Proposed architechtural changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…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…
There It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and 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, is another part to this section"

If it is the intention to create this area, then that is the norm. This section though still sounds as though it is an option based on approval from the Bishop. As I indicated before, any changes like this would have to be approved and may already have. I would have a problem with placing the choir behind the altar and not in the congregation. The ministry is one of invitation and not of performance. The items that should be in the sanctuary is the ambo, altar and presider’s chair.
Peace,
FAB
 
I think the two proposals which would generate most concern are that of moving the ambo and altar into the nave, and moving the tabernacle.

As has already been said, the tabernacle should have a prominent position within the church - no one should have to search for it.

I would be quite concerned about the moving of the altar. In my home city a number of years ago, the Augustinians remodelled their church. The plans were faced with much opposition as it involved removing the altar rails and moving the altar to the centre of the nave; the seating was rearranged in Collegiate style -ie. seats facing into the nave. The reason given for the moving of the altar was that the congregation should be the focus of the celebration. I never heard such an absurdity, since the focus is always to be Christ… If this is the kind of arrangement your church is proposing, I hope it will be strongly opposed. In my experience, the people who were supposed to be brought closer to the Mass with the new altar and seating are actually not focusing on the altar, but rather on the people sitting opposite them! The altar is also now on the same level as the people, which I don’t think it should be; the lack of reverence around the new altar is appalling -shortly after the renovated church reopened I observed a young boy actually climbing up onto the altar! No way would this have happened if the traditional arrangement had been retained. At least they retained the old high altar and tabernacle in its place…

I don’t know the ins and outs of Vatican II, but whatever happens with the proposals don’t just accept the excuses that say they are just bringing things in line with Vatican II rules - too many of Ireland’s beautiful cathedrals and churches have been destroyed because the people were conned by such excuses. No decent bishop will allow reordering to take place if Christ is not given pride of place in the church.
 
40.png
benedictgal:
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?
Well, at the moment we have four churches. We recently merged our four parishes into one worship community. I’m not sure where the “different place” is and how that is being handled. The other three churches aren’t utilized as much anymore as the church proposed for renovation is now our primary worship site. Perhaps the “different place” is at one of the other facilities? I’m not sure.
40.png
THurifer2:
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
We actually had a reconciliation room that was essentially only face to face but then changed it by moving it into the church. We did a minor renovation which now allows for both options. Does it change to only face-to-face again with the new proposed renovations? I believe both options will be available with the new proposal. Your comments are worthy of reflection however.
There It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel
, and 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, is another part to this section"
40.png
FAB:
If it is the intention to create this area, then that is the norm.
My understanding is that there will not be a separate Blessed Sacrament chapel as part of the renovation nor do we have one now.
40.png
FAB:
As I indicated before, any changes like this would have to be approved and may already have.
I may find out this answer at our parish council meeting which is coming up tomorrow.
40.png
FAB:
I would have a problem with placing the choir behind the altar and not in the congregation. The ministry is one of invitation and not of performance.
Yes, I am uneasy about that for the reason you stated. We have a balcony in the back of our church. The choir could be moved up there and we wouldn’t need to move the tabernacle either to accommodate where to put the choir.
 
Yes, I am uneasy about that for the reason you stated. We have a balcony in the back of our church. The choir could be moved up there and we wouldn’t need to move the tabernacle either to accommodate where to put the choir.
The choir should be seated in the same area as the congregation, not the choir loft and as previously indacted not behind the alter. The idea is that they should be leading the congregation in song, which is difficult to do if seperated.

Peace, FAB
 
The choir should be seated in the same area as the congregation, not the choir loft and as previously indacted not behind the alter. The idea is that they should be leading the congregation in song, which is difficult to do if seperated.

Peace, FAB
Actually, the choir loft is the best place for the choir. The cantor should be in the sanctuary because he/she is leading the faithful in song. The choir is helping sustain the singing of the faithful and should not be there for “show”. Now, granted St. Peter’s Basilica doesn’t have a choir loft (at least as far as I can tell from the broadcasts), but the Sistene Chapel Choir is not up and center. In fact, they are off to the side. While I’m not a big fan of some of the liturgies Notre Dame University broadcasts on DirecTV, their choir is upon the loft while the cantor is in the sanctuary.
 
