This is interesting to read, but it doesn't make me like Notre Dame's freestanding new altar or its pre-fire predecessor any better. I will say that I have a slight preference for the plain half-moon shape over the "abstract evangelists" (shudder). But if Notre Dame now wants to use a "Mass Rock" as an altar, then it could have just skipped the design process and gone into the wilderness and found a big old rock beautifully designed by God the Creator, cleaned it up, and hauled it back to the Cathedral.
The image of the high altar with that cross standing tall in the ruins after the fire is the image that stays with me.
I love that the altar in the transept (at least as of 2019) was roped off with movable shiny metal stanchions and belts (presumably to keep tourists and others from wandering and accidentally committing sacrilege). If only there were a more elegant solution!
My one experience assisting at Mass in Notre Dame before the fire was also the closest I’ll likely come to experiencing what it would be like to be an animal in a zoo. Those “at Mass” were in an enclosure, while the tourists continued to mill about not noiselessly outside of it. Meanwhile, the locals assiduously enforced the rules inside, particularly that of no tourist behavior. At some point, perhaps while summarizing the homily for my wife, I noticed that many tourists had stopped milling and were staring in at the people in the pews (and not the altar) much like they look at the strange creatures in a zoo enclosure.
One reason this is so interesting is that it helps us keep distinct in our minds questions that are, in fact, distinct: (a) where is the altar located, (b) is the altar free-standing or attached to the wall, and (c) is mass celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. (To be sure, these three aren't *entirely* independent of one another!)
Fascinating read, thank you ! I'll be awaiting the next part.
St Maurice's cathedral in Angers, mentioned in the article, is my parents' parish. It still has an elaborate, free-standing 18th century high altar with baldachin on a pedestal, at the cross of nave and transepts. But this altar did not allow for the priest to face the people. So, after Vatican II, a second free-standing altar was placed on the same pedestal, so that the priest still consecrates the Eucharist right under the crown, held by an angel, that hangs from the baldachin. That's one of the best new arrangements I know.
We just finished reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame in our Well-Read Mom group, so this was timely for me! For all the time Hugo spent on endless descriptions of the changes the building had gone through, I don't recall any mention of the altar.
It was a good read, although whoever thought "let's make a Disney movie out of this" was um... well let's just say I don't understand that person.
Just one more witness to the lack of beauty and grace in our current architecture. What used to be created in beautiful artistry is now dumbed down with a computer and cement. We are a very untalented and tasteless segment of history. This will all be replaced once again with beauty in the future as they deride the lack of taste of this time.
Cordemoy claimed that the trend of moving altars to the transept or middle of the church "between the people and the clergy", of which the proposals at Notre Dame were one example, was a return to the ancient practice of having the altar "visible [to the people] from all sides."
Thiers on the other hand documents a wide variety of church examples to show that a range of customs existed in where altars were placed within a church. Most of all, Thiers was strongly in favor of respecting the local history, arrangement, and customs of the church buildings in a given place - rather than forcibly overriding and standardizing the altar placement or liturgical arrangement to comply with an "ideal" or "trend" from somewhere else.
He also ferociously defended the existence, tradition, and ancient practice of use of rood screens, and attacked the widespread post-Tridentine trend of demolishing them throughout Europe.
Lastly, Theirs also disliked the elaborate form and decoration of altars and sanctuaries en vogue at the time (in a way which modestly prefigured some arguments made by the 20th century Liturgical Movement). He viewed the additions of massive and complex baldachins, reredoses, and additions and changes to the altar itself to be a betrayal of the more ancient, traditional, and more 'pure' forms of altars.
The proposal to renovate Notre Dame was an example of all three of of these things together: (1) demolishing the rood screen, (2) renovating and moving the sanctuary and altar in a way foreign to Notre Dame's lived liturgical history and practice, and (3) introducing elaborate modern baroque baldachins and altar designs and liturgical furnishings.
Thank you for the in depth answer! There still seems to be a contradiction in the idea that ancient practice had the altar "visible [to the people] from all sides" (Cordemoy) and also used rood screens (Thiers). Do you know which of those practices was more common, or did it depend on the given place?
