FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Before and After: The Cathedral of St. Vibiana, Los Angeles
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(07-13-2009, 10:38 AM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Does Mahony have no sense of propriety or reverence?

I would say: nope.
(07-13-2009, 10:04 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]Mahoney the Homo just didnt want the old Cathedral it could have been repaird for a few million but he wanted to build his pagan temple worth 200 million. The man is a sick disgrace not only to Catholicism but humanity.

Baskerville, you're kind of pushing it here if you know what I mean.  I probably like His Eminence less than you do, but please refer to him as Cdl. Mahony or just plain Mahony out of respect for the office.
Poor ol' Cardinal Manning has to have twisted himself up in his burial cloths for all the spinning he's had to have done in his grave over this Mahoney creep. I hesitate to call him a cardinal, I respect that office, but not this officer.  :pazzo:

That the dioceses did not preserve this old and grand building is a waste of money, at the least, and a travesty, at best. The new one, which I have not seen nor plan to go see, has to be one huge slap in the face of traditional Catholics of Los Angeles. I know my 90 year old mother despises the place.

The original Cathedral lives on, but sadly, in merely a commercial role. I'll wager that when the next big EQ hits the ares, the old building will still be standing and in His Mercy, the new "cathedral" will be the one leveled. Let us all pray. :pray2:
The relics were removed, as were all sacred vessels, statues, artwork, etc.  The altar and the baptismal font are in St. Vibiana's chapel in the new cathedral.  There were not left in the old cathedral.

Cardinal Mahoney wanted either to renovate St. Vibiana's or tear it down and build a new cathedral on the same spot.  When diocesan administrators contacted the property owners for the adjacent lots, they hiked up their prices to such an extent that the diocese could not afford to buy them.  There was an earthquake and the tower of St. Vibiana's sustained significant damage and the building was condemned. 

I forget the name of the donor, but someone contributed a significant amount of money to build a new cathedral.  This money could be used only for that.  It could not be used to renovate the old one.  The properties adjacent were still too expensive and would still not have provided enough space for a new, expanded cathedral the hall, and parking.  The liberal whackos went after the Cardinal to prevent him from demolishing St. Vibiana.  The Church couldn't demolish the old church, which was really inadequate as a cathedral, She couldn't afford just to patch it up (because the donated money specifically said it was for a new cathedral), and after more studies, discovered that even buying the adjacent properties wouldn't work too well.  So the diocese started looking for a new space and the old church was decommissioned.  Yes, it was more expensive than simply fixing the old one, but just patching up the old one wouldn't have done any good.  It would have been wasted money because the church was still too small.

(07-14-2009, 11:33 AM)HolySoulsinPurgatory Wrote: [ -> ]The relics were removed, as were all sacred vessels, statues, artwork, etc.  The altar and the baptismal font are in St. Vibiana's chapel in the new cathedral.  There were not left in the old cathedral.

Cardinal Mahoney wanted either to renovate St. Vibiana's or tear it down and build a new cathedral on the same spot.  When diocesan administrators contacted the property owners for the adjacent lots, they hiked up their prices to such an extent that the diocese could not afford to buy them.  There was an earthquake and the tower of St. Vibiana's sustained significant damage and the building was condemned. 

I forget the name of the donor, but someone contributed a significant amount of money to build a new cathedral.  This money could be used only for that.  It could not be used to renovate the old one.  The properties adjacent were still too expensive and would still not have provided enough space for a new, expanded cathedral the hall, and parking.  The liberal whackos went after the Cardinal to prevent him from demolishing St. Vibiana.  The Church couldn't demolish the old church, which was really inadequate as a cathedral, She couldn't afford just to patch it up (because the donated money specifically said it was for a new cathedral), and after more studies, discovered that even buying the adjacent properties wouldn't work too well.  So the diocese started looking for a new space and the old church was decommissioned.  Yes, it was more expensive than simply fixing the old one, but just patching up the old one wouldn't have done any good.  It would have been wasted money because the church was still too small.

This pic seems to indicate both the High Altar and side altars are still intact, although the tabernacles appear to be gone.  Am I missing something?  ???

[Image: vibiana11.jpg]

Let's assume the liberal do-gooders did prevent the Archdiocese from demolishing the building.  His Eminence could still have everything inside stripped away, including the baldachino and the rest of the marble flooring.

Even if it happened as you say, which I'm assuming it did, it does not excuse the construction of that monstrosity they now call a cathedral, unless the large donor forced the design on Mahony as well.


This pic seems to indicate both the High Altar and side altars are still intact, although the tabernacles appear to be gone.  Am I missing something?  ???

[Image: vibiana11.jpg]

Let's assume the liberal do-gooders did prevent the Archdiocese from demolishing the building.  His Eminence could still have everything inside stripped away, including the baldachino and the rest of the marble flooring.

Even if it happened as you say, which I'm assuming it did, it does not excuse the construction of that monstrosity they now call a cathedral, unless the large donor forced the design on Mahony as well.
[/quote]

i'm not debating you on the architectural style, I agree with you.  The altar though, is definitely inside the chapel of St. Vibiana.  I don't know about the side altars.  It's my understanding that the only part that really needed to be removed was the altar stone.  I also don't know why the marble wasn't stripped away, I've never heard a reason.
My issue with this is that this is another example of the way we're throwing away our Catholic history.  I haven't looked at the LA Diocese's budget, but I'm sure eight million to preserve St. Vibiana's wouldn't be such a big deal to find.  A newer, larger cathedral could still have been built and Saint Vibiana's could have been maintained as a parish with some sort of special focus so it could generate enough revenue to support itself.   I work in the nonprofit field and I know that eight million dollars is not so hard to come by  in a town like Los Angeles, especially if you're already a landowner with as much influence as the diocese.   
(07-14-2009, 12:41 PM)HolySoulsinPurgatory Wrote: [ -> ]i'm not debating you on the architectural style, I agree with you.  The altar though, is definitely inside the chapel of St. Vibiana.  I don't know about the side altars.  It's my understanding that the only part that really needed to be removed was the altar stone.  I also don't know why the marble wasn't stripped away, I've never heard a reason.

Well I feel a bit better then.  It seems at least some care was taken to remove most of the important parts of the cathedral.  In my diocese it used to be the practice that when an inner city church was closed, they'd just shutter it and sell everything inside, lock, stock and barrel, altars, statues, pews, crucifixes, vestments, on and on.  Many of them were sold to protties and, as you can imagine being iconoclasts, the results were not good.  Of course, that's how the SSPX ended up with an almost fully furnished church in our diocese, purchasing it through a 3rd party prottie, which I find deliciously ironic.    
(07-14-2009, 02:12 PM)Magnificat Wrote: [ -> ]My issue with this is that this is another example of the way we're throwing away our Catholic history.  I haven't looked at the LA Diocese's budget, but I'm sure eight million to preserve St. Vibiana's wouldn't be such a big deal to find.  A newer, larger cathedral could still have been built and Saint Vibiana's could have been maintained as a parish with some sort of special focus so it could generate enough revenue to support itself.   I work in the nonprofit field and I know that eight million dollars is not so hard to come by  in a town like Los Angeles, especially if you're already a landowner with as much influence as the diocese.   

Agreed and well put.  $8,000,000 is a laughably paltry sum.
Archdiocesan Financial Summary:

$200 million to build an eyesore... er, ah... cathedral?  :inlove:
$600 million for all the priest scandals?  :-[  :truce:



$8 million for St. Vibiana's?    :huh-uh:
Pages: 1 2 3 4