Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Thanks for posting that Shawn! I really appreciate it.
A few corrections: The priest who is willing to say the TLM is not the pastor. And it's a banner in the background.
It's still a work in progress, and when we add some statues and more artwork and such, I'll post more pictures and email you them as well, Shawn. We plan on making it look extraordinary!
The one criticism I have of this re-do is that it tries to make a modern looking church into a medieval looking one. I don't think this takes the integrity of architectural and interior designs seriously enough. Perhaps what would be more desirable would be to exchange the "splash" design in the back with a religiously themed one, enlarge the crucifix, and place a few candles around the celebrants' chairs. Also, shorter candles, more of the monastic variety, might be used at the altar along with an altar crucifix for the celebrant's meditation. I really see no reason why the sanctuary has to be changed so dramastically, even for an ad orientem celebration. Granted, the architectural style is ridiculous and juvenile, but if you simply try to cover it up that looks even more juvenile.
Clayton, there is no integrity in that modern architectural style.
It seems there are both low Mass and High Mass candles on that altar?
Since these candles are being put on just for the occasional mass and not all the time, why the extra sets? It would seem better to just put on what is to be used when you're putting on each time anyways, there being no reason for keeping them there to avoid having to put them on and take them off repeatedly, since you have to put them on and take them off anyways.
I think that we need to not build gymnasium type quasi Protestant churches. Theology can guide architecture. That does not mean that anything modern is bad per se.
(I like the Guadi Cathedral in Barcelona for example)
But certainly the older churches, oratories, cathedrals are far more beautiful, reverent, and instructive of our faith.
Although I still think intent is very important and some architecture and art does allow mortification and suffering :]
I have seen some ad hoc altars and "iconostasis"(?) at made up chapels for Byzantine Rite Catholics who did not have a full Church up and running at that time.
It consisted of big buckets of sand with candles (it might of been something other than sand)
Big icons of the Angels Michael on the Right and Gabriel on the left (far) and icons in the middle of Jesus the Pancrator and the Theotokos on the left, St. John the Baptist, Abraham and the Angels and off to the side I think it was Jesus descent into Hades. A photo at that time of John Paul II. A statute of Mary of what looked like the Miraculous Medal in the corner and some other icons. A table altar with a gold crucifix and gold angel (I think with the wings) holder things. I remember it vividly although I may have the detail off.
I think they shared the room with a Protestant congregation of 7th Day Adventist Koreans (but I may have that wrong)
They took down the icons and blew out the candles at the end.
I think it was English and Ukrainian with some small parts of Greek or Old Slovanic. The sining or chant was all without instrumentation. It was simple but beautiful and reverent. I could not recall the exact notation or even words.
I think they eventually built a Church or merged with another Church.
They were in full unity with the Pope but had their own bishop I believe.
Point here is that a temporary or ad hoc chapel can work but there is still an ultimate goal of a final sanctuary. The ancient Jews put the Ark in the Tent but eventually they built a temple.
This may only be a temporary solution. I wish you luck.
God Bless.
I arrived at my grandparents' house tonight, sat down to catch up on my blogs, and what should my wondering eyes behold but my grandparents' church!
I have never been a fan of the architeture of this church, especially where the tabernacle placement and the altar are concerned. It's not ideal, but the simple changes go a long way. This is exciting to see!
I would caution against writing off the entire parish based on their less than savory set up, and I also contend that said set up doesn't oblige its parishoners to "find a better church" (I can't tell whether or not that was meant strictly in terms of finding a church more suited to the old mass). While I'm only here a few days at a time, I can vouch that the parish is thriving and is full of good people. Please, pray that spirit is strenghtend, especially now.
In looking at some of these comments, the word that popped into my head is that classic line from The Princess Bride: "Inconceivable!"
'...and place a few candles around the celebrants' chairs.'
For why? Some sort of self-canonisation process?
I was wondering why the fixed altar has been set up and a vested altar placed in front of it? The altar cloth really should reach the ground on both side, and the grauduating candlesticks are not recommended in the older rubrics.
Yes our parish should be praised for trying hard. Yes your church looks like a chinese hotel foyer.
You are to be encouraged.
I mean it.
It is not ideal.
As you concede.
