This article was originally published in the March 2024 issue of "Lettre à nos frères prêtres" under the title "L’Église de la Nouvelle Liturgie. The article is republished in English translation here with the kind permission of the author, Abbé Grégoire Celier.
By way of preface, the purpose of Abbé Celier's article is to investigate the operative principles of many liturgists in the immediate wake that came after the Second Vatican Council, specifically as it related to its impact on the liturgical ordering and architecture of our churches.
Since the Second Vatican Council, many have debated the Council's actual intentions. Some have understood the Second Vatican Council to be a kind of line, a Rubicon that was crossed, seeing it as a purposeful rupture from the Catholic past and the advent of a new and different church. This is the particular perspective you will encounter here being espoused by these liturgists -- and they celebrate and embrace this idea. In a certain sense their notions will be already quite familiar, in other instances, however, you might find the extent of some of their ideas downright shocking. It must also be noted that these liturgists maintain certain interpretations (for example the idea that the Council demanded 'versus populum') that have long since been challenged and proven to be, at very least, highly questionable. However, what is most important here is less the question of the accuracy of their ideas than the mere fact of them.
Whether their particular ideas about the official intentions for the liturgical reform (and its corresponding, downstream impact on Catholic architecture) were misguided, even willful misinterpretations, or whether they were actually 'on point' is an important discussion to have of course, but in order to fruitfully have that conversation, we first need to understand that these interpretations did in fact exist -- and were frequently acted upon. In our own day, much has recently been made of statements made by Arthur Cardinal Roche, current Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, who came out in opposition to the continued existence of the traditional Roman rite of liturgy, celebrated for so much of the Roman rite's history, on the premise that it represented a fundamentally different ecclesiology and, as such, there was no room for it at the inn; it is something needing to be stamped out as incompatible with the new ecclesiology. Many rightly took issue with this idea, but what you will find here in this survey is that this is precisely what is espoused by these particular post-conciliar liturgists. It does, in fact, represent a particular post-conciliar school of thought -- one that Cardinal Roche and some others clearly adhere to and continue to attempt to impose.
Right or wrong, these were (and are) principles held to by some in positions of power within the Church in the decades following the Second Vatican Council. It is the 'schema' that defines their own particular approach toward the Church, her liturgy, the liturgical reforms, and yes, even the art, architecture and ordering within our churches.
What this should also reveal is that the popular, dismissive charge of "aestheticism" that is so often bandied about when matters of liturgy and architecture are raised is misguided and should be dropped. Form and content are indeed related. Externals do indeed matter. The medium is, at least in part, the message.
Many will already be aware of this relationship of course, but we can thank Abbé Celier for performing the invaluable service of collecting together these various sources for our consdieration It is certainly a topic that would benefit from further, in depth study.
[NOTE: The images accompanying this article were not a part of the original article, nor were they selected by the author. These have been selected by LAJ purely for illustrative purposes.]
-- LAJ
* * *
THE CHURCH OF THE NEW LITURGY
by Abbé Grégoire Celier
Liturgical reform was one of the most important elements of the developments following the Second Vatican Council, if not the most significant. A quote from Paul VI, on January 13, 1965, among many other possible ones, opportunely reminds us of this: "The new religious pedagogy which the present liturgical renewal seeks to establish is grafted in, and almost taking the role of a central engine, in the great movement, inscribed in the constitutional principles of the Church of God, and made easier and more urgent by the progress of human culture [...]"
To this end, we have drawn on the reflections and remarks of the best liturgical specialists writing in the wake of Vatican II. They will enable us to identify the problems that arose as the new liturgical forms began to be celebrated, and to grasp in turn what the post-conciliar liturgical reform intends to put before our minds. As these texts were published during the two decades (1965-1985) when the liturgical reform was being implemented, they are written in the present or future tense rather than the past.
