It is indeed. I just returned from a whirlwind trip to the Bay area during which I had hoped to go see this in person. Alas, as happens so many times every moment of my quick trip ended up being previously scheduled and I didn’t have time to drive from Marin where my family live over to Oakland. It will have to wait until next time.
Joseph McMillan;63503 wrote:
[...]the objective of ecclesiastical architecture is to express solidity, rather than to convey an earthly impression of the divine light. How unfortunate that the good abbot’s theory of the lux continua induced generations of architects to waste their time designing all those uninspired Gothic cathedrals that mar the landscape of northern Europe when they could have just kept building nice SOLID Romanesque churches.
Ha ha ha
What’s wrong with "Romanesque"? The Hagia Sofia, whatever faith is currently honoured within it, inspires. The wooden beehive wouldn’t inspire me. :confused:
Doug Welsh;63519 wrote:
What’s wrong with "Romanesque"? The Hagia Sofia, whatever faith is currently honoured within it, inspires. The wooden beehive wouldn’t inspire me. :confused:
For heaven’s sake (literally), there’s nothing wrong with Romanesque.
I guess I have to spell things out.
Denny wrote: "glass structures never give one a feeling of being ‘solid’ because of the very nature and appearance of glass."
I was suggesting that this position is diametrically at odds with what was the dominant form of church architecture throughout the High Middle Ages and beyond, the Gothic cathedral. The Gothic style was driven by a desire to build churches pervaded by light. That’s why the high walls, pointed arches, flying buttresses, and ribbed vaulting permitting the reduction in the wall mass needed to support the roof, thus permitting larger windows. Abbot Robert Suger of the Royal Abbey of St. Denis was the primary instigator of the invention of the Gothic style, according to Lord Clark’s Civilisation, and I have no doubt whatsoever that if he’d had steel frame construction methods available to him he would have had his architects build cathedrals entirely of glass. It would have been stained glass, with cruciform floorplans and elaborately decorated furnishings, but that such buildings did not give one a feeling of being "solid" would have been the least of his concerns. The Ste-Chapelle in Paris is probably the closest anyone ever came to this ideal, and I’d venture to say that the most modern of glass cathedrals probably doesn’t have as high a proportion of its walls taken up by windows as this:
And, for the record, no faith is currently being honored within Hagia Sophia. It’s a museum.
Joseph: Thus says the Lord - Sarcasm is a wasted on a forum. :p
Denny: I understand, but am still very eager to see it.
Ken—OK, cut metal rather than etched glass—thanks for the correction. Either way, IMO the new arms are a beauty!—& at some point in the near future, I’ll try to drive up & take a look.
Denny—the old Oakland cathedral would likely have met your criteria of solidity. It was IIRC (used to drive past occasionally on my way to work) essentially California (Spanish) Mission style, with the arms of the archdiocese (crossed Franciscan forearms & chief embattled) in whitewashed relief on the exterior. Never stopped & went inside, & its too late now, so don’t know what arms, if any, were displayed within.
As for San Francisco, the old RC catherdral still stands as the parish church in Chinatown. Old fashioned, solid brick, some surviving from before the 1906 quake that destroyed much of the City. A nice enough church, but IMO not particularly inspirational apart from its history. But as before, de gustibus etc.
Mr. McMillan, you either do not understand what I was saying – my fault undoubtedly – or conveniently misstate my position using my words. I believe you do not understand due to my own failure.
So, are you claiming that a building made entirely, or nearly entirely, of glass as an exterior surface is akin to lux continua? This is ridiculous for the simple fact that under the good abbot’s philosophy, and undoubtedly that of of Abbot Desiderio of Monte Cassino fame, was to inspire by the lighting of the dark interiors of the INSIDE of a chapel, church or cathedral just as the Gospel is to light the interior of the man in the pew.
There is a marked difference between Gothic building that so dominated European church building of the 11th century onward and this junk we are forced to deal with these days. To link lux continua to this monstrosity is absurd beyond belief IMO for it ignores, rather conveniently I might add, the fact that the external structure of all great churches is SOLID and clearly gives that impression to the church goer and is most decidedly not fluid, cubed, or otherwise see-through.
