THE STARTING point for the reform of liturgical architecture is beauty and order. They are characteristic marks of the Catholic Faith and, consequently, of authentic Catholic worship. Beauty and order, therefore, should determine the nature of the sacred spaces in which the liturgy is enacted.

These qualities transcend all styles and periods of the Church's history, and reflect the beauty and order of the heavenly realm. They are, of course, one quality, since one flows from the other. Both are reflections of God. There is no difference in kind between the beauty and order of the heavenly and the earthly realms only a difference of degree. Just as in heaven, God presides over the heavenly court which is perfect beauty, and in which perfect order reigns, so in a Catholic Church, Our Lord presides in His true Body and Soul from the tabernacle, and it is our duty to surround Him (for here it is within our power to do Him honour or to withhold it), with that reflection of the heavenly hierarchy from which will emanate the beauty which lifts our souls to Him. To all those to whom this responsibility is given I would say: remember that your place in heaven depends on where you place God in this world.

Consider, then, for a moment, the General Instruction of the new Roman Missal, dealing with this proper hierarchy:

"The people of God assembled at Mass reflects an organic and hierarchical arrangement, expressed by the various ministries and actions for each part of the celebration. The general plan of the building should reflect in some way the image of the congregation. ...The priest and his ministers have their place in the presbyterium or sanctuary. This part of the church shows their hierarchical position as each one presides over prayer... While these elements must express a hierarchical arrangement and the differences of office, they should at the same time form a complete and organic whole which clearly expresses the unity of the people of God. The beauty of the space and appointments should foster prayer and show the holiness of the mysteries which are celebrated." (GIRM 257). 
This is a description of heaven, as well as of the natural order of creation, and should pervade the spirit of everything we design and build in our churches.

In the matter of the liturgical plan there is frequent ignorance. The obsession with the free-standing altar to celebrate versus populum seems to be the only point most priests have really grasped, and all the rest of the richness of the liturgy is laid aside. This is inspite of the fact that an altar which prohibits celebration facing east was wholly unforeseen by the Instruction on the Pauline missal and by its rubrics. At the centre of our churches, as of our lives, should be Our Lord. This is the teaching of the Council documents. If the tabernacle is not set at the centre of the sanctuary, it ought to be placed (in busy churches with many distractions) in a worthy and dignified chapel where He may be truly the centre of all that is around Him. In recent years many churches in Europe, previously reordered, have had the tabernacle restored to a central position in the sanctuary, and indeed the Bishop of Dijon, France, has recently recommended this throughout his diocese, saying that this is the only worthy location, and a reflection of the place which Christ should occupy in the lives of the faithful.

This is perfectly clear from the relevant texts:

"The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved should be truly prominent ... so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honour the Lord in this Sacrament." (Eucharisticum Mysterium 1967, §53), and "The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid ... tabernacle in the middle of the main altar, or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place." (ibid §54).

The new Missal and the Code of Canon Law — canon 938§2 — repeats this, and the New Catechism quotes Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei 1965 saying "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honour."

To anyone brought up in the culture of the Catholic world this clearly excludes anything off-centre, since symmetry is central to our understanding of beauty. It should be noticed too, that an altar is expected as a worthy support, not a pillar of pagan association, and apparently never in a room without an altar, where Mass cannot be said, and the visual connection with the Eucharist may be lost.

Clearly this must be set against certain regional traditions of elaborate Sacrament houses at the side of the altar, but since these do not come from, but pre-date, the Roman Rite, they are not relevant in new churches elsewhere. Hanging pyres are still used in France in unbroken tradition, often in the form of a dove, and may be a very worthy place, notwithstanding matters of security and convenience

We have spoken of the tabernacle, and, if in the sanctuary, of the primary place it must occupy. It should, if space allows, be so arranged as to share its prominence with the altar (for these two are also one), without dominating it, or appearing to be ignored during masses versus populo.

The altar too should very clearly take its place above everything else in the sanctuary, and this is so clearly explained in the rubrics that it is a great mystery why the custom has developed of setting it on the same floor level as the rest of the sanctuary, with the seats, lectern, credence and other things. The altar should always be raised up on a step, or predella, which sets it above and apart from the rest. It is, we must remember, not only the place of Sacrifice, but also the sign of Christ Himself (cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium §24 below). 

The greatest difficulty—and this specific to the new liturgy— is giving due prominence to the celebrant's chair (I shall not refer here to a Bishop's cathedra nor a faldstool). Most people seem to get this wrong, and so often it resembles the throne so clearly prohibited by the rubrics: a natural consequence of cushions and steps. Under no circumstances should it be higher than the altar, as this is clearly confusing, and this would seem to preclude placing it behind, if the priest is to be seen. The rubric calls for a "central position", and one "facing the people" (GIRM 271). This is, however, difficult to achieve if everything else is to be in its proper place. (We must remember that the new rubrics were created; they are not an organic development, and there are inconsistencies: interpretations must be made in the light of Tradition.)

It is worthy of note that in Notre-Dame in Paris, hardly a bastion of traditional liturgy, when the choir altar (the old high altar) was reordered, the sedilia was placed facing across on the south side.

