AmericanPapist Comments
The design is very beautiful. But on the drawing, the chair seems to be in the incorrect place. Surely nowadays, the Tabernacle, and only the Tabernacle is placed in that high a position. The norm is that the chair be level with the Altar and to its left, right as you look at it.
The Holy Father will, almost certainly, NOT read the Gospel from the ambo. If a deacon doesn't do that, I'll eat my hat.
(And Vincent H. doesn't seem to realize that there's no tabernacle at Nationals Stadium! Or that the new GIRM leaves it up to the bishop to decide where a tabernacle is placed in new church construction. I happen to agree that in general it's not best to put the presider's chair high and centered behind the altar, but it's hard to be absolute about that until the rest of the liturgical space is considered!)
Frankly -- I'm unimpressed. Enough with the Ikea-inspired design...give me something with substance that will last for centuries.
(Decorative parabolic arches? Seriously? The richness of the Christian tradition and we get decorative parabolic arches?)
If the Pope wears a miter at any time while sitting in the chair, won't the papal coat of arms on the back and the miter look, at the very least, very busy -- especially on television? Too many designs? Josephine
Yuck. It looks like something straight out of the late '60s or early '70s. And that is not a good thing, in my opinion.
I'd prefer that the altar be placed not quite so close to the stairs in front, so that His Holiness could offer Mass ad orientem if he chose to. Is that possible with the design as it stands? I can't really tell, from the picture.
It's simply too small!
(sorry)
The students took a lot of time and research to construct something fit for the Pope. Their efforts and design are to be commended! It is not everyday an architecture student gets such an honor.
May I suggest that Papa bring his chair with him from Rome? I would even volunteer to carry it over to the U.S. I'd love to visit the U.S. someday, you see.
Actually, Little Gidding, it would appear that a few strong men could, in the blink of an eye, replace the throne with the Altar and put the throne in it's traditional place on the north side of the sanctuary. Voila! Ad orientem!
This would be particularly easy, it seems to me, given the fact that the infrastructure of the Altar is far too light to be convincing. Let's have some legs that look like they are capable of supporting the top.
Anyone who has watched recent papal liturgies from Rome would know that His Holiness will not be pleased.
John-Paul is an incredibly faithful Catholic, and dedicated to the restoration of sacred architecture.
Three cheers!!!
Congrats to both Ryan and JP. This is quite an honor for them both! This was not an easy task and they did a superb job. I think His Holiness would be proud.
Ugh. Very 70's. The arms on the chair remind me of college furniture.
I'm sure JP and Mullen put a lot of work into it to please the judges and their professors... The fact that this was the winner doesn't reflect negatively on JP and Mullen, rather it shows just how stuck in the ugly era the judges are.
Give me a slab of marble for the altar, a couple of slabs for the chair.
I think green marble, or some other dark color would be very appropriate
It will be interesting to see if the altar is set in the "Benedictine" style...seven candles and the altar cross.
"...so that His Holiness could offer Mass ad orientem if he chose to"
It seems his holiness has already made that choice. He will be facing north.
Color me unimpressed. But, I've seen enough work from architecture students that I went to college with to know that this is the same boring milquetoast coming out of every architecture school in the United States.
When people stop to consider that the Holy Mass is one of the highest forms of prayer that Catholics can do; when we consider that each Mass is an honor of the sacrifice of Jesus and a testament to the Glory of Christ; when we say that our Lord is PHYSICALLY PRESENT in the Eucharist, you think we'd do better than some McDonald's-inspired arches and a wooden top.
But I guess if people considered the conditions above, they probably wouldn't celebrate Mass in the centerfield of a Baseball Stadium, either. What, with all the Budweiser ads and hot dog vendors everywhere.
Hopefully His Holiness won't send us out to love and serve the Lord and to PLAY BALL!!!
Of course with the proper linens, frontals, candles and crucifix, the design of the altar would become less important. Where's the article on the newly commissioned frontal? (I won't hold my breath on that front, though.)
I know of at least one other entry from Catholic U., but I kind of wonder what all the losing designs looked like in comparison. While I agree with those of you who are taking pot-shots at these guys that the design is, well, a bit recidivistic, my guess is that this is the safest bet among the bunch. This design is simple and fairly straightforward, but does look rather modern. For those of you who haven't come to grips with Rococo yet, much less the modern style, I would suggest that, because this altar, chair, lectern and ambo are not going to be placed in a traditional space, but in a building that is, itself modern and open air, that they will work just fine. Putting this in any church which has the traditional Romanesque or Gothic cruciform shape would be a mistake, however. Nice job, JP and Ryan. While it's not my taste, it certainly looks like you thought about the surrounding structure in your design.
