We lived in Atlanta from July of 1956 through March of 1960. We attended St. Anthony Church in Atlanta’s West End. My sister, brother and I also attended the parochial school there. As the youngest I only went there for the first grade, 1959-60 academic year.
The photo of the church above is of that era. I don’t know the occasion of the Mass with so many clergy snd religious sisters.) Our school was staffed by the Sisters of Corondelet.
But please note the following:
This is a Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon.
It appears the bishop is there in choir.
The celebrant is wearing a full cut Gothic chasuble.
The Gospel is being chanted. What is peculiar is that some are standing and others sitting!
Please note that the adjunct clergy are there in the congregation in choir dress. They participate as the laity do. Contrast that with today’s clericalism of concelebration!
This is a more recent photo although the church is now closed undergoing a major renovation/restoration. The parish and neighborhood are completely African American now which was not the case in the 1950’s. Until 1956, the whole state was the Diocese of Savannah-Atlanta. Atlanta had a small number of parishes and schools. Apart from Immaculate Conception and Sacred Heart downtown, I suspect St. Anthony's is the third oldest in the Archdiocese now.
In the 1950's and early 60's Atlanta was a segregated society and the West End was all white, the heritage of the pre-Civil war period and slavery!
This is the renovation/restoration video. It is a cartoon, but it does not appear to be a wreckovation, although the altar railing is not restored. I hope there will be some embellishments/art and the statues returned. Oddly, what I remember from the first grade was a statue of St. Lucy tucked away with her holding her eyes on a plate, although she had eyes in the statue.
26 comments:
Whoa... that's a LOT of rose paint in the sanctuary...
Re: St. Lucy's eyes... In most representations I see of St. Denis of Paris, he is holding his severed head in his hands, but the halo stays perched on his shoulders. I wonder if there's a theological reason for that...
No veils (apart from the nuns), but women's heads are still covered - with hats.
The Cathedral has St. Denis as you describe in the procession of saints, he's closest to the altar on the right side as you process with the saints.
Just an aside in the late 70's and early 80's Atlanta and the nation was in the grip of the Atlanta child murders (black children). That all happened in the area of St. Anthony's and one of the children murdered was a member of St. Anthony's and his funeral was there. It made national news, the funeral, and I think there is a news clip video somewhere. As you will recall, the man who was charged and convicted to this day maintains his innocence.
Fr. MJK,
I'm a bit pressed for time and cannot research but, I believe your hunch is generally on point, Fr. Saints are depicted with symbols/things that contributed to their canonization (Western Church), and glorification (Easter Church). Iconography has norms, not so much codified rules that will have certain things, like a halo, in the same place in about all depictions. Wrench in the gears, the linked depiction of St. Denis of Paris has the halo moving with his head. To me, Western imagery will tend to depict "action" while Eastern imagery will depict a perfected state with imagery germane to the saint's life surrounding.
St. Lucy, based on a quick Google search varies in terms of depiction. Some have her eyes open yet, eyes on a tray; others have her eyes closed with eyes on a tray. A third variation has her eyes closed, some blood droplets running down her cheek and eyes on a tray. A forth, bandaged eyes with eyes on a tray. Fortunately, I didn't see any with empty eye sockets as that would seem to be rather gory for an individual that has achieved glorification, at least from an Eastern perspective.
https://www.discoverwalks.com/blog/8-facts-about-saint-denis-of-paris/
A@9:48: Women of this period had many options in terms of head coverings and yes, all women has some type. Hats were quite common and their usage for women as a part of the style of that period was very common too, apart from religious purposes. Or they could have used a fancy full veil. Or they could have used something that simply covered the top of their head and was clipped on. Some women, forgetting their head covering, would pin a handkerchief to the top of their head or even a Kleenex.
As for some standing and some seated, it appears to be some manner of blessing being imparted, perhaps to those moving on to the next level of school or leaving for a retreat, etc.
“ Some women, forgetting their head covering, would pin a handkerchief to the top of their head or even a Kleenex.”
When you think about it, how ridiculous is that? We actually expected women to balance a Kleenex paper tissue on their heads while in church. Totally crazy and not reverent at all!
Not ridiculous at all doh doh head. They bobby penned it on. And yes, I am a witness to history on all of this.
Miss Marple, you need to climb back in your detective fiction universe if you think covering the head with whatever one might have handy shows disrespect. An idea likely totally foreign to you is obviously that of modesty, as shown by your useless and insulting post only posted to exhibit just how clever you are not.