I don't believe I am necessarily qualified to adjudicate the accuracy of specific claims made by either, I am merely attempting to indicate what their positions were and why it was relevant to the story at Notre Dame.
Based on my limited and non-expert understanding of the subject matter, I think the shortest and most general answer would be: it depended on the time and place and ritual traditional (east vs west, etc), but there was a clear and sustained trend which began fairly early (perhaps beginning after the 5th century?) of altars which were not in between the clergy and the people and not visible from all sides.
For a rigorous academic treatment on the architecture and theology of altars in the early church, including specific treatment of freestanding altars and versus populum orientation, see "Altar and Church: Principles of Liturgy from Early Christianity" by Stefan Heid (published in 2023 by CUA Press).
The aesthetics of the current altar aside, from a historiographical standpoint, I think that this is important work from the Pillar. There is a general understanding among Catholics who are "in the know" or "informed in tradition" that the liturgical experience offered precisely as it was prior to the reforms following Vatican II was simply settled.
That the declarations of St Pius V on the liturgy were interpreted during the time between Trent and Vatican II in the way which some traditionalist Catholics present them is taken as obvious truth. This is what irks me - that there can be no acceptance whatsoever that the 20th C reforms (regardless of their fruit and application) did not come out of thin air.
Can we ever get to a place where we can admit, from both side of the "aisle" that this has been an evolving reality over the centuries? That maybe, just maybe, we are not actually fixed in a dichotomy between the 1962 Missal and felt banner masses?
I don't mean to soften the blow to the soul that some of the liturgical abuses offer - only to say that a realistic understanding of the development of these seems to be the missing path out of the mess. The average parishioner/bishop/diocese seems likely to smell something "off" in the generally accepted (among the chronically online) notion that old=good and new=bad. There has to be more to the story.
I cannot agree more with you, there is a lot for each of us to grow spiritually by looking at all the reforms and attempts that were made since the Church started. What I especially dislike from traditionnalists and progressists alike is a tendency to impose a single path and forbid all the others. From my point of view, being united in diversity is what makes us catholics.
A very warm thank you to 'The Pillar' and Nico Fassino for bringing these stories to us. Being of French origin and born after Vatican II, I had the simplistic vision of before and after the council without comprehending the various buildings and settings in which I went for Mass in France. This article was so enlightening in many aspects.
I will be waiting for part 2 to come out, for sure.
A very interesting read. One could argue you start to see a certain emphasis in the cultural soup of the early modern period on the elevation of reason in worship to the detriment of the mystery. The sacrality of the sanctuary as a "set apart space" is a throughline in all the ancient rites of the Church. Church spaces and the liturgy start looking really "Western" at this point in certain ways that weren't always the case. I've always thought the idealization of a certain type of "trad" for Baroque Europe odd.
“That altar … was a metal cube decorated with abstract representations of the four Evangelists and four Old Testament prophets.”
I have no particular objection to free-standing altars, but the pre-fire altar made me think of so much plumbing scrap assembled into a makeshift table when I first saw it — and subsequently. I took it as God’s judgment on it when the spire collapsed on it during the fire.
An interesting article, especially as it highlights the Western preoccupation with “heavy emphasis on visibility and accessibility of the liturgical action of the Mass” that seems absent from the East (those who have not been Latinized at any rate).
While Byzantines use a free-standing altar, the iconostasis makes for a formidable barrier that obscures much, yet we do not see the same calls for “visibility” in the Divine Liturgy and the priest celebrates facing the liturgical East without engendering debate.
How did we end up on such divergent tracks? Why is “seeing what is happening” far more an issue in the West, culturally, than the East?
This is interesting to read, but it doesn't make me like Notre Dame's freestanding new altar or its pre-fire predecessor any better. I will say that I have a slight preference for the plain half-moon shape over the "abstract evangelists" (shudder). But if Notre Dame now wants to use a "Mass Rock" as an altar, then it could have just skipped the design process and gone into the wilderness and found a big old rock beautifully designed by God the Creator, cleaned it up, and hauled it back to the Cathedral.