I wonder what the other choices looked like - was there anything more traditional that would fit with the direction the Pope is trying to lead the Church? It is too bad the people who picked this design did not take that into consideration. (Or maybe they did and the other designs were truly disgusting.) Oh well, what do expect when they schedule a Papal Mass at a baseball stadium. I bet that alone is enough to make the Pope groan.
I must agree with Teep. The design itself makes me gag a little, but considering where the Mass is to be held, they seem appropriate. I would be up in arms if they wanted to put that kind of furniture in a church!
"I wonder what the other choices looked like - was there anything more traditional that would fit with the direction the Pope is trying to lead the Church? It is too bad the people who picked this design did not take that into consideration. ... Oh well, what do expect when they schedule a Papal Mass at a baseball stadium. I bet that alone is enough to make the Pope groan.
Jeff"
It never ceases to amaze me that some people are wholly convinced that all of their opinions, tastes and views are shared by the Pope.
Sort of like Jews convinced that if only the Czar knew about the Cossacks, the pogroms would cease!!
If you have reservations about this or any other design of church furnishings, or reservations about Mass being held at Nationals Park, state your views and make your case. Defending them by claiming you "know" the Pope agrees with you is simply silly.
katherine,
Perhaps I should have said 'seems to be leading the Church' instead of 'trying to lead the Church'. I in no way was trying to imply that I know exactly what the Pope is doing or not doing. On the other hand, I have read much of what the Holy Father has published about the Holy Mass and that together with the changes he is visibly making in Rome can give anyone who pays attention an idea of where the Pope is trying to lead the Church. At least that is how it appears to me.
Just as an info point: some of the other designs are visible on the Flickr unique page (click on the full-version images):
http://flickr.com/photos/america...57603816217725/
Well, at least from the drawings, it appears that there will be an altar stone. How many portable altars don't have them?
"will be facing north"
As I understand it, "ad orientem" refers to turning toward the Lord, which has come to mean, liturgically speaking, turning toward the crucifix, and not necessarily toward the east too.
No offense. I have no doubt that the designers are to be commended and I have no reason to think that they didn't do a fine job here. Nor do I have any reason to criticize the judging, etc. But the question to which we are responding is simply "So, what do you think of the chosen design?" and I made the wee suggestion that the altar might be moved back a tad in order not to preclude the option of ad orientem if His Holiness wishes it. I have no idea what he wants to do--that is, in fact, why I suggested a design change that would allow him to do whatever he wishes to do, rather than presenting him with a fait accompli.
I will begin by saying that I am not unbiased in this, as the young men who designed the furnishings have been close friends of mine for several years.
Now, as far as the altar goes, (1) The old high altar, while very nice, is not suited for TV because it stands too far back from the crossing (the nave and the other thing.) (2) The present people's altar is a shipping crate on wheels with a very big frontal. Seriously. Anything would be an improvement.
Also, for those who say it's a throwback to the '70's, I ask you to not the almost complete lack of abstraction in the design and then reconsider your judgment.
WAC
The Curt Jester has a hilarious take on this design here:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/c...ives/
008657.php
Tom,
Are all the choices still on display on campus at CUA? If anyone else in DC is interested, it might be worth giving us the scoop so we can go check 'em out too. Your photos do have some pictured, but it's a bit difficult to decipher detail with the scale of the models.
Sorry,
never mind. just re-read the blog. They're still in the Crough center. gotcha. Many thanks/apologies.
WAC,
I will admit that there is at least symmetry to their design and on the whole it is not a bad design - for a dining room table. For me this design does not reflect the dignity that the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood demands; nor does any of the designs I could make out from the pictures on Flickr. I think the problem is that we in America need to realize that all the ugly and banal parishs we have are not really what the Church throughout time has handed down to us - it is instead a departure from which we need to return.
strictly speaking, "ad orientem" means "to the East", not North.
In 21st century parlance, it basically means "not towards the people", but that kind of defeats the whole point of using a term in Latin, doesn't it?
Got it wrong, per norm.
Nationals' Stadium, not National Shrine.
I wonder if the Pope will use the table that is in the National Shrine, or will he go for something a bit more noble?
