Altars, tabernacle, Church design preVII and post

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Anthony

Guest
I have been looking at old pictures of how the old sanctuaries were developed. How the tabernacle was designed and the altar and the location of it all. I have heard that VII didn’t insist that the tabernacle were to be moved and the high altar removed. Now I understand cost constraints prevents Churches from being built today in that style and all. However, why were so many Churches in existence already, particularly in the US, were gutted? I have heard the argument that it was an affront to the poor, however I don’t think expensive renovations and excavations were prudent as those Churches probably sapped money out of the Church treasury that could have been used otherwise to assist the community. On top of it I have heard stories about what happened to the stone altars like becoming part of the parking lot.

There was one Church were I used to live, beautiful had the tabernacle in the middle, but they changed it to the side a couple of years ago. And I remembered my parish priest commenting that Church was finally up to “code.” What is so bad of the tabernacle being in the sanctuary? Having crucifixes? stone altars (I don’t recall any of the Old Testament sacrifices being carried out on wooden or plastic tables(yes I know plastic wasn’t invented yet)? I just feel that I was robbed a part of my heritage by these changes.
 
Sir_Anthony said:
I have been looking at old pictures of how the old sanctuaries were developed. How the tabernacle was designed and the altar and the location of it all. I have heard that VII didn’t insist that the tabernacle were to be moved and the high altar removed. Now I understand cost constraints prevents Churches from being built today in that style and all. However, why were so many Churches in existence already, particularly in the US, were gutted? I have heard the argument that it was an affront to the poor, however I don’t think expensive renovations and excavations were prudent as those Churches probably sapped money out of the Church treasury that could have been used otherwise to assist the community. On top of it I have heard stories about what happened to the stone altars like becoming part of the parking lot.

There was one Church were I used to live, beautiful had the tabernacle in the middle, but they changed it to the side a couple of years ago. And I remembered my parish priest commenting that Church was finally up to “code.” What is so bad of the tabernacle being in the sanctuary? Having crucifixes? stone altars (I don’t recall any of the Old Testament sacrifices being carried out on wooden or plastic tables(yes I know plastic wasn’t invented yet)? I just feel that I was robbed a part of my heritage by these changes.
Click to expand...
You were robbed. Most of us were likewise robbed.

While I am not adverse to “chapels of reservation” (they were (and are), of course, the norm in the great Cathedrals and basilicas), in a parish setting, the tabernacle really should be in the center. (Assuming, of course, an older structure where the High Altar itself was not destroyed in the post-conciliar liturgical free-for-all.)

As for a new building, there are no “cost constraints” that would prohibit a church being built today to have the altar ad orientem (preferably free-standing so that it may be reverenced on all four sides) or a tabernacle in the center.
 
At my geographical parish, they at least had the decency (or, more likely, laziness) to leave everything that was attached to the wall right where it is. Problem is, the new altar is on a side wall of the church. So, now 1/2 the congegration has their backs to the tabernacle that is still there. Also, where they have the crucifix now, you can’t see it from there either, since it’s not over the new altar nor the old, but kind of on the side.

It makes me want to pray for our Lord to kick some butt!!! :mad: :banghead: :bighanky:
 
justinkolo said:
At my geographical parish, they at least had the decency (or, more likely, laziness) to leave everything that was attached to the wall right where it is. Problem is, the new altar is on a side wall of the church. So, now 1/2 the congegration has their backs to the tabernacle that is still there. Also, where they have the crucifix now, you can’t see it from there either, since it’s not over the new altar nor the old, but kind of on the side.

It makes me want to pray for our Lord to kick some butt!!! :mad: :banghead: :bighanky:
Click to expand...
The solution is simple. Go to Mass at Our Lady of Peace. 😃
 
Sir_Anthony said:
I have been looking at old pictures of how the old sanctuaries were developed. How the tabernacle was designed and the altar and the location of it all. I have heard that VII didn’t insist that the tabernacle were to be moved and the high altar removed. Now I understand cost constraints prevents Churches from being built today in that style and all. However, why were so many Churches in existence already, particularly in the US, were gutted? I have heard the argument that it was an affront to the poor, however I don’t think expensive renovations and excavations were prudent as those Churches probably sapped money out of the Church treasury that could have been used otherwise to assist the community. On top of it I have heard stories about what happened to the stone altars like becoming part of the parking lot.

