This is a Latin Mass in the Modern Form from St.Anne Church in Gilbert, Arizona, near Phoenix.
I absolutely love the Church and everything is done very well. I like, in particular, how the tabernacle is situated on a kind of wall-reredos and clearly not a competing altar with the free standing one. The free standing altar could use an improvement, but as is, not bad at all. The Benedictine altar arrangement has the right size candles and crucifix that doesn’t overwhelm or block the sight of the priest.
I love the artwork and the placement of the liturgical furnishings and the artwork is spectacular.
Folks, we need to go this route with the Latin Mass and the reverence of the TLM. This is the way to go.
This Mass could have used the help of a small schola or at least a separate cantor. But very nice to say the least:
13 comments:
Am I seeing a change in the image above the tabernacle from the first pic to the video?
Father McDonald,
The parish website indicates this parish has a Sunday TLM and TLMs during the week. So there is peaceful co-existence there at least. The Roche would not be pleased
Interesting that he celebrated versus populum because generally the Canon at least is celebrated ad orientem in most Latin Novus Ordo masses I have been to even more so since this parish offers the TlM
They are. I had noticed in one photo, maybe not the ones I selected that the image seem furled at the bottom, as though it had been rolled up. So these must be some kind of tapestry or painted cloth that can be removed for liturgical seasons. if they are, they are magnificent. Would love to know how much these cost. The side panels, though, look permanent to me.
I like the concept, not as much the execution. To me, it's cohesive at a quick glance, not as much when studied more closely.
The ambry is to be locked/secured. Glass doors are really not permitted, however, the reason why escapes me. I had thought this practice was corrected.
The sanctuary lamp being directly over the ambry is confusing, at least to me.
The "reredos" shouldn't be a place to put things if there is an intended formal/liturgical purpose. It would seem their is given the location of the tabernacle. One of the tables should be used for the book and stand.
The furniture and art, to me, is dissonant. The reredos base material and the back wall bricks are too casual relative to the the formal columns and capitals rising above. The low block-like tabernacle is a clash relative to the arches. The tabernacle is the "dwelling place". As such, it would have been more cohesive, part-to-whole, if the tabernacle here was complimentary to the arch theme which appears dominant. A taller tabernacle would, of course, interfere with the art work/iconography hanging behind it. If mine to design, the art work would be subordinate to the principal furnishings.
The altar table and ambo are not my taste and I do not understand how they correlate with the columns. The styles are too dissimilar. The wooden furnishings are too casual for the style the building is attempting to achieve. Again, to me, they look like afterthoughts, or, a concession to the budget. Certainly, the baptismal font picks up nothing thematically from anything nearby.
I'm not familiar with Roman theology on the subject, but, in the East, baptisms occur in the nave as part of the process of an infant, or convert, being churched.
The credence tables, we call the one on the left the proskomedia table (table of preparation), look temporary and out of place particularly particularly as they crowding the place of reservation.
I don't care for the dark candle holders on the reredos. In the Byzantine Church and the former Roman books, they are funerial. The more ornate candles/crucifix/cloth on the altar, to me, clashes with the more informal look of the fixture itself. These again clash with the very informal candle holders flanking the ambo.
I don't mind the plants, however, I've never cared for their sometimes liberal use in Roman churches. I don't understand their purpose other than less expensive decoration that will hopefully last.
I cannot see well enough the iconography to determine authenticity - if they are true icons, or, are icon-like. From a distance, they look authentic. That aside, the West has a lengthy history both artistically and liturgically and should embrace that tradition. Often, Roman parishes borrow iconography in a quest for said authenticity (this phenomenon gained traction in the '90s). In the Byzantine Church, icon placement isn't random. I'm therefore not following what they are trying to achieve. In other words, if Roman parishes are going to borrow Eastern iconography, they shouldn't be mere decorations, they should be reflective of Eastern praxis else they become decorations.
Ok. Was able to blow this up a bit so I can see it. The central icon on the video, the Pantocrator Icon, is in its proper place. One down!
