Saint James the Less Church in Savannah’s “new” church build, which replaced a 1950’s a-frame building, was completed in the late 1980’s.
This is its current look:
They are embarking on a major capital campaign to renovate both their “new” church and their aging school building. Their goal is $15 million dollars with over $9 Million already pledged.
This is a rendering of the remodeled “new” church. I like it! I like it! I like it! For Saint James Church in Savannah, more is the Less!
Of course, this is only a rendering. I like the reredos with the tabernacle, but it looks like it has an attached altar to it and a new freestanding altar in front of it and lower. I hope they will reconsider the double altars! The free standing altar must appear to be the only altar. There should not be double altars one in front of the other. Now is the time to rectify that. That’s just my most humble opinion and actual directives from our bishops for churches.
12 comments:
And are those side altars? If so, why?
Through my Eastern, Byzantine Ruthenian lens:
I like this very much. To me, it perfectly captures the Roman ethos that most love, long for and are comforted by.
The reredos is stunning. Positioning and arrangement is, to me, on point particularly how the top of the reredos gracefully and softly touches the bottom of the window. Here, and to me, proportion and balance is in all ways perfect.
I'm generally indifferent to stenciling, but here, it's tasteful, it enhances the expansive sanctuary walls and it eliminates starkness.
Though side altars in NO churches are mostly no longer used as originally intended, these add balance, create devotional/shrine areas and are lower than the true sanctuary perhaps being considered outside of the true holy place. Cathedrals, even new ones, have side altars and shrines. This parish church, being a localized extension of the ordinary's authority and ecclesiastical territory, is to me, simply an extension of this. Last, to the extent the tabernacles will be functional, and there isn't a separate chapel to reserve the blessed sacrament, one easily could become the repository.
To me, the altars of sacrifice and repose do not need to be perfectly even. I perfectly well understand why this might be preferable, I just have never cared for how it looks. One becomes hidden behind the other and it only can be appreciated as being cohesive when the church is empty, and from a distance. Otherwise, and to me, its meaning is mostly lost. Here, I like how one complements the other. I like how the reredos wraps itself around the altar of sacrifice in a way that looks comforting. Each has its distinct purpose and one respects the other.
My only criticisms: the ambo looks meager. Additionally, with all the available space, it seems to unnecessarily crowd the altar. I would make it more substantial and either center it relative to the mural behind it, or craft a tulip pulpit that can sit on the lower level yet allow access without steps from the altar level. Also, the priests chair (sedalia) is unnecessarily large and is covering the mural behind it. I won't win this battle, but, a low sedalia perpendicular to the altar would be more discreet. Note: Not that my opinion counts for much, and excluding the bishop's throne, I don't care for significance being lent to temporary furnishings in ecclesiastical settings.
In my humble opinion, this rendering is very, very well thought out, executed and harmonious. I wish this parish nothing but best wishes. When completed, this will be the Church Triumphant.
Byz - Photographs can distort. I was at St. James for 5 years with Msgr. John Kenneally of happy memory. The sanctuary is rather spacious, even with the installation of a much larger, maybe overly large, altar. (I suspect the desire was to provide ample space for candlesticks.)
The current ceiling is natural wood, which has its own natural beauty. To you this may seem "stark," but there is, I think, great value in natural finishes. Some of the most beautiful church architecture includes natural stone walls. The design company, Conrad Schmitt, has, we joke, a motto: "Leave No Space Unpainted." That would explain the scrollwork on the beams. The natural beauty of wood isn't enough, let's fancy it up with a little gold leaf...
The very dark ceiling will, I fear, counteract the expansive upreach of the architecture. Shrines that do not resemble altars would have been better choices for the sides.
And, while there is harmony within the elements of the proposed additions/changes, these are completely discontinuous with the very contemporary design of the building itself.
ByzRus,
You raise a good point about using the side altars as a repository for the Blessed Sacrament. My parish has the high altar and two side altars, each with a tabernacle. We don't have any other tabernacles. We would be at a bit of a loss what to do on Holy Thursday without those side altars. Even after the wreckovation/white-washing of the '80s, one of the side altars is the usual place for Adoration on Holy Thursday night.
And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration. Bring it on! Images of our parish from before the white-washing showed varying degrees of decoration--at one point it was overdone--but we've settled back to a happy medium between effusive (gaudy?) gold stenciling overwhelming the other sanctuary elements and beige-painted plaster overwhelming the senses with dullness.
