San Francisco Cathedral Architecture

[benedictgal]

Our Cathedral was done in the Frenc Gothic style, very beautiful and quite conducive to prayer. Both Cathedral Basilicas of St. Louis in St. Louis, MO, different as though they are, are still magnificent and quite conducive to prayer. The newer of the two, moreso, because the mosaics direct our thoughts to that heavenly liturgy.

Even though I have never been to St. Peter's in Rome (and only observe it during the Papal telecasts), the grandeur, the beauty and the majesty of the building certainly directs my attention to something greater than all of us. Michaelangelo, et al, certainly had a deep understanding of the Sensus Fidei because their work reflected it in a larger-than-life way.

When I see the examples of the things that California has constructed, it certainly pales in comparision. Not many know this, but, there are no right-angles at all in OLAC. It was designed to reflect the human imperfection. But, what about the glory and majesty of God? Where is that in these buildings?

That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by benedictgal

Our Cathedral was done in the French Gothic style, very beautiful and quite conducive to prayer. Both Cathedral Basilicas of St. Louis in St. Louis, MO, different as though they are, are still magnificent and quite conducive to prayer. The newer of the two, more so, because the mosaics direct our thoughts to that heavenly liturgy.

Even though I have never been to St. Peter's in Rome (and only observe it during the Papal telecasts), the grandeur, the beauty and the majesty of the building certainly directs my attention to something greater than all of us. Michaelangelo, et al, certainly had a deep understanding of the Sensus Fidei because their work reflected it in a larger-than-life way.

When I see the examples of the things that California has constructed, it certainly pales in comparision. Not many know this, but, there are no right-angles at all in OLAC. It was designed to reflect the human imperfection. But, what about the glory and majesty of God? Where is that in these buildings?

That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

I don't think I have enough knowledge about architecture to comment on the question of how the new Cathedral reflects glory, grandeur, beauty, etc.

But, IMHO, therein lies a real problem. I often think that one of the sublime things about Christianity is that it's good enough for both sophisticated intellectuals, like St. Thomas Aquinas, and my grandfathers, who left school very young. So, I would say that any architecture that only speaks to relatively knowledgeable people isn't catholic, and hence, in a sense, not Catholic.

Old-fashioned Church architecture, in contrast, "direct[ed] our thoughts to the heavenly liturgy" in appropriate ways. The thoughts of everybody; people who think it's beautiful and people who think it's kitsch; people who dig 20th century architecture and people who can't appreciate it.

Bottom line: I don't really care whether the architecture of the building has merits in some abstract or academic sense. I care about the effect, or the intended effect, it has on how Catholics understand what it means to be Catholic.

Over the line: If my description is accurate at all, then a sad note: Like so much Church history: It's as much about what kind of figure a bishop cuts at cocktail parties as anything else.

ASD
---------------
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

[Navarre]

Originally Posted by WhollyRoamin

We're talking about bad architecture in this thread.

Ridiculous liturgies will be ridiculed in a seperate thread.

Unless you'd like to make comparisons between the altar table and a helipad-- I'm down for that discussion.

Nothing "bad" about OLAC's architecture.

You're the guy that offered a view from a 50' boom of the OLAC as eye level. LOL! You also described a very minimal slope as a "climb." I was very surprised you did not dig-up those photos.

I would take that OLAC's wonderful altar (at least the mensa) over a shelf on the back wall anytime.

[Navarre]

Originally Posted by ASD

I don't think I have enough knowledge about architecture to comment on the question of how the new Cathedral reflects glory, grandeur, beauty, etc.

But, IMHO, therein lies a real problem. I often think that one of the sublime things about Christianity is that it's good enough for both sophisticated intellectuals, like St. Thomas Aquinas, and my grandfathers, who left school very young. So, I would say that any architecture that only speaks to relatively knowledgeable people isn't catholic, and hence, in a sense, not Catholic.

Old-fashioned Church architecture, in contrast, "direct[ed] our thoughts to the heavenly liturgy" in appropriate ways. The thoughts of everybody; people who think it's beautiful and people who think it's kitsch; people who dig 20th century architecture and people who can't appreciate it.

Bottom line: I don't really care whether the architecture of the building has merits in some abstract or academic sense. I care about the effect, or the intended effect, it has on how Catholics understand what it means to be Catholic.

Over the line: If my description is accurate at all, then a sad note: Like so much Church history: It's as much about what kind of figure a bishop cuts at cocktail parties as anything else.

ASD

Let me add my own corollary. First, there is no way the people who post here are a representative sample of all Catholics, or even all Catholics in the USA. Therefore, while I most certainly agree that OLAC does not speak to the majority of people who post here, I do believe it does to a majority who take the time to worship there -- highly knowledgeable, abjectly illiterate and everyone in between.

