Those glorious medieval cathedrals

[jmcrae]

Part of the problem is that so many of the people building and designing Churches are not actually church-goers, themselves.

I think the first qualification of a Catholic Church architect should be that he is a daily Mass attender who at some point in his life has spent at least a year being a Sacristan, funeral organizer, altar server, or has done some other kind of work that involves intimate knowledge of how things go in a Church.

One of the most beautiful and functional Churches I’ve ever seen is the Cathedral at Gravelbourg, in Saskatchewan just south of Moose Jaw - it was designed and built by hand, with the whole thing overseen by one priest, alone - he also did all of the interior decoration himself. It is a perfect design; you can comfortably have Mass for more than a thousand people, and if there are only five people present for Mass, the space easily and quickly closes up into a little chapel around the Altar to create an intimate space for that, as well.

Every contingency has been foreseen and designed for - you don’t have to kludge something together and hope that people “get the idea” - it just works.

 

[Chuy]

Part of the problem is that so many of the people building and designing Churches are not actually church-goers, themselves.

I think the first qualification of a Catholic Church architect should be that he is a daily Mass attender who at some point in his life has spent at least a year being a Sacristan, funeral organizer, altar server, or has done some other kind of work that involves intimate knowledge of how things go in a Church.

One of the most beautiful and functional Churches I’ve ever seen is the Cathedral at Gravelbourg, in Saskatchewan just south of Moose Jaw - it was designed and built by hand, with the whole thing overseen by one priest, alone - he also did all of the interior decoration himself. It is a perfect design; you can comfortably have Mass for more than a thousand people, and if there are only five people present for Mass, the space easily and quickly closes up into a little chapel around the Altar to create an intimate space for that, as well.

Every contingency has been foreseen and designed for - you don’t have to kludge something together and hope that people “get the idea” - it just works.

Are daily communicants somehow “better” or more knowledgeable than those who attend Mass only on Sundays? Nope. Does being a server, sacristan, etc. for a year make one a better designer? I don’t think so. Do architects need to be ball players to design a stadium or arena? No.

While I think experience is almost always good, there is also a great deal to be said about a fresh perspective. Determine what functions the structure must support and then design based on those demands and desires.

You would also be amazed at the number of liturgical consultants (clerical and otherwise) who take part in the design of a cathedral.

Good design is not defined as cloning what already exists…

 

[jmcrae]

With regard to the Los Angeles Cathedral, I have no idea what someone was thinking about when that was designed; I agree with the person who thought that “Mary” looks like it was posed for by a little boy.

I happened to pass by the train station in Winnipeg, and the train station in Winnipeg actually looks more like a Catholic Church than the Los Angeles Cathedral.

As to the exterior of the Cathedral, if they are hoping to get Sunday shoppers and Baptists to go there by accident, I think they will most likely succeed; it looks from the outside like a mini-mall with a Baptist church in the middle of it.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Take your insult elsewhere. I’m certainly not going to respond to that sorta disingenuous garbage or the rest that comes with it.

No, it’s an honest question. I am wondering. Your CAF profile says Christian, so I wanted clarification.

I do note that you did not respond to me.

Edit:
And I will take your silence as the answer:
“No, I am not Catholic.”

Which causes me to wonder WHY you would care about our churches.

Edit2:
I looked at your posts. I cannot honestly tell. You … seem to be playing devil’s advocate on these forums…

 

[jmcrae]

Are daily communicants somehow “better” or more knowledgeable than those who attend Mass only on Sundays? Nope.

Yes, because they know why there needs to be a niche for the votive candles - Sunday Catholics don’t make use of the candles, and wouldn’t think to include the niche for them, thinking them “unnecessary frou-frou” because they don’t know what they’re used for.

Does being a server, sacristan, etc. for a year make one a better designer? I don’t think so. Do architects need to be ball players to design a stadium or arena? No.

They should at least be fans, though, and know the rules of the game, so that they know basic things like how big the space needs to be.

While I think experience is almost always good, there is also a great deal to be said about a fresh perspective. Determine what functions the structure must support and then design based on those demands and desires.