The great windows – all of a fantastic stained glass nature mind you – were placed in such a way as to help illuminate – in more ways than one – the Christian inside the building after he entered it. You can not in all honesty look at the great Cathedral of Bourges especially with its massive stone West Front and think it is in the same ball park as this new monstrosity! The same can be said for the Cathedrals of St. Denis, Canterburry, Reims, Notre-Dame de Chartres, Limoges, etc.
This is mark of high and large and colorful windows is, of course, mirrored by the other noted hallmark of great Gothic architecture and that being height issuing up from a strong, rock-solid base. Strong, rock-solid external structures dotted with a mix of tall stained glass windows and large rose windows and extreme (for their time) height, blind-arcading, massive pillars, and 3 or 5 portal entries, the whole of which are dotted with stone carved art and sacred images (nothing like glass, or a glass like mirage), giving the church-goer a very real sense of rock-solid solidity, a firmness, when viewing from the outside and before entering the church and then illuminating once inside with the glass and paint and art (again dotted with rock-solid stone statues, pillars, altar pieces, etc).
I can not believe you would seriously compare this new cathedral with lux continua and the awesome tradition of the Gothic movement. I must be too tired to understand what you are saying exactly because it does not work…it is apples and oranges.
Mike, if ever a place was well suited for a Mission style cathedral it would be the whole of California. So, yes I would appreciate that sort of sacred architecture. Surely it is better than the real, or quasi – I’ve read it as both by different authors – iconoclastic church architecture that we are all so blessed with now.
Thank God for Bp. Burke’s efforts (ref the other thread here) and Mother Angelica’s with her monastery along side the great work of Professor Duncan Stroik…at least in those places and with those people we can see sacred architecture as it once was, ought to be, and by the Grace of God will one day go back to being.
Prof. Duncan Stroik’s site – and worth every penny!:
http://www.stroik.com/pubs/saj/
especially his piece here as it clearly lays out the history behind such monstrosities as the new cathedral above:
http://www.stroik.com/pubs/roots.php
Again I submit that we can see the same sort of nonsense in Catholic heraldry far too often. I find both to be a blight.
Shedding my IT cloak and putting on my Moderator cloak for a moment….
I would like to take a quick moment and request all members participating in this thread to return to the topic of Bishop’s Arms.
While all of the other information in this thread is interesting, it is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
If a continued discussion of Cathedral architecture is needed, please start a thread in the "Off-Topic" forum or continue this discussion via PM or email.
The arms of the Most Rev. Mauro Parmeggiani, the newly-ordained Bishop of Tivoli, Italy. The principal charge is blazoned simply as "a pelican in her piety". It may also be blazoned as "a pelican vulning her breast". Either way that’s all the description that is necessary. The pelican biting its own breast open and feeding its young with its own blood is a symbol of Jesus and the Eucharist.
http://www.webdiocesi.chiesacattolica.it/cci_new/DiocesiCEI/images/202/stemma.JPG
Beautiful. Right away I think of ‘Or and Argent’ by Heim—something that would fit in very well there. Very nice.
Does the chief Azure a cross Or have any traditional significance in Italian heraldry or is it a reference to HH Pope John Paul II?
James
James Dempster;63568 wrote:
Does the chief Azure a cross Or have any traditional significance in Italian heraldry or is it a reference to HH Pope John Paul II?
I thought it was purpure.
gselvester;63314 wrote:
...While he is perfectly within his rights to do so apparently the Bishop of Oakland, the Most Rev. Allen Vigneron has decided that this occasion is an appropriate time to change his coat of arms. I suppose he thinks that a new cathedra (on which his coat of arms will be displayed) calls for a new coat of arms? It is engraved in this image so I do not know the tinctures for the diocesan arms. Clearly it contains a spreading oak tree. It also seems to have a star which I assume alludes to the new cathedral’s titular of Christ, Our Light. It also looks like there are symbols for St. Joseph, a square and a hammer. I do not know why. It often happens that the principal patron of a diocese is not the titular of the cathedral. Perhaps St. Joseph is the patron saint of the diocese?
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/2429/2008090801crux10gt2.jpg
I thought you might like to see these arms in a photo that shows more of the setting. The dark stone chair at the center of that sedilla is the cathedra (i.e. bishop’s chair).
http://gasparian.stblogs.org/September 2008 II 060 p.jpg
Oh, I do like that cathedra, and the arms look great in context.
I think the new diocesan arms are an improvement on the old—at leas more interesting. The oak tree on a green mount in base says "Oakland" more clearly than the two oak leaves in the old arms.
