Co-Cathedral Of The Sacred Heart At 1111 St. Joseph Parkway

[editor]

But the thing is, Ed, you're right, the Catholic church has always enjoyed the trappings of the wealth it had generated, but why can't the church take a low key approach for a growing population that is generally suspicious of the church?

Because the Church doesn't move with the whims and fancies and fashions of the times. The Church is very slow, very deliberate, and very ponderous. This is on purpose. Very little comes out of the Catholic Church that doesn't go through dozens, even hundreds, of layers of review.

This is because the Church doesn't plan for the next paycheck like the average American. It doesn't plan for the next quarter like a big company. It doesn't plan for the next generation like a big charity. It plans for the next 500 to 1,000 years. Many of the decisions it makes literally and figuratively shape the world we live in. That's one of the reasons it's been so slow to issue decisions on condoms, pre-marital sex, and similar issues. Because these things have to be reviewed over and over and over again to ensure they're absolutely correct, or as correct as the Church can make them at the time. It took over 1,500 years for the Catholic Church to go through its first reformation (Vatican II in the 1960's).

That's not to say the Church hasn't made mistakes. The writ of Papal Infallibility was rescinded decades ago. Often the mistakes that are made are the reflection of people catering to the whims of the age. Sure, in the 1500's the Church didn't speak out (to my knowledge) against slavery. One reason is that at the time, slavery was part of most active cultures. The Church is learning to think bigger than that -- to think beyond the current age and into the next.

This, of course, raises problems. Many people interpret a lack of outward action by the Church as a sign of complacency. A good example of this is the hands-off approach the Church took toward Hitler. Many people believe the Church should have done much more to stop him. The problem was that much of what was being done was behind-the-scenes debating. The Church leaned from that mistake, and now Pope John Paul II, along with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are credited with being the trifecta that brought down the Soviet Union.

Seriously, I don't think the Vatican cares what the cathedral in Houston looks like. It just wants attendance numbers up. But I don't think it's right for some bishops or cardinals or whatever on the local level to pander to a population, suspicious or otherwise. They're supposed to be leaders, not followers.

I know this is a poor example, but the pope was buried in a (Granted, by Catholic standards) a plain pine box as a sign of piety?

Actually, the Pope (I assume you mean JPII) wasn't buried in a plain pine box. He's buried in Pope John XXIII's former marble crypt inside a cypress casket, which is inside a zinc casket, which is inside a walnut casket.

If the Pope was buried in a plain pine box, that would be nice -- kind of symbolic of Jesus the carpenter and all that.

But if we're going for piety, why have a cathedral at all? Why not go with an old-fashioned (except in West Virginia) tent mass? Or the diocese could have even created an outdoor amphitheater carved into the ground like Jesus would have used.

I think the problem we have with cathedrals is that they're not like other architecture. They're not simply form-follows-function. The form matters a lot more and has a direct impact on the usefulness of the function.

Nothing is "wrong" with elegance, but to me the standard for being elegant is higher than just lacking ornamentation.

Exactly. Art Moderne, for example, is minimalist and still elegant.

Houston's Ikea cathedral is neither.

Have you ever been to a monastery?

Yes. Dozens of times. My high school was paired with a nearby monastery and we had a number of classes there.

A monastery and a cathedral are very different buildings, created for very different purposes. It's like comparing a science classroom with a rocket launching facility.

[editor]

Another reason I would suspect is that it took FOREVER to build the things, I know several that took at least 10 years to build.

Since we're talking buttresses, I assume you mean European cathedrals. Most of them took HUNDREDS of years to build. Sometimes it would take three or four generations of architects to get the things done.

One of my personal favorites, The Church of Our Lady Before Tyn, was built from 1365 to 1511.

The Mont-Saint-Michael abby was on-and-off from 1023 to 1879.

Beauvais Cathedral: 1225-1384

Il Duomo: 1296-1421

Sure, we got Houston's cathedral up in just a few years. But as any good baker will tell you -- you can't rush quality.

[fernz]

That's one of the reasons it's been so slow to issue decisions on condoms, pre-marital sex, and similar issues.

???

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

On another point, one reason old churches were so ornate and full of interpretative art is that they were a tool to spread the teachings of the Church in a time when most people were illiterate and had no access to books.

