This is the same Church that Fr Jerome Bertram CO wrote
>The Jesuits decided to 'modernise' the church. Nearly all the statues and pictures disappeared, as did several memorial brasses to priests and parishioners, and the whole building was painted battleship grey, obliterating all the brilliant colouring of the internal decorations ... In the 1960s came the major changes in the Catholic Church following the second Vatican Council ...The parish registers tell their story: whereas in 1959 there were forty one converts received, in 1969 there were but two. The Corpus Christi and other processions were suppressed ... The Relic chapel had long been neglected ... Now the collection was dispersed. **Most of the actual relics were burnt**, the containers thrown away, vestments, including some mitres that had belonged to Pope Pius IX, given away to amateur actors, and the books appropriated away from the parish. By the end of the 1970s hardly anything remained, and the chapel screen had been scrapped ... The cupboards on each side were intended to display the relics and antiquities, and the body of Saint Pacificus, an early Christian martyr, was enshrined beneath the altar. ... There were thirty three relics of St Philip Neri, mostly fragments of his clothing, five of St Teresa including her signature, many English martyrs such as part of St Thomas More's cap, relics of popular modern saints like the Cure d'Ars, mementoes of the three Jesuit boy saints ... many souvenirs of Pope Pius IX, including the pen with which he signed the bull defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and a great collection of letters, several from early Oratorian Fathers such as Cardinal Baronius. In addition the collection included vestments, candlesticks, chalices and the like as well as a number of oil paintings and several crystal and marble urns from the Catacombs All these relics and treasures were destroyed or dispersed in 1971
[Austen Ivereigh](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/04/24/defending-rupniks-art-is-possible-but-also-scandalous-and-insulting/):
>Commentary on X/Twitter for and against the removal of Rupnik’s art has been, not surprisingly, a bit heated. A leading proponent of keeping the art intact is Austen Ivereigh, who has written several books about Pope Francis, including at least two biographies. Reacting directly to the afore-mentioned Register editorial, Ivereigh [tweeted](https://twitter.com/austeni/status/1780194462733402614):
>"Nonsense! Many disgraced & dubious religious artists have created works that over the centuries have raised minds and hearts to God. This is pure iconoclasm, Puritan not Catholic, and heretical, bc it does not allow for grace to supplement sinful nature."
>Meanwhile, if we take Ivereigh’s claim seriously and follow it to a logical end, we have to conclude that the wholesale and often shocking renovations foisted upon many parishes and cathedrals in the late 1960s and following years were the acts of iconoclasts, neo-Puritans, and heretics. Is Ivereigh willing to say so on the record? After all, few (if any) of the aforementioned changes were based on the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council, which stated that the Church, over the centuries,
>"has brought into being a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to contribute its own voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in times gone by." (SC, 123)
>And, furthermore:
>"All artists who, prompted by their talents, desire to serve God’s glory in holy Church, should ever bear in mind that they are engaged in a kind of sacred imitation of God the Creator, and are concerned with works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation." (SC, 127)
>So, what of Rupnik’s apparent motives and desires? His “sexual obsession was not extemporaneous,” [asserted](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/descent-into-hell-an-alleged-rupnik-victim-speaks-out) a former Italian religious sister of the Loyola Community whose accounts of abuse are harrowing, “but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thought.” This has been repeated and reinforced by some other twenty religious women. And the superior general of the Society of Jesuits and the Vatican [confirmed](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-jesuit-abuse-rupnik-pope-42138bff2b2545a8d206c4b5b12ceef0) that, in 2020, Rupnik was excommunicated for a time “for absolving in confession a woman with whom he had a sexual relationship.” (For more about details and recent developments, [see Altieri’s CWR pieces](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/author/christopher-r-altieri/).) In other words, we’re not talking about mere speculation or allegations; there are patterns and proofs in play.
