S
- Status
E
ethelzguy
Guest
It’s hard to say just by looking at a few photos. An in-person visit might be more revealing.
I did notice what appeared to be a lack of kneelers.
I did notice what appeared to be a lack of kneelers.
A
AlanF
Guest
A
AlanF
Guest
It looks very… protestant… doesn’t it?
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I think it does although at least they have a Crucifix with the Corpus. It is very plain. No statues. Only the one icon it would appear. The inside, from watching the video, looks like just a lot of wood like you’re in Noah’s Ark which I guess could have some symbolism. It definitely doesn’t strike me as all that full of what makes us Catholic.
Pax Christi tecum.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
While most of us consider Gothic architecture to be “traditional”, what did the churches look like from 33 to say, 550 AD?
Granted, this new cathedral doesn’t look the least bit “traditional” as most of us view it.
But, does tradition evolve, at least where building architechture is concerned?
Building standards, methods, and materials change over time.
Granted, this new cathedral doesn’t look the least bit “traditional” as most of us view it.
But, does tradition evolve, at least where building architechture is concerned?
Building standards, methods, and materials change over time.
N
Nickkname
Guest
Isn’t this the site of the infamous false apparitions?
Speaking of false apparitions, don’t click on the link in strugglingalong’s signatue. The site is about a false Marian apparition. Here’s something from the site:
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Sure but the questions are, at least in my mind:
- Does it objectively represent the Catholic Faith and practices well?
- Does it inspire love of God? Devotion?
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I don’t know if this new cathedral is the site of the infamous false apparitions.
I don’t know what you’re saying about Our Lady’s message to Rosario Toscano. The local Bishop there is very approving of the apparitions and he has even built a structure over the stone where Our Lady appeared to Rosario. I’ve heard nothing of anyone denouncing them as false and for now I’ll take the local Bishop over your own opinion. I’m not saying people have to believe it but from the messages I have read I’ve been very edified with a greater love for God.
Pax Christi tecum.
N
Nickkname
Guest
I think it was Bay Area or Bay Side. Not sure which.
But I am sure of one thing: A Priest and only a Priest may bless someone in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Mary cannot bless someone in this manner. Therefore, that apparition is not Mary.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
How do you know Mary can’t do it? She is with God and God sends her…? Honestly, I don’t know the answer.I think it was Bay Area or Bay Side. Not sure which.
But I am sure of one thing: A Priest and only a Priest may bless someone in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Mary cannot bless someone in this manner. Therefore, that apparition is not Mary.
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
But Mary is no mere lay person, also she is in heaven with God and sent by Him when she appears. I don’t know if the same thing applies.
Pax Christi tecum.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Hey folks, I think discussion of unapproved appartitions are off limits at CAF.
Let’s not get the thread about the Cathedral architechture deleted.
Thanks.
Let’s not get the thread about the Cathedral architechture deleted.
Thanks.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Those are interesting questions.
- Is a building supposed to represent the Catholic Faith and practices? In what ways? Are those ways addressed with this structure?
- I would think that “inspiration of love of God, and/or devotion” would be wholly subjective. A lone flower growing up out of a crack in the sidewalk can do that. A crucifix can do that. Many things can do that. It depends on the mindset of the individual.
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
You’re thinking of the false apparitions at Bayside, Queens, New York. Oakland, California is in the greater San Francisco Bay area and a lot of the media there have “Bay” in their names.
I realize that personal preference and taste has a lot to do with our reactions to new buildings, but I think this is an inspirational design. It soars, it has all those visual cues to the Ark, and I’m sure the video doesn’t do it justice. Externally I find it a lot more appealing than the cubist bunker in Los Angeles (as artistic as that may be on the inside).
N
Nickkname
Guest
Thanks for the correction
A
adstrinity
Guest
I wanted to like it; the description includes, “Here sacred candleholders are bead-blasted to a heavenly sheen; holy texts are illuminated in stainless steel and embedded in resin compounds in the concrete flooring; and the focal point — a massive image of Christ himself — is formed by a custom-designed computer algorithm, with precision laser-drilled perforations in dozens of aluminum panels, shaping the hallowed figure in tiny points of light.” This seems pretty spot on considering this is, to my knowledge, the best we have and we want to give the best we have to God – this was the reason for stained glass and marble hundreds of years ago, BUT, on the inside, it looks like a sports stadium. It doesn’t look that different from any other building from the outside, either, really.
I’m not a fan of it. What can be done, though to accommodate the people? The Cathedral is large and Mass is celebrated in 17 different languages which shows that this is possibly the best way to accomodate the people. A cruciform building may not have been practical for the people. A cross IS visibly seen from the outside…
I want to like it so much…
I’m not a fan of it. What can be done, though to accommodate the people? The Cathedral is large and Mass is celebrated in 17 different languages which shows that this is possibly the best way to accomodate the people. A cruciform building may not have been practical for the people. A cross IS visibly seen from the outside…
I want to like it so much…
W
Windmill
Guest
Michael Rose’s book, Ugly as Sin, goes in depth into the phenomena of bad church architecture. He enumerates traditional aspects of church architecture (which both Catholic and Protestant builders respected in their church designs), and he explains why these aspects are important. He shows many photos of old churches that respected these standards, and he shows many pictures of modern churches that disregard church architectural history. It is very interesting, even for someone like me who didn’t have much background in this area.
He basically condenses them down into three main categories:
He basically condenses them down into three main categories:
- **Permanence **- the church should be made of materials that endure. This both represents the Faith, itself, which has endured unchanged in doctrinal essence, as well as representing the permanent place of the Church in society, which it has shaped throughout the course of history. To introduce folding chairs, cheap drywall, large glass walls on flimsy metallic frames (as is shown in the cathedral above), basically CHEAP materials…well, you give the impression that this building, just like the faith, is not timeless, is subject to demolition, and is something that will be different from generation to generation. Many churches built in this modern era will not see 200 years of use. In 2200 AD, Catholics will only know our architecture by old photos, yet Notre Dame Cathedral (Paris) will still be standing. It’s no wonder that our churches don’t draw pilgrims. They all go to Europe.
- **Verticality **- high, vaulted ceilings that raise one’s eyes heavenward raises one’s thoughts to heavenly things. While it may seem like wasted space (especially in this day of modern air conditioning), it is really a use of space to draw attention to the primacy of the vertical relationship in the Christian life. We draw close to God, and because of this primary relationship, we are able to love our neighbor. Sometimes, you see an overstressing of the horizontal aspect of Church architecture (low ceilings, etc…), and if you ask the designers, I would not be surprised if they come back with a man-centered theology. It’s not universal, but an outright denial of historical norms in architecture is usually a deliberate, conscious act that springs from a certain theology.
- **Iconography **- Symbols (eg. statues, icons, frescoes, crucifixes, carvings, etc…) speak a thousand words and remind the Christian of the depth of the Faith. To reduce a church interior to bareness is to deny the fact that the Church is a group of embodied souls. We worship with our bodies, which are matter. To eliminate iconography is to embrace a puritanical starkness that seeks to find a solely spiritual encounter with Christ - this is something that is contrary to our human nature.
- Status