www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Future Cathedral 'symbol of unity' - wheres tradition?

I think it is interesting that the word "dramatic" is used. Drama has certainly replaced "mystery" in modern liturgical experience. The two terms, however, are not synonymous.

I quite agree with your assessment of the Florida "something". I think the Eucharistic Chapel looks like the engine room from a Star Trek episode. Do the walls spin by any chance?

I'm truly at a loss as to how it was funded.These types of churches are built for the immediate generation only. Future generations inherit them and wonder, "What was grandma thinking?!?"

Gordo

What about sacred tradition, which Chesterton said was the "democracy of the dead"? Christians have received an inheritance that is not their own to muddle with. Architecture - especially Church architecture - is not about expressing one's social ego - or ID, as the case may be. Churches should be built for the generations that precede, follow, and currently exist.

I do not question the sincerity of the faith of the people who constructed these stupifing structures, just their judgement.

I will say, though, that they look like they were built by committees!

Gordo

I think art and architecture reflect the culture which produced them. What our current crop of architects produce is, sad to say, an accurate representation.

Here's the inside
http://www.dellachiesa.com/-/article?a=criticism-oakland

If I remember right, that line is published almost verbatim in the Renovation Manipulation. Being in a diocese where almost every traditional church has been "updated" I can say that the author pretty much hits it on the head on how these "Community" meetings go and how the "democratic" process is used to get a building that a good percentage of the people neither like nor want.

John

As a former member of the Diocese of Oakland, I can assure you that there was nothing "democratic" about the choice of the new cathedral. This design was pushed for by those with influence in the diocesan chancery.

But that being said, I have seen the interior drawings of the "Church" and was shocked to see that there is a complete absence of iconography. The only icon, if you can call it that, is a large empty cross behind the altar. There is nothing about the building that would tell you that it is a Catholic Church.

To be honest, this "Church" actually looks a lot like the Methodist Church that I went to as a boy.

Gordo,

You asked Nowhere is it written by our Church that a church building HAS to look a certain way. Churches merely need to include the elements to say the mass properly (i.e altar, altar candles, a tabernacle for the consecrated Host etc)

And like I said, this Cathedral wasn't built solely for you or anyone in particular but rather for the community it serves. The community has decided that a modern structure would serve them best and it has been done.

Also, the Cathedral of Christ the Light, as it should properly be refered to, was indeed unapologetically built for present and future generations, while always taking into account the generations that preceded them.

Again you should bother to visit the Cathedral's website and see that many factors were taken in considering its construction.
Cathedral of Christ the Light [christthelightcathedral.org]

Again my point is not to debate whether you like the structure or not but rather to remind all of you to show respect for this Temple for the Lord, which Christ the Light truly is!!!

I wont debate my personal view on this any further, for I made my point very clear in my last post (scroll up to see it)

Much disgruntled,

ProCatholico

Certainly you have a right to your opinion. But as someone who lives in the Oakland area, and who was a member of that Latin Rite diocese for more than 16 years, I would simply point out that no one has to have respect for that "temple of the Lord," because it hasn't even been built yet, and God willing it won't be. The diocese is financially strapped and the funds could be better used in another way.

Now, even if this building is completed, it does not follow that people must to say that the building is aesthetically beautiful simply because Mass is celebrated in it.

The icon of the temporal, the cultural, and the physical, NOT the icon of the immortal, incarnational, and spiritual. Dionysius would not feel at home. I worry about all that glass and wood.

"The cathedral�s fluid form is drawn from those design intentions � the creation of an icon that is in resonance with its temporal, cultural and physical place. Unlike the linear, hierarchical floor plan of early European cathedrals, this cathedral is shaped to bring the congregation as a community around the alter, making the altar the �unambiguous center and focus,� and emphasizing the participatory role of the assembly in the Eucharist as proposed by Vatican II."

http://www.christthelightcathedral.org/architect_design.htm

Joe

And there is a good point. The Catholic community and bishop apparently had much to say about the design - so who are we (not paying for it)?

New England has a few modern churches - most date back to immigration days - but the main cathedril in Hartford was built about early 1990�s I guess and I must say I absolute love the stainglass and the brass base relief affixed to the front of the altars. Magnificent. Other than that - the most modern are several Orthodox churches - the Greek Orthodox Holy Trinity in Waterbury and St. Barbara�s in Orange� both absolutely gorgeous on the inside.

The cost to built a church by old material and old style - must be absolutely huge. Of course, the materials and the designs of today are going to be cheaper - when it comes to such large buildings. And the building built - is not for the parishions of today - but tomorrow - 50-100 years from now.

In any event - it shall be consecrated by a bishop to sacred use.