I'll also and partially walk back my critique of the tabernacle. Again, with the benefit of the video fully expanded, the tabernacle is slightly domed on its top. In the photo, it appeared to simply be rectangular. The proportion still seems off to me. To have spent all the time, money and likely paying a "designer".... in liturgical arts, never go low, always give people a reason to elevate their gaze.
What I didn't notice in the photo, the chairs in that side shrine. Seriously, a chair lineup before the icon?? Here, the icon has been lessened to decoration. Sorry, a fail for me. Hopefully, someone gives it back its dignity at some point. My first day assigned to that parish, half of that chair marathon would be history. It's not holy week and it's just superfluous clutter.
Regarding the ambry: "Official norms regarding the storage of the holy oils are somewhat scant. The Rite of the Blessing of Oils and Consecrating the Chrism 27-28 indicates that in the sacristy after the Chrism Mass the bishop may instruct the presbyters about the reverent use and safe custody of the holy oils."
"The visible display of the holy oils, by means of a grille of a transparent door, does not seem to present a particular problem and in some cases serves to avoid exchanging an ambry for a tabernacle. If the door is opaque it should usually have an indication either near or upon it saying "Holy oils."
- Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Regarding the ambry: "Official norms regarding the storage of the holy oils are somewhat scant. The Rite of the Blessing of Oils and Consecrating the Chrism 27-28 indicates that in the sacristy after the Chrism Mass the bishop may instruct the presbyters about the reverent use and safe custody of the holy oils."
"The visible display of the holy oils, by means of a grille of a transparent door, does not seem to present a particular problem and in some cases serves to avoid exchanging an ambry for a tabernacle. If the door is opaque it should usually have an indication either near or upon it saying "Holy oils."
- Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
What I should have done in the first place, I Googled this parish and saw additional photos.
https://www.google.com/search?q=St.Anne+Church+in+Gilbert%2C+Arizona&rlz=1C2CHBF_enUS855US855&source=hp&ei=C5vyY5XVAaGfptQP5aigsAo&iflsig=AK50M_UAAAAAY_KpG5RMcPOkYyfIHKuzAhbhpnYmglhG&ved=0ahUKEwjVhpTyyaL9AhWhj4kEHWUUCKYQ4dUDCAo&uact=5&oq=St.Anne+Church+in+Gilbert%2C+Arizona&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yCQgAEBYQHhDxBDIGCAAQFhAeMggIABAWEB4QClAAWABghgZoAHAAeACAAU6IAU6SAQExmAEAoAECoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz
What to say, they have options galore regarding their tapestries (if that's what they are). Lighting as well.
Icons are written, not painted. They are written as they portray sacred scripture. Why ever would one cover over the word of God so you can hang wreaths during Christmas? My conclusion:
they're not serious about their iconography and the veneration thereof, they are simply decorations.
Byz- That, or they do not share your particular understanding of the "proper" use and purpose of iconography. They might be entirely serious about the iconography, but not in the way you are.
Fr. MJK,
I got you and understand your perspective however, you are approaching this from a Western perspective, which is ok, it's your point of reference.
While this parish is free to employ iconography, their usage is analogous to appropriation. Icons, formerly unique to the East, are part of the liturgy and are acknowledged as such. During the Great Incensation, the priest, following a specific ordering, incenses the holy place, the iconostas and the temple itself. During our various liturgies, the priest stands before the iconostas, and opens and closes the central Royal Doors at specific time. Clergy and laity venerate the icons in a certain way and order when entering and leaving the temple. Nothing is random.
Given the above, and to not follow usage per the tradition, doesn't reduce their dignity (however all the chairs in the one side shrine certainly does not encourage veneration), it does reduce their purpose to decoration.
Byz - Yes and no.
Yes, the usage is not the same as in Eastern churches. No, they are not reduced to mere decorations. The images - statues - found in most western Catholic churches, while decorative, also have a dignity a purpose that some other decorative item would not have. The statue's space could be filled with a decorative flower arrangement, as the niches in the walls of the lobby of the grand foyer of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York are. These are filled with enormous fresh flowers regularly, thanks to a grant for that specific purpose given by Lila Acheson Wallace, heir to Readers Digest fortune.
Post a Comment