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!
21 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!
Post a Comment