The fine arts are rightly classed among the noblest activities of
man's genius; this is especially true of religious art and of its highest
manifestation, sacred art. Of their nature, the arts are directed toward
expressing in some way the infinite beauty of God in works made by human hands.
Their dedication to the increase of God's praise and of His glory is more
complete, the more exclusively they are devoted to turning men's minds devoutly
towards God.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 122
It may seem strange, to those familiar with the "bare ruined choirs" which
our churches have become in the aftermath of Vatican II, to see the Council's
words of praise for the fine arts placed within its treatment of sacred art and
sacred furnishings, which the Church wants to "worthily and beautifully serve
the dignity of worship" (ibid). This same section of the Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy makes it clear that while "the Church has not adopted any
particular style of art as her own," she has inherited "a treasury of art which
must be preserved with every care" (no. 123). That this magna carta of the
visual arts in the service of the liturgy has not caused a great flourishing of
sacred images, architecture, stained glass, murals and the like, I think can be
explained by certain principles embodied in the Constitution itself. Ordinaries
are exhorted to encourage "noble beauty rather than sumptuous display" (no.
124), and while sacred images are encouraged, "their numbers should be moderate
and their relative positions should reflect right order" (no. 125).
While these two sensible caveats were welcomed by me as a young seminarian,
when the Constitution was first promulgated (1963), 1 have lived to see these
ideas profoundly misinterpreted, perhaps even officially. Noble beauty or
simplicity has simply become the Bauhaus look or Le Corbusier's poured concrete
predicated on Louis Sullivan's dictum that form must follow function, but
perhaps the tide is changing.
Max Thurian, the theologian of the ecumenical Monastery of Taize, who later
became a Catholic and a priest, wrote an important article on church
architecture in L'Osservatore Romano (July 21, 1996) which turned out to be his
last will and testament, for he died shortly after on August 15, 1996. His major
concern in this article was the aesthetic dimension of the liturgy and its
setting. After discussing the elements of the liturgical environment, he
concludes with a wonderful description of the environment itself and what its
affect should be:
The whole church should be arranged so as to invite adoration and
contemplation even where there are no celebrations. One must long to frequent it
in order to meet the Lord there .... The Church, by its beautiful liturgical
layout, its tabernacle radiating Christ's real presence, should be the beautiful
house of the Lord and of His Church, where the faithful love to recollect
themselves in the silence of adoration and contemplation. Every church must be
"praying" even when no liturgical celebrations are taking place; it must be a
place where in a restless world, one can meet the Lord in peace.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes his perspective:
This house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer
and sacred ceremonial ... In this "house of God" the truth and harmony of signs
that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place
(no. 118 1).
Indeed the Catechism sees the church as a sign:
Visible churches are not simply gathering places, but signify and
make visible the church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men
reconciled and united in Christ (no. 1180).
a sign that invites us to the recollection and silent prayer that
extend and internalize the great prayer of the Eucharist (no. 118 5).
as Thurian suggests. The revised rite for the dedication of a church in its
introduction states:
Because a church is a visible building, it stands as a special sign
of the pilgrim church on earth and reflects the church dwelling in heaven (The
Rites II, no. 2).
and
It should be dignified, evincing a noble beauty ... and should stand
as a sign and symbol of heavenly things (ibid no. 3).
Is this our experience of the churches being built today? Is this approach
not opposed to the functionalism we are told that Vatican II's liturgy and
liturgical environment demand? Let us examine the Constitution on the Liturgy
(Sacrosanctum Concilium) of Vatican 11 (1963), the General Instruction of
the Roman Missal (1970), Environment and Art in Catholic Worship
(EACW) of the U.S. Episcopal Conference (1978), the Code of Canon Law
(1983) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), to see what
guidelines are given us by the Church to create the setting for worship of God's
holy people in His house.