The Relationship of Form and Content
These authors begin by pointing out that a church, or any other building for that matter, reflects through its architecture the vision of those who built it. Built for a certain liturgy, a certain ceremonial, a certain theology, it necessarily expresses these values. Through its layout, it creates a particular climate, favourable to the execution of the form of religious expression that presided over its conception. Consequently, “it would be nonsense to take an interest in liturgy without worrying about the layout of the places where it takes place. For there is a profound affinity between the space designed according to art, and the liturgy that unfolds there” (E. Vauthier, ‘L'aménagement des églises’, Esprit et Vie - L'Ami du clergé 27, July 5, 1984, p. 393).
By its very nature, a building is a stable object that stands the test of time. “A building does not change like a rite” (Guy Oury, ‘L'aménagement des églises - Un aspect du renouveau liturgique’, L'Ami du clergé 6, February 10, 1966, p. 89). It thus carries the character of a particular period of the Church's life into a time when, perhaps, the Church's life has changed profoundly, which can cause a dissonance between form and content. In the wake of Vatican II, precisely because of the rapid and radical ritual (and theological) evolution, a new liturgy had been deployed in architectural spaces built according to other canons and for other uses. For “most of our places of worship were conceived and built centuries ago, sometimes for needs different from our own” (“Simple dialogue à propos de l’espace liturgique”, Communautés et Liturgies 6, Nov.-Dec. 1978, p. 545). Older buildings therefore proved more or less unsuited to the new norms of Christian celebration.
From this point of view, “a two-fold question arises: how to use the places of worship as they have been left to us, and how to design new ones more adapted to our urban way of life and to the situation of the Church today” (“Simple dialogue à propos de l’espace liturgique”, Communities and Liturgies 6, Nov,-Dec. 1978, p. 546).
The Church Building Furnishes A Certain Sense of God
From the outset, the question was: “How can we ensure that today's liturgy unfolds as well as possible in a setting designed for the liturgy of other eras?” (“Le congrès d'art sacré d'Avignon”, Notes de pastorale liturgique 137, December 1978, p. 63). For, as Father [Yves] Congar noted of St. Peter's in Rome (though his remark applies equally to other churches), “a whole ecclesiology is already inscribed in the layout of the place” (Yves Congar, Vatican II. Le concile au jour le jour, première session, Cerf-Plon, 1963, p. 23).
Father [Jean-Yves] Quellec explains very clearly what is at stake: “The external configuration of a building, the distribution and organization of its internal spaces, the style of the objects found within it, already form a more or less clear image of the God we encounter there. (...) The way we occupy the space of our churches, the way we arrange the furniture, the way we furnish the sanctuary, and the way we choose a cross, an icon or an altar, all have the implication that we are referring, whether consciously or unconsciously, to various imageries of the divine. It has frequently been pointed out that the image of Christ in the Eucharist is quite different depending on whether the altar resembles a simple table or a monumental tomb. (...) It should be noted that, in most cases, there was no opportunity to make choices revealing a spirituality: the church was received, almost as is, from those who designed and organized it. It should also be noted that, just as frequently, there is a sort of gap between the religious sensibilities and ideas of contemporaries and those that presided over the construction of a building” (Jean-Yves Quellec, ‘Le Dieu de nos églises’, Communautés et Liturgies 4, September 1981, p. 275 and 278).
For example, “the altarpieces of the 17th century, designed, as the Council of Trent requested, for adoration, represent a certain vision of faith. Today we have a different idea of the Real Presence” (Philippe Boitel, ‘Une église peut-elle être un musée?’, Informations catholiques internationales 402, February 15, 1972, p. 5). “Since the time of the Counter-Reformation, the tabernacle has often been linked to the main altar, with which it appeared as the vital centre of the building. But the current renewal of liturgical celebration, by restoring the proper value of each moment of the celebration, has put the spotlight back on the Lord's other modes of presence“ (”Vêtements, objets, espaces liturgiques”, Notes de pastorale liturgique 105, August 1973, p. 26).
