Here are two photos of what was done to a “traditional” sanctuary in order to fulfill Vatican II’s “mandates” concerning the new and improved Liturgy. The point in doing this is to improve the laity’s participation and experience of co-celebrating the Mass as a community of believers united with the priest.
It is also to emphasize the closeness of Christ to the laity and/or congregation, and to make it appear the congregation is actually in the sanctuary as the priest is.
It is also to emphasize the “Meal” aspect of the Mass, the table of the Lord rather than altar which is associated with Sacrifice as it is associated with sacrifices in pagan and Jewish beliefs, not necessarily a convivial meal.
Here are the photos and my questions afterward:
By abandoning the original altar, but letting it remain as a pedestal for the tabernacle is not helpful and is confusing. Why abandon it? Could it have been situated for Mass facing the congregation but under the canopy?
Thrusting the sanctuary into the nave necessitating the removing of pews and lessening of seating for the laity is meant to make the laity feel closer to the altar and thus to Christ. Does it? The altar is lower than the original and in a full church the only ones in the pews who see it are the ones on the front row; for all others it is as though the altar is behind an iconostasis. It is hidden from them. Not so with the original configuration.
The removal of the altar railing is to make the nave a part of the sanctuary and to erase the distinction between the nave and the sanctuary. In reality how does this improve Catholics and their liturgical spirituality but more importantly the manner in which they live their Catholicism at home, work and recreation?
Are Catholics today better Catholic than when the Mass and churches were “unreformed?” Are Catholics truly reformed and for the better or are they like their reformed churches, and reformed not for the better?
2 comments:
But the “emcee” needs to be closer to his “audience!” Of course it could have been arranged as you suggest.
I, personally, am glad the original high altar and baldacchino are intact.
I don't find the arrangement to be confusing.
The "new" arrangement is at some level confusing / poorly executed. As all those fixtures are arguably superfluous, I wouldn't direct a dime towards future "improvements". Monies, ideally, should be directed toward the restoration of this church to its former intended usage.
Altars are not "hidden" behind an iconostas/iconostasis. This is the incorrect "interpretation" and/or theology. True, they might be partially obscured however, as mortals who have not achieved major orders, all will only be revealed upon successfully standing before "the fearsome judgement seat of the Lord".
Post a Comment