I watched the beautiful Mass, with wonderful music and chants, of Pope Leo at the ancient St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Metz France.
But I also saw, and I wonder if others noticed, that the post-Vatican II reconfiguration of the sanctuary does not help post-Vatican II Catholics appreciate the link between the Bugnini Mass and the Tridentine Mass, their continuity with each other.
And it is all symbolic, what your eyes tell you and what you sense.
In the photos above, one notices right away the difference in the new altar which is much, much lower than the old high altar, which continues to have its pre-Vatican II look and decorations—magnificent and clearly the most important piece of liturgical furnishing in this Cathedral. It is higher than the bishop’s throne/chair and the pulpit or ambo. The new altar in it lower placement and design makes it look quite unimportant. Keep in mind the altar is a sacramental sign of Christ.
The new altar is much lower than the Bishop’s throne/chair and all the bishops towering high above it. And look at the design. Apart from appreciating art in the secular sense, what is the symbolism of the altar’s look and external lines? The same question can be asked of the decoration on Pope Leo’s chasuble and miter—is there any religious symbolism apart from, let’s say, decorations in a secular sense?
To the naked eye and human sensibilities, the new altar sanctuary is a dumbing down from the old and makes it appear that the bishop and the concelebrants placed much higher than the altar are more important than the altar itself which is towered over by the bishops and other clergy! What the heck?
In the pre-Vatican II arrangement of this sanctuary and even of my Cathedral in Savannah, the pre-Vatican II altar is at the highest point in the sanctuary. The Bishop’s throne is lower, at my cathedral almost two steps lower. The clergy who might be in the sanctuary during the celebration of the Mass, are at an even lower point in the sanctuary, never above the altar!
The post-Vatican II Bugnini Mass celebrated in the vernacular in a church or cathedral that did not revamp its sanctuary at all, would have shown quite a bit of continuity in the hierarchy of what is most important in that sanctuary—and it isn’t the bishop who towers over the altar!
36 comments:
Father, if they had simply Celebrated the Mass at the High Altar, the situation would have been addressed. Most French Cathederals have tiny table Altars,at the Nave.A good one third of the Church-the Apse- with the original high altar is unused.This of course, is a Modernist Agenda; no ad orientem,no TLM.
And on that smaller altar, the clutter of chalices and ciborii made the altar look like a religious goods store display of items for sale!
Fr. Mac, what you say is entirely reasonable and self-evident but clergy of a certain age and mindset reject it because they are too stupid or too brain washed.
None of this is by accident; it is quite deliberate. The post-Vatican II reform was a deliberate move from focusing on the worship of God through the sacrifice of Jesus to the communal action of the gathered faithful. This is what also drove the leveling of the distinctions between priest/ministers and the laity. And it has to be emphasized that none of this was required by Vatican II or even the new Mass. The new Mass can be celebrated with all the solemnity of the old but if you attempt to do that liberals act as if you are presenting a cross to a vampire.
Ciboria
What happen ON the altar, not where the altar is located noir how "high" it is, is what makes it important.
All the religious symbolism that miters and chasubles need is already present in the miters and chasubles themselves. Frills, galloons, brocade, embroidered images are nice, but do not amplify the religious symbolism that the chasuble and miter have in and of themselves.
As you have correctly said before, Father. The eyes are drawn to the High Altar because of the position of the candlesticks, whereas......
Obviously you missed your seminary class on the signs and symbols of the sanctuary and what is more important and less important, what is central and what isn’t. And certainly the symbolism and sign of cardinals and bishops looming over the altar rather than the altar looming over their smallness, is completely lacking at St. Stephens in Metz—no wonder bishops think themselves more important than Christ. Please venture to tell us though, what is the symbolism of the lines on the altar and the design of the pope’s chasable and miter. Now, we do already know that you are heavily influenced by a puritanical if not Calvinistic attitude about these things that infected my seminary in the 70’s but not your pre-Vatican II seminary in Emmitsburg. My seminary taught and you continue to embrace that a plain chasuble is just as nice as an ornate one with religious imagery sewn or placed upon it. Interesting.
The other anomaly, especially if one does not take into account the traditionally oriented candles on the high altar, is that the new altar only has three candles to its side. The rubrics for candles are that there should be two or four or six or more in the even number. Three is odd and not just an odd number. And the Cross to the side of the altar, which the pope incensed, is not a crucifix with the Corpus of the Dead Christ upon it, another disobedience to the rules of the liturgy and sanctuary found in the latest edition of the Bugnini Post Vatican II Missal.
If you really believe that the location of the altar is not important then I guess you should drop all of your objections to a pre-Vatican II style sanctuary including ad orientem worship, no?
👍
a cross that is virtually invisible
My seminary used plain vestments, not ones with heavy decorations.
The lines are, it seems to me, simply decoration, but decoration that does not detract from the meaning that already exists in the miter and chasuble as complete symbols in and of themselves. You can imagine them to be the vapor trails left by guardian angels wafting about the Holy Father or the "breath" of the Holy Spirit that leads and guides him in his ministry or...