Two Models of Church, Two Different Theologies
“The first vision of the Church, that of the pre-Vatican II period, corresponds, by way of example, to a church architecture in which the sanctuary is disproportionately enormous, well separated from the laity, dominating all of the faithful, an insignificant body (in the truest sense of the word) with an exaggerated head. The theology of Vatican II, on the other hand, corresponds to an architecture in which the sanctuary and nave are integrated seamlessly into a harmonious whole” (Lucien Deiss, Les ministères et les services dans la célébration liturgique, éditions du Levain, 1981, p. 8).
Sacred architecture “must present an image of the Church that is fully consistent with that which the liturgy, for its part, strives to convey” (Roger Béraudy, “Introduction” in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, p. 7). For this reason, “not even the layout of places of worship has not been affected by [the liturgical] renewal” (Charles Wackeinheim, Entre la routine et la magie, la messe, Centurion, 1982, p. 23).
Liturgical Reform Implies Changes to the Church Building
The only conceivable solution was to redefine the arrangement of the objects, and to reorganize the architectural space. However this conversion was difficult, given the building's characteristic inertia. “Since Vatican II, preaching and Eucharistic celebrations, for example, do not require quite the same movements as before“ (”Le congrès d'art sacré d'Avignon”, Notes de pastorale liturgique 137, December 1978, p. 64).
“Since the liturgical reform has led to changes in the arrangement of [liturgical] space, we must realize that these changes are not without challenges, especially when they occur in buildings designed according to a different logic. For example, today we occupy places in this space where it was never intended that words be spoken. As such we do violence to the place. The violated architecture no longer resonates with the assembly. It can only do so - it can only respond - if we keep ourselves in the right place” (Paul Roland, ‘Libre propos sur l'espace liturgique’, Communautés et Liturgies 4, September 1981, p. 296).
The Changes Bring Challenges
“The problem of converting traditional churches is not a simple one, nor is it easy to solve. The shape of our old churches does not immediately lend itself to the changes desired by the Council” (Jean Huvelle, ‘Réforme liturgique et aménagement des églises’, Revue diocésaine de Tournai, 1965, p. 236). For example, “once the new altar has been installed [facing the people], it will be necessary to consider removing, moving or otherwise disposing of the old altar. Such an operation cannot be carried out without the advice of a competent architect. Church architecture has often been designed with the altar at the back of the sanctuary in mind. Changing the altar not only modifies the furnishings, but also transforms the architectural lines” (Thierry Maertens and Robert Gantoy, La nouvelle célébration liturgique et ses implications, Publications de Saint-André-Biblica, 1965, p. 57).
“Churches don't lend themselves easily to uses other than those for which they were originally designed: in most of them, the building was designed "length-wise” for assemblies. For some time now, the layout of churches has been changing: they are designed for “width-wise” assemblies, where people can see each other, hear each other and communicate. Sometimes we can arrange an old church in this way: it's always difficult“ (”Bâtir une célébration”, Célébrer 151, April 1981, p. 14).
“It is quite certain that our beautiful elongated churches, filled with a forest of pillars, are more conducive to solitary prayer than to the gathering of people; the new churches, on the contrary, prevent us from isolating ourselves” (Henri Denis, L'esprit de la réforme liturgique, Société nouvelle des imprimeries de la Loire Républicaine, 1965, p. 27).
The Status Quo Ante Not Feasible
As the celebration according to the new liturgical norms depended on an architectural environment suited to it, it was not possible to leave things as they were. Indeed, Father [Joseph] Gélineau notes “the all too obvious difficulty encountered in trying to inscribe post-Vatican II liturgy in spaces and volumes designed for a very different type of liturgy” (Joseph Gélineau, Demain la liturgie, Cerf, 1976, p. 29).
