Where should the altar be in the church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter crocs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be interesting to design a “perfect church”. One that incorporates the traditional-- a nice long aisle for weddings and processions-- yet keep an intimate feeling that we want as we celebrate mass together.
I have been to a beautiful restored church that has maintained all the elements of old and new. Mostly by having a great sound system so you can hear the priest where ever you are, throughout the entire mass.
I’m not sure that long aisles are ever a good thing. Being able to hear and see are priorities when I attend the Mass.
 
I’m not sure that long aisles are ever a good thing. Being able to hear and see are priorities when I attend the Mass.
Well, when I said “perfect church” I mean it doesn’t exist in reality.🙂
I’m still workin’ on it…

You’re right, even in my small parish church, I sit close to the front so I can see. And when I visit the restored old church I mentioned earlier, we sit in front. The first time we visited there, we had to sit in back, and I didn’t like that.

The oldest Catholic church in Indy has a long aisle and is always booked up with weddings. It is also a beautiful and well maintained building. It has lots of visitors because it is across from the convention center and football stadium.

I am always fascinated with church architecture especially after traveling through Europe and visiting all those sacred places. These hundreds of years old buildings were always abuzz with activities (choir practice, pause for prayer, etc.) and I was quite impressed.
 
Because the Church says so:

GIRM 315. *"It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.

Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,
  1. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration
  2. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful."*
No, you’re misreading this. The Church doesn’t say the tabernacle shouldn’t be central in the church and an important focal point, it says the tabernacle shouldn’t be on top of one of the altars where Mass is celebrated. Behind the altar? Great.
 
No “second” altar. The altar.
It is still a second altar; the main altar is the one normally connected to the rest of the altarpiece. Though of course in some churches the altarpiece has been removed and there is but one altar remaining, such as in my church - but this is not so across the board, especially in churches where the traditional altarpiece has not been removed or tampered with.
No “main altar.” Just one altar – the altar of sacrifice. No, the Church does not direct that the tabernacle be located at the rear center of the sanctuary.

Because the Church says so:

GIRM 315. *"It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.

Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,
  1. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration
  2. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful."*
The Church can do better in this regard; it has in the past.

Besides, I never said the tabernacle should be on the altar, rather behind and just above it, you know, just like it is in any TLM-only church.
 
I’m not sure that long aisles are ever a good thing. Being able to hear and see are priorities when I attend the Mass.
Therefore, do you see the ad orientem position as an obstacle in your ability to experience Mass?
 
In one archdiocese in the Pacific Northwest, there are several churches in which the altar does not occupy the center of the sanctuary but is placed equidistant from the ambo so that neither is centered. One of these churches was built only four years ago, and the altar and ambo were designed to resemble two halves of a separated, whole altar. When I asked one priest in another parish with this arrangement about why this was, he said “Haven’t you heard? The Word and the Eucharist are equal now.” His response probably explains why his parish also had two sanctuary lamps, one over the tabernacle and the other over a Gospel book.
 
In our church, the Precious Body is kept in a side room (that is used for perpetual adoration).

Can someone please explain to me the rational for not having it kept behind the altar table, as it is in most of the other RC churches around here?
 
In our church, the Precious Body is kept in a side room (that is used for perpetual adoration).

Can someone please explain to me the rational for not having it kept behind the altar table, as it is in most of the other RC churches around here?
I can only speculate, but at best it’s a desire to take sacred architecture and make it appear more “modern” and less “stuffy and old”, and at worst it’s a deliberate attempt to take focus off the Eucharist and place it instead on “fellowshipping” and “community worship experiences”.

I certainly hope it’s just the former. There is no rationale behind moving the tabernacle.
 
In our church, the Precious Body is kept in a side room (that is used for perpetual adoration).

Can someone please explain to me the rational for not having it kept behind the altar table, as it is in most of the other RC churches around here?
As I understood the original idea about putting the tabernacle in a side chapel, it was intended for certain large churches and cathedrals which attract tourists. Those who wanted to pray before the Lord could do so in a quiet chapel without being disturbed by photo-snapping visitors. It was never intended to be done in typical parish churches which don’t have that issue. From my perspective, in the majority of the world’s churches, there is no logical rationale for removing the tabernacle from the sanctuary.
 
I can only speculate, but at best it’s a desire to take sacred architecture and make it appear more “modern” and less “stuffy and old”, and at worst it’s a deliberate attempt to take focus off the Eucharist and place it instead on “fellowshipping” and “community worship experiences”.

I certainly hope it’s just the former. There is no rationale behind moving the tabernacle.
I think it’s the latter, TBH.😦

I am a huge “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” guy, or put another way “how can you be so arrogant as to think you are so intelligent that your ideas trump 2000 years of tradition?”
 
As I understood the original idea about putting the tabernacle in a side chapel, it was intended for certain large churches and cathedrals which attract tourists. Those who wanted to pray before the Lord could do so in a quiet chapel without being disturbed by photo-snapping visitors. It was never intended to be done in typical parish churches which don’t have that issue. From my perspective, in the majority of the world’s churches, there is no logical rationale for removing the tabernacle from the sanctuary.
Agree 100%
 
As I understood the original idea about putting the tabernacle in a side chapel, it was intended for certain large churches and cathedrals which attract tourists. Those who wanted to pray before the Lord could do so in a quiet chapel without being disturbed by photo-snapping visitors. It was never intended to be done in typical parish churches which don’t have that issue.
That’s a heck of a lead - do you have a resource that can verify that?