Anthony - I never said or suggested that the location of the altar doesn't matter. Neither you nor I would locate the altar in the sacristy or the cry room or somewhere else as absurd.
Read carefully what I said, "What happen ON the altar, not where the altar is located nor (corrected) how "high" it is, is what makes it important." The comments is about what makes the altar of sacrifice important. It is the sacrifice, not the location.
"The altar of bronze and recast iron: when Metz becomes a sacrament of peace"
In Metz, the bronze altar forged from German cannons reveals, under the silence of Leo XIV, a moving theology of peace.
https://www.via.bible/en/the-bronze-and-iron-altar-recast-when-metz-became-a-sacrament-of-peace/
You are being pedantic. I never suggested placing the altar in the sacristy or in the cry room but where in the sanctuary it is. I specifically said, "You should drop all of your objections to a pre-Vatican II style sanctuary including ad orientem worship ."
Again, if, as you say:
What happen ON the altar, not where the altar is located nor (corrected) how "high" it is, is what makes it important.
Then you should not object to arranging the altar and the sanctuary as it was before Vatican II. Either this is important or it is not. Which is it?
I mean, if all that matters is what's happening ON the altar, logically there should be no reason not to put it in the cry room. it's still the same sacrifice right?
IF Pope Leo wants peace he should start by revoking an instrument of war, Traditionis Custodes and reinstating an instrument of peace, Summorum Pontificum.
No, Anthony, you specifically said, "If you really believe that the location of the altar is not important then I guess you should drop all of your objections to a pre-Vatican II style sanctuary including ad orientem worship, no?" You see, you change what you said by omitting the first half of the sentence.
I didn't say the location of the altar isn't important - you did.
I did say, and it is true, that what happens on the altar is what makes it important. That is the case where it is elevated 33 steps above the nave, 24 steps below the nave in a confessio, in a secluded mountain cave such as is found at Subiaco, or in a make-shift chapel on a cruise ship at the Arctic circle.
Rocco - Ah, but how confecting the sacrifice on an altar in the cry room facilitate full, conscious, and active participation in the celebration of the Eucharist by the People of God assembled in the body of the church?
Let's show your entire quote:
What happen ON the altar, not where the altar is located noir [sic] how "high" it is, is what makes it important.
You are clearly juxtaposing what happens on the altar vs. where it is located or how high it is, stating that the former is important, not the latter. Now if the latter is not important then drop your opposition to a pre-Vatican II style sanctuary. If the latter is important, drop your dismissal of those who think that it is. Which is it?
"What happen ON the altar, not where the altar is located nor how "high" it is, is what makes it important" If that's the case there should be no problem with it being in the cry room. (there shouldn't be cry rooms though)
Anthony - I am not opposed to a pre-Vatican Two style sanctuary. I've celebrated many masses in such. It is entirely possible - and it is done every single day - for priests to celebrate the versus populum Novus Ordo in a pre-Vatican Two style sanctuary.
Where the altar is does not determine its sacred nature. What happens on the altar does.
Remember, the style of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome is a PRE-VATICAN TWO style sanctuary where versus populum is the norm.
Oh my! For centuries to the time of Constantine the popes st Dt. Peter’s to this day celebrated Mass ad orientem! In this case toward the geographical East! And Zdt. Mary’s and The Latereran do too. St. Paul outside the walls is the exception. It faces St. Peter ‘s altar or west!
I am glad to hear that you do not oppose a pre-Vatican II sanctuary, which by the way would include an elevated high altar at the liturgical east. So I guess now you will drop your criticism of those who favor it and also drop your opposition to ad orientem worship in your own parish. After all, the way the priests faces is not that important, right? Why should anyone be upset by ad orientem?
Father Anthony,
We don't call him "K of the Dwindling Parish" for no reason. Like the Bourbons, he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing
During the wrecovations that began post Vat. II, the very spurious reasoning for ripping out centuries old altars was that two Altars of Sacrifice were not to stand in the same sanctuary. Many tears were shed by descendants of the generous, hard working Catholics who installed them and paid for them at great financial sacrifice. Do any here remember seeing the photo of a priest celebrating Mass on an inflated raft in a swimming pool? No, dear Reverend Father, Holy Mass cannot be offered just anywhere.
Anthony - Inasmuch as ALL altars must be designed in such a way as to allow for circumambulation, I'm fine with the current regulations.
No, I do not change my position on the well-founded preference I have for the NO mass celebrated versus populum.
William - It is unfortunate that people who donate generously for the accoutrements of a church have the notion that they have some control over the permanent use of those items. Would you offer the same sympathy for those who paid for the renovation of the post-Vatican Two era only to see the things they paid for get ripped out and discarded?
No, you would not. So, I suggest you dry your alligator tears.
GIRM 299 states that building an altar separate from the was is desirable whenever possible. It does not mandate it.
But why do you have a "well-founded preference" if it is what ON the altar that is important? Why should you object to the well-founded preferences of other priests for what is a legitimate option?
