How sanctuary furniture arrangements preach heresy

On a visit to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, I found the words of Bishop Thomas Joseph Shahan, who, before the Shrine was built, wrote in 1914 that the Shrine would be a "monument of love and gratitude, a great hymn in stone as perfect as the art of man can make it and as holy as the intentions of its builders could wish it to be."

The idea of a "hymn in stone" stuck with me, and I have often though about how the Catholic Faith is something that can be proclaimed not only in sermons and in words, or even hymns, but also in the stone of architecture and interior arrangement of furniture inside a church. How beautiful those churches that escaped the wreck-o-vations of the last century, where everything draws the eye front-and-center to the Lord, with statues of cherubum bowing in adoration of His Presence in the Tabernacle above the altar.

By the same token, how often we have entered "worship spaces" erected over the last several decades, where the eye is drawn ... nowhere in particular. A crucifix (or something like one) may be positioned off-center to the left with an ambo in front of it. An altar (or something like one) may be positioned off-center to the right with the presider's throne-like chair to its side. The Tabernacle (or something like one) may be removed to the side of the church, or, even more absurdly, to the back (as at St. Therese in Mooresville, NC). If one were to genuflect, he would have to turn his back to the altar. If one were to bow toward the altar, he would do so while turning his back to the Lord. Likewise, pews may be arranged in the round, compounding the difficulties. Lectors who bow after reading, look like they are paying obeisance to a polyester-robed monarch, while slighting the Lord.

Whatever a priest may say in his homily, this is a sermon in sanctuary furniture arrangement that loudly proclaims disorientation and confusion. To the extent that Catholics today may protest that such details "don't matter," they give voice to a post-Catholic, post-sacramental view of the relation of the internal to the external, the spirit to flesh, that is more like the sensibilities of Quakerism than those of Catholic tradition.

Over at Vultus Christi Fr. Mark Kirby, OSB, offers a very thoroughgoing reflection on this problem, re-posted as "New, Corrected Translation won’t be enough" (WSTPRS, June 5, 2011). Here are some excerpts with red commentary by Fr. Z:

Mass Facing the People: The Single Greatest Obstacle to the Reform [That is what the great liturgist Klaus Gamber thought. Turning altars around was single most damaging thing done in the wake of the Council.]

Here in Italy it is evident that churches were designed and constructed with an eye to the absolute centrality of the altar with priest and people facing together in the same direction. The placement, within perfectly proportioned sanctuaries, of secondary altars to allow for Mass facing the people has utterly destroyed the harmony, order, and spaciousness that the Sacred Liturgy, by its very nature, requires. [Isn't it jarring to go into a church where the focus has been shifted?]

Apart from these considerations, the most deleterious effect continues to be the magnification of the priest and of his personality. The theological direction of all liturgical prayer — ad Patrem, per Filium, in Spiritu — is obscured, while the priest, even in spite of himself, appears to be, at every moment, addressing the faithful or engaging personally with them. [The Novus Ordo tends to place more emphasis on the priest anyway, since he is constantly yakking at you. Then, make him face the people and you get... ]It’s All About Me

Certain priests and bishops, marked by a streak of narcissism, abuse their position in front of and over the congregation to soak up the attention and energy of the faithful, attention and energy that, by right, belong to God alone during the Sacred Liturgy.

Placed in front of and over the congregation, priests an bishops all too easily give in to an arrogant liturgical clericalism, subjecting the faithful to their own additions amendments, comments, and embolisms....

There's a good bit more; then Fr. Kirby says:

The New English Translation of the Roman Missal will not, of itself, be enough to bring about an authentic reform and renewal of the Novus Ordo Missae. A deeper and broader reform is needed, one that must, necessarily, begin with bishops and with their priests charged with the care of souls. [Which is why we need wide-spread use of the Extraordinary Form: to teach us the Roman Rite again.]