New Cathedral in Oakland, CA

[Rand_Al_Thor]

May I ask how you could tell which buildings were Churches?

They are built in the same architectural style, but churches have a unique look to them that makes them clearly distinguishable from the other buildings around them.

Somehow it seems like an unfair comparison to compare a Catholic Church to the deeds of the Reformers.

The first thing the Protestants did was break from the Catholic Church and its Teachings.

The unbeautifying of the churches, which I suppose is the answer you want, came later, and was the result of the belief that the church was not truly the house of God anymore than your house or mine. It came from their belief that the tabernacle contained God, and that the church should therefore be made accordingly.

I know that they broke from the Church’s teachings. That kind of goes without saying. Obviously you were able to figure out what I meant–what was the first thing they did TO CHURCHES? And why is the comparison unfair? It makes a Catholic church look like a Protestant “megachurch”. My point is why build a church that looks like a Protestant church instead of one that actually looks like a Catholic church?
And for the record, that is not the main reason that Protestants removed statues, icons, and stained glass windows.

You will of course, come back and say that the people in Oakland, therefore, must deny this belief as well, as their new cathedral is “plain”.

Oh, will I now? I was going to do nothing of the sort. You are not a very good psychic.

But I contend that it is not plain, it is simply built in a newer form of architecture, which I contend is not at all plain, as much as it is “common” because many impressive structures are built in the same style, much like you said many buildings were built in the Gothic style. One architect saw the good things of one style, and decided to incorporate it to their buildings. That is how areas end up with buildings that look like they fit together. I would not expect a Gothic or Romanesque Church in the middle of a large city like Oakland any more than I would expect a spanish mission-style church to be in Rome. It wouldn’t fit. Even looking at the new Co-Cathedral in Houston, it takes queues from older styles, but is modernized to fit in with the styles of the city.

Rome is quite a modern city now. Many of the churches are in areas with office buildings, shops, busy streets, ect. Churches should stand out. Why would we want all of them to just blend right in?
This church is located in downtown Portland, just north of the most “modern” area of the city.
weddingmapper.com/photos/1/78/103860_l.jpg
Looks fine to me where it is. But then again, I actually like to know that I’m looking at a church.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[SenorSalsa]

Not magic…just the philosophy of beauty, an expression of wisdom known since before Christian times but often ignored these days.

The philosophy of beauty says that you can start by looking at the building’s three major ontological attributes:

1. Consonantia: that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionate
2. Integritas: that which is beautiful exhibits wholeness
3. Claritas: that which is beautiful is ontologically clear

I would definitely say that it is proportionate, and that it exhibits a wholeness. I can’t say I really understand what “ontologically clear” means, so I will not rule on that.

But to me, it seems very geometrically sound, and complete. It doesn’t look jagged or like they ran out of funds in the middle

They are built in the same architectural style, but churches have a unique look to them that makes them clearly distinguishable from the other buildings around them.

again, what are these magic qualities that everyone seems to mention, but nobody can list

Rome is quite a modern city now. Many of the churches are in areas with office buildings, shops, busy streets, ect. Churches should stand out. Why would we want all of them to just blend right in?
This church is located in downtown Portland, just north of the most “modern” area of the city.
weddingmapper.com/photos/1/78/103860_l.jpg
Looks fine to me where it is. But then again, I actually like to know that I’m looking at a church.

In Christ,
Rand

Right, but the churches came first, and were designed with the architecture of the day, same as in Portland. My guess is we go back, and a lot of Portland’s buildings were made of stone and with that type of style. I would also venture to say that a new church would not be built out of stone like that today.

For the record, I don’t think that the new cathedral is the best I have ever seen, but I think we go awry by calling it “unchurchly”.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

They are built in the same architectural style, but churches have a unique look to them that makes them clearly distinguishable from the other buildings around them.
…
This church is located in downtown Portland, just north of the most “modern” area of the city.
weddingmapper.com/photos/1/78/103860_l.jpg
Looks fine to me where it is. But then again, I actually like to know that I’m looking at a church.

