Church renovation

[SanClemente]

document has been cited twice and linked
it does not have the force of canon law
what is binding is the Rite of Baptism, which does, and the RCIA.

Dear PuzzleAnnie -

Thank you for confirming that Built of Living Stones (hereafter BLS) is the sole source. I think I was the first to post a reference to BLS in this thread. In any discussion of requirements, it is always good to quote source documents instead of personal opinion.

BLS is a good place to start, especially since neither the section on Baptism in the CCC (paragraphs 1213-1284), nor the Rite of Baptism for Children nor the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults mention anything about the materials, location and placement of the baptismal font.

note that the water must be fresh and flowing, usually through some electric recirculating fountain, and actually **should be **the main “holy water” font of the church, and at the entrance, not near the altar.

No church document cited requires the use of free flowing water. Additionally, I haven’t found a citation that says that the baptismal font "should be the main ‘holy water’ font of the church (please post one if you have it).

BLS sections 66-69 detail the requirements for baptism, and the preferred location in the church:
§ 67 § The location of the baptismal font, its design, and the materials used for its construction are important considerations in the planning and design of the building. It is customary to locate the baptismal font either in a special area within the main body of the church or in a separate baptistry. Through the waters of baptism the faithful enter the life of Christ. For this reason the font should be visible and accessible to all who enter the church building…

§ 69 § Paragraph 5: Some churches choose to place the baptistry and font near the entrance to the church… Placing the baptismal font in an area near the entrance or gathering space where the members pass regularly and setting it on an axis with the altar can symbolize the relationship between the various sacraments…
BLS says “some choose” and “near the entrance can” but not “must”. So - contrary to what has been asserted, church documents do not require a font at the entrance. It can be inside the nave or in a separate baptistry.

I hope this helps. From personal experience, this can be an area of contention. Accurately quoting church documents can help clarify what we’re supposed to do.

SanClemente

 

[nightwalker]

Regarding the authority of Built of Living Stones it says this:
§ 10 § This document has been approved by the bishops of the Latin Church of the United States and issued by the authority of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on November 16, 2000. Built of Living Stones contains many of the provisions of universal law governing liturgical art and architecture and offers pastoral suggestions based upon the experience of the last thirty-five years. The document presents guidelines that can serve as the basis for diocesan bishops to issue further guidelines and directives for their dioceses. **Where the document quotes or reiterates norms from liturgical books and the Code of Canon Law, those prescriptions are binding on local communities and dioceses. **

snip<

Thank you for citing the exact passage where BLS states that it is not binding, except where it quotes universal law. Now in the case of the particular norm on the font, someone will have to track down the National Statutes on the Catechumenate, and find out to what degree they are binding. (National conferences of bishops have little juridical power, less than individual bishops. Since a national norm is cited as a universal requirement, I am suspicious of what actual binding authority exists.)

 

[scaron]

BoLS is the current guidance from the USCCB, and replaces the previous Environment and Art in Catholic Worship {EACW} which (for very good reasons) was never approved by the USCCB - although it became the blue-print for many “wreckovations” of beautiful churches.

The document is not binding (except for references to the church documents such as the GIRM and Sacrosanctum Concilium, et al, which are binding, as already mentioned). However, what is binding, in any parish, is the will of the local bishop, who has the last say in what will happen in the renovation - and most bishops in the US are following BoLS to the letter. That said, it is not a very prescriptive book. And where it is prescriptive, it mostly quotes approved church documents such are the GIRM, rather than making new recommendations itself.

EACW was (i believe) largely the source for the thinking that the baptismal font should be placed near the altar. When you enter a new or remodeled church with a font at or near the altar, you can be pretty sure it was built/remodeled during the days of EACW.

I have heard (I believe from one of Fr. John Corapi’s tapes) that immersion is the “fullest sign” of baptism. This would refer to the idea of going “down into death” with Christ (ie. under the water) and then being “raised to new life in Him”.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that, in order to be practical, a full immersion font must have a heater, and must circulate the water to avoid stagnation, and must be chemically treated (ie. chlorinated). In short, they must function like, and too often look and smell like, hot tubs.

The current thinking in design seems to be that the location of the font should be in the main aisle, near the entrance of the church. I am also serving on a renovation committee, and this is what I am seeing in a lot of the material I am being given.

I see three very large problems with this.

1. it completely interrupts the processional flow. I have heard that there are good “liturgical reasons” for this - but I have not heard them myself.
2. The “living water” - ie the sound of running water, is very disturbing during mass to those sitting near the font, and, to be delicate, can cause bladder issues for some.
3. IMO, this position sets up a “focal counterpoint” to the altar. Some “renovation” literature specify this as a very good thing, even using terms like “centers of liturgy” (see, for example, Fr. Richard Vosko, God’s House is our House; Re-Imagining the Environment for Worship. I find this disturbing, as the altar of a Catholic Church should be pre-eminent, IMO.

 

[Digitonomy]

1. IMO, this position sets up a “focal counterpoint” to the altar. Some “renovation” literature specify this as a very good thing, even using terms like “centers of liturgy” (see, for example, Fr. Richard Vosko, God’s House is our House; Re-Imagining the Environment for Worship. I find this disturbing, as the altar of a Catholic Church should be pre-eminent, IMO.

I don’t see the problem with other focal points in the church. This is inevitable, if we want to reserve the altar for its purpose. The Liturgy of the Word is proclaimed from a different focal point than the altar, the priest celebrant presides from a different focal point (except during the Eucharistic Liturgy), couples are wed at a different focal point (although this is sometimes immediately in front of the altar), processionals form a moving focal point whether in the center aisle or the side, likewise with the sprinkling of the congregation with holy water, and of course there is the Marian altar and often an altar to St. Joseph.

If the baptism takes place during a mass, the fact that the congregation are turned around in the pews facing the baptismal font makes it clear that the main purpose of the mass is really up front. If the baptism is not during a mass, then it doesn’t really matter.