This is extremely well done. If I am not mistaken, the new reredos does not contain a second altar behind the actual altar! Kudos! And it appears to me that the Mass can be celebrated facing either way, except those doggone flowers would have to be removed for ad orientem. Please! No flowers in front of the altar! What are you trying to hide?
Before and After: St. Andrew’s Church in Tipton, Missouri
19 comments:
Bit too fussy for my liking:
1. Angels either side of the redos are kitsch.
2. The old lectern was more in keeping with the design scheme than the new wannabe round pulpit on stilts.
3. If you’re going to position the big six on the redos which is a valid option then you don’t need the same on the actual altar, it’s over-kill,
I wish I had stock in the company that makes scroll work stencils.....
Glorious Sanctuary worthy of the TLM
I quite like it, though there are some elements I'd rather not have. It's fitting that a Catholic church be ornamented (just look at Eastern Catholic churches!), and especially nowadays, when architecture and furnishings in many other applications lean mostly to the stark post-modern, it's a good contrast.
Nick
Looks great. The old way was quite vanilla. What a difference.
B Benny - There is a guiding notion among traditionalists: "If we did it in the 40's..." - and that can be the 1940's, the 1840's, or the 1740's -... "If we did it in the 40's it was faultless; therefore, we should do it today."
This applies to many things, including the interior decoration of churches.
You comment about the pulpit on stilts obtains here. Pulpits were "on stilts" in the 40's because churches built in the 1840's didn't have sound systems and an elevated pulpit helped project the human voice. I would guess there was also curved a "preaching shell" or "preaching board" above the pulpit which also aided the projections of the preacher's voice.
As with the kneeling angels and the extensive stencil work (I'll bet Conrad Schmitt Studios was involved), the "Take Me Back to the 40's" notion comes to life.
Of course, some prefer the 1970’s Calvinist look for Catholic churches.
Father K, I don't understand, is there a problem with stencil work? I think it looks nice. The blasé appearance of the neutral walls and very average grape and wheat (stencil drawing?) leave me uninspired. Bishop Barron talks about the beauty and the excitement of bringing friends in to show off a beautiful church. I would think the make over would have a greater effect than the neutral one.
Fr K,
Fair enough if the church is of that era and such design features are authentic.
I actually quite like this renovation but the pulpit with statuettes and kneeling angels are terribly kitsch. It’s a shame they didn’t keep the original lectern which complemented the altar.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - Well, if you knew what you were talking about, I'd respond,
Since you don't, maybe you'll take a gander at these Calvinist/Reformed churches. There are some that are extremely plain, like the chapel at Our Lady of the Holy Spirit monastery in Conyers.
But.... there are not a few that are highly decorated.
Check out:
Brick Presbyterian Church NYC (Oooooh, stenciling on the ceilings!)
St. Giles Cathedral, Glasgow (Ooooooh, look at that stained glass, and those elaborate floors!)
East Liberty Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh (Oooooh, they've got a reredos you would DIE for! And stained glass!)
St. Stephen Presbyterian Church, Ft. Worth (Oooooh, is that a cross covered with violet cloth for Lent?)
Of course, some prefer the 1970’s Calvinist look for Catholic churches.
I think we all recognise there were some unsuccessful attempts at reordering our churches post V2 but catholicity is universal and not associated with any particular look. Modern architecture and contemporary design can also be truly beautiful and encompass noble simplicity worthy of our faith.
I agree that the older pulpit would have been better; the new one is too big and tall and more than likely obscure the altar for some in the congregation. I agree too that the angels need not have been placed where they are as they tend to clutter a small space and are somewhat too big too. Finally, I am not a fan of painted statues on the main reredos, unless it is just the crucifix. I think statues should be for side chapels Just my two cents.
Wow, I am glad you like Calvinist architecture for these churches that predate the 1970’s! Wow! Progress. Now if we can get you to move from your 1970’s Catholic tastes to pre-1970’s Calvinist tastes, you will have made progress. Kudos.
Fr. MJK,
You know not of what you speak, or you choose to universalize the views of the few.
For example, a parish in my diocese recently renovated, including beautifying the interior. It was mostly white-washed in the 1980s, unfortunately. Much was done to add something more fitting for the church's Gothic Revival architecture, including an altar rail and yes, stenciling. Conrad Schmitt was not involved, which should please you. But the look of the 1940s was avoided on what amounted to a shockingly-near-unanimous view of the parishioners, including the traditionalists among us.
Nick
Well, I'm glad there's something Calvinists and traditionalists have in common then.
Fr. AJM,
It is clear: Calvinist 1940s architecture, okay; Catholic 1940s architecture, no. Much better to take us back to the 1970s, by Vatican decree if necessary.
Nick
B. Benny - Yes, there is no "Catholic" look in terms of church architecture or decor. Many folks say "This is what a Catholic church should (must) look like, If yours doesn't, it's not a Catholic church." Or, "This is what is beautiful. If you church doesn't have stencil work galore, an ornately carved reredos that fills the apse, intricate mosaic floors, polychrome statues populating the sanctuary, etc., then your church is not beautiful."
qwik - Stencil work in general has it place. In this example, I think it is vastly overused. There is a joke among clergy (and others) about Conrad Schmitt Studios. Their motto is ""Leave No Space Unstencilled." They did the renovations of our cathedral in 1998-2000 and had planned for far more stencil work on the walls - about twice as much as we got. There was also a plan to paint the entire ceiling dark blue and festoon it with stars. But the rector overrode those plans.
The bigger issue is this: Traditionalists think that by making churches look like they did in the 40's - and that can be the 1940's, the 1840's, or the 1740's - then that will recreate the Catholic ethos and zeitgeist of the 40's. This is based on the false assertion that the changes in the liturgy and decor led to the drop in attendance at mass and the practice of the Catholic faith overall. That's not what happened.
The old wasn't bad, just out of proportion and too many pieces. I don't really care for the blocky shape of the ambo.
The new is glorious and I think the pulpit though a touch big, it works.
The adoring angels are traditional, and I don't think the 1970's intended to free us from adoration, look like afterthoughts on those tables. They should have been integrated into the reredos somehow.
Color scheme is nice, and I like the stenciling this time. This building is of a size that it can handle what's been applied without looking busy. This is cohesive.
Fr K, agree dark blue ceilings with stars are a big turn off.
I see, so some stencil is okay but not too much, And beauty is subjective. Additionally don’t push your idea of beauty on others. I personally don’t like baroque or rococo or anything overly ornate but this looks miles better than the non design that it was. Not that the other Chased any one away, it’s just that it wouldn’t attract anyone. Liturgy uses all the senses and the former leaves one wanting. The later checks the visual box.
Post a Comment