The cross is placed to the side, so we can see what is happening on the entire altar. What is there to see, though? At this same point in the Mass, what would the focus be if this action was at the high altar ad orientem?
Just what was the reason behind dropping new altars below magnificent older altars so that the priest faced the congregation? Remind me why this was forced upon these churches.
Just what was the reason behind dropping new altars below magnificent older altars so that the priest faced the congregation? Remind me why this was forced upon these churches.
23 comments:
The high altar not Cranmer’s table
It started long before the Novus Ordo. The idea of a 'dialogue Mass' wherein the people said, in unison, the responses proper to the sacred ministers, was never going to work. Apart from anything else, the Tridentine PATFOTA are quite lengthy; the Dominican Rite (which predates Trent by 300 years) and was of course never abrogated, could have been the template for reform. The dialogue principle also made the use of the vernacular for this part of the Mass a no-brainer as far as the bishops were concerned, and it should be recognized that the bishops in England and the USA in the 1960s were a fairly conservative lot.
Dialogue requires face-to-face interaction. It also requires audibility. You cannot dialogue with someone unless you hear what he is saying. That is why altars were moved forward. Of course there were other reasons for doing this; the pushing out of the altar into the nave was useful for other ideological reasons, viz. the creation of a unified 'worship space'.
Decisions have consequences. One doesn't need conspiracy theories to demonstrate this.
There is one altar.
The altar is the place of sacrifice, not the decorative structure behind it that once served as the altar.
"...BUT WHICH ONE LOOKS MORE IMPORTANT?"
Looks can be deceiving, as we all know.
The importance of an altar does not come from what it looks like. It is not a static image that, if gussied up enough, takes on its importance from its appearance.
What happens on the altar - the Sacrifice of Jesus to the Father - is what gives it importance.
a@9:05, then it would be better to rip out the older altar since in fact by way of symbol and architecture, and the height of it, it appears more important than the rinky dink (in comparison) one below it. As an unchurched person visiting that place, which one looks more important. Symbol is everything, so rip out the important one to make the less important looking one look more important!
I seem to recall that the Anonymous correspondent on this blog suggested that (as happens in papal mega-Masses) elements were consecrated which were not placed on the altar of sacrifice. I begged leave to suggest that it might not be the case.
He seems to have contradicted himself. Of course, he might not have been the same Anonymous. What is to stop people giving some indication as to who they are, even should they wish to preserve anonymity? Apart from dishonesty, that is?
Apart from dishonesty? Annoying you, of course. (Deny it if you will, but you are the one who, more than any other "Named" poster here, comments more often about those of us who choose to post with no names.)
Catholic: Altar of Sacrifice vs Protestant: table for memorial meal
Anon 2 does not identify himself, but gives us enough information as to make it clear whom we are dealing with. I usually agree with him.
Bee also posts anonymously but always identifies herself.
What exactly is your problem?
Problem? (See above at 11:30 a.m.)
John Nolan,
Anonymous K doesn't want his bishop to know that he is a nasty, piece of work. To post his snark he has to remain anonymous. Maybe Father McDonald should ape the liberal politicians who want priets to snitch and break the seal of confession to the state. Maybe Father McDonald, should report Anonymous K to his bishop for snarkiness since it places the priesthood in a negative light.
Paragraph 299 of the GIRM says: The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.
Notice it says "should" and not "must" and that Mass "can be" celebrated facing the people, which is "desirable wherever possible" and not "mandatory."
While I love the high altar, I do have to admit that it does visually get lost under the tabernacle and the reredos. The free-standing people's altar on the other hand works as a focal point, but at the same time it's clear that the sanctuary was not designed with it in mind. Seems like a choice between a rock and a hard place (a marble one!) to me.
Anonymous at 4:55. Not really, just sledge-hammer Cranmer's table and the problem is solved.
Anonymous's comment at 11:30 is priceless. 'Apart from dishonesty, annoying you, of course.' Well, at least he has accepted that dishonesty is one reason for refusing to identify himself. However, the idea that he keeps it up because it annoys other people is intriguing, to say the least.
His comments can be mildly annoying, in the manner of a buzzing insect or something adhering to the sole of one's shoe; but his anonymity is neither here nor there. Style and content imply a single author, and it is these that make him look a fool, time and time again.
I know that breaking a butterfly on a wheel is a futile exercise, but why should I be denied the satisfaction of swatting him if the occasion demands it and the mood takes me? It seems to amuse others, which seems motive enough.
"Well, at least he has accepted that dishonesty is one reason for refusing to identify himself."
