This photo is from the Facebook page, “I’m Fed Up with Ugly Churches.” I don’t think this is particularly ugly and I kind of like it except for.....
...the “ministers of decorations” misplaced decorations! Of course this is at Christmas, but many parishes make the major mistakes that this parish’s ministers have made. The hide and clutter the altar with flowers! NO! NO! NO! NO! You frame the altar to highlight it, not obscure it as in this photo.
And what the H? The Advent Wreathe is front and center and in front of the altar already cluttered with flowers that hide it!!!!! PLEASE!
Apart from all the clutter of flowers and decorations (which is forgivable at Christmas and Easter), there are some missed opportunities in the church to make it look more like a Catholic sanctuary.
Please note the placement of the altar—it is traditional, although free standing placed on a predella three steps higher than everything else. Unfortunately it is placed at the edge of the third step where ad orientem or simply walking around the altar is not possible.
Please note the clever way the tabernacle is placed. It is on a non-intrusive or altar looking shelf. However the lost opportunity here is that the shelf could have the majestic six candlesticks placed upon it that would go a long way in restoring the Catholic look of the Catholic sanctuary.
Anything else that is a lost opportunity?
9 comments:
Although it is extremely common, once I began to think hard about it, I decided it is strange to have chairs for the celebrant and servers would be facing the people, or in this case, turned at an angle. It isn't practical, unless you think the priest should be gazing out at the assembly during Mass; you certainly don't want the young servers doing that, do you? Why shouldn't the ministers' orientation be at least toward the pulpit, if not the altar? What theological rationale is there, that (please note the following important qualification) would be diminished by the celebrant and ministers oriented toward the sanctuary, rather than toward the nave? Having the celebrant and ministers at a 90-degree angle seems the obvious solution, and I have yet to see anyone serious argue why this is bad -- i.e., other than it's too traditional or "I don't like it."
Then, upon studying this picture more closely, I decided what I'm seeing is a celebrant's chair facing the nave straight on, and servers' chairs at an angle. Not a good arrangement.
It also looks like the area on the other side might be for a choir; if so, bad idea: move the choir out of the sanctuary. Few people (including few priests) are really good at being in front of everyone else and not being distracting to them; and some of us are positively tempted to show-boat-ism. Don't tempt people, and don't ask people to be a distraction to others. The role of cantors and choirs is important, but it's not a performance; and lots of sensible, well-intentioned people can unknowingly get drawn into a performance mindset at Mass -- again, this includes priests. (Thus the perennial value of ad orientem.)
The way the paneling and the brickwork were designed behind the altar creates a huge, horizonal line across the sanctuary, and I don't see any good reason for wanting that effect right there (although I suspect it wasn't even a conscious consideration, but I would hope people who design buildings would notice such things). There might be many ways to do it, but I would eliminate that horizonal "line," and replace it with vertical influences. I would get rid of those banners on either side of the crucifix; Banners delenda est! No, I'm exaggerating: but banners are fine in an outside procession, and I can see some possible benefit to them inside the church, but I think they almost always look tacky.
Final observation: the statues mounted on the wall to one side are probably a decent quality, but they remind me of those I've seen in many churches that, unfortunately, do not stand out, but blend in too much. Perhaps there is a way to set them off better; or perhaps they simply need to be replaced. There was a mindset for a time that barely tolerated statues and side shrines in churches, but if they were to be permitted, they had to be as bland and unnoticeable as possible. I disagree and I think most Catholics agree with me on this. Again, maybe there's a good argument for this approach, but I've never seen it. I suspect the argument would be that such shrines "distract" the faithful from the Mass itself, but what evidence is there for this? Has anyone ever actually demonstrated this thesis? This thesis is very condescending and actually ignorant of the faith and instincts of the faithful.
Concerning your objections: that may be a good reason to retain side altars.
I want to like it . . .
The sanctuary has an open, generous feel, but even with the VERY large crucifix, which may be the right size for the entire church building, it seem to lack a focal point. It could be that the flowers interrupt that focus by obscuring the altar.
The placement of the poinsettias and evergreenery seems ho-hum, without much thought. Things get "plopped" down wherever...
