Advanced Questions in Liturgical Design
- Ethan A. Hayes
- Feb 24
- 12 min read
The state of liturgical design has reached such an abyssal point that it would seem that one can only hope for a church building to not be horrid. The fight for generations now has been fraught with so many small obvious design issues (such as a venerable location for the tabernacle) that the sophistication of higher level issues have been entirely put off if not forgotten. Most Catholics are completely unaware that there are several conflicts and open questions in traditional church composition, nor even that the books debating such questions exist. Just as the appreciation of fine music or gourmet food raises the sophistication the experience of everyday music or food let knowledge of the advanced discussions of church design enoble the petty conflicts fought every day.
How to Resolve the Transept-Pew Conflict
Perhaps it is unknown to most Christians that roughly prior to the Reformation no Christians really worshiped in churches with general seating for the laity. And beside temporary seating for perhaps only the very frail, the ancient cathedrals of medieval Europe were simply not designed for any fixed and permanent seating within the nave. The pew did not exist; it is relatively modern furniture largely limited to the West.
This means however that the church layouts that the Church inherited from the medieval era are largely incongruous with modern seating. The transepts of ancient churches, (the cross shaped layout giving the church wings on either side of the sanctuary) assumes that seating is not fixed and that side altars are used freely. Such side altars of course are essentially never used today. In this arrangement pews are often awkwardly placed sideways in the wings or curved in semicircle around the main altar.
This causes many problems, the foremost of which being that often the people are not all directly facing the altar, or else the congregation is partially facing itself. Focus is notoriously diverted from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass onto a narcissist focus of the people looking at their own gathering. This result in side altars being increasingly impractical, further invalidating their use. With fixed seating, the flexibility of the nave to accommodate various and/or simultaneous liturgies is simply much more limited and problematic.
There is currently not a perfect solution to this problem for large scale churches that desire to have a transept. The Borromeo church model attempts to resolve the issue by minimizing the transept so that it does not actually create substantial wings to the church, and results in a more rectangular floorplan Most traditionally built small parishes in the United States roughly use a derivative of this model as it is efficient and inexpensive. This does allow the whole congregation to face the both sanctuary and the side altars at the same time, but forgoes the option of a wide transept.
Other solutions however are usually not compatible with even the most traditional of liturgical tastes today. The high altar could be placed directly beneath the transept crossing but have choir seating for monastics, clerics, and servers seated facing each other in choir in the transepts. This would also likely call for cutting the sanctuary off from the nave with some sort of altar rail, roof screen, tramezzo, chancel grate or another analogous divider. But such a structure would likely be very difficult to get approved by diocesan committees and it would require the presence of some sort of religious order or priestly institute to justify. This is sort of arrangements is quite medieval and contrary to anything remotely modern. It was generally in the late Middle Ages when such dividing structures were deleted or reduced in exchange for easier presentation of the Real Presence in the Eucharist according to the spirit of that age. On top of it all, this scheme also warps the proportions of the church in unconventional ways and seriously limits the capacity for a church to accommodate large numbers of the laity where compared to the generous space it affords for clerics and monastics.
Today, this messy arrangement of churches is really an artifact of a great amount of history. The complexity should sober students of liturgy to be aware that perfect arrangements do not exist and the medieval genie cannot be simply put back in the bottle in order to save the Church. Even the most traditional communities and architectural models are still in fact children of the modern era and solutions to liturgical problems reside always in diligent and wise implementation of the traditional principles of Christian worship, but not necessarily the particular artifacts of those principles.
Where to Place the Ambo in the Traditional Church
Such a question seems dreadfully obvious, that the ambo belongs to the side of the altar in a prominent place within the sanctuary, but this issue has been simplified dramatically by the fact that modern Novus Ordo liturgies are neither very complex nor sophisticated. There is no Gospel side or Epistle side to the altar in the modern Mass. Readers unfamiliar with the traditional Roman Rite likely have not even heard that of such name for sides to an altar. However, in the mostly ancient churches there was sometimes as many as two ambos, one for each side that usually stood near the division between the sanctuary and the nave.
So there arises questions with respect to ambos when trying the ennoble a Novus Ordo liturgy to reflect more of its fullness of the Roman Rite under the Traditional Latin Mass. Should the ambo be placed very much within the sanctuary or is there valuable practical and symbolic significant for the ambo to stand closer to the nave? Can the ambo be placed somewhat outside the sanctuary so to place it in a higher and more prominent place jutting out into the nave or is this an abuse? How should an ambo be placed with respect to a potential altar rail or similar structure? Could the Novus Ordo itself appreciate dual ambos for the reading of the Gospel and Epistle and perhaps also for the reading of the Passion narrative? How ought a Solemn High Traditional Latin Mass be celebrated to its fullest if such extra furniture can be accommodated? These are invisible issues that within the current politics nobody has practical application to study and resolve.