[CDeb]

???

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

I think what he meant was that those decisions were a long time coming.

[editor]

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

Actually, the church's position is Don't do it until we come up with a decision, but for now don't do it. It's currently under review, and I agree with you about everything after the semicolon.

On another point, one reason old churches were so ornate and full of interpretative art is that they were a tool to spread the teachings of the Church in a time when most people were illiterate and had no access to books.

Excellent point. Just like the paintings of the Renaissance, the art that adorns the cathedrals are teaching tools showing not only the stories from the Bible, but in many cases the local history as well.

[CDeb]

Actually, the church's position is Don't do it until we come up with a decision, but for now don't do it. It's currently under review, and I agree with you about everything after the semicolon.

How do you figure, editor? I don't get that take from reading Humanae Vitae, which seems pretty decisive to me.

[H-Town Man]

It took over 1,500 years for the Catholic Church to go through its first reformation (Vatican II in the 1960's).

What do you consider the Counter-Reformation to have been?

That's not to say the Church hasn't made mistakes. The writ of Papal Infallibility was rescinded decades ago.

When was Papal Infallibility rescinded? As far as I know, it's alive and well.

Seriously, I don't think the Vatican cares what the cathedral in Houston looks like. It just wants attendance numbers up.

I definitely think the Vatican cares what cathedrals look like.

Yes. Dozens of times. My high school was paired with a nearby monastery and we had a number of classes there.

A monastery and a cathedral are very different buildings, created for very different purposes. It's like comparing a science classroom with a rocket launching facility.

I wasn't comparing monasteries to cathedrals. You said "The history of the Catholic Church is a celebration of the ornate." For the majority of that history, monasteries played every bit as much if not more of a role than cathedrals in church life. Are they celebrations of the ornate?

[H-Town Man]

As has been stated, I seem to remember the church issued some guidelines a while back for construction of future cathedrals. They emphasize focus on the community etc. etc. and not so much on ornate things which might be distracting.

Oh, it's so distracting, I can't take it!!

Too... distracted.... Can't... focus... on... worship....

[editor]

I'm going to let the rest of the message drift away because I don't want to derail this thread.

I wasn't comparing monasteries to cathedrals. You said "The history of the Catholic Church is a celebration of the ornate." For the majority of that history, monasteries played every bit as much if not more of a role than cathedrals in church life. Are they celebrations of the ornate?

I guess in my mind I don't associate monasteries with everyday Catholicism because most people don't go to monasteries or interact with monks or friars. Of the three monasteries I've been to, two operate entirely independently of the local archdiocese and take their orders from a higher power (someone in Rome, presumably). The third one may do the same, but I don't know for sure.

All of the monasteries I've been to have been very plain affairs. Not dirt-walls kind of plain. More like 1950's elementary school plain. I think this is for two reasons -- one, that they don't get a lot of visitors compared to a church. And two, because the monks and friars spend most of their time busying themselves with their ministry outside of where they live. Unlike a church, which is the spiritual center of a community drawing people in, the monastery is more on the outskirts of the ordinary person's church experience. Because of this, it doesn't need to be ornate or instructive. They'd, literally, be preaching to the choir.

Or at least that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary.

[Vertigo58]

Tell me someone took photo's of yesterday's events?

All eyes were on Houston for this event!

Tour's for the public begin Saturday. Can't wait!

[H-Town Man]

I'm going to let the rest of the message drift away because I don't want to derail this thread.

I guess in my mind I don't associate monasteries with everyday Catholicism because most people don't go to monasteries or interact with monks or friars. Of the three monasteries I've been to, two operate entirely independently of the local archdiocese and take their orders from a higher power (someone in Rome, presumably). The third one may do the same, but I don't know for sure.

All of the monasteries I've been to have been very plain affairs. Not dirt-walls kind of plain. More like 1950's elementary school plain. I think this is for two reasons -- one, that they don't get a lot of visitors compared to a church. And two, because the monks and friars spend most of their time busying themselves with their ministry outside of where they live. Unlike a church, which is the spiritual center of a community drawing people in, the monastery is more on the outskirts of the ordinary person's church experience. Because of this, it doesn't need to be ornate or instructive. They'd, literally, be preaching to the choir.

