Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
It's a beautiful church, but does anyone else find comical/criminal the void behind that altar (and another three steps higher)?
I for one have no problem with free standing altars but I agree the empty space does seem strange. Maybe
they should consider some serious re-
novation.
I visited this St Francis Cathedral in Adelaide in 1998 and when I was there there was a throne at the back of the void directly below the windows of the sanctuary. When the (liberal) Archbishop Faulkner retired and replaced with the more conservative Archbishop Wilson (a priest of Opus Dei) the throne obviously has been removed to a place closer to the Altar.
It looks a bit better than before, but I dont know what they should do with the empty space. The Altar could be moved back into the space (close to the position of the old high Altar but this may make it too far away.
The Blessed Sacrament Chapel is on the far left (the same position as in 1998 )and looks pretty forlorn. The church is oriented towards the South (actually towards Antarctica) so the closest to an ad-Orientem position is actually facing the congregation.
Go to http://www.sfxcathedralparish.org/
to find out more. The history page 1892-1926 section has a picture of what was in the void pre Vatican II.
The only thing I could think of it to create the void into a Blessed Sacrament Chapel with a grille separating it with the current Altar area. (Im thinking of an arrangement similar to the Toronto Oratory). It would be very unlikely that the old High Altar would be able to be reconstructed.
I have not met Archbishop Wilson but from what I know he would be one of the stongest supporters of Reform of the Reform in Australia. So as far as St Francis Xavier's in concerned, I would suggest - "watch this space" lol
"The Altar could be moved back into the space (close to the position of the old high Altar but this may make it too far away."
Please understand that I'm not trying to pick a fight where none exists, but "too far away" from what? The doors into the church? I just don't understand the desire to take altars out of the presbytery and put them in the nave. Especially as this often requires (and this may not have been the case with this particular church) the removal of the first row or more of pews. Looking at the photo from the "Years 1892-1926" and the "Building Stages" map, it seems pretty clear that the altar is now in the nave. Why?
As for free-standing altars, I prefer them (giving proper respect to historical architecture--that is, I'd never rip out a perfectly fine and usable older altar, however it faced). But what's wrong with having the altar where the alter is supposed to be and the people where the people are supposed to be? This seems to be one of the biggest problems plaguing church architecture these days.
That should say: "altar where the altar is supposed to be".
Thank you to everyone else who noticed the position of the altar and the void behind it! When I first saw the pictures I thought...what a beautiful ceremony and altar. Then I saw the gaping empty space and realized that on any normal occasion the altar whould not have been decorated as elaboratly. It probably would be bare. Which made me think of how utterly Protestant it would normally look! UGH !! Hopefully Pope Benedict might come out with new liturgical rulings favoring the use of the great marble altars against the walls instead of cheap little freestanding table altars.
From my observations, especially form their website www.icrsp.org, the INstitute of Christ the King does a much better job at celebrating the classical Tridentine Latin Mass. The Society of St. Peter doesn't pay much attention to aesthetics and liturgical beauty...they just say the Tridentine Latin Mass and that's it folks. But the Institute of Christ the King goes all out with tons of elaborate ornamentation, stunning vestments, beautiful music, immaculately performed rituals etc.
You can see the difference between a Fraternity of St. Peter Mass, and an Institute of Christ the King Mass. One group says the Tridentine Mass because they can...the other tries to imerse everyone into the beauty of Catholic culture from the Tridentine Latin Mass to everything else. As a result, I think they're influence is growing rapidly and will be longer lasting.
Nevertheless, these pictures are beautiful, and its a great Grace to have another new priest for the Fraternity of Saint Peter.
" Then I saw the gaping empty space and realized that on any normal occasion the altar whould not have been decorated as elaboratly."
Very true. But it does demonstrate that it would be very easy and relatively inexpensive to implement a 'reform of the reform' renovation in all but the most radically reordered churches. Item One: A set of antependia. Two: Six tall candlesticks and Crucifix. Option Three: Wooden altar rails.
Funny you should say renovations, Matthew, because that's exactly what was going on at the Cathedral around the time of the ordination.
