The newest Cathedral

  • Thread starter Thread starter strugglingalong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Windmill said:
To introduce folding chairs, cheap drywall, large glass walls on flimsy metallic frames (as is shown in the cathedral above), basically CHEAP materials.

Glass walls are bad but stained glass windows are good?

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.

Please consider, that the United States is just over 200 years old. Many of those European churches are there simply because they were built hundreds of years before the USA even existed. Time will tell. The US does already have many examples of splendid architechture.
  1. **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.
Or, it may be an energy issue. Heat rises. Those sturctures with cavernous ceilings cost a bundle to heat in the wintertime because all the heat rises to the top. When attending the Sacrifice of the Mass, should our attention be upward, or toward the Altar of Sacrifice?
  1. **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.
I totally agree with you here. A church without statues, etc., hardly seems Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
ethelzguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
All other criticisms aside, I would suggest withholding judgment on the kneelers. The article says they’re still working on it (i.e. “putting the finishing touches”) and the kneelers may be one of the last things to be installed.

I remember when the Cathedral here in Los Angeles was being built - many people criticized it for not having kneelers, based on some photos they’d seen online. Turns out those photos had been taken before the kneelers were installed, so that particular criticism was unfounded.
 
And you know, I don’t think Church architecture should break with established tradition either. I’d say even in architecture, the Faithful are used to elements that are devotional, that represent the Faith, that they understand. To introduce vastly changed designs risks that the Faithful won’t know what to make of them and possibly create a new sort of mental model of the Faith because of it. Church architecture was a product of the Church’s growth and development through the centuries. The basics of it should be retained because they have supported many Saints, because many Saints were involved with why it was designed the way it was, because the Faithful are just used to it as the expression of the Faith (and anything modern should express the same things and not add confusion).

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Glass walls are bad but stained glass windows are good?
Click to expand...
Stained glass windows are icons. Plain glass window walls are barren - and a Windex nightmare. It reminds the average person of plexiglass cheapness, and it looks like it would not stand up against a decent hail storm. In short, it looks fragile. This is not something that you want to communicate about the Faith. Regardless of what qualities an architect (or liturgy committee leader) may want to artificially cast upon the nature of this building, the average person sees it and thinks, “This is not a strong edifice.”
Please consider, that the United States is just over 200 years old. Many of those European churches are there simply because they were built hundreds of years before the USA even existed. Time will tell. The US does already have many examples of splendid architecture.
Click to expand...
True, there are some modern churches that will persevere, but one cannot compare the typical drywall and wood-beam framing to the stone masonry of medieval times. It just does not stand up to muster.
**Or, it may be an energy issue. Heat rises. Those sturctures with cavernous ceilings cost a bundle to heat in the wintertime because all the heat rises to the top. **
Click to expand...
I completely understand that there are parishes (even cathedral parishes) that cannot afford the costs of ideal architecture. But when you see a general trend away from traditional architecture, it is silly not to acknowledge the obvious - modern Catholics do not value traditional architecture enough to pay for it. I’m not saying they are bad, I’m just saying that they don’t see church buildings as permanent icons of the faith anymore. The church is becoming more of a meeting house.
When attending the Sacrifice of the Mass, should our attention be upward, or toward the Altar of Sacrifice?
Click to expand...
This mentality you express is consonant with that of the liturgical minimalists: eliminate everything that could be a distraction from the sanctuary. It’s Puritanism in its essence because it says that one’s physical surroundings can (and must) distract you from your spiritual work, so you must get rid of (or minimize) anything extraneous to the purpose of the gathering space. In the case of a Church, all that matters is the altar and ambo (and Presider’s chair). Statues, votive candles, elaborate artwork, it’s all vanity. Reduce it down to what is essential, and there you have pure Christianity.

Now, I know you don’t believe all this, but your comment hints of a Puritanical reductionism. Of course our focus should be on the Holy Sacrifice. However, that does not mean that our surroundings shouldn’t help us enter into that mystery. What has helped many souls throughout the ages is grand architecture. What is more grand: vaulted ceilings or one-story facade ceilings?
 
OK, this is my diocese and, like it or not, my cathedral. I, personally, hate the design but I’d like to offer some clarifications.

This cathedral was started under the old bishop. Too much money was already sunk to change the plans when the new bishop came in.

Secondly, no worries about kneelers. One of the first things Bishop Vigneron did was to order that all churches use their kneelers and to put them in if they had been taken out. Whoo hoo! I haven’t seen the new site yet but my friend has and she would have mentioned a lack of kneelers.

Secondly, there is a crucifix which is very prominent.

Next, there are statues. They are some around the main body of the cathedral. I was told they are bronze which would keep with the earthy design.

Now, there are many side chapels dedicated to different devotions., I hear some major clashing is going on in those since tthe theme of the church is pastels and earth tones and some of the statues in the side chapels are very vivid and gaudy (just a personal opinion from those I’ve heard from). That’s pretty much what you get when you live in a very “multi-cultural” diocese such as this one.