Whether Holy Images are Permitted to be Laid in Church Floors
The proper use of sacred images in flooring has been a debate since at least the Reformation, but despite authorities such as Borromeo and Paleotti, attempting to rule against their application, there seems to be a perennial drive to abuse their judgement. Since there is always a Christian desire to decorate everything of a church, and with as much human shortsightedness as ever, holy images are regularly placed within the pavement of churches. This is a very human artistic instinct. The argument against this application is simple: Holy images ought not be walked on. Nave floors are freely walked on in churches by the laity and there is little way for this to be practically inhibited. Therefore, holy images should not be placed in floors.
Arguments for the use of holy images in floors are not particularly strong, and usually Christian instinct rebels against stepping upon these images anyway, but yet the practice remains. Rather, the debate runs along the lines of how much of a concern this abuse should occupy and whether there are certain less holy images that might be more permissible. On the first count, serious church designers usually will insist that it is pastorally serious: any design decision that might effect the salvation of the faithful is serious. On the second count, there usually is acknowledged only a very narrow list of generic images that might be more permissible.
Images of Jesus, saints, scriptural scenes, and the Holy Cross are all definitely prohibited from being pictured in floors. Borromeo also prohibits all other sacred images such as symbolic animals as well. This usually only leaves geometric patterns, but could arguably allow floral motifs. When taken abstractly, an ironic rule of thumbs starts to emerge: most things permitted to be pictured in Moslem mosque would be permitted on the floor of a Christian church. But nonetheless the issue remains the same. Today we argue over just having decent floors and decorations at all. Perhaps the potential seriousness of the issue should continued to be ignored and occasionally abused.
Ought St. Joseph be Placed in the Penultimate Place of Honor among the Saints within the High Altar Retablo/Reredos
St. Joseph, the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, remains a wildly popular saint in the West, so much so that Catholics might be slightly puzzled to walk into a church that did not feature his image. This is entirely a modern phenomenon that originated in Italy and has spread widely. This creates an awkward situation however where in large reredos and retablos St. Joseph might be placed in a higher place of honor than is his proper rank within Christendom. It is common to see a medium size church with, let us say, four saint images in the building. One of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one of the St. Joseph, one of the church's titular saint, and one in a obscure corner of the ever popular St. Therese of Lisieux, Anthony of Padua, the Holy Infant or similar. By all rights and dignities within the Christian religion, an image of St. Michael or the individual church's titular saint simply outranks St. Joseph. Now not all Catholic churches are named after St. Joseph or the Holy Family but seeing a few modern churches might lead one to presume that they are in fact are so name by how they are decorated. Unfortunately, despite the popularity and goodness of St. Joseph, this is improper.
The difficulty and controversy remains in this manner because St. Joseph is so wildly popular, it is nearly impossible to correct the proper ordering of dignities. So the argument takes two heads, firstly that despite any traditional ordering to the dignities of the ranks of saints, because of his popularity it should just be accepted that St. Joseph should be given this penultimate place second only to the Blessed Virgin Mary. And secondly, one might say that due to a particular need in the church St. Joseph has risen in prominence in Catholic churches for pastoral reasons and therefore ought to be given a place of prominence out of needful access.
The first head of this argument can be dismissed somewhat more easily than the second. The parable of the dinner guests is applied while debating giving Joseph this modern honor as it is written:
"When thou art invited to a wedding, sit not down in the first place, lest perhaps one more honourable than thou be invited by him: And he that invited thee and him, come and say to thee, Give this man place: and then thou begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place; that when he who invited thee, cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee." (DRB Luke 14:8-10)
So which dinner guest is Joseph? The argument would run that we ought not try to seat Joseph at a higher rank than he deserves lest we dishonor him. And let there be no mistake, despite modern sentiment, St. Joseph occupies a much lower rank of dignity in the wise estimation of Holy Mother Church than several saints, most obviously lower than St. John the Baptist, the Holy Archangels, and the Twelve Apostles. This point ought not be debated, it is simply the fact of the Church's treatment of these orderings for many centuries until recently. Opponents to St. Joseph's deposition argue that the parable of the dinner guests actually applies in the opposite sense that St. Joseph long sitting in obscurity in the Church has finally been given a fitting place of honor for such a humble saint. Therein resides the controversy.
