All this talk about the St. Januarius renovation/wreck-o-vation. I saw, to a degree, what was trying to be done. But I think this might have done it a little better. Please forgive the shoddy Photoshopping and crazy notes–I got tired of trying to make everything match the rendering. Click for larger image so you can read all my notes.
Maybe this?
Its pretty good, Ink! Yes, move those guys to the back. Or give them kneelers because PARTICULARLY if they are going to be up front thy need to be KNEELING at the Consecration.
Ink-I like that design (renovation) better.
Somebody please explain the “non-negotiable” among many here that the Blessed Sacrament reside in the center on the back wall behind the main altar. Why do traditional Catholics resist the Church’s desire that the Blessed Sacrament tabernacle be more accessible for private prayer, such as is the case in Labella’s rendering?
Annonymouse,
It says volumes to me when the Blessed Lord is moved out of the center of the sanctuary–or, worse, out of the sanctuary completely, as is the case in LaBella’s rendering. When He is not easily visible in the sanctuary at Mass (bear in mind, the “sanctuary” is the part which is set aside for worship either by a rail or by stairs or both–I did look this up), it makes His presence in the liturgy that much less… obvious, for want of a better word. A possibility would be to have perpetual Adoration in a separate chapel–isn’t that private prayer? That way, the tabernacle is prominent and present throughout the whole liturgy. In my alterations, I not only moved the tabernacle back to the center but I also elevated it, allowing it to be seen even during the celebration of Mass. Then when the priest does the Greater Elevations, the Host and Chalice will be right in front of the tabernacle, visually–a powerful image.
If that were true, then all churches with the tabernacle moved aside for private prayer should not lock their doors.
I don’t know if the doors are locked in this particular church, but in general to have a Eucharistic chapel and to not allow people into the church other than during Mass hours seems kind of pointless.
I like this design Ink.
“Somebody please explain the “non-negotiable” among many here that the Blessed Sacrament reside in the center on the back wall behind the main altar.”
Until the Second Vatican Council American Catholics had only experienced the tabernacle on the high altar (some side altars, as well). The tradition of reservation of the Sacrament in the universal Church through time has seen several variations as to location. Vatican II actually said nothing about the location of the tabernacle. It was not until the GIRM of 1970 that we see a preference stated -that the tabernacle be separate from the altar. But it goes on to outline guidelines for reservation of the Sacrament in different situations including reservation on the altar.
Suddenly moving the tabernacle off the altar and even out of the sanctuary seemed to more conservative (and Church going) American Catholics -especially in light of all the other radical changes in the liturgy, and in theological perspectives concerning the liturgy -the ultimate attack on the Real Presence. The mistake was in radically altering existing churches and thereby upsetting traditional environments for the celebration of the Mass, a problem the Council did warn against. It was really in the design of new churches that the GIRM preference for separation of tabernacle and altar was meant, and in renovations where appropriate or possible (without destroying valuable works of art or works of historical importance, and -I suppose we could add- significant negative reaction).
It was the wreck-o-vations immediately following the Council (and still going on) that caused the entrenchment of more orthodox American Catholics regarding central placement of the tabernacle. They have accepted a separate placement of the tabernacle off the altar as long as it remains prominently placed on the central axis behind the altar. The liberals pretty much caused this entrenchment.
Toleration of diversity is not one of the liberals’ strong points.
Suddenly moving the tabernacle off the altar and even out of the sanctuary seemed to more conservative (and Church going) American Catholics -especially in light of all the other radical changes in the liturgy, and in theological perspectives concerning the liturgy -the ultimate attack on the Real Presence. The mistake was in radically altering existing churches and upsetting traditional environments for the celebration of the Mass, a problem the Council did warn against. It was really in the design of new churches that the GIRM preference for separation of tabernacle and altar was meant, and in renovations where appropriate or possible.
“It was not until the GIRM of 1970 that we see a preference stated… ”
It was not the GIRM but Eucharisticum Mysterium (1967),Chapter III, section II, sub-sections B, C, D, and E. I do apologize.
Although the GIRM 1970 did “strongly recommend” that the Sacrament be reserved in a separate chapel.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse wrote: “Somebody please explain the “non-negotiable” among many here that the Blessed Sacrament reside in the center on the back wall behind the main altar….”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Its really very, very simple, Annonymouse. Bishop Clark likes to say, whenever he imposes changes that we HATE but have to pay for, that the Church architecture should reflect our faith.
