F
fall_fox
Guest
fall fox
I think it states that the Tabernacle should be placed in a prominent place seen by all, maybe not on a small alter front and center, but up front.
- Status
I think it states that the Tabernacle should be placed in a prominent place seen by all, maybe not on a small alter front and center, but up front.
B
benedictina
Guest
My own thoughts on this matter are based on the fact that nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, is too good to express our praise and thanksgiving to God. Looking back to the days of Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and so many many others, who painted and sculpted depictions of biblical scenes and persons with so much care and devotion, it occurs to me that they were truly Divinely Inspired, and that it was the Hand of God Himself who guided the brushstrokes and chisels of these artists. Bearing in mind that many of them were perhaps not the most devout people, yet somehow were able to create these masterpieces, how can we doubt? But back to the question in hand: Our churches should reflect our adoration and love of our Creator. They should not be influenced by what is “politically correct”, rather, they should be our own attempt to build the best for our God. Expensive? Perhaps, …but we think nothing of paying sports heroes and rock stars millions of dollars. ( No, I am not suggesting that we begin a new “fad” of trying to build the most expensive, expansive gaudy building possible), but, rather a simple, quietly beautiful place of peace. Quoting St. Augustine: Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee…
In the peaceful, quiet beauty of the church of my Lord, I say nothing, but I hear His beloved Voice saying to me “Be still, and know that I am God”
+PAX[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
A
Aeolian
Guest
The Crystal Cathedral is not an excuse me, “monstrosity.” Thankfully Pope Benedict XVI will be the judge if it’s suitable for a Catholic cathedral and not people on this forum who seem to have an inculcated hatred for anything modern or postmodern. Their brethren were the same people who were attacking Gothic and Spanish Revival in years past because they differed from mature architectural styles and/or they simply lacked the background to understand them.
A
Aeolian
Guest
No. You couldn’t be more wrong with regard to perhaps the single most critical function of a cathedral (or any church) and that is to focus our attention on the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father for our sins. In the most basic terms the COLA puts the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament and not itself on display. I think it has been fairly successful in that endeavor.
First of all the COLA is Postmodern not Modern. I’ll also qualify my comments by admitting that I am no big fan of the COLA but I recognize the edifice does some things exceedingly well, especially focusing one’s attention on the Eucharist. Let me explain how.
First, you enter the COLA through an ambulatory. The gradual uphill 350’ walk DOES help one to focus and leave the stresses of the big city behind. If you like you can stop in the Blessed Sacrament chapel or you admire some beautiful (world-class actually on loan from the Getty) ecclesiastical art, a historic display or perhaps just silently pray in one of the many side chapels as you light a votive candle.
As you make the turn from the the ambulatory into the nave of the COLA you’re met by a gorgeous 16th century high altar and retablo from Spain. A single craftsman spent the better part of a decade of his life crafting this work. This display signifies the beginning of Catholicism (18th century actually) in Alta California. Adjacent to this altar in the back of the COLA is the baptistery. Like it or not, Richard Vosko got this one right. Nothing spectacular about it, but it’s good, solid design.
Standing at the very rear of the COLA you can clearly see the huge altar due to the very gently sloped floor. This is a big deal to me. I don’t like to look at one of the many video monitors at St. Pat’s in NYC bolted to columns (or many other “bowling alley buildings”) to see what’s going on in the sanctuary even when I’m seated fairly close.
The floor is understated and beautiful. It radiates out from the center of the altar throughout the entire sanctuary, presbyterium and nave. The pews are wonderful. Very simple, solid cherry wood. They are also very ergonomic/comfortable and COLA has taken pains to be handicapped friendly. I also love the communion of saints tapestries which were originally going to be murals until the audio engineers decided they needed a less bright wall covering. While the Stations of the Cross are nice (and are available downstairs in the crypt chapel), there is no question that the Communion of the Saints tapestries lend even more to the celebration of the Mass.
Speaking of audio, the acoustics are great as is the PA system and the thundering Dobson pipe organ. Possibly the single most wonderful part about COLA is its use of natural light filtered by alabaster. It has this wonderful, ethereal feel to it, particularly at a vigil Mass that begins with some daylight and darkens throughout the Mass.
