AmericanPapist Comments
Well, I just want to say that I am happy for the Oakland Diocese for completion of their Cathedral. I hope it brings them much joy and many blessings. I am more a fan of Houston's new Cathedral. I pray it was not too damaged in the hurricane.
Designed in a style I call "Nuvo Ugly".
I could say nice and the Catholic equivalent of the Crystal Cathedral. But I recall seeing the video of the blown out windows at Houston's largest downtown office building this weekend, due to Hurricane Ike. Or how the folks at Ave Maria U. bowed to pressure and common sense in not turning their own chapel into a Glass Menagerie. Oh- Oakland Coliseum shook, rattled and rolled during the As-Giants playoffs in 1989. How encouraging.
Did Raiders' owner Al Davis kick in a couple million for this? I ask because, well, I don't know about you, but I see a football on the roof of this thing.
Random thoughts: Robert Schuller, football, Christ the Teacher -- imprisoned, loads of money, Tennessee Temple University, ugly, indoor swimming pool....
Performing arts center.
I'll assume it's not dedicated yet, so I have no problem saying:
What an abomination.
the shape suggests the presence of a starbucks on the ground floor.
but will it be a very prayerful kind of place? the pictures say "not really," but only a visit can really answer that.
This has to be the ugliest thing I have ever seen, IMHO, for a Cathedral. I guess I am a bit more (or a whole lot) more traditional. Somehow the story of the Tower of Babel comes to mind here. And I trully am not saying it to be rude and mean. It is just hard for me to understand how this inspires any kind of reflection and adoration. I agree with SDG, looks more like a preforming arts center.
Being in such close proximity to San Francisco, I'd say they have many challenges ahead in teaching and ministering the Catholic faith. Hopefully this new Cathedral will inspire many to defend the faith from the militant moral relativism espoused just across the bay. I'll pray for their success.
I presume they will rattle tambourines for the Angelus?
but I see a football on the roof of this thing.
True but look carefully, its really the "all seeing eye."
I'll agree with Sean, The all seeing eye will see everything. Oh a good song came to mind when looking thru these pictures "Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord" Furthermore I hope the St Vincent De Paul Societies or the Catholic Charities Offices are fully funded because if that's the best they can come up with for 190 million dollars well then I would say the Catholic Church in Oakland has real problems ahead
Absolutely breathtaking. Can't wait to see it in person. Kudos for being unique, Oakland Diocese.
SDF wrote, "Performing arts center."
Both in aesthetics and, I imaging, in liturgical practices/deformities. That building epitomizes all the current Holy Father is trying to undue. I am all for spending money to honor God, but it would be nice if our church's (especially a cathedral)resembled a church.
I see a football on the roof of this thing.
I disagree. [ahem]
Vagina Dentata, what a wonderful phrase...
/aisle seat, please...
Yeah, the new cathedral will unify Catholics just like Obama will unify Americans.
The roof does look freakily like a football, way moreseo than an eye (at least any non-reptilian eye), plus it does look like a stadium from the top, though somewhat tall.
I think the architects played a big joke and got paid well at the same time.
I'm no stickler for specifically "church-like" architecture, I do think a passerby should be able to look at a building and say, oh, that's a church. Around were I am, it's hard to tell the (protestant) churches from the big building where people dump their recycling, or from the pizza hut. This thing fails the "oh, that's a church test" big time.
And the corpus on the crucifix: It was clearly done by someone lacking the talent and skill to do a more realistic rendering. I have found that the "artists" who don't "want" to do realistic works usually can't, and they deride what they cannot do.
beautiful!
Yes, the crucifix is not realistic, but just think what could have been there - one of the crosses with Jesus floating in front of it... as is seen in some Churches. At least this one reflects Jesus' suffering in spite of its depiction being unrealistic.
Makes me pine for those lovely french cathedrals..
Finola, CA
True but look carefully, its really the "all seeing eye."
Nah, it looks more like the eye of Sauron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ima...Eyeofsauron.jpg
Now that's not the image I want conjured when I go to church.
The mothership has landed.
Nah, it looks more like the eye of Sauron:
David, exactly the image I was thinking of.
Literal Holy Crap!
The people of this diocese got robbed - spiritually and financially. Tom
I'm looking at the Corpus on the Crucifix...and I'm pretty sure I see a large smile on Jesus' face. Am I seeing that right?