Actually, the choir loft is the best place for the choir. The cantor should be in the sanctuary because he/she is leading the faithful in song. The choir is helping sustain the singing of the faithful and should not be there for “show”. Now, granted St. Peter’s Basilica doesn’t have a choir loft (at least as far as I can tell from the broadcasts), but the Sistene Chapel Choir is not up and center. In fact, they are off to the side. While I’m not a big fan of some of the liturgies Notre Dame University broadcasts on DirecTV, their choir is upon the loft while the cantor is in the sanctuary.
For traditionalist maybe. Most new church’s are not built with choir lofts. The idea of the choir in a loft was to have "heavenly " music from above responding to the presider in the sanctuary. The congregation was not part of this exchange. Our mass today is one of active particiaption. The choir as a ministery is to be part of the congregation, to not only lead but to be a invitation to engage in the ceremony. Even if they are off to one side, this still enables lead and be part of the whole.
Peace, FAB
 
For traditionalist maybe. Most new church’s are not built with choir lofts. The idea of the choir in a loft was to have "heavenly " music from above responding to the presider in the sanctuary. The congregation was not part of this exchange. Our mass today is one of active particiaption. The choir as a ministery is to be part of the congregation, to not only lead but to be a invitation to engage in the ceremony. Even if they are off to one side, this still enables lead and be part of the whole.
Peace, FAB
Not necessarily. Acoustically, it works. I think that you may have the whole notion of active participation wrong. Are you implying that the folks who celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for nearly 1,960 years didn’t “actively participate” in the Mass? That is a mistaken notion that Pope Benedict has moved to quickly dispel. Active participation means engaging everything, even silence, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can actively participate interiorly as well as exteriorly.

The idea to have the choir front and center makes it too Protestant. Just look at at the TV megachurches. Because they do not have the Real, Eucharistic Presence of Jesus at the front and center, all they can show forth is the choir. Then, they become the focus and the “entertainment”. That’s not what our liturgies are about.
 
Not necessarily. Acoustically, it works. I think that you may have the whole notion of active participation wrong. Are you implying that the folks who celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for nearly 1,960 years didn’t “actively participate” in the Mass? That is a mistaken notion that Pope Benedict has moved to quickly dispel. Active participation means engaging everything, even silence, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can actively participate interiorly as well as exteriorly.

The idea to have the choir front and center makes it too Protestant. Just look at at the TV megachurches. Because they do not have the Real, Eucharistic Presence of Jesus at the front and center, all they can show forth is the choir. Then, they become the focus and the “entertainment”. That’s not what our liturgies are about.
I agree that the choir should not be behind the alter, but I don’t believe Pope Beniedict dispelled anything about the faithful pariciapting fully in the mass, which includes songs, response and silence, with each other, not as lone individuals. It is also why the alter is lowered and placed closer, to break this idea of just being observers and instead to be the body of Christ.
Peace,
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 In 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!
In the last 25 years I been involved in building a two new churchwa and remodeling 3 churcjes -all in different dioceses. I can guarantee you that the diocese is going to have to approve any plans. In all likelihood they have a committee that handles construction and remodeling for the entire diocese. It is way too soon for an individual to be complaining to the bishop about the plans. Not a nail will be driven or anything moved without his explicit permission. In my experience if an individual does complain to the bishop he merely forwards a complaint back to the pastor of the church involved and writes a nice letter to the complaintant to take their concerns to the church pastor and Parish building committee

In the United States I believe the guidelines are contained in a book called living stones. However a lot of leeway is made for existing churches as opposed to construction of new ones,

If you are on the building committee and this is your first time doing so I need to warn you that it is a thankless job. You’ll catch criticism from every side and when all is said and done there will be a large number of parishioners who are mad at you and your committee. Hope you are as fortunate as I have been in always having a strong pastor who did not give in to unfounded criticism and gave total support to those on the committee, There is no possible way to make everybody happy, this thread being a good example
 
I agree that the choir should not be behind the alter, but I don’t believe Pope Beniedict dispelled anything about the faithful pariciapting fully in the mass, which includes songs, response and silence, with each other, not as lone individuals. It is also why the alter is lowered and placed closer, to break this idea of just being observers and instead to be the body of Christ.
Peace,
FAB
If that is the case, then how do you explain the Altar of the Confession being so high up there at St. Peter’s Basilica? Are the faithful less a part of the body of Christ because the altar is not close to them? I think not.