Front and center means Jesus in the Eucharist is front and center in our faith.
And what does “off-to-the-side” connotate??
Its really that simple, annonymouse! What you see is what you get. But simplicity can get lost in all the DoR Doublespeak, especially when the doublespeak is repeated over and over and over again. You can start to think that because its repeated SO MUCH there must be some truth to it. Its very disingenuous of the DoR, but it is how they operate.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse continued: “…Why do traditional Catholics resist the Church’s desire that the Blessed Sacrament tabernacle be more accessible for private prayer, such as is the case in Labella’s rendering?”
____________________________________________________________________________________
One thing that really puzzled me was when I converted I knew nothing about “traditional” and “progressive” labels. I just believed what the Catholic Church teaches NOW, and has ALWAYS taught, and wanted to be Catholic because of that truth.
But almost immediately DoR people that I met were slotting me into a “Traditional” camp, before I knew there even wre camps! Even a brief conversation was enough for them to “slot” me. But I have to say, this came particularly from the kinds of priests Bishop Clark favors, from the Pastoral Administrators he appoints, from St. Bernards theology students, and from followers of popular local dissident DoR nuns. After awhile I knew that a brief conversation with one of these would have them listening only long enough to label me. So I am careful not to say too much to such as these now – I let them do the talking. I prefer not to be labeled; since they seem to prefer to hastily slot me, for whatever reason.
Well, actually, after having been a part of the DoR for awhile now, the reason becomes pretty clear: they want to slot me as “traditionalist” so they can count my opinion as one that doesn’t matter and doesn’t need to be counted.
So, annonymouse, I am not fond of being called “traditionalist”. I am simply Catholic!
Annonymouse, I am REALLY wondering – how is it that you think the Tabernacle in DiBella’s drawing is “more assessible to private prayer”??? Really?? How?? Can you explain??
First of all, thanks for the replies, especially Bernie’s, which is quite thorough.
With respect to LaBella’s design, unless I’m mistaken, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved prominently just to the left of the altar.
Eliza, the central focus in the litugy is NOT where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved for the sick and for private adoration. The central focus in the Mass is the action on the altar. If your understanding of a worship space is that it is a place for you to go and privately pray to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, well that is fine, but it is not complete or sufficient. A worship space is also a place for liturgy and the focus of the liturgy should be on the ambo (liturgy of the Word) and on the altar (liturgy of the Eucharist). In the Mass, Jesus is most definitely front and center in our Faith – that’s why the altar is front and center! But we ought not be engaged in private devotion (such as the ladies praying the rosary) while Mass is going on – we should be fully engaged and participating in the liturgy. And you can certainly have Mass with no tabernacle and no left over / reserved-for-the-sick hosts, can you not?
Moving the tabernacle off center so that it is closer to the people and more accessible for private devotion is not an attempt to deny the real presence – if anything, it augments belief in the real presence. But the closeness also symbolizes Christ’s accessibility and availability to our lives. We have a loving and intimate Savior God, not an aloof, far-off God.
And Eliza, I apologize for pigeon-holing you as a “traditional” Catholic, but I’m pretty sure even the most “liberal” Catholics call themselves Catholic.
And while I am way more conservative than most and devoutly believe in the real presence, I am not troubled by church architecture that moves Our Lord’s tabernacle off center, and generally like it (as long as it complies with the Magisterium’s instruction).
What I don’t see why it can’t be done is two tabernacles. One in a side chapel, one behind the main altar. It seems like it would satisfy most complaints. This may not be allowed, I don’t know. Just throwing the idea out there.
Look up the rules on tabernacles (if you can get through the mire of the Vatican website… I swear those people need a new webmaster) and see if you can have more than one… I think you can have more than one tabernacle but not more than one which holds the Blessed Lord. Not sure of this.
I’m not going to even try looking through that website. It is so archaic and difficult to use, probably hasn’t been updated in design since the early 2000s, if that.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse wrote: “…Eliza, the central focus in the litugy is NOT where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved for the sick and for private adoration. The central focus in the Mass is the action on the altar.
