Would you call this a cathedral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone has his or her own opinion of it.

I rather like it. This is the 21st century. We need not be tied to the designs of the 12th century.

But, again, that’s my opinion. Others disagree, I see.

In a way, that’s what’s exciting about the cathedral - its boldness and originality, without losing sight of its purpose - to give glory to God.
 
Call me old fashioned, but I believe in the Gothic Cathedral in the design of a Cruciform…that is edifying to God…not some high rise filth like this…This looks like a ride at a fair…it is completely ugly…a protestant wouldn’t even be caught dead in it.
40.png
Richardols:
Everyone has his or her own opinion of it.

I rather like it. This is the 21st century. We need not be tied to the designs of the 12th century.

But, again, that’s my opinion. Others disagree, I see.

In a way, that’s what’s exciting about the cathedral - its boldness and originality, without losing sight of its purpose - to give glory to God.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
Call me old fashioned, but I believe in the Gothic Cathedral in the design of a Cruciform…that is edifying to God…not some high rise filth like this…This looks like a ride at a fair…it is completely ugly…a protestant wouldn’t even be caught dead in it.
Click to expand...
Hey, that’s your opinion. Fine.
 
George Weigel has written an article entitled “The Cube and the Cathedral.” You can access it on Catholic Educators’ Resource site, which is an excellent site for researching many issues regarding our Church. The article contrast the Cube built in Europe as a monument to mankind with the cathedrals built in Europe as a monument to God. Europe is rapidly becoming Neo-Pagan, undergoing collective amnesia regarding its Catholic heritage, so this monument represents mankind and in so doing, it pays homage to the abstract stripped of any supernatural imagery. And therein lies the tale. This “cathedral” is not one at all, because it does not seek to edify God through the Incarnation of His Son, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Instead, this building is an abstraction: it can represent anything or nothing. It’s relative, subjective, abstract, representative of the New Man, the Modern Man, mankind without God. This building is in many ways indicative of the direction of our Church here in America, priest without collars, nun eschewing habits, churches without statues with banners with no imagery, only abstract designs. All of these seemingly disconnected examples point to a deeper problem: the negation of the Incarnation in the mind of man. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us so that humanity was touched by the Divine. As such mankind creates with the Incarnation in mind, and what we bring forth exalts God. This “cathedral” does not in any way, shape, or form exalt God. It exalts the New Man. It is not holy, it is not edifying, it is not sublime. It is just the manifestation of our ego. I do hope that this plan does not go through…I wonder if Michael Rose knows about this. And speaking of him, maybe someone knows of his criteria for judging a cathedral or church worthy of God. I read it somewhere but I can remember all of it. I do remember that a church has to take us out of our time, I believe. It has to show verticality, and there are some others. But all in all, this building like the one in Los Angeles does not qualify as a cathedral. It looks like an imitation of the Chrystal Cathedral, and that’s being charitable, and as beautiful as the Crystal Cathedral may be, it is not a Catholic Cathedral. It does not engender the same sort of effect. It does not elicit holiness as St. Patrick’s does for example. Let us all pray for the cessation of these monuments to the New Man and the restoration of cathedrals like Notre Dame and Chartres which glorify God.
 
It appears to be in a downtown type of setting and a more contemporary looking architecture might not be so bad for the surrounding area.

It looks like, based on the top view of the site plan, that the inside would have a fairly traditional long aisle. It’s not round, just oblong.

I’m a big fan of old churches, simply because they are so glorious on the inside. Sometimes the outsides are butt ugly brick boxes. This one could be stunning based on the architects descriptions of intended effect.

Think what it would look like at night during Midnight Mass or something. I’ll keep an open mind about it and would love to see it someday when it’s completed.

Some contemporary designs are better than others in their usability. Some architects don’t understand Catholic Liturgy, and they are pretty to look at but don’t work well. Hopefully this one does.
 
40.png
cecelia:
But all in all, this building like the one in Los Angeles does not qualify as a cathedral.
Click to expand...
Again, that’s your opinion. And, that’s fine. too.

As for myself, I can participate at any Mass anywhere. The Host becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ whether celebrated outside on the hood of a car or in an immense 16th century church with a magnificent organ and a 100 voice choir.
 
40.png
cecelia:
I do remember that a church has to take us out of our time, I believe. It has to show verticality, and there are some others.
Click to expand...
That’s what I don’t get. Why is it so wrong, so passé to connect us to the past? I love that connection, but it’s apparent heresy to architects. This new cathedral would have thrilled Ayn Rand, but she was an atheist too.
 
I would call this a cathedral:



I’ll go on record as saying that much of modern art appears to me as solely a competion in ugliness, but I’ll refrain from ranting about it. 😉
 
40.png
Richardols:
Again, that’s your opinion. And, that’s fine. too.