Granted, it doesn't have to be the bloodiest depiction of the crucifixion since "Passion of the Christ", but smiling on the cross strikes me as fairly odd.
It looks like a venus fly trap from the top.
It is not as ugly as the L.A. Cathedral, it is at least interesting looking - though certainly not beautiful and more appropriate as a modern art museum while the L.A. Cathedral is a parking garage.
Words. There...are...none...(gasp).
Truly disheartening to look at.
From the inside it looks like you are looking into the hull of a ship, upside down. Now if you consider that the Church is sometimes referred to as a ship than from this vantage point it would seem that this is the anti-thesis of the perspective of a normal ship, hence a normal Church. How apropos.
Isn't there an old adage something like try to make everyone happy and you will make no one happy. This insane pre-occupation with the false notion of "multi-culturalism" has got to stop.
all flights have been cancelled.
Call me a traditionalist as well, I don't like it. And, it seems to me to be an extreme waste of money. Also, they do occasionally get hail in Oakland, just a warning.
To repeat Jeff's comment above:
It is not as ugly as the L.A. Cathedral
That is the ONLY nice thing I can say about these pictures.
picked over turkey carcass.
sorry, I can't resist (just talked with a young niece and was reminded of grade school cheers): U-G-L-Y! You ain't got no alibi, you ugly, yeah yeah, you ugly! Woo!
"Songs by the Beatles and stories by Shakespeare were mixed into the worship - at a time when such practices were unheard of. Scripture readings during Mass were sometimes performed as theater."
Talk about "Dynamic Orthodoxy"!!
The comments here border on the obscene. Having had the honor of standing in the Cathedral I find it to be beautiful. The sound of the singing in there yestrday was breathtaking. The first hymn sung in the place was "All People that on Earth Do Dwell"
I am not fond of the exterior, but it fits in nicely with the bland bank and business buildings around it, and it stands out as a shining jewel. Yes, I too would have liked something a bit more gothic.
But inside the light is warm and welcoming, and the Cross and the image of the Christ in Glory from Chartres is stunning.
Yes, thomas, you dismissed this as "whatever-this-is." Pictures do not do it justice. I have taken many pictures of it, and the pictures just do not do it. So all you can see from your vantage point accross this land is the photo. But I have the privlege of standing beneath this great image, and it is captivating.
The inside was so stunningly beautiful, it took my breath away. This is such a vast improvement over out first cathedral. You may recall that I was once the choir Director at the old Cathedral back in the '80s and was the director there when the earthquate damaged the building.
The imprint of the new Cathedral is a fish, an ancient and traditional Catholic image.
That you have permitted people here to refer to it as a vagina and as an evil eye is disgusting and shows a complete lack of understanding and christian charity.
Bishop Vigneron is my bishop and this is now my new Cathedral. I will listen carefully to anyone who stands in that space and does not entirely appreciate it. But for anyone who has not stood in the cathedral, keep your mouth shut until you do.
But for anyone who has not stood in the cathedral, keep your mouth shut until you do.
No chance of me ever setting foot in that place -- especially if this is the attitude of those who advocate on its behalf, which is as inappropriate as the thing I'm apparently not allowed to give an opinion about.
that you have permitted people here to refer to it as a vagina and as an evil eye is disgusting and shows a complete lack of understanding and christian charity.
Sorry but the fact that people can see these images and others speak for itself.
actually it speaks of where their minds are.
Bishop Vigneron is my bishop and this is now my new Cathedral. I will listen carefully to anyone who stands in that space and does not entirely appreciate it. But for anyone who has not stood in the cathedral, keep your mouth shut until you do.?
I'm so tired of hippies trying to remake the Church and its buildings into some new age crystal circle of chants. I have not stood in this cathedral and have no intention of setting foot inside such a travesty. It is a fact that its architecture does, unfortunately, look like an eye or a football. (I disagree that it looks like any other body part and believe someone was merely going for shock value with that description.) That one description aside, I would be ashamed to have this thing in my diocese. I think the bishop would be ashamed as well.
Since when does the Church need to "fit in" with local architecture? Shouldn't the Church be constructing its buildings to be beautiful and to stand-out amid the soulless modern skyscrapers? The Bishop better have enough in the budget to put up many large signs informing people that this thing is actually a church, otherwise nobody walking or drving by is going to know.