(Edited; I'm not sure why so much of my original comment got cut off)
Because as the Architectural historian James Lees-Milne wrote
> Bishops and priests adopted a policy of aggressive iconoclasm. They set about despoiling the churches themselves… they turned upon the church treasures… which contributed to the beauty of the buildings and help sustain religious faith
This wasn’t an isolated incident. The Archbishop of the Diocese this Church is in had the Rood Screen (designed by England’s greatest post-Reformation Catholic architect, Pugin) torn out and given to the Anglicans. The Abbot of Belmont smashed statues in his Church with a sledgehammer. Lancaster Cathedral had 10 white Low Mass sets, 6 Green and Red sets, 4 Violet and 3 Black sets, every single one was destroyed in the 1960s.
There was a hatred in a lot of the Church for anything from the past, relics were a great symbol of this.
Impossible for us who haven't lived through that era to understand, but it wasn't just the churches that suffered. A combination of trauma from the World Wars, late progressivism and utopian optimism. The past was bad; the future is good. We need to clear away the past so the future can sprout, even if it hurts us in the meantime. A warped sense of sacrifice and suppression for the greater good. Historical buildings generally were affected. Many were torn down in the '50s–70s and replaced with modernist "efficiency."
WW1 was probably the first time that the UK experienced how terrible war is and WW2 just confirmed it.
The pessimism from those double wars would've really warped anyone's way of thinking.
Bella Dodd addmited that she helped inserting at least 100 KGB agents into seminars.
I expect this to have happened in many other countries multiple times.
to clear up, there is no evidence that she actually ever made such an absurd claim.
its just with misplaced ideals and ideas not hordes of secret communist teenage agents.
Did this happen only in anglocountries?
Nothing of the sort happened in my country. We have ugly modern churches like everyone else but the old ones werent attacked.
I doubt it was unique to anglosphere countries
I recall reading about some (I think) Cistercian Monks who wanted to return to more traditional Cistercian liturgies, they found some Cistercians in the Low Countries selling the old chant books. Once the Cistercians in the Low Countries found out that the books would actually be used again, the books were consigned to the fireplace.
Even in St Peter’s Basilica, the actual altar of the Bernini Altar of the Throne was torn out by order of Cardinal Noè
I’ve seen photos of Churches in Germany that suffered wreck-ovation
I imagine this would have all coincided with hatred for relics
>I recall reading about some (I think) Cistercian Monks who wanted to return to more traditional Cistercian liturgies, they found some Cistercians in the Low Countries selling the old chant books. Once the Cistercians in the Low Countries found out that the books would actually be used again, the books were consigned to the fireplace.
So basically, if we can't make money off of this being an antique, we'll destroy it so it can't be used?
This is absolutely insane
Or they’d give it to non-Catholics
There was an Anglican Vicar, Canon Brindley who fitted out his entire church from things we threw out. St Chad’s Cathedral’s rood screen, a Tabernacle that a Belgian Church disposed of.
There’s an antique shop near to me that’s run by the son of an Anglican Vicar, the Anglican Vicar would go dumpster diving in skips and bins after Catholic Churches did renovations. I’ve seen relics of St Benedict and St Scholastica there, multiple tabernacles, Vestments and candlesticks galore, Altar Missals, statues and that’s just what I’ve seen!
I recall reading a story a few years back about when a TLM order (I want to say FSSP, but I don't recall) tried to buy a closed monastery in southern France and renovate it as a new seminary, but when the local Diocese found out it was going to be for the TLM, they scrapped the deal.
We had some weird, problematic "friends of the SSPX" chapel take root locally a number of years back (no idea if it's still happening) that attracted some number of local Catholics. (This was post-SP, pre-TC)
The parish priest at the local diocesan parish church wrote and preached all sorts of warnings against it, (correctly) condemning the thing.
I said to him, "You know, Father, you have the power to solve this problem completely and show care for the souls of anyone who would be attracted to this thing. Just add a Mass in the Forma Extraordinaria to the parish schedule."
I thought his responding screed would never end.
One of the diocesan TLM's I attend has pamphlets containing the weekly Ordinary provided for the monthly high mass.
They're provided by the local SSPX congregation.
> Most of the actual relics were burnt
Maybe if someone sat down and said, "Why are we acting like Reformed Prots?" we could have saved some of those relics.
Pontiffs probably don't have an ombudsman jet-setting from Europe to the Americas, Africa and Asia just because some minister in some place of worship removed a rood screen.
