File this under, “what were they thinking in the 1970’s when Catholics transformed splendid Catholic Churches into Protestant churches?”
A parish in Richmond, Indiana before and after it’s unfortunate “renovation” in the 1970s. High altar and side altars removed, confessionals disassembled, marble pulpit and altar rails gone, carpet installed over marble floors. Renewed to bring about the new springtime for the Vatican II Church—NOT!
25 comments:
Dear Father McDonald,
Thank you for posting this sad "timeline in photographs".
Vatican II had four explicit goals:
1. to make Catholics more Catholic,
2. to make Catholic institutions more Catholic,
3. to make all Christians Catholic, and
4. to make non-Christians Catholic.
Perhaps Catholic research universities could ask their social science departments to evaluate the objective indicators to determine the extent to which these fours goals have been realized by the reforms of VCII.
In Christ,
Dialogue
It reminds me of buildings where the tenants are in the final stages of moving out.
These "explicit" goals are not found in the documents of Vatican II.
1. to make Catholics more Catholic,
2. to make Catholic institutions more Catholic,
3. to make all Christians Catholic, and
4. to make non-Christians Catholic.
Where do they come from?
How horrible. No wonder people have been leaving the Church.
When I look at the second photo with the marble floors covered with bland carpeting, artwork removed and the sense of eternal diminished, I remember why, as a young pre-teen I really hated this bunk:
1). Any IDIOT could see that the Church was pandering. The problem was, the panderers didn't even know how to do THAT correctly.
2). The whole aesthetic of post Vatican II art (and theology, thought, catechesis, etc) speaks of a polyester, sansabelt world, where everything is watered-down and moderated. All the men are flabby, middle-aged and balding, all the women are post-menopausal and tired. The culture has no teeth and nobody stands for anything because, deep down everyone "knows" that there are no miracles because...(sigh) there really is no God. There's only community, so let's just try to keep everything comfortable and non-offensive.
That's the Church the old folks gave us. That's the Church we younger old folks didn't fight against. That's the Church that we're stuck with indefinitely.
Tom, you hit the nail on the head. And A@10:53, just think about those who started to leave as they fought they kinds of renovations back in the 60’s and 70’s. There was a lot of anger about it from parishioners and they ended up leaving and that had ramifications for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. It was a though a new form of Christianity was being shoved down the throats of those who did not want it. Others did. And thus we end up with Catholic Light, and a church of good works and socialization, but not much else that anyone else could not do including atheists and agnostics. Maybe that is what we are, agnostic now?
Meanwhile:
The SSPX parish in St Mary’s Kansas is set to build what will be the largest church in Kansas. The design draws inspiration from the Romanesque style, which was dominant in Europe from approximately the 9th to the 13th century. The project, according to the website created to showcase it (discover.anewimmaculata.org), will cost a projected $30 million. This money has already been raised and, notably, 80% of it has come from parish community itself., which currently numbers around 4,000 people. The seating capacity of the new church will be about 1,500; here are some of the architect’s drawings taken from the website.
I am absolutely not going to defend any of this, but maybe I can help explain it.
- A mindset that what is older is unhelpful or no longer has meaning, and so we will "freshen it up." Turn on any of these shows where a restaurant or a home is given a makeover, this is what they say. It's one thing to get rid of something that is worn out or falling apart, but this idea of "updating" is different; it reflects boredom, but also boundless confidence that what is new is certainly better. Anyone who lived through the 60s and 70s knows that this was common throughout the culture, so no surprise it affected the church.
- If you ever saw the movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," the father of the bride has this mania for Windex; he thinks it will help anything. For awhile, that's how people felt about carpeting. Again, this wasn't just in church; lots of houses, with beautiful hardwood floors, got carpeted, only to have the carpet taken up a few decades later.
- After Vatican II it became really important to lots of churchy people (clerics and their lay collaborators) that the altar be "pulled forward" (yes, they used that term, more on that anon); so the altar rail would be partly or completely removed, and a new platform would be erected, with a new altar. Now, it is fair to say that this has some advantages: people can see and even hear better, as amplification is not Windex. However, one big problem is the inherent "ableism" of this mindset; moving the altar "forward" doesn't mean much if you are deaf or blind or very small; another is total disregard for grace: that Mass is meaningful because of my ability to see or hear or "understand." Not that these things have no value, but think about the message you send if you overemphasize them
But I want to hone in on how moving the altar back was deemed moving it "forward": what does this reveal? A complete error about where "forward" is! Before, God and heaven were ahead and we were all headed in that direction; that's what the Church existed to do, was to draw us there in all ways conceivable. But with the changes after Vatican II, our orientation shifted selfward, so that "forward" is not up ahead, anymore, but rather, "right here by ME."