WAC
Jeff,
There is no use in arguing taste. I'm no architectural modernist (drunken brawls with the designers of this altar will prove as much) and I might add that the altar is not altogether to my own personal taste, but I think it will serve quite nicely for Mass in a baseball stadium. I should like to know what truly classical form would lend itself to mass in a baseball stadium.
Also, it is not the altar that adds dignity to the Sacrifice, but rather, the Sacrifice which lends dignity to the altar.
Mass on the back of a Jeep during WWII comes to mind.
WAC
You have to remember, Mass is being held in a ball park. While I agree this may not see worthy enough for the Pope, where else would 45,000 people gather to attend Mass? Your local parish?! ;) Even when His Holines said Mass at World Youth in 2005, it was in an open field with more port-a-poties than you could imagine and street vendors selling pretzels. The amazing part of this is that thousands of people will be able to be attend mass with His Holiness right here in the US!! If he had mass somewhere more 'liturgically appropriate' less than a third of that number could attend. And that would be very sad.
In addition, Pope Benedict seems very able to speak his mind. If he was opposed to saying Mass in a ball field, I think he would say so. Not that I am trying to speak FOR him.
Considering the limitations and specificatins set for them by the Archdiocese, I say they did a fantastic job creating something with reverence in a place that is normally not reverent.
Jeff,
Thank you for your response. Certainly you might pick up on inferences in the Pope's readings and actions. Among his actions would be what he has requested for his trip to the USA as well as what matters he has left to the confidence he has in the host bishop.
Little Giddings,
As with Jeff, I would not preclude the possibility that the Holy Father has already made his preferences know to his host. Yes, "ad orientem" might be understood as facing the apse of the church rather than true east.
It might be said that the Roman church's common understanding of "facing the Lord" has organically developed from facing true east, to facing a symbolic east, to facing the Lord as symbolized by the altar commonly put against the apse, to facing the Lord as symbolized by a commonly freestanding altar. I think however facing the crucifix would be an innovation (and not a very good innovation).
No particular merit in freezing the legitimacy of this development in phase 1, 2, 3 or 4.
More on the competition:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0800558.htm
WAC,
I did not say that it was the altar that gives the Sacrament its dignity. What I said is the design of the altar "does not reflect the dignity that the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood demands". In other words our Lord deserves the absolute best that we can give Him and I do not believe chosen design adequately does. Please don't put words in my mouth.
katherine,
First of all, you don't have to infer anything about what the Pope has explictly written in his various books and letters about the liturgy - it is quite plain. Now you may infer since there is no public document (that I am aware of) stating exactly what the Pope wants the Mass to look like in D.C. that therefore he may in fact be leaving certain things to the discretion of the local ordinary. But that bishop should take into consideration what the Pope would actually want. And to do that he should be looking to the way things are now being done at the Vatican.
"developed from facing true east, to facing a symbolic east, to facing the Lord as symbolized by the altar commonly put against the apse, to facing the Lord as symbolized by a commonly freestanding altar"
Would that it were so. But the altar was pulled out from the wall just so that the priest could face the people and when the priest nowadays undertakes to face the altar from the front, still ad orientem, he is described, nearly everywhere, as "turning his back on the people," without reference to where the Lord is. That strikes me as a true indicator of what the priest is perceived as "orienting" himself toward.
Thomas
I would remind you that an exclusive is something no others can have or do. I and many others could take pictures as well. This is not just a problem with this but with many so-called "exclusives" you have on your site. Many people can do what you do. Of course no one writes as you do or takes the pics exactly as you do, but then if you use that as evidence it is an exclusive, then all website posts are exclusives. Instead of making hype and false claims -- just make it for what it is. A post of pictures you too.
Just a suggestion.
When I posted this no other blog had covered the event, or provided photographs. I think that counts as an "exclusive", at least in the way that other news blogs and sites use the term. Of course, people are welcome to cover the same event, at which point it's no longer "exclusive" to me, while my photos remain my property. Also, I let anyone use those too. Can you suggest another term to describe this situation? I certainly try to use the term "exclusive" of other bloggers when they do the same.
I would suggest you use the term "first" in the future unless it is a true exclusive (such that no one but you CAN get the story).
Just friendly advice. It's better to be honest.
Well, no argument on the last point. I'll take it into consideration.