The Advent wreath and stand is lost, and the "swaddling" at the base isn't helpful, and possibly not necessary.
Lastly, I'd got for MUCH larger wreaths and hang them MUCH higher on the brick walls
I like the blond wood and how it is placed on the walls. It reminds me of offices I went to or other places in the 1950's. The 1950's was a very innocent time for me and thus it conjures up very positive vibes about what I liked at that time. Ranch homes of the 1950's does the same thing for me and my family, at least my mother and siblings use to love to go and look at these in Atlanta and dream one day of owning one.
I don't like, though the blond wood for the ambo and the altar, although hidden with flowers, seems to blend in to much with the walls as does the ambo to make it almost invisible. This same problem occurs at my parish, St. Anne's where the back wall and the altar and ambo are of the same wood and color. I would have preferred more contrast and maybe marble fixtures rather than wood.
As for the statues, I don't like their placement simply stuck on the wall. There should be designed niches for them. The previous pastor did an excellent job with that with St. Anne's design.
The placement of the chairs can be programmatic. At Saint Anne because of the pews being on all three sides of the altar/sanctuary, the chairs can not be positioned to the side front of the altar. We were able to do this at St. Joseph in Macon and the chairs were clearly angled toward the altar and not the congregation.
At Saint Anne's the chairs are actually angled toward the altar but behind the altar but one could say the priest is facing part of the congregation.
Our Cathedral set up with the bishop's throne is clearly sideways, although there is a photo from the very early 1900's with it angled toward the congregation! The problem at the cathedral is for the priest celebrant's chair which is directly behind the altar and fully confrontational with the nave. I don't now how that can be remedied in that space.
Still just another 1960s modern bus terminal.
Anon@ 11.11AM,
If you are not Gene, and you are probably not, your short, clever 1 sentence comment reminds me of Gene’s past style and humour on this blog.
No, not Gene. My comments are generally longer, but have said so much the same regarding many modern "worship spaces" that am getting lazy.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=114749991945916&set=a.363208473766732
It's the building they have so, with this in mind, I'll simply be objective.
*I'm not a fan of the sedalia/chairs facing the people anaywhere. It seems unnecessary given how all present should be occupying themselves.
*I'm not a fan of the pile of flowers before the altar. Nothing should prevent the priest from accessing the eastern and western sides.
*Side Altars/Shrines. Wholly agree with Fr. Fox's very complete thoughts there.
*True the altar is too near the step. It could be moved back and there certainly appears to be room to do so.
*Swaddling. Do not care for it. Looks like the 'Art and Environment Committee' trying to card-store amp things up that are mostly on the floor and cannot be seen beyond the first 5-7 rows.
*Advent Wreath. Almost always looks like an after thought with many listing to one side from being smashed in the storage closet for the remainder of the year.
*Tabernacle. The shelf is interesting as opposed to pedestal/tower/niche. I would have added marble supports underneath to give it a better sense of presence, rigidity and permanence.
*Banners. Ugh! They always look so cheesy. Agree w/ Fr. MJK, large wreaths would cheer up that wall. Thank goodness there isn't a bow explosion on every pillar and candle holder base.
*I could be wrong, but, the lighting does not appear to be the best. Holy week would be telling as to how well, or ineffective the current lighting is. Probably not in their budget to address. Understandable given the current state of affairs/problems faced by society as well as institutions.
*Saddens me to see on their Facebook page what I'm assuming is the predecessor church. Whether they outgrew the building, it had physical issues that could not practically be addressed etc. isn't made known however, their website might provide some historical insight. I'm sure there were beautiful fixtures that were cast aside by some pastor has he worked so diligently to implement what VII didn't call for.
This church is not my favorite but, it's not that bad either. So often, interior red brick walls look cold, dark and in many instances dirty. Other than around a fireplace or, exposed within a trendy factory condo, I do not care for them as part of a finished interior. The sloped roofline probably ties the church into to other campus buildings.
Well, if nothing else, since the sanctuary seems to be (over)decorated for
Christmas, they should have taken down the Advent banners on the back wall.
Post a Comment