Would you call this a cathedral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
originally posted by Lance
If the people of CA like it then they can have it. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Being in the Diocese of Oakland, I’ll be the first “Californian” to say it repels me. Where is Michelangelo when we reeeeaaalllllyyy need him?!
 
40.png
Richardols:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, to disagree civilly is human, but to disagree civilly is divine. But as discussions such as this, it really doesn’t rest on our opinions, thank God for that. Whether you like it or I don’t doesn’t change the fact that a change in our way of worshipping God changes the way in which we perceive God. So if you like that cathedral is really secondary to the point that our orientation towards God is changed by approaching Him in such an abstract manner. Let’s get beyond opinion. Let’s look at what happens when we change the nature of worship. For example, look at the altar boys in cossacks and surplice and notice how we react towards them. We react differently than we do towards altar servers in albs and sneakers. The Host is being consecrated in both instances, but in the second instance, our attitude towards the Consecration may not be as reverent as it could be during the first instance. As I said before the traditional Cathedrals heighten the senses in that they allow us to sense God. So those cathedrals heighten by diminishing us. A paradox, but then again, when referring to God, we accept paradoxes as a given. This proposed cathedral and others of its ilk have the opposite effect. They create a heightened sense of ourselves for ourselves rather than a heightening of the senses as a conduit towards the supernatural. The ultimate goal is a sense of the supernatural. So liking the cathedral is really not the ultimate criterium. It’s whether it leads us to God. What you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter. The Host is still being consecrated. True, but for us humans who rely on our senses, our senses are dulled by the abstraction. We need the tangible and the palpable, and this cathedral doesn’t fulfill this requirement. So rather than rest our argument on subjectivity, let’s see if the cathedral fulfills its purpose.Not ours. But yes, feel free to disagree, nonetheless, understand my point,which I probably didn’t articulate very clearly. But I was never talking about preferences, but about purpose. What should a cathedral do? How should it do it? What does a cathedral represent? Which type of cathedral does so? That cathedral doesn’t do it. An altar server in sneakers does not do it. A habitless nun does not do it. A building devoid of statues, crucifixes does not do it. That God become man does away with abstractions in our worship. This cathedral seeks to pay homage to abstractions. It’s jarring, and it doesn’t resonate in the way that Notre Dame does. It doesn’t have that sense of timelessness that Chartres does, not even of St. Patrick’s. 100 years from now, it will be dated, a victim of its time, not standing the test of time, or transcending time in the way that the great cathedrals have done.
 
It looks like a mothballed nuclear plant with the scaffolding left up. How can I saw YUCK, double YUCK. Absolutely hideous.

Lisa N
 
This reminds me of the beautiful picture of JPII as a young priest, who would say mass in secret with his students. He used a boat as the altar and the oars as a cross.

I was edified by that image of bravery to bring the Eucharist to them in the midst of opression.

I heard a few unkind remarks on this forum from those who felt he was a bad pope. I think they were right. He should have said, “No way, you’ll get no Mass without the building.”

I know this is off the subject a touch. But just another example at how we can get caught up in things that are superficial.

I do agree that a Cathedral’s design is in no way something to take lightly. It should glorify God. The architect probably thinks it does, even if most of us don’t.
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...
 
The Gothic cathedrals of Europe were once frowned upon for being ugly in design; the Italians called the style ‘Gothic’ because they thought the architecture was hideous and barbaric. And today, you people are in favor of Gothic cathedrals because it’s more traditional. I don’t think Gothic was considered traditional when it first came out; in fact, it utilized the most up to date knowledge of masonry and science of that era, just like the new Oakland cathedral utilizes the most modern technology of today. I live in the Oakland diocese and I’m damn proud of our new cathedeal.
 
40.png
CarolAnnSFO:
A Catholic church does not have to be Gothic in design. But why do I have a funny feeling that this Oakland Cathedral won’t look much like a church on the inside, either?
Click to expand...
Because you have some really strong preconceived notions of what a church must look like?
 
vern humphrey:
However, the Gothic Cathedral design has pleased a lot of people.

When I look at this, I’m reminded of my old tactics instructor, Colonel E. J. Kennedy. Whenever we’d do something really stupid, he’d say, “Young gentlemen, it is sufficient to merely surprise the enemy. You don’t have to $#@% ASTONISH him!”

You’re right – but I still feel someone is trying to $#@% ASTONISH us.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Can’t type…stich in side…drool on keyboard…help.
 
Makes Mahony’s in LA look like Saint Mary Major in Rome. Still prettier than our A-frame Cathedral of the Guardian Angels in Las Vegas.
 
 
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...
Do really think that a Protestant wouldn’t be caught dead in it? Have you seen the “Crystal Cathedral.”? Or many other edifices that protestants build?
 
Fidei Defensor:
The Gothic cathedrals of Europe were once frowned upon for being ugly in design; the Italians called the style ‘Gothic’ because they thought the architecture was hideous and barbaric. And today, you people are in favor of Gothic cathedrals because it’s more traditional. I don’t think Gothic was considered traditional when it first came out; in fact, it utilized the most up to date knowledge of masonry and science of that era, just like the new Oakland cathedral utilizes the most modern technology of today.
Click to expand...
I agree. Although I do not live in Oakland. I just hope it does have the traditional furniture of the cathedrals that came before.
The seminary in my town has a Church that was very old fashioned. The pews faced the middle aisle and the alter was turned so the priest celebrated with his back to the congregation. It was dark and dreary. The sem renovated. Neddless to say the resident priests were not happy, until they finished that is. They put in new stained glass which was brighter and replaced the floor with rough granite. They turned the alter around and took away the pews. They were replaced with light colored heavy wood chairs. Each chair had a kneeler on the rear legs for the person and a large ledge to rest your elbows or a book. The chairs fit together so well that you didnt know they were individual until you sat down and looked. I loved this church, unfortuanatley it is only for the seminarians. But I still love to go in and pray.
 
Maybe. I’d have to see it from the inside and more importantly, *hear *it from the inside. I’m pleased to read that the glass is opaque, though. Not to be cruel, but there isn’t much of Oakland–or any other large city–that I found so edifying that I’d like to see so much of it during Mass. I’d want to hear it with and without one of Oakland’s downpour rainstorms, too. You have to be able to hear Mass.

It looks as if the inside has a sort of a Gothic shape, rather than just a round or a parabolic shape. That might give it the soaring feeling that Gothic structures have and some beautiful acoustics. And it is very local. The climate in Oakland is very mild. There aren’t many places you could build a structure like that and not spend an arm and a leg on heating in the winter. Stained glass with pictures was great when people couldn’t read. For a people who work in cubicles, bombarded with information, though, something open and unadorned except for an altar and a huge and simple crucifix might truly feel a sanctuary.

I can understand that people don’t want something that reminds them of an airplane hangar, and I respect that. Still, I think it is kind of silly to think that every church ought to be in one of a few old European styles. It reminds me of people that won’t try anything that isn’t a food they know from childhood, cooked the way their mom cooked it.
 
I don’t care for the base/entrance in this model. It seems overly utilitarian (dare I say suburban) in comparison to the more grandiose statement which the glass structure strives for.
 
40.png
katherine2:
how would you know that?
Click to expand...
When you look at it do you think it’s God’s House? Does it raise your gaze to Christ? With all the money that has had to have been paid out as a consequence of the abuse of young men by homosexual priests (who are responsible for the overwhelming number of instances of abuse that have so scandalized and in some instances bankrupted the Church), it’s mindboggling that parishioners’ hard-earned donations are being used to construct this deconstructed “cathedral” which resembles the skeletal structure of an amusement ride. This has to be some sick joke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top