Would you call this a cathedral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Question:

I thought the faithful was not supposed to be seated behind the celebrating Priest?
Click to expand...
you need to tell Mother Angelica that.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Question:

I thought the faithful was not supposed to be seated behind the celebrating Priest?
Click to expand...
Heh, what about everybody sitting behind the celebrating priest?
 
QUOTE=katherine2]you need to tell Mother Angelica that.
There’s a grille which separates the singing brothers (before it was the nuns) from the altar. If my memory serves me right, the grille is suppose to be to the right or to the left of the altar. This is not the same as the Beast Cathedral with the open space and no grille.
 
I don’t know how this will look lit up at night, maybe nice, but if I were sitting inside it, I would feel like I was sitting in somebody’s ribcage.

I see a cross in the picture, but no crucifix. Maybe the picture doesn’t show all the intended detail, but I don’t see any stations or tabernacle, either. Why is this? Couldn’t those items be designed in a modern way to go with the rest of the building? Why leave them out?

I attended Mass in a new, “modern” church building not too long ago. After navigating a maze of conference-center like corridors, I finally found the actual church portion of the building. Inside, I looked around for the tabernacle, intending to genuflect. I couldn’t find it. I sat down, and while waiting for Mass to begin, I looked for the altar. I couldn’t find that either. The priest began Mass, and I still couldn’t see what was being used for an altar, but finally, I found it – a tiny little table on the “stage” (well, that’s what it looked like). I don’t remember if there was either a cross or a crucifix; if there was, it didn’t stand out much.

I know, “each to his own”, but I’ll take my traditional church building, thank-you. It’s neither dark nor dingy, by the way!
 
40.png
CarolAnnSFO:
I don’t remember if there was either a cross or a crucifix; if there was, it didn’t stand out much.
Click to expand...
This is one thing I’m adamant about… I like to see a crucifix or at the very least a cross that is the focal point of the sanctuary, in scale with the body of the building – a huge space ought to have a huge crucifix. The tabernacle and altar ought to be of human scale, even in a large church, but still given proper prominence.

On the subject of crucifixes… I used to not like “Risen Christ” crosses as the focal point of sanctuaries. Then I went to St. Anthony’s, the church for St. Anthony’s Village, a nursing and retirement home, besides some other things. Lots of wheelchairs and oxygen tanks at Mass. They have a crucifix on the altar, but a huge Risen Christ over the sanctuary. It is perfect.
 
Sorry if anyone finds the comments about the ‘cathedral’ being extremely distasteful but we’re just stating the God honest truth about what we think. If it’s ugly, we call it ugly. Plain and simple. If anyone doesn’t think so, good for him/her.

As to the picture of the inside, exactly what I thought. Empty! Protestant-like! I’ve seen a few of these kind already and I know exactly what I’m talking about. The sitting is usually circular. One would think for a big building like that, there got to be something more to it. On the contrary, there ain’t much to it. It’s all barren inside! Does not feel like the house of God. It gives no sense of awe, reverence, or worship. Indifference would be more like. I need to visit Vatican…:nope:
 
Bad taste is bad taste. This Cathedral might end up taking the cake… :rolleyes:
It’s ridiculous looking.
 
40.png
Hildebrand:
QUOTE=katherine2]you need to tell Mother Angelica that.
There’s a grille which separates the singing brothers (before it was the nuns) from the altar. If my memory serves me right, the grille is suppose to be to the right or to the left of the altar. This is not the same as the Beast Cathedral with the open space and no grille.
Click to expand...
Ahhh. So a grill makes it okay. gotcha. :whacky:
 
I think its beautiful! really interesting architecture. All though i really hope Catholics are not the next faith in line to construct these “mega church’s”. i just thing they are too flashy and too showy. but this is really pretty. a great place to worship hopefully. lets pray they find a good priest to lead the church and great parishoners to fill her grand halls.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Ahhh. So a grill makes it okay. gotcha. :whacky:
Click to expand...
Where did I say it made it ok?

I am saying there is a vast difference between Our Lady of the Angels monastery chapel and the Belly of the Beast Cathedral.

The grille and low wall provides separation (almost creates another room), there is no separation in the Belly of the Beast Cathedral’s altar and the pews behind it.
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
This is one thing I’m adamant about… I like to see a crucifix or at the very least a cross that is the focal point of the sanctuary, in scale with the body of the building – a huge space ought to have a huge crucifix. The tabernacle and altar ought to be of human scale, even in a large church, but still given proper prominence.

On the subject of crucifixes… I used to not like “Risen Christ” crosses as the focal point of sanctuaries. Then I went to St. Anthony’s, the church for St. Anthony’s Village, a nursing and retirement home, besides some other things. Lots of wheelchairs and oxygen tanks at Mass. They have a crucifix on the altar, but a huge Risen Christ over the sanctuary. It is perfect.
Click to expand...
This is just a model, im sure the priest along with the parishoners will adorn the church and make it a great place of worship.
 