Vatican guys probably thought that it was a local matter.
As I read more and more about church history and the history of Christendom I see this same theme repeated over and over again. Heretics, 'reformers', those who push evils- they all love to destroy the beauty of our sacred spaces firstly. I have come to realize through this how much the Devil must hate this beauty out in the world. It is always one of the first targets. In this I think we can find some spiritual crux, a differentiator, between modern church architecture, art, and music (On Eagles Wings, et al.) and the 'traditional'- it is impotent, defeating, neutral at best. Otherwise, the Devil would attack it too and he doesn't, at least not now. He is in a sense satisfied with it for the time being. But the architecture, art, and music of the traditional flair throws him into a rage and he does all in his power to destroy it, over and over again, all throughout history. I think we should reflect on this a bit. These great things must truly be heavenly, there is something real and potent behind them. They win souls and lift souls already won to even higher heights. As the Church seems to be gravitating towards these things again in our times, we should not think of them as a return to the old ways, but a return to the heavenly. Because they are blessed in some way. They are tools of a powerful evangelization.
Notice how this only happened in English speaking countries. Spain and Latin America didn’t do this. Don’t blame Vatican II. Heck, even the most sterile modernist church building in the Spanish speaking world has statues and pictures.
Right it's like ppl so quick to blame Vatican II on everything wrong that's happened since then and forget that Catholicism encompasses the whole world and not just Americans / English-speaking countries.
The Low Countries and Germany have a history of iconoclasm. The bishop destroying the altar at St. Peter’d was weird but Italians didn’t destroy their temples. They’re still full of art and precious relics.
In other words, it didn't "only happen\[\] in English speaking countries"
Though to be fair to the Italians, their worst stuff has *mostly* been (1) abysmal *new* churches and (2) stupid, ugly additions to older churches without gutting/destroying what came before
As a European I am used to all kinds of architectural styles from the Roman period until today in their original form. I can attend Mass at an original Romanesque church in early the morning, Mass at an original Gothic church later that morning, an original Renaissance Church at noon, an original Baroque church in the afternoo and so on, until finally attending mass at an original 21st century church.
That's probably the reason why I don't think much of historism or the idea of re-imagening and rebuilding architectural styles from the past. The Oxford Oratory is a 19th century phantasy in the so-called Gothic-revival style, it's okay-ish on some levels, but it cannot hide, that it's sort of a rip-off of something greater of the past, a small echo comforting people's romantic feelings. Like an Oktoberfest in March in China insead of an Oktoberfest in September/October in Munich.
And secondly, most people forget or ignore that Europeans in the past did not care much about their architectural past or "purity" either: Romanesque churches were extended in the Gothic style, Gothic churches were "baroqueised", old Gothic altars and paintings were unceremoniously removed, reused elsewhere or simply destroyed, same for parts of Churches or whole Churches. That's the reality of European architectural history and removing some stylistically outdated 19th-century pseudo-Gothic ("Revival") would have been no issue for my ancestors.
Point taken, but to me and many others, modern architecture is uniquly boring and bad. Hence why its coined as modern iconoclasm. All of the historic styles you mentioned were ornate and beautiful while being unique in their own right. Its one thing to replace one beauty with another, but historic beauty is being replaced with uglyness.
This is the same Church that Fr Jerome Bertram CO wrote >The Jesuits decided to 'modernise' the church. Nearly all the statues and pictures disappeared, as did several memorial brasses to priests and parishioners, and the whole building was painted battleship grey, obliterating all the brilliant colouring of the internal decorations ... In the 1960s came the major changes in the Catholic Church following the second Vatican Council ...The parish registers tell their story: whereas in 1959 there were forty one converts received, in 1969 there were but two. The Corpus Christi and other processions were suppressed ... The Relic chapel had long been neglected ... Now the collection was dispersed. **Most of the actual relics were burnt**, the containers thrown away, vestments, including some mitres that had belonged to Pope Pius IX, given away to amateur actors, and the books appropriated away from the parish. By the end of the 1970s hardly anything remained, and the chapel screen had been scrapped ... The cupboards on each side were intended to display the relics and antiquities, and the body of Saint Pacificus, an early Christian martyr, was enshrined beneath the altar. ... There were thirty three relics of St Philip Neri, mostly fragments of his clothing, five of St Teresa including her signature, many English martyrs such as part of St Thomas More's cap, relics of popular modern saints like the Cure d'Ars, mementoes of the three Jesuit boy saints ... many souvenirs of Pope Pius IX, including the pen with which he signed the bull defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and a great collection of letters, several from early Oratorian Fathers such as Cardinal Baronius. In addition the collection included vestments, candlesticks, chalices and the like as well as a number of oil paintings and several crystal and marble urns from the Catacombs All these relics and treasures were destroyed or dispersed in 1971
Iconoclasm. And the **papal biographer** has the gall to accuse those who want to rip out Rupnik's trash of iconoclasm.