I heard from one of the altar servers that the sanctuary was a mess when they had practice on the preceding days, so you can't really blame them for leaving the area quite bare.
However, I haven't been back to the Cathedral since the ordination, so I can't really say if things have changed for the better!
Kenjiro Shoda - you are being very unfair. FSSP here are using what they can. The fact that there is no marble high altar is by no means their fault, nor even is it the fault of the current archbishop. I don't think the Institute of Christ the King could do it any better.
Dear Readers, I am the culprit who sent these photos to the blog to be posted. May I make some clarifications?
1st This is only the 2nd priestly ordination ceremony celebrated according to the old Pontifical by an Australian bishop since the reforms. It is the first celebrated by a Metropolitan Archbishop in his own Cathedral!
2nd Archbishop Wilson was not a priest of Opus Dei but a priest of the Diocese of Maitland (Province of Sydney NSW) where for some years he was Diocesan Master of Ceremonies. He has a wonderful knowledge of the structure and spirituality of the Sacred Liturgy.
3rd Yes that chancel does look very bare, but may I point out something? This Cathedral is peculiar in that it had aisles of unusual width added in stages in the 1880's and 1920's. An altar in the chancel could only be seen by about half of those sitting in either aisle (lines of vision). The Cathedral originally had much smaller aisles, where visibility of the altar in the chancel was not an issue.
4th The old ceremonial books speak of a civory or baldacchino over a free-standing altar, not of altars against "East" walls with elaborate reredoses. The books also speak of the Cathedra positioned behind the altar (like many Roman basilicas) or on the Gospel side if that is not possible.
5th Amongst the various discussions, I thought that siting the Blessed Sacrament in the now empty chancel was a great idea. I would also a erect a rood screen in the arch of the chancel.
6th If anyone is interested, I designed the vestments and mitres used in the ceremony of Ordination and made half of them.
I agree with Kenjiro. The FSSP are all well and good, but the Institute really goes to town!
I was present in choir at the ceremony and it went off very well. I note that the chasuble here is not the orginal full conical gothic vestment made by MS (above). I presume bishops couldn't be persuaded to wear it. I recall Card Pell floundering about in it. The replacement is a handsome vestment though. I have photo of the the original which I'll put on my blog.
Ephraem
Sorry, about the inaccurate information that Archbishop Wilson was previously a priest of Opus Dei. That was something that I was told by a Brisbane priest, so he must have had his story wrong.
By the tone of the discussion, a rood screen enclosing a Blessed Sacrament Chapel would be the best use of the space. When I was at the cathedral it looked as if a freestanding Altar could not really work in the original apse, and where it was actually positioned looked strange as well.
The cathedral looks to have had a good clean since I last visited. I very much doubt that Archbishop Wilson would allow anything approaching a wreckovation. Can any one tell me what the actual intentions with the renovation of the cathedral are?
Okay, Okay, Okay.
Folks, I'm the server Patrick was referring to. I was Acolyte1 but you can't see me in any of the pics.
Adelaide Archdiocese is rather a shocker. It was one of the first Cathedrals in Australia to have the High Altar removed after VII.
The forward altar (or as a friend calls it the Cranmer Table) is fixed and thus could not be moved back. If you look at the pics I have on my blog you will see that Fr. Michael could only just fit when prostrate.
The space at the back was a little off putting especially being a server who had to effectively be standing behind the altar!
The ceremony was "awesome". The Arch. did a pretty good job in his first ever Tridentine Mass but refused however to move the Chair and wear the white gloves - despite the photos of Ratzinger wearing them a few years back.
Stephen said:
I have not met Archbishop Wilson but from what I know he would be one of the stongest supporters of Reform of the Reform in Australia. So as far as St Francis Xavier's in concerned, I would suggest - "watch this space" lol
I wouldn't be so sure...
It should be noted as well, that it can be difficult to make such comparisons between the FSSP and ICR. The FSSP, after all, are quite a bit bigger, whereas the ICR are much more condensed and can therefore throw more of their resources into the parishes they have.