Miss Marple, Jews cover their heads at prayer, when reading the Torah, imparting blessings, as a sign of respect. This shifted in western culture where for males an uncovered head was seen as baring the neck in vulnerability to the pleasure of a lord to do as he pleased.
Try learning a little history to prevent future instances of illustrated ignorance, and until then, remember as the ancient philosphers said, a closed mouth gathers no foot.
That is in a rough area of town---you would not want to walk around at night in the general area. But there is hope---the Atlanta Beltline (old, abandoned rail lines converted into walking and biking trails) is being built in West End and new housing has gone up---there is even talk of redeveloping the old mall there. Some of the decay may have been due to construction of Interstate 20 thru there in the mid 1960s, which some say was to be the boundary between the then-mostly white southside of Atlanta and the black neighborhoods to the north around Atlanta University. Unfortunately a lot of Atlanta's interstates tore thru low-income, black areas. In contrast, expressways mostly go around Augusta (20 and 520), though the John Calhoun Expressway is something of an eyesore as it was built thru Augusta's Harrisburg area about 50 years ago and ends almost right in front of Augusta's old Sacred Heart Church. The expressway has to be one of the shortest in the world, about two and a half miles long---or short! Thankfully downtown Savannah is not bisected by expressways, though Interstate 16 abruptly ends at the western edge, right after the exit for the big bridge over the river.
The bishop in choir dress may have been Francis Hyland, the first bishop of Atlanta, whose tenure was short, 5 years, in fact only 60 when he retired in ill health. He was the auxilary bishop for the entire state between 1949 and 1956 as Bishop O'Hara, the state's ordinary, often was out of the country in those days with other duties, like papal nuncio to Ireland and Romania.
I guess there were no concelebrations in those days (pre-Vatican 2)? Tell me more about that. I tend to share your views on that---altars look cluttered when there are dozens of priests around it
Anonymous at 4.31pm,
Brilliant, well done!
And thank you...
Pope Paul VI was not Magisterial on Vatican Council II since he used the false premise instead of the rational alternative.For more eread the blog Eucharistandmission where Lionel Andrades promote the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the fake premise.
Since Vatican Council II is interpret with the fake premise by the popes Reign of Christ the King in national politics, it said that there is a developnment of doctrine, meaning Vatican Council II interpeted with the false premise has made extra ecclesiam nulla salus obsolete and so every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
Pope Paul VI was not Magisterial on Vatican Council II since he did not interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only hypothetical, speculative and theoretical.So there was nothing in the Council-text to emerge as practical exceptions to EENS.Paul VI's premise was false and so was his reasoning in a rupture between faith and reason.
Cstholics are not obliged to interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.
At Vatican Council II (1965) Cushing, Rahner and Ratzinger made an objective mistake when they approved the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The LOHO states that it is not always necessary for a person to be a member of the Catholic Church, contradicting the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Tradition.LOHO wrongly projected unknown cass of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known and practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This was irrational but the error was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII.So St.Pope Paul VI was not even Magisterial on EENS. How could the Holy Spirit make and objective mistake ?
Pope Francis needs to correct and error and announce that Magisterial documents (Creeds, Catechisms, Vatican Council II, Athanasius Creed etc) must be interpreted with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.Pope Paul VI's interpretation of Vatican Council II was unethical and deceptive.It is not binding on Catholics.
Anonymous 4:31 - Well, I guess THAT makes everything crystal clear....
A@4:38pm there is no concelebration in the Tridentine Mass, except for newly ordained priests at their ordination vo celebrating with the bishop.
I recall a shopping center with Sears. In fact we purchased our uniforms there. There was a small public library close to the school too where I learned how to check out books. To the left of the school was a public playground which we used. It was a safe fun neighborhood then.
I would guess anon431AM is not a native English speaker and was trying to get across points more as what I would expect from more rabid SSPX types, where nothing has been valid since Trent or somesuch.
Personally, it seems as if the ideas put forth are only more internet echo chamber repetition, a cut and paste of someone else who might actually know enough to be dangerous.
Being old enough to remember Vatican II, and what followed, it definitely was a council, and a grand one at that, likely the grandest in all of history, and it may have been misused to the point of disaster by media and bishops/theologians playing to that media to excuse their own personal excesses or worse, but it was about as real a council as one could ever be.