What COLA does not have is obstructed views of the sanctuary or a ratty PA system. It doesn’t have loads of statuary or other bric-a-brac to pull one’s attention away from the altar of sacrifice. It also doesn’t have a dank/dark feel to it nor does it have terrible acoustics. It also lack uncomfortable/worn seating and telephone booth like confessionals (they planned ahead and have wonderful rooms for confession that allow one to go face to face or behind a screen in total privacy.)
Is COLA my favorite cathedral? Nope, not by a long shot. But if I was to design a cathedral from a clean sheet of paper I would incorporate many design elements that are superbly executed there. Elements which are unknown to those who attempt to judge the COLA based on a few photographs or possibly a drive-by in rush hour traffic. Those who enjoy posting the same tired photos of the COLA will never understand what I am talking about.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Surely the LA cathedral was built with legal consraints on the design due to the fact that it is located in a earthquake prone location.
Perhaps a prettier church would not be as sturdy and endure as long.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I never said it was a monstrosity. Other people have been talking about the Crystal Cathedral. If you want my opinion, from most of the pictures I’ve seen it looks like it has a great deal of that sterile, otherworldly, crystaline kind of beauty that’s so popular right now. Maybe that style could be called Kryptonianesque.
J
Jubilate_Deo
Guest
I find myself in full agreement with this quote. Thank you for this excellent comment. And a big thank you to everyone who has made contributions to this thread.
Concerning your observation of God guiding Michelangelo’s paint strokes, I would add that I think that allowing God to work through one’s paintbrush or chisel is something that must be recovered and encouraged in regards to how one approaches the design of a Catholic church. Michelangelo’s works of art such as the Pieta are comparable to the beauty of nature precisely because he allowed God the Creator to work through him. However, I would add that anyone aspiring to accomplish anything beautiful like that must have (in addition to necessary technical skills) a knowledge of Catholic theology, Church traditions of sacred artwork, and perhaps even some philosophy in order to have a good foundation of knowledge. If possible, one should be educated in the liberal arts as well. Such knowledge is the patrimony of the Church and would be most helpful in providing one with the knowledge with which to build the best possible church. I would also argue that one who wishes to embark on building a Catholic church must have an intimate relationship with the Lord.
At the risk of sounding cliche, I will say that it is true that a Catholic church is a sermon in stone. In addition, the structure, design, and artwork of a church represents what the designers understand regarding the Catholic faith. Considering that God is the ultimate Being and the source of all that is good, true, and beautiful, one should consequently try to make a Church to be a palace that bespeaks of God, and not settle for some quasi-basketball gymnasium edifice. However, I grant that this does not mean that one overlook all practical necessities. For when certain circumstances or insurmountable difficulties arise, one must make practical decisions at the risk of compromises or re-evaluations.
Regardless of such things, however, the church being built ought to speak of the glory of God, not for His sake, but for the sake of cultivating the sacred space we have within our hearts. For once we allow God into our lives by choosing to love others without reserve, it is then that we truly glorify Him by our lives. Even if a church cannot afford to be beautiful in a baroque or gothic sense (which is not always necessary to emulate), one can still manage to evoke beauty in austerity and in simplicity.
My prayer is that every church being built, renovated, or remodeled will speak of the glory, majesty, and beauty of God with which to inspire Godliness in all who pass by or spend time inside it.
Praised be Jesus and Mary!
A
adstrinity
Guest
The fact that my statement is contested shows how much it is true. YES!!! It NEEEEEEEEEDS to be placed front and center!!! People do not understand: JESUS IS THE FOCUS!!! That needs to be a visual throughout the Mass and at a Catholic Church. When you go to a concert, or a movie, is the main focus right in front of you or tucked off in a corner off to the side somewhere? We need NEED NEED Jesus in focus in a Catholic Church. Again, that so many people are objecting to this (and one person is too many) shows just how real that need is. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that has Jesus, we all need to see that is true.
W
wayman
Guest
That’s going to be interesting to see the Crystal Cathedral with a Catholic makeover. It’s beautiful for a modern structure. Another plus is that they already have one of the world’s biggest pipe organs.