We should also remember that the way the FSSP conducts liturgies is celebrated infinitely times better than most parochial liturgies before Vatican II. Whilst we should always be aiming for perfection, they are 'pretty damn good if you ask me'.
Great to see these pictures
In the light of experience both with FSSP and with "parochial liturgies before Vatican II, I know there's much truth to the statement that
the way the FSSP conducts liturgies is celebrated infinitely times better than most parochial liturgies before Vatican II.
Despite the way we more classically minded types sometimes react when someone like our resident liberal repeats his tired mantra about how dismal the liturgy was in the bad old days before the great leap forward. (I refer, of course, to the fact that the classical Roman liturgy has benefited more from Vatican II than has the new order. Which is most appropriate, inasmuch as the recommendations of the Council were directed at the old liturgy, since the bishops there and then hardly envisioned any "new order" of liturgy.)
Okay stupid question: Traditionally, is the bishop's chair always in the back of the church? I always find it to be off. Especially when the tabernackle is off to one side. It seems that we are directing our worship toward the bishop. Is this the normal place for the bishop's chair.
A former Protestant
Peace,
Ben
Why would he not wear the gloves?
Peter in Dublin, I really don't know. He didn't want any hand kissing either - but the subdeacon sneaked one in!
I don't remember any Bishop using the Pontifical Gauntlets (Gloves) at an ordination ceremony...even for the FSSP priests. I think it was done for Institute of Christ the King priests.
I've seen a few poor attepmts to use the gloves, but sadly it seems that some places don't remember what they're really supposed to look like.
I saw one Chinese bishop wearing gloves which looked like they were the formal nylon opera gloves women used to wear.The go almost up to the elbow. He had the big episcopal ring on His finger wearing the gloves, but the gloves really don't look like the real thing.
Some places have very good intentions to restoring traditional vesture, but it's been gone so long they don't remember the correct appearance the vestment should take. Sometimes it is done correctly, other times it is rather comical.
There should be a book somewhere which could be readilly available showing how traditional Catholic vestments are made, (including the gloves), and what they should look like.
The photos are gorgeous! I believe simply from the photos, that it was well done. The vestments are an excellent classical execution. Remember, lace is a wonderful thing, as are cut away gothic chasubles and dalmatics, but the represent a very limited period in the Church. What I like about these photos and vestments is that they are quite liturgically correct in a classic sense, there is balance of design, clarity, and the absence of lace is refreshing, and you don't even want to know how many lace albs and surplices I own! Notice too how beautiful sterling silver looks on fine linen! Why should the Anglicans have all the taste??
Michael, I am designing a full set for "High" Mass and Solemn Vespers. Do you take on outside work?? You did a fine job.
Dear Gelasius: thank you. I would be pleased to hear from you.
saintbedestudio@hotmail.com (also note the homepage).
Best wishes,
Michael.
Gelacius. I hate lace! It's actually nearly impossible to find lace wearing FSSPs on the WWW. Those of us serving that weren't FSSP seminarians all wore gothic surplices.
Kenjiro Shoda, glove wearing was in the rite and in the sheets given to the arhcbishop to learn from. The Cathedral does have a couple fo old gloves too which are just right.
The Cathedral also has sanctuary slippers for the archbishop - in liturgical colours, however they were not worn either.
And not only "Gothic" surplices Aaron, but the purple cassocks of Episcopal livery! Very appropriate for Pontifical ceremonies. PS I also don't like lace and even less so, "fiddlebacks".
I was wearing habit and cappa nigra. I'm not in any pictures either. Just for the record...
On the question of cathedra, as Ben (the ex-P) asks, there is an illuminating article in the CIEL conference proceedings from 1995 (I don't have the reference handy, but I'll dig it out. I think it was in French). The place at the extreme of the gospel side reflects ancient table usage. This was the place of honour - not the centre of the table a la Da Vinci's infamous last supper. Remember they were reclining on couches. The place at the back, also very ancient, seemingly mimics Imperial court manners.
A democratic "Facing the People" wasn't in anyone's mind, as far as can be discerned historically.
