Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
There, it's now perfectly clear. Any questions?
Here's another view, found at American Papist:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/...h9nWavDrinCvg--
I just LOVE Pope Benedict! It just shows what can be done if you have the taste and the nerve! Tom
I've added that shot to the post. It's a good comparative one to the other shot.
What an astoundingly beautiful and compelling place!
These pictures are great.
I am most certain Pope Benedict XVI will come through for us. His strategies remind me of the Sacred Scripture quote from St. Matthew: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."
Actually, if you look at the stripe of green marble on the floor beneath the altar, you will see it has not been moved. Compare the position of the green marble stripe in the before and after photos.
Eric,
It hasn't been suggested that the altar has been moved. Ad orietem and free-standing altars aren't inimical. An altar can be free-standing and not be against a reredos. What can define that are the candlesticks, and in this case as well, particularly the tabernacle.
There's a wonderful post up at Fr. Z's blog, wwww.wdtprs.com in which He visited the Basilica of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, and heard and saw what He thinks is a miracle, and the beginning of the end for the "tables" we've been stuck with as altars since Vatican II.
He walked into this magnificent 16th century Church, and immediatly noticed that the horrible "picnic table altar" that had been in the sanctuary was shoved away and the magnificent "real" altar, the original altar was there.
Father heard some young people looking admiringly at the altar, and said something to the effect of "how could they have put that ugly table in front of THIS!!!"
If Churches in Rome are starting to discard the crappy tables to use the real altars again, this is tremendous.
This plus the story last week from Vienna about a Church there opting to do away with table altars looks like the beginning of a wave of restoration.
Let's hoope it comes full force with the Motu Proprio and Apostolic Exhortation, and arrives in the USA before Easter!!
I see no evidence the altar has been moved.
Kenjiro, I believe young people are moved by sincere, serious beauty. It gives even atheistic students pause.
Every generation of the Church has a right to experience this.
It is fitting that these photographs come from a chapel dedicated to the kindly, pious, sweet virgin mother of our Redeemer.
Actually,
Looking at the altar compared to the green stripe it appears that the front edge of the altar has been moved back about 1.5 feet (about 0.5 m). I presume that this is to provide enough room betwen the altar and the step to celebrate the mass ad orientam.
I am not a clergyman, but a businessman who knows how organizations operate, and to have the pope (or another at the pope's direction) celebrate ad orientam in front of this crowd will not go unnoticed.
His Holiness can make his best points by such subtleties. Sure there will be a few hard cases who fight it, but they are doomed. As the song says, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. This picture, in a subltle but unmistakable way, is showing the wole church which way the wind is blowing.
While I'm optomistic, I wouldn't want to place too much weight on a static photographic. We don't actually see Mass being celebrated ad orientem: what we see in these photos is an apparently non-liturgical assembly of prelates in a chapel. Perhaps the tabernacle was brought in just for this occasion, in order that the Blessed Sacrament might be present during their assembly. That might account for the candlesticks.
What I would want to see is a photo of Pope Benedict's daily Mass in his private chapel. I believe, but could be mistaken, that when his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, offered Mass in this chapel, it was ad orientem.
People may have forgotten, but John Paul II celebrated Mass ad orientem in his private chapel. I recall see
photos on the Internet depicting him so doing. Tom
Pope John Paul II celebrating ad orientem
http://unavoce.org/pope_facing_altar.htm
Perhaps I misunderstood the photograph as depicting an altar that was (or was to be) used for this assembly. And perhaps I AM reading more into this than is there, but I don't think so. And I know about JPII in his private chapel, but this is not a private setting.
This is a beautiful chapel. The mosaics on the walls and ceiling are incredible.
God bless,
Adam
That is the first time I have ever seen physical progress at the Vatican -- bravo. Does anyone know of other such improvements with photos? ("Altarations?")
Again, to be clear. The altar does not have to be "moved back" to facilitate ad orientem in this case.
The altar doesn't have to be "against the wall" so to speak for ad orientem.
Think of the altars without reredos' but covered by baldacchinos.
Fr. Arsenius,
It certainly is possible, however, from a mere practical standpoint, if Mass was being celebrated during this retreat, it certainly would be awkward to have to shift the candlesticks, tabernacle, etc., especially when one could then at least have had the tabernacle and candlesticks moved forward and then simply remove the temporary tabernacle for Mass (if need be) or celebrate ad populum even while leaving it there.
No, it seems far more likely that the altar is setup for ad orientem. Moreover, it is telling that the altar was setup this way at all, down to the 6 candlesticks.
Incidentally, a reader sent a picture of this same chapel from a year ago, and it has exactly the same altar setup, with the same tabernacle, 6 altar candlesticks, etc. That at least eliminates this as a "one-off" for this particular Lenten retreat.