Sacred use.

No matter if we like it or not - the Lord has selected it for his home.

I myself would have picked another design - but I am not paying for it so no one asked my opinion.

-ray

Dear Neil you said:

"You speak of Wright's Annunciation GO Church in Milwaukee as "beautiful"?"

I say: Yes it does look like a UFO, but that does not take away from it's beauty. The inside is exceptional and the seating area, (I'm Greek Orthdox and we sit), is predominantly in the balcony. Everyone has a clear view and we can also see through the Iconostasis.

The landscaping is also outstanding, and the only reason Frank Lloyd Wright agreed to design it, (it was his last project), was because his wife was Russian.

My cousin's father in law, an architect himself, approached him, never expecting him to agree to designing it. He did though, and as for the dome, it was originally painted blue with stars. Thank heaven it doesn't turn, I guess the Holy Spirit stepped in. I wonder how it would have looked if it did turn during liturgy? What difference though, they would never have been able to afford keeping up the repairs.

As for the modern RCC churches, they are ugly. Now I don't find the Protestant one's ugly so what's wrong here?

Of course we can't always mimic the past after all the gothic cathedrals must have been attrocious to those accustomed to the Romanesque style...especially with their flying buttresses. But we do have to have a semblance of what we are accustomed to.

As for the new church in Oakland, I can't help but wonder where the cross is? Also where are the icons, etc.?

In Christ,

Zenovia

If I were a parishioner in the Diocese of Oakland I would be heartbroken knowing what could have been(the dellachiesa design by Domiane Forte)and what will be. Better if I had never seen the plans of the dellachiesa church.

True enough - the bare minimum is required. Love does not limit itself to bare minimums, however. It overflows in color and life. It reflects the real and transcendent and resists being awash in the dreamy and the sentimental.

As a Byzantine, I am not a minimalist but a lover. But as you say, this Cathedral was not built for me. (Thank goodness!) The Latin tradition is not minimalistic either - only its modern derivation is. This - I can't even say it - cathedral? - reflects the worst in modern architecture. It is an exaltation of modern man and his almost endless capacity for abstraction. It reflects a closed cosmology. Natural light is harnessed to exalt the beauty of our own creation, with little reference to revealed truth or to God. The Bishop of Oakland can sprinkle his holy water and say his prayers over it if he likes, but the bottom line is that the outer image will never reflect the inner beauty of its consecrated state. It is the image of the dead city, the city of man, the tower of babel - and I suppose that is why its inards look like a decaying corpse.

Not that I have a strong opinion on the matter...

Looking at the website of Fr. Vosko, who inspires and designs many renovations and new churches, including OLA Cathedral in Los Angeles, many of his projects, especially the NEW construction "centrums" do tend to resemble other secular buildings that are being erected at the same time. Big spaces, impressive and often well thought out, but plain with no real effort to make them spiritually and mentally uplifting from a CHRISTIAN point of view. Remove the altar and the baptismal pool, and some could double as a concert hall, office complex, auditorium, banquet facility, or lecture hall. From looking at the pictures of these worship spaces, quite often, the only religious representation is a cross or crucifix and that is often set WAY up high or Far back or to the side. At least with the renovation of older churches, there are usually decorative moldings, stained-glass windows, and often elaborate ceilings that are quite often very well restored and repainted to enhance a beauty and sense of reverence. But these are only decorations, not sacred art, or images that can lift the human heart to the Divine. I think another issue, especially with the older churches, is that quite often, he puts (a rather impressive) organ case in the apse or the position formally occupied by the high altar. So when entering from the back of the worship space and looking to the east (liturgically), one is confronted not with the altar and images and the holy, but with AN ORGAN and chairs set-up on high for leaders of song. His altars seem to be set low to the floor, making them less visible unless the presider is standing behind it. It reminds me of coming into Symphony Hall in Boston, or the Congregational Meetinghouse in my own town. While it may work for some people, and some of the buildings on their own are beautiful, there is little to give one a real sense of sacred.

Another note...Fr. Vosko's name, is it Slavish? Ruthenian? Austro-Hungarian? Slovak? Ukrainian? Or forbid it, Rusyn? Maybe he can re-discover his roots and help to renovate and renew some of the worship spaces of his ancestors. Hey--he'd probably get rid of the pews, and would that be a bad thing in Greek Catholic church? ;-) BTW, to see his projects, go to www.rvosko.com [rvosko.com]

This renovation actually looks like an improvement:

http://www.rvosko.com/pages/projectdetail.asp?projectID=49

I can't say the same for all the renovations...

Here's the cathedral's website, too:
http://www.superiorcathedral.org/

Dave