Once again, this was a cultural thing. Does anyone remember what the 70s were called? "The Me Decade."
"- If you ever saw the movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," the father of the bride has this mania for Windex; he thinks it will help anything."
I suspect some, includuing many who post here, suffer under a similar mania. Latin and Ad Orientem will "help anything."
A mania, by any other name, . . . .
Father Fox brings up a lot of good points. Another thing the 70’s was known for was the push to get rid of the traditional Catholic parish priest. One way to deconstruct, reckovate, or modernize the priest, was to do those things to where the priest resides. The places where the priest resides are the church, it’s sanctuary and accompanying rail, and the confessional. As go those, so goes the priest. Successful tactic I think.
Dear Father McDonald,
Anonymous asks me a good question. I believe he'll find the answer to his question in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first constitution produced by the council.
In Christ,
Dialogue
The after photo makes me tired.
Looks like the typical >=1970 chairs gone wild sanctuary. Obligatory "pI-ana" off to the side.
I understand the points made by Fr. Fox however, the part that is difficult to digest with this dumpster fire is the total and complete disregard for the building, its design, its intended usage, the $$$$$ that were spent to create a stunning monument and of significance to me, the people who donated and memorialized those fixtures to families and loved ones. In the blink of an eye, something new had to happen and everything old had to be destroyed.
When I was growing up, my grandmother would take us to visit the churches on Good Friday - 7 in total (at the time, there were 15 in the small city in which she lived, several of which erected a grave on this day). I remember going one year and really being impressed by one with its high altar and raised pulpit. Everything just made you look up and though it was a small church, it somehow seemed quite large. The following year's visit, all gone, totally and completely. The replacement fixtures were minimalist and were really just unremarkable. I've forgotten what happened to the tabernacle but, it was no longer in the center. What a waste.
If you give a shirt as a gift to a sibling, you shouldn't expect to control how that gift is used, what outfits the sibling wears the shirt with, whether the shirt is re-gifted to someone else, or when the sibling decides to throw away the shirt.
If you give a gift to a church with the expectation that it will never be replaced, modified, or repurposed (altar railings made into the bases of altars, for example), then you expectation is off base.
A@9:22, let me get this straight, especially if you are a pastor who has to do capital campaigns. So, you wish to install a new altar and ambo and both together to include the priest's throne cost $500,000. You have a donor who wishes to give the full amount and in cash for all three and in memory of his dear sainted mother. Do you tell him to his face, thank you but more than likely in the future it will be chopped into pieces all three and repurposed for something else?
Latin and 'ad orientem' celebration will not of course solve the myriad problems which beset the Catholic Church. However, it is not maniacal to suggest that both may be of help in that:
1. They represent continuity with a liturgical tradition which dates back at least a millennium and a half.
2. They restore an objectivity which has been sadly lacking in Catholic worship in the past fifty-five years.
3. Regardless of orientation, the use of Latin opens up the treasury of Catholic sacred music which is of inestimable value. It is also not subject to the vagaries of translation which has seen (for example) no fewer that three 'liturgical' English versions of the Gloria in Excelsis in my lifetime.
I don't doubt that many are happy with a worship style and musical tradition which dates only from 1965. They are well catered for. But equally, there are many who are not, and fewer and fewer of them are from the older generation who had experience of the liturgy before 1965. Needless to say, they are inexplicably 'rigid' according to Pope Francis, or 'cultural fascists' who have the temerity to suggest that Palestrina's liturgical music is inherently superior to that of Dan Schutte.
Anon @ 9:22, if I give a gift sponsoring a fixture in a church that is to be consecrated, no, I would not expect marble that is used for the holy sacrifice to wear out requiring replacement, modification, or repurposing.
The only exception to that might be the Pio Laghi posting. While not bad by the standards of the day, I would even then have looked at it as being somewhat out of place wondering how long it would be before someone would want to install something more cohesive. I likely would not have donated to that instance of the cathedral sanctuary.
