Proposed architechtural changes

[Stylteralmaldo]

Our parish has recently proposed (pending parish council review) to use the funds of a capital campaign to renovate our church. A proposal favored by our pastor is to build a narthex and then in conjunction with this addition make the following renovations:

• New entrance to the church or narthex area.
• Possibly new baptismal font.
• New reconciliation room (possibly in old baptistry under tower).
• Move altar and ambo into Nave of church creating a new and closer sanctuary to the people.
• Move cantor, choir, and musician’s area to former altar area.
• Move tabernacle to area of former choir area. Add image of Divine Mercy to be above tabernacle.
• Remake former confessionals into shrine areas.
• Create more storage area for environment.
• Make sanctuary area handicap accessible.
  Right now, the main entrance of the church is from the back of the church itself. The tabernacle is currently in the front and center of the church behind the altar which is also currently front and center and towards the back. The choir is currently off to the side in the front of the church. Essentially, the tabernacle and the choir would be swapped and the altar would be moved up to accommodate room for the choir. My question is would these renovations comply with Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis?

Here’s a link from the vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/be…itatis_en.html

Here’s the points of contention (from #69):

…the place where the eucharistic species are preserved, marked by a santuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture:…where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist…

(1) Would these changes be allowable if the architecture of the church were to be changed due to us adding a narthex with the result being the entrance of the church would now be on the side of the church? The new entrance would indeed make the tabernacle visible to everyone as they entered the church since the main entrance would now be on the side of the church.

(2) Does the point that says that since the high altar with its tabernacle still in place (with our current architecture) make it appropriate for us to continue to use this current altar and tabernacle structure regardless of whether we add a narthex or not? I am feeling a bit uneasy about a plan to move the tabernacle off to the side and placing the choir to the center behind the altar. But I don’t want to bark up a tree that is an acceptable practice. It seems wrong, but I am not an expert in these matters.

(3) Is it acceptable to move the altar from its current location forward putting it closer to the people? I presume one reason for doing this is to make room for the choir which would be moved from its present location (which is currently on the side). Personally, I think we can move the choir to the upper level which is situated in the back. In other words, it isn’t required that we move the choir behind the altar if we move the tabernacle to the side. There are other options for the choir other than behind the altar. Again, I’m not an expert, but it seems like an improper place for the choir. Also, is the nave the proper place for the altar instead of its current location which is elevated?

(4) If our pastor is non-responsive regarding these matters (if they are indeed improper), would it be appropriate to notify the archbishop since point #69 says at the end of it that “…final judgement on these matters belongs to the Diocesan Bishop”? I know that sounds obvious if it appears improper, but I don’t want to unnecessarily cause problems with our parish community if it isn’t warranted.

Any prayers or comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[puzzleannie]

impossible to envision without seeing the plans or pix
nothing will be done without the approval of the bishop I assure you.
your pastor cannot even touch capital campaign funds unless they have been designated for this purpose without the approval of the bishop.

for instance, if a parish has a capital campaign to build a new church, but later decides it is more cost effective to renovate the existing church, there is a canon law (and sometimes a civil law) process to release those designated funds.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sadly, there is usually is no in-depth review of construction documents for church renovations at the dioecesan level. Few can read blueprints well enough to catch such errors like the examples sighted. The language in Apostalic exhortation is vague at best and it’s interpertation is left to the bishop’s office.

The errors usually take place on the drawing board in a secular (at best) architect’s office, someone who rarely reads the exhortation by Pope Benedict while involved in church work. In the end it will be easier for the architect to change minds of the people involved than it will be to change drawings. Changing drawings involves him eating some labor costs and maybe even some construction cost, he will do neighor.

A pesimistic view, yes. But there is more truth to this line of thinking than you would guess.

Honestly it sounds as if the plan or within the guidelines. My parish will be doing the same thing in a couple of years.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…The language in Apostalic exhortation is vague at best and it’s interpertation is left to the bishop’s office…

…Honestly it sounds as if the plan or within the guidelines. My parish will be doing the same thing in a couple of years.

…the place where the eucharistic species are preserved, marked by a santuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture:…where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist…

The portion I bolded isn’t vague. It is appropriate for us to continue to use our existing structure for reservation and adoration of the Eucharist.

You are right though that the decision will be with the bishop. I’m confident the Holy Spirit will guide him as he reviews this. We are in the early stages here. I’ll do what I can to prevent improper placement of the Tabernacle.

 

[benedictgal]

The movement of the altar sends up a big RED FLAG. It is a misguided principal that the people should be close to the sanctuary, as it overemphasizes the “community.” The Mass is about worshipping God, not about celebrating ourselves.