Is it me or does that first photo with the table altar look like a photo-shopped preview of what might have been?
Shawn,
I am aware that the altar need not be "against the wall". I was thnking about the priest (or the 80 year old Pope) celebrating with his heels mere inches from the edge of a step. Sorry if I did not make that clear.
There is actually a good deal of space there. Other shots show that the altar cloth hangs about a good 5 inches or so, so that makes it look like there is less space than there is.
(Here is another view by the way)
In fact, in one photo I saw, you actually see JP2 standing there in his frailer state consecrating the altar from the "ad orientem" side.
As well, I'm presuming this altar is fixed and not moveable. The style of the base looks to me as though it would somehow be put in place and not simply something one could push back.
Brian: that first picture is indeed a photoshop.
This does augur well for how things might be changing.
However, and not to sound negative, but doesn't the new GIRM say that the tabernacle ought not to be placed on an altar at which Mass is celebrated? From my persepctive, I can see no theological or liturgical reason why that should be so, but it seems to be in the GIRM as far as I recall.
Hopefully this all means that the supreme legislator has determined that such a ruling should have no standing.
Joe, there is no requirement that the tabernacle not be on the altar. It takes the form of a suggestion - it is more in keeping with the sign of the sacrament that the tabernacle not be placed upon an altar on which mass is to be celebrated. This is quoting the 1967 text "Eucaristicum Mysterium" which also clearly states that the tabernacle may be situatied in the middle of the main altar, even if mass is celebrated facing the people.
At no point is it stated in the GIRM or elsewhere that placement of the tabernacle upon the high altar/any altar is strictly forbidden (as opposed to flowers on the mensa of the altar - that is forbidden quite explicitely in the new instructions)
Jim S-B
well, as per public papal masses celebrated ad orientem, i've noticed that recently, there are tv cameras situated "behind" the pope in St. Peter's during big papal masses, i.e. tv cameras at the west end of the basilica where they pick up the image of the pope celebrating with his back to the viewer. I've never noticed that in JPII's reign. i could be wrong and that this camera setup was something totally unrelated to the discussion above.
Shawn:
I'm disinclined to think that this is even a semi-permanent arrangement precisely because of GIRM 2000: 315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.
Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,
a. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
b. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer129 and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.
Given the qualifications in a. and b., there really is no preferred option in the new GIRM to locate a tabernacle on the same altar at which one is celebrating Mass. There is nothing here that proscribes a portable tabernacle being brought to the altar apart from the Mass, but not during it.
Perhaps His Holiness is applying his "pastoral discretion" in allowing it, in view of GIRM 2000, #315.
We'd know for sure if we saw a photo of the Holy Father (or anyone, for that matter) celebrating Mass at this altar – ad orientem or versus populum – with the tabernacle still visible on the altar.
The virtual visit on the Vatican website has not yet been updated.
The problem is the GIRM is that it uses language such as "preferable" so it is impossible to tell if it constitutes a binding obligation.
Indeed, Cardinal Medina said the whole altar-pulled-away-from-the-wall thing was not binding (based, perhaps, on similarly vague language accompanying the text), but just a very strong suggestion based on pastoral circumstances and the church's geographical setup, in one of his rulings. How does one evaluate such language? (Which also brings up the point that with wall-altars, the tabernacle is not on the mensa to begin with.)
It would be nice that we would have an option for a tabernacle so placed, at least in theory. But before we go out and start doing it, best to wait until the GIRM is revised or made more clear. Hopefully, this setup is a sign of things to come.
Fr. Arsenius,
Actually, I'm personally less concerned about the tabernacle being on the altar as I am about the evident organization of the altar in a traditional mode, and setup for celebration ad orientem.
But as you note about the GIRM, it isn't absolute on that point.
I agree with Fr Arsenius in both his posts: it does not appear to me to be set up for Mass, but so that whatever they are all going to talk about will be done in the physical presence of the Lord i.e. Jesus is here - weigh your remarks carefully before you make them.
Now, the Blessed Sacrament could have been brought in in other ways, with the altar arranged otherwise. I think the very traditional arrangement of tabernacle, candles, and the 'ad orientem' suggestion of the arrangement, are the hint to the assembled prelates of the shape of things to come - not of things already there.
The event was the recent week long Lenten-retreat given -- an event that usually includes Mass.
I do have disagree, but as we have no photos yet...
Is the altar arranged for exposistion if so its only six moderate lights flanking an unveiled tabernacle in the 1930's Liturgie style Benediction behind the altar always looks awkward so it might simply be common sense theres no missal which is a clue when you think of the floorboards groaning under the weight of the unused tat in the Apostolic Palace
The blogger and some of his followers seem highly critical of the altar as in the first photo and approving of the second photo.