A
Aeolian
Guest
That’s another thing that is fairly awesome about COLA. The seismic concerns taken are amazing. The whole place sits on huge seismic isolators which allow the structure to move during an earthquake. The amount of reinforced concrete (both structural and architectural) is remarkable. It was designed to last 600 years. In huge contrast to the rather beautiful Washing National Cathedral (Episcopal) that began to fall apart a few months ago after a minor shake.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
I see the Crystal Cathedral as a Modern Gothic, made mostly of glass instead of stone as in older buildings, but the high spire certainly is similar to other gothic buildings.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Jesus certainly needs to be front and center spiritually. Does that mean the tabernacle should be front and center in the church building (or back and center? I’m not sure if the sanctuary is considered the back or the front of the church building)? Probably it should be, in the ordinary course of things. But we need to recognize that moving the tabernacle to the side or to a separate chapel is often done for reasons that are also Christocentric, especially the desire to focus the attention of the worship space on the alter.
Having mass versus populum at a freestanding alter in front of the old alter or in front of where the old alter once stood has the undesirable effect of requiring the priest to have his back directly to the tabernacle during his ministry at the alter and having the people have to sort of divide their spiritual attention between the tabernacle in the background and the alter in the foreground. Those who wish to move the tabernacle generally seem to do so in the name of eliminating this awkward position by reserving the Eucharist in another place. In my opinion this cure is worse than the disease because it sends the unintended message that the tabernacle is unimportant and can be stowed away in some convenient corner, and sometimes it can even cause the awkward situation of entering a church and not being sure at first where the tabernacle is, but this is a matter in which authentic, faithful Catholics can disagree.
Anyway, when making absolutist statements on Church practices it’s always good to make clear whether you are expressing your own opinion or the actual norms of the Church. At present, reserving the Eucharist to one side of the alter or in a separate but easily identifiable Eucharistic chapel is legally permitted, however much some of us may be displeased with that.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
On this subject - for anyone who has been to St Peter’s Basilica, where is the tabernacle there?
Based on the interactive floor plan (saintpetersbasilica.org/floorplan.htm) it looks like it is in #72, the Blessed Sacrament Chapel (tabernacle by Bernini), behind a Baroque wrought-iron grill.
Is there another one (a secondary tabernacle???) front-and-center? I haven’t been there personally so I don’t know for sure. But I think I’ve heard otherwise, that the tabernacle is in the side chapel there. So if St. Peter’s places the tabernacle in a beautiful side chapel, how can it be that first and foremost that the tabernacle NEEDS to be front and center?
A
Aeolian
Guest
Your statement is being “contested” because you ignore direction from the Church that others have discussed.
You’re also wrong about “the focus.” The focus is not Jesus Christ but what He did for all of us – namely offer Himself to His Father for our sins. “The (primary) focus” in any Catholic Church is the miracle that takes place atop the altar of sacrifice. As foreign as this might sound to you we are required to attend Mass so that we are present at this miracle and not to receive Holy Communion. We attend so that we can be saturated by the salvific grace that flows that this miracle.
Ultimately THREE things determine the location of a tabernacle. #1) Safety of the Blessed Sacrament. That trumps ALL. #2) Ensuring a reverent atmosphere at all times. #3) Providing a venue where His Faithful may adore him. You don’t seem to care about any of these. You simply demand a specific location no matter what and that’s wrong.
To be honest I prefer the tabernacle located in the rear center of the sanctuary even with all the potential problems for most churches. I don’t feel this way about places like St. Pat’s in NYC or the Crystal Cathedral though. Unless you are going to close the places to visitors and tourists the Blessed Sacrament deserves better.
I also recognize that people with your attitude are probably the single biggest reason more tabernacles are not relocated back to the rear center of more sanctuaries.
A
Aeolian
Guest
It’s a matter of priorities. The Blessed Sacrament Chapel puts the security and reverence paid to the Blessed Sacrament ahead of some peoples’ desire to locate the tabernacle in a specific location.
A
Aeolian
Guest
The spire is polished stainless steel. It’s quite beautiful in person and it holds of wonderful bronze bells. There is a small chapel at the base of it.
F
fall_fox
Guest
A
Aeolian
Guest
They’ll use the pipe organ. It will be the single largest pipe organ in any Catholic edifice. Please don’t take jabs at the diocese just to make yourself feel better.
F
fall_fox
Guest
fall fox
Sorry, I was trying to be facetious, not a jab, I would like to see the organs used in all Catholic Churches anytime music is played. I guess I have ill feelings about guitar playing because it always seems to be more about the musician than giving glory to God. I know it dousn’t have to be tat way.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
No, the second-largest. The largest will remain that of St. Stephan’s Cathedral, Passau, Germany.
- Status