But these liturgists would not give up: “It should also be emphasized that priests are invited to continue fitting their churches according to the requirements of the [new] liturgy. In particular, they are advised to place the Blessed Sacrament in a chapel separate from the main vessel of the church, and to give a new place to treasures of sacred art if they need to be removed from their present location“ (”L'instruction sur le culte eucharistique montre que la mise en œuvre de la réforme est fermement poursuivie”, Informations catholiques internationales 290, June 15 1967, p. 8).
It was therefore necessary to consider modifying the layout of churches, wherever necessary and possible, to adapt them to the new liturgy. It should be noted that, from the outset, some layouts were deemed more favourable than others. “A semicircular church, where everyone can see each other and feel connected, certainly allows for better implementation of the post-conciliar reform than an elongated nave built according to other aesthetic and religious canons” (Jean-Claude Crivelli, Des assemblées qui célèbrent : une pratique des signes du salut, Commission suisse de liturgie, 1980, p. 11).
The Necessary Changes
But since this [semi-circular arrangement] was often not the case, they needed to think about “transforming the interior layout of churches throughout the world, with a view to renewing the celebration of the Eucharist” (Pierre Jounel, “Le missel de Paul VI”, La Maison Dieu 103, 3rd quarter 1970, p. 32). The altar had to face the people, an ambo had to be set up, the tabernacle had to be relocated, and the seating had to be changed. “This spirit pushes us even further: the choice of pews rather than chairs (to avoid the turning movements and noise they entail), the elimination of kneelers (the faithful remaining standing or seated during the liturgical action)” (Thierry Maertens and Robert Gantoy, La nouvelle célébration liturgique et ses implications, Publications de Saint-André-Biblica, 1965, p. 21).
In short, the general layout of the domus ecclesiae needed to be reconsidered. “The severe prescription with regard to minor altars [i.e., their removal] applies a fortiori to the many devotional objects that still so often dot the walls and columns of our churches: the Stations of the Cross, statues, indiscreet confessionals, etc. If they have a place in the interior of churches, they must be removed. If they have their place in chapels separated from the main space of the church, they disperse the assembly when the latter, in the Eucharist, is called upon to give a sign of unity” (Thierry Maertens and Robert Gantoy, La nouvelle célébration liturgique et ses implications, Publications de Saint-André-Biblica, 1965, p. 21).
“Churches, in fact, even when listed, are only secondarily museums. First and foremost, they fulfill a specific religious function. So it's only natural that their layout and furnishings should meet the needs of the liturgy, and particularly the liturgy of the moment. However, the latter implies new ways of gathering; it requires truly transitory furniture; it leads to the abandonment of the use of certain liturgical objects; by grouping parishes together, it leaves churches unused. All this has important practical consequences, and it has to be recognized that old churches do not always lend themselves to the desired adaptations” (Philippe Boitel, ‘Une église peut-elle être un musée?’, Informations catholiques internationales 402, February 15 1972, p. 4).
“The reform requires new creations: the layout of churches, with the altar turned towards the faithful, the place where the Word of God is celebrated, the celebrant's seat, the Blessed Sacrament chapel, a new conception of the confessional“ (”Interview with Cardinal Knox”, La Documentation catholique 1674, April 20, 1975, p. 368).
Modifications of Churches To Express a New Ecclesiology
“In modifying the rite, will the reform also involve a new conception of the structure of our churches? Yes, and in different ways. Firstly, by insisting on the communal meaning of the Mass as an assembly of the people of God, the reform requires that everyone be able to follow the rite taking place at the altar. On the one hand, therefore, it aims to eliminate all screens (columns, pillars, etc.) that prevent a clear view of the altar, something made possible today by the evolution of architectural techniques. On the other hand, it puts the altar back to the centre, not geometrically, but ideally, and prefers it to be decisively and rightly turned towards the people. In addition, by emphasizing the role of the congregation, the reform makes it necessary to find suitable locations for the celebrant, his ministers, readers, ambo, etc. For the same reason, it reduces the space required for the altar. For the same reason, it reduces the number of minor altars, which are detrimental to the unity of the congregation, and simplifies the ornaments that used to overwhelm the altar” (Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, ‘Nouvelle étape de la réforme liturgique : le pourquoi du comment’, Informations catholiques internationales 235, March 1, 1965, p. 26).