I would disagree with them. Strongly.
Dealing with matters in rising order of importance:
The lack of candles in the first photo is not an issue. The altar is being consecrated with holy oils. It is not customary to have candles on the altar at that time. Maybe an obscure liturgical point, but a better informed observer would pick up on this, which it seems the commentator is not. Photos can be found of the orignal altar with candles on it during an ecumencial service with the Archbishop of Canturbury.
The tabernacle. This seems to be the issue which gets the blogger's knickers up. I would offer this as an example of the conservative focus on an unneeded uniformity regardless of particular situations. Mater Redemptoris Chapel is not a parish church with a practical need for reservation. In fact, reservation may present practical problems as to the "turn-over" of the reserved sacrament due to the infrequent use of the chapel. It is within the Vatican so there are ample other places for private devotion before the Sacrament.
In fact, in the second and third photos where the conservative commentator is so approving, the space appears to be used by Pope Benedict giving an address to a group of clerics. None of them are in liturgical dress. Is it really essential to reserve the Sacrament in a chapel that is at times used as a lecture hall, even if the lectures are on matters of church life?
Lastly -- and this is where I am quite sad as to the apparent changes -- this chapel was designed by the late Holy Father John Paul II as a gift to the Church in thanksgiving for his 50 years as a priest. He expressed that it was to be a holy space giving witness to the Church "breathing with two lungs" (the East and West). The mosaics, the cubical shape of the chapel and the square altar were all designed with this in mind.
The removal of the square altar and replacement with the rectangular one is a shame, in my view and goes against the integrity of the chapel.
Katherine, thanks for your opinion. Please note, from time immemorial tabernacles have been placed on altars even in small chapels. Also, I don't think the square altar was removed, just enhanced. In terms of its being Pope John Paul's gift, militating against any change, well, the altar at the Chair of St. Peter in St. Peter's Basilica was changed and so was the altar in the Sistine Chapel. Should we feel miffed for Julius II? Tom
This is one of the most beautiful Chapels in the Vatican. And to think it used to be (up until about 10 years ago), just an ordinary room which wasn't even fitted out as a Church or chapel. It was named "The Mathilde Chapel", for whatever reason. I saw pictures of it before the mosaics etc. went in. It could have passed for a reception room. Hardly worthy of a chapel.
The mosaics are magnificent, and done in the style of the very early Medieval period (4th and 5th centuries) a la the mosaics which still exist in Santa Maria Maggiore etc. from that period.
The only flaw in the entire room, is that among the mosaics is a representation of modern martyrs...and in a nod to ecumenism, a Lutheran, Deitrich Bonhoffer who I believe was a theologian and philosopher killed by the Nazis was added on directions from JP II. This was a serious error on His part, not to mention totally inappropriate and caused a good deal of scandal. It sould be removed from the mosiac piece depicting modern martyrs. It is just like when JP II kissed the Koran in an audience in 1999.
Regarding the altar, though the tabranacle in the middle and the tall candlesticks are an improvement, how are we to know if Holy Mass (not "The Eucharist" as some have taken to calling it....that's SO Protestant to call Mass that) was celebrated "ad orientam" or facing the people?
If facing the people, then "big deal".
If "ad orientam", then THAT'S PROGRESS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!!!
Katherine, in your zeal to find reason to criticize, you have completely misrepresented myself and others.
I did make reference to the photo of JP2 consecrating the altar in this chapel, which incidentally doesn't even form a part of this post. The first picture (which I determined to remove earlier today because of possible copyright issues from the news source) was of an already consecrated altar, taken in the time of Benedict XVI, dressed with altar cloth and with Fr. Cantalamessa giving a retreat.
This photograph was referenced elsewhere , not as pertaining to candlesticks but in relation to the discussion on how much footspace there would be on the "south" side of the altar.
Second, no one suggested Mass was occuring in the chapel at the time of the pictures in the actual post. Clearly it was not. It was the week long Lenten retreat. We were speaking of the dressing of the altar in relation to the Masses that may have been said there in the course of this Lenten retreat.
Thus, your polemic about "better informed observer" is entirely off base and incorrect - not to say uncharitable as well.
Your multiple comments about "conservative focus" and blogger are quite revealing of your own ideological positioning on liturgical issues as well. Really what we need to speak of is not "conservative" or "liberal" but simply Catholic and what actually falls into that range given our theology, tradition, liturgical law, etc.