Nick
The Cistercian vow of poverty is not related to church decoration. While many plain chapels exist, many that are highly - and I mean HIGHLY - ornate are found all over.
Check out the Cistercian Abbey of Schlierbach or the Cistercian Abbey of Stams or Cistercian Monastery in Jędrzejów. They'll make your mouth - and maybe your eyes - water.
Fr. MJK,
I'll take the bait this time.
I never claimed the Cistercian vow of poverty included church decoration. I'm not sure why you would say so, unless this is a new instance of your pattern of twisting anyone's words to make them agree with you, or at least to force your interlocutor's position into being wrong. It must be that sophisticated seminary education.
I was referring to the long tradition, stemming from the instructions of St. Bernard himself, of simplicity of ornamentation in Cistercian architecture-I am not surprised you are unfamiliar, as this occurred before 1965, and who cares about all that outdated nonsense anyway? That said, a few examples of mind-bogglingly ornate churches do not change the facts of that tradition, which continues to this day, or has been revived. See, e.g., Our Lady of Dallas Abbey.
I think it's a beautiful tradition, but I'm grateful that the Church has never seen fit to officially impose such views on everyday Catholics and even happier that the wrong-headed notions of the "Spirit" of the Council supposedly requiring iconoclastic whitewashing and beige hegemony are on their way out.
Nick
No, of course you did not post: "And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration."
How could I have not read precisely what you posted?
Fr. MJK,
You are jousting with phantoms of your own creation. So long, for now.
Nick
No, Ol' Nick, you're the one parrying and thrusting against your own words...
I read: ""And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration." and I think your words mean, ""And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration.", but I'm the one confused?
Not a chance, bucko, not a chance.
Fr. MJK,
For some reason, you've read what I said to mean, "The Cistercian vow of poverty includes poverty of decoration." Naturally, based on the words I used, I was speaking in a more general sense, as I said nothing specific about Cistercian religious vows--you inserted that meaning. Moreover, I immediately disclaimed your reading and explained it more fully, which did clarify, or at leasty should have clarified, of what I was speaking, i.e., not the Cistercian vow of poverty, but more broadly, a longstanding view of poverty and simplicity in Cistercian spirituality. For some reason, you insisted (and continue to insist) that you could not possibly have misunderstood me.
Of course, I say "for some reason" in the first instance with a strong suspicion that the "reason" is in fact "a new instance of your pattern of twisting anyone's words to make them agree with you, or at least to force your interlocutor's position into being wrong." Why, I'm not sure; giggles? Smugness? To claim intellectual superiority? That, I do not claim to know. In its second use above, my "for some reason" involves a suspicion based on your commenting patterns here that you have an inexorably strong resistance to ever admitting that you might have misunderstood or been wrong on something, however innocently or inconsequentially.
Good day.
Nick
Nick - Please read again what you said: ""And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration." There are no modifiers such as ""And thank goodness we are not "LIKE SOME" Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration." Or, "And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who TEND TO view poverty as including poverty of decoration." Or, ""And thank goodness we are not Trappists or Cistercians, who view poverty as including poverty of decoration IN SOME OF THEIR CHURCHES."
I didn't read anything into what you wrote - I simply read what you wrote. I didn't twist anything, I simply read what you wrote.
Your position was wrong. Cistercians and Trappists, in the past and in the present, do not necessarily connect the vow of poverty with what you term "poverty of decoration."
And then there's the curious notion of "poverty of decoration." We shall have to hear from you on that at another time.
I was able, via Google Maps/Street View, to see the exterior of this church. It's sufficiently neo-whatever you would call that style that, to me, it doesn't clash.
While I like natural finishes, and certainly they are significantly easier to maintain long-term, I do like the now painted ceiling which, to me, serves to better tie together heaven and earth (we have a hymn for that - Nebo i zeml'a).
The current "look" is ok to my eye, it's that tired 90s-2000s grouping of stuff, mix the "pipes" real or faux into the mix, hover the crucifix somewhere, upend what looks like a block and park a squat tabernacle on it.....just stuff plunked down, not placed. Then, my favorite of that era, create a space with gothic-ish features and add Byzantine icons. At least here they have them properly placed from our perspective. I happily give them a point for that.
No one is going to convince me that the current look is the ideal.
Post a Comment