The times we live in. I have a good friend who was curate in a church that was like a basket ball court. Once when he was saying mass on a week day a fire started as the votive candle stand. He ignored it hoping the church would burn down so they could build a better one with the insurance. Sadly a parishioner put it out. He used to put bleach in the pot plants the parish priest and sisters put in. It worked.
:) thats organic reform !
http://www.schola-sainte-cecile....hose-dun-autel/
The makeover looks like it's developing well. My advice would be to widen the altar a bit by placing a slab of 3/4 Birch plywood over the top of the mensa but under the linens and frontal to bring it out to the dimensions of the gradine structure that the candles sit on.
This reminds me a bit of St Joseph's Parish in Streetsville, Ontario. Though one of those relatively modern church designs, under the leadership of a traditional minded pastor the sanctuary area was redesigned with the tabernacle returned to its rightful place. The added focus in the sanctuary area greatly enhanced the feeling of being in a place of worship and diminished the negative effects of the otherwise bland architecture.
In one parish that I'm praying will once again hold the Tridentine Mass, I think that any objections based on the redesign of the sanctuary will likely be countered by the success with which a bi-ritual Jesuit regularly used it for Byzantine Rite services a few years ago.
With Regards,
Frank
Folks, while I can appreciate the zeal for good taste and good liturgics, let's balance that by also giving these good folks a little breathing room.
Re: the six high altar candlesticks for what was evidently a Low Mass. It isn't uncommon to see such done since it is approximating what would occur in a more permanent circumstance. I don't really see a problem with it personally and it can lend an added sense of focus upon the altar.
I, for one, do believe that there ideally needs to be that which focuses us upon tha altar; whether that be riddle curtains, a reredos, a triptych, tall candlesticks and cross, altar frontals, or a canopy/baldacchino. (And actually, if it didn't seem to go against the spirit of maintaining a freestanding altar, one could bring in temporary riddle posts and curtains for such cases. But I do believe this would be contrary to the spirit of the liturgical norms in that regard -- sadly.)
I think that one of the definite problems in most modern church designs is that, the way things are designed and the way the altar is dressed (or not), the altar becomes lost, or even an aside in cases where it isn't even central to the sanctuary any longer.
The compromise between what was gained in the fixed altar and maintaining a free standing altar would seem to be a reredos type of structure, perhaps with tabernacle in it, with a freestanding altar before it -- as is the case at EWTN's shrine church.
In temporary situations, the simplest solution to creating focus upon the altar is to just employ the substantive altar candlesticks, cross and altar frontal as they've done here for the most part.
There is another possibility. Devise a portable triptych, but one which reaches to the floor and which would be set back from the altar, thus leaving it free-standing.
As for the question of style and genre, I've never been one to believe that one must be absolutely in sync with the architectural style that is present in the building. In fact, I think what can be demonstrated in exercises like these is that aspects of our tradition are not inimical even to a more modern architectural paradigm, provided they are tasteful and within reason.
It's wonderful how everything just lines right up in the traditional sanctuary, isn't it? This is the fruit of accumulated iconographic wisdom.
What could be clearer than placing an altar at the foot of the crucifix, visually at one with the At-one-ment? What could be more educational, if that's your concern? How the side panels resonate with so much of Catholic artistic tradition, with the saints visibly in the eternal company! And of course, how much clearer can you get than this placement of the priest, acting in persona Christi before the Cross, raising the Host and Chalice, raising them right in line with the image of His eternal sacrifice? These are very strong symbolic collocations.
Off-axis arrangements destroy these visual cues, and I'm not optimistic they can be combined so easily. Here, the altar is located on some sort of proscenium that juts into the congregation, but it's not lined up with the axis of the apse, or with any axis that I can tell. So that green banner on the wall, if it remains wehre it is, will never be directly behind the altar. It frustrates the eye's attempt to find a center. Can you just move it? That would help, but the proscenium would still be off-axis with the apse. That asymmetry is structural, not easily changed.
Here's what puzzles me, in the end. I understand that asymmetry and a protruding altar are intended to suggest the "immanent-ness" of the Eucharist and the "community" feelings of the Church. There is not *supposed* to be a true visual "center" in the architecture because that center is supposed to be in *us*, dispersed all over the nave. But (and this is a big "but") the down-side of this arrangement is that one simply can't tell where the source of our at-one-ment comes from, visually, and exactly what it's associated with, i.e. the Cross.