Your comment identifying "unnecessary uniformity" on the part of "liturgical conservatives" will certainly get a chuckle out of all here as well as elsewhere since the liturgical progressivists have often been the very worst offenders at against legitimate liturgical diversity, while concurrently promoting illegitimate liturgical diversity -- i.e. liturgical abuses. They are often quite happy to speak of their liberality, so long as it is defined on their terms, rather than the Church's terms. Further, the post did not identify this (the placement of the tabernacle on the altar itself) as an absolute requirement, but rather spoke of it positively in relation to our tradition. Thus, this is a false assumption on your part.
Finally, the altar is still the same altar. It was never square to begin with. So again, before throwing out comments about "better informed observers" you might wish to be careful.
You've tried to paint myself and the blog as uninformed, but before you do so, please come with a legitimate case.
I would also like to add, in respect to Katherine's comments, that if we do wish for the Church to breathe with both "lungs" as the late pontiff longed for, then the most appropriate place for the tabernacle is upon the alter, as one would find in any self-respecting Byzantine or Slavic church. But where is the iconostasis/temblon?
I wish there were some statues in that chapel. I know that since it's supposed to celebrate the "two lungs" of the church and that since one of those "lungs" has no statues, that means no statues at all. Is a kind of Roman self-hatred? And while the the scope of the mosaic work is impressive, does the style strike anyone else as "primivitism"?
I'm not terribly fond of the artistic design, which i think is not really reflective of eastern iconography, but a western simplification of it. The real thing is more sophisticated and less self-consciously primitive, I think. I like the ecumenical gesture of the design but I think it would have made more sense to do a fully-fledged Byzantine chapel rather than a chapel that manages to be neither Roman nor Byzantine. Just as Byzantines should decry latinization, we should be careful about Byzantinization, as we have a heritage just as they do, both deserving of respect. JP II had very fine intentions in doing this chapel, and the architect, not his Holiness, should not be considered to be the focus of my criticism. It's just the execution leaves something to be desired.
Dear All: Please peruse Katherine's website and draw your own conclusions. Tom
Matthew of the Holy Whapping,
as you can see from my comment above yours, I'm totally with you. This chapel smacks of primitivism and not some real era of the Church, east or west. I was going to mention in my earlier comment if there was no artist trained in Byzantine glass mosaic who couldn't execute a Byzantine chapel. I say, and totally loving and respecting the traditions of the east, that we Roman Catholics have our own patrimony and that we should be proud to express it. Most people on this blog will agree that we Roman Catholics should fight for our "ad orientem" liturgical focus, but I would also remind them that it includes statues and three dimensional media, as well as polyphony etc etc.
I think that the forgetting of our patrimony is actually older that VC2. The Nat'l Shrine in Washington DC is a large and therefore influential center of Catholicism in the USA. However, I look at it as a terribly self-conscious and therefore rather unsuccessful attempt at a holy shrine.
We have a great religious tradition in the West and we should be ashamed of it or think that it's the source of our problems at home or abroad. I think that JPII's chapel is a slap in the face of all teh great western artists who tried to glorify the Latin Church...telling them, in effect, that we like sub-standard pseudo-byzantine art better than yours. If there really IS a "genius" to Catholicism, then it can only be fully realized by Rome being Roman.
*NOT ashamed of it...obviously
There could, of course, be a much simpler explanation of the tabernacle/big six candles set-up: the Lenten gathering apparently began with Exposition, Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (which may have been repeated at other times). The arrangement would have facilitated those devotions - and practical considerations would have suggested leaving the arrangement in place between each period of Exposition.
Whatever the reasons, it is a most helpful sign which I believe augurs well for the future - and which sends out a very powerful message to participants, if to no one else.
Brian -- I agree wholly with your points, and that we should fight for statues, polyphony, and liturgical development. But let's also be charitable and careful to not impute such anti-Western values to JP II himself, and I'm sure the artist who did the chapel, a Jesuit, did not have such a hostile intent. I imagine he worked off the principal that Older = More Primitive and thus = Good. This is problematic from the point of view of organic development, but common enough to not be terribly surprising and should be responded to with careful argument.
Maybe it's best to look on the bright side and see this as an opportunity. As I said above, I distrust the Byzantinizing tendencies in much modern art--but I'll also say that I am glad that the work in the chapel, even if not partaking in the Western tradition, is representational and at least has *some* link to an aspect of the past. It could be less a detour than a start--let's just not stop at that and hope such interest can be pushed forward to encompass the whole of the Western tradition.
Thanks for your enthusiasm, in any case!
I think that there is an extent to which the deployment of the Byzantine style is perceived as politically neutral. One often sees Byzantine iconography in relatively low-church Anglican churches, where, presumably, it is seen as a way of introducing an element of iconographical richness which does not indirectly allude to the great destruction of specifically western iconography that occured during the Protestant rebellion and afterwards. Perhaps, it is felt in some Catholic quarters, that our own traditions are 'tainted' by the post Tridentine aesthetic tradition?
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