The image of the high altar with that cross standing tall in the ruins after the fire is the image that stays with me.
An altar made of an unhewn stone would have been decidedly Old Testament and honestly kind of cool rather than the poured concrete looking alternative
I love that the altar in the transept (at least as of 2019) was roped off with movable shiny metal stanchions and belts (presumably to keep tourists and others from wandering and accidentally committing sacrilege). If only there were a more elegant solution!
Barriers in the church? Now that would just be rood!
If only there were an altarnative
My one experience assisting at Mass in Notre Dame before the fire was also the closest I’ll likely come to experiencing what it would be like to be an animal in a zoo. Those “at Mass” were in an enclosure, while the tourists continued to mill about not noiselessly outside of it. Meanwhile, the locals assiduously enforced the rules inside, particularly that of no tourist behavior. At some point, perhaps while summarizing the homily for my wife, I noticed that many tourists had stopped milling and were staring in at the people in the pews (and not the altar) much like they look at the strange creatures in a zoo enclosure.
I had the same experience attending Mass in Notre Dame. Like sitting in the middle of a whirl pool of tourists.
One reason this is so interesting is that it helps us keep distinct in our minds questions that are, in fact, distinct: (a) where is the altar located, (b) is the altar free-standing or attached to the wall, and (c) is mass celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. (To be sure, these three aren't *entirely* independent of one another!)
or simultaneously facing the East and facing the people, who are also facing East...
thank you for such an enriching read! I suspect it contains new information for many people, myself included.
Fascinating read, thank you ! I'll be awaiting the next part.
St Maurice's cathedral in Angers, mentioned in the article, is my parents' parish. It still has an elaborate, free-standing 18th century high altar with baldachin on a pedestal, at the cross of nave and transepts. But this altar did not allow for the priest to face the people. So, after Vatican II, a second free-standing altar was placed on the same pedestal, so that the priest still consecrates the Eucharist right under the crown, held by an angel, that hangs from the baldachin. That's one of the best new arrangements I know.
We just finished reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame in our Well-Read Mom group, so this was timely for me! For all the time Hugo spent on endless descriptions of the changes the building had gone through, I don't recall any mention of the altar.
It was a good read, although whoever thought "let's make a Disney movie out of this" was um... well let's just say I don't understand that person.
We can have the funeral pomps again once we finally get rid of pews.
There are dozens of us in the never-pew movement, dozens!!
Just one more witness to the lack of beauty and grace in our current architecture. What used to be created in beautiful artistry is now dumbed down with a computer and cement. We are a very untalented and tasteless segment of history. This will all be replaced once again with beauty in the future as they deride the lack of taste of this time.
If Cordemoy and Thiers each invoked the practice of the primitive church, do we know what practices each of them were referring to?
Cordemoy claimed that the trend of moving altars to the transept or middle of the church "between the people and the clergy", of which the proposals at Notre Dame were one example, was a return to the ancient practice of having the altar "visible [to the people] from all sides."
Thiers on the other hand documents a wide variety of church examples to show that a range of customs existed in where altars were placed within a church. Most of all, Thiers was strongly in favor of respecting the local history, arrangement, and customs of the church buildings in a given place - rather than forcibly overriding and standardizing the altar placement or liturgical arrangement to comply with an "ideal" or "trend" from somewhere else.
He also ferociously defended the existence, tradition, and ancient practice of use of rood screens, and attacked the widespread post-Tridentine trend of demolishing them throughout Europe.
Lastly, Theirs also disliked the elaborate form and decoration of altars and sanctuaries en vogue at the time (in a way which modestly prefigured some arguments made by the 20th century Liturgical Movement). He viewed the additions of massive and complex baldachins, reredoses, and additions and changes to the altar itself to be a betrayal of the more ancient, traditional, and more 'pure' forms of altars.
The proposal to renovate Notre Dame was an example of all three of of these things together: (1) demolishing the rood screen, (2) renovating and moving the sanctuary and altar in a way foreign to Notre Dame's lived liturgical history and practice, and (3) introducing elaborate modern baroque baldachins and altar designs and liturgical furnishings.