I have worked in the news biz for twenty years and I am not quite so concerned about this expansion of the usage of the word "exclusive." Even if one gets a "true" exclusive, like an interview with someone important about something important, it's often (although, granted, not always) the case that several hours later or a day later, someone from some other news organization will be able to talk to that person again, hopefully carrying the story forward a bit, or at least taking up a different angle.
Sometimes a reporter is able to file a story about a news event--such as an accident--and they happen to be the only one there, at least as it unfolds, even though others might arrive later. In that case, of course, one might claim a "scoop." If the words are to be limited that way, maybe we should award Thomas a "scoop" for this story--he seems to have beat even CNS on it.
But how about the case--this one on the design competition is exactly one of them--where you think it's a good story, but you have no idea whether anyone else intends to file a story on it? Here Thomas did not attend any press conference or receive any press release. So, "scoop" doesn't seem to fit because you have no confidence that there are a number of other writers and reporters about to report on it. "Scoop" suggests that you beat someone to the story, but maybe you don't know if anyone else was trying to find it, or could care less. But you do know that, up to the time you blog it, no one else *has* reported on it, and, because you like the story and find it very interesting and think others will like it too, you give it a label and call it an "exclusive," to indicate something like--hey, everyone, look at what I found!
Yes, "First" is good, though.
Guess the old Star Trek set came up for sale huh...? The retro set is ugly and shamefull beyond words. Any stage set carpenter could come up with something more apropriate at a far cheeper cost in a fraction of the time it would have taken to produce this c--p.
JP is a hard core traditional catholic. This design must refelct the guidelines they were given.
Typical post VII crap!We belong to a Church with a tradition of rich symbolism in art,so what do we do? We continue to throw it out the window in favor of Crap(with a capital C)that no one would ever figure out the meaning behind it unless you were told(with exception to the five crosses)! It reminds me of that Crap they hang in museums today that passes for art in which case you also have to talk to the (so called) artist to figure out what in hell it all means!
There is much to be said for full altar frontals, and lectern hangings. The Verona or Coronation design would be very beautiful, and add dignity to the altar space, esecially if a superfrontal were used with the antependium. It is very hard to come up with wooden appointments for the sanctuary in such little time. God bless the young men for their efforts.
Yech. A distinctly unbalanced design, it certainly does not inspire with anything approaching a spirit of worship.
"developed from facing true east, to facing a symbolic east, to facing the Lord as symbolized by the altar commonly put against the apse, to facing the Lord as symbolized by a commonly freestanding altar"
Would that it were so. But the altar was pulled out from the wall just so that the priest could face the people and when the priest nowadays undertakes to face the altar from the front, still ad orientem, he is described, nearly everywhere, as "turning his back on the people," without reference to where the Lord is. That strikes me as a true indicator of what the priest is perceived as "orienting" himself toward.
Little Gidding"
It is so. The Lord is represented by the altar, so the priest is "facing the Lord" regardless if he is facing the apse or the people.
Free standing altars started to be erected in churches built after WWI and by the eve of the Council, few new churches were built without a free standing altar.
Jeff --
The liturgical practices at the Vatican embrace the variety of legitimate options the Liturgical reforms allowed. We might honor the Holy Father's embrace of this legitimate diversity rather than trying to identify our personal preferences as the sole possibility.
I think that the design is pretty nice, considering its very temporary use. There's nothing "70's" about it. Some people, I think, just go apey when they see anything made of wood. It's a matter of silliness to think that a one-time-only Altar will be constructed of marble.
I say, "Congratulations."
I don't like the throne. It is too sharp-edged and square. I'll show this to my hubby who is an architecture prof.
The throne is designed so that anyone, from the faithful behind third base all the way up to the suppliants in the luxury boxes, can see in a moment where the Pope is sitting.
In the classic tradition of the throne, it is a big chair designed to be seen first.
WAC
"It's better to be honest."
I would have said, "This approach would eliminate the risk of some readers thinking you're being dishonest, which I know is not your intention at all."
I agree with LvB. It is not at all the use of wood that puts me off; it is the squared right angles as well as the the light color and unstained appearance of the wood that smack of the 70s to me.
My reaction is 100% aesthetic. I have no issue with its liturgical propriety.
I agree that a few more details would be nice, but most would be lost to the congregation even if visible on TV. Also, it's going to be used in a stadium. Durability to weather and wind, lightness, and ease of installation trump all other considerations when the Pope is doing this kind of "field Mass".