Pope Benedict said that we needed to re-think the idea of active participation and count interior participation as something important. The lowering of the altar was a modern “innovation” that I don’t think was ever envisioned by the Council Fathers. Unfortunately, a lot was done in the so-called “spirit” of Vatican II, without reading any of the documents.
 
benedictgal and FAB, your passionate responses have given me much to reflect on. Currently, the choir is in the front off to the side. I grew up in a church where the choir was in the loft. The problem that I recall was that often-times we were unable to hear our choir and the songs seemed very distant.

In my current parish, the problem may be similar. But that could be remedied by an enhanced sound system. Right now, we have a wonderful choir led by someone who really knows what they are doing. I see the benefits of being able to see the choir so we as a congregation can be led in song and it does add a great atmosphere to the celebration. That element may lack if we put the choir back in the loft. I guess you could say I am torn. It can be distracting looking off to the side where the choir is to get our cues when to join into song (perhaps the reason for putting the choir behind the altar…an idea I am in agreement is a bad idea because as stated elsewhere the focus then becomes the choir and not the REAL reason we are there which is for the REAL PRESENSE in our midst).
 
QUOTE=SureGet 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.

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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

The Dignity of the Sacred Space
  1. The Lineamenta made reference to the role of art. The dignity of what pertains to the celebration of the Eucharist expresses faith in the sacred mysteries and effectively contributes to nourishing the faith of both the sacred ministers and the faithful. This attitude is seen in the proper arrangement of the sacred space, in an appropriate placement of the tabernacle and chair and also in the special care given to particulars, such as cleaning, furniture and fresh flowers. Indeed, the faithful’s formation in Eucharistic doctrine greatly depends not only on what they hear, but also on what they see. Neglecting these points is a sign of a weak faith.
Based on the Bible, the Church has traditionally set aside an area reserved for the sacred ministers, as a powerful sign that the Lord is the one who choses his ministers and brings them into his service. This distinction has been maintained in the Eastern Churches, through the delineation of the sanctuary, and in the West, through the presbytery. The liturgy manifests that the People of God is hierarchically ordered and geared to active participation. The altar is the most holy part of the Church building and is elevated to indicate that God’s work is far superior to all human works. The linens which cover it are symbolic of the purity which is necessary to encounter the divine. Like the Church building, the altar is dedicated to the Lord only, and cannot be used for any other purpose.

Some responses reported other occurrences, opposed to afore-mentioned Church tradition, which obscure the sense of the sacred and the transcendent character of the sacred mysteries. For example, many new Churches—not to mention older ones after renovation—are built on the fundamental architectural plan of bringing the faithful into close proximity to the altar to ensure visual contact and communication between the celebrant and the assembly. Likewise, the tendency to turn the altar around to face the people—in practice eliminating the presbytery—is based on the same idea. In doing so, what might be gained in communication might not sufficiently safeguard a sense of the sacred, which is also an essential part of liturgical celebrations.
 
If that is the case, then how do you explain the Altar of the Confession being so high up there at St. Peter’s Basilica? Are the faithful less a part of the body of Christ because the altar is not close to them? I think not.

Pope Benedict said that we needed to re-think the idea of active participation and count interior participation as something important. The lowering of the altar was a modern “innovation” that I don’t think was ever envisioned by the Council Fathers. Unfortunately, a lot was done in the so-called “spirit” of Vatican II, without reading any of the documents.
If you ever travel to Rome and vist the various Cathedrals you will see a mixture of the past to the present. In St. Peters, besides the main alter, there are numerous chapels and side alters that masses are celebrated daily. These all have the alter at the level of the people. The main alter is high for a couple of reason, first is because of the pactices of the church during the middle ages when it was built, as such it is also art and history and needs to be preserved. Second, St. Peter’s is huge, the largest church in the world, the alter needs to be raised to be seen. This is not the case is most parish church’s.
Having read many documents from Vatican II and the Litugical docments on art and architecture, this is the vision of the Council Fathers.
Peace,
FAB
 
If you ever travel to Rome and vist the various Cathedrals you will see a mixture of the past to the present. In St. Peters, besides the main alter, there are numerous chapels and side alters that masses are celebrated daily. These all have the alter at the level of the people. The main alter is high for a couple of reason, first is because of the pactices of the church during the middle ages when it was built, as such it is also art and history and needs to be preserved. Second, St. Peter’s is huge, the largest church in the world, the alter needs to be raised to be seen. This is not the case is most parish church’s.
Having read many documents from Vatican II and the Litugical docments on art and architecture, this is the vision of the Council Fathers.
Peace,
FAB
I don’t know if you read the post before from the Lineamata for the Synod on the Eucharist, but it does make some interesting points.
 