It would certainly fit into the overall pattern of things post-Vatican II. In other words, make a small change for the sake of some expedient measure, said change gets taken up by a bunch of modernist tinkerers, said change becomes an abuse.
I think it’s the latter, TBH.😦

I am a huge “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” guy, or put another way “how can you be so arrogant as to think you are so intelligent that your ideas trump 2000 years of tradition?”
Amen! That phrase guide my interpretation of everything in today’s Church; really, nothing of great substance was broken, thus there was nothing that needed to be fixed. Extending the ability to fulfill a holy day obligation on the evening of that day’s vigil was a great thing, giving Catholics more opportunities to get to Mass in an increasingly time-consuming world that cares little for the religion that made it great, but removing tabernacles, altar rails, even kneelers in some churches - too far, way too far.

The Church has endured worse than this in the past, but this is a new kind of threat. It’s not just corrupt clergy and lack of faith on the part of the laity - it’s tinkering with the Faith itself.
 
The altar should be located so that the greatest number of congregants has a clear view of the priest during Mass.
I occasionally attend eucharist at a church which is octagonal in form. The altar is in the center of the nave and the pews arranged around it. The sanctuary is elevated from the floor of the nave and the communion rail follows the octagonal form of the building. The altar platform is raised three steps above the sanctuary and the whole platform is supported on bearings so that the altar is allowed to rotate. Originally the altar rotated one full turn under electric power during the course of the liturgy. The priest celebrates, then, with his back to at least part of the congregation at all times. Communion was distributed at the communion rail by priests who made a continuous round of the sanctuary.
The altar of repose is in a separate Blessed Sacrament Chapel off the nave. The organ and choir are on the second level of the church opposite the pulpit, also on the second level. the pews in the upper part of the church are tiered for better line of sight to the altar below.
There is also a separate, more intimate chapel for weekday liturgies.
Lest anyone think this is a recent innovation, let me hasten to assure you that it was built in the 1930’s with full support of the bishop of the diocese.
According to their website, the first pastor wanted to emphasize the eucharist as central to the life of the church, hence the octagonal form with the altar in the center.

Reb Levi
 
As I understood the original idea about putting the tabernacle in a side chapel, it was intended for certain large churches and cathedrals which attract tourists. Those who wanted to pray before the Lord could do so in a quiet chapel without being disturbed by photo-snapping visitors. It was never intended to be done in typical parish churches which don’t have that issue. From my perspective, in the majority of the world’s churches, there is no logical rationale for removing the tabernacle from the sanctuary.
Of course there is. Let’s take a edifice like Saint Pat’s in NYC. It must get well in excess of 1 MILLION visitors per year. In cathedrals like that it makes good sense to repose the Blessed Sacrament in its own chapel for two reasons.

First, greater glory to God – no matter how quiet/respectful some visitors might be. Second, to give the faithful an environment in which to worship God sacramentally present. I know another very practical reason – so that the faithful AND the Blessed Sacrament are in a warm environment. Many old churches (particularly in Europe) are not heated. That’s three quick LOGICAL reasons. I’m sure I could come up with more…
 
Therefore, do you see the ad orientem position as an obstacle in your ability to experience Mass?
I personally prefer versus populum – with or without the Benedictine additions. Is being aligned with the priest (many churches do not point to the East so I hesitate using “ad oritentum”) and obstacle to me experiencing the Mass? Nope. I see that every week at the Divine Liturgy and the priest is behind an iconstasis to boot.
 
many churches do not point to the East so I hesitate using “ad oritentem”)
Well… I don’t see anything wrong with that… This might not sound right, but it makes more of a difference on the inside of the church than which way the church itself is facing, although east is nice.
40.png
Cavaille-Coll:
As I understood the original idea about putting the tabernacle in a side chapel, it was intended for certain large churches and cathedrals which attract tourists. Those who wanted to pray before the Lord could do so in a quiet chapel without being disturbed by photo-snapping visitors. It was never intended to be done in typical parish churches which don’t have that issue.
That’s a heck of a lead - do you have a resource that can verify that?
Yes, it is WAAAY overused, but I think this is correct. BUT, only for big “tourist churches”.

By the way, if you want to see one of these old style churches, check out this:
tlm.yankehome.com/
http://tlm.yankehome.com/img/full/Pre-Mass%20Talk%203.jpg

It is original from the 1890s, except the new altar, the lights and the Mics. Even the organ is original (with restoration) from around 1905. Normally, the 6 altar candles and altar cross are on the free standing altar, except for the ad-orientem masses.like here:

stmarypb.org/component/expose/?album=6&photo=13
 
Of course there is. Let’s take a edifice like Saint Pat’s in NYC. It must get well in excess of 1 MILLION visitors per year. In cathedrals like that it makes good sense to repose the Blessed Sacrament in its own chapel for two reasons.

First, greater glory to God – no matter how quiet/respectful some visitors might be. Second, to give the faithful an environment in which to worship God sacramentally present. I know another very practical reason – so that the faithful AND the Blessed Sacrament are in a warm environment. Many old churches (particularly in Europe) are not heated. That’s three quick LOGICAL reasons. I’m sure I could come up with more…
Those are good reasons - for extraordinary circumstances. But not for daily practice, as some churches seem to do; the Blessed Sacrament should be returned to its rightful place as soon as possible, certainly at the least for each Mass, and not left out of sight.
Here is a link to another discussion about this topic: catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/tabernacle/page2
Thank you! 🙂
 
That’s three quick LOGICAL reasons…
…to those FEW churches, like St. Patrick’s Cathedral, where those situations apply. While many of Europe’s largest churches are unheated, most smaller parishes are heated. Many of those large churches have installed infrared spot heaters that shine down on parishioners from the walls. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
 
Well… I don’t see anything wrong with that… This might not sound right, but it makes more of a difference on the inside of the church than which way the church itself is facing, although east is nice.
Catholic churches should point East. Many do not. When they do not, facing the same way as the celebrant is not ad orientum…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top