That building could easily be a city hall, if not for the sign. That’s what all the big buildings from around that time looked like.

 

[Lepanto]

I would definitely say that it is proportionate, and that it exhibits a wholeness. I can’t say I really understand what “ontologically clear” means, so I will not rule on that.

But to me, it seems very geometrically sound, and complete. It doesn’t look jagged or like they ran out of funds in the middle

again, what are these magic qualities that everyone seems to mention, but nobody can list

Right, but the churches came first, and were designed with the architecture of the day, same as in Portland. My guess is we go back, and a lot of Portland’s buildings were made of stone and with that type of style. I would also venture to say that a new church would not be built out of stone like that today.

For the record, I don’t think that the new cathedral is the best I have ever seen, but I think we go awry by calling it “unchurchly”.

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such. Simply put, “claritas,” or “ontologically clear” means that something looks like what it is supposed to be, and not something else.

For example: a dog looks like a dog. It exhibits traits of “dogness.” Even though there are different breeds of dogs, no dog would ever be mistaken for a cat, even though in some ways they are similar (both have fur, four legs, etc).

Another example: An airplane looks like an airplane. It exhibits traits of “airplaneness.” Even though there are different kinds of airplanes, no airplane would ever be mistaken for a helicopter, even though in some ways they are similar (both can fly, both are modes of transportation, etc).

This means, again simply put, a church looks like a church. It exhibits traits of “churchness.” Even though there are different kinds of church buildings, no church would ever be mistaken for an Applebees Restaurant (or office tower), even though in some ways they are similar (both provide shelter, both are places for people to congregate, etc).

Bottom line: if a church building does not look like a church building, it does not exhibit claritas, and therefore is not ontologically (true to its being) clear.

 

[MoBeck]

Rome is quite a modern city now. Many of the churches are in areas with office buildings, shops, busy streets, ect. Churches should stand out. Why would we want all of them to just blend right in?
This church is located in downtown Portland, just north of the most “modern” area of the city.
weddingmapper.com/photos/1/78/103860_l.jpg
Looks fine to me where it is. But then again, I actually like to know that I’m looking at a church.

In Christ,
Rand

That’s a church?
It looks like a city hall or an armory.

As for churches now being surrounded by modern buildings you should see here in Albany. Our cathedral is completely dwarfed by the State Museum, which sits directly behind it.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I think that church is beautiful! The one in Oakland, however, is horrifying.

 

[SenorSalsa]

That’s a church?
It looks like a city hall or an armory.

As for churches now being surrounded by modern buildings you should see here in Albany. Our cathedral is completely dwarfed by the State Museum, which sits directly behind it.

Again, the modern buildings look like they probably came long after the church, which both used the architecture of their times. My point was not that old buildings and new ones can’t mix, but rather that when those churches were built, they would have fit in with the buildings around it. So to should churches built now fit in with the buildings around it. It gives a sense of unity and flow to the whole community.

Does it have to exactly mirror other buildings? No, but they will probably take architectural cues from each other.

And I see that still no one has an answer to what magic properties make a church look like a church

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Bottom line: if a church building does not look like a church building, it does not exhibit claritas, and therefore is not ontologically (true to its being) clear.

You guys who think it doesn’t look like a church… what else could it possibly be confused for? It certainly doesn’t look like any of the other buildings around it.

 

[Lepanto]

My point was not that old buildings and new ones can’t mix, but rather that when those churches were built, they would have fit in with the buildings around it. So to should churches built now fit in with the buildings around it. It gives a sense of unity and flow to the whole community.

A house of God should be distinctive, and NOT look like a corporate headquarters. The root word for sacred, or holy, is something set apart for God, as opposed to the profane and worldly.

And I see that still no one has an answer to what magic properties make a church look like a church

Nobody claimed that there are magic properties, yet you keep asking for this. I have already given you the three major attributes of the philosophy of beauty. Not magic–just philosophy (and theology).

