Our friends at the New Liturgical Movement have done a great service in bringing photos of the the newly-rediscovered “Benedictine” arrangement of altar candles and crucifix to the fore. Pope Benedict is rightly given credit for the revival of this arrangement which had its original inspiration in the Liturgical Movement before the Council. I recently ran across these pictures from the Mass offered at the 1947 National Liturgical Week in Portland, Oregon which give some roots to today’s newly flowering altar arrangement.
The proceedings from the Liturgical Week explain that the “Holy Sacrifice was celebrated in the same hall as in which the speaking sessions took place,” which appears to be a school auditorium. However, the proceedings state, “the arrangements in the hall were planned and executed with splendid taste and rubrical exactness.” It says nothing about the celebration happening versus populum, despite the obviousness of that fact.
Interesting to notice here is that even though the arrangement is clearly temporary, it follows the precedent of many of the Roman basilicas. Though the offering happens “facing the people” the altar is raised up on the stage, keeping it dominant, then raised again on three steps as the rubrics specified at the time. The choir, while taken down from a loft, is wearing liturgical dress and is down low, not challenging the visual primacy of the altar. The “Benedictine” arrangement is simply the old ad orientem arrangement turned around 180 degrees. A simple tester is provided by the hanging fabric over the altar. The cross and candles give the screen-like effect of letting people know that the Mass is not said to them, but in a way that they can see the ritual action. Here we see the Mass offered ad Deum, even as the altar is turned versus populum. Here we learn that many of the reforms which the Liturgical Movement leaders presented to the Council fathers were intended to be made with a hermeneutic of reform in mind, as Pope Benedict has reminded us, not in a hermeneutic of discontinuity, as was often the case in actual practice.
November 29, 2008 at 5:26 pm
So, I asked my mom, who, with the Sacristan, switched the candles at our church to match this if they had done it because it was a Benedictine arrangement.. The answer was, “Huh? No, we were watching the papal Mass and we noticed that’s how the Pope had them…” 😀
November 30, 2008 at 3:39 am
Meh…I feel that this sort of thing was a step in the wrong direction, the beginning of the end…This whole thing just seems like an example of liturgists being too clever by half. I really don’t see any advantage to the Benedictine arrangement over ad orientem, certainly no reason to move from the latter to the former. I mean, if our focus is actually to be on Christ, shouldn’t everyone look at the crucifix? I mean, I’m not advocating changing the practice at St. Peter’s or anything, and I’m certainly happy when regular parishes start using the Benedictine arrangement rather than a regular arrangement (particularly if the Benedictine arrangement is intended to be an intermediate step to ad orientem), but this particular concept (introducing the Benedictine arrangement when it’s really just more normal and suitable to use ad orientem) kinda makes my blood slightly boil. Still, it certainly would have been much better if the liturgical reforms had stopped right there.
November 30, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I agree that there is plenty of room to discuss the merits of the versus populum position in the first place. But of course, we can’t judge what they did in 1947 by what happened in 1974. They thought they were emulating St. Peter’s, not the local Lutheran church down the street. But there was nothing in Vatican II that said we must turn altars around. It was simply permitted by the Congregation for Rites. In that sense, it is not part of a revealed, Spirit-protected text. So it could be changed rather easily.
December 2, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Have you not read Klaus Gamber’s writings on the archeology of the Roman basilicas built under Constantine. The priest/bishop was turned away from the people EVEN when the altar was in the middle of the church. It was ignorance of this fact which caused people to misinterpret the floor plans of the basilicas prior to and at the time of Vat. II. Subsequent research (including the discovery of pictorial representations of Masses being said from that time) has shown it to be the case, however. Gamber was known to Ratzinger, which is part of the reason why The Spirit of the Liturgy advocates the priest facing away from the people.
December 2, 2008 at 4:19 pm
P.S. I meant to say “to misrepresent the purpose of the floor plans.”
December 2, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I agree that this last point is very important. The reordering of churches after the council was largely based on faulty archaeology–the errors of which have been coming to light in recent years. All the more reason to make changes slowly….