____________________________________________________________________________________
I did NOT say that I think, or that Bishop Clark has said, that the sancturay architecture should represent the “focus of the liturgy”. I said it should reflect OUR CATHOLIC FAITH.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse: “…If your understanding of a worship space is that it is a place for you to go and privately pray to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, well that is fine, but it is not complete or sufficient.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I have heard this line many times before! Its the very same meaningless rhetoric that the DoR uses prior to wreckovations. I honestly don’t know ANYBODY whose “understanding of a worship space is that it is a place for you to go and privately pray to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament”. NOBODY makes this argument, so its not necessary for you or the DoR to defend against it. Though they waste a lot of ink and breath on it.
Its called a “straw man” argument – just the kind Bishop Clark and his DoR leadership cronies LOVE to use. Its a handy way of NOT communicating and NOT acknowledging another’s point of view. Just like giving people labels.
________________________________________________________________________________
Annonymous: “…A worship space is also a place for liturgy and the focus of the liturgy should be on the ambo (liturgy of the Word) and on the altar (liturgy of the Eucharist)…”
________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, Annonymousse, but it is not a matter of either/or! At Mass, its not a fight between Jesus present in the Tabernacle and Jesus made present at the altar [or, perhaps you know it better as the “meal table”, as the DoR likes to call it]. You don’t have to put Jesus in the Tabernacle off-to-the-side so He can be ignored!
I can’t imagine why it hasn’t occurred to you that when Jesus is behind the altar, and you genuflect to the front and center, there is no division! You are bowing to both Real Presences. When they are in separate parts of the Church, are you supposed to genuflect somewhere in between the two? Or, genuflect twice, once in each direction? [But this doesn’t happen. Most DoR Priests and Pastoral Administrators and EMHC’s walk right by the Tabernacle WITHOUT bowing or genuflecting. So they effectively teach, through their constant actions, that the Real Presence of Jesus doesn’t matter]. Or, as you seem to imply, should we simply IGNORE Jesus in the Tabernacle because that Real Presence is not important right now??
____________________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse: “…we ought not be engaged in private devotion (such as the ladies praying the rosary) while Mass is going on – we should be fully engaged and participating in the liturgy….”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Worship of Jesus in the Eucharist is NOT simply a private devotion. Its a CATHOLIC devotion. And you have presented another straw man because being aware and reverent of Jesus’ Real Presence in the Tabernacle is not “having private devotion”. Nobody thinks that!
And I don’t find ladies praying the rosary a scary thing. Its actually very useful to have a rosary to reach for during some of our “lite” DoR homilies.
______________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse: “…And you can certainly have Mass with no tabernacle and no left over / reserved-for-the-sick hosts, can you not?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Apparently you think this if fine, and obviously our Bishop and the Pastoral Associates and the priests too busy with their own private lives want this. But the people of the Diocese have made it perfectly clear. They want to have Mass with Jesus Present in His Tabernacle!!!
We don’t consider the tabernacle to be a container for leftovers, either. Its just not how the DoR faithful see it. We haven’t had a vote, and the faithful of DoR are constantly labeled as poor backwards traditionalists who are afraid of progress, so we don’t get a vote, and it hasn’t gone our way much. But the dictator’s rule is about to end.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse also wrote: “…With respect to LaBella’s design, unless I’m mistaken, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved prominently just to the left of the altar.” …”
[and] “…Moving the tabernacle off center so that it is closer to the people and more accessible for private devotion…”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Annonymouse, you have avoided my question, and I really want to know: How does the DoR design, as dictated to LaBella and drawn by them, make it “more accessible for private devotion”????? How???? Moving it off to the side a few feet makes it more accessible for private devotion? Is there more seating on that side or something? It doesn’t appear so in the rendering. Otherwise, this makes no sense. And repeating something that makes no sense doesn’t help it make sense.
_______________________________________________________________________
“… – if anything, it augments belief in the real presence.”
______________________________________________________________________
HOW???
______________________________________________________________
“… But the closeness also symbolizes Christ’s accessibility and availability to our lives. We have a loving and intimate Savior God, not an aloof, far-off Go …”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Blah, blah, blah. What does that have to do with what you just said? You sound like Bishop Clark!
St. Januarius had, and I presume will continue to have, two tabernacles before all this started. One is in the church (the one that got moved to the side) and one is in the daily Mass Chapel down the hall. Two tabernacles is also true in Canandaigua. In Orlando, at the Shrine of Our Lady Queen of the Universe there is a very unusual “one tabernacle.” The tabernacle viewed from the church is closed, but in the enclosed Chapel behind the main altar there is a glass wall that can be shuttered, in which the Monstrance is positioned for private prayer. Yet it is the same tabernacle, viewed from two different sides.