And how do you know the functions, except through experience?

You would also be amazed at the number of liturgical consultants (clerical and otherwise) who take part in the design of a cathedral.

One wonders how much of their (name removed by moderator)ut gets into the final design, though.

Good design is not defined as cloning what already exists

I should hope not. On the other hand, all of the necessary elements should be present, and arranged in such a way that they are conveniently arranged for those who need them. (For example, sticking the Tabernacle in a different room, far away from the Sanctuary, means that someone has to make a mad dash through the church, down the hallway, and then back again in the middle of Mass to get the ciborium - this is an example of poor design, because the element is not in a convenient location for the person who needs it, at the moment of need.

But someone who doesn’t know how it goes at Mass might consider it acceptable to move the Tabernacle out of the church, for whatever obscure reason.

 

[Chuy]

Yes, because they know why there needs to be a niche for the votive candles - Sunday Catholics don’t make use of the candles, and wouldn’t think to include the niche for them, thinking them “unnecessary frou-frou” because they don’t know what they’re used for.

Are you serious? Why do you suggest daily communicants make use of votives while “Sunday Catholics” do not?!?! I wonder if former sacristans designing cathedrals are aware that (sadly) open flames are often prohibited by fire code in some locales as architects would be? I guess they could always fill the niches with those electric candles.

Are you honestly being serious or are you playing with me?!?

They should at least be fans, though, and know the rules of the game, so that they know basic things like how big the space needs to be.

I think it’s far more important to know good design. It’s axiomatic that an architect and his/her team will provide for such functions. IF they do not then they are not good architects.

And how do you know the functions, except through experience?

Study (and not just one church where I happen to be a sacristan), interviewing others, collaboration and of course, prayer. If I want (name removed by moderator)ut on a pipe organ I want to talk to CB Fisk before I talk to a sacristan about it.

One wonders how much of their (name removed by moderator)ut gets into the final design, though.

More than you would think Fr. Richard Vosko (sp?) designed the baptistery at OLAC and it’s gorgeous. YET people like you are so polarized by even that priest’s name (he will have a lot to answer for) that I am sure you would never stop to consider its excellence of design – UNLESS you didn’t know who designed it.

I should hope not. On the other hand, all of the necessary elements should be present, and arranged in such a way that they are conveniently arranged for those who need them. (For example, sticking the Tabernacle in a different room, far away from the Sanctuary, means that someone has to make a mad dash through the church, down the hallway, and then back again in the middle of Mass to get the ciborium - this is an example of poor design, because the element is not in a convenient location for the person who needs it, at the moment of need.

No kidding AND IF an architect proposed such a thing AND IF it was approved by the people paying the bills, then you have a much bigger problem then an architect that has never served Mass.

A far bigger problem to me is the “designer” who has no clue about design and the problems with his design until its built.

But someone who doesn’t know how it goes at Mass might consider it acceptable to move the Tabernacle out of the church, for whatever obscure reason.

It is acceptable (and often preferable) to move the tabernacle out of the sanctuary – per the Church.

In the end though if you really like a building costing millions of dollar could be built with such flaws because the architect never served Mass then we really don’t have much to talk about because that’s absurd – and I think that’s obvious to most.

 

[Chuy]

With regard to the Los Angeles Cathedral, I have no idea what someone was thinking about when that was designed; I agree with the person who thought that “Mary” looks like it was posed for by a little boy.

I happened to pass by the train station in Winnipeg, and the train station in Winnipeg actually looks more like a Catholic Church than the Los Angeles Cathedral.

As to the exterior of the Cathedral, if they are hoping to get Sunday shoppers and Baptists to go there by accident, I think they will most likely succeed; it looks from the outside like a mini-mall with a Baptist church in the middle of it.

To be quite direct, your comments show great ignorance from a design standpoint. You are judging the design based on your own personal ideas of what is “churchy” or appropriate and what is not.

Thanfully good design is not simply a matter of “taste.” It’s not purely subjective as you would like it to be. There are widely accepted design principles in this world and the OLAC absolutely excels at them. Sadly this truism is lost on folks like yourself.