1. Of course it looks like a football. Any fool can see that. The question, so what?
2. Some of the criticisms here have been rude, and some of the defenses disingenious: Eg, one can't simply defend a building based on how it looks inside, as the majority of people will never see the inside. If the outside is ugly, I say if, an attractive inside only mitigates the aesthetic damages.
3. Someone remind me, but wasn't most of this plan in place before Bp. V arrived? Whether to his credit or regret I don't know, but I seem to recall things being pretty far along before he arrived.
Callatrava was the architect when he arrived. That plan was scuttled. He was on board when they hired Hartman. I wish you could sit at has feet as I have and listened to the traditional aspects of this place. Quite striking. He will give the priests of the Diocese a spiritual pilgrimage through the place this thursday.
I have a response that exceeds the allowable number of characters. Any way I can get it done anyway? I would be happy to have you audit it first.....I work for Fr. Jeff and I was at the Cathedral yesterday for the Festival, and I have some answers and comments that I think would "fit in" here......
And how are people driving/walking by supposed to know this is a Catholic church?
i just asked my mom what she thought the in the top view picture and her comment was "a stadium?"
Granted we are in the area of St. Patrick's (New York) and Sacred Heart (Newark), so we might be biased. I think from the top it looks like an eye, but that's just me.
I like churches that look like churches, this looks like a stadium and regardless of what's inside(and nothing tops having Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament on the inside), people will see what's on the outside first.
As much respect as it being the seat of the Bishop demands I can't deny that my first thought was "someone clearly doesn't understand that the Hail Mary was a prayer before it was a football pass". I'm sorry Fr. Keyes that you feel that you must so aggressively defend this space in terms no more charitable than many of those slung against it already but that is hardly the way to encourage people to share your point of view.
What, I think, separates this church from the great Gothic and Baroque churches of the past is that they were able to use natural light in ways our modern architects are still trying to understand and did not need to sacrifice external beauty to achieve that internal effect of which you speak. I hate to say it (and believe me or not, I do hate to say it) but this is far from the best $190M could do.
Jesus looks pretty happy to be crucified.
I really think they should move the National Football Offfices here considering the building is already shaped like a football... After Special examination of the insides of this new State of the 70's Crystal Cathedral in Oakland I find myself humming a old Charismatic Renewal Hymn "Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord". I hope the next Bishop has back problems from his stone chair so he trades in the stone and gets a real Cathedra. In Closing I would just like to say that next time a diocese decides to build a new cathedral they should consult the classics New York, Boston, St Paul, and if they need how to build modern Cathedrals seek St. Louis and Houston or if they can't heed the warnings of a lil guy from Louisiana they can give me the 190 million dollars and I will personally build them a modest church and pocket the rest
Eeuww! What in the heck is that thing?
"The comments here border on the obscene."
While some people have said what I was thinking & resisting the temptation to say, what i find obscene is the design of this building. It is an onscene gesture to God as far as I am concerned.
Most of you people are so OLD FASHIONED or just really OLD. Can we get a poll on the average age of the readers on this site? If it's anything under 50, I'd be surprised.
What did you people expect it to look like? Why do you think Houston's Cathedral was designed more traditionally? hmmmmm...maybe because there are more traditional Catholics in that diocese? This is a Cathedral in California, in the Oakland Diocese, not in some boondock state in flyover country.
I, for one, cannot wait to experience the amazing liturgies in this truly iconic building.
That last comment is comical. My parents just cracked 50 recently. Your assumptions of the likes and dislikes of people by rather random stratification misses the mark by a long shot. Please insert a quarter and try again.
"...not in some boondock state in flyover country."
Don't go outside when it's raining; with that nose of yours pointing so high, you'll drown.
Perhaps it's a cereal bowl. Perfect for a cathedral in the "land of fruits flakes and nuts," as we in boondock flyover country refer to CA. This goes well with the Maytag Cathedral across the bridge and the Amarillo Armadillo in LA.
Really, for $190 Million, you could have built something that looks like a church. I pity the poor future bishops who will have to call that their Cathedral.
Truly sad.
