Roman Catholic Diocese Of Orange May Buy Crystal Cathedral

[arfink]

I know I will be given a big ol' "Bad Catholic" stamp on my forehead for saying do, but the exterior of the place looks quite OK. Not everyone can afford to rip down an existing building. Now the "bunker church" which was also posted is indeed a monstrosity, but I feel like in 50-80 years when everyone is doing Neo-Baroque stuff everywhere (or whatever they do in the future) there will still be a few of what we now call "modern" churches left which will be of great historical importance. Modernity can, in my opinion, be done reverently. Despite the fact that a minimalist approach can be horribly overdone, I do find that in places like St. Agnes in St. Paul MN that go all-out in a rather cluttered traditional way, while it is very beautiful, I can go into a kind of visual overload from the 360 degrees of religious kitsch. Flame me if you will, but my ADD does not cope well with that situation.

Now, on the other hand, very slavishly traditional forms can have alot of other problems that you don't get with modern buildings. For example, heating and cooling a basilica, just because of the shape, is very hard to do. Lighting one adequately is also a big problem. Acoustically, the traditional cruciform basillica is supposed to make it *harder* to hear what's going on in the apse if you are in the nave. Line of sight to the altar down a traditional nave, which is long, narrow, and flat, is incredibly hard to do. Variation on traditional forms can really help solve these problems, but traditionalists always cry foul. In defence of modern architecture that is tastefully decorated (as opposed to being overdone in an attempt to counteract minimalist churches) I present for you the church of St. Michael in St. Michael Minnesota.

http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/about/virtual-tour/

[img]http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/files/2312/7688/1024/8452023368_jGFvN.jpg[/img]
Sure, you say, it looks like some kind of gold-topped space ship. Have a look inside at the link above.

Observe various modern features:
-Seating that provides direct line-of-sight viewing to the apse from *anywhere* in the church, without being a "church in the round" or some such nonsense.
-Real, honest to goodness, modern acoustical setup.
-Lots of light.
-Heating and air conditioning which both work.
-Excellent artwork that is a fusion of Eastern and Western traditions, which is cohesive and uncluttered but still traditional.

[Brother Adam]

The problem, arfink, is the hermeneutic of discontinuity that it represents. It is not about acoustics or line of sight. Of course modern churches can be built well, and some even are. The CC represents an ambigious protestant spirituality. There is something of a notion of transcendence to it, but that could be equally represented by paganism, or even secularism. It does not draw the mind to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit nor does it represent a connection to Catholicism in any way. Signs and symbols represent spiritual realities in the Catholic faith. That is why when Catholic architecture is done poorly is completely detrimental to the faith. I'll bet money that they are going to install a free floating crucifix and a wood altar in the shape of a dinner table. The tabernacle, with no central location will be placed in a side altar.

It is also clear from the bishops statement that he represents a false ecumenism.

[katholikkid]

I don't think it is an ugly building. And I understand it is a paragon of the late great Phillip Johnson, who is a noteworthy architect. It's just not very church-esque to me and suggests a concert hall or performing arts center. I actually don't mind it in itself. I am sure a few renovations will help and hopefully the diocese can get another creative architect in there to evolve the look of the place and make it look more like a church. I am OK with modern style Sagrada Familia anyone?

[arfink]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1311540886' post='2275078']
The problem, arfink, is the hermeneutic of discontinuity that it represents. It is not about acoustics or line of sight. Of course modern churches can be built well, and some even are. The CC represents an ambigious protestant spirituality. There is something of a notion of transcendence to it, but that could be equally represented by paganism, or even secularism. It does not draw the mind to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit nor does it represent a connection to Catholicism in any way. Signs and symbols represent spiritual realities in the Catholic faith. That is why when Catholic architecture is done poorly is completely detrimental to the faith. I'll bet money that they are going to install a free floating crucifix and a wood altar in the shape of a dinner table. The tabernacle, with no central location will be placed in a side altar.

