From the Liturgical Arts Journal blog. This altar arrangement even with the priest facing the nave of the church is nonetheless ad orientem and reminiscent of the major basilicas in Rome including St. Peter's which have always faced the nave. Yes, yes, I know the celebrant is also facing the geographical east, but not so at St. Paul Basilica outside the Walls, the celebrant faces westward toward St. Peter's. But don't miss the point, symbolically, it is the crucifix facing the celebrant that gives the orientation toward Jerusalem and Golgotha in particular. Also, I like the throne for the tabernacle in that it is not another altar behind the actual consecrated altar:
Check out more pictures and the story:
Dedication of the Abbey Church of Our Lady of the Assumption, St Michael's Abbey
Last Tuesday, May 4th, I had the great joy of attending the dedication of the new St Michaels’ Abbey Church, dedicated to our Lady of the Assumption in Silverado, California. The ceremony was presided over by Bishop Kevin Vann of Orange, who was accompanied by Cardinal Burk…
12 comments:
It is nice however, the explanation pertaining to Rome and altar orientation there due to the presence of a confessio is, to me, more of an excuse than an argument.
I don't actually care for the throne type fixture upon which the tabernacle is placed. Expense for naught. Other than looking more stable than a simple pillar, are the wings on the "throne" intended for any particular purpose? Perhaps common sense should prevail, eliminate all this situational directionality, have one altar, tabernacle upon it and face actual/symbolic east while using. How things would be simplified, sanctuaries would become less cluttered.
In the East, we are so free of these circular discussions, longing for something that won't ever become the universal norm in the west it would seem. Fr. AJM, you've gone in circles around your altar at St. Anne's, is it better ad orientem (of course it is), look, verses populum yet ad orietem because the crucifix faces the priest and the candles are nicely placed and so on. The Church is at real cross roads in terms of survival, relevance etc. in our pre-post COVID world and the western Church still does not agree on what it wants to be, or how it will uniformly present itself. This is likely a very silly discussion to many, including detractors who post here, but, is it?
Ad orientem celebration would have been more beautiful and appropriate
Consecrating so many side altars does make the versus populum celebration at the main altar seem peculiar. But, hey, don't let the good be the enemy of the sublime.
I alao find the orientum explanation somewhat circular, while completely understanding the need for a make-believe East when geography or lot comstraints demand a church face some other direction than East.
We formerly DID have fairly monolithic practice, and not as if this confusion has always been this way, but seems destined in the foreseeable future to stay that way, given the fracturing/lack of standardization of near everything in the last 50yrs, and as Anon@109 so ably remarked on the local bishop/communion post, there is no putting that genie back in the toothpaste tube.
The Norbertines (Premonstratensians), whose order was almost extinct at the beginning of the 19th century, now have a hundred abbeys and priories world-wide. They have their own rite, which unfortunately was more 'Tridentinized' than, for example, that of the Dominicans; and their own distinctive version of Gregorian chant, heard to good effect here. St Michael's Abbey has fifty priests and thirty seminarians, which is beyond impressive.
The Premonstratensians largely escaped the fallout from Vatican II by maintaining their tradition of liturgical excellence. The English Norbertines celebrate 'ad orientem', and looking at the photos here the altar seems better placed for the traditional orientation; only the apsidal end is behind it, and the expanse of the sanctuary, including the choir stalls, is in front of it. I wonder if versus populum was used in deference to the presiding bishop. I noticed he managed to undermine the solemnity of the occasion by refusing to sing his parts. A service conspicuous by its sung Latin, and with all three of the readings being sung, was at the Novus Ordo's higher end, and it seems he was deliberately making a point.
Mr. Nolan, Vann was consecrated consecrated by Burke, Gomez and Lucas, Burke attended this event, and Vann has been outspoken as to reservations in allowing communion for pro-abortion Catholic politicians, and in abortion being a right and #1 problem with which to deal in the USA.
I seriously doubt there was any intent to undermine anything, and it might simply be that Vann cannot carry a tune in a bucket, either always, or due to aging and hearing problems.
Anonymous @ 2:13
The effect of speaking rather than singing is certain to undermine solemnity and the reluctance of so many bishops and priests to sing anything is rarely due to infirmity. It can be laziness, but I suspect in a lot of cases it is a preference for the informality and 'directness' of the spoken word, part of the post-V2 mindset.
But I accept that this might not have been a motive in Bishop Vann's case. I notice he was born on 10 May 1951. As it happens, so was I, and I hope to continue singing Gregorian chant for some time yet!
Incidentally, Byzantine-rite priests are expected to chant the Divine Liturgy, and Latin-rite priests had to be able to cope with a sung Mass at least until the mid-1960s.
1;20 people are totally tone deaf, about 15% of US citizens have hearing loss in the 60-69 yrs old age group, and I have known several priests who could not carry a tune in a bucket, young and old. They did not sing because they could not sing, but only croak in random frequencies, and so they did not. I find this a far quicker thing to come to mind versus impuning assorted motives.
I may have gotten the tone deaf number wrong, but it makes no difference in exact numbers, as it does happen fairly frequently, enough so that most of us has been in a congregation where someone lustily making a joyful noise was doing that and only that. And Bishops are not immune, nor were priests generally automatically disqualified over music skills or lack thereof, including in the past.
I have only met one person who was completely tone deaf, in that he could not sing two consecutive notes at the same pitch. He was also incapable of marching in step.
When ICEL produced the new English Missal in 2011 they deliberately included a lot of music (chant style) to encourage both priests and people to sing their parts. They were aware that many if not most celebrations of the Novus Ordo were of the 'four hymn sandwich' variety, whereas the authors of the new Mass intended that a lot of it should be sung, to the extent that 'singing the Mass' would replace 'singing at Mass'.
ICEL certainly did not assume that the main reason for the lack of singing was physical incapacity.
John Nolan,
Happy 70th Birthday in advance! Per multos annos
We had two classmates in seminary who were truly tone deaf. One, from the Erie Diocese, never tried to sing - he was wise. One, from Wichita, did try to sing. We warned him not to stand next to the organ as he was so bad it would throw the organ off!
Post a Comment