The Pio Laghi altar replaced an "ironing board altar" used immediately after Vatican II for the 1965 altar. There use to be beautiful wood screens separating the side chapels from the main sanctuary. Some of that is in the Laghi altar's facade. That new altar was on casters and could be moved or re-situated as needed (like for concerts). That would be perfect now as the EF Mass is a weekly celebration and the old high altar could be used instead of the free standing one. However, a later renovation took place, long after I left in 1991 and a new, attached free standing altar was installed that is quite beautiful and matches the facade of the high altar exactly. There is no moving this behemoth. The Laghi altar was moved to the lower chapel replacing a marble altar down there. In the last several months the lower chapel or cathedral has been gutted to make way for a social hall with all the necessities and I have no idea where the Laghi altar is and who paid for it in the first place.
"Anon @ 9:22, if I give a gift sponsoring a fixture in a church that is to be consecrated, no, I would not expect marble that is used for the holy sacrifice to wear out requiring replacement, modification, or repurposing.'
If that is the case, you did not give a gift. You were under the mistaken impression that you bought and paid for something, and that, because you bought and paid for it, your preferneces should override any decisions made by others, including the owner of the property (the bishop) or his representative (the pastor).
This is an all too common notion today among "donors" to churches. It is unfortunate and represents the Consumer Society model that many in our society have become victims of in the last several decades.
Anon @ 3:24, I'm not under any mistaken impressions. I don't assume to take title over something that I sponsor via donation. I do assume that if money is requested for a specific purpose, that it is used for that purpose. Should that not be the case or, the item being sponsored is altered/removed/destroyed for really no good reason, do not come asking for my money again.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+roll+gif&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS855US855&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwil0_Pi_sHtAhV4ElkFHcIfCkYQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1396&bih=783#imgrc=POsjgH9A5KyFhM
Byz - You do make the assumption.
When you say, "Should that not be the case or, the item being sponsored is altered/removed/destroyed for really no good reason,..." you are assuming the right, in perpetuity, to determine if and when said item might be "altered/removed/destroyed."
You do not have that right when you have given a gift. If the money is given to a Catholic church, the pastor, not the donor, has that right, whether you like it or not.
You are utterly free to throw a hissy fit and "Take your ball (money) and go home," but, once you have made a gift or dionation, you have no claim to it in any way, shape, or form.
You are wrong and if a pastor you could be prosecuted. Gifts given to the church for a particular need and marked as so must be used for that purpose, it cannot be used to pay for something else. That's the law, civil law and that should cause you to hide in fear of arrest.
What's being described by anon @ 8:10 sounds like embezzlement. During the annual audit, and assuming checks/balances and managerial oversight are part of the bookkeeping process, how would you explain the mismatch between pledges vs the capital campaign account and the pastor's new hot tub or, new Buick hidden behind the junk in the garage?
When a gift is given for, say, the purchase of a processional cross, and that cross is purchased and used for, say 3.5 years or 35 years, and then the pastor chooses to replace that processional cross with another, the donor of the first cross has no complaint. None.
There is no fraud or embezzlement, as the original donor gave a GIFT, and that gift was used as the donor wished.
A pastor would be a damn fool to accept a "gift" with the provision that what was purchased would never be replaced.
There is no "civil law" that prevents a pastor from replacing liturgical accouterments as he sees fit. None.
Anonymous does have a point. If someone buys an artifact (such as a processional cross) and gives it to his parish church, this reflects the taste of the donor, which is not necessarily the same as that of the parish priest or the parish as a whole. This could apply to something in an abstract post-modernist style as well as to a florid Victorian example.
It is another matter if a family pays for a stained glass window to serve as a lasting memorial (say) to a son who was killed in the Great War. This should not be removed, still less destroyed, if the church is subsequently altered, although it can be relocated.
I know a large church dedicated to S Philip Neri whose interior decoration (1926-1934) was in the Italian Renaissance Style and reflected that of the London Oratory. The marble altar rails were paid for by a wealthy benefactor. In 1994 the sanctuary was 're-ordered' (not insensitively) but following the fashion of the time altar rails were seen as otiose.
Although the benefactor was long dead, the rails which used contrasting colours of Italian marble were deemed of artistic importance and were not destroyed - they serve as kneelers to the front pews. A future renovation could see them restored to their proper position and function - who knows?
Post a Comment