A new document to replace EACW is in the making and it is just as well
because EACW tends to see the church edifice less as a sign than as a function
of sheltering the people, a "skin" for liturgical action (no. 42), true but
redolent of the International Style and its approach of "form following
function" first enunciated by Louis Sullivan. EACW focuses on hospitality, the
human experience, the contemporaneity of art all valid points ? but it tends to
see the sacred or mystery only in terms of "simple and attractive beauty,"
doubtless intending to echo the "noble beauty" called for by the Constitution on
the Liturgy (no. 124). EACW does challenge artists and craftsmen to use their
arts and crafts well so that their creations "bear the weight of mystery, awe,
reverence, and wonder" (no. 21), but this does not give the eschatalogical
dimension of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that "the buildings and
requisites for worship as signs and symbols of heavenly things should be truly
worthy and beautiful" (no. 253).
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal reminds us of the
hierarchical nature of the liturgy and that the church buildings should reflect
that nature in a unity of space with diversity of roles (no. 257), whereas the
U.S. bishops' statement seems to be chiefly concerned with showing that
different ministries do not imply "superiority" or inferiority" (no. 3 7). It is
interesting to note that the Roman document recommends some kind of emphasis on
the sanctuary as special and different from the nave (no. 258), whereas the
American document does not - an omission that reflects a less sacred view of the
altar.
THE ALTAR
The altar itself is seen in the General Instruction as the table of
the Lord and the place of sacrifice as well (no. 259), and ought to be
free-standing so that "Mass can be said facing the people" (no. 262). A fixed
altar, made of stone, is recommended (especially the mensa, i.e., table), but
moveable altars of other materials are permitted (nos. 262, 263). Relics may be
enclosed in or under the base of the altar, though this tradition is no longer
required, and the altar ought to be blessed (nos. 265, 266). From the care of
this legislation one can see the dignity and specialness of the altar. The U.S.
bishops' document calls the altar "the holy table" and sees it as the common
table of the assembly, not making any sacrificial reference, though it does say
it "should be the most beautifully designed and constructed table the community
can provide" (no. 71). It recommends a square or slightly rectangular shape
since it is for the community and the functioning of a single priest not for
concelebrants" (no. 72), but one can find no such bias against concelebration in
the Roman document. It also presumes that candles and the cross will never be on
the altar (no. 71), whereas the General Instruction allows this provided
they do not block the view of the congregation (no. 269).
Since the altar is the place "where the sacrifice of the Cross is made
present" (General Instruction no. 259), the preference in the Code of
Canon Law is for stone or marble reminding us of the rock of sacrifice in
the Old Testament (cf. Genesis 22, 28: IS; Exodus 24:4) as well as the table of
the Lord. Therefore it is "proper that in every church there should be a fixed
altar ... attached to the floor" (Canon 1235) and "indeed of a single natural
stone" where possible (Canon 1236). The altar, then is the central element.
While it may be true as EACW alleges that the altar need not be "spatially in
the center or on a central axis" (no. 73), nonetheless the Latin of the
General Instruction says that the altar should be revera centrurn (truly
central), which seems not to permit the casual off-center treatment which gives
the lectern and altar equal billing. Thurian states:
The altar is thus at the center of liturgical celebration. It must
be built and adorned so as to attract one's gaze and to cause admiration, as the
gold of the showbread table or the altar of incense in the temple emphasized the
glory of the Lord. It will sometimes be covered with beautiful fabrics in the
liturgical colors of the season or solemnity. On it or right next to it will be
placed the candelabra for lighting the space of the Lord, who came to meet His
people ... The altar and the objects used for the Eucharistic celebration should
rouse wonder in the presence of the beauty that leads one's whole being to adore
the glory of the Lord. The altar is actually the sign of the sacrifice of the
Cross as memorial, the table of the Eucharistic meal, the symbol of the tomb
left empty by the Risen One.
Classically, the way to emphasize and draw attention to the altar was the
baldachino in basilicas and the tester or hanging canopy in medieval cathedrals.
