Position of altar

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cavaille-Coll
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cavaille-Coll

Guest
Here is a situation I have often seen in my part of the country. In the sanctuary, the altar is moved to one side of the main aisle and the ambo is placed on the opposite side, equidistant from one other so that neither is in the middle. One nearby church, built only three years ago, uses this format, and their altar and ambo were constructed to resemble two halves that could be pushed together into one piece if desired. Considering that all documents since Vatican II have emphasized the altar as the central focus of attention inside the church building, where does this come from?
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
Here is a situation I have often seen in my part of the country. In the sanctuary, the altar is moved to one side of the main aisle and the ambo is placed on the opposite side, equidistant from one other so that neither is in the middle. One nearby church, built only three years ago, uses this format, and their altar and ambo were constructed to resemble two halves that could be pushed together into one piece if desired. Considering that all documents since Vatican II have emphasized the altar as the central focus of attention inside the church building, where does this come from?
Click to expand...
It comes from bad theology that equates the liturgy of the Eucharist with the liturgy of the Word. Perhaps more specifically it is bad theology that equates the altar of the word and the altar of sacrifice. I have seen many variations of this at different parishes and according to all the documents of the Church concerning the purpose and nature of the Mass this construction is a definite abuse.
 
Perhaps we should go back to using the altar for the Epistle and Gospel to avoid such a thing as you have discribed.
 
My church is similar. The ambo is to the left, (looking at the sancturary), the altar to the right. The priest has his chair in between the two. This I find highly distracting.
 
The only time I’ve heard of this arrangement are in Great Britain and Australia. I haven’t heard of it in America yet (knock on wood).

Definately bad theology. 😦
 
The altar should be the focus, not the lectionary, not the priest’s chair, not even the Bishop’s Cathedra! It MUST be the altar.

Destructive theology. Placing the Liturgy of the Word over the Eucharist :mad:. What are we, protestants?
 
We just opened our brand new church building about 2 months ago. Our altar is off center, not intentionally. It’s a beautiful marble altar, and was planted in the Sanctuary before the floor was tiled. During the tiling, it was realized that the altar was off center by about 3 inches. Unless you’re really looking for it, you’d never notice. And since it would cost $10-15,000 to move it, it will most likely stay off center.
 
Well in our church you will think that there are two ambo. They place two in each side the left side is for the readings and the right one is for the commentator.

It looks like a debate inside the church… hehehe!
 
If I understand you correctly what you are describing is the monastic setting of the altar and ambo. The monks sit across from each other (antiphonal seating) with the ambo at one end and the altar at the other. This has become more common in churches in the last few years.
 
cspb56 said:
If I understand you correctly what you are describing is the monastic setting of the altar and ambo. The monks sit across from each other (antiphonal seating) with the ambo at one end and the altar at the other. This has become more common in churches in the last few years.
Click to expand...
What the OP was describing was this dubious custom. I don’t think its the monastic arrangement you’re referring to (ambo at one end of the aniphonal seating and the altar at the other?)

http://www.sesnaperville.org/photo/newaltar.JPG
 
I know of at least two parishes in Michigan that employ this faulty reasoning in arranging the sanctuary. Sadly, one of these two is my home parish and the other is where I often vacation. 😦 But we have a new pastor now who will hopefully correct this (and many other) problematic things in my parish’s liturgical practices.

Unfortunately, I think the wording used in the GIRM provides the necessary “wiggle room” that permits this architectural disaster:
299…The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.116
  1. The dignity of the word of God requires that the church have a place that is suitable for the proclamation of the word and toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns during the Liturgy of the Word.117
    The two footnotes (116 and 117) above refer to the instructionInter Oecumenici, published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1964. In that document, the wording pertaining to the position of the altar is essentially the same as found in the GIRM. However, in regard to the ambo, the authors (or more likely, the translators) of the GIRM modified the wording, changing the emphasis in te process. The 1964 Instruction reads:
    96. There should be a lectern or lecterns for the proclamation of the readings, so arranged that the faithful may readily see and hear the minister.
    By contrast, recall that the GIRM states that both the altar and ambo should be positioned where the faithful “naturally turn”. Therein lies the problem.
 
If I understand you correctly what you are describing is the monastic setting of the altar and ambo. The monks sit across from each other (antiphonal seating) with the ambo at one end and the altar at the other. This has become more common in churches in the last few years.
Click to expand...
What “monastic” setting are you talking about? I’m at an Abbey right now, the altar is where the altar should be (as far as a free standing one is concerned, and how the GIRM is currently worded) and the ambo is in its correct place. The altar and ambo should not line up with the choir stalls.
 
ComradeAndrei said:
What “monastic” setting are you talking about? I’m at an Abbey right now, the altar is where the altar should be (as far as a free standing one is concerned, and how the GIRM is currently worded) and the ambo is in its correct place. The altar and ambo should not line up with the choir stalls.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I was about to say the same thing. When I was at Mt Angel Abbey they never would have considered that as a “monastic tradition” but rather if done a “monastic abuse.”
 
I just picked up a whole bunch of free books today (library was giving away duplicates and worthless 70s and 80s ‘theology’ books) and there is some nutty ideas about Mass and the Eucharist.

This whole puting the altar and ambo side to side is an attempt to make the Holy Sacrament of the Altar equal to the readings. The Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist are NOT equal. The “people” are not an equal manifestation of Christ to the Eucharist. All of this stuff is Modernism.

The frightening thing about Modernism is that it often couches itself is “not quite” heretical wording so that it cannot be condemned outright. Very messy is the “synthesis of all heresy”. 😦
 
ComradeAndrei said:
This whole puting the altar and ambo side to side is an attempt to make the Holy Sacrament of the Altar equal to the readings. The Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist are NOT equal.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. Be careful, you might upset those modernists. :rolleyes:
 
You make it sound like the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. Be careful, you might upset those modernists.
Click to expand...
You’d think that since the “Spirit of Vatican II” zeitgeist runs the modernist show, they’d at least notice some of the real obvious stuff that Vatican II preaches. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top