I don't know if you have seen this piece from Susan Benofy at the Adoremus Bulletin but I think it helps explain the divergence in approach to the Liturgy since Vatican Disaster II:
How is it any less peculiar than that of your church, St. Anne? The sanctuary archipelago can only be peculiar so that the fixtures 1) fit and 2) aren't competing with each other for oddly limited space. At least here, the chair marathon is kept to a minimum and in one place. Fortunately, the area for the choir and their instruments isn't immediately below the sanctuary as I have seen elsewhere which makes for a near non-existent separation between heaven and earth and a very cluttered one at that.
Also, here, the sanctuary is more "finished" looking. The tabernacle is better honored being placed on something that is in proportion to its significance. To me, however, the busyness of the mural art on the reredos causes the tabernacle to be a bit lost. That aside, the furnishings are without question dignified and I particularly like the ambo/pulpit which lacks the conference room look of many. What is strange is the elevated railing. It appears to to simply be a safety device. While I don't find this arrangement to be the ideal, to me, it is tolerable given its presentation.
The peculiarity is that this appears to be a new church, but it has the traditional altar, three steps up for the tabernacle and then this stage like thing that is surrounded by a fence with a free standing altar in the middle and access by a set of steps in the center. The fence looks like an altar railing but it isn't; it is a fence!
Since I presume this is new construction, why have two altars, one higher than the one that is actually used and the higher one looks pre-Vatican II but isn't the altar of sacrifice? Why construct the sanctuary as though it a stage? Why not have an actual altar railing with stairs around the sanctuary? It is bizarre.
It looks to me like a "wreckovation" where they moved the altar to the middle of the south wall so they'd be able to put pews on 3 sides, but it's hard to tell from the photo. If it's a new construction, it really reflects the confusion still rampant from Vatican II.
I do think the weird fencing around the perimeter makes the "sanctuary" looks like a take off on a backyard deck. And is the pries doing the Mass ad orientum from the second altar?
It looks to me like a "wreckovation" where they moved the altar to the middle of the south wall so they'd be able to put pews on 3 sides, but it's hard to tell from the photo. If it's a new construction, it really reflects the confusion still rampant from Vatican II.
I do think the weird fencing around the perimeter makes the "sanctuary" looks like a take off on an octagonal backyard deck. And is the priest saying the Mass ad orientum from the second altar?
This is a new church though, its name is escaping me and I cannot therefore find its website. 4 steps up to the freestanding altar suggests to me that the nave has sufficient length to warrant this elevation. Otherwise, those in the back will see nothing. As for the altar of reservation, I cannot blow up this photo to see detail but, it appears to be non-functional e.g. it lacks a proper mensa. Therefore, I can only assume that the three additional steps is a matter of form to elevate the tabernacle so as not have it hidden by the freestanding altar which would be the case at its 4 step elevation. As for the railing/fence, if you look at the portfolios of current/past projects for the firms linked to the New Liturgical Movement, you will see the same. Presumably, it is a safety feature that looks like an altar railing. All this said, I'm by no means in favor of the archipelago sanctuary. To me, it fails at so many levels. My point here is that given the quality of the appointments in this church, their archipelago jumble looks more refined than other churches that are similarly arranged.
I like it for the most part; it appears to be cruciform. The octagonal stage is just plain weird. It would have been better to widen the sanctuary a bit to allow room for the chairs to fit.
I am wondering if the octagonal stage was an add-on to get the bishop to sign off on the construction project?
The "fence" was, I suspect, required by building codes. When you have that kind of elevation in a public space, codes usually require some kind of safety barrier to keep people from falling off.
Because the altar of reservation is not, it seems, an altar of sacrifice, it does not require a mensa large enough for that purpose.
The whole arrangement lacks, in my estimation, an artistic integrity. There's LOTS going on in terms of materials used, colors, styles of art, elevations. The ambo, due to its color, seems to dominate the space with its size and darkness. That despite the fact that the materials used are the same as the altars.