I don’t know if you read the post before from the Lineamata for the Synod on the Eucharist, but it does make some interesting points.
That wasn’t the full section:The Dignity of the Sacred Space
  1. The Lineamenta made reference to the role of art. The dignity of what pertains to the celebration of the Eucharist expresses faith in the sacred mysteries and effectively contributes to nourishing the faith of both the sacred ministers and the faithful. This attitude is seen in the proper arrangement of the sacred space, in an appropriate placement of the tabernacle and chair and also in the special care given to particulars, such as cleaning, furniture and fresh flowers. Indeed, the faithful’s formation in Eucharistic doctrine greatly depends not only on what they hear, but also on what they see. Neglecting these points is a sign of a weak faith.
Based on the Bible, the Church has traditionally set aside an area reserved for the sacred ministers, as a powerful sign that the Lord is the one who choses his ministers and brings them into his service. This distinction has been maintained in the Eastern Churches, through the delineation of the sanctuary, and in the West, through the presbytery. The liturgy manifests that the People of God is hierarchically ordered and geared to active participation. The altar is the most holy part of the Church building and is elevated to indicate that God’s work is far superior to all human works. The linens which cover it are symbolic of the purity which is necessary to encounter the divine. Like the Church building, the altar is dedicated to the Lord only, and cannot be used for any other purpose.
  1. The responses raise the concern that oftentimes the Church building is used for profane events, such as concerts and theatrical events which are not always religious in nature. The liturgy of the dedication of a Church recalls that the community offers the Church building entirely to the Lord. Therefore, it cannot be used for any other purpose apart from its consecration.
Some responses reported other occurrences, opposed to afore-mentioned Church tradition, which obscure the sense of the sacred and the transcendent character of the sacred mysteries. For example, many new Churches—not to mention older ones after renovation—are built on the fundamental architectural plan of bringing the faithful into close proximity to the altar to ensure visual contact and communication between the celebrant and the assembly. Likewise, the tendency to turn the altar around to face the people—in practice eliminating the presbytery—is based on the same idea. In doing so, what might be gained in communication might not sufficiently safeguard a sense of the sacred, which is also an essential part of liturgical celebrations.

Some responses are very encouraging, however. Based on the guidelines set down in The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, diverse initiatives have been undertaken to ensure that sacred spaces in already existent Churches and those under construction be true places of prayer and adoration, where art and iconography become instruments to serve liturgical needs. For example, in some Churches, kneelers have returned along with the practice of the faithful kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer. Tabernacles, previously not clearly visible, have again been placed in the sanctuary or in a prominent place. The planning of new Churches is providing greater prominence to art, decoration, vestments and sacred vessels. This seeks to bring into harmony the nearness of the celebrant to the people and the sacred nature of the divine mysteries which are, at one and the same time, immanent and transcendent.

This is indicating that the sense of the sacred needs to maintained, by bring the celebration closer to the people.
 
Some of the proposed changes remind me of what they did to the cathedral in Milwaukee (move choir to former sanctuary, move altar forward, etc). Based on how awkward and cramped that remodeled cathedral felt, I would recommend against doing these sorts of changes. I couldn’t really see the bishop where I was sitting and I had my back to the tabernacle. Aesthetically, I thought what they did was a wasteful and awful thing to do to a historic building, and I honestly think in the next fifty years or so they will spend a horrendous amount of money to restore it back to roughly what it looked like originally.

IMO, if it’s a historic church that would already be considered aesthetically beautiful, then I would caution against making extreme changes.
 