What concerns me is the sad way the heraldry design was executed. In the sketch, the heraldry was dark and thick-lined, easy to see -- a good treatment. Now it's going to be practically invisible anywhere further back than twenty feet. That is crazy! Heraldry is designed to be clearly visible from across a crowded and confused battlefield, much less a baseball field.
Harrumph.
Another important consideration -- no matter how ornate and colorful the vestments which Pope Benedict XVI chooses to wear, this chair will not clash with them.
(Heraldry always goes with everything, of course. It's a sort of fashion neutral.)
Katherine,
Are you so full of yourself that you can't even recognize what the Pope is in fact trying to do? Even liberal parts of the hierarchy see it and complain because they are afraid the Pope is going to 'undo' all the supposed good they have done. These liberals feel that they have brought the Mass to the people but all they have really done is dumb it down so that it has become little more than a communal gathering in many places in the world. Lost is the worship of the transcendent God. This is what the Pope is trying to correct.
Now, the Pope may still allow many things but he is most definitely trying to head in the direction of a more traditional understanding of the celebration of Mass. Have you read nothing he has written on the subject? Can you not see the changes he is making? The changes may be gradual, but they are most certainly there. Maybe you are one of those who are afraid that the Pope is going to take away all your silly and insipid Marty Haugen and David Haas music. Do you really think that stuff gives God the glory He deserves? At this point you may want to point out that nothing man can do truly gives God the glory He deserves and I would say that you are right. But we should give God our absolute best and most of the silliness that goes on in parishes today is far from the best we can do. We need to return to building truly beautiful buildings and altar furnishing that not only gives God glory but raises the mind of man to God instead of the banal auditoriums where so many people ‘worship’ nowadays. Please loose the ‘we are Church’ mentality and give God the best you can.
Jeff --
Other than being tremendously insulting, I do think I can recognize what the Pope is trying to do. IAnd I think you have somewhat egotiscally projecting your own preferences on the Holy Father.
I went through this with John Paul II where certainly elements never tired in insisting the pope wants things this way or that way. The poor man was barely cold in his grave when they then turned against him.
Katherine,
It is not about projecting my own preferences on the Holy Father. What I am trying to get across to you is the fact that the Holy Father does in fact have a 'preference', as you call it, for a more traditional way of celebrating the Liturgy. The reason for this is because it is the appropriate way to worship God.
You claim that I am projecting myself on what the Holy Father actually wants and yet you are actually the one that is doing so. Again I ask, have you read any of what the Pope has written about the Liturgy and how it should be celebrated? He wants the Church to return to a sense of holiness within the Mass. If, as you say, he wants to allow the "variety of legitimate options the Liturgical reforms allowed" then where exactly does he say that? As far as I know the answer is nowhere. Also, what do you mean when you say 'legitimate options'? If you take a look at the current Novus Ordo missal at no point will you find the rubics say "At this point the liturgical dancers should come out and perform." That is because there are certain things which simply are not options. Why can't we simply all worship God with the dignified reverence He deserves?
Jeff --
Some polemicists try to make the silly argument that we are limited to the former Mass ritual or performing dancers. Not dissimilar to the Communists who tried to claim that workers only had a choice between them and unbridled capitalism.
You can make the case in the abstract that the Pope does have a preference for a more traditional way of celebrating the liturgy. However, that leaves a lot of space.
The Pope has not said that the Church today does not have a sense of holiness in the Mass.
The twisting of the Pope's words and actions were most recently seen where he celebrated Mass at the historic altar in the Sistine Chapel. A totally reasonable decision in line with many liturgical progressives who wish to see free standing altars erected in newly built churches (as the Pope has affirmed should be the practice) while allowing the historic integrity of churches built in previous times to be preserved. Yet some ideologues twisted this to claim the Pope was calling for all Masses to be said with the priest facing the apse.
The Holy Father embraced the principle of liturgical pluralism with the liberalization of the former Mass, while explicitly stating he expected it to remain an option uncommonly used. Yet some announced the Pope was taking the first step in a plan to abolish the current usage and restore the former. The Pope has also indicated that he will change prayers in the former ritual that many Catholics (me included) feel are uncharitable towards our Jewish brothers and sisters.
The Holy Father continues to embrace the pluralism the reformed liturgy allows. When in Rome he has celebrated both facing the people and facing the apse. He has celebrated in the vernacular and in Latin. He has said nothing that would confirm that the altar, throne, ambo and lectern designed for his Mass in Washington are unwelcome by him.
