sign in sign up
<<
Home , Altar Stone, Bema, Catholicity, Church architecture, Ciborium (architecture), Enrique de la Mora

THE OF :

LITURGICAL ORDERING IN DESIGN;

THE AUSTRALIAN EXPER IENCE IN PERSPECTIVE

Stephen Paul Hackett

A t hesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of the Built Environment

The University of New South

Sydney,

2011 Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Sumame or Family name: Hackett

First name: Stephen Other name/s: Paul

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: Built Environment Faculty: Built Environment

Title: The Architecture of Liturgy: Liturgical Ordering in Church Design; the Australian Experience in Perspective

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

'Liturgical ordering' denotes the spatial arrangement of churches for celebration of . Its evolution from the earliest of known church structures can be described In five epochs, the last of which continues to emerge. This evolutlon reveals liturgy as being the abiding and indispensable design determinant for churches.

Among the constitutive elements or . liturgical ordering has received little scholarly attenllon. The Architecture of Liturgy: Uturgical Ordering In Church Design; the Australian Experience In Perspective sets out to remedy this. examining the development of liturgical ordering In churches during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Inspired by the , these orderings gained prominence following Vatican Council II. 1962-1965, which enjoined that churches be built for the sacred murgy and the active participation of the faithful. The Implementation of this imperative brought about widespread lnnovallon In church design, most significantly through new and adapted liturgical orderings. mari

The thesis proposes that liturgy and liturgical ordering naturally and logically cohere. It argues that historically there have been two Instances of fundamental reorientation in liturgical ordering, the first culminating In the high and the second, setting right the first, In the current epoch. By evaluating contemporary liturgical orderings it seeks to identify the Ideal or preferred liturgical ordering for contemporary Catholic churches. Chapter One outlines this under1aklng and Chapter Two details \he research methods employed. Chapter Three traces the evolution or liturgical ordering to the mid-twentieth century and identifies its salient characteristics. From this threshold Chapter Four examines the new and adapted orderings of the pre- and postconciliar decades.

Contemporary discourse about liturgical ordering tends to be structured In typologies. These are critiqued In Chapter Five. which concludes by setting out six types or liturgical ordering representative ol postconciliar Australian Catholic churches. Chapter Six evaluates these orderings In case studies of six such churches. The conclusion In Chapter Seven situates the present status of liturgical ordering in Its evolutionary context and proposes a particular U-arrayed setting as the Ideal ordering ·ror the time being'.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to \he University of New South Wales or Its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation In whole or In part In the University libraries in all forms of media. now or here after known, subject to \he provisions or the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights. such as patent rights. I also retain \he right to use In lulure works (such as articles or books) all or part or this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dlsser1atlon Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral thy 4#~ ············ · ········ · ···· · · ······· · ··· ~···········•··· ..... ":"~::"~~ The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years be made In writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered In exceptional circumstances and require the approval or the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date or completion or requirements ror Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

ABSTRACT

‘Liturgical ordering’ denotes the spatial arrangement of churches for celebration of Christian liturgy. Its evolution from the earliest of known church structures can be described in five epochs, the last of which continues to emerge. This evolution reveals liturgy as being the abiding and indispensable design determinant for churches. Among the constitutive elements of church architecture, liturgical ordering has received little scholarly attention. The architecture of liturgy: liturgical ordering in church design; the Australian experience in perspective sets out to remedy this, examining the development of liturgical ordering in Catholic churches during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Inspired by the liturgical movement, these orderings gained prominence following Vatican Council II, 1962-1965, which enjoined that churches be built for the sacred liturgy and the active participation of the faithful. The implementation of this imperative brought about widespread innovation in church design, most significantly through new and adapted liturgical orderings, marking a major shift after centuries of standardised ordering in churches. The thesis proposes that liturgy and liturgical ordering naturally and logically cohere. It argues that historically there have been two instances of fundamental reorientation in liturgical ordering, the first culminating in the high middle ages and the second, setting right the first, in the current epoch. By evaluating contemporary liturgical orderings it seeks to identify the ideal or preferred liturgical ordering for contemporary Catholic churches. Chapter One outlines this undertaking and Chapter Two details the research methods employed. Chapter Three traces the evolution of liturgical ordering to the mid- twentieth century and identifies its salient characteristics. From this threshold Chapter Four examines the new and adapted orderings of the pre- and postconciliar decades.

i Contemporary discourse about liturgical ordering tends to be structured in typologies. These are critiqued in Chapter Five, which concludes by setting out six types of liturgical ordering representative of postconciliar Australian Catholic churches. Chapter Six evaluates these orderings in case studies of six such churches. The conclusion in Chapter Seven situates the present status of liturgical ordering in its evolutionary context and proposes a particular U-arrayed setting as the ideal ordering ‘for the time being’.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Two fields of human endeavour meet in this thesis: architecture and liturgy. When fulfilling their quintessential purpose, architecture and liturgy attune us to the sacred. Each in its own way draws us beyond the mundane into an experience of beauty and mystery beyond words. Brought together in the church design process, architecture and liturgy create places that animate the Church’s worship of God ‘in spirit and in truth’. Architecture and liturgy have long excited my interest. It was a happy outcome of serving in the Religious Centre of the University of New South Wales that first afforded me the opportunity to pursue a research project which brought architecture and liturgy together. Now this project has come to fruition and there are many people to thank. I thank the academic and administrative personnel in the Faculty of the Built Environment at the University of New South Wales who have had some part in my enrolment and studies. I am most grateful to Professor Michael Tawa who first directed my research. I am indebted to Professor Jon Lang who has seen this thesis through to completion. His knowledge and guidance, imparted with patience, has assisted me at every stage of the research and writing process. His counsel regarding the presentation of text and images in the thesis has been extensive and precise. I am also indebted to Mr Harry Stephens, who has accompanied this project from its inception. His wisdom has been generously shared and his support unwavering. I thank the architects and who granted interviews, provided church plans and facilitated access to churches, particularly Mgr Kerry Bayada, Terence Brady, Mr Gregory Burgess, Mr Keith Cottier, Fr Neville Drinkwater, Professor Romaldo Giurgola, Fr John Hill, Mr Graeme Law, Mr Randall Lindstrom, Fr Brian O’Sullivan CM and Fr Peter Sherman. Their expertise and insights, and the data they provided, have proved especially beneficial.