Three Things Wrong.
1) There's nothing "dishonest" about posting anonymously. 2) I have not "accepted" dishonesty for posting anonymously. 3) I spoke only of you - see that word, "you"? I did not speak of other people.
Swat away - one day - not yet, but one day - you may connect.
Bzzz.....
Poor booby. 'Apart from' implies the validity of both motives. And if you believe that he uses the cloak of anonymity only because he thinks (wrongly) that it annoys me, you will believe anything. Anonymous is not being honest with us.
Most blogs do not post anonymous comments. They are the equivalent of poison-pen letters written in green ink. I am beginning to think that Anonymous may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
TJM,
The freestanding altar is clearly Romanesque in style (centuries before Cranmer) and it's a sacrilege to sledgehammer something that was consecrated.
Anonymous K,
It was sacrilegious to destroy high altars, communion railings, etc, in the name of Vatican Disaster II, but since the lefties did it, you have no problem with the destruction. The altar you refer to is faux Romanesque and it did not pre-date the high altar. Epic fail.
If one reads Borromeo's celebrated 16th century manual of church design, it is clear that the high altar of a church should not be attached to the wall. If I recall correctly, St Charles mandates a minimum distance of 1.5 cubits between the two. A freestanding altar does not imply that the celebration of Mass must be versus populum.
As for the photo in the post, this type of 'benediction altar' was frowned upon by the classical liturgical movement in the 1930s. I once came across an article which described them as 'an abomination of desolation' because they violated the rubrics of church design. The re-ordering of churches is certainly not just a post-Vatican II phenomenon. Throughout the 1930s until Vatican II many churches were reordered to conform with the requirements of the Pontificale Romanum, Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Canon Law and the decrees of the Roman Curia. The ideal was a simple altar table, preferably without gradines, surmounted by a baldachin. The Liturgical Arts Quarterly Journal from the 1930s onwards document these changes. It's a great pity that this journal has not been digitalized.
Just one other observation, the old altar in the photo is decorated with an image of the Last Supper. An article on St Charles' Instructions on church building dating for the 1930s (I don't have the bibliographical data to hand, but will post it later)claimed that these images were Lutheran in origin and inappropriate in a Catholic Church.
If people were habitually looking at these images of the Last Supper, week after week, perhaps it is no wonder that they readily accepted versus populum when it was imposed.
Jack, I don’t have time to do a search, but I believe St. Patrick’s in New York had a similar style high altar as in the photo which was removed in the late 30’s or 40’s and replaced with the current altar under the Baldacchino. The most recent renovations there led to the return of the use of that altar but facing the nave.
For a millennium (ca 500 to 1500) there was little disjunct between liturgical fashion and architectural fashion. The liturgy developed gradually with no abrupt shifts, and the spaces wherein it was celebrated developed more or less in tandem with it.
In the 16th century the idea of liturgy as a sacred drama viewed by the entire congregation led to the baroque style which to modern eyes appears 'over the top'. When we get to the 19th century the liturgy has not greatly changed (although liturgical music has) but there is considerable eclecticism regarding architecture.
AWN Pugin, the leading Gothic revivalist, wanted rood screens and altars which did not, and could not, dominate the nave. At the other end of the scale the Oratorians embraced the Italian Renaissance style and sniffed about Pugin: 'His altars are so small you can't celebrate a Pontifical Mass at them, and his screens are so thick that the Mass might as well be said in the sacristy, for all that the congregation can see of it.'
In the 20th century the Liturgical Movement applied an often bogus archaeologism to both liturgy and architecture, and the post-war brutalist fashion in architecture didn't help either. When Paul VI, in 1965, modelled the vernacular Mass at a dining table erected not just in front of the high altar of a Roman church, but actually in the nave, he sent out a clear message which many took up enthusiastically. Putting up a Communion table (at least until a wholesale reordering of the sanctuary to accord with purported Vatican II directives could be carried out) became fashionable almost overnight. But its Protestant resonance was all too obvious.
Sometimes these were crammed into tiny sanctuaries where audibility or the proximity of the original altar were never an issue; what mattered was that the priest had to face the people at all costs.
If the injunction given in GIRM 299 is followed, then Mass in either orientation is possible. Positioning the altar in such a way that Mass can only be celebrated versus populum is in contravention of this. As for the clause 'quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit', this was added in 2002 and has been interpreted in two ways - does it refer to the main clause (the altar being constructed away from the wall) or the subsidiary clause (that Mass may be celebrated versus populum)?
Post a Comment