I'm 26 and a Youth Minister in the Boondock State of Oklahoma and I think that the Vatican should have an oversight committee on the building of Catholic Churches esp Cathedrals ... I can't see Pope Benedict ever wanting to celebrate Mass in a building that looks more like a sports arena than a Church (ex. when he was thrilled at the opportunity to celebrate mass in a truly marvelous churches in NY and Sydney)
"Most of you people are so OLD FASHIONED or just really OLD. Can we get a poll on the average age of the readers on this site? If it's anything under 50, I'd be surprised."
I find that comment amusing as the man behind the blog is under 50. I'm 28 and I'm bringing "old fashioned" traditions back into the Confirmation program I run at a church in New Jersey. Why, because for starters I like them and secondly because the Church has had them for years for a reason. I'd rather take the students to see their Cathedral Basilica (Sacred Heart) in Newark then have them see something that looks like an eye on the outside.
"I find that comment amusing is the man behind the blog is under 50."
Under 25. :)
Personally speaking, while I can definitely see the football stadium interpretation, my first thought was "Dude, someone built an homage to Superman's Fortress of Solitude!" Seriously, imagine it made of ice and placed at the North Pole.
Perhaps they were going for the Kryptonian reference in saying that Jesus is "out of this world"...
On second glance though, it reminds me of a proposed plan for the 9/11 visitor's center at ground zero in NYC, as well as the Marine Corps museum in Quantico... Unfortunately it just screams "visitor information center".
40 here. But I'm a recent convert, so enter that in the calculations. Still under 50 though.
In fact the Young-Catholics-are-going-hip-and-modern thing is laugh-out-loud funny when you look at the pews at the installation of tragically hip Sr. Joan Sobala.
I'm 22, myself.
To Fr. Jeffrey and others who have been to this Cathedral and who are pleased with the design: I'm happy that you are happy with it. I'm happy if the architecture brings you closer to God. And I apologize if my previous comment was hurtful or offensive. Please realize that I am commenting only on what I can see in these pictures, and that I do realize that the inside could quite possibly be stunningly beautiful. I would be quite pleased visit the Cathedral and find out that that is indeed the case.
But I also agree with the previous commenter who wrote:
I like churches that look like churches, this looks like a stadium and regardless of what's inside(and nothing tops having Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament on the inside), people will see what's on the outside first.
First impressions do matter. What the church looks like on the outside does matter. A beatiful interior is great, but a beautiful interior AND exterior would be even better.
And the fact is that, at least based on the pictures posted here, many people (myself included) think that this exterior looks like some sort of sports arena, or museum of modern art, or cultural performing arts center, or fancy office building, or some such thing.
Oh, and for the record (alluding to some previous comments), I'm 36 years old, and I am proud to live in the so-called "boondocks" of America's heartland, though I also lived in the Bay Area in California for a few years, and I travel there occasionally on business, so I am familiar with that part of the country as well.
And one thing that I do remember about my travels around California is how beautiful the old Spanish mission churches are (I have visited two of them, one in Santa Barbara, and one further north on the coast somewhere, maybe around Carmel, though I can't remember exactly). In my opinion, it's too bad that there is no trace of that wonderful architectural heritage in the exterior of this cathedral. :-(
I wanted to expand just a bit on my previous comment. I wrote:
And the fact is that, at least based on the pictures posted here, many people (myself included) think that this exterior looks like some sort of sports arena, or museum of modern art, or cultural performing arts center, or fancy office building, or some such thing.
I think the bottom line that many of us are seeing here is that the exterior of this Cathedral, at least as shown in these pictures, screams "SECULAR" rather than "SACRED." I think that that perception is really the root issue behind a lot of the observations and comments here, and I think that it is a legitimate problem with the design of the exterior of this Cathedral.
Ideally, the design of a church should lift our minds to heaven. But this design makes me think of mundane, worldly things. (And it appears that I am far from the only one who has that reaction.)
I think the bottom line that many of us are seeing here is that the exterior of this Cathedral, at least as shown in these pictures, screams "SECULAR" rather than "SACRED."
Aye! When the building looks like it would be equally confortable sporting a cross or the American Express logo on it, something is wrong.
"Under 25. :)"
I wasn't sure if you were younger than me or not, so I opted with the easy way out, knowing you were under 50. ;) I'm not used to people younger than me as "crazy Catholic" as I am.