This need for architectural redesign should come as no surprise, for if the external form influences the content, the content must in turn react to the external form. “The post-conciliar Church is undergoing profound change, and it is only natural that the church-building should suffer the effects” (Philippe Boitel, ‘Quelles églises pour demain?’, Informations catholiques internationales 388, July 15 1971, p. 22). Indeed, “the liturgical reform imposes on many a new layout for places of worship” (“Dimanche et mission pastorale dans un monde paganisé”, Notes de pastorale liturgique 57, August 1965, p. 10).
“That [the renewal of the liturgy] should have an impact on places of worship, and that these should find themselves partially unsuited as a result of the evolution undergone within the liturgy, no one should be surprised. Insofar as sacred actions have been modified, insofar as the emphasis has been placed on a more total participation of the faithful, buildings built in other times and with a different outlook will also have to be adapted to suit their new purpose” (Guy Oury, ‘L'aménagement des églises - Un aspect du renouveau liturgique’, L'Ami du clergé 6, February 10 1966, p. 89).
This whole new ecclesiological vision naturally expresses itself in this new structuring of the sacred space. “It is clear that liturgical reform cannot be limited to a few changes in the content of the texts read by ministers, or in the gestures of the celebrants (...) It transforms the relationship between the celebrant and the faithful. It distributes the respective functions of the celebrant, the ministers, the schola and the people in a way that is new to us, yet profoundly traditional. It follows that it calls for an arrangement of the places of celebration that is quite different from what it has been until now” (Commission épiscopale de liturgie, ‘Le renouveau liturgique et la disposition des églises’, Notes de pastorale liturgique 58, October 1965, p. 41, or La liturgie, Documents conciliaires V, Centurion, 1966, p. 201).
The Resulting New Arrangements
"[The] construction and layout of churches today can be carried out in the light of a much more complete and elaborate conception of liturgical space” (Frédéric Debuyst, “Quelques réflexions au sujet de la construction d'espaces liturgiques”, Communautés et Liturgies 4, September 1981, p. 285).
Father Roguet, a shrewd judge, had discerned early on the inevitable result of this particular manifestation of the renewal. “Certain reforms, which had seemed to concern only arrangements of texts and rites, will inevitably modify certain accessories of our churches and even some of their architectural structures” (A.M. Roguet, ‘Le signe du vin’, Notes de pastorale liturgique 66, February 1967, p. 43). This is what everyone would come to understand a little later. “The liturgical reform aims with all its might at the full and active participation of all the people. For this to be possible, an appropriate architecture is needed. (...) Liturgical renewal and the way in which the Church situates itself in the world call for a new type of architecture” (F. Agnus, ‘Architecture et renouveau liturgique’, Notes de pastorale liturgique 76, October 1968, p. 46).
New Church Constructions: Transitory and Provisionary
“The monumental and definitive character of what we build does not lend itself well to the present mobility, noticeable in the Church itself: the problems, often insoluble, posed by the adaptation of old churches to current needs, if only to the new forms of liturgical celebration, are likely to arise, in five or ten years' time, for the churches we have just built (...) In the present conditions, it would seem normal to conceive this meeting place, in the image of the community's activities, as a multifunctional place, usable for purposes other than liturgical ceremonies alone. A domus ecclesiae, for example, could be set on one or two floors of a large building, and would include, in addition to a few small rooms (one of which could be converted into an oratory for private prayer and visits to the Blessed Sacrament) and the offices of the permanent staff, a large room that could be fitted out for various uses (conferences, meetings, parties, receptions, liturgy, etc.) using truly mobile furniture” (Pierre Antoine, ‘L'église est-elle un lieu sacré?’, Études, March 1967, pp. 442-444).
