Saturday, June 2, 2007

St. Paul, Norwalk

I've been trying to think of something good to say about this mess. Here goes. They left the windows over the sanctuary alone. The vaulting and the statues where the side altars were spared, too. That's about all I can say. The rest is disgraceful.
Whoever is responsible for this deserves a good swift kick in the hindquarters. There's no bloody excuse for this. I understand "Vatican II" directives were blamed. Don't try to shift the blame. I've read the documents of the Council and there's nothing in there to condone this vandalism. The people who touted such nonsense pulled it out of their hats, not out of the Council. Was there a reason to remove the original windows? Why is the crucifix exiled to the choir loft, to be replaced by the "resurrifix", usually a symbol of a parish that has big problems with fidelity? And what was the person who chose that color scheme drinking? What a mess!

Photos by Alex Fries.

2 comments:

Hooda Thunkit said...

Jeffrey,

Please elaborate on the word/term "resurrifix;" my searches have turned up nothing on this.

As for the changes, eclectic is too mild and doesn't quite reflect the depth of the changes.

Abomination might be a more apt reference. . .

Jeffrey Smith said...

I believe a blogging priest may have coined the term. It's a cross with the resurrected Lord attached to it. The Episcopalians and certain "spirit of Vatican II sorts, who like to ignore the Crucifixion like them. They're very common in churches that have questionable fidelity.