Browsing through a 1942 issue of Liturgical Arts Quarterly (LAQ) awhile back, I came upon this photo, taken at Corpus Christi church in New York City. We have already unpacked this photo in another way in a previous article, but I wanted to return to it again, this time taking a slightly different lens. The former article was a commentary on the LAQ writer's presentation of this as "an ideal presentation" and in that regard, it was more intended to be a commentary on stylistic absolutes. Today I wish to focus instead some of the different historical influences we can see at work in this photo. To aid in this process, LAJ has colourized the photo, and while the colourizing isn't 100% accurate, it should assist in identifying the various elements under discussion.
Perhaps before we get started on that discussion though, we should take a broader look at Corpus Christi church. The present church was built in 1930, designed by Thomas Dunn and Frederick E. Gibson. In the church's 'hey day' it looked as follows:
Sadly this doesn't give us a full view of the altar and church, so for that we need to turn to contemporary photos -- though in these you will see that at some point a triptych was installed behind and above the altar (whereas originally it appears to simply have been a dossal curtain). What's more, since the 1970's you will see a lot of the usual re-orderings of the sanctuary, but it will still give you at least a better sense of the broader church buidling.
So with all that in mind, let's return to the photo in question that we wish to discuss. There really are quite a few influences that we find in a photo such as this.
We see a fixed altar, without gradines, attached to the rear sanctuary wall. The altar is set upon a predella. The altar itself is vested in a white antependium. The Mass shown here is a low Mass as is evidenced by not only the absence of the other sacred ministers, but the fact only two of the six candles are lit. The server wears a cassock with plain surplice, while the celebrant wears a gothic cut of chasuble. Standing before the altar, seen on the right of the photo, is a large candlestick (one of what would be a pair) known as candelabra magna). Rising up behind the altar is a dossal curtain in -- if AI colour generation can be trusted -- red and gold. The tabernacle sits centrally on the altar, the altar cross rising up independently behind it. The missal for the Mass sits on a missal cushion.
So with all those basic elements noted, what are the influences seen here?
First and foremost, the overarching feeling of the altar and sanctuary is one of "Romanitas." The large candelabra magnu are features seen in many of the most important basilicas in Rome, and they are thought to have come from Christian antiquity when lights were placed near or around the altar rather than on it. In that regard, it is an element of both Romanitas as well as a nod back toward Christian antiquity.
Continuing on with the influence of Romanitas is the use of a missal cushion (instead of another type of missal stand), the baroque, Italianate style of the altar cross and various candlesticks, the Roman style antepnedium that graces the altar (which employs a very baroque age, floral motif fabric) and also the use of tapered candles (i.e. candles that get smaller as they reach their point at the top) -- the use of tapered candles is something seldom seen but it is mentioned in the official Roman liturgical sources. Each of these elements then show a desire to adopt a distinctly Roman flavour.
The altar itself is a fixed altar rather than a freestanding one, coming out of the approaches taken from the later middle ages onward and which was still the predominant standard at the time this photo would have been taken. The absence of gradines, however, was one of the preoccupations of the twentieth century Liturgical Movement which became concerned that the gradines and retable/reredos had come to predominate the altar itself. In its origins it is no doubt rooted in a historical nod back to the ancient form of freestanding altar (which wouldn't have gradines of course) but for our purposes, the absence of gradines is a clear influence of the Liturgical Movement within this arrangement.
Similarly, rising behind the altar is what appears to be a red/gold dossal curtain -- which likely attached to the canopy above, or close to it. The use of a red or red with gold highlights has, of course, a history in the Church and has often found expression in different centuries, especially in Rome. This particular usage also comes from the later middle ages. The use of such textiles was in fact a nod back to earlier times when the ciborium was veiled. (See The History and Forms of the Christian Altar: The Later Medieval Form for more information). This style of altar arrangement became quite popular within the earlier Liturgical Movement, perhaps in part because of the relative ease by which this could be implemented, and perhaps also arising from the influence of the gothic revival of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In that regard, it too is a product of the influence of the twentieth century Liturgical Movement.
We also see the priest here wearing a "gothic revival" chasuble. It is really the great 'outlier' in this photo, because it is not a particularly well executed chasuble. Putting that aside, here too we again see the influence again, of the gothic revival as well as the Liturgical Movement -- which began promoting the revival of fuller forms of the chasuble. Unfortunately it was a poor attempt as I say, so it sits in disharmony from the good taste that can be seen throughout the rest of the image. It's design is characterized by the sort of blocky, faux primitivism that often characterized the tastes of the mid twentieth century through 1980's.
The surplice of the server and the alb of the priest also are also worth mentioning. These too show the influence of the gothic revival and Liturgical Movement by way of the absence of lace ornament. In the English speaking world particularly, the use of lace became subject to a certain sort of polemic; a symbol, at least to certain minds, of baroque decadence (this despite the fact that the use of lace in this way can actually be found dating back to the middle ages but I digress). So even details as seemingly small as this tell us something about the influences that were at work here.
In summary then, within this photo, we find various strains and influences, rooted in different times and periods, all found within one tiny, tight shot of the altar and sanctuary of Corpus Christi church as it stood at the time it was photographed. Elements of Romanitas, Christian anitquity, the gothic revival, and also the pre-occupations of the twentieth century Liturgical Movement are all on display here.
The key point, however, is that with the exception of the poorly designed chasuble, these elements all work together quite harmoniously and to great effect.
Chasuble aside, there is much here in this photo that is worthy of imitation still today.
-------
Do you like Liturgical Arts Journal's original content? You can help support LAJ in its mission and vision to promote beauty in Catholic worship either by:
You choose the amount. Your support makes all the difference.