"Regardless, what once was dispised by many is now widely accepted as a masterpiece. "

I disagree. Something that was once despised can always be despised. There are things that man shouldn’t mess with. Tradition. If a structure (church) does not feed man spiritual life, what good is it. If all it can give is coldness, irreverence, and indifference what use is it. We’re not talking about the building itself. We’re talking about a church… and a church suppose to feed our spiritual life. When I step into a church, I want to feel like I’m in God’s house, not at the mall, home, or work. I want to feel a spiritual nourishment.

No matter how awesome or futeristic the structure is, if it doesn’t make one feel spiritual, it’s no church at all. A church should be a church…don’t try to be fancy with the time.

I can say the same for those contemporary furniture. Some are cool to look but usage…naw. I still prefer traditional because it gives comfort, coziness and they’re beautiful to adorn a home. And it can looked expensive. I would say a majority still like traditional…it’s timeless. Same with a house. Wouldn’t we all love to have something like a villa…the italian-like. But most of us can only settle for something ordinary just as long as it doesn’t look like a business building!
 
40.png
harveyc:
I do not care for modern art at all either! BLB may have something, though. 😉 It might partially be a “chick thing” as you say. I’m a fairly conservative guy working in banking and a part-time farmer, but tools, steel, machinery, are pretty neat IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep definitely a guy thing! When I buy furniture for our office I gravitate to the walnut desks and the plush leather chairs. The men are all over the chrome and glass and black lacquer! Honestly it might be fine once built and filled with the faithful. The schematic drawings are rather skeletal and probably do not
give a full view.
40.png
harveyc:
If you happen to come to visit northern California in 2008, drop me a line and our family will meet you at the new cathedral to see what you think! 😉
Click to expand...
It will definitely be worth visiting once it’s done!

Lisa N
 
cathgal said:
"Regardless, what once was dispised by many is now widely accepted as a masterpiece. "

I disagree. Something that was once despised can always be despised…
Click to expand...

Pretty easy to disagree with something when you take it out of context. That statement was in reference to The David. Also, I never made the statement that something that was despised won’t be despised later on. I made the point that The David was despised at one time but is now widely accepted as a masterpiece." Do you disagree with that? I don’t know if this cathedral will ever be widely admired or not. The point is that somethings that are not popular now will be later.
 
Lisa N:
Yep definitely a guy thing! When I buy furniture for our office I gravitate to the walnut desks and the plush leather chairs. The men are all over the chrome and glass and black lacquer! Honestly it might be fine once built and filled with the faithful. The schematic drawings are rather skeletal and probably do not
give a full view.
Lisa N
Click to expand...
You’re scaring me! I don’t like chrome, glass, and black lacquer furniture either. My favorite chair is my leather recliner! Oak or walnut furniture is fine for me! My last piece of woodworking was a set of oak bookshelves. I do like nice steel tools, though! 😃
 
Ok, so I missed the ‘David’ thingy but “The point is that somethings that are not popular now will be later.” imply the same thing. This structure is not the first to be unpopular. For the last 3 decades, there been other ugly ones and they’re still considered ugly today. Do we need to give it more time to become popular…I doubt it. People still prefer the traditional church to one such as this. Also, with this kind of modern structure with no glorification to God, it tells us alot about the kind of world we live in today, secularism. Just look at Europe of centuries past, people were more religious. It showed in all the churches. Maybe if we bring back those precious traditional church building , we would all be better off in our spiritual journey.
 
40.png
cathgal:
Ok, so I missed the ‘David’ thingy but “The point is that somethings that are not popular now will be later.” imply the same thing. This structure is not the first to be unpopular. For the last 3 decades, there been other ugly ones and they’re still considered ugly today. Do we need to give it more time to become popular…I doubt it. People still prefer the traditional church to one such as this. Also, with this kind of modern structure with no glorification to God, it tells us alot about the kind of world we live in today, secularism. Just look at Europe of centuries past, people were more religious. It showed in all the churches. Maybe if we bring back those precious traditional church building , we would all be better off in our spiritual journey.
Click to expand...
The point is that SOME structures that were previously found to be unattractive are later viewed as being unattractive. Some that were once thought to be attractive, also are now considered unattractive.

Please support your comment that this structure does not give glory to God. I’ve read that several times and simply do not understand the rationale for it. Would you also tell someone that their method of prayer is inappropriate? What would the the apostles think of any of the structures used as churches today? The structures in Europe are not similar to the ones that existed in the Holy Land when Jesus was preaching here on Earth. The Catholic faith has become extremely week in Europe, so how has the design of the structures there helped build up the faith?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top