In the traditional design, it's perfectly clear what's going on: at the High Altar, the Sacrifice is made present again, really, and this Presence radiates outward into the nave from that still, central point of the universe. You could sit anywhere in the nave and still feel yourself part of that Cross, that Sacrifice, and therefore, and consequently, that community. In an off-axis design, you're always at odd angles to the main event, always displaced.
Is that really what the Church wants to suggest?
If this church building were to revise itself further to become even more hospitable to both forms of the Roman Rite, perhaps it would best revise the structure of the sanctuary itself. Make it symmetrical, line it up under the apse, and place both the high and low altar closer to the far wall. There could still be a proscenium for the low altar, but it could be moved out of the way for the Mass in its extraordinary form. The carpet could be replaced with something more effective at drawing attention to the altar itself. The far blank wall could be panelled with the panels inclu
Pes,
I don't think anyone here would necessarily disagree about the issue of asymmetry (though I could be wrong), but its being looked at, at least by myself, in the context of, "how do you work within the context you are given but may otherwise have little control over?"
(Sorry, haloscan truncated:)
The far blank wall could be panelled with the panels included here. Banners could be moved elsewhere. Perhaps the ceiling of the apse could be painted a celestial blue and decorated appropriately. In short, a more symmetrical arrangement would only represent an iconographic gain for both forms of the Rite. That's where the next phase of hospitality could start.
Shawn
Oh, I really like and admire what they're doing. I'm just wondering what the next phase of hospitality could look like, and how one might reasonably approach it. This off-axis structure might just be 2x4 and plywood underneath, i.e. very inexpensive to change.
For me the makeover fails because it tries too hard. Only a jackhammering of the sanctuary floor is going to get things looking properly centred and leveled. The elements themselves (even the banner!) are not out of keeping and so should be moved rather than destroyed. My choice in the interim would be to place crucifix, tabernacle and 2+6 flat topped candles on the existing altar then demote the chairs.
Pes, what you're really asking the parish to do is to gut the place, and as of right now, I don't think anyone is willing to do that.
To let everyone know, the nave is lined up with the celebrant's chair you see in the background. It's not lined up with the Altar. The tabernacle is actually in a back room where you see that small red light - the tabernacle that's being used for the High Altar is something Fr. T. acquired for the sole use of the TLM.
And all of the pews slope downward. You are actually underground in this church. And the reason for this design was so that you could see what was going on on the Altar. The organ is to the right in the middle of everything.
We may have more pictures soon so that everyone can pitch their ideas on how to make the sanctuary look half-way decent.
Thinking counterintiutively, perhaps lower the general lighting level in the sanctuary to let the spotlights emphasise the centrality of the banner (the only element currently in its proper position).
Great job given the truly awful SOA they had to work with.
I still maintain, with Br. Chad, that some maintenance, cleaning, and architectural problems are best handled by a laissez-faire policy re the storing of oily rags combined with nonchalant, careless smoking habits.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
Very well done. Setting aside the question of low mass versus high mass candles (and I can see some logic in putting them up even if unused, as a high altar was supposed to always have them up even if not in use, I think, though if someone knows otherwise, please let me know--side altars are of course, another matter), everything added to the altar has a practical purpose and also an aesthetic one with no superfluities. It is neither overdecorated nor underdone.
The side-wings of a triptych on the side are somewhat unusual but a good solution to an awkward situation.
Though I do agree if they lowered the lights it would also help considerably. A sacred darkness and large amounts of incense cover a multitude of architectural sins.
So the nave doesn't line up with the lift in the roof? Wow, that is too much asymmetry. I hope you are not going to tell us that the toilet door opens onto the sanctuary. Faced with a choice between centring the sanctuary to the nave and centring to the roof box then I would centre onto the verticality of the roof box and hope the organ or something else (a chapel or shrine?) would work to even up the walls each side of the sanctuary.
They really should consider this "altar - ation" for their Novus Ordo masses as well. I find it a bit strange that the nave lines up with the celebrant's chair rather than the altar. Has this become common in new ecclesial design? Tom
It occurs to me that any fundamental misalignment of sanctuary and nave as found in this modern church may fully be put right by centring the sanctuary alone as the result would be in tradition with the misaligned 'weeping chancels' of medieval churches, said to represent the head of Christ inclined on the cross.
How about applying the hermeneutic of continuity to all these modern churches rather than wishing they were torn down or turned into something they are not.