I’m certain you’re not a design professional for two reasons:

First, you wouldn’t make such ludicrous comments without ever having spend time in the building. I have only met one person who has ever attended one or more Masses at OLAC who still had a purely negative view of it. In the end he wasn’t telling the truth – he had never visited the building.

Second by any design standards it’s excellent. You might say it’s not your cup of tea, particularly for a church, but you wouldn’t make the laughable comments you have. It’s really not my cup of tea either, but after perhaps a dozen Masses there I sure appreciate the things is does exceptionally well.

I used to get sorta upset at comments like yours regarding OLAC. Now I just sorta reflect on Luke 23:34 and chuckle…

 

[jmcrae]

The Winnipeg train station has a painting of a Crucifix in it; I don’t even see a place to hang a Crucifix, or put a painting of one, in the LA Cathedral - hence, the Winnipeg train station looks more Catholic than the LA Cathedral, because - hey - at least it has a Crucifix.

(It also has some really gorgeous stained glass windows depicting the building of the railway. )

 

[Rawb]

To be quite direct, your comments show great ignorance from a design standpoint. You are judging the design based on your own personal ideas of what is “churchy” or appropriate and what is not.

Thanfully good design is not simply a matter of “taste.” It’s not purely subjective as you would like it to be. There are widely accepted design principles in this world and the OLAC absolutely excels at them. Sadly this truism is lost on folks like yourself.

To be quite direct, and in the charity of helping a fellow Catholic, your comments sound rude and arrogant.

The only people I’ve ever heard who like OLAC are condescending, snobbish “You don’t understand it! Harrumph!” types, which you seem to be personifying quite well here. As if the rest of us are too stupid to know what we think looks good. It must be a “truism” that is lost on me. Gosh darn it, aren’t we lucky folks like y’all are 'round to let us know that!

Fine. I don’t understand it, I haven’t been to it, I probably never will because it’s not worth my time - I still don’t like it. I can look at pictures of Notre Dame du Chartres, or the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and see that they’re gorgeous, but I cannot apply the same scrutiny to OLAC because…what, I’m too ignorant of “widely accepted design principles” to realize it looks good?

Whatever. I think the church is ugly. Most Catholics aren’t “design professionals”. That doesn’t keep us from forming opinions on things (and having the right to form opinions on those things) and leaving it at that. Sorry Chuy but I don’t think it looks Catholic or appropriately Sacred and beautiful for Our Lord, despite whatever “design principles” it does “exceedingly well” and I’m sick of being told over and over that I’m too ignorant to understand what a great place it really is.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

It is acceptable (and often preferable) to move the tabernacle out of the sanctuary – per the Church.

Cite this. I want to see the documentation that says it is preferable to move the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary. Vatican sources preferred.

Thank you!

Also, it seems to be you are a bitter Latin Rite Catholic, who is currently attending Eastern Rite? You never did respond to me.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

To be quite direct, and in the charity of helping a fellow Catholic, your comments sound rude and arrogant.

The only people I’ve ever heard who like OLAC are condescending, snobbish “You don’t understand it! Harrumph!” types, which you seem to be personifying quite well here. As if the rest of us are too stupid to know what we think looks good. It must be a “truism” that is lost on me. Gosh darn it, aren’t we lucky folks like y’all are 'round to let us know that!

Fine. I don’t understand it, I haven’t been to it, I probably never will because it’s not worth my time - I still don’t like it. I can look at pictures of Notre Dame du Chartres, or the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and see that they’re gorgeous, but I cannot apply the same scrutiny to OLAC because…what, I’m too ignorant of “widely accepted design principles” to realize it looks good?

Whatever. I think the church is ugly. Most Catholics aren’t “design professionals”. That doesn’t keep us from forming opinions on things (and having the right to form opinions on those things) and leaving it at that. Sorry Chuy but I don’t think it looks Catholic or appropriately Sacred and beautiful for Our Lord, despite whatever “design principles” it does “exceedingly well” and I’m sick of being told over and over that I’m too ignorant to understand what a great place it really is.

