
(Above) The former church of Our Lady of Guadalupe today. Sometime after 2012 an elaborate repainting of the facade was carried out. (photo 8/19/2026)
(We continue our discussion of the church of Our Lady of Guadalupe, now threatened with destruction:
The Sale of Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc. (8/18/2026)
For our description of this parish in its old and new homes:
The Churches of New York XXX: A Tale of Two Churches (12/14/2012))

The former church of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Founded in 1902, it quickly had to be expanded, a second townhouse (left) was acquired for a rectory and in 1921 a Spanish-style facade was added.

(Above) From these small beginnings… Perhaps surprisingly, in those early days the nascent “Spanish-American” apostolate in New York enjoyed significant institutional and financial backing. The Assumptionist order, which founded the church, was French, but their initial leadership in New York had had years of experience in Latin America. Their second church, and the second “Hispanic” church in Manhattan, Our Lady of Esperanza far to the north on West 156th Street, was financed by gifts from wealthy individuals (many non-Catholic) and the Spanish royal family and aristocracy. The 1921 addition to Our Lady of Guadalupe was the work of one of the most imprtant architects of Catholic churches in the interwar period. Let us also remember that this church was founded in the aftermath of the 1898 Spanish-American War, in which the American press (if only briefly) had demonized the Spanish (like the Germans later and the Russians today).

(Above) The desolate parish announcement board. The Assumptionists left the parish in 1998. (photo 8/19/2026)

(Above) Our Lady of Guadalupe at St. Bernard’s. (photo 8/19/2026)
But what of the parish itself, now “Our Lady of Guadalupe at St. Bernard’s”? In 2003 the Archdiocese had moved it ino the church of St. Bernard. This parish, once grand, had by that date only an aging handful of parishioners – the effects of demogrphic change, economic troubles – and 40 years of Vatican II. In connection with this move, a thorough repainting and redecoration of the interior – of remarkable incompetence – was carried out. This was superimposed on the remnants of an earlier decor – mosaics, marble, statues and murals – which seems to date primarily to the years 1890-1920. Since 2012 work has continued and an attempt, if inadequate, made to remedy some of the worst features of this “restoration.”

(Above) The chancel or sanctuary today (8/19/2026): (below) on 3/2/2011. Note that some murals have been repainted and a tabernacle, a sanctuary lamp and a large, suspended crucifix added. As recently as 2012 the Blessed Sacrament was reserved – disgracefully – in a room in the rear of the church (the former baptistry?)


In addition to restoring a tabernacle, angels were removed. (Above) Photo 2/23/2012); (below) 8/19/2026)

(Below) I cannot say the new murals are more than a marginal improvement over their predecessors – despite the unusual subject.

The church, like St.Paul in East Harlem, is a treasury of Hispanic devotions. Below are some of them.

(Above) This image, I believe, was in the old church of Our Lady of Guadalupe



(Above and below) Our Lady of Quinche from Ecuador. As church after church has been closed in the Archdiocese, the Ecuadorians have had to repeatedly move their Madonna – from St Ann on East 12th Street to St.Veronica and now to St. Bernard’s.


(Above) This fine reproduction – in contrast to what is seen on the reredos – may be the original image displayed in the old Church. Today it is in the back of the church. (photo 8/19/2026)


The aesthetic shortcomings of the recent art of St Bernard’s are particularly glaring in the context of three outstanding windows of the transept and chancel, installed after a disastrous fire in 1890. The 1910 catalogue of the Tiffany Campany lists the above window of the Resurrection as having been in place by 1891. But it also clearly states the same of the windows of the Crucifixion and the Nativity (below), But the latter two windows,, although of exceptional quality, are executed in a completely different style and remind me of later stained-glass from England. How can this be explained? Does the 1910 catalogue reflect an order that was in fact never completed – or did the editors simply make a mistake? Did the church later replace the original Tiffany windows? Or did Tiffany on occasion produce glass to the designs of other artists? I leave it up to the connoisseurs to decide!


Has the fusion of the two parishes of Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Bernard’s been a success? The jury is still out, even after more than 20 years. The merger involved the loss of the historic sanctuary (which, in addition, was not at all badly decorated!). A painful loss which is now being felt once again by the Spanish-speaking community. Too, the post-merger redecoration of Saint Bernard’s has been an abysmal failure. On the other hand, in contrast to the past, St. Bernard’s is now generally open. That seems characteristic of Latin American churches in the city today, with their many devotions inviting passersby to prayer. A visitor will generally find one or two people at prayer. To that extent, we can be grateful.