Believe me, the inside of the cathedral is much better than originally planned. It was originally going to be a church in the round with not even a cross on the outside. While it is, in my opinion, imperfect, it was supposed to be much worse.

Pray that it continues carrying a Catholic theme throughout the many years. If that can’t be, please pray that it is also taken out in an earthquake!😉

I’ll probably see it on Thursday so I’ll try and give you a first hand portrait then.
 
It doesn’t take a whole lot of money to make a whole lot of ugly, but in the case of this cathedral it did. :bigyikes:
 
Just another clarification. The building really isn’t ugly (although I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder). In my opinion, it is a beautiful piece of architecture, it just doesn’t scream Catholic, which is my huge problem with it. Save for the cross on the outside you’d probably think hotel. The new bishop didn’t have a choice as there was a whole lot of money sunk into it. That said, he has worked to make the inside look as Catholic as he could. It’s not totally finished yet either. The crypt church isn’t even done yet. So, if you compare it to the last two cathedrals in California, this one is by far the most Catholic looking and the least cave like. 😉
 
bear06 said:
This cathedral was started under the old bishop. Too much money was already sunk to change the plans when the new bishop came in.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of our neighboring parish. We were looking at one of our kids’ “parish directory” over the weekend. The directory is several years old, and contained drawings and models of the church they were going to build.

A very traditional exterior, with a rather modern interior. Alas, the price tag wound up pushing over 6 million, while the parish had 4.2 million to spend.

As it turned out, the revised church now being built is rather traditional both inside and out. It actually worked out in the end.

You can see this church actually being built right now, if you go to:

www.stmarych.org
 
bear06 said:
OK, this is my diocese and, like it or not, my cathedral. I, personally, hate the design but I’d like to offer some clarifications.

This cathedral was started under the old bishop. Too much money was already sunk to change the plans when the new bishop came in.

Secondly, no worries about kneelers. One of the first things Bishop Vigneron did was to order that all churches use their kneelers and to put them in if they had been taken out. Whoo hoo! I haven’t seen the new site yet but my friend has and she would have mentioned a lack of kneelers.

Secondly, there is a crucifix which is very prominent.

Next, there are statues. They are some around the main body of the cathedral. I was told they are bronze which would keep with the earthy design.

Now, there are many side chapels dedicated to different devotions., I hear some major clashing is going on in those since tthe theme of the church is pastels and earth tones and some of the statues in the side chapels are very vivid and gaudy (just a personal opinion from those I’ve heard from). That’s pretty much what you get when you live in a very “multi-cultural” diocese such as this one.

Believe me, the inside of the cathedral is much better than originally planned. It was originally going to be a church in the round with not even a cross on the outside. While it is, in my opinion, imperfect, it was supposed to be much worse.

Pray that it continues carrying a Catholic theme throughout the many years. If that can’t be, please pray that it is also taken out in an earthquake!😉

I’ll probably see it on Thursday so I’ll try and give you a first hand portrait then.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information! Very helpful! Hopefully it’ll be made more Catholic so we won’t need that earthquake 😃

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Have a look at this one which is possibly even worse!

Who thinks the Pope should write a Motu Proprio on church architecture?
 
stevusmagnus said:
New 190 Million $ Oakland Cathedral: Fit for George Jetson

veritasvincit.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/new-190-million-oakland-cathedral-fit-for-george-jetson/
Click to expand...
I read your blog and it seemed to me a little harsh, but thats ok everyone has a right to their opinions. 🙂

I also doubt I will ever actually see the church in person to decide for myself.

Though all the talk of traditional “Catholic” style of churches, I can only say that me being non catholic, the traditional style turns me off and makes me think of being “showy” just to be “showy”. The old style also leaves me feeling like I am too poor to belong.

So myself I still have mixed feelings about the church, though it still leaves me feeling like the old style churches do. I would have to say that for me this gives me that “Catholic” feel to it.
 
Bill_G said:
The old style also leaves me feeling like I am too poor to belong.
Click to expand...
You wanna feel “too poor to belong” just wait 'til you’re approached by your parish capital committee…and “offered the opportunity” to “purchase” key items for the soon-to-be-built new church.

$25k for a stained glass window…

$10k for the tabernacle…

$15k for a hand carved, imported wooden statue…

etc, etc, etc…ten bucks a week in the basket don’t get it done.

New churches not be cheap :eek:
 
I’ll admit I find the new Cathedral striking and impressive but I have a personal liking of the classics.

I think the Church should have a ‘time-less’ continuity which shouldn’t be confused with modernity. As striking as this impressive structure is it breaks with that ‘time-less’ continuity of the Church in toto.

That said I really like the icon and I do think that it meets with the 3 qualifications and we have ‘many’ Cathedrals throughout the world which don’t seem to conform with my view os ‘time-less’ continuity. This is only my personal opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top