Or at least that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary.

In the middle ages, monasteries played a very strong role in public life. I think both the ornate/extraverted approach and the simple/introverted approach have maintained a place in Catholicism throughout its history.

I agree with a lot of the other stuff you said.

[marc]

Ken Follet's THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH and sequel, WORLD WITHOUT END addresses some of the above mentioned topics.

Cathedrals of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (and to some degree present day) were what the skyscraper movement in the US (1920s- 1930s and this new present day rebirth) is to Americans, for the most part. What i mean is an IDEA was being touted and needed a concrete, tangible representation of the abstract. In the case of cathedrals, the abstract was GOD. SO, builders, commissioned and sanctioned by the Church, of course, tried to convey the Heavenly on Earth. That is a more gentle idealist view. A more pessimistic one is that the Church was not only flouting its power through architecture, but subjigated thousands to build the monstrocities. I prefer the more idealistic approach. Also, keep in mind MOST people attending the massive Cathedrals were poor, illiterate, worked long hours outdoors and believed ( or were force to) pretty much anything the Church told them. SO, the masses had a concept of Heaven based on what the Church hierarchy told them. These days, i think because of our open and free thinking society (yes, even in Christianity), Cathedrals can still convey the Heavenly or otherworldly, but don't have to be too flashy or too gaudy because people's views about those matters have changed.

m.

[H-Town Man]

^^^Interesting post. I think one mistake that people make is to think that in the middle ages, everything was forced upon the poor, ignorant, helpless people by the big, powerful church. It is true that there was little freedom of thought at the time (although theologians had lively debates within doctrinal boundaries), but those cathedrals you see in Northern France were expressions of local piety. The pope and his curia in Rome did not force the town of Chartres to build a great cathedral, Chartres did it for itself, and built something much grander than anything in Rome at the time.

All those grand arches and details weren't just rhetoric meant to impose an idea, they were an adventure for the spirit. It's a mistake to say that the church was separate from the people, and that when the church built a great cathedral, it was taking money from the people. The people were part of the church - they identified themselves with it - and in their minds, the local cathedral was their own. It would be like saying that the city of New York stole money from all those poor New Yorkers so that they could build Central Park. Central Park belongs to the people of New York and is a spiritual boon for the whole city; ditto the cathedrals.

[musicman]

i decided to attempt the tour. i must say, it is well worth it. depending on the time of day, the lighting in the cathedral sure does highlight certain things. this statue sure caught my attention, it looked as if it was glowing. also be sure and check out the stained glass resurrection in front, the city skyline is at the bottom. it was hard to pick out from the exterior, but from the inside it was very evident.

[editor]

Ken Follet's THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH and sequel, WORLD WITHOUT END addresses some of the above mentioned topics.

Cathedrals of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (and to some degree present day) were what the skyscraper movement in the US (1920s- 1930s and this new present day rebirth) is to Americans, for the most part. What i mean is an IDEA was being touted and needed a concrete, tangible representation of the abstract. In the case of cathedrals, the abstract was GOD. SO, builders, commissioned and sanctioned by the Church, of course, tried to convey the Heavenly on Earth. That is a more gentle idealist view. A more pessimistic one is that the Church was not only flouting its power through architecture, but subjigated thousands to build the monstrocities. I prefer the more idealistic approach. Also, keep in mind MOST people attending the massive Cathedrals were poor, illiterate, worked long hours outdoors and believed ( or were force to) pretty much anything the Church told them. SO, the masses had a concept of Heaven based on what the Church hierarchy told them. These days, i think because of our open and free thinking society (yes, even in Christianity), Cathedrals can still convey the Heavenly or otherworldly, but don't have to be too flashy or too gaudy because people's views about those matters have changed.

m.

What I didn't realize until I read it in a book today is that the whole thing about having a place of worship extend into the heavens is mostly a Christian thing. In the construction of even the great mosques, the attention is almost entirely lateral, while for Christians it's vertical. I noticed something similar in the Buddhist and Shinto temples I've been in. I wonder why that is.