Furthermore, putting the choir were the altar used to be now makes them the center of attention. I don’t have pictures, but I would invite you to visit look up San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio, Texas. Maybe you can use pictures of the cathedral to make your case. The Blessed Sacrament is housed in a gorgeous gold Tabernacle surrounded by statues of the Four Evangelists, but there is nothing on top of it. The magnificent crucifix is hung against the wall.

Now, the placement of the Blessed Sacrament is going to cause some problems, especially during Triduum, since Paschales Sacramentalis calls for the Blessed Sacrament to be moved to a different place after the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper. How is your parish currently handling this?

 

[THurifer2]

If what you explained to me happened at my church…my family would leave the parish…

 

[FAB]

• New entrance to the church or narthex area.
• Possibly new baptismal font.
• New reconciliation room (possibly in old baptistry under tower).
• Move altar and ambo into Nave of church creating a new and closer sanctuary to the people.
• Move cantor, choir, and musician’s area to former altar area.
• Move tabernacle to area of former choir area. Add image of Divine Mercy to be above tabernacle.
• Remake former confessionals into shrine areas.
• Create more storage area for environment.
• Make sanctuary area handicap accessible.

All of this is well in line with liturgical norms.

 

[THurifer2]

*]New reconciliation room (possibly in old baptistry under tower).
.

THis is a VERY bad idea…a CHurch MUST have a confessional that allows for PRIVATE and ANNONYMOUS confession…having a room complicates the matter due to the legalities in wake of the scandal. Reconciliation rooms are an incredibly stupid idea…they take up space and are a weak attempt by modernists to change the sacrament into a face to face counciling session as opposed to a sacrament. I am thoroughly convinced that Satan is behind the push for face to face confession…he knows people will be reluctant to go is the priest can see who they are…

WITH THIS IN MIND…I go to confession face to face sometimes and I am certain that it is totally valid to do it that way… If you like to do it that way GREAT…but the practice of confessionals with screens seems to be fading out with the encouragement of face to face.

 

[benedictgal]

All of this is well in line with liturgical norms.

I don’t think that you’re supposed to have anything atop the Tabernacle. Please quote which norms you think are applicable to the proposed changes.

 

[FAB]

I don’t think that you’re supposed to have anything atop the Tabernacle. Please quote which norms you think are applicable to the proposed changes.

I don’t have the section of the documents in front of me. The section that covers Architecture and Art, I believe is called “Made of Living Stones” The section on the tabernacle indicates that it is perferable to be placed in location available for adoration,i.e. chapel, and properly adorned. There is no proibition, as far as I can recall, to having anything above the tabernacle.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t have the section of the documents in front of me. The section that covers Architecture and Art, I believe is called “Made of Living Stones” The section on the tabernacle indicates that it is perferable to be placed in location available for adoration,i.e. chapel, and properly adorned. There is no proibition, as far as I can recall, to having anything above the tabernacle.

Peace,
FAB

A few years ago, I was helping with a wedding rehearsal. The florist came and did her thing and put flowers atop the tabernacle. The rector came in and had a fit and took them off and placed them elsewhere. He said that nothing should be atop the Tabernacle. Other florists tried to do the same thing, but he took the flowers down.

 

[FAB]

A few years ago, I was helping with a wedding rehearsal. The florist came and did her thing and put flowers atop the tabernacle. The rector came in and had a fit and took them off and placed them elsewhere. He said that nothing should be atop the Tabernacle. Other florists tried to do the same thing, but he took the flowers down.

On top of the tabernacle and above the tabernacle are two different things. I can see were the rector would have a problem with using the tabernacle as a flower stand. But an image above it, which would aid in the reflection of the mystery of the Eucharist would be a differnent matter.

 

[benedictgal]

On top of the tabernacle and above the tabernacle are two different things. I can see were the rector would have a problem with using the tabernacle as a flower stand. But an image above it, which would aid in the reflection of the mystery of the Eucharist would be a differnent matter.

I believe in my original post, I referred to not having anything atop the Tabernacle (sitting on top of it). I also referenced looking at pictures of San Fernando Cathedral to see how they handled it.

 

[Sure]

Get the facts and go straight to your archbishop (you have a good one). FIGHT THIS! Confessionals being torn out and tabernacle moved off to the side = BAD IDEAS.

Your pastor would have had to secure permission from the diocesan art and environment committee but quite often they are infected with a modernist tendencies to try and make the sanctuary like a living room and not an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Altar’s do not need to be moved into the nave as that destroys the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave which undermines the importance of the Sacrifice that occurs on the Altar.

Read this article: adoremus.org/98-03_mcnamara.htm

It will help you find the correct references in Sacrosanctum Concilium and give you an idea of why the proposed plans are bad theology.