iii I thank those who have so generously given practical assistance in the preparation of this thesis. Mr Andy McCracken applied his draftsman’s skill to hand-draw illustrations for the latter chapters. Fr Malcolm Fyfe MSC and Fr Eugenio Zurias-Diaz brought their linguistic knowledge to matters of translation. Ms Sarah Bell, Rev Dr Brian Boyle, Dr William Griffiths, Rev Dr Peter Malone MSC, Fr Michael Moore SM, Rev Dr David Orr OSB and Fr Kevin Taylor accessed resources on my behalf. Mr Neville Hackett, Mr Harry Stephens and Br John Walker MSC photographed churches for the penultimate chapter. Dr Rachele Tullio read and commented upon the final draft of the thesis. I thank my confreres in the Australian Province of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart for their support. They are too many to mention by name: those who encouraged me to undertake further study; those in leadership who enabled me to pursue my research interests and who have ensured that I have been able to complete this project; the communities in Sydney and Adelaide where I was made welcome during the writing of this thesis; and so many others for their brotherhood and friendship. I am especially grateful to my family and friends. The constancy of their interest and support is much appreciated. And I thank the liturgists and architects whose interest in this project and eagerness on my account has helped sustain my effort. I share their passion and appreciate their friendship. Their dedication and energy is inspiring. While a thesis is, of its nature, a scholarly undertaking, this thesis has also been a profoundly religious one. This ought hardly to surprise, for architecture and liturgy meet in the design of churches essentially to create places in which the community of the Church can assemble to prayerfully celebrate the liturgical . In the of the Dedication of a Church, prayed in the Catholic Eucharistic liturgy, these words are addressed to : For in this visible house that you have let us build, and where you never cease to show favour

iv to the family on pilgrimage to you in this place, you wonderfully manifest and accomplish the mystery of your with us. ‘… that you have let us build …’. These words ring true, not just for building churches, but for this thesis which has the building of contemporary churches as its focus. I have come to see that this project is something that God has let me undertake, not for my own sake but for the sake of those who will build churches new and anew. For this, above all else, I give thanks.

Stephen Hackett MSC 15 August 2011

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

ILLUSTRATIONS ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS x

CHAPTER 1 Introduction: liturgy and church design: the quest for 1 an ideal ordering

CHAPTER 2 Research method 20

CHAPTER 3 Continuity and contradiction: the evolution of liturgical 40 ordering from the 1st century into the 20th century

The first epoch: precursor of the Christian Church - from the 41 1st century to the early 4th century

The second epoch: the emergence of basilican, tau 48 and centralised orderings - from the 4th century to the 6th century

The third epoch: the medieval and longitudinal 64 orderings - from the 6th century to the 14th century

The fourth epoch: renaissance, counter-reform and a 72 standardised liturgical ordering - from the 15th century to the mid 20th century

Conclusions drawn from the four epochs 85

CHAPTER 4 Designed for the liturgy: the evolution of new and adapted 89 liturgical ordering in churches of the 20th and 21st centuries

The liturgical movement and developments in liturgical ordering 89

Vatican Council II and the impetus for new and adapted 115 liturgical ordering

Postconciliar liturgical ordering and reordering of churches 125

Discrete developments affecting postconciliar liturgical ordering 145

vi Liturgical ordering for , Eucharistic reservation, and 168 reconciliation

Conclusions drawn from this chapter 175

CHAPTER 5 Thinking in types: typologies as a construct for 178 discourse about liturgical ordering

Typologies of liturgical ordering 178

Conclusions drawn from the typologies 242

A typology for the Australian context 244

CHAPTER 6 Postconciliar church design in Australia: six case 259 studies in liturgical ordering

The Basilican Ordering: St Church, 261 Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory

The Cruciform Ordering: St Joseph’s Church, 276 Malvern, Victoria

The Centralised Ordering: Our Lady of Fatima Church, 291 Kingsgrove, New South Wales

The Antiphonal Ordering: Our Lady of Fatima Church, 307 Caringbah, New South Wales

The U-arrayed Ordering: St John the Baptist Church, 318 Woy Woy, New South Wales

The Fan-arrayed Ordering: Church of St Michael and St John, 329 Horsham, Victoria

Conclusions drawn from the case studies 341

CHAPTER 7 Conclusion 348

An ideal architectural model? 352

The tasks that await 360

REFERENCES 366

APPENDICES 388

Appendix One Structured observation of churches 388

vii

Appendix Two Literature search data 391

Appendix Three Liturgical, ecclesial and papal documents and 397 pronouncements

I. The status of documents cited 397 II. Excerpts on church design 400 III. Comparison of national directories; 426 diocesan directories

Appendix Four Liturgical enactment criteria 429

Appendix Five Table of typologies of liturgical orderings 438

viii ILLUSTRATIONS

The illustrations used throughout this thesis have been oriented so that the place of the within the churches illustrated is shown towards the upper side or centre of each illustration and the point of entry into the churches is thereby usually shown at the lower side of each illustration. An exception to this standard orientation occurs where an illustration is reproduced from a source in which a key has been included which requires that the illustration be shown at a different orientation.

The illustrations reproduced in Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 7 derive from secondary sources. These sources are acknowledged in the List of Illustrations and in accompanying captions. The quality of illustrations and sometimes their size has been determined by the sources from which they have been reproduced.

The hand-drawn illustrations in Chapters Five and Six are the work of Mr Andy McCracken and are acknowledged accordingly. These illustrations have been prepared as instructed by the author of this thesis. Some of the hand-drawn illustrations are based upon original architectural drawings or derive from published sources. The remainder are based upon photographs and sketches made on site. Sections have been drawn to specifically include elements of the liturgical setting.

The photographs in Chapter 6 were taken by the author of this thesis, or by others at his request.

ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

3.1 Christian Building at Dura Europos, , c. 240 – 257 CE, 45 Plan reconstruction of ‘before’ and ‘after’ renovation into a domus ecclesiae, and axonometric reconstruction of the same domus ecclesiae. Adapted from L. M. White, The social origins of Christian architecture volume 1: building God’s house in the Roman world: architectural adaptation among pagans, Jews and , Harvard Theological Studies 42, Press International, Valley Forge, 1996, pp. 108 & 109. 3:2 Double-church complex, Aquileia, , c. 320 CE, Plan 47 showing liturgical ordering, and Illustration of reconstruction, late 3rd or very early 4th century. Adapted from B. Minchin, Outward and visible, Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1961, pp. 29 & 31. 3:3 Early Roman liturgical ordering of and in a 51 Christian . From E. Foley, From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the , Revised and expanded edn., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2008, p. 85. 3:4 Basilica of San Clemente, , Italy, 4th and 12th centuries, 52 Plan of the 12th century basilica, and Plan of the 4th century basilica above which the later church was erected. From P. Grimal & C. Rose, , tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London, 1997, p. 48, Plan detailing liturgical ordering, attributed to the 4th century basilica but corresponding with the 12th century plan of Grimal & Rose. From R. Beny & P. Gunn, The churches of Rome, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 281, and Photograph showing liturgical ordering c. 2001. From J. Hager & G. Galazka, Pilgrimage: a chronicle of through the churches of Rome, Cassell, London, 2001, p. 35. 3:5 Basilica of St Peter, Rome, Italy c. 400 CE, Perspective 53 drawing, and Plan showing and altar over the memoria of St Peter. Adapted from R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and , 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer & S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986, p. 55. 3:6 Basilica Apostolorum, , Italy, c. 382 CE, Axonometric 56 reconstruction. From R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer & S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986, p. 82.

x 3:7 San Giovanni in Fonte , Rome, Italy, c. 315 CE, 58 Plan. Adapted from M. Webb, The churches and of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2001, p. 46. 3:8 Constantinian basilica and Anastasis, , Israel, 59 4th century, Plan of remains, and Perspective drawing of hypothetical reconstruction c. 335 CE. Adapted from R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer & S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986, pp. 61-62. 3:9 Church of Santa Maria ad Martyres (The Pantheon), Rome, 60 Italy, c. 117 – 138 CE, church 609 CE, Plan showing altar in the opposite the entrance. Adapted from M. Webb, The churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2001, p. 150. 3:10 Church of San Lorenzo, Milan, Italy, c. 378 CE, Plan. 61 Adapted from X. Barral I Altet, The early middle ages: from late antiquity to A.D. 1000, tr. L. Frankel, Taschen, Koln, 2002, p. 44. 3:11 Church of Santa Constanza, Rome, Italy, c. 326 – 330 CE, 61 Photographs, interior showing view from the entrance to the central altar, with an beyond, c. 2009, and interior showing view of elevated altar and arrangement of seating within the circular c. 2009. From H. Hayes, ‘Art History Images’, www.sacred-destinations.com/ italy/rome-santa-constanza, 2009, sourced 29 June 2010. 3:12 Church of Santo Stefano Rotondo, Rome, Italy, c. 468 – 62 483 CE, Plan showing 5th century church. Adapted from P. Grimal & C. Rose, Churches of Rome, tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London, 1997, p. 42, and Plan showing existing church. Adapted from M. Webb, The churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2001, p. 97. 3:13 Church of Santo Stefano Rotondo, Rome, Italy, c. 468 – 63 483 CE, Photograph showing central sanctuary and slightly elevated altar, c.1997. Adapted from P. Grimal & C. Rose, Churches of Rome, tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London, 1997, p. 42. 3:14 Church of -Étienne, Vignory, , c. 1050 and 65 of Sant’Iago, Santiago de Comopostela, , c. 1075 – 1124, Plans of two cruciform layouts. Adapted from X. Barral I Altet, The romanesque: towns, and , tr. C. Miller, Taschen, Koln, 1998, p. 20 & p. 68.

xi 3:15 Cathedral Church of the Blessed Mary, Salisbury, 66 , 1220 – 1266, Plan showing the medieval processional route. From R.A. Scott, The gothic enterprise: a guide to understanding the medieval cathedral, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003, p. 168. 3:16 Comparison of three types of altar, Basilica of Sant’ Elia, 67 near Nepi, Italy, c. 1120, Photograph of the squarish basilican altar, c. 1963. From C.E. Pocknee, The Christian altar: in history and today, A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1963, p. 17, reproduced by permission of Continuum International Publishing Group, Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Lincoln, England, 1192 – 1280, Photograph of the elongated gothic altar, c. 2002. Adapted from G. Binding, High gothic: the age of the great cathedrals, tr. I. Taylor, Taschen, Koln, 2002, p. 195, and Giambattista Piranesi, Church of Santa Maria Aventina, Rome, Italy, c. 1765, Photograph of the rectangular neo-classical altar, c. 2001. From J. Hager & G. Galazka, Pilgrimage: a chronicle of Christianity through the churches of Rome, Cassell, London, 2001, p. 165. 3:17 Cathedral of Saint Cecilia, Albi, France, 1282 – 1512, 69 Schematic drawing. Adapted from E. Foley, From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the Eucharist, Revised and expanded edn., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2008, p. 199, and Plan. Adapted from J. Thomas, Albi cathedral and British church architecture, The Ecclesiological Society, London, 2002, p. 6. 3:18 Drawing of a nave altar. Adapted from E. Foley, 70 From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the Eucharist, revised and expanded edn., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2008, p. 147. 3:19 Cola da Caprarola, Church of Santa Maria della 73 Consolazione, Todi, Italy, 1508 – 1606, Plan. From J. G. Davies, , churches and mosques: a guide to the appreciation of religious architecture, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982, p. 206, and Photograph indicating liturgical ordering, c. 2002. Adapted from P. Bess, ‘The Heavenly City, the Earthly City and the Church,’ Humanist art review, http://www. humanistart.net/citychurch/church-form.htm, 2002, Slide 48, sourced 10 October 2006.