[marc]

^^^Interesting post. I think one mistake that people make is to think that in the middle ages, everything was forced upon the poor, ignorant, helpless people by the big, powerful church. It is true that there was little freedom of thought at the time (although theologians had lively debates within doctrinal boundaries), but those cathedrals you see in Northern France were expressions of local piety. The pope and his curia in Rome did not force the town of Chartres to build a great cathedral, Chartres did it for itself, and built something much grander than anything in Rome at the time.

All those grand arches and details weren't just rhetoric meant to impose an idea, they were an adventure for the spirit. It's a mistake to say that the church was separate from the people, and that when the church built a great cathedral, it was taking money from the people. The people were part of the church - they identified themselves with it - and in their minds, the local cathedral was their own. It would be like saying that the city of New York stole money from all those poor New Yorkers so that they could build Central Park. Central Park belongs to the people of New York and is a spiritual boon for the whole city; ditto the cathedrals.

Well said. As you noticed, i indicated i took a more idealistic view. i suppose what i meant to say is that i take a more Spiritual view concerning the building of the Cathedrals. YES, i fully agree that the people building them, from the lowely laborers to the Bishops inhabiting them, had a BIG stake in the cathedral. Again, the above mentioned novels sort of gives different perspectives on people's ideas regarding the PURPOSE of the cathedrals. i guess what i was getting at was that a concept of the Heavenly on Earth was trying to be conveyed. AND, if one is to imagine HEAVEN, i suppose the pushing of architectural boundaries is to be expected. At least, i would hope so. i for one have no problem with ornate, lofty, ethereal expressions in architecture as long as it is not gaudy. Ostentation just for its own sake. Make sense?

m.

[marc]

What I didn't realize until I read it in a book today is that the whole thing about having a place of worship extend into the heavens is mostly a Christian thing. In the construction of even the great mosques, the attention is almost entirely lateral, while for Christians it's vertical. I noticed something similar in the Buddhist and Shinto temples I've been in. I wonder why that is.

Really? What about the lofty minarets? i visited a HUGE mosque in Paris and it definately evoked the Heavenly by making one look upward.

THE WHY OF VERTICAL? OK, here goes psyche 101. As we all know, humans have looked at the Heavens and the Stars for millenia. It only stands to reason that religion, from nature worship (honoring the Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars) to organized religions (like Christianity, Islam, etc.) would include in its tenets a striving to reach ......UP. I think architectural concepts like Houses of Worship and Skyscrapers convey a very similar concept. Both are pursuits which push people to go beyond themselves, and being creatures who have looked at and wondered about the cosmos since we crawled out of caves, i feel it makes perfect sense that most of our structures REACH up. To me, skyscrapers are not only a showcase of humanity's technological advancement, but also connotate the limitlessness of pure Capitalism. Cathedrals and other places of worship achieve the same. Tech. advancement, BUT also connotate the limitlessness of the Spirit.

That's my 2 cents worth.

m.

[editor]

Really? What about the lofty minarets? i visited a HUGE mosque in Paris and it definately evoked the Heavenly by making one look upward.

From what I read, the minarets are intended to be outward signs. They exist not so people will look up, but so that people will know that a mosque is right there. Which is part of the reason mosques have differing numbers of minarets -- the more you have (up to six) the more important that mosque is.

But what I was really getting at is the interior space. In cathedrals, the layout, design, and decorations beckon you to look up. In the mosques I've been to, it's all about being low. Which kind of makes sense since the faithful are expected to spend most of their time on the floor. When I get around to posting my pictures of mosques in Istanbul you'll see that they even went so far as to lower the chandeliers down to just about seven feet -- just above head level. The decorations don't encourage people to look upward and it appears the domes aren't so much about lofty feelings as the practicality of creating a large contiguous space with the technology available at the time.

THE WHY OF VERTICAL? OK, here goes psyche 101. As we all know, humans have looked at the Heavens and the Stars for millenia. It only stands to reason that religion, from nature worship (honoring the Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars) to organized religions (like Christianity, Islam, etc.) would include in its tenets a striving to reach ......UP. I think architectural concepts like Houses of Worship and Skyscrapers convey a very similar concept. Both are pursuits which push people to go beyond themselves, and being creatures who have looked at and wondered about the cosmos since we crawled out of caves, i feel it makes perfect sense that most of our structures REACH up. To me, skyscrapers are not only a showcase of humanity's technological advancement, but also connotate the limitlessness of pure Capitalism. Cathedrals and other places of worship achieve the same. Tech. advancement, BUT also connotate the limitlessness of the Spirit.