Given Fr. Keyes' post, I'll preface this by saying, I have not yet been inside the new cathedral.
As a long time member of the diocese (in fact, I was born not too far from where the cathedral stands) I can't say I'm happy about this new cathedral (at least its exterior.)
However, I think it's better looking than both the LA cathedral and the "new" SF cathedral.
And it's certainly better than having no cathedral; the diocese felt very rootless without one.
I don't subscribe to the opinion that the only way to build a beautiful church is to build in or imitate a historic style. I hold out hope that there is such a thing as modern and beautiful (I can think of a monastic chapel that answers to both.)
But, unlike Fr. Keyes, I miss St. Francis DeSales. (Although the '60s renovations did the interior no good.)
My general reaction to the new cathedral is those in Oakland have no choice but to "grin & bear it."
For the record, I'm under 30.
Age 31. This thing screams capitulation to secularist trends. My first impression was a football stadium.
The ultimate question is, will hedonism and modernism be called to account here? Vigorously defending the Gospel of Life? Strong defense of traditional marriage? Opposition to all sex outside of marriage? Opposition to materialism? Opposition to artificial birth control? Pointing us towards the risen Christ as our one true way to salvation? Will the Mass in the Extraordinary Form be offered?
The Gospel is the ultimate standard.
One should wait and see, but modernist aesthetics have a pretty poor track record by that yardstick.
I think it's kind of pretty. Maybe it could rival Robert Schuler's Crystal Cathedral for tourist dollars. There must be a cafeteria, souvineir shop, massuese, ice cream parlor and massesue, right? Oh and when does the home team play?
This is a Cathedral in California, in the Oakland Diocese, not in some boondock state in flyover country.
I'm well under 50, and I live in California, and I still think its a travesty.
I'm 29 and from the Great Boondock State of Kansas (the land of Aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs).
Oakland's Glass House looks a lot like the H&R Block World Headquarters-- the tax preperation comapany.
http://www.seassociates.com/hrblock.html
So when you're giving to God what is God's, it'll feel like you're giving to Caesar what is Caesar's.
43 years old here. And as a former Californian I would say that any number of the humble mission Churches are better than that monstrosity.
I'm 30.
I think a lot of people that build this kind of thing think, well most new things are poorly received at first and then their true worth is later realized.
They could not be more wrong. The classic cathedrals were not initially rejected and later accepted. Lots of things in history have been castigated when produced and then consigned to the dustbin precisely because they were lame.
Buildings are different, because you can't just consign them to the dustbin, you are stuck with them. But it is not as if modernist experiments of the last 60 years have slowly been accepted and appreciated as people got used to them. The Crystal Cathedral is just as much a joke as ever, and 1960s/1970s kitsch is lamer than ever.
Such attitudes are artistic arrogance in the extreme.
Go to the article in the newspaper. Click on the "images". You'll see a picture of the inside of the cathedral, which is indeed pretty darned stunningly beautiful.
The outside is le stinko. However, it's true that many great churches of the past have had pretty boring or ugly exteriors. One thinks of the many Roman churches that can barely detected as churches instead of apartment buildings on the outside, but which ravish the senses once one finds the door and steps within.
Anyway, the outside really looks more like a giant miter than anything. Maybe it's the Cathedral of Christ the Bishop? :)
Re: Christ in Glory from Chartres
Father is referring to the famous door sculpture of Christ in Glory at Chartres Cathedral. Christ is seen holding a book, sitting indeed on the throne of a bishop/teacher, and blessing the world. He is surrounded by a mandorla, or almond shaped outline.
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sulliva...swest/
ctymp.jpg
Apparently the architect intends his "football" shape, both on the side and the roof, to refer to the mandorla.
Which is all well and good, except that if you gotta explain it, it's not totally working. For the Chartres sculpture to work, you don't have to know what a mandorla is. For the cathedral to work, you do.