Here here! (or is it “Hear hear”?)

 

[VociMike]

The architect simply got too many things right when it comes to OLAC to dismiss it as some do – typically those who have never visited the place.

I’ve been there, and I found it even more ugly (and deliberately, in-your-face ugly) than the pictures convey. In particular I was struck by the deliberate attempt to have the outside appear unfinished, as if the final finishing stone was still waiting to be mounted onto all those “attachment holes” that cover the building. That particular ugly effect doesn’t appear in most of the photos. It gives a vivid impression that they ran out of money before they could finish the building.

OTOH, the one thing that I really enjoyed about OLAC was the communion of saints on the walls, all facing the altar. That was one of the nicest things I’ve ever seen in a church. But apart from that, it’s a church that wallows in modernist affrontery, that deliberate and methodical affrontery that seems to be one of the primary motivations for certain camps of modern architecture.

 

[Chuy]

I’ve been there, and I found it even more ugly (and deliberately, in-your-face ugly) than the pictures convey. In particular I was struck by the deliberate attempt to have the outside appear unfinished, as if the final finishing stone was still waiting to be mounted onto all those “attachment holes” that cover the building. That particular ugly effect doesn’t appear in most of the photos. It gives a vivid impression that they ran out of money before they could finish the building.

Given your comments I have grave doubts that you have ever visited OLAC. There is no “deliberate attempt to have the outside appear unfinished” as you suggest. That’s your personal taste talking and you couldn’t be more wrong.

What I will say is that the original OLAC was scheduled to be built and completed over a long period – somewhat reminiscent of the centuries it used to take to build some cathedrals. Happily though the money kept tumbling in and it was completed in fairly short order…

OTOH, the one thing that I really enjoyed about OLAC was the communion of saints on the walls, all facing the altar. That was one of the nicest things I’ve ever seen in a church. But apart from that, it’s a church that wallows in modernist affrontery, that deliberate and methodical affrontery that seems to be one of the primary motivations for certain camps of modern architecture.

Yes, the tapestries are remarkable. I remember reading one of these CA forums a few years ago and someone claimed that one of the figures in the tapestries was Martin Luther. Obviously false, it did show just how far some people would go to smear what they do not understand.

The inside of the OLAC does a great many things well – better in fact that most cathedrals. I rather doubt there is a cathedral in the USA and possibly the world that uses natural light as well as OLAC. Same with the interior dimensions and lay-out, the pews, pipe organ, altar, floring etc. etc. While some of the furnishings are not of my taste, I certainly appreciate it as a place in which to attend the Mass.

 

[Chuy]

To be quite direct, and in the charity of helping a fellow Catholic, your comments sound rude and arrogant.

The only people I’ve ever heard who like OLAC are condescending, snobbish “You don’t understand it! Harrumph!” types, which you seem to be personifying quite well here. As if the rest of us are too stupid to know what we think looks good. It must be a “truism” that is lost on me. Gosh darn it, aren’t we lucky folks like y’all are 'round to let us know that!

People who bash OLAC seem to share two qualities. First, they never have spent time attending Mass at OLAC. Second, they have a lamentable hatred for the local ordinary so they take it out on his cathedral.

**Fine. I don’t understand it, I haven’t been to it, **I probably never will because it’s not worth my time - I still don’t like it. I can look at pictures of Notre Dame du Chartres, or the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and see that they’re gorgeous, but I cannot apply the same scrutiny to OLAC because…what, I’m too ignorant of “widely accepted design principles” to realize it looks good?

Thank you for your honesty…

**Whatever. I think the church is ugly. **Most Catholics aren’t “design professionals”. That doesn’t keep us from forming opinions on things (and having the right to form opinions on those things) and leaving it at that. Sorry Chuy but I don’t think it looks Catholic or appropriately Sacred and beautiful for Our Lord, despite whatever “design principles” it does “exceedingly well” and I’m sick of being told over and over that I’m too ignorant to understand what a great place it really is.