They can be designed in such a way as not to obstruct the view of the altar by
the congregation. In fact, Maurice Lavanoux, editor of Liturgical Arts
before its untimely demise in the aftermath of Vatican 11, held that
contemporary churches ought to have contemporary testers or canopies to focus on
the importance and centrality of the altar. Where there are existing
well-designed high altars against the back wall, Thurian suggests that they be
used for Masses "versus apsidem" (facing the back wall) rather than turning to
face the people, a view shared by Gamber and Nichols. But I agree with Cardinal
Ratzinger, who holds that while we should carefully study the question, so much
has been done in church renovation to accommodate the present liturgy that we
ought to proceed very cautiously. I think such old high altars ought to be used
for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and that brings us to the next
topic.
RESERVATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT
Fr. Peter Elliot in his Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (Ignatius
Press, 1995) has an interesting appendix on this question. He makes a good case
for gradual evolution in Roman documentation on this point. He shows that in
1964 just before the Council, the Congregation of Rites emphasized the high
altar as the place for the tabernacle with alternative placement in another
distinguished altar in a special chapel. After the Council, a special chapel for
reservation of the Blessed Sacrament was recommended in 1967, again in 1969 in
the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and again in an instruction
of 1973. In 1980 in Inestimable Donum, the practical instruction
following John Paul II's Eucharistic letter Dominicae Cenae, the emphasis
shifted somewhat. That instruction stated:
The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is kept can be located on an
altar, or away from it, in a place in the church which is very prominent, truly
noble and duly decorated, or in a chapel suitable for private prayer and for
adoration by the faithful (no. 24).
Note that a separate chapel, while an option, is no longer preferred, perhaps
in reaction to abuses or complaints of the faithful. But EACW heavily emphasizes
a separate chapel as almost the only option, citing possible confusion between
the "static" presence of the tabernacle versus the "active" presence of Christ
in the worship of the assembly (no. 78), a distinction I once bought, but now
one I see as overblown and not making much sense to ordinary Sunday Massgoers! I
think they're conscious of Christ's presence in the Mass as well as in the
tabernacle, in a general way, but not as to oppose one mode of presence to the
other. I think the same could be said of the other modes of Christ's presence at
Mass: in the assembly gathered, the word proclaimed and in the priest presiding.
In any event, the Catechism would have us situate the tabernacle:
in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor (Paul VI,
Mysterium Fidei). The dignity, placing and security of the Eucharistic
tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed
Sacrament of the altar (no. 1183).
Elliot feels that special chapels are warranted in much visited cathedrals,
shrines, and major historic churches, or perhaps where perpetual adoration will
take place, but not in ordinary parish churches. He thinks that academic
liturgical rationalism has taken the Blessed Sacrament away from the people who
now complain that their churches are barren and empty. The Blessed Sacrament may
be reserved in a wall safe (I've seen beautiful new ones in Italy), a sacrament
tower, a hanging pyx, a regular tabernacle on a pillar, or an altar especially
in a special chapel or perhaps the old high altar, where a new center of
liturgical action has been created further out front in the nave. No matter how
the Sacrament is reserved it must be in "a noble place in the Church and
suitably adorned" (General Instruction, no. 276). Many unworthy solutions
to this problem have helped in the breakdown in Eucharistic faith and decline in
devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. Recovering this devotion will help to make
our churches redolent with the Presence of Christ. Max Thurian rightly says:
The consecrated Eucharist will remain in the tabernacle ... to
manifest the Lord's Real Presence outside the celebration for the adoration of
the faithful when they come to pray in church. It is fitting that the tabernacle
be placed in such a way that it can be seen on entering the church. It should be
beautiful and illuminated, like an act of praise to the glory of Christ truly
present.