xii 3:20 Evolution of the plan for ’s Basilica, Vatican 74 City, Rome, Italy, 1506 -1626. From M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 38. 3:21 , Church of San Andrea al 76 Quirinale, Rome, Italy, 1658 – 1671, Plan. Adapted from R. Beny & P. Gunn, The churches of Rome, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 181. 3:22 Nanni di Baccio Bigio, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Giacomo 77 da Vignola, Giovanni Tristano, Giovanni de Rosis & Giacomo della Porta, Church of Il Gesú, Rome, Italy, 1568 – 1584, Plan. Adapted from D. Hanser, ‘Architecture of the 16th – 18th Centuries in Europe: The Counter- Church’, http://hanser.ceat.okstate. edu/30 83/il%20gesu/il_gesu.htm, sourced 13 September 2010. 3:23 Plan of a typical parish church designed in accordance 80 with the Instructions of Carlo Borromeo. From P. Anson, Churches: their plan and furnishing, revised and edited by T.F. Croft-Fraser & H. A. Reinhold, The Bruce Publishing co., Milwaukee, 1948, p. 17. 3:24 Christopher Dientzenhofer, Church of St Nicholas, 81 Mala Strana, Prague, Czech Republic, 1703 – 1711, Plan of late church. From J.G. Davies, Temples, churches and mosques: a guide to the appreciation of religious architecture, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982, p. 228, William Wilkinson Wardell, Church of St Ignatius, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1867 - 1888, Plan of gothic revival church. Adapted from J. Tan, G. Hood & P. Hosking, St Ignatius’ church, Richmond, Victoria, St Ignatius Church, Richmond, 2004, p. 19, and Jože Plecnik, Church of the Sacred Heart, Prague, Czech Republic, 1932, Plan of modern classicist church. From W.J. Stock, European church architecture 1900 – 1950, tr. E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich, 2006, p. 133. 3:25 Indicative plans of a parish church and a cathedral 83 Church. Adapted from A. Fortescue, The ceremonies of the Roman described, revised and augmented by J.B. O’Connell, Burns, Oates and Washbourne Ltd, London, 1932, pp. 4-5, reproduced by permission of Continuum International Publishing Group. 3:26 Schematic diagram of the ‘relationship of elements’ in a 84 , c. 1953. From P. Thiry, R. Bennett & H. Kamphoefner, Churches and temples, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, 1953, p. 29C.

xiii 4:1 Auguste Perret and Gustave Pettet, Church of Notre 94 Dame du Raincy, , France, 1922, Plan. From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 53. 4:2 Rudolf Schwarz, at Burg Rothenfels, Rothenfels 95 am Main, , 1928, Plans of three schemes for the arrangement of the chapel. Adapted from R. Schwarz, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2007, pp. 40-41. 4:3 The ‘Seven Plans’ by Rudolf Schwarz from Vom 96 bau der kirche, 1938. Adapted from R. Schwarz, The church incarnate: the sacred function of Christian architecture, tr. C. Harris, Henry Regnery Company, , 1958, p. 37, p. 69, p. 95, p. 138, p. 157, p. 181 & p. 194. 4:4 Dominikus Böhm, [unnamed] Catholic Church, 97 Ringenberg, Germany, 1935, Plan. From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 60, cf. Schnell 1974, p. 43. 4:5 J. H. Langtry Langton, Church of the First Martyrs, Bradford, 98 England, 1935, Plan. From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 69. 4:6 Eric Gill and H. Edmund Farrell, Church of St. Peter, 99 Gorleston-on-Sea, England, 1939, Plans showing cruciform setting with centralized altar. LEFT: From E. Gill, ‘To the Editor of Liturgical Arts’, Liturgical arts, 1940, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 52; note that this plan corresponds with photographs of the church interior c. 1940 (Gill 1940, p. 52.), and RIGHT: From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 70. 4:7 Freeman, French and Freeman, Church of St Mark, 100 Burlington, Vermont, United States, 1942, Plan. From M. Lavanoux, ‘St Mark’s Church, Burlington, Vermont’, Liturgical arts, 1943, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 84, and Photograph c. 1953. From P. Thiry, R. Bennett & H. Kamphoefner, Churches and temples, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, 1953, p. 31C. 4:8 Barry Byrne, Plan for a church with fan-arrayed 101 liturgical ordering. From B. Byrne, ‘Plan for a Church’, Liturgical arts, 1942, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 59. 4:9 Rudolf Schwarz, Church of St Heribert, Cologne, 102 Germany, (nineteenth century) Reordered 1947, Plan showing the liturgical ordering after reconstruction. From R. Schwarz, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2007, p. 128.

xiv 4:10 Joseph H. Saunders Jr., Church of St Clement, 103 Alexandria, Virginia, United States, 1948, Plan showing antiphonal liturgical ordering. From L. Burns Carroll, ‘Revisiting a Church of Radical Design - and its Visionary Priest’, Faith & form, 1994, vol. 28, Fall, p. 13. 4:11 Paul Thiry, Church of the King, Seattle, 104 Washington, United States, 1950, Plan showing fan-arrayed liturgical ordering. From G. Fitzgerald & P. Thiry, ‘Church of Christ the King, Seattle, Washington’, Liturgical arts, 1950, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 39. 4:12 Chester Wright, Blessed Church, 105 Holyoke, Massachusetts, United States, 1950, Plan showing centralized plan and altar. From D.E. Hennessey & C.F. Wright, ‘ Church, Holyoke, Massachusetts, Liturgical arts, 1954, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 88. 4:13 Brendan O’Connor, Chapel at Rossguill, Co. 105 Donegal, Ireland, 1954, Plan. From R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 32. 4:14 Emil Steffann, Church of St. Laurentius, Munich, 106 Germany, 1955, Plan. From F. Scholz, St. Laurentius in München: architektur, ausstattung, bedeutung, Oratorium des Heiligen Philipp Neri und Pfarrgemeinde St. Laurentius, Munchen, 2004, p. 10. 4:15 Alfons Leitl, St Barbara Church, Mühlheim/Ruhr, 107 Germany, 1953 – 1955, Plan. From O. Mackowiak, ‘Das Kirchengestühl im modernen Kirchenbau’, in “Liturgie als bauherr”? Moderne sakralarchektur und ihre ausstattung zwischen funktion und form, eds. H. Körner & J. Wiener, Klartext, Essen, 2010, p. 209. 4:16 Auguste Perret, Church of St Joseph, Le Havre, France, 108 1959, Plan. From F. Mecozzi, Church architecture: a tentative prototype, Scholia Editions, Toronto, 1997, p. 22, and Section, from G.E. Kidder Smith, The new churches of Europe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1964, p. 108. 4:17 Jiro Miyagi & Kojima, Church of Our Lady of Kuwana, 109 Kyoto Diocese, Japan, c.1960, Plan. From M. Tennien, ‘A Report from Japan’, Liturgical arts, 1960, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 78.

