The last few years there has been a rash of reality shows in which the old and/or ugly something is renovated, fixed-up, or slimmed down for the great reveal.
The have done this ugly people, obese people, houses, and even restaurants. We may need to add a Cathedral to the list.
The Crystal Cathedral is a large protestant Church in Garden Grove, CA built by Robert Schuller to house his once thriving ministry. Lately however, the ministry has fallen on hard times and declared bankruptcy last year.
Enter the Roman Catholic diocese of Orange California. In what I am sure they perceive as a very pragmatic move, since they are in need of a Cathedral, has offered $50 million dollars for the building. There is only one problem… This…
July 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Uhmm…lots of stained glass????
July 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm
It'll never work. It has a huge pipe organ in it. Where in the world are you going to find a competent Catholic organist these days? Besides, the place looks way more suited to having a serious stack of Marshalls; the "liturgical" guitarists (and the rest of the band!) would all love that!
July 25, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Pat, I would like to remind you that when the members of the early church met, they met in each other's homes. There were no large worship spaces, except polytheistic temples. Frankly, I don't the the early Christians gave a rip that they didn't have such large spaces.
Too many Christians (let alone Catholics) turn personal aesthetic tastes into dogma. As such, they get their focus off of God and His redemptive work through His Son. Is this what God wants?
I read the column in question and Clare said that Catholic piety could not be fully expressed in such a place. If that's true, then what does that say about Catholic piety? If Catholics need specific externals to express their faith, then how strong is that faith in the first place?
I doubt if the martyrs of the first and second centuries (notably St. Stephen) had them.
July 25, 2011 at 6:58 pm
BTW, Pat, "Clare" didn't make the comment about Kim Karsashian and Mother Teresa. The OC Register columnist did. Please be more careful when you read and quote from other sources.
July 25, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Palestrina you may call yerself, but you ain't no Pierluigi.
There are more than competent RCC organists in our motherland, you just obviously don't get out and about often enough.
You want a list and where they are, just ask. And none of them primp up quite as much as good ol' Freddy Swann. Or wear pumps like Ms. Bish.
I find it interesting that not only has the commentariat poohed the idea, and it's just an idea, as confirmed by the ever so easily marked Bsp. Brown, and that the CC's "catholicity" fails on their Franklin's orthodoxy Pro/Con chart, and that saving 1M+ for a "glass house" (really?) is just as decriable as Rog Majah, and the Our Ladies of Maytag and Al Davis~ cry me a river… Where were you guys when Gaudi held sway in Barthelona?
Anybody held Mass/Divine Liturgy in the Hagia Sophia in the last couple of centuries?
Ooh, Catholics conquer Christian Disneyland….ooh.
July 25, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Joseph,
the early Christians are great, but not the epitome of how-to-worship. they didn't have a lot of choices…
As for the Jews, on the other hand, we Catholics, as completed Jews, owe much humble inspiration to.
And as for David and Solomon and the temple they built…
way to go, OT, guys… We think the Lord is grand, too!
July 26, 2011 at 12:19 am
tween lit crit…
…point being that we are a both/and Church. Cathedrals and stripped-down missionary churches are part of true worship, not dogmatic points.
July 26, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Susan Peterson here.
I concur with this conclusion:
For Orthodoxy, this essential intuition that our species has, that the physical and spiritual have very much to do with each other, was fulfilled in the Incarnation of Christ, that everlasting moment when the invisible, incorporeal, untouchable, ineffable God became visible, embodied, touchable and approachable. God became man, and so physical matter received the possibility of becoming sanctified and sanctifying. He did it all the time when He was here visibly—not just by taking on a body, but with very physical actions in order to effect real changes, e.g., turning water to wine, smearing mud on a blind man’s eyes, raising the dead, etc.
So, no, the Church is not the building. The people are the Church. We get that. But there’s a reason they built that building, and it’s not just a container. There is something there that speaks of the power and majesty and closeness of God, something that connects us to Him in a way that nothing else can. And Orthodox Christians believe that God will not only honor that intention from His creatures, but will respond and, once again, use the physical to affect the spiritual.
Consider this for a moment: What does the building your faith uses for prayer convey about what you believe? Does it connect you with Heaven? Does it connect you with God?
from this blog:
http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2011/07/21/the-church-is-not-the-building/
Susan Peterson
PS, I am having difficulty commenting. Even though I am already signed in to my Gmail, Blogger has asked me to sign in six times now, takes me back to my comment, when I hit post comment, it asks me to sign in again… Could you check into this? I had to post as Anonymous instead of Eulogos
July 26, 2011 4:46 PM
July 27, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Tween Lit Crit, you're right about the finery of the Temple. You should read about how God ordered the implements of the Tabernacle, the Temple's predecessor, to be designed. Fascinating stuff.
But what bothered me about the post (and the article it cites) is the idea that "we Catholics shouldn't associated with those people." That wasn't specifically said but the snobbishness seemed apparent to me.