But hey, everything goes better with symbols of the four evangelists. :)
Also, the mandorla, aka the vesica piscis (fish shape), has long been likened to footballs and female body parts. So this isn't anything particularly difficult to predict or blasphemous to voice! Indeed, some argue that it directly refers to rebirth in the Church, though others say that's kinda stretching it. :)
Can't really spiritualize the football thing. Unless you take it as a symbol of Christ's work at South Bend. :)
Rev. Jeffrey Keyes, C.PP.S.,
sigh I didn't refer to it an as evil eye. I said it looked like the eye of Sauron. It does. That isn't being obscene, it is just an observation. I frankly take exception to your characterization of my words. Saying that the design would distract me if I attended Mass there is not obscene.
The outside of the church is, I'm sorry, tasteless. The appearance of the church as a sports building is unfortunate. The plain glass ceiling doesn't look like what you say it is (perhaps stained glass would have been better to evoke that sacred ancient symbol). In short, the design is contrary to the aim of ordering the faithful toward worship rather than distraction.
All that being said, I'm sorry if my lighthearted words caused pain, but they must not be taken for more than they were: a plain observation.
Hideous. Secular. Stadium-like. Rivaling the (protestant) Crystal Cathedral. Nothing to put us in the right frame of mind regarding a "House of God."
Just another sad result of the past 40 years. Just one more thing that brings Dorothy Parker's "What fresh hell is this?" quote to mind.
Shades of St. Mary Maytag (the cathedral in San Francisco)!
I am new to this blog, but I thought it was a Catholic blog. I would assume that as Catholics we value the universality of the Church, while respecting the individuals. I am quite taken back when I read comments of individuals disparaging the spiritual home of a Diocese. There have been many Churches that I have been to in this country that I do not care for the design, but I would not go to the parishioners and tell them their Church is hideous. I, as a Catholic, appreciate the beauty of the people and the sacrafice that takes place at Liturgy. We are all entitled to our opinions, but I think when they are hurtful towards others we should maintain discretion.
Sorry tim, but no dice. Like I said, when a Church is indistinguishable from a coporate office building, there is only one thing to say: EPIC FAIL. It's the truth and it needs to be said. You can't dive down the subjectivist escape hatch in this case.
Well, once again, I am not surprised to see so many small minds, by way of the comments. On the other hand, most blogs for Catholics who give a damn, at least that I know of, unashamedly and unquestioningly, like a puppy, lick the soles of Romantic-Eclectic shoes, as far as architecture goes, so I'm really very surprised to notice a few people posting comments who are at least willing to experience this new cathedral firsthand. I've generally found American Papist to be fairly hands-off in matters of subjectivity, but the post's comment on unity with Catholics in LA, at least to my knowledge of this blog's existing precedent, breaks into injecting negative criticism.
As far as the new construction is concerned, I could form an opinion on it, from the pictures, but that would do the new cathedral an injustice. I will say, I don't quite know what to make of the building's skin -- it looks like a curtain wall, and probably is -- with that kind of reflectivity, I don't think it'd be some kind of high-polish polymer. Anyway, As far as the exterior is concerned, maybe the "all glass" could have been interrupted with some instances of the base material, or possibly (and that's a big possibly) with the introduction of another material? I do think, however, that the use of structural timber was a fantastic choice. It's very possible that Washington State falls within a 500 mi radius of Oakland, or anywhere else with similar resources, because the project could take advantage of a renewable resource within the recommended LEED sustainable materials radius. Now, I don't want people to think I'm some kind of a LEED freak, because I'm not (i'm not) -- LEED is a brand, and it's really intended for corporations, not private entities, and certainly not for the Catholic Church, which is certainly not rolling in the proverbial "dough." Anyways, to get back to what I was saying, timber was a great choice. Structurally, wood has great properties -- it's pretty much equally strong in tension and compression. Heavy Timber has a tremendously high fire resistance rating, which makes it very safe in ensuring that the occupants of a building with that construction will be able to safely evacuate that building before loss of structural integrity in the course of a fire. But just as importantly, just to remind you all that us architects are just as interested in the delight and sensual capabilities of human beings, and not just their safety, wood is a terribly beautiful material. It's not unlike that young lady who doesn't need to wear makeup because she's already enchantingly beautiful to begin with -- wood doesn't need to stained, or God forbid, painted! To wood should be applied a finish to protect it and ensure it's subtleties over a period of time -- and that's it.