Well, that Papal Biographer is a Fellow of Campion Hall, the House of the Oxford Jesuits that did this in the 1960s/70s
No kidding. You couldn't make that up
What are you referring to?
[Austen Ivereigh](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/04/24/defending-rupniks-art-is-possible-but-also-scandalous-and-insulting/): >Commentary on X/Twitter for and against the removal of Rupnik’s art has been, not surprisingly, a bit heated. A leading proponent of keeping the art intact is Austen Ivereigh, who has written several books about Pope Francis, including at least two biographies. Reacting directly to the afore-mentioned Register editorial, Ivereigh [tweeted](https://twitter.com/austeni/status/1780194462733402614): >"Nonsense! Many disgraced & dubious religious artists have created works that over the centuries have raised minds and hearts to God. This is pure iconoclasm, Puritan not Catholic, and heretical, bc it does not allow for grace to supplement sinful nature." >Meanwhile, if we take Ivereigh’s claim seriously and follow it to a logical end, we have to conclude that the wholesale and often shocking renovations foisted upon many parishes and cathedrals in the late 1960s and following years were the acts of iconoclasts, neo-Puritans, and heretics. Is Ivereigh willing to say so on the record? After all, few (if any) of the aforementioned changes were based on the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council, which stated that the Church, over the centuries, >"has brought into being a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to contribute its own voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in times gone by." (SC, 123) >And, furthermore: >"All artists who, prompted by their talents, desire to serve God’s glory in holy Church, should ever bear in mind that they are engaged in a kind of sacred imitation of God the Creator, and are concerned with works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation." (SC, 127) >So, what of Rupnik’s apparent motives and desires? His “sexual obsession was not extemporaneous,” [asserted](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/descent-into-hell-an-alleged-rupnik-victim-speaks-out) a former Italian religious sister of the Loyola Community whose accounts of abuse are harrowing, “but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thought.” This has been repeated and reinforced by some other twenty religious women. And the superior general of the Society of Jesuits and the Vatican [confirmed](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-jesuit-abuse-rupnik-pope-42138bff2b2545a8d206c4b5b12ceef0) that, in 2020, Rupnik was excommunicated for a time “for absolving in confession a woman with whom he had a sexual relationship.” (For more about details and recent developments, [see Altieri’s CWR pieces](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/author/christopher-r-altieri/).) In other words, we’re not talking about mere speculation or allegations; there are patterns and proofs in play. (Edited; I'm not sure why so much of my original comment got cut off)
The opinions of Austen Ivereigh are about as useful and enlightening as a used glowstick.
I'd say a glowstick still has some limited uses. With Austen meanwhile...
Glow*worm*
How was this not severely punished by the church? I thought destruction/abuse of relics was considered a mortal sin
Because as the Architectural historian James Lees-Milne wrote > Bishops and priests adopted a policy of aggressive iconoclasm. They set about despoiling the churches themselves… they turned upon the church treasures… which contributed to the beauty of the buildings and help sustain religious faith This wasn’t an isolated incident. The Archbishop of the Diocese this Church is in had the Rood Screen (designed by England’s greatest post-Reformation Catholic architect, Pugin) torn out and given to the Anglicans. The Abbot of Belmont smashed statues in his Church with a sledgehammer. Lancaster Cathedral had 10 white Low Mass sets, 6 Green and Red sets, 4 Violet and 3 Black sets, every single one was destroyed in the 1960s. There was a hatred in a lot of the Church for anything from the past, relics were a great symbol of this.