The anon431 author seems to think all it takes is a few law quotes to undo what popes and councils say, but seeing as how those quotes have zero effect in accomplishing the undoing, he is wasting his time unless wanting to form his own splinter church on the protestant model. Or come up with a lot more than a few legal citations if he wants to get anyone else aboard what he thinks is the one true Church.
'The parish and neighborhood are completely African-American now which was not the case in the 1950s.'
So there's segregation now, but there wasn't then? Perhaps the authorities should consider bussing Whites in.
John Nolan,
LOL!
John, there is a huge difference, prior to desegregation, blacks would not be permitted to move into a white neighborhood. It was forbidden by law. And there were whites only signs on businesses. Movie theaters were segregated and if blacks were allowed into a movie, they sat in the balcony area. There were segregated water fountains. And in diners, there were segregated areas for blacks. On the bus, blacks sat at the back of the bus and if more whites entered, the moveable sing remarking where whites ended and blacks began was pushed back forcing the blacks to stand not the whites.
Today the West End of Atlanta is all black due to white flight and their choice to leave. They were not required to stay.
I do know about the 'Jim Crow' laws. But whether it's legally enforced segregation or self-segregation, it's still segregation.
Conversely, black towns and black parts of town had their own thriving economies entire, own cadres of dedicated doctors, lawyers, teachers, movie theaters, churches, barbershops and hair dressers, clubs and bars, clothing merchants, food stores, ice cream parlors and skating rinks etc etc etc...
with desegregation and the coming of shopping malls, all of that crashed and burned nearly overnight as customers and trade deserted them, and what were prosperous districts decayed into abject poverty of rusting marquees, crumbling masonry and broken windows in record time and has stayed that way ever since.
I still remember those gaily lit and safe for anybody districts where now I would not travel through them in broad daylight for fear of a breakdown. The same could be said of Harlem NYC then and now.
Anon at 3.54,
Very interesting. Thanks for that contribution.
I did not write of memories of black districts being THE districts for good food and great music in defense of segregation, which segregation I protested against as a youth.
But only wanted to point out it had serious downsides. This includes the disintegration of public schools and the disasterous economic collapse of the black business sector with both entering a downward spiral which has yet to slow.
To me, after desegregation, the militant blacks took over the culture, rejecting everything in the surrounding cultures as "white", with an adamant refusal to participate, and closed in on themselves celebrating only what they saw as black, which does not cut it in a competitive world, also rejecting what was good as to own culture and music they saw tainted with whiteness and even out went Christmas and in came an invented Kwanza.
Today, all over NYC there are small schools nearly every block with little children in uniforms, funded by taxes, where all they are taught is black pride and how oppressed they are by the culture. They graduate utterly illiterate and unable to get any but the most menial job but where those who get involved in crime prosper and so no suprise what "job" so many of them elect to persue.
To me, they have self destructed even after desegregation and affirmative action giving them preference in hiring and school admissions while still blaming everyone else for woes.
Such is the BLM movement which comes from a place of true entitlement where entitlement so ingrained in the culture over the last 50yrs that since this has not been enough, what we need now is socialism to guarantee the entitlement. What is really sad is they are not even a true minority anymore, and they see competition for those dollars from true minorities such as latinos and asians, and why the black violence directed at them.
And with the public schools catering to lowest common denominator, now the entire country has entered that same downward spiral, regardless of race.
@1:10PM Seriously? Do you realize the absolutely HORRIFIC treatment that any non-European descendant has endured in this country? Native American Indians were murdered and their lands taken from them. They are on reservations to this day. No human being should be considered the property of another, yet Africans were brought here against their will and enslaved. They were treated worse than animals - beaten and killed using methods that make crucifixion look like a good time, not allowed to learn to read or have an opinion, and literally told that they were not human. The slave owners believed that it was their "God given" right to own slaves. Asians were prohibited from becoming American citizens in the past. And in the most recent past, the American government has conducted experiments on its own citizens that should make us nauseous. If you were black, (and I can tell that you're not by the way you phrase your statements, i.e. "...violence directed at them."), you would most likely have issues with the history of your race as well. I'm not black either. But knowing how blacks, Asians and Native American Indians have been treated in this country is appalling. How do we make it right? Certainly NOT by continuing the racism that is exhibited in your last paragraph: "Such is the BLM movement which comes from a place of true entitlement where entitlement so ingrained in the culture over the last 50yrs that since this has not been enough, what we need now is socialism to guarantee the entitlement. What is really sad is they are not even a true minority anymore, and they see competition for those dollars from true minorities such as latinos and asians, and why the black violence directed at them."
Post a Comment