For “it is clear that today we must abandon the more or less pagan and triumphalist concept of the temple, where elements of monumentality and sacred space predominate, in favour of the Christian concept of the assembly, where values of humility, interiority and personalizing relationships predominate. Churches would then once again become house-churches rather than sanctuaries of the Most High” (Dieudonné Dufrasne, ‘Contribution à une spiritualité du samedi saint’, Paroisse et Liturgie 2, March-April 1972, p. 115).
“We must sound a warning. Today's liturgy is in a melting pot; we cannot say what the forms of worship will be in the future. For this reason, we cannot plan churches solely on the basis of today's conception of liturgy, without running the risk of seeing them outdated by the time they are completed. As the liturgical movement advances, new ideas about worship are born (...). In the final analysis, religious buildings must be modern buildings for modern man” (J. G. Davies, ‘La tendance de l'architecture moderne et l'appréciation des édifices religieux’, in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, p. 94, 95 and 99). “This assumes that a religious building is, by vocation, unfinished: not so much perfectible as evolving, available, at least to a certain extent. (...) Should we not be prepared for unforeseeable changes and redesigns within the probable lifespan of our buildings?” (Denis Aubert, ‘De l'église à tout faire à la maison d'église - Expériences à Taizé’ in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, p. 110 and 112).
The Church Called to Constant Change
Indeed, “if the Constitution [on the liturgy] is observed in letter and spirit, the liturgy will no longer risk becoming fixed and immobilized. Like a tree that has strong roots and whose sap is nourishing, it will bear on branches that live and spread, new flowers and new fruits” (Msgr. H. Jenny, ‘Introduction’ in La liturgie, Centurion, 1966, p. 41).
Cardinal Lercaro, then president of the Consilium was also moving in this same direction in his message to the artists' symposium held in Cologne on February 28, 1968. "Without a doubt,” he said, ”one thing is quite clear: the architectural structures of churches must change as rapidly as people's living conditions and homes are changing today. Even when building a place of worship, we need to bear in mind the extremely transitory nature of these material structures, whose entire function is one of service to humankind. In this way, we can prevent future generations from being conditioned by churches that we consider avant-garde today, but which they risk seeing as nothing more than outdated edifices. Today, for our part, we experience this conditioning: we feel the difficulty with which the marvellous churches of the past adapt to our religious sensibility, and the force of inertia with which they oppose the indispensable reforms of liturgical action (...). ) So let us not pretend to build churches for centuries to come, but be content to make modest, functional churches that suit our needs and before which our sons feel free to rethink new ones, abandon them or modify them as their time and religious sensibility suggest“ (Giacomo Lercaro, ‘Message to the artists’ symposium held in Cologne on February 28, 1968”, La Maison Dieu 97, 1st trim. 1969, pp. 16-17, or in Espace sacré et architecture moderne, Cerf, 1971, pp. 25-26).
This reflection by its president corresponded perfectly with the aims of the Consilium and its secretary, Msgr. [Annibale] Bugnini, as evidenced by the two texts of its official review, on which we shall conclude. “The work of liturgical reform is not finished and, in the spirit of the Council, must never end. The liturgy, like the Church in its human aspect, is inevitably subject to continual reform, born of ecclesial life, so that the Church is truly adapted to the present time, to today's culture and to the historical moment” (Anschaire J. Chupungco, ”Costituzione conciliare sulla sacra liturgia. 15th anniversario“, Notitiæ 149, December 1978, p. 580): ‘Liturgical reform will continue without limit of time, space, initiative and person, modality and rite, so that the liturgy may remain alive for people of all times and generations’ (”Rinnovamento nell'ordine”, Notitiæ 61, February 1971, p. 52). ?
[...]