As for myself, I can participate at any Mass anywhere. The Host becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ whether celebrated outside on the hood of a car or in an immense 16th century church with a magnificent organ and a 100 voice choir.
Click to expand...
No argument there, but then again, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, as we worship is how we pray, and the fact of the matter is that God doesn’t need our cathedrals, but we do as a way of connecting to God through our senses. Because we are body and soul, we use our senses, so when glorifying God we use that which heightens our senses. We bring to God our first fruits, our finest. Think of how it works in the natural world. When we dress up, we feel better. When we go on a date, we want to make an impression, so we seek to look our best. We understand in the natural sense what looking and doing our best does for our soul. Well, on the supernatural level, look at what putting forth our best does for our worship. Look at how the cathedrals of old heightened our sense of the presence of God. Of course we can worship anywhere, on the battlefield, in a jungle, etc. but when we have a choice we want to bring forth the most magnificent for the glory of God. Doing so does affect us,whether we realize it or not. Look at the way we act when where in a Protestant place of worship. Look at how the Protestants act when they’re in a Catholic cathedral (the traditional ones). Our environment affects us at the deepest level, and to ignore this is to ignore the senses. Christ did not. He became flesh to dignify mankind. So as a way of dignifying Him, we offer Him our best. And when you think about it, it’s not about what we want or settle for, it’s about our very best for God. So yes, God is pleased when we worship Him regardless of the surroundings, because He of course does not need it. But we do, and bringing forth the best we have to offer brings us closer to God. It seems as though many of us, don’t like to acknowledge the supernatural or are content to operate within the natural, but in worshipping within a cathedral built to glorify God,we are lifted up, lose ourselves, and sense God more. We owe it to ourselves and to society to bring forth structures that glorify God because we’re seeing less and less of that these days as we seek to glorify ourselves instead.
 
Imagine a woven wooden basket that’s 120 feet high, broad at the base and curving gently inward as it rises.

Now imagine that basket wrapped in opaque glass. In daylight the glass is a veil, shrouding what’s within; but at night, light seeps out through the basket and the veil, glowing for all to see.
Click to expand...
It just occured to me, but wasn’t “covering our light with a bushel basket” something on the list of Things Not To Do?

If this is intentional scriptural irony I want to both congratulate and slap the architect. 😃
 
so does this compare to the late Holy Father’s “gift” to the people of Rome for the Jubillie?
 
I don’t like it and would not give any money to help build it. If the people of CA like it then they can have it. Just my opinion.
 
I agree. Man is it uuuuuuuuuuugly!! Architects now a day have no sense of what a church should be. They all going w/ the time…a futeristic look. It’s been going on for the last few decades. They’re all getting uglier and more protestant-like…plain and empty inside. Whereas the vestments of priest are still kept in the old old tradition, the churches aren’t. The two don’t do together. Why not just have priests wear outfit…something like Star Trek, The Next Generation, a body suit. Wouldn’t they look more fitting in these futeristic churches. Imagine that…celebrating mass in a body suit! :bigyikes:
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
A Church is supposed to edify God…I truly believe that a Church should be designed as a Cruciform with the Altar facing East…this design is an abomination…it looks like what Dorothy found at the end of the yellow brick road.
Click to expand...
Actually what Dorothy found looked more like a church than this.
 
It definitely doesn’t look like a traditional cathedral, but I think it’s beautiful. I’d like to see it when it’s complete–I bet at night it will be impressive!
 
40.png
cecelia:
No argument there, but then again, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, as we worship is how we pray, and the fact of the matter is that God doesn’t need our cathedrals, but we do as a way of connecting to God through our senses… We owe it to ourselves and to society to bring forth structures that glorify God because we’re seeing less and less of that these days as we seek to glorify ourselves instead.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely with your fine analysis. Nevertheless, even as I agree with it, we’re still left with the fact that I like the new Cathedral and you don’t.

We can certainly disagree civilly and in good faith on this one.
 
40.png
cecelia:
Let us all pray for the cessation of these monuments to the New Man and the restoration of cathedrals like Notre Dame and Chartres which glorify God.
Click to expand...
**AMEN!🙂 **
 
Go to the following link
seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/library/
Click on Photo Gallery**, then Slide Show.
The first view is of the new Seattle public library.
I really, really dislike (Mom taught me never to say “hate”) the thing, but when I saw the concept of the “Cathedral,” something brought the library to mind. I guess it’s all the glass.
You can probably read all about the library if you wish, but my point is the first decade twenty-first century architecture seems to be all glass and steel. In twenty years, it’ll probably be torn down for a new model.
How much is this cathedral costing?
I also favor the Gothic, or at least a church that looks like a church has looked for a thousand years or so.
I’ve only seen pictures of the new L.A. cathedral, er, “worship space,” and the kindest thing I can say is that I’m not impressed. Pictures of the huge statue of Mary look (I’m sorry) like Aunt Jemina.
I guess I was born a couple hundred (at least) years too late.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top