Concerning the second head of the argument however, the facts seem harder to dispute. For certainly, St. Joseph has risen out of obscurity to face particularly needs of the church in a particular time. This is obvious and the pastoral benefits to his veneration are undeniable. So therein the debate can continue. It must be acknowledged that St. Joseph has been given more prominence in the Church than his actual status might call for, however due to the pastoral advantage he brings, St. Joseph should be allowed to freely do the work he is about in the Church.
A strict answer from the philosophy of church designers and architects might be that a large church with many saint images must include an image of St. Joseph for the good of the people. Nonetheless, it might be found that another saint is actually due the penultimate place of honor second to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This would be very political difficult to practically resolve. Catholics today are so accustomed to almost every church having statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Joseph as a pair that there might likely be public outrage and confusion if there was not. And even if the church instead took the arrangements of a Mary and Jesus pair of statues within the high altar, this also brings it's own problems which could be presented in another article. All in all, it still would bother the people if a St. Joseph image did not appear in the third most prominent place after Jesus and Mary.
Practical resolutions to this modern phenomenon are not simple. Anything other than the status quo is all but politically impossible and there is no real proponent or political will at least in the US to disturb this design trend. Yet, it is obvious from a historical perspective that placing images of St. Joseph in the penultimate place is clearly an anomaly and likely an abuse. Since it is not unheard of for current disputes with diocesan committees to be so bad as to attempt to start suppress statues in general, (this actually happens) often more fine grained conflicts such as the ranking of large numbers of saint images is not something that is stressed.
Can the High Altar be Built Directly up against the Apse / How to Resolve the High Altar-Apse Conflict
Since the altar is the most sacred element of the church, perhaps the most crucial conflicts in church design have been over its arrangement. For a long time, especially for small churches, the altar was placed directly up against the back wall of the church to conserve space. There was not enough space available to avoid wasting it behind the altar. Technically, this may have been an improper trend when according to the rubrics the altar had to be blessed on 'all sides'. Since a permanent altar cannot be moved once consecrated lest it be desecrated and need to be reconsecrated, the altar could not be simply consecrated and immediately pushed back against the wall. This argument is quite easy for opponents of beautiful liturgy to trot out in opposition of the use of high altars altogether. Perhaps the ceremonial problem is likely being nitpicky and if attended to properly by church builders and liturgists there is no real problem at all.
However, this problem gets yet bigger though when one looks at how church arrangements have conventionally settled this in the past. In the older, larger churches of Europe the high altar is generally freestanding and the space behind the high altar was reserved for the choir and/or monastics. This need often doesn't exist anymore, so this space behind the altar was wasted or reduced.
As the space behind the altar is reduced, it becomes more and more likely that the high altar and the stained glass of the apse become increasingly in aesthetic conflict. Often a large altarpiece actually blocks the stained the glass or at least competes with it. This is why the idea of building the high altar directly into the apse is so attractively simple. It makes the whole church more synthetic and unified in purpose and design.
Despite ceremonial irregularities, again Boromeo's standard church model begins to become relevant. Unless one pushes an ad orientem altar into the apse, various other problems arise. Either this forces the apse to be fairly deep to accommodate enough seating for the clerics and servers (politically problematic), or it widens the sanctuary to the full width of the church (loosing a transept design), or it projected the sanctuary forward into the congregation as a peninsula breaking the strict division of the nave and sanctuary for lack of space (pastorally unhelpful).
A possible resolution to this reverts to using some sort of liminal outer court of the sanctuary using a rood beam or screen where the ambos and side altars can be placed somewhat outside. This might allow for an inner choir of servers and clerics, partially preserve division of the sanctuary, and only somewhat weakening a transept, but such an arrangement is nearly impossible to have approved by a diocese. Likely any sort of rood screen or tramezzo is a non-starter and suggesting such a deep and austere sanctuary would simply not be afforded or allowed regardless of how strictly a bishop insists on following the Roman Pontifical.
By these expositions of more complex and difficult church architecture problems hopefully smaller liturgical conflicts are given a better perspective. Where the principles governing the liturgical instinct of the Church can be elucidated, an understanding of how to properly approach ecclesial architecture might be gained. If progress out of the turmoil of modern church design is desirable, much more study and practical problem solving experience is necessary for designers, liturgists, and clergy alike.
Comments