This brings us to the forgotten matter of hierarchy, the organic relationship between altar, priest and people. These are interdependent, and neither link should be exaggerated or diminished in relation to the other. One thinks of the recent disastrous "restoration" of Pugin's Birmingham Cathedral, where the internal arrangement of the sanctuary is fine, but the whole thing is raised on a vast flight of steps which completely breaks the link between priest and people, and converts the liturgy into a piece of theatre on a stage. The opposite error is more widespread in liberal circles, and visibility, once so highly prized, is sacrificed to egalitarianism: the sacred being wholly ignored. To quote Eugen Egloff:

"The priest is, in a real sense, the head of the Church when he stands at the Altar, and the faithful are the mystical body of the Church: the Basilica form of plan is hence an expression of the Body of Christ. The gathering of the people around the Altar masks this polar arrangement, and should be avoided." ("Liturgie und Kirchenraum" Zurich 1963.)

The use of arches, changes of volume and the judicious use of steps by our forbears, never laid down in rules, was adjusted organically to suit the scale of the particular building to maintain this relationship, seemingly unconsciously. This must be possible again today. 

As to the content of our churches, so often we are subjected to objects clearly designed or chosen by those who either have not studied, or have chosen to reject, the tradition in Christian art. Not only the artistic styles (which, of course, are rightly subject to constant development) but the subject matter, in terms of iconography or symbolism, is often chosen in opposition to our tradition. However kindly meant, this can only serve to create a confusion between the teaching of the Church in scripture and homiletics and the visual images which are intended to support it. Church art is not decoration, in the manner of secular buildings, but has throughout history had a didactic or devotional purpose. The words of Sir Ninian Comper, that great and sensitive architect, written in 1947 are still all too appropriate:

"The man who sets to work to design an aeroplane or a motor car has no self-conscious strivings to express himself or his age, like the pathetic artists and architects of to-day. His one business is to make it go,... and he would not be so mad as to think he could do this without knowing the tradition of all that went before. Moreover, if he fails, there is no question of his failure. he cannot hide behind fine words and theories." (Of the Atmosphere of a Church.)

Sometimes the motivation is not just one of ignorance, but malign, and priests and laymen are often deceived in their desire to be modern and relevant. Although he writes about music, the following words of Cardinal Ratzinger are appropriate to art in general, and particularly to that brutal modern art, often expressed in concrete or transient modern materials, devoid of the natural decoration common to all civilisations, which we are told, celebrates the modern age: 

 "...satanical cults and satanical types of music are constantly spreading today whose dangerous power intentionally to wreck and irradicate the person has not yet been taken seriously enough. ... Since rock music seeks redemption by way of liberation from the personality and its responsibility, it fits very precisely into the anarchistic ideas of freedom that are manifesting themselves more openly all over the world. But that is also exactly why such music is diametrically opposed to the Christian notions of redemption and freedom, indeed their true contradiction. Music of this type must be excluded from the Church, not for aesthetic reasons, not out of reactionary stubbornness, not because of historical rigidity, but because of its very nature." (A New Song for the Lord, pp 123-4).

Stern stuff—and the same might be said for the rock music equivalents in painting, sculpture and architecture.

So the fittings of our churches are expected to be art, reflecting Christ and His creation, not just a furnisher's decorations, and they are to be Christian art, that is, firmly rooted in our Tradition, both spiritual and cultural. This inherently excludes any transient fashion or the adoption of inappropriate secular styles.

Great caution is always advocated in dealing with existing artefacts (both true works of art and designed objects). In the English speaking world, with our protestant history, the Catholic Church has few ancient possessions, compared with Catholic Europe. For this reason, the strictures imposed by the authorities should be more widely applied, not less, for even the humdrum products of the 19th Century, which may be deemed of little worth in a Tuscan city, are often amongst the oldest things in any community, and have a valid role as a link to the Tradition of the Fathers, whose artistic styles they frequently if imperfectly emulate. 

But let not my words be seen as advocation of the rigorous application of rules, as if slavishly obeying rubrics will ever produce either art or sacredness, for these things can never be dictated. I quote again from Sir Ninian Comper,

"No observance of rules even in these important details ... can ever produce an atmosphere ... (In Spain) in 1744 a national school for architects was founded. A royal decree prohibited the erection of any public building the plans of which had not been approved by the Academy ... The authorities of St Ferdinand's Academy become a sort of artistic police force. All freedom of design was lost, and with it those most precious gifts, originality and vitality."

This problem already recurs in our own time with the civic planning and heritage authorities. Let all diocesan liturgy and art committees beware of falling into this trap, and killing what little inspiration we still possess.

Historically, ours has been a cautious Church. Not for her the hasty and the rash: that path leads to endless dead ends, and fatal errors. Often, through the ages, she has been criticised for acting too slowly or too slightly, and we find ourselves in this situation today. The errors come about by putting aside this Tradition of caution: this is the devil's way, and we shall rebuild by returning to the path of caution. Siren voices call for sweeping reforms, but we must not heed them. Let us, each in our way, follow the path which the Church's history shows to be right: thereby shall Tradition be restored, not by decree, but by example, and our children shall again know that beauty of holiness which we have been promised for ever. "This is the house of God and the gate of heaven, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."

Return to Oriens, Spring, 1998

Return to Oriens home page