xv 4:18 J.B. Fernandes, Drawings of a proposed church for 110 Madura, India, 1952. From J.B. Fernandes, ‘Church Architecture in India’, Liturgical arts, 1953, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 26. 4:19 Enrique de la Mora, Plans and sections for the project 111 of the Church of Saint Louis Gonzaga, , , c. 1955. From ‘Guadalajara on the March’, Liturgical arts, 1955, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 118. 4:20 (William Wilkinson Wardell), architect of reordering 112 unknown, St Mary’s Cathedral, Hobart, Australia, (1878 – 1881) Reordered 1958 – 1961 and after 1963, Photographs showing initial liturgical reordering of the sanctuary to Vatican Council II, 1958 – 1961, and further reordering of the sanctuary after 1963. From Archdiocese of Hobart archives, Hobart and St Mary’s Cathedral archives, Hobart. 4:21 Pier Luigi Nervi and Antonio Nervi, Proposal for the 113 Church of the Most Blessed Trinity at New Norcia, Western Australia, Australia, c. 1961, Plan and Perspective drawing. From ‘Abbey Church’, Liturgical arts, 1961, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 36-37. 4:22 A diagrammatic plan of a reordered sanctuary layout 118 during Vatican Council II, 1964. From W. Cantwell, ‘The Design of Churches’, in Liturgy: renewal and adaptation, 7th edn., ed. A. Flannery, Scepter Books, Dublin, 1968, p. 124. 4:23 Diagrammatic representations of three church plans, 119 1964. Adapted from W. Cantwell, ‘The Design of Churches’, in Liturgy: renewal and adaptation, 7th edn., ed. A. Flannery, Scepter Books, Dublin, 1968, pp. 136-141. 4:24 Plans of three schemes to update a large church. Adapted 120 from ‘To update a large church built in the 1920s is a problem’, Liturgical arts, 1970, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 52. 4:25 Plans of 1960s churches, Gottfried Böhm, Church of 126 the Resurrection of Christ, Cologne, Germany, 1964-1970. From W. Pehnt, Gottfried Böhm, tr. M. Robinson, Birkhauser, Basel, 1999, p. 80, Alexander Freiherr von Branca, Church of St Matthias, Munich, Germany, 1962-1965. From R. Gieselmann, Contemporary church architecture, Thames & Hudson, London, 1972, p. 125, and Liam McCormick, Church of St Aengus, Burt, Co. Donegal, Ireland, 1967. From R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1985, p. 66.

xvi 4:26 ‘Before’ and ‘after’ plans showing liturgical reordering 127 of basilican plan churches using variations of a fan arrangement, Antonio P. de Castro & Betsy Nelson, St Thomas Church, Braintree, Massachusetts, United States, Reordered 1988, Plans. Adapted from M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing : the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 50, and Filippo Mecozzi, Church of the Transfiguration, Rome, Italy, Reordered 1971, Plans. From F. Mecozzi, Church architecture: a tentative Roman Catholic prototype, Scholia Editions, Toronto, 1997, p. 75. 4:27 Plans exemplifying liturgical reordering of a cruciform 128 plan, William Wilkinson Wardell, St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1860 – 1897, Plan showing original layout, and Richard Falkinger, St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Reordered 1970 – 1973 and 1997 – 2000, Plan of liturgical reordering. Adapted from R. Falkinger, Ringing the changes: new liturgy versus heritage. Chronicles 1971 – 2000, David Lovell Publishing, Melbourne, 2002, p. 5 and p. 73. 4:28 U-arrayed liturgical ordering, Helmur Werthgarner, 129 Church of St Michael, Linz, , Reordered 1988, Plan showing original basilican ordering, and Plan showing U-arrayed reordering. Adapted from G. Frediani, Le chiese: guide per progettare, Guis, Laterza & Figli Spa, Roma-, 1997, p. 41. 4:29 Clovis Heimsath, St Jerome Church, Waco, Texas, 129 United States, 1988-1989, Plan showing semicircular fan-in-rectangle liturgical ordering Adapted from M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 39. 4:30 Plans exemplifying reordering to a centralised liturgical 130 setting, Heins & LaFarge, Saint James Cathedral, Seattle, Washington, United States, 1905 – 1907, Original plan showing minor postconciliar changes, c. 1974, Bumgardner Architects, Saint James Cathedral, Seattle, Washington, United States, Reordered 1994, Plan. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 212.

xvii 4:31 Plans of antiphonal and U-arrayed orderings, James 130 Hundt, Corpus Christi Church at Ushers, New York, United States, 2004, Plan. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 64, Dieter G. Baumewerd, Saint Christopher Church, Westerland, Sylt, Germany, 2000, Plan. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 64, and Jake Rodriguez Architects & Victor Johnson, Church of Santa Maria de la Paz, Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, c.1995, Plan. Adapted from L. Nolte, ‘New Church in New Mexico: Santa Maria de la Paz’, Environment and art letter, 1995, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 32. 4:32 Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Architects, San Fernando 131 Cathedral, San Antonio, Texas, United States, Reordered 2003, Plan, and Photograph. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Houses of God: religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 2006, p. 65. 4:33 Plans of three recent churches, Edwards & Daniels 132 Architects, St John the Baptist Church, Draper, Utah, United States, c. 2006, Plan. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Houses of God: religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 2006, p. 120, Lamott Architekten, Sacred Heart Church, Völkingen, Germany, 2001, Plan. From P. Richardson, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2004, p. 95, and Heinz Tesar, Church of hoffnung der welt, Donau City, , Austria, 2000, Plan. Adapted from I. Boyken & C. Richters, Heinz Tesar. Christus hoffnung de welt, Wein, Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart, 2002, p. 25. 4:34 Markus Allmann, Amandus Sattler & Ludwig Wappner, 133 Church of the Sacred Heart, Munich, Germany, 2000, Plan showing basilican ordering. Adapted from P. Richardson, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2004, p. 151, and Gerald Allen & Jeffrey Harbinson, Church of St Therese, Wilson, North Carolina, United States, Plan showing cruciform ordering, c. 1999. From M.J. Crosbie, Architecture for the Gods, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 1999, p. 53.