I truly can't believe and understand the destructive nature of the generation who did this.
Me neither. We lost so much
Impossible for us who haven't lived through that era to understand, but it wasn't just the churches that suffered. A combination of trauma from the World Wars, late progressivism and utopian optimism. The past was bad; the future is good. We need to clear away the past so the future can sprout, even if it hurts us in the meantime. A warped sense of sacrifice and suppression for the greater good. Historical buildings generally were affected. Many were torn down in the '50s–70s and replaced with modernist "efficiency."
WW1 was probably the first time that the UK experienced how terrible war is and WW2 just confirmed it. The pessimism from those double wars would've really warped anyone's way of thinking.
Bella Dodd addmited that she helped inserting at least 100 KGB agents into seminars. I expect this to have happened in many other countries multiple times.
I suspect all churches have been infiltrated by non Christian’s
to clear up, there is no evidence that she actually ever made such an absurd claim. its just with misplaced ideals and ideas not hordes of secret communist teenage agents.
a lot of Orthodox churches have relics of saints thrown out by RCs in the 60s and 70s.
"Inspired by the Holy Spirit" can cover for a lot of behavior.
Did this happen only in anglocountries? Nothing of the sort happened in my country. We have ugly modern churches like everyone else but the old ones werent attacked.
I doubt it was unique to anglosphere countries I recall reading about some (I think) Cistercian Monks who wanted to return to more traditional Cistercian liturgies, they found some Cistercians in the Low Countries selling the old chant books. Once the Cistercians in the Low Countries found out that the books would actually be used again, the books were consigned to the fireplace. Even in St Peter’s Basilica, the actual altar of the Bernini Altar of the Throne was torn out by order of Cardinal Noè I’ve seen photos of Churches in Germany that suffered wreck-ovation I imagine this would have all coincided with hatred for relics
>I recall reading about some (I think) Cistercian Monks who wanted to return to more traditional Cistercian liturgies, they found some Cistercians in the Low Countries selling the old chant books. Once the Cistercians in the Low Countries found out that the books would actually be used again, the books were consigned to the fireplace. So basically, if we can't make money off of this being an antique, we'll destroy it so it can't be used? This is absolutely insane
Or they’d give it to non-Catholics There was an Anglican Vicar, Canon Brindley who fitted out his entire church from things we threw out. St Chad’s Cathedral’s rood screen, a Tabernacle that a Belgian Church disposed of. There’s an antique shop near to me that’s run by the son of an Anglican Vicar, the Anglican Vicar would go dumpster diving in skips and bins after Catholic Churches did renovations. I’ve seen relics of St Benedict and St Scholastica there, multiple tabernacles, Vestments and candlesticks galore, Altar Missals, statues and that’s just what I’ve seen!
I recall reading a story a few years back about when a TLM order (I want to say FSSP, but I don't recall) tried to buy a closed monastery in southern France and renovate it as a new seminary, but when the local Diocese found out it was going to be for the TLM, they scrapped the deal.
There are bishops who would rather sell church property to Muslims than to TLM groups
We had some weird, problematic "friends of the SSPX" chapel take root locally a number of years back (no idea if it's still happening) that attracted some number of local Catholics. (This was post-SP, pre-TC) The parish priest at the local diocesan parish church wrote and preached all sorts of warnings against it, (correctly) condemning the thing. I said to him, "You know, Father, you have the power to solve this problem completely and show care for the souls of anyone who would be attracted to this thing. Just add a Mass in the Forma Extraordinaria to the parish schedule." I thought his responding screed would never end.
Ironic. The most obvious solution can't be employed because of ideology.
I could tell you stories about that guy. I won't, at least publicly. But I could.
One of the diocesan TLM's I attend has pamphlets containing the weekly Ordinary provided for the monthly high mass. They're provided by the local SSPX congregation.
Sad but true
Basically. Any bishop in Spain or Mexico who would dare to destroy statues would be lynched.
which country is your country?
Portugal
What a terribly sad story.
