Before and After: The Cathedral of St. Vibiana, Los Angeles
#1
Before  :incense:

[Image: oldvib3.jpg]


After  :(

[Image: brianvibflaunt.jpg]



Quote:When we picture the savior of a Catholic church, the image that comes to mind probably isn't a series of restraining orders followed by a couple of nasty court battles, but that is exactly what it took to save the Cathedral of St. Vibiana, one of Los Angeles' last remaining nineteenth century landmarks, from being torn down by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in 1995. The Archdiocese insisted that the 1994 Northridge earthquake had damaged the cathedral beyond repair, and despite efforts by the Los Angeles Conservancy to prevent demolition, the Church steamed ahead with its plan to tear it down and build a new, modern cathedral complex, without a permit and without the required environmental review. In fact, they got as far as positioning the wrecking ball and actually removing the lantern from the bell tower, when, in literally the final hour, the Conservancy obtained a court order to stop the demolition. The City eventually gave the Archdiocese a larger plot of land to build their new cathedral in exchange for St. Vibiana's. The Conservancy began searching for a buyer, and in 1999, real estate developer Tom Gilmore bought the property and soon began the resurrection and reinvention of an irreplaceable historical landmark.

The rest of the article here:  http://www.balustradeandbitters.com/arch...st-vibiana
Reply
#2
They renovated it for $8 million and the new cathedral cost how much?  Sickening.

I would rather have seen it torn down than put to such a use.  How could they leave the altars intact?  Does Mahony have no sense of propriety or reverence?  I wonder if the altar stones with the relics are still there too. 
Reply
#3
I read elsewhere that her bones were moved, but who knows?  I can't imagine that he expended any more oversight on this than he has in other matters.  It's deplorable.
Reply
#4
(07-13-2009, 03:30 PM)Magnificat Wrote: I read elsewhere that her bones were moved, but who knows? 

Although I didn't pop it open to verify with my own eyes... the downstairs area ("mausoleum floor") of L.A.'s new cathedral [sic] has the sepulcher with St. Vibiana's relics.  Also down there are the stained glass windows from the old cathedral.
Reply
#5
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.
Reply
#6
(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.
+1

Sadly, he is one of many....very sadly  :(
Reply
#7
Just as an aside, in the first pic, doesn't the mensa portion of the altar look awfully short?  Especially for a cathedral?  Maybe it's just the angle.

Of course the altar in the new cathedral looks like an aircraft carrier, so maybe it's one extreme or the other in the City of Angels.
Reply
#8
Flaunt??? What's that supposed to mean? The devil flaunting is evil deeds?
Reply
#9
Yeah, about 3 or 4 years ago there was a nice gay event of some sort there.

Down in the crypt area is the moved remains of St. Vibiana, as has been already said, I didn't peer in there and check....

With Mahoney, it's hard to be sure of anything...
Reply
#10
(07-13-2009, 10:36 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Just as an aside, in the first pic, doesn't the mensa portion of the altar look awfully short?  Especially for a cathedral?  Maybe it's just the angle.

Of course the altar in the new cathedral looks like an aircraft carrier, so maybe it's one extreme or the other in the City of Angels.

The altar is quite small. It looks to be about an 8 foot altar. The whole sanctuary appears to be small as well. It is purposefully so.

Recall that when this cathedral was built, Los Angeles was not a large diocese. In fact, the population of the city was about 12.000. The cathedral could seat about 10 percent of the population.

As the city grew, plenty of parishes were built, but the Cathedral was still a small building by comparison.

I do not like what was built by the Archdiocese (the "Taj Mahoney" Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels) but it is clear that a larger and more fitting cathedral was needed a long time before.

It is detestable that the old cathedral was demolished. It is one thing to demolish an old church to build a grander church. Such happened in Europe countless times. In the place of a quaint and beautiful old church is now a huge, magnificent work of art, the likes of which have rarely be elsewhere seen.

The way it was done in LA, however, shows a wholesale lack of respect for the city (and it's history) and the sacredness of the space.

It is less to lament that the old cathedral was abandoned, sold and (properly) desecrated, for it was not just in need of repair, but was unfittingly small for such a huge archdiocese. Instead, what should be lamented is what the replacement was.

For $200 million, something to rival the Mexico City Cathedral could have been constructed. It would have become a landmark and architectural wonder, not a neo-pagan iconoclast eyesore at which to wonder.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)