"The Pope has also indicated that he will change prayers in the former ritual that many Catholics (me included) feel are uncharitable towards our Jewish brothers and sisters."
I assume, Katherine, that you are referring to the use of the adjective "perfidious" when describing the Jews, in which case I agree with you. While it is commonly understood by those who study these things that the word in its original sense simply mean "without the faith" or "faithless," over time it has gained a more common pejorative sense suggesting disloyalty or even treachery. Given that fact, the word is indeed uncharitable. I also applaud Benedict's intentions.
Katherine,
My only point that I am trying to make is that I believe, and I think there is evidence to back this up, that the Pope wants the Church to return to a sense of holiness and transcendence when celebrating the Mass. This is something which is lacking in many places because of terrible architecture and silly songs which focus on the congregation instead of God. Perhaps things could be cleared up if you would explain what you meant when you wrote, "The Holy Father continues to embrace the pluralism the reformed liturgy allows." If by this you mean that additions like liturgical dancers can increase the beauty and holiness of a Mass then you are seriously mistaken. Just because some people like it does not mean that it should be in the Mass. On the other hand, I realize that just because I don't happen to like it doesn't mean that it is wrong. Instead, I think it is objectively wrong and improper in Mass because it turns the Mass into some kind of performance that is there to entertain the congregation. It tends to lead the people to think only about themselves instead of God. Please, if you are going to respond at all to this comment, let me know what you mean when you say "pluralism the reformed liturgy allows." For me that will be the only way forward with this conversation.
Jeff --
The pluralism in the conduct of the liturgy the reform allows includes the style of altar, ambo, lectern and throne that have been designed for the papal Mass in Washington, DC.
Katherine,
If that is what you are talking about then we must return to my original point - this design is not worthy of the dignity of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood. While I personally would say that, on the whole, it is a nice design, I do not believe it should be used for the Mass. Maybe these guys should be designing dining room furniture for the rich and famous instead. There is nothing in the design that is transcendent and it is almost devoid of Christian symbolism. And the little symbolism that is there is not very attractive. My biggest problem is with the Papal throne - anybody can draw a big rectangle and slap the Pope's crest on it. It is too bad that these students aren't learning what true beauty is all about and maybe trying to let themselves be influenced by the beauty of the Church's history instead of trying to come up with something original.
The immoderate criticism of some, the near slander of others, posted here will provide a wonderful Lent for the Catholic gentlemen who designed this telegenic, practical, and noble temporary furniture.
For those of you providing this Lenten present, however, I encourage you to reexamine your criticism in charity.
WAC
Dear Thomas,
Thank you much for providing their explanation regarding the nature of liturgical artwork. The detail that the two have provided for the altar is impressive, especially if it is to be temporary in nature. This is much better to gaze at than some of the altars in churches nowadays, regardless of age.
The emphasis, though, is noble simplicity. This is not Baroque (an age not known for simplicity) nor is it Modern (an age not known for nobility). I would urge readers to visit Sacrosanctum concilium chapter VII before imposing taste. The question we should ask is, do these pieces meet those requirements? We should also ask, do these spring from the history of church liturgical art? From what I see here and had seen in other churches, the answer is yes.
Just to let you know, I posted your "Exclusive: Pictures of Pope Benedict's DC Mass pulpit, lectern & chair" on my blog. Here is it: http://turntowardsthelord.blogspot.com/
Jeff --
I appreciate and understand yoru view and have no interest in disputing it. My only point is that your observations are your opinion and should not be projected on to the Holy Father.
It reminds me of the Pharaoh's throne room with those steps and column placement.
There have been many points in this debate which are interesting, but since I cannot get into all of them, I will limit myself to two which so far seem not to have found opposition:
1) "The altar is telegenic". That is not a category of Holy Mass. It is precisely this obsession with how things look on TV which lead to many of the more deplorable innovations of Archbishop Piero Marini during his time as papal MC. The appointments for Mass must first and formost give glory to God and exalt the sacred mysteries taking place. They then must foster the adoration, awe and faith of the faithful attending that Mass. If other faithful can then watch this Mass on TV it is nice, but it cannot determine the character of the celebration. Watching Mass on TV is not actual participation in that Mass. That is why it does not, e.g., fulfil your Sunday obligation.