If anything these are some first impressions. The only really annoying thing about architecture is that if you have any respect for it, qua architecture, ins
Peter from http://uttermuttering.blogspot.com/,
"Sacrifice external beauty"
That...is a very strong statement, not unlike the idiot who proclaims, "I'm gonna get laid this weekend!'' Both demonstrate a certain amount of chutzpah, but also a lack of knowledge and understanding commensurate with said chutzpah.
To put gothic and baroque approaches to the aesthetic of light on the same level is like trying to say that "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" have the same way to travel great distances. (For the record, Star Wars' Hyperdrive and Star Trek's Warp Drive are two completely different means of achieving interstellar travel. But I won't say more lest I disclose the full extent of my being a dork, but honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the people reading this blog know just as much as I do *mischievous nod*) Anyways, the gothic used light the way no other did. Light FILLED! those churches, through stained glass. In the baroque period, architects and the people were bitten by the romanticist bug, and having turned their gaze back to pagan Greece and Rome in the Renaissance, simply added gilding and gold paint to already colorful entablatures. Baroque churches aren't dark, but they're not as bright as gothic churches -- they're not flooded like La Sainte Chapell or like Notre Dame d'Amiens. With Gothic churches, it's like a Tsunami of light! with Baroque churches, it's like a steady flow of runoff running into the storm drain. it's there, but not at all paralled in quality as well as quantity.
MR. JPM
Hi, I'm Jeannette. I'm 44 years old and I'm one of the small minds from the boondocks. I really miss going to Mass in a beautiful church like I had growing up in Nowheresville, Indiana. I'm just not sophisticated enough to appreciate the architectural monstrosities here on the East Coast, I guess. I need to learn to like going to Mass in a barn, or a spaceship, or a cellblock.
Here's another way to think about it. You know all those churches designed in the 1960s and 1970s styles? Are they now appreciated and more accepted as wonderful, treasured sacred architecture, like teasured churches of previous centuries?
Not at all. Traditionalists find them too tainted by secularist trendiness to inspire the eternal faith. Liberals are too busy moving on to the next New Thing to treasure them. They are just outdated kitsch.
This kind of thing was a mistake then and there is little reason to believe that this will be much different.
If there's the slightest chance, in this eerily unadorned space, that awe and reverence impels us to our knees....well, we're out of luck. No kneelers!
The Dedication was wonderful. The Building is beautiful. It really sings.
for the rest read my blog:
http://gasparian.stblogs.org/arc...al-of-ch-
1.html
No kneelers? This can't be good for the diocese's theology.
Yes, there are kneelers. I knelt on one.
It seems this so-called papist blog does not have a love for the truth.
?!
Whoa I wasn't even interested in commenting on this cathedral! Don't mess with Texas! We bring you most of your gasoline and 1/6 of all imports right here in Houston. Hardly the boondocks. Frankly, I'd like to see this Cathedral. But to say I am a traditionalist living in a boon dock state; I'll agree with the traditionalist part. I have two issue with some of the "defenders" here. One stick to your argument without smears. Two if asthetic comments are being taken as attacks on your interior disposition, then you should examine yourself. One comment is telling: "interested in the delight and sensual capabilities of human beings". This is what got Eve in trouble in the first place. Always put God first.
I did go to the blog and there are kneelers. It is nicely done.
I know: let's have a rousing game of find the Real Presence! Seriously folks, is the tabernacle going to be behind side chapel door number 1, 2 or 3? Get it wrong? Well, thanks for playing - we've got some nice parting gifts for you. I'll never understand the proclivities of Western prelates to relegate the transfigured Paschal Mystery to an out-of-the-way room that only a tenth of the congregants can fit into at any given time. But there's obviously no room for a reredos when you're playing Monty Hall in the center of your liturgical love-fest in the round. This sacramentally-vacant design cannot replace with any warmth or sense of connectedness with Catholic tradition what it so brazenly strips away by its sheer pretentiousness. I can think of more fruitful ways in which to spend $190 million.
It suddenly occurred to me that the Cathedral looks much like the small chapel of Mills College, also in Oakland http://flickr.com/photos/preston...rant/292164301/
. Bishop Cummins was Catholic chaplain there in the 1960s, the decade in which the chapel was built. It also uses concrete and light colored wood, but is small, and, for a college chapel, flexibly devoid of almost all religious symbolism. The Mills chapel is a lonely example of modern church architecture that actually stands the test of time.
Commenting by HaloScan