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by Navarre

Nothing "bad" about OLAC's architecture.

You're the guy that offered a view from a 50' boom of the OLAC as eye level. LOL! You also described a very minimal slope as a "climb." I was very surprised you did not dig-up those photos.

I would take that OLAC's wonderful altar (at least the mensa) over a shelf on the back wall anytime.

However, there is something amiss about this particular Cathedral. The pictures seem to indicate that the design doesn't take into account the fact that something greater than ourselves occurs there. The statuary is not beautiful nor does it reflect the beauty and divinity that even the pagan Greeks did with their pieces. Inasmuch as what was shown is supposed to be a statue of Our Lady, the Athena Parthenos, pagan though it be, is a much more beaufiul work.

Regarding altars, they are supposed to look, well, like altars. It is not a table. Inasmuch as we will be consuiming the living flresh of the God made man, it is the Altar of Sacrifice. I have seen pictures of the sanctuary. It is very abstract and empty, for lack of a better word. It does not matter if the altar material is made from the finest Turkish marble and crafted in Italy. What should matter is that the entire buiding, exterior and interior, should help bring our minds and hearts to the Divine Majesty of God.

Neither this building, nor the one in San Francisco, would appear, in my opinion, to achieve that purpose.

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by Navarre

Let me add my own corollary. First, there is no way the people who post here are a representative sample of all Catholics, or even all Catholics in the USA. Therefore, while I most certainly agree that OLAC does not speak to the majority of people who post here, I do believe it does to a majority who take the time to worship there -- highly knowledgeable, abjectly illiterate and everyone in between.

With all due respect, I would actually take exception to your line of thinking. Many folks do not have a say-so in how their parishes, let alone, their cathedrals, are constructed. Oh, they can have building committees and such, but, in the end, it is usually up to the priest, and, in the case of this particular Cathedral, the Metropolitan.

Furthermore, there are liturgies celebrated in cathedrals that do not necessarily occur in the average parish, like ordinations, the Chrism Mass and even some confirmations (especially if they are held in clusters). Maybe there are some who, even though the Cathedral is their parish, don't like the buidling. And, maybe there are some, who do attend the special lituriges at the Cathedral, who also do not have a favorable opinion.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by Navarre

I do believe it does [speak to] to a majority who take the time to worship there -- highly knowledgeable, abjectly illiterate and everyone in between.

That might be true. But, how do you know, e.g., what the majority of illiterate people who go to Mass there think of it?

I guess you're guessing based on the fact that people don't complain, etc. But, I think lots of Catholics put up with lots of stuff without complaining.

[malphono]

I can't help but see a parallel in this thread that is something like the Oscars. They give an award to a film and like magic, the world is supposed to bow down and say" "yes, masters, it is a wonderful film." Whether the rest of world actually liked the film is immaterial. The Academy has spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Same with art critics and book reviewers. From the heights they decide that a painting or a building or a book is "fantastic" because it has so much "hidden meaning" (or whatever), and of course the critics and reviewers "understand" it. So again the rest of the world is expected to bow down and say "yes, masters, it is a wonderful painting (or building, or book, or whatever). Whether the rest of world actually liked the painting (or building, or book, or whatever) is immaterial. The critics and reviewers have spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Here's the rub: all of the above is art. Art is a matter of taste. Some will like a particular film, (or building, or whatever), and others will not. Just because someone does not like what the so-called "critics" say is "wonderful" (or "gorgeous", or whatever) does not mean that he/she is a clod. All it means it is that opinions differ.

Personally, I'm tired of self-styled "critics" forcing their artistic opinions down my throat. Just MHO, and it's the last thing I say in this thread.

[Navarre]

Originally Posted by ASD

That might be true. But, how do you know, e.g., what the majority of illiterate people who go to Mass there think of it?

I guess you're guessing based on the fact that people don't complain, etc. But, I think lots of Catholics put up with lots of stuff without complaining.

No, not guessing.

I have talked with (probably ) a representative sample of people in person about what they thought of OLAC after worshiping there. Not one spoke the negative sort of slurs one sees here, even in the case where the people with seriously anti-OLAC before worshiping there for the first time.

[Navarre]

Originally Posted by malphono

I can't help but see a parallel in this thread that is something like the Oscars. They give an award to a film and like magic, the world is supposed to bow down and say" "yes, masters, it is a wonderful film." Whether the rest of world actually liked the film is immaterial. The Academy has spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Same with art critics and book reviewers. From the heights they decide that a painting or a building or a book is "fantastic" because it has so much "hidden meaning" (or whatever), and of course the critics and reviewers "understand" it. So again the rest of the world is expected to bow down and say "yes, masters, it is a wonderful painting (or building, or book, or whatever). Whether the rest of world actually liked the painting (or building, or book, or whatever) is immaterial. The critics and reviewers have spoken, and any other opinion is meaningless.