God bless!

 

[FAB]

Get the facts and go straight to your archbishop (you have a good one). FIGHT THIS! Confessionals being torn out and tabernacle moved off to the side = BAD IDEAS.

Your pastor would have had to secure permission from the diocesan art and environment committee but quite often they are infected with a modernist tendencies to try and make the sanctuary like a living room and not an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Altar’s do not need to be moved into the nave as that destroys the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave which undermines the importance of the Sacrifice that occurs on the Altar.QUOTE]

I would guess that there is no fight here and the archbishop is pushing for the change. All these changes come form Vatican II and are in the Litergical Documents.
The purpose of moving the alter is to bring it closer to the people. We are to share as community in the Eucharistic Celebration and by no means undermines the sacrafice in which we participate.
The reason to move the tabernacle is to allow for adoration between masses. Also the alter for mass is to be the focal point and not the tabernacle. These are not modernist changes, but changes long overdue.

 

[Sure]

Sure;2963926:

Get the facts and go straight to your archbishop (you have a good one). FIGHT THIS! Confessionals being torn out and tabernacle moved off to the side = BAD IDEAS.

Your pastor would have had to secure permission from the diocesan art and environment committee but quite often they are infected with a modernist tendencies to try and make the sanctuary like a living room and not an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Altar’s do not need to be moved into the nave as that destroys the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave which undermines the importance of the Sacrifice that occurs on the Altar.QUOTE]

I would guess that there is no fight here and the archbishop is pushing for the change. All these changes come form Vatican II and are in the Litergical Documents.
The purpose of moving the alter is to bring it closer to the people. We are to share as community in the Eucharistic Celebration and by no means undermines the sacrafice in which we participate.
The reason to move the tabernacle is to allow for adoration between masses. Also the alter for mass is to be the focal point and not the tabernacle. These are not modernist changes, but changes long overdue.

Please show me where Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for the Altar to be moved forward, for the tabernacle to be removed from the sanctuary, for the choir to be moved to the apse, and for confessionals to be removed. I would argue that none of these changes are permissible let alone encouraged. The plans as described will destroy the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave.

 

[FAB]

FAB;2964469:

Please show me where Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for the Altar to be moved forward, for the tabernacle to be removed from the sanctuary, for the choir to be moved to the apse, and for confessionals to be removed. I would argue that none of these changes are permissible let alone encouraged. The plans as described will destroy the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave.

I refer to the Liturgical documents for Art and Architecture, I believe the section is called “Built of Living Stones”, I think you will find otherwise.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Sure]

Sure;2964661:

I refer to the Liturgical documents for Art and Architecture, I believe the section is called “Built of Living Stones”, I think you will find otherwise.
Peace,
FAB

But there is nothing in Vatican II on the subject.

“Built of Living Stones” does not reference anything about moving the Altar close to the people.

And as was noted at the beginning of this thread, the more authoritative Sacramentum Caritatis does say this:

…where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist…

It would seem that moving the tabernacle from the old high altar would contradict this instruction.

 

[benedictgal]

FAB;2964819:

But there is nothing in Vatican II on the subject.

“Built of Living Stones” does not reference anything about moving the Altar close to the people.

And as was noted at the beginning of this thread, the more authoritative Sacramentum Caritatis does say this:

It would seem that moving the tabernacle from the old high altar would contradict this instruction.

I would suspect that the next document to be revised will be “Built of Living Stones.” I’ve seen many new churches take the form of the Protestant megachurch. One noteworthy disaster is a parish in northwest San Antonio. While they did “rescue” some gorgeous stained glass windows, the body of the church looks like a big hall and there is not even a crucifix on the wall. The baptismal font looks like a wading pool. The reserve chapel where the Blessed Sacrament is kept looks a little better, but even the statue of Jesus looks too angular and downright scary. The one lone statue of Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, looks like something kitschy from an imports vendor.

My friend was so proud of the parish, but all I could do was scratch my head as she showed me around.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

…the place where the eucharistic species are preserved, marked by a santuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture:…where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist…

The portion I bolded isn’t vague. It is appropriate for us to continue to use our existing structure for reservation and adoration of the Eucharist.

You are right though that the decision will be with the bishop. I’m confident the Holy Spirit will guide him as he reviews this. We are in the early stages here. I’ll do what I can to prevent improper placement of the Tabernacle.

I respectfully agree with you. Your fighting the good fight.

Watch out, the phase “readily visible” of this statement can have more meanings then you might think. Both you and I see it as one very clear thing, but a design professional sees it as something total different. My fear is that a priest or bishop may try to appease both sides, you and the designer giving you both equal time to express your concerns. This will never work out in a way that makes the faithful sadisifed.

Peace.