It is also clear from the bishops statement that he represents a false ecumenism.
[/quote]

OK, I'm feeling fiesty, so lets see how this goes. Don't take this personally, but I don't see a problem with a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" here. Re-use of buildings, artwork, and even specific symbolic imagery had been in common practice in the early Church until they finally got around to dominating most of Europe in the middle ages and had the opportunity to develop it more. Early churches were literally in people's homes or basements. Later on Christians began to use disused Roman buildings. The basilica was not a Christian invention, it was the typical seat of power in any Roman town. In fact, the apse of every basilica of the Empire would have had a giant statue of the emperor in it. Most of classical architecture was imbued with pagan symbolism. The Christians would just top off these tall, phallic structures with crosses to mark them for Christ. Much of the early Church's artwork came about in the same way, appropriating symbols from the world around them, bending them to a Christian meaning. For example, Christ Pantocrator? Yeah, the Greeks changed the symbolism up gradually over the years, but to start with much of the symbolism of that was copied straight from depictions of the Roman Emperors, including the color and design of the robes, the posture, the hand held up with two fingers. All symbols that defined the Emperor. In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that not only did the Christians copy all this from the works of Imperial workshops, they may have actually just painted some extra details over commercially available works. This sort of appropriation happened in other ways, with classical pagan statues getting new heads put on them and re-branded as Christian, and extended to whole buildings and building materials, which were commonly taken from other pagan sources. I find it difficult to believe that much of this wasn't done on purpose with full knowledge of the implication it would suggest by having "appropriated artwork." It was one of the reasons the Romans hated the early Christians so much, they seemed intent on "stealing" popular cultural icons and bending them to this new religion.

Personally I think that kind of attitude is really cool, and we could stand to use it a bit more. Obviously, I understand the concern in this case is that they aren't trying to muscle in on popular symbols and Christian-ize them, which is a shame. But they could.

[Basilisa Marie]

Annnnnddd it's official. Bought by the Diocese of Orange.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1311539710' post='2275069']
I know I will be given a big ol' "Bad Catholic" stamp on my forehead for saying do, but the exterior of the place looks quite OK. Not everyone can afford to rip down an existing building. Now the "bunker church" which was also posted is indeed a monstrosity, but I feel like in 50-80 years when everyone is doing Neo-Baroque stuff everywhere (or whatever they do in the future) there will still be a few of what we now call "modern" churches left which will be of great historical importance. Modernity can, in my opinion, be done reverently. Despite the fact that a minimalist approach can be horribly overdone, I do find that in places like St. Agnes in St. Paul MN that go all-out in a rather cluttered traditional way, while it is very beautiful, I can go into a kind of visual overload from the 360 degrees of religious kitsch. Flame me if you will, but my ADD does not cope well with that situation.

Now, on the other hand, very slavishly traditional forms can have alot of other problems that you don't get with modern buildings. For example, heating and cooling a basilica, just because of the shape, is very hard to do. Lighting one adequately is also a big problem. Acoustically, the traditional cruciform basillica is supposed to make it *harder* to hear what's going on in the apse if you are in the nave. Line of sight to the altar down a traditional nave, which is long, narrow, and flat, is incredibly hard to do. Variation on traditional forms can really help solve these problems, but traditionalists always cry foul. In defence of modern architecture that is tastefully decorated (as opposed to being overdone in an attempt to counteract minimalist churches) I present for you the church of St. Michael in St. Michael Minnesota.

[url="http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/about/virtual-tour/"]http://www.stmcathol...t/virtual-tour/[/url]

[img]http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/files/2312/7688/1024/8452023368_jGFvN.jpg[/img]
Sure, you say, it looks like some kind of gold-topped space ship. Have a look inside at the link above.

Observe various modern features:
-Seating that provides direct line-of-sight viewing to the apse from *anywhere* in the church, without being a "church in the round" or some such nonsense.
-Real, honest to goodness, modern acoustical setup.
-Lots of light.
-Heating and air conditioning which both work.
-Excellent artwork that is a fusion of Eastern and Western traditions, which is cohesive and uncluttered but still traditional.
[/quote]


Thank you. I really love that Church inside!