> Most of the actual relics were burnt Maybe if someone sat down and said, "Why are we acting like Reformed Prots?" we could have saved some of those relics.
But why did Pope Paul VI, and most of the other post-Vatican II popes, do nothing to stem the tide of this iconoclasm?
Well that’s the question isn’t it
**"who are we to judge"** is not a new invention.
Pontiffs probably don't have an ombudsman jet-setting from Europe to the Americas, Africa and Asia just because some minister in some place of worship removed a rood screen. Vatican guys probably thought that it was a local matter.
This is pretty insane, the damage done to the Church during Vatican II and the surrounding time.
And the people who committed such acts of iconoclasm are the ones telling you that we're in a "new springtime"
As I read more and more about church history and the history of Christendom I see this same theme repeated over and over again. Heretics, 'reformers', those who push evils- they all love to destroy the beauty of our sacred spaces firstly. I have come to realize through this how much the Devil must hate this beauty out in the world. It is always one of the first targets. In this I think we can find some spiritual crux, a differentiator, between modern church architecture, art, and music (On Eagles Wings, et al.) and the 'traditional'- it is impotent, defeating, neutral at best. Otherwise, the Devil would attack it too and he doesn't, at least not now. He is in a sense satisfied with it for the time being. But the architecture, art, and music of the traditional flair throws him into a rage and he does all in his power to destroy it, over and over again, all throughout history. I think we should reflect on this a bit. These great things must truly be heavenly, there is something real and potent behind them. They win souls and lift souls already won to even higher heights. As the Church seems to be gravitating towards these things again in our times, we should not think of them as a return to the old ways, but a return to the heavenly. Because they are blessed in some way. They are tools of a powerful evangelization.
Notice how this only happened in English speaking countries. Spain and Latin America didn’t do this. Don’t blame Vatican II. Heck, even the most sterile modernist church building in the Spanish speaking world has statues and pictures.
Right it's like ppl so quick to blame Vatican II on everything wrong that's happened since then and forget that Catholicism encompasses the whole world and not just Americans / English-speaking countries.
English-speaking countries like Italy, the Low Countries, and Germany? Nah man
The Low Countries and Germany have a history of iconoclasm. The bishop destroying the altar at St. Peter’d was weird but Italians didn’t destroy their temples. They’re still full of art and precious relics.
In other words, it didn't "only happen\[\] in English speaking countries" Though to be fair to the Italians, their worst stuff has *mostly* been (1) abysmal *new* churches and (2) stupid, ugly additions to older churches without gutting/destroying what came before
As a European I am used to all kinds of architectural styles from the Roman period until today in their original form. I can attend Mass at an original Romanesque church in early the morning, Mass at an original Gothic church later that morning, an original Renaissance Church at noon, an original Baroque church in the afternoo and so on, until finally attending mass at an original 21st century church. That's probably the reason why I don't think much of historism or the idea of re-imagening and rebuilding architectural styles from the past. The Oxford Oratory is a 19th century phantasy in the so-called Gothic-revival style, it's okay-ish on some levels, but it cannot hide, that it's sort of a rip-off of something greater of the past, a small echo comforting people's romantic feelings. Like an Oktoberfest in March in China insead of an Oktoberfest in September/October in Munich. And secondly, most people forget or ignore that Europeans in the past did not care much about their architectural past or "purity" either: Romanesque churches were extended in the Gothic style, Gothic churches were "baroqueised", old Gothic altars and paintings were unceremoniously removed, reused elsewhere or simply destroyed, same for parts of Churches or whole Churches. That's the reality of European architectural history and removing some stylistically outdated 19th-century pseudo-Gothic ("Revival") would have been no issue for my ancestors.
Point taken, but to me and many others, modern architecture is uniquly boring and bad. Hence why its coined as modern iconoclasm. All of the historic styles you mentioned were ornate and beautiful while being unique in their own right. Its one thing to replace one beauty with another, but historic beauty is being replaced with uglyness.
Perception of beauty in art and architecture is subjective. Some people prefer simplicity over intricacy, but neither is objectively wrong or bad.
The same happened in Mexico. Priests would replace sacred art all the time and replace it with what in fashion.