xviii 4:35 Johannes Krämer, Schematic drawing showing 134 the spatial dynamics of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Adapted from J. Krämer, ‘Gemeinschaftlich orientiert’, in Communio-räume: auf der suche nach der angemessenen raumgestalt katholischer liturgie, eds. A. Gerhards, T. Sternberg & W. Zahner, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2003, p. 195. 4:36 Church designs with distinct spaces for Word and 135 Eucharist, Ottokar Uhl, Studentenkapelle [not Konviktskapelle], Stift Melk, Germany, 1966, Plan. Adapted from W. Zahner, ‘Raumkonzepte der Liturgischen Bewegung’, in Communio-räume: auf der suche nach der angemessenen raumgestalt katholischer liturgie, eds. A. Gerhards, T. Sternberg & W. Zahner, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2003, p. 92, and Franco Antonelli, ‘Liturgical space study, competition project (Italy)’, n.d., Plan. From J. Dahinden, New trends in church architecture, tr. C.J.B. Baumann, Studio Vista, London, 1967, p. 72. 4:37 John Goldman, St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, 136 San Francisco, California, USA, 1995, Plan showing the place for the Word and the place for the Eucharist. Adapted from D. Elliot, ‘Saint Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church SGN. Plans-v07.med, 2006. From P. Fromberg, St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, San Francisco, email 12 April 2011. 4:38 Examples of churches with an asymmetrical ‘transverse’ 137 plan, Green & Abrahamson, Church of St Peter, Saratoga Springs, New York, United States, (1853) Reordered 1979, Plan of the liturgical reordering from longitudinal layout. From M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p.25, R.K. Seasoltz, ‘Living stones built on Christ,’ Worship, 1983, vol. 57, no. 2, p. 119, courtesy of HGA Architects and Engineers, and Tyndall Hogan Hurley, Church of Our Lady of the , Newtown, Co. Kildare, Ireland, 1975, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, 1985, p. 97.

xix 4:39 Frank Kacmarcik, St Mark’s Church, Shakopee, 138 Minnesota, United States (1862 – 1868), Reordered 1976, Photograph of sanctuary after minimal postconciliar liturgical reordering, and Photograph of sanctuary after second liturgical reordering. From ’ Committee on the Liturgy, Environment and art in Catholic worship, National Conference of Catholic Bishops / United States Catholic Conference, 1978, illustrations 12 and 13. 4:40 Margaret Bouchez Cavanaugh, Church of the 139 Sacred Heart, Roseville, Michigan, United States, Reordered 1976 & 1980, Plan of original reordering, and Plan showing final layout. From M. Bouchez Cavanaugh, ‘The Whole Place is Holy’, Environment and art Letter, 1991, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 27. 4:41 (Architects unknown) St John the Baptist Church, 140 Erie, Pennsylvania, United States, Reordered 1993, Plan and photograph showing asymmetrical liturgical reordering. From M.E. DeSanctis, Building from belief: advance, retreat, and compromise in the remaking of Catholic church architecture, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2002, p. 54 and fig. 24. 4:42 Plans showing asymmetrical liturgical ordering, 141 Steven Holl, Chapel of Saint Ignatius, Seattle, Washington, United States, 1997. From P. Richardson, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2004, p. 20, and Eskew, Dumez & Ripple, St Martha Church, Harvey, Louisiana, United States, 2003. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Houses of God: religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 2006, p. 50. 4.43 Ulrich Königs & Ilse Königs, St Francis Church, 142 Regensberg, Germany, 2001-2004, Plan and Sections showing longitudinal-elliptical liturgical setting. Adapted from U. Königs, ‘Parish centre in Regensburg’, Detail konzept, 2004, no. 9, p. 987. 4:44 Craig Hartman, Cathedral of Christ the Light, 143 Oakland, California, United States, 2008, Plan. Adapted from S. Stephens, ‘Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s Craig Hartman explores immateriality and luminosity in Oakland’s Cathedral of Christ the Light’, Architectural record, 2009, vol. 197, no. 1, p. 92.

xx 4:45 Dominikus Böhm and Martin Weber, 144 ‘Circumstantes’ church project, 1923, Plan. From G. Frediani, Le chiese: guide per progettare, Guis, Laterza & Figli Spa, Roma-Bari, 1997, p. 11. 4:46 Edward A. Sövik, Scheme for a multi-purpose 149 non-church centrum, c. 1973. From E. A. Sövik, Architecture for worship, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1973, p. 73. 4:47 J. Buchanan Blitch, Bill Argus Jr., & Eduardo Camacho, 152 St Patrick’s Church, Robertsdale, Alabama, United States, c. 1979, Plan. From J. Robinson & P. Markert, Religious buildings, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1979, p. 11. Blitch-Knevel Architects, Inc. 4:48 Kevin L. Callahan, St Mathew Church, Winter Haven, 155 Florida, United States, 1999, Plans for variable use according to liturgical season. Adapted from C. Swarts, ‘Sand, Citrus Trees and the New St. Matthew Church’, Environment and art letter, 2000, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 70 & p. 72. 4:49 George Yu, Cathedral, Philadelphia, 157 Pennsylvania, (1898) Reordered 2002, Plan showing customary antiphonal liturgical ordering. Drawn by A. McCracken, 2008. 4:50 George Yu, Philadelphia Cathedral, Philadelphia, 158 Pennsylvania, (1898) Reordered 2002, Plans showing alternative locations for the place of liturgical leadership. From R. Giles, Re-pitching the tent: reordering the church for worship and mission, 3rd edn., Canterbury Press, Norwich, 2004, p. 61. 5:1 R. Kevin Seasoltz, Schematic drawings of six ‘various 180 possible conceptions of the liturgical assembly’. Adapted from R.K. Seasoltz, The house of God: sacred art and church architecture, Herder and Herder, New York, 1963, pp. 139-143. 5:2 Plans typical of Gieselmann’s typology, Roger Bastin, 182 Church of Notre-Dame, Sart-en-Fagnes, , 1965 – 1968, Plan typical of longitudinal space, Hans Kammerer & Walter Belz, Roman Catholic Parish Centre, Korb, Germany, 1963-1966, Plan typical of transversal space, and Josef Lackner, Konzilsgedächtniskirche, Vienna, Austria, 1965-1968, Plan typical of centralised space. Adapted from R. Gieselmann, Contemporary church architecture, Thames and Hudson, London, 1972, p. 33, p. 89 & p. 139.