You’ve expressed your personal opinions about OLAC and that’s certainly your prerogative. Given their content however you should not be surprised if some view your comments as being based in ignorance and possibly bigotry.

Just as you are sick about being told you are ignorant, I am sick about hearing ignorant remarks about a nice cathedral.

 

[VociMike]

Given your comments I have grave doubts that you have ever visited OLAC. There is no “deliberate attempt to have the outside appear unfinished” as you suggest.

So I must be a liar because I disagree with you?

There most certainly is a deliberate attempt to have the outside look unfinished. Why in the good green earth would I make that up? One can clearly see these “attachment points” in this image:



They may look small in this photo but they are fairly big, about hand sized.

Now did you want to retract your “grave doubts” about my honesty?

 

[Rolltide]

Cite this. I want to see the documentation that says it is preferable to move the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary. Vatican sources preferred.

Thank you!

Actually, it’s preferable to move the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary in the event that a church or cathedral is a particularly popular tourist attraction and will have a large amount of daily traffic by both Catholics and non-Catholics. By moving the Tabernacle to a side chapel, it maintains the reverence for the Eucharist and allows privacy and silence for those wishing to pray in the presence of the Lord. When I was in Spain, the Tabernacle and Blessed Sacrament were almost always moved, even in Cathedrals of Toledo and Seville, for these very reasons.

 

[VociMike]

Here’s another image: lh4.ggpht.com/_LHfhbxnW1D8/RohiuEc3myI/AAAAAAAAACI/Kh-FzHmWGP8/Grad+Trip+048.jpg

And another: static.flickr.com/5/5028107_d688378d69.jpg

As I said, it looks for all the world like they ran out of money and could not finish the building by attaching the exterior finish panels.

And here’s an even more detailed image: firsttimesocal.com/admin/images/cathedral-our-lady-of-angels.jpg

 

[FrDavid96]

Please indulge me while I share with you a story from my own life which, I believe, might shed shome light on the whole issue of why the church building is so important, and why the principles of proper Catholic architecture and design are not merely matters of personal taste.

In the early 90s I visited a city in a former Soviet satellite nation. I visited a church which had been built sometime in the 1500s. The Church was magnificent. It was filled with iconography of every sort. The building itself clearly stood-out in the city and unmistakeably asserted its presence as a House of God.

I spent a little time with the priest, who gave me “the tour of the place” Another priest “walked” by and we exchanged pleasantries. I put “walking” in quotes, because it was obviously a painful, labored effort for him. When he had moved on, my guide told me that he (the other priest) had spent decades in-and-out of communist prisons, and his physical condition was a result of that abuse. This wasn’t a plea for sympathy or pity. He said it quite matter-of-fact. The communists had ruined his body. That’s what they did. Neither was there any malice in what he said.

A few minutes later, we finished our little tour, and typically enough my guide asked me “what do you think?”

I told him that I was amazed at the church itself, it’s antiquity, it’s beauty, it’s premanence, and most of all, at the fact that during the daily Mass, it was full of people. But one thing was nagging me. I told him that my experience as an American growing up iduring the cold war taught me that the communists were pure evil, atheists who destroyed churches and forbade the faith to be practiced. I expressed wonder at the very fact that the Church even existed; that the statues had not been broken-up, that an axe and fire had not been put to the altar, that the ancient stained-glass windows had not been broken, that the crosses had not been removed from the outside of the church.

My new friend looked at me like I was from Mars; like I had said something incredibly stupid (though I stress that he did so with no lack of charity). I will never forget his response. One simple sentence: “The communists wouldn’t dare.”

You see, dear readers, the communists knew that they could get away with any number of unspeakable atrocities. They could murder and maim and persecute Christians to no end. But, in his own words, they did not “dare” destroy that Church. They knew (or at least feared) that if they did so, they would be crossing a line, which would put their seemingly absolute hold over the people in jeopardy. Yes, they did destroy churches, but I’m not talking about churches in general, I’m talking about THAT church.

