it and see it next time I’m in St. Louis.

Took the online tour of the “New Cathedral”. Very beautiful.
:harp:

 

[GregoryPalamas]

This www.byzantinecatholic.com or This cantius.org/

CDL

 

[patrick457]

Very nice artwork. I’d love to see it in real life someday! It reminds me of our Cathedral in Toledo, OH. rosarycathedral.org/vtour10.asp

I sure hope so; that’s only the sanctuary portion, I plan on adding a rood screen on that one (Add me to those who like rood screens).

 

[mercygate]

This right here actually isn’t terrible. Just a well-fit tabernacle, and you could have ad orientem worship in Latin there quite beautifully. Maybe even out of the 1962 Missal. You would need a lot of incense, to fill the whole sanctuary.

I wonder if His Grace would be willing to celebrate such an extraordinary Mass in such an extraordinary building.

Because the nave of OLA is constantly being trooped-through by mobs of tourists, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved elsewhere (as it is in St. Peter’s and other “big” churches. At OLA the reservation chapel is tucked serenely into the south ambulatory behind a soudproof glass door. It is an intimate room where you will always find people at prayer before Our Lord.

 

[mercygate]

You still haven’t told us the objective reasons why we should consider this building beautiful.

I just read that this building cost $200 million, so I guess your term “quite pricey” would fit. I don’t know what Dr. Moneo got, but if he got the AIA norm, he got $12 million. Perhaps he discounted his fee some, though.

Evidently the archdiocese of Los Angeles paid out $720 million in “priest abuse” lawsuits in the past two years alone.

The two together are nearly a billion dollars. Must be a very wealthy diocese.

OLA was paid for entirely by private subscription.

 

[mercygate]

Here’s another of my favorites – St. Vincent Ferrer in New York, named by the AIA as one of the 50 most important buildings in America:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[patrick457]

Eh…why? I’ve never quite understood the point of them. Before you say it, yes, I get WHY, but I don’t understand the good of it. It doesn’t add mystery or respect…it just makes people stare a big wall while priests do mysterious things.

Let me correct you here. The Rood Screen is not really an opaque wall; if you’ve looked at the pictures, you’ve noticed they are more ‘open’ than the Iconostasis so the congregation are not really staring ‘at a wall’. It was so since the Western Church was actually encouraged ‘clarity’ more, in contrast to the East, which encouraged ‘mystery’.

Beginning at the 8th century, there were a series of controversies surrounding the Eucharist and the other sacraments.
This grew out of, and encouraged the growth of a great deal of interest in logic as applied to theology (although this was going on in quite a sophisticated way in Boethius). All of this came to a head in Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century.

Over the next century, emphasis began to be placed on the elevated Host (it was about this time that the Elevation was introduced at the Mass) which encouraged an increasing interest in the Visual and in the natural world, and this only increased over the centuries, which led to the eventual abandonment of Rood Screens in favor of Communion Rails.

Apparently, in Northern Italy after Trent there developed a movement of reform and strict rubricism which demanded that many Medieval accoutrements in Churches, such as Screens (though to be fair, this movement already existed for some time before the Council) be removed and/or destroyed. take for example, Giorgio Vasari writes in his Le Vite delle più eccellenti pittori, scultori, ed architettori (1568 edition):

‘The Duke (Cosimo Medici) takes pleasure…as befits a Catholic prince in constructing and renewing churches, in imitation of King Solomon. Thus he recently had me remove from Sta. Maria Novella the rood-screen which destroyed its beauty, and make a richly decorated new choir behind the high altar so that the old choir, which had occupied a great part of the nave, could be removed. This makes it appear to be a beautiful new church, as it really is…’

As to reason why I prefer it, it is because the Rood Screen is full of symbolism.
They serve as a division between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’; a good reminder of the holiness and the otherness of God. And just as the Icons in an Iconostasis are windows into Heaven, the the Rood screen are windows into the Sanctuary. It helps people view the Mass while making a barrier helping to preserve its mystery. At the top of a Rood Screen, there is a Crucifix; a visual reminder of what happens at every Mass. Plus the Screen is usually decorated with images of Our Lord (our only way to the Father) and Our Lady, the Angels and the Saints, the cloud of witnesses powerful with God, our intercessors.

But then again, different strokes…

 

[patrick457]

OLA was paid for entirely by private subscription.

Color me ignorant, but what does ‘private subscription’ mean?

 

[mercygate]

Color me ignorant, but what does ‘private subscription’ mean?

Individuals put up the bucks. Nothing came out of the diocesan budget.

 

[chewchoo]

THANK YOU for these photos! It tends to confirm something I have thought for some time. A parish near here was once an ethnic German church. Classic German Gothic. Inside were columns, a large high altar made of wood and a lifesize Pieta carved from two huge walnut blocks, joined almost indetctably together. Germans were nothing if not masters of wood carving.
Old photos show it as having had a rather dark interior. The high altar was natural wood, as was the Pieta.

However, it was later changed. They painted the ceiling sky blue, the columns and walls white, the high altar whites and creams. They even painted the Pieta white! (Later restored and reset in place) They brightened up the statues and added a fair amount of gold leaf accents. They left St. Benedict and St. Scholastica on the high altar, but added St. Rose and St. Therese of Lisieux (both holding boquets of roses) to Our Lady on the left side altar.

For a long time I couldn’t figure it out. Then, after doing a bit of study of the parish roster and looking at the cemetery, I realized the ethnic composition of the parish had changed from German to Polish. The original Germans were largely Rhinelanders, from Baden, the Black Forest. After visiting a number of German-built churches I truly have come to believe that many, at least, brought the Teutonic forest into the church with them, so to speak. Natural wood and a lot of it, Gothic style with columns and overarching “branches”. Poles, on the other hand, prefer a brighter style; lots of white, lots of blue. Flowers. I have seen photos of the interiors of churches in Poland and they tend to follow that color pattern. Reminds me of the origin of their name “Polonie”; “people of the fields”. Open skies, brightness, flowers. Likely their affection for floral motifs has a similar origin. Even the men have floral patterns on their “traditional” clothing.

Of course, I also realize that Poles deliberately chose Roman Catholicism over Orthodoxy; thus joining themselves to the West rather than the East. I understand they deliberately bypassed Germany (not too friendly, those neighbors), placed Poland under the protection of the Popes and imported their early architects and artists from the Mediterranean rather than from their nearer neighbors. Part of “Polishness” is, I understand “Romanitas” (Romanism, and it means more than Catholicism). Likely that influence has something to do with the brightness. But still, I cannot help but think the “Polonie” brought their open fields inside the churches with them, just as the Germans brought their forests inside with them.

Interesting to me, though I’m not Polish. Fascinating if true.

a very interesting observation - thanks

 

[patrick457]

http://www.olacathedral.org/zoom/images/altar2.jpg

A bit too empty and plain for my taste, I’ll admit (plus the chairs behind are a bit distracting). But at least the sanctuary’s got a beautiful Crucifix and the angels on the Altar are quite decent.

As for that curtain-like thingie behind the chairs (I’m a bit confused; what is that?), what’s that supposed to represent?

 

[ElizabethPH]

I just want to say how much I’ve enjoyed all the beautiful pictures of your dream churches. They are just lovely and even as my taste is more simple I sure appreciate these wonderfully elaborate churches.