There was one Church were I used to live, beautiful had the tabernacle in the middle, but they changed it to the side a couple of years ago. And I remembered my parish priest commenting that Church was finally up to “code.” What is so bad of the tabernacle being in the sanctuary? Having crucifixes? stone altars (I don’t recall any of the Old Testament sacrifices being carried out on wooden or plastic tables(yes I know plastic wasn’t invented yet)? I just feel that I was robbed a part of my heritage by these changes.
Click to expand...
They felt it was all so “medieval” and “pre-Vatican II”, which meant it all had to go, because anything “Pre-Vatican II” was evil and soooooooooo bad.
 
Hello:shrug:

I hate this,I feel like a lot of good stuff changed before my time.I have always prided myself on how our church has “stood the the test of time”:rolleyes: .If I had not seen this website I wouldn’t have known.

I am in need of sites which allow people to order books and dvds .Here in South Africa we have very few Catholic bookstores.

God bless.👍
 
Majobe said:
Hello:shrug:

I hate this,I feel like a lot of good stuff changed before my time.I have always prided myself on how our church has “stood the the test of time”:rolleyes: .If I had not seen this website I wouldn’t have known.

I am in need of sites which allow people to order books and dvds .Here in South Africa we have very few Catholic bookstores.

God bless.👍
Click to expand...
Oftentimes, people will say our generation has been robbed of its heritage.

One amazing site for information on Traditional Catholicism is
fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html

The forum does not represent the website, nor does it represent Trad. Catholics.

People may not like the other parts of Fish Eaters, but the Being Catholic section isn’t surpassed by any other website.

Have you tried looking for the Traditional Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form in your area?
 
Thank you,fisheaters is helping me.I have sourced something that I need.👍
 
My grandmother’s church for her whole life was completely wrecked after Vatican II and it really broke her heart. The altar was destroyed, stained glass windows were plastered over (which people had sacrificed a lot to donate), statues were removed, portraits of the evangelists and other saints was painted over, the tabernacle was placed off to the side, the cricifix was hidden away, etc., etc.

However, there is good news. Slowly bu surely over the last decade or so the church has begun to be restored almost completely through volunteer work. First, the stained glass windows were uncovered and the crucifix was restored. Then a painter repainted the portraits of the evangelists and other saints as well as the Holy Spirit/dove and clouds and angels above the altar, then the statues of Mary and Joseph were replaced. Next, a carpenter is going to build a new wooden raredos and the tabernacle is going to be restored to the center (I’ve actually seen the plans for this and it looks good.)

As a nun there told me, those times of destruction were painful, but we’re slowly bringing the church back to life again. 🙂
 
Majobe said:
I hate this,I feel like a lot of good stuff changed before my time.I have always prided myself on how our church has “stood the the test of time”:rolleyes: .
Click to expand...
It has stood the test of time–despite those from the outside and inside who have neglected or even tried to hide away the “good stuff” throughout the centuries. That’s why its a test–it’s a state of perpetual crisis, yet because Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit is the soul, it is also a continual triumph over those crises. These things tend to be sinusoidal and I think the Holy Spirit is working to increase the flame of charity and help us to better appreciate the treasures we have been forgetful of or even antagonistic towards…
 
Sir_Anthony said:
Now I understand cost constraints prevents Churches from being built today in that style and all.
Click to expand...
Those big, beautiful churches of the past were just as expensive to build in their time as they are today. It is a matter of desire, and we have become accustomed to Puritan-inspired, utilitarian structures, as well as a general lack of recognition of the relation between beauty and the faith. You can spend as much money building a neo-Gothic masterpiece as you can building a concrete UFO church.
 
I am a convert to Catholicism. I was confirmed in 1999 at St. Elizabeth’s in Boone , NC. That church would be considered modern by todays standards,but it was still nice. It did at least have a crucifix and a statue of Mary. When you walked in it at least looked like a Catholic Church. I now live in CA and I went to one of the local parishes a few days ago and if I did not know it was I Catholic Church, by the interior, It could have been any Christian Church. If you took away the altar and the cross shaped candle holders on the wall it would have just been a nice auditorium. No crucifix, no statues, no stations of the cross, the stained glass was just a mix of colors, no pattern.😦 For a general building it was nice but it did not feel like a house of worship. I don’t understand why VII would want us to change the churches, why destroy what was beautiful and inspiring. I don’t see the logic.:confused:
 
do you think that maybe someday soon the trend will move …in the other direction?

I think the Pope is more traditional… and all the news about the Latin Mass being brought back…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top