 

[RLT]

you mean like the giant cross and Jesus that are visible from the outside of the Cathedral?

except for the pic of the model I don’t see a cross and I get the impression that the picture of Christ can only be seen when up close to the building.

 

[thedavidwilson]

You guys who think it doesn’t look like a church… what else could it possibly be confused for? It certainly doesn’t look like any of the other buildings around it.

music/concert hall
office building
spaceship
and worst of all it looks like a protestant church (btw protestants are still considered heretics by the RCC)

 

[rjs1]

This is a horrific piece of architecture, does not even look like a Church. With Churches and schools closing across the country where does the Archdiocese get the gall to pay 131 mil for a building that does not even look like a Church. Disgusting.

Exactly!

Can someone start a group to campaign for Catholic churches to be built in the traditional style, based on the idea of the cross and the Holy of Holies?

The Orthodox are very strict as to the structure and layout of their churches and they base it all on traditional spiritual and theological principles.

Too many modern Caholic churches are, by their design, deliberately leading people away from the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holiness of God.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

and worst of all it looks like a protestant church (btw protestants are still considered heretics by the RCC)

Are they? Wow, because the past two Popes sure have spent a great deal of time talking with or being around Protestants and other non-Catholics. In friendly and ecumenical ways, too.

 

[SenorSalsa]

A house of God should be distinctive, and NOT look like a corporate headquarters. The root word for sacred, or holy, is something set apart for God, as opposed to the profane and worldly.

Nobody claimed that there are magic properties, yet you keep asking for this. I have already given you the three major attributes of the philosophy of beauty. Not magic–just philosophy (and theology).

nobody claimed that there were “magic qualities”, but there have been an awful lot of posts saying this building does not look like a church, about how in Europe, even though all the buildings are the same style you can immediately pick out the churches, etc.

I want to know what it is, especially in the second example that is more concrete, how it is possible to distinguish a church from another building. What are the architectural queues that immediately make a church look different than any other builiding

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I agree with SenorSalsa on this point- architecture evolves over time. The churches constructed in Europe at the time would have been constructed with similar materials and have bared the same look (i.e. color) of the surrounding buildings, thus blending in.

Churches do evolve over the centuries, but I think there CAN be a point where we say, “Wow, buildings of this period were far superior to the ones being built now.” I mean, people should atleast overwhelmingly agree about a temple’s look.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

music/concert hall
office building
spaceship

Can you give any examples of office buildings, concert halls or spaceships that look like this cathedral? Pictures would be helpful.

and worst of all it looks like a protestant church (btw protestants are still considered heretics by the RCC)

I thought protestant churches were simple and plain and inexpensive? This cathedral is anything but those qualities.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Can you give any examples of office buildings, concert halls or spaceships that look like this cathedral? Pictures would be helpful.

This comes from post #16.

 

[bankerdavid]

My point is why build a church that looks like a Protestant church instead of one that actually looks like a Catholic church?

OK, I gotta know, other than having a cross on top and a sign outside proclaiming that it’s a Catholic church, what makes the building a CATHOLIC church?

If you looked at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, would you say it’s a Catholic Church? As I’ve said before, and again, I’m not defending the architecture of the Cathedral in Oakland, I’ve seen many Catholic Churches, and each one has it’s own style, charm and beauty. I’ve seen Catholic Churches that looked like 1 room schoolhouses, Mosques, and just about everything in between. And of course, this new Cathedral. Some were to my tastes, some not, but somehow I believe that God has a hand in every Church that’s built, and because they are all for God’s glory, He loves every one.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

KathleenElsie:
Those buildings in PPG square don’t look the same as the Cathedral. Put the Cathedral side by side with those, and ask people which one is the church, and they’ll know.

 

[onenow1]

Those buildings in PPG square don’t look the same as the Cathedral. Put the Cathedral side by side with those, and ask people which one is the church, and they’ll know.

YUP! OneNow1

The church is univversal even in architecture, the inside is what counts most.

Peace