Any ideas anyone?
I have been to Our Lady Queen of Heaven Church. It is an arcitecural nightmare! The priest who built it was a truly holy man (I heard him say that he would rather die than commit a mortal sin! You could tell that he meant it.) but he had terrible taste and probably thought that he was doing what was expected for a "Post-Vatican II Church."
Although I am amazed at what the TLM crowd has been able to do with the space, it's still like trying to put a small bandaid on a much larger wound. There has got to be a better place somewhere. Perhaps if the new bishop would move the cathedra away from in front of the Cathedral's high altar, they could celebrate Mass in that beautiful space!
The last time I went there for a Novus Ordo Mass they were still closing the curtains with an electronic device and dimming the lights for the Eucharistic Prayer. One of the worst things I have ever seen to cheapen the liturgy with special effects.
Who is the priest that celebrates the TLM in Lake Charles?
They don't close the curtains or dim the lights anymore - it's too theatrical. Fr. Tolentino will celebrate the TLM 'privately' beginning September 14th at OLQH. There are currently two other priests who are willing and know how to celebrate the TLM in the diocese. And
I agree that the old High Altar at the Cathedral could be put into good use again if the cathedra were moved. The new bishop I think is also willing to celebrate the TLM as well. We definitely have the resources and manpower to make this work well. But having the TLM at Our Lady Queen of Heaven will be good for the hoped-for reform of the reform.
Sean,
We apply the hermeneutic of continuity to the documents of Vatican II because they are the fruits of an ecumenical council and the guarantees of the Holy Spirit re the Magisterium are applicable to them. Thus, there is reason to assume (to know, actually) that continuity exists, even if we can't see it easily.
But with things not guaranteed by the HS, all bets are off. Sometimes this hermeneutic would be helpful, sometimes no. There is no need to pretend a hermeneutic of continuity would be fruitful when we know that the subject to which said hermeneutic would be applied was a deliberate rupture.
There is solid theology behind applying a hermeneutic of continuity to certain subjects. But there is no basis for applying it to all subjects. That's just wishful thinking, at best.
Boko, deliberate ruptures no doubt but I would be interested to see just how many of them can be subverted to tradition. Like it or not these buildings and their basic faults are going to be around for the foreseeable future so it is high time we confounded the modernists by dumping their interpretation for one of our own.
Modernist:
empty white walls = sanitised
Catholic:
empty white walls = cistercian
I will attempt to reply to the comments on my post. As I said, the architectural style is ridiculous, but covering them up only draws attention to their absurdity, rather than making the experience so true, so authentic, that no one cares or notices the architecture. I also suggested putting candels beside the chair, so that, of course, their would be a better lighting effect between the altar and the chairs and the wall. Perhaps at night they would also help to show where the priest is ;) In other words, that way the whole altar would be illuminated, creating more of a sense of space and demarkation for the sanctuary. Finally, it's work saying that one could put up six short candles on the altar and reserve two smaller ones for Low mass celebrations, or simply place two candles on the altar for low mass celebrations. If this were a permanent situation, two candles could be left at the altar, and two additional ones added for High Mass. Of course, I wonder at the advisability of a Low Mass for a developing forma extraordinaria congregation.
Of course, I wonder at the advisability of a Low Mass for a developing forma extraordinaria congregation.
But then you can only start where you are. When our community began our indult Mass on rather short notice, we had no choir and no organist, our young priest had just completed a brief low Mass course, and our congregation consisted largely (though not entirely) of younger folks with no memory of the older form. So our first few Masses were dialogue low Masses, with just a cappella processional and recessional hymns, and no other singing, and just a couple of rapidly (but meticulously) trained altar boys.
But we moved on rapidly, and within a year our every Mass was a high Mass beginning with Asperges and occasionally ending with Benediction, with the congregation singing the Missa de Angeles (Kyrie, Gloria, etc.) along with the choir, the choir alone singing the propers (introit, gradual, etc.) and the usual Latin hymns (Franck's Panis Angelicus, Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus, etc.) for offertory and communion music, aided by our acquisition of an excellent MC and the usual complement of servers, thurifer, and candle bearers.
Now we're planning our first solemn high Mass with choir and orchestra singing Mozart's Coronation Mass for a very special and festive occasion next year. In summary, I'd say our liturgically meager start has inspired rather than impeded us.
Commenting by HaloScan