I cannot help but wonder, if some calamity befell the cathedral in Los Angeles; If it were to be destroyed by fire or earthquake; if some hypothetical future atheist government in the US tried to destroy that cathedral, or turn it into a museum, or a night club, would anyone realy care? If an earthquake destroys the cathedral, will the general attitude be a lament for nothing more than the cost of the building and the logistics of re-building? Will the next generation of Catholics, or several generations in the future see this cathedral with the same level of admiration with which the current supporters of the building now see it, or will they be more than willing (assuming finances are available) to replace it with something else more suited to the fashion of their particular time???

Of course, only time itself will provide us with the answer to that question. However, the fact remains that the many and varied forms of “traditional” Catholic architecture have already answered it. So-called modern church designs came about shortly after the devastating ruin both human and physical of the first world war, directly influenced by the prevailing atheism and overall attitude that “God has abandoned His people”. The style has had more than 50 years opportunity to answer that question. My personal sentiment is that it has been tested and found unworthy.

What the communists in Eastern Europe dared not do, our own priests did during the 1970s. They removed the statues, witewashed the walls, and built new churches using the design principle of the “un-church” They made buildings to conform to modern sentiments rather than stand-out from the secular world and testify to the glory of God. The city on the hill was replaced with the lamp beneath the basket.

In spite of the worst efforts of the communists, they could not destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Here in America, where we enjoy true freedom of religion in the political sense, Catholics are leaving the Church in droves. Modern architecture asserts its legitimacy and claims to be part-and-parcel (not the whole, but part) of the effort to nourish and expand the faith. Can we please ask ourselves the honest question: is it working???

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Years ago I saw a great documentary on the great Cathedrals of Europe. They went through the history and the methods use to construct these magnificent buildings.

It wasn’t wonderful, especially for the peasants who were taxed to build them, often at the hands of a greedy bishop.

I forget which cathedral it was, but the Bishop was living a luxurious lifestyle and dipping his hand into the cathedral funds. As a result, he would cut corners on the construction. Instead of using good materials, he ordered the architects to use materials that were less expensive, but not conducive for large construction. As a result, when the cathedral was 2/3rds completed, it collapsed, and workers were killed. The people, learning about the Bishops theft and decision making, stormed his residency and killed him through beheading. The Pope hearing of this, sent a new Bishop, who out of his own wealth and good management skills, restarted the project and the cathedral was completed. The people, being Christian and willing to forgive, had a statue of the latter Bishop made and placed on the outside of the cathedral. The statue was of a headless Bishop, carrying his head in his left hand.

Anyway, when I visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, I stood inside in awe, realizing the amount of work and sacrifice, people paid to construct it. It also took me back realizing the dignitaries throughout history, who stood at the altar of this building. St. Joan of Arc came to mind, as I passed the statue they have dedicated to her.

Jim

 

[Chuy]

So I must be a liar because I disagree with you?

Not at all. I just have never met anyone who has actually spent time attending Mass at the OLAC that felt the need to attack it in the way you did. Your comments sound a great deal like someone trying to evaluate the structure from photos and maybe video.

There most certainly is a deliberate attempt to have the outside look unfinished. Why in the good green earth would I make that up? One can clearly see these “attachment points” in this image:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/8/9688771_f8ce0fb9a5.jpg?v=0

Nonsense. While it may indeed look “unfinished” to you and others not familiar with the design of the OLAC, that was not the intention of the design nor do the pictures you provided prove that it is. You are merely expressing your opinion which does not jibe with the design.

Those so-called “attachment points” are NOT “attachment points.” They are primarily a seismic consideration – they are engineered crack containment points that are visible throughout the cathedral. Secondarily they are an architectural detail. You weren’t aware of that, huh? Didn’t you go on a tour of OLAC when you were there? The docents go into detail on the seismic considerations of the OLAC design – including the crack containment points…

Tell me how I’m supposed to view the rest of your comments after this…

Now did you want to retract your “grave doubts” about my honesty?

Nope. I will apologize for being so direct, however.

I do find it odd that some feel they have license to attack the design of OLAC and other places. These same people often get upset when people like me question their attacks. You cannot have it one way…