It looks too much like a movie set. The Church should be more careful in the design of churches. They are not an invitation for an architectural designer to run wild with new ideas.
The post Vatican II problem is the tabernacle’s placement and the design of this church truly emphasizes this problem. When faux altars facing the congregation were installed, the altar was placed at the foot of the old altar. If the tabernacle stayed on the old altar it eclipsed the new lower altar and was thus given undue focus.
When the altar and tabernacle were one unit, both were prominent without competing.
In the EF Mass, the large altar card placed in front of the tabernacle along with the ceiling of the tabernacle acted as a sort of blocking off of the tabernacle during Mass, so the focus was on the altar itself and the sacred actions of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
This Church copies the mistakes of the free standing altar. It should be on the same level as the tabernacle. If the free standing altar was removed, steps placed around the “platform” and a true altar railing on an extended first step, it would be greatly enhanced.
Every design for a church - Gothic, Italianate, Georgian - was, at one time, a " new idea". There is no fixed style of architecture or decoration that is preferred for Catholic churches
23 comments:
What's funky about it?
I have seen worse.
Father McDonald,
I don't know if you have seen this piece from Susan Benofy at the Adoremus Bulletin but I think it helps explain the divergence in approach to the Liturgy since Vatican Disaster II:
https://adoremus.org/2019/03/18/what-became-of-the-spirit-of-the-liturgy-implementation-of-sacrosanctum-concilium-1963
How is it any less peculiar than that of your church, St. Anne? The sanctuary archipelago can only be peculiar so that the fixtures 1) fit and 2) aren't competing with each other for oddly limited space. At least here, the chair marathon is kept to a minimum and in one place. Fortunately, the area for the choir and their instruments isn't immediately below the sanctuary as I have seen elsewhere which makes for a near non-existent separation between heaven and earth and a very cluttered one at that.
Also, here, the sanctuary is more "finished" looking. The tabernacle is better honored being placed on something that is in proportion to its significance. To me, however, the busyness of the mural art on the reredos causes the tabernacle to be a bit lost. That aside, the furnishings are without question dignified and I particularly like the ambo/pulpit which lacks the conference room look of many. What is strange is the elevated railing. It appears to to simply be a safety device. While I don't find this arrangement to be the ideal, to me, it is tolerable given its presentation.
The peculiarity is that this appears to be a new church, but it has the traditional altar, three steps up for the tabernacle and then this stage like thing that is surrounded by a fence with a free standing altar in the middle and access by a set of steps in the center. The fence looks like an altar railing but it isn't; it is a fence!
Since I presume this is new construction, why have two altars, one higher than the one that is actually used and the higher one looks pre-Vatican II but isn't the altar of sacrifice? Why construct the sanctuary as though it a stage? Why not have an actual altar railing with stairs around the sanctuary? It is bizarre.
Bee here:
It looks to me like a "wreckovation" where they moved the altar to the middle of the south wall so they'd be able to put pews on 3 sides, but it's hard to tell from the photo. If it's a new construction, it really reflects the confusion still rampant from Vatican II.
I do think the weird fencing around the perimeter makes the "sanctuary" looks like a take off on a backyard deck. And is the pries doing the Mass ad orientum from the second altar?
Such confusion. Enough already.
God bless.
Bee
Bee here:
It looks to me like a "wreckovation" where they moved the altar to the middle of the south wall so they'd be able to put pews on 3 sides, but it's hard to tell from the photo. If it's a new construction, it really reflects the confusion still rampant from Vatican II.
I do think the weird fencing around the perimeter makes the "sanctuary" looks like a take off on an octagonal backyard deck. And is the priest saying the Mass ad orientum from the second altar?
Such confusion. Enough already.
God bless.