Anthony - Only a fool or a dishonest person - quoting you there, so don't get your cincture all knotted up - would not understand that my "What's on the altar" comment was specifically directed to the comments our Genial Host made about the sanctuary arrangement at St. Stephen Cathedral in Metz. It has nothing to do with the form of the liturgy being celebrated.
Again, you quote selectively. GIRM 299 states in full, " The altar should be built apart 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. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.
Read this phrase again, "...that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible."
It is a "legitimate option" to take a Conestoga wagon from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon City, Oregon. It a legitimate option to take your life savings and head to Las Vegas with the hope of doubling your money. It is a legitimate option to open your home to every feral cat in the town where you live.
But, you see, legitimate options can be, shall we say, inexpedient.
Every young priest is on fire for reverence and the traditions of the Church, and at least 3,000 boomers go to their eternal reward everyday. It won't be long boys.
Fr. Kavanaugh, discussion about the pre-Vatican II vs. post-Vatican II arrangement of the sanctuary by necessity includes the orientation of the altar, as does your statement of what is important is what takes place on the altar. The two issues are indivisible. But if we are to limit the discussion to just the hight of the altar above the nave, if it is not important then why are you upset that someone would prefer the altar to be more elevated?
Rome has clarified that the antecedent of the phrase "which is desirable wherever possible" is "that it is possible to walk around it," not "that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people." Stop promoting that falsehood that it refers to versus populum worship. The reformed missal itself assumes the ad orientem worship when it gives rubrics for when the priest is to turn to the altar or to the people.
Another canard that old is bad and new is good? The Latin church worshipped ad orientem for nearly 2000 years and it is still an approved option. It is also the norm in the eastern rites. Indeed, Rome has instructed the Syro-Malabar rite in India to return to ad orientem worship. What, in your opinion, is the imperative for versus populum worship other than it being newer?
What is the negative effect of Ad Orientem worship, that formed so many great Saints, that is comparable to the oregon trail or blowing your savings in Las Vegas?
Anthony - I am not "upset" that someone has a preference for five steps up rather than three. I have WAY more important things to get "upset" about that other people's silly preferences. What does raise my ire is when people turn their preferences into "Tradition" and think that that closes discussion on the matter.
And it five steps is high, why not twenty-five? Thirty-five? If a nine-fold Kyrie Eleison is good, why not 27-fold? Or the Bolero-like Serbian Orthodox “Gospodi Pomiluj?"
No, there is not "necessity" in connecting the orientation of the altar with a discussion of pre- or post-Vatican Two sanctuary arrangements. You WANT to make it a necessity, but it's not.
I give no credence to "old is bad, new is good." That's a false accusation. I'd much rather hear old music by Vilvaldi or Albinoni or Bach than the "new" music of today. So don't even TRY to paint me with that brush.
Oh, and using a Conestoga wagon to get from Missouri to Oregon is bad...
Fr. Kavanaugh, the orientation of the altar is at the heart of the pre-Vatican II sanctuary arrangement as is versus populum that of the post-Vatican II sanctuary. You cannot discuss one without the other.
Resorting to hyperbole again, I see, to ridicule your opponents. Why do you see the need to belittle those who prefer older and traditional forms?
If you give no credence to old vs. new, why do you resort to it so much? The old Mass and old forms are not a Conestoga wagon, they are the best of Vivaldi, etc., but you do not want to discuss them on their merits but again resort to ridicule to close discussion on the matter. I will ask again, what is the imperative for versus populum worship the the suppression of the historical form of ad orientem?
Anthony - If you prefer to travel from Missouri to Oregon in a Conestoga wagon, go right ahead. But don't ask me to approve your choice and don't bring it into my church.
The imperative is that the old rite is not wanted by the people of this and many other parishes and a priest has no right whatsoever to impose his personal preferences - that they are precisely that - on a congregation.
You tell me what merits you want to discuss and I'll be happy to do so. Don't
that I will, ab initio, agree with your idea of what is meritorious.
K can't refute your arguments, so he descends into ad hominem
Fr. Kavanaugh, by what measure do you categorize ad orientem, the form of worship that was used for nearly 2000 years, and is still used in the east, as a Conestoga wagon? Why is inferior to versus populum? All you have done is dismissed it as being old. This is the merit that I want to discuss.
Do not hide your own prejudice behind the people of the parish who, by the way, include all those living within your parish and not just those who agree with your form of worship. I would venture that most would be indifferent and many would actually support ad orientem worship if it were explained to them without rancor. What is your reason to oppose it?
The celebrant indeed does have the right to make that choice. It is you, the pastor, who does not have the right to impose your personal preferences on another priest. It is also you who are imposing you personal preferences on the congregation.
You must not talk to many young Catholics Father...we want tradition. We want traditional liturgy, at least a properly done NO Mass, and traditional teaching on the realities and truth of the Holy Catholic Faith, and we resent the boomers who didn't teach anything substantial and fed us happy clappy feel-good nonsense.
Post a Comment