We are very grateful to our founding editor, Mr Shawn Tribe, for sharing with us this article from his site Liturgical Arts Journal, his translation of an article originally written in French by Abbé Grégoire Celier. It forms a very illuminating collection of citations from protagonists and proponents of the post-Conciliar reform, some well-known, some less well-known, which demonstrate why they believed that the reform required old church buildings to be modified, and new ones to be built differently. Since it is fairly lengthy, it will be presented here on NLM in two parts. The paragraphs in italics after this one are Mr Tribe’s own prefatory material. – NLM editor.
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 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 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 consideration 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 [...]”
It is therefore a good idea, then, to look back at this liturgical reform, to gain a better understanding of its foundations, implications and results. We propose to do so here through the lens of the church building. The question of how the liturgy resulting from the Council is incorporated into churches built before the Council is particularly timely for assessing the changes brought about by the reform.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).
