I’ve heard a lot of discussion here and on some blogs about placing a crucifix on the altar. I know the Holy Father does this, and I think it is beautiful.
What is the reference document? I know that the GIRM states that a crucifix should be on or near the altar during Mass, visible to the faithful. Perhaps the interpretation is that the altar crucifix is used if there is no other crucifix visible. Or perhaps there is some more recent directive about which I am not aware.
I’m told that there can be only one crufix in the sanctuary. Since our church has a beautiful large crucifix above the tabernacle, I am told that we cannot have an additional crucifix on the altar. Does anyone know if there is a specific reference for this?
If there is already a crucifix prominently displayed above the tabernacle (And I assume that by this we mean above the “old” altar), why would one have yet another on the “new” altar? Is the crucifix that is already there somehow invalid? It is there. There it is. Requirement satisfied. To add another would be quite redundant.
I think the fact that most churches now have two altars in the chancel (on account of the reforms of Vatican II) is the cause of all the confusion as to numbers of candles and crucifixes. The typical “cross and six candlesticks” arrangement (actually eight candlesticks: two smaller candlesticks were often placed on the altar for Low Masses) for the High Altar was the norm before the reforms of the Council. When you erect a free-standing altar in front of the old high altar, however, the requirements with respect to positioning of candles change, obviously.
Some people, however, are looking, erroneously, at the arrangement of the appointments on the high altar of St. Peter’s as the model for their own parishes and are becoming annoyed that their pastors aren’t arranging their crosses and candlesticks “Benedict XVI-style”, as though the practice originated with Pope Benedict, or as though the altar at St. Peter’s were a “new” altar, like that in a typical parish.
The problem is that the high altar of St. Peter’s is and has always been a free-standing altar according to the ancient form. There is no “old” altar against the wall, behind it. That free standing altar
is the “old” altar, of course. And Mass at St. Peter’s was always celebrated
vesus populum and at the same time
ad orientam, as the altar is so oriented (in ancient times, the practice was for the congregation to turn around and face the doors leading to St. Peter’s Square, which were opened, allowing the “sun” [Christ] to enter, the great “Orient from on high”, so that the pope and people were all facing east, together, looking out the door!).
In your parish church, the “old” altar, if it remains, represents the “liturgical east” (whether or not it is actually oriented). The new, free-standing (but not oriented) altar in front of it cannot be assumed to bear the same requirements as the altar of St. Peter’s (which is both oriented and free-standing). Neither can it be assumed to bear the same requirements as the old high altar, which is probably lengthier (or which at least has lengthier gradines to accomodate the traditional candle arrangement).
Typically, the new, free-standing altar has two or four candles on or around it, and the traditional candle/crucifix arrangement is preserved on the high altar behind it. In cases where the old high altar has been removed outright, it cannot be said, I think, that the “liturgical east” changes, thus compelling the new altar to be treated in the same manner of the high altar at St. Peter’s. The architectural form, and not the new altar, points to the liturgical east, even though the original altar is no longer there. This is my opinion, and may not necessarily be the correct one–the opinion of liturgists–but it seems logical to me (obviously).
At any rate, many of the new free-standing altars have mensas that are rather smaller than the old altars, and to insist upon six tall candlesticks and a cross–all lined up in the typical manner–would look crowded to the point of being ridiculous in most cases. In my opinion, the best solution (in places where the old altar remains) is to preserve the six high Mass candlesticks and the altar cross (which may actually, in many cases, be on the wall behind the old altar) at the high altar, then adorning the new altar with two candlesticks, one on each side. To have six and six with a cross on each altar would be redundant, not to mention silly-looking. And for some to insist that the celebrant face east at the new altar is, of course, completely absurd. Why is the new altar there, at all, in that case? Talk about redundant.
In any case, we mustn’t make the mistake of saying “Well, Pope Benedict celebrates Mass with seven candlesticks all lined up in a row and a matching altar cross in the center, therefore all other Catholic churches should do likewise on their free-standing altars!” The free-standing altar of your parish church, remember, does not compare to the high altar of St. Peter’s. The situation is completely different.
Also, what we see at St. Peter’s, now, is not “Pope Benedict XVI’s” arrangement: it is the normal arrangement, restored. Whether a parish arranges their candles thus on their altar is not indicative of its degree of fidelity to the reigning pontiff.
I’m assuming you probably got the point though… 