That's my 2 cents worth.

m.

But for some reason I don't see the "up" in the Shinto and Buddhist temples I've been to. The ceilings in some of them are forgotten and not even decorated.

[H-Town Man]

Well I finally made it into Houston to tour the cathedral firsthand over the weekend, and my previous comments are due for a little revision. The outside I found disappointing. I had expected it to be boxy and banal, which it was, and its dimensions seemed smaller than I had expected. I do not think the Houston rain and soot will be kind to its light-colored stone, either.

But the inside was stunning. I walked into the nave and gasped. Everything was proportioned just right, and it all came together for an intense effect. I was reminded of Italy. The stained glass clerestory windows were very nice, although I think they could have been taller, and perhaps my favorite part was the twelve stained glass windows of the apostles around the dome. The giant stained glass window in the front was quite impressive, as other posters have commented.

I can see what the bishop meant by "simple nobility." The place was somewhat simple compared to older cathedrals - not a lot of detail in the stone, which could be disappointing in certain places - but it nonetheless had a very grand feel, perhaps even more grand for its restraint.

One thing that seemed a little strange was the floating statues with the gold background in the transepts, one of which musicman posted a picture of. The gold seemed a bit glitzy - why not a mural or mosaic background? And the statues could use a traditional pedestal. We know that they're not really floating (there's a cleverly disguised, gold-painted support going into the back); making them look like they are seems to be playing on superstition. But maybe I'll warm up to them.

Overall, considering the interior alone and ignoring the exterior, I think this is definitely one of the grandest (if not the grandest) Catholic churches in Texas.

Edited May 12, 2008 by H-Town Man

[Vertigo58]

Finally made it!

I love this place. That's all there is to it.

I could sit in this place for hours studying every detail. Words cannot explain.

I'm getting verklempt!

[Vertigo58]

A little off subject but you simply must hear the choir and the pipe organ!

I have to shake my head in disbelief! For a minute there I thought I was in the Vatican. No joke. This is top notch. I must make it a point to go up there and see the organist "get down" on that keyboard.

PS, another major plus for this cathedral are the restrooms in front, large, spacious, roomy, etc. Hardly any detail is missed. Have to hear the organ people and the choir is just magnifico e bellisimo.

[GovernorAggie]

The lighted stain glass window and bell tower are very nice at night.

[Vertigo58]

The lighted stain glass window and bell tower are very nice at night.

Speaking of the stain glass windows, you must see the one above the alter. While mass is in progress, the morning sun slowly creeps over the cattedrale producing a brief spectaular light display. Can't help but notice. One of those fast running speed up cameras would do good if filmed over the course of the day.

This weekend they added what sounds like trumpets while the choir sings. If I closed my eyes I would think I was in the Vatican, no joke. That choir is magnificant! Ottimo!

[Boris]

Went to see the Cathedral for the first time this weekend. It's beautiful

Adios

[citizen4rmptown]

it really is,

great pictures you took there

[marc]

Very NICE! i am touring DT this Sunday. This is definately on my list.

Thank you very much.

m.

[telwink]

Hey Boris~~! Great photos! I haven't been here yet, but these are excellent shots of the Cathedral. Thanks for posting.

[JackieR82]

Wonderful subject and amazing photos!

[marc]

Made my tour of DT and UT this weekend via the Energy Corridor.

Went to the Home and Garden Show at G.R. Brown- that was OK.

BUT, my DT highlight, i do admit, was touring the Cathedral, Disco Park and taking pix. of all the construction. As

soon as i learn how to download them to this forum, i will share.

Great things happening for H-town!

m.

[editor]

I just got this in the e-mail.

---------------------------------

Houston, TX -- November 10, 2008 -- Turner Partners Architecture, LP of Houston, Texas is pleased to

announce the completion of the Cathedral Centre project located at 1700 San Jacinto in downtown

Houston, Texas.

The Centre is a part of the Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral Church