That wasn’t the full section:The Dignity of the Sacred Space
  1. The Lineamenta made reference to the role of art. The dignity of what pertains to the celebration of the Eucharist expresses faith in the sacred mysteries and effectively contributes to nourishing the faith of both the sacred ministers and the faithful. This attitude is seen in the proper arrangement of the sacred space, in an appropriate placement of the tabernacle and chair and also in the special care given to particulars, such as cleaning, furniture and fresh flowers. Indeed, the faithful’s formation in Eucharistic doctrine greatly depends not only on what they hear, but also on what they see. Neglecting these points is a sign of a weak faith.
Based on the Bible, the Church has traditionally set aside an area reserved for the sacred ministers, as a powerful sign that the Lord is the one who choses his ministers and brings them into his service. This distinction has been maintained in the Eastern Churches, through the delineation of the sanctuary, and in the West, through the presbytery. The liturgy manifests that the People of God is **hierarchically ordered **and geared to active participation. The altar is the most holy part of the Church building and is elevated to indicate that God’s work is far superior to all human works. The linens which cover it are symbolic of the purity which is necessary to encounter the divine. Like the Church building, the altar is dedicated to the Lord only, and cannot be used for any other purpose.
  1. The responses raise the concern that oftentimes the Church building is used for profane events, such as concerts and theatrical events which are not always religious in nature. The liturgy of the dedication of a Church recalls that the community offers the Church building entirely to the Lord. Therefore, it cannot be used for any other purpose apart from its consecration.
Some responses reported other occurrences, opposed to afore-mentioned Church tradition,which obscure the sense of the sacred and the transcendent character of the sacred mysteries. For example, many new Churches—not to mention older ones after renovation—are built on the fundamental architectural plan of bringing the faithful into close proximity to the altar to ensure visual contact and communication between the celebrant and the assembly.Likewise, the tendency to turn the altar around to face the people—in practice eliminating the presbytery—is based on the same idea. In doing so, what might be gained in communication might not sufficiently safeguard a sense of the sacred, which is also an essential part of liturgical celebrations.

Some responses are very encouraging, however. Based on the guidelines set down in The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, diverse initiatives have been undertaken to ensure that sacred spaces in already existent Churches and those under construction be true places of prayer and adoration, where art and iconography become instruments to serve liturgical needs. For example, in some Churches, kneelers have returned along with the practice of the faithful kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer. Tabernacles, previously not clearly visible, have again been placed in the sanctuary or in a prominent place. The planning of new Churches is providing greater prominence to art, decoration, vestments and sacred vessels. This seeks to bring into harmony the nearness of the celebrant to the people and the sacred nature of the divine mysteries which are, at one and the same time, immanent and transcendent.

This is indicating that the sense of the sacred needs to maintained, by bring the celebration closer to the people./

Nope- it is the opposite. What follows needs to be taken within the context what was stated before. The harmony it speaks of–is not found by opposing Church tradition and blurring the delineation of the sanctuary and the hierarchical ordering.
 
Some of the proposed changes remind me of what they did to the cathedral in Milwaukee (move choir to former sanctuary, move altar forward, etc). Based on how awkward and cramped that remodeled cathedral felt, I would recommend against doing these sorts of changes. I couldn’t really see the bishop where I was sitting and I had my back to the tabernacle. Aesthetically, I thought what they did was a wasteful and awful thing to do to a historic building, and I honestly think in the next fifty years or so they will spend a horrendous amount of money to restore it back to roughly what it looked like originally.

IMO, if it’s a historic church that would already be considered aesthetically beautiful, then I would caution against making extreme changes.
Our church is in the Milwaukee area. I would not say that the church is already aesthetically beautiful (at least in my opinion). I agree that a renovation is needed to our church. It’s the how to go about doing it that needs to be addressed.

For those interested, here’s the renovations that have taken place at the Milwaukee Cathedral of St. John’s (click on the number for the picture):

stjohncathedral.org/tour/tourmap.htm

It should be noted that Archbishop Weakland authorized these changes and is now retired. We now have Archbishop Dolan who may or may not agree with such changes.
 

Nope- it is the opposite. What follows needs to be taken within the context what was stated before. The harmony it speaks of–is not found by opposing Church tradition and blurring the delineation of the sanctuary and the hierarchical ordering.
There’s always a little historical perspective in these documents before it gets to the point. This document is concerned with going to far, as a warning to keep the entire space as sacred. The alter being set apart enough as to keep the sacred but close enough to insure that the congregation is part of the sacrafice. This is the point that I defer to the bishops to make this fine distinction.
 
It should be noted that Archbishop Weakland authorized these changes and is now retired. We now have Archbishop Dolan who may or may not agree with such changes.
I would DEFINITELY write to the Archbishop to inform him that this is going on. In most dioceses, all renovations must be approved by a diocesan committee, however, once that occurs they don’t go back again for approval. There is a very good chance that Archbishop Dolan has absolutely no idea that such a change is planned. If I were you, I would send him as much information as possible including renderings and so forth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top