Here's the rub: all of the above is art. Art is a matter of taste. Some will like a particular film, (or building, or whatever), and others will not. Just because someone does not like what the so-called "critics" say is "wonderful" (or "gorgeous", or whatever) does not mean that he/she is a clod. All it means it is that opinions differ.

Personally, I'm tired of self-styled "critics" forcing their artistic opinions down my throat. Just MHO, and it's the last thing I say in this thread.

I agree, but what you said applies to ALL art, structures, books, movies, etc.

Too many condemn what they personally dislike (or do not understand) as being universally bad and they couldn't be more wrong in many cases. They should learn to use qualifiers like "In my opinion I really don't care for XYZ" rather than suggest "XYZ is (or should be) universally bad to all people in all cases." They attempt to offer their personal pronouncements as objective truths and often look foolish in their attempts, particularly when they are depending on secondary or tertiary resources.

[Lepanto]

Originally Posted by Navarre

I agree, but what you said applies to ALL art, structures, books, movies, etc.

Too many condemn what they personally dislike (or do not understand) as being universally bad and they couldn't be more wrong in many cases. They should learn to use qualifiers like "In my opinion I really don't care for XYZ" rather than suggest "XYZ is (or should be) universally bad to all people in all cases." They attempt to offer their personal pronouncements as objective truths and often look foolish in their attempts, particularly when they are depending on secondary or tertiary resources.

Actually, there are objective truths about what constitutes beauty. To say otherwise is a product of relativistic thought...the kind of thought that gave us the nonsense called modern art.

Please see post #67 for a few criteria of beauty.

[ibkc]

I found some YouTube videos of masses celebrated at OLAC, all shot from within the pews. I have to say, if I hadn't known I was looking at a cathedral, it would have taken me a while to figure out that I wasn't looking at a huge convention center.

OTOH, the choir is absolutely wonderful.

[JPUSC]

I have been to the LA Cathedral several times, and I will say that it does feel like a church on the inside. It's not the best, especially with the statue of Mary that looks like a man, but I suppose it's ALRIGHT. The interior looks better than St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco.

I do think having a paid valet parking service at the cathedral is a bit much. It also looks like they rent the place out for special events (e.g., gala events, cocktail parties, business meetings). They also have a catering service/restaurant, a ballroom, a viewing foyer, etc. I suppose you can say it's very LA. St. Mary's Cathedral also has a ballroom and conference center. I think I also remember seeing their own security force and parking attendant, things I haven't seen at other cathedrals.

DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY AT THE CENTER AT CATHEDRAL PLAZA

Book your Company Event, Wedding Reception, or Social Function on the Plaza under the stars, in our beautiful ballroom or one of our functional meeting rooms.

Experience extraordinary settings, culinary delights prepared by our award winning chefs and heartfelt hospitality by our friendly and professional on-site catering staff.

http://www.olacathedral.org/conference/aboutfs.html

http://www.levyrestaurants.com/Levy/...dral+Plaza.htm

[Lepanto]

THE ROOTS OF MODERNIST CHURCH ARCHITECTURE

http://www.stroik.com/publications/r...harchitecture/

[Cavaille-Coll]

Originally Posted by Lepanto

Actually, there are objective truths about what constitutes beauty. To say otherwise is a product of relativistic thought...the kind of thought that gave us the nonsense called modern art.

Please see post #67 for a few criteria of beauty.

The fact that so many people on this thread have negative things to say about these three cathedrals should be sufficient to show that the transcendent beauty of modern church architecture is lacking. Google a photo of St. Mary's Cathedral in Tokyo. My best description is a small, hollowed-out volcano with an interior covered in concrete. The only things these and other similar structures have in common are the relative dates of construction and a general opinion that money was sadly wasted on them.

Compare these unfortunate edifices with another California cathedral, Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento. It was recently restored to its 1880's beauty by (now retired) Bishop William Wiegand, who did an equally-magnificent restoration of the Cathedral of the Madeleine in his former see of Salt Lake City. Upon entering Sacramento's cathedral, it is obvious that one is standing in a house of God. Everywhere one looks, there is easily-identifiable Christian imagery and ornamentation that even humbles California's ornate capitol building two blocks away. It is accessible and understandable to anyone, and doesn't require docents to rattle off lengthy explanations of what all the cryptic symbols mean.