Bee
Fr. AJM -
This is a new church though, its name is escaping me and I cannot therefore find its website. 4 steps up to the freestanding altar suggests to me that the nave has sufficient length to warrant this elevation. Otherwise, those in the back will see nothing. As for the altar of reservation, I cannot blow up this photo to see detail but, it appears to be non-functional e.g. it lacks a proper mensa. Therefore, I can only assume that the three additional steps is a matter of form to elevate the tabernacle so as not have it hidden by the freestanding altar which would be the case at its 4 step elevation. As for the railing/fence, if you look at the portfolios of current/past projects for the firms linked to the New Liturgical Movement, you will see the same. Presumably, it is a safety feature that looks like an altar railing. All this said, I'm by no means in favor of the archipelago sanctuary. To me, it fails at so many levels. My point here is that given the quality of the appointments in this church, their archipelago jumble looks more refined than other churches that are similarly arranged.
Here is the pictured church:
http://www.melecallc.com/portfolio_page/st-michael-the-archangel
https://stmichaelcp.org/
https://www.facebook.com/stmichaelparishleawood/
https://www.google.com/maps/place/St.+Michael+the+Archangel+Catholic+Parish/@38.8704314,-94.6472144,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xde137b8e474b7b31!8m2!3d38.8704314!4d-94.6472144
I like it for the most part; it appears to be cruciform. The octagonal stage is just plain weird. It would have been better to widen the sanctuary a bit to allow room for the chairs to fit.
I am wondering if the octagonal stage was an add-on to get the bishop to sign off on the construction project?
The "fence" was, I suspect, required by building codes. When you have that kind of elevation in a public space, codes usually require some kind of safety barrier to keep people from falling off.
Because the altar of reservation is not, it seems, an altar of sacrifice, it does not require a mensa large enough for that purpose.
The whole arrangement lacks, in my estimation, an artistic integrity. There's LOTS going on in terms of materials used, colors, styles of art, elevations. The ambo, due to its color, seems to dominate the space with its size and darkness. That despite the fact that the materials used are the same as the altars.
The attached photo better illustrates how the altar of repose is intended to be utilized e.g. not for the celebration of mass.
https://www.facebook.com/stmichaelparishleawood/photos/a.1695295207156358/1695295477156331/?type=3&theater
It looks too much like a movie set. The Church should be more careful in the design of churches. They are not an invitation for an architectural designer to run wild with new ideas.
The post Vatican II problem is the tabernacle’s placement and the design of this church truly emphasizes this problem. When faux altars facing the congregation were installed, the altar was placed at the foot of the old altar. If the tabernacle stayed on the old altar it eclipsed the new lower altar and was thus given undue focus.
When the altar and tabernacle were one unit, both were prominent without competing.
In the EF Mass, the large altar card placed in front of the tabernacle along with the ceiling of the tabernacle acted as a sort of blocking off of the tabernacle during Mass, so the focus was on the altar itself and the sacred actions of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
This Church copies the mistakes of the free standing altar. It should be on the same level as the tabernacle. If the free standing altar was removed, steps placed around the “platform” and a true altar railing on an extended first step, it would be greatly enhanced.
Veiling of the tabernacle, not ceiling!
Every design for a church - Gothic, Italianate, Georgian - was, at one time, a " new idea". There is no fixed style of architecture or decoration that is preferred for Catholic churches
Bee here:
Anonymous at April 4, 2019 at 8:32 AM:
"There is no fixed style of architecture or decoration that is preferred for Catholic churches..."
Oh goody! That means we could actually have a church that is built and decorated like a casino! YES!! Let's do it!
God bless.
Bee
Bee, so there is a fixed style for architecture and decoration of our churches? Could you tell us where to find that?
Anonymous Clericalism on Steroids,
Never can give the lady the last word.
TJM, can you point us to the definitive regulations on the architecture and decoration of churches?
Anonymous K
Knock it off. Please let Bee the lady have the last word. You are more annoying than MT because you should know better
Is there a source for definitive regulations on the architecture and decoration of churches or not? Bee, and others, seem to think there is.
Well...?
Kavanaugh,
Let it go.
Post a Comment