xxi 5:3 W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Schematic drawings exemplifying 183 the five basic dispositions of the assembly or liturgical orderings. From W.J. Grisbrooke, ‘The Shape of the Liturgical Assembly: Some Third Thoughts’, Research bulletin, University of Birmingham Institute for the Study of Worship and Religious Architecture, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 5:4 Richard Vosko, Plans showing sociofugal and sociopetal 184 liturgical orderings. From R.Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 58. 5:5 Plans of churches used by Richard Vosko to illustrate 188 the antiphonal and centralised liturgical orderings, Davis & Rexrode Architects, St Peter the Apostle Church, Boerne, Texas, United States, 1999, The Kerns Group, St Rose of Lima Church, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States, Renovated and reordered 1987 – 1988, The Kerns Group, St Church, Williamsburg, Virginia, United States, c. 2006. Adapted from R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 64 & p. 66. 5:6 Church of San Vitale, , Italy, 521 – 547 CE, Plan 189 and Section. From X. Barral I Altet, The early Middle Ages: from late antiquity to A.D. 1000, tr. L. Frankel, Taschen, Koln, 2002, p. 135. 5:7 chapel of Gala Placidia, Ravenna, Italy, fifth 190 century, Plan. From D. McNally, Sacred space: an aesthetic for the liturgical environment, Wyndham Hall Press, Bristol, IN, 1985, p. 58. 5:8 Jean Lebon, Schematic drawings of church layouts for the 191 preconciliar liturgy and the postconciliar liturgy. From J. Lebon, How to understand the liturgy, tr. M. Lydamore & J. Bowden, SCM Press, London, 1987, p. 75. 5:9 Bill Beard, typology of six liturgical orderings. Adapted 194 from B.Beard, ‘Seating for Catholic Worship: A Primer’, Environment and art letter, 1988, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3. 5:10 Edward A. Sövik, St Leo Church, Pipestone, 197 Minnesota, United States, 1968, Plan. Adapted from M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 20.

xxii 5:11 Plans of fan-shaped churches, Pietro Belluschi, St 198 Margaret of Cortona Church, Columbus, Ohio, United States, 1963 – 1970, and Russel Gibson, Church of the Blessed Sacrament at East Hartford, Connecticut, United States, 1973. From M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 31 & p. 34. 5:12 American artist William Schickel, Gethsemane Abbey 199 Church, Trappist, Kentucky, United States, Reordered 1968, Plan of the original liturgical ordering, and Plan of the liturgically reordered church. Adapted from G. Wolfe, The art of William Schickel, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1998, p. 62. cf. DeSanctis 1993, p. 42. 5:13 Prisco, Serena, Sturm Architects, Our Lady of Grace Church, 201 Greensburg, Pennsylvania, United States, 1999, Plan and photograph of the church interior. From M.E. DeSanctis, Building from belief: advance, retreat, and compromise in the remaking of Catholic church architecture, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2002, pp. 32-33. 5:14 Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete, Drawings 204 demonstrating preconciliar and postconciliar spatial dynamics. Adapted from M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 67. 5:15 Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete, typology 205 of fourteen liturgical orderings. Adapted from M.Bergamo & M.Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, pp. 74-77. 5:16 Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete, Plans of the central 206 octagonal liturgical ordering. Adapted from M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 76.

xxiii 5:17 Plans of churches having the distinctive Neocatechumenal 207 Way liturgical ordering, Mauro Codussi, Church of Santa Maria Formosa, Venice, Italy, (1492), Reordered c. 1990, Maurizio Bergamo, Plan. From M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite - Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 193, and Mattia Del Prete, Anna Gennarini, Massimo Marconi and Gabriella Diotallevi, Church of San Bartolomeo in Tuto, Scandicci, Florence, Italy, 1978 – 1982, Plan. From E. Pasotti, S. Borghese, Caal & Ikne, San Bartolomeo in Tuto: a parish for the third millenium [sic]. Church and crown of the mysteries, tr. K. McGarr, Parish San Bartolomeo in Tuto, Florence, 1998, p. 14. 5:18 Schematic plans of longitudinal or basilican and centralised 208 types of space. From J.F. White & S.J. White, Church architecture: building and renovating for , Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1998, pp. 15 -16. 5:19 Renato Bollati, Sergio Bollati, Giancarlo Cataldi, Enrico 211 Lavagnino & Guiseppe Lonetti, Plans and perspective drawings of types. From R. Bollati, S. Bollati, G. Cataldi, E. Lavagnino & G. Lonetti, ‘Il processo tipologico della chiese a Roma (250-1750)’, in Reconquering sacred space: the church in the city of the third millennium, eds.C. Rosponi, G. Rossi & D.G. Stroik, Il Bosco e la Nave, Rome, 2000, p. 186. 5:20 De Blacam & Meagher, Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, 212 Rowlah, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1983, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1985, p. 137, cf. Hurley 2001, pp. 55-56. 5:21 Churches having transverse plans, Don Henihan, Church 213 of the Incarnate, Fettercairn, Tallaght, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1983, Plan, and Scott Tallon Walker, St. Laurence O’Toole Church, Baldoyle, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1982, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 73 & p. 74. 5:22 Churches having circular plans, Liam McCormick, St Aengus 214 Church, Burt, Co. Donegal, Ireland, 1967, Plan, Tyndall Hogan Hurley, Church of the Apostles, Ballybrack, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1982, Plan, and O’Sullivan Campbell, Church of the Resurrection, Killarney, Co. Kerry, 1995, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 82, p. 83 & p. 90.

xxiv 5:23 Richard Hurley, National Institute for Pastoral Liturgy 215 Eucharist Room, Carlow, co. Carlow, Ireland, 1980, Plan and photograph. From R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 94 & p. 95. 5:24 Churches having an antiphonal layout, Kennedy 216 Fitzgerald, St Colman’s Church, Lambeg, Co. Antrim, Ireland, 1995, Plan, and Eamon Hedderman, Church of the Irish Martyrs at Naas, Co. Kildare, Ireland, 1997, Plan. From R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 97 & p. 99. 5:25 Plans of postconciliar Irish cruciform churches, 217 A. & D. Wejchert, Church of the Holy Trinity at Donaghmede, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1978, Plan, and De Blacam & Meagher, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church at Firhouse, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1979, Plan. From R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1985, p. 137, cf. Hurley 2001, p. 111 & p. 114. 5:26 Plans of churches used by Bess as examples of his typology, 220 Cola da Caprarola, Church of Santa Maria della Consolazione, Todi, Italy, 1508 – 1606, Sant’Apollinaire in Classe, Ravenna, Italy, 549 CE, Jan & Pieter Applemans, Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp, Belgium, 1352 – 1521, and Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Church of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale at Rome, Italy, 1568 – 1671. Adapted from P. Bess, Till we have built Jerusalem: architecture, urbanism, and culture, ISI Books, Wilmington, 2006, p.140, p. 141 & p.142. 5:27 Aldo van Eyck, Pastoor van Ars-kerk, The Hague, 224 , 1968-1969, Plan. From P. Post, Space for liturgy: between dynamic ideal and static reality, Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, Groningen & Liturgisch Instituut, Tilburg, 2003, p. 56.