THE CHAIR
The chair is treated first in EACW - before the altar - and one might ponder
what ecclesiological point is being made here. EACW and the Instruction
both stress the symbol of the cathedra or chair as the seat of authority of the
one presiding; presiding in charity, as St. Ignatius of Antioch would say of the
Bishop of Rome and as we would say of all bishops and priests presiding over
this assembly of the faithful in persona Christi. The Instruction
warns against the appearance of a throne in the celebrant's chair (no. 271),
while this admonition is not mentioned in the American document. Indeed, in an
illustration in EACW, there is a throne that would put Bernini's Altar of the
Chair to shame! In a wonderful old German Gothic church in Minnesota, the carved
reredos has been preserved by Frank Kacmarcik, but rather than being a backdrop
for the altar facing the people as one might expect, it has instead become an
extension of the chair towering to the heavens, while the altar is shunted to
the side to share equal honor with lectern, a solution which does not seem to
have much merit. While the Instruction seems to prefer the basilican
arrangement with the chair directly behind the altar facing the people, that
will not work in all churches, and if elevated too high it becomes a throne
dwarfing the altar. Yet it ought not to be a sedilla where the priest sits on
the side waiting for the next thing to happen. if the chair is off center, it
ought to face some of the people so the celebrant is seen to "preside in
charity. "
THE LECTERN
The Catechism quotes the Instruction on the importance of the
lectern:
The dignity of the Word of God requires the Church to have a
suitable place for announcing his message so that the attention of the people
may be easily directed to that place during the Liturgy of the Word (no. 1184 or
no. 272 in GIRM).
The Instruction sees it as fixed ordinarily (no. 272) because of its
dignity. EACW describes it simply as "a standing desk for reading and
preaching," although it prescribes beautiful design and fine materials because
it "represents the dignity and uniqueness of the Word of God and reflection on
that Word" (no. 74). Practically speaking, it ought to be wide enough to hold
the Lectionary and preaching notes, and not be so slanted as to make keeping
them on it precarious.
OTHER POLES OF LITURGIAL ACTION
The Catechism next treats the baptistry since:
The gathering of the People of God begins with Baptism; a church
must have a celebration for the celebration of Baptism (baptistry) and for
fostering remembrance of the baptismal promises (holy water font) (no. 118 5).
Some would place the font near a church entrance, since we enter the Church
through Baptism. if this can be done that's fine, but the font must be visible
to the congregation since Baptisms now often take place at Mass. EACW very
practically reminds us that fonts now should accommodate immersion, at least for
infants, as well as pouring (no. 76). The Catechism sees Penance as a
renewal of Baptism and speaks of an appropriate place for this reconciliation to
take place (no. 1185), whereas EACW rightly describes the reconciliation room as
a more of a chapel than a lounge or counseling room, offering the penitent the
option of face-to-face confession or the anonymity of a screen (no. 8 1).
Whereas the Instruction encourages images of Christ, Our Lady and the
Saints, provided they are not too numerous, do not distract or have more than
one image of the same saint (no. 278), EACW treats them with seasonal decoration
and is worried that they might compete with the Liturgy (no. 98)! There ought to
be at least a crucifix, a Madonna and an image of the patron saint in the church
edifice, where people can see them easily and pray before them. The placement of
the organ and choir admits of different solutions, in terms of their assisting
the congregation, as well as their special mission of making great music to be
listened to. A place directly behind the altar or too close to it is
distracting.
In times past the sanctuary was often seen as paradise and a statue of Our
Lady was frequently placed near the entrance steps as the Porta Caeli or the
Gate of Heaven. Indeed the whole of God's house was replete with stained glass,
mosaics, statues, paintings, frescoes, icons, carvings, tiles and marbles. I
don't think this need conflict with the "noble beauty" of Vatican 11, if all is
coordinated and planned well. Indeed a merely functional Bauhaus approach no
longer gives our artists, architects and designers transcendent goals for which
to strive, unfortunately impoverishing us all. The glory of God, the Heavenly
Jerusalem, needs to be incarnated in paint, stone and glass to give us hope for
the journey and a glimpse of the ultimate beauty for which we yearn.
Fr. Giles Dimock, O.P. is a Doctor of Theology at Franciscan
University in Steubenville, Ohio.
|
Topics
Apologetics