2) "This is an a ball park, so the architecture has to reflect that." I agree that the surroundings have to be taken into account (a baroqure High Altar might look out of place). But that cannot mean that when we must have Mass at such a venue for practical reasons, we must conform to the utilitarian design of the same. To the contrary, the design of the altar and other liturgical objects should elevate the faithful attending above the secular space they find themselves in towards the Lord in His heavenly glory.
It's all very ugly but the designers are just kids so I'll reign in my feelings.
The designers are kids. The folks who selected the design aren't. I hold them responsible.
Ugly, modernist,and sterile. In other words the usual post Vatican II design.
Robert, just wondering, but would you agree that, while the bottom fell out of Church architecture after Vatican II, there were warning signs of the ugliness to come in the generation of buildings before?
Catholic University, while being a very good orthodox Catholic school, setting it apart from Georgetown, does not have a particularly good architecture school. From what I hear, they are run by mediocre architects at best, and at worst antithetical to any sense of traditional or classical.
I only wish the Pope had decided to come to visit us here at Notre Dame. I am sure that our students here could have designed something really wonderful, something that would be preserved for generations just based on its intrinsic beauty, not simply just because is was an altar that the Pontiff celebrated mass.
(Apologies for posting identically at the Curt Jester)
Oh and do you have photos of the designs that did NOT win? Curious to see if ANY were traditional.
Boots,
What one hears is often not so. While the School of Architecture and Planning at CUA does not have the branding as institutions such as Columbia, Cornell, and Rhode Island School of Design, it is by no means to be discounted. Most of its faculty are members of the AIA and have had extensive professional experience. Some of the instructors started their architectural careers working for architects such as Paul Rudolph, Minoru Yamasaki, Louis Khan, and I.M. Pei. You may say what you will about their approaches to architecture, but the fact remains that these and others like them designed spaces which were inhabitable and responded to their design criteria.
Your comment about CUA Architecture being "at worst, antithetical to any sense of traditional or classical" is completely unfounded. I have yet to work with a studio critic who has advised me to ignore establishing and maintaining orders of proportion, language, structure, etc. The only difference is that most of us tend no to package them with fluted columns and dentiled architraves. Personally, I do no see the point in designing solely from the standpoint of "older is better," to which Notre Dame's School of Architecture is inclined. Elevating architecture from Baroque Italy, for example, above all else, is little more than an antiquarian view of history whereby one becomes so infatuated with one time that nothing else can be regarded as good or worth investigation. Ignoring time, place, and overall context is one of the most arrogant and self-serving things an architect can do, which is why we end up with churches in middle America that look like they were constructed in Vienna during the 17th century.
I doubt that students at ND Architecture would have designed anything better. They would have designed something that has probably already been done in Rome.
I spent the first twelve years of my life in Rzeszow. I've seen my share of old churches, old old altars and otherwise old buildings. The best thing we can do to honor them is not to reproduce them, but to let them speak to us without having to compete with the products of lazy design.
Bravo Florian!
And the designers are not 'kids' but young men who are hard at work to make a design worthy of His Holiness. With prayer, research, and constructive criticism from those with architectural and theological knowledge I am certain they will construct something of which all American Catholics can be proud. It may not suit everyone's taste, just as the TLM doesn't suit everyone's taste.
This may only be the 'internet' and you may feel you can speak your mind freely, but perhaps a few of you could find some Christian Charity in your very rude remarks. I wouldn't have such high standards for most of the idiotic ramblings on internet blogs, but perhaps I expected more of a group who claim to be so passionate about their faith.
What would you say to these young men if you were standing face to face with them? For I am certain they may eventually come across these boards. Although, they certainly have enough sense not to bothered by your lack of social graces... And are certainly busy enough.
I couldn't agree more with NAB.
Some folks are being incredibly uncharitable.
As nice as the concept of a marble altar is… what would it take to load it on a truck and transport into Nationals Stadium? Remember, when the archdiocese sponsored the competition, they no doubt gave the designers some specfic specs… such as weight limits.
I know the designers… JP is as traditional as you get theologically. For pete's sake, he has a philosophy degree from CUA. If you ever talk to the guy, it doesn't take long to figure out that his intellect was formed by the Dominicans who run the philosophy school.
And for those of you who aren't familiar with the Dominicans at CUA… they are as orthodox and traditional as you get. It was them and Jude Dougherty who protected the philosophy school from the excesses of the '60s and '70s.
UGLY !!!
Commenting by HaloScan