Thank you for the in depth answer! There still seems to be a contradiction in the idea that ancient practice had the altar "visible [to the people] from all sides" (Cordemoy) and also used rood screens (Thiers). Do you know which of those practices was more common, or did it depend on the given place?
I don't believe I am necessarily qualified to adjudicate the accuracy of specific claims made by either, I am merely attempting to indicate what their positions were and why it was relevant to the story at Notre Dame.
Based on my limited and non-expert understanding of the subject matter, I think the shortest and most general answer would be: it depended on the time and place and ritual traditional (east vs west, etc), but there was a clear and sustained trend which began fairly early (perhaps beginning after the 5th century?) of altars which were not in between the clergy and the people and not visible from all sides.
For a rigorous academic treatment on the architecture and theology of altars in the early church, including specific treatment of freestanding altars and versus populum orientation, see "Altar and Church: Principles of Liturgy from Early Christianity" by Stefan Heid (published in 2023 by CUA Press).
The aesthetics of the current altar aside, from a historiographical standpoint, I think that this is important work from the Pillar. There is a general understanding among Catholics who are "in the know" or "informed in tradition" that the liturgical experience offered precisely as it was prior to the reforms following Vatican II was simply settled.
That the declarations of St Pius V on the liturgy were interpreted during the time between Trent and Vatican II in the way which some traditionalist Catholics present them is taken as obvious truth. This is what irks me - that there can be no acceptance whatsoever that the 20th C reforms (regardless of their fruit and application) did not come out of thin air.
Can we ever get to a place where we can admit, from both side of the "aisle" that this has been an evolving reality over the centuries? That maybe, just maybe, we are not actually fixed in a dichotomy between the 1962 Missal and felt banner masses?
I don't mean to soften the blow to the soul that some of the liturgical abuses offer - only to say that a realistic understanding of the development of these seems to be the missing path out of the mess. The average parishioner/bishop/diocese seems likely to smell something "off" in the generally accepted (among the chronically online) notion that old=good and new=bad. There has to be more to the story.
Articles like this show just that to be the case.
I cannot agree more with you, there is a lot for each of us to grow spiritually by looking at all the reforms and attempts that were made since the Church started. What I especially dislike from traditionnalists and progressists alike is a tendency to impose a single path and forbid all the others. From my point of view, being united in diversity is what makes us catholics.
A very warm thank you to 'The Pillar' and Nico Fassino for bringing these stories to us. Being of French origin and born after Vatican II, I had the simplistic vision of before and after the council without comprehending the various buildings and settings in which I went for Mass in France. This article was so enlightening in many aspects.
I will be waiting for part 2 to come out, for sure.
A very interesting read. One could argue you start to see a certain emphasis in the cultural soup of the early modern period on the elevation of reason in worship to the detriment of the mystery. The sacrality of the sanctuary as a "set apart space" is a throughline in all the ancient rites of the Church. Church spaces and the liturgy start looking really "Western" at this point in certain ways that weren't always the case. I've always thought the idealization of a certain type of "trad" for Baroque Europe odd.
TLDR - I love a good rood screen.
One person's tradition is their ancestor's modern travesty.
“That altar … was a metal cube decorated with abstract representations of the four Evangelists and four Old Testament prophets.”
I have no particular objection to free-standing altars, but the pre-fire altar made me think of so much plumbing scrap assembled into a makeshift table when I first saw it — and subsequently. I took it as God’s judgment on it when the spire collapsed on it during the fire.
This set of articles was extremely interesting. I would love to see more of this type of reporting.
An interesting article, especially as it highlights the Western preoccupation with “heavy emphasis on visibility and accessibility of the liturgical action of the Mass” that seems absent from the East (those who have not been Latinized at any rate).
While Byzantines use a free-standing altar, the iconostasis makes for a formidable barrier that obscures much, yet we do not see the same calls for “visibility” in the Divine Liturgy and the priest celebrates facing the liturgical East without engendering debate.
How did we end up on such divergent tracks? Why is “seeing what is happening” far more an issue in the West, culturally, than the East?