PS Aaron looked at home in purple - a portent of things to come, I Imagine.
"We should also remember that the way the FSSP conducts liturgies is celebrated infinitely times better than most parochial liturgies before Vatican II."
The "most" in that comment is quite illustrative of a certain mindset, in my opinion. Since the liturgy was fundamentally the same in every parish throughout the whole world, on what basis can that be held? Can one take some experiences of the mumbled, 20-minute Mass and extrapolate that it was that way throughout the world and in the entire period up to V2? I just wish we could get rid of that hackneyed presumption which is trotted out time and again.
Anyway, the pictures remind me very much of a Traditional Requiem Mass I attended last year, the difference being that while the altar in the church has been moved to the front of the sanctuary the old high altar with glorious carved reredos AND tabernacle is still in place, so while the general set-up looked as in the pictures above (i.e. the priest celebrating in front of the modern altar "ad orientem") the fact that the old altar and tabernacle were still there really gave it a dimension somewhat lacking from the ceremony in Adelaide (glorious as it is, I must add!). And also, they hadn't removed the altar rails, so one could receive kneeling.
For me, the solution in that Adelaide church would be to restore the tabernacle to its former position as others have suggested, although I'm not sure I'd go with having it enclosed in a sort of shrine (if that was what some others were suggesting?) with a small altar table and candles, which would I think restore the focus of the whole church. Oh, and they should of course have a sanctuary lamp or two hanging before it. And why not some appropriate devotional images as well? Just some thoughts...
jaykay. News for you.
I believe tabernacle was always on the side altar in the Adelaide Cathedral. To the left.
And I can tell you now, there is no-way there will be any "restoration" in Adelaide! The Arch. ain't interested.
And a tip for you. The Archbishop hates poliphany and is also not a fan of Gregorian Chant. Yet professes to have read Fortescue (I caught him out a couple of times however, over dinner).
It would be entirely un-traditional to "restore" the tabernacle to the main altar in this or in any other cathedral. This was never the practice, since, at least according to the old Pontifical, bishops are forbidden to pontificate at an altar where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.
Bishop Slattery of Tulsa, call your office.
Splendid vestments! I am cheered by these as it seems every FSSP ordination I have ever attended or seen pictures of has involved nothing but awful yards of lace and those hideous fiddleback chasubles which I loathe.
Does anyone have views on the solita oscula? I have never much liked them myself. Some deacons get a bit carried away - you really need the lavabo afterward. Apart from the solemn ones at epistle, gospel,offertory and pax - I just really wonder about it all.
HEY!
Easy there gang on the lace! Ok, I get it, you don't have to like it or fiddlebacks. But you guys will all be in the back row at the parousia!!!
Aaron said: "I believe tabernacle was always on the side altar in the Adelaide Cathedral. To the left."
I don't think so, Aaron, at least not in the view you can see of it as it was pre-V2 in the website - "click under history". It seems to be there on the high altar all right.
Also, I'm not quite sure what Scott means when he says "it would be entirely-untraditional to "restore" the tabernacle to the main altar.... This was never the practice...". Well, I can cite many cathedrals here in Ireland where it most certainly was the practice, including the pro-Cathedral here in Dublin.
In any event I wasn't talking about restoring the tabernacle to the "main" altar, since that's effectively now the one they have
way out front. What I, and others, meant was that the tabernacle can be restored to the position of honour in the sanctuary - from where it should nevver have been removed in any event.
A more practical option could be to use the old sanctuary as a choir, complete with returning stalls. This was a very common arrangement adopted in cathedrals and churches reordered in the wake of the Council of Trent, in Spain and France especially. This was done to shorten the distance between the altar and faithful after the removal of the roodscreen or jube. In this church a tabernacle could be fixed on the current altar and some rails added.
I acknowledge what you say but at the same time still disagree Jay kay. Sure I would say most Churches pre-V2 would have the tabernacle in the centre but not all.
it all depends on how far you want to "go back"! 1962, 17th century, middle ages!
I have friends who think birettas are an abomination!
Commenting by HaloScan