[MIKolbe]

from the inside and out, the crystal cathedral looks like a building, not a church. Even though the OC is seen as the last bastian of 'conservatism' in California, the 'spirituality' there is anything but. Harvest is huge there...lots of prosperity gospel there. I pray the Bishop has the will and tenacity needed to do what needs to be done to that place.

[AccountDeleted]

I lived in OC for awhile and attended some truly 'weird' Masses there (and some good ones of course). Let's pray that things improve. They did need a new Cathedral and here is this giant church ready built for the job - if I still lived there, I'd go to it. I went to a chrism Mass in OC with the renewal of priest vows etc... so many people were there (including all the priests) that I had to sit in the children's crying room (and glad to have a seat I can tell you, but not so glad about the noise). I don't know how many the CC seats, but it has to be an improvement on what they currently have available for large functions in the Diocese. Now if the Archibishop could just clean up some of the Masses... sigh.

[Nihil Obstat]

It was mentioned that some renovations would be done to make it suitable for Catholic worship. Given that this is the same bishop who actually thought this building would make a good cathedral, I'm not that hopeful that those renovations will be anything to write home about, but we can always dream...

[Byzantine]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1311539710' post='2275069']
I know I will be given a big ol' "Bad Catholic" stamp on my forehead for saying do, but the exterior of the place looks quite OK. Not everyone can afford to rip down an existing building. Now the "bunker church" which was also posted is indeed a monstrosity, but I feel like in 50-80 years when everyone is doing Neo-Baroque stuff everywhere (or whatever they do in the future) there will still be a few of what we now call "modern" churches left which will be of great historical importance. Modernity can, in my opinion, be done reverently. Despite the fact that a minimalist approach can be horribly overdone, I do find that in places like St. Agnes in St. Paul MN that go all-out in a rather cluttered traditional way, while it is very beautiful, I can go into a kind of visual overload from the 360 degrees of religious kitsch. Flame me if you will, but my ADD does not cope well with that situation.

Now, on the other hand, very slavishly traditional forms can have alot of other problems that you don't get with modern buildings. For example, heating and cooling a basilica, just because of the shape, is very hard to do. Lighting one adequately is also a big problem. Acoustically, the traditional cruciform basillica is supposed to make it *harder* to hear what's going on in the apse if you are in the nave. Line of sight to the altar down a traditional nave, which is long, narrow, and flat, is incredibly hard to do. Variation on traditional forms can really help solve these problems, but traditionalists always cry foul. In defence of modern architecture that is tastefully decorated (as opposed to being overdone in an attempt to counteract minimalist churches) I present for you the church of St. Michael in St. Michael Minnesota.

[url="http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/about/virtual-tour/"]http://www.stmcathol...t/virtual-tour/[/url]

[img]http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/files/2312/7688/1024/8452023368_jGFvN.jpg[/img]
Sure, you say, it looks like some kind of gold-topped space ship. Have a look inside at the link above.

Observe various modern features:
-Seating that provides direct line-of-sight viewing to the apse from *anywhere* in the church, without being a "church in the round" or some such nonsense.
-Real, honest to goodness, modern acoustical setup.
-Lots of light.
-Heating and air conditioning which both work.
-Excellent artwork that is a fusion of Eastern and Western traditions, which is cohesive and uncluttered but still traditional.
[/quote]

I do not approve of church designs which leave the Rite of the church open for debate. Just saying.

[AnneLine]

OK... if they are buying this, perhaps it would be OK with a REALLY huge monstrance and appropriate lighting - talk about the ULTIMATE 24 hour adoration chapel! Anyone know what it looks like at night? I can't find a picture...

P.S. I don't like the building much either, but it could be a dramatic setting for Our Lord!

[img]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Second%20Americaneocon/DSCN1633.jpg[/img]

Edited November 20, 2011 by AnneLine

[BG45]

If we buy it, I still hope we get the inscribed prayer cushions with donors names so we can make an exhibit, "Remember paying for salvation? It's not just us that have had issues with the idea in the past..."

[Nihil Obstat]

I think that building would have worked better as a recreational centre, or maybe a community centre. Wouldn't it rock to have a pool in there instead?