xxv 5:28 Plans of churches named by Roberts as exemplifying his 229 typology of liturgical ordering, , Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chapel, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, circle type, and Karl Band, St Rochus Church, Türnich, Germany, square type. Adapted from N.W. Roberts, Building type basics for places of worship, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004, p. 42, Williamson Pounders, St Thomas More Church, Paducah, Kentucky, United States, U-shape type. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Architecture for the Gods, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 1999, p. 96, Rudolf Schwarz, Church of the , Oberhausen, Germany, antiphonal type, and ZGF, Church of Christ of Latter-day , Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, fan shape type. Adapted from N.W. Roberts, Building type basics for places of worship, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004, p. 42 & p. 43. 5:29 Rudolf Schwarz, St Michael’s Church, , 231 Germany, 1954, Plan used with Moran’s description of the processional type. From J. Moran, ‘Seating the Church in the church’, Liturgy news, 2005, vol. 39, no. 1,p. 7; cf. Kidder Smith 1964, p. 162, and Plan showing detailed liturgical ordering, including seating arrangement for the assembly in the nave and west transept and for the in the east transept. Adapted from R. Schwarz, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2007p. 208. 5:30 Plans of churches used to illustrate Moran’s radial, 233 antiphonal and central types, Hermann Baur, Bruderklausen Church, Basel, Switzerland, 1959, radial type, CENTRE: , Friary Chapel, Sainte Marie de la Tourette, Tourette, France, 1960, antiphonal type, and Gottfried Böhm, Church of St Albert, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1957, central type. From J. Moran, ‘Seating the Church in the church’, Liturgy news, 2005, vol. 39, no. 1, p.7, cf. Kidder Smith 1964, p. 102, p. 118 & p. 272. 5:31 Two preconciliar wedge-shaped churches designed by Isi 235 Metzstein and Andrew MacMillan of Gillespie, Kidd & Coia, St Paul’s Church, Glenrothes, , 1956 – 1958, Plan, and St Martin’s Church, Castlemilk, Glasgow, Scotland, 1957 - 1959, Plan. Adapted from R. Proctor, ‘Churches for a Changing Liturgy: Gillespie, Kidd & Coia and the ’, Architectural history, 2005, vol. 48, p. 307 & p. 309.

xxvi 5:32 Two wedge-shaped churches predating those designed 236 by Gillespie, Kidd & Coia, Michel Marot, Church of Saint- Agnès, Fontaine-Les-Grés, France, 1956, Plan. Adapted from Les monuments historiques en Champagne- Ardenne, ‘Fontaine-Les-Grés, Église Saint-Agnès’,2010, http://edifices-parcs-proteges-champagne-ardenne. culture.fr/fiches_mh/10_fontaine- les-gres_eglise.php, sourced 16 March 2011, and Joseph Dennis Murphy, St Anne’s Church, Normandy, Missouri, USA, 1952, Plan. Adapted from F.J. Sprenke and J.D. Murphy, ‘Three Churches in the Mid-West’, Liturgical arts, 1950, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 91, and ‘Saint Ann’s Church, Normandy, Missouri’, Liturgical arts, 1952, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 114. 5:33 Dennis Horbinski, St Elizabeth Seton Church, New 238 Berlin, Wisconsin, United States, 1998 – 1999, Photograph showing communitarian liturgical setting. Adapted from E.J. Potente and D.J. Zersen, Shaping worship space: how Christians shelter and adorn their , Concordia University Press, Texas, 2008, Plate 10. 5:34 Church plans exemplifying unified and partitioned 239 spaces, Peter Zumthor, Sogn Benedetg Chapel, Somvix, Switzerland, 1988, Plan. From W.J. Stock, European church architecture 1950-2000, tr. J. Marsh & E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich, 2002, p. 180, and Richard England, St Joseph’s Church, Manikata, , 1974, Plan. Adapted from R. Stegers, Sacred buildings: a design manual, tr. J. Reisenberger, Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel, 2008, p. 72. 5:35 Rudolf Stegers, Schematic plans of liturgical orderings 240 showing the development from axial to eccentric and radial to concentric. From R. Stegers, Sacred buildings: a design manual, tr. J. Reisenberger, Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel, 2008, p. 28. 5:36 Mary Patricia Storms and Paul Turner, Plans showing 241 liturgical ordering types. Adapted from M.P. Storms & P. Turner, Guide for ministers of liturgical environment, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 2009, p. 41. 5:37 Basilican type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. 245 Drawn by A. McCracken. 5:38 Cruciform type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. 247 Drawn by A. McCracken. 5:39 Centralised type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. 250 Drawn by A. McCracken. 5:40 Antiphonal type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. 253 Drawn by A. McCracken.

xxvii 5:41 U-arrayed type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. 255 Drawn by A. McCracken. 5.42 Fan-arrayed type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. 257 Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:1 Romaldo Giurgola, St Thomas Aquinas Church, 263 Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1989, Plan and sections, 2010. Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:2 Romaldo Giurgola, St Thomas Aquinas Church, 267 Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1989, Photograph showing angled assembly seating, 2010. Photograph by S. Hackett. 6:3 Romaldo Giurgola, St Thomas Aquinas Church, 269 Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1989, Photograph showing assembly seating; principal ; sanctuary with three zones: baptistery; Blessed Eucharistic chapel; and ambo, altar, and chair, 2010. Photograph by J. Walker. 6:4 Graeme Law, St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria, 277 Australia, (1908) Reordered 2006, Plan and sections, 2010. Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:5 Graeme Law, St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria, 279 Australia, (1908) Reordered 2006, Photograph showing interior towards sanctuary, 2010. Photograph by S. Hackett. 6:6 Graeme Law, St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria, 283 Australia, (1908) Reordered 2006, Photograph showing assembly seating, 2010. Photograph by S. Hackett. 6:7 Robert Maclurcan, Our Lady of Fatima Church, 293 Kingsgrove, New South Wales, Australia, 1970, Plan and sections, 2011. Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:8 Robert Maclurcan, Our Lady of Fatima Church, 297 Kingsgrove, New South Wales, Australia, 1970, Photograph showing interior, 2011. Photograph by H. Stephens. 6:9 Keith Cottier, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, 308 New South Wales, Australia, 1999, Plan and sections, 2011. Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:10 Keith Cottier, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, 311 New South Wales, Australia, 1999, Photograph showing tiered assembly seating, 2011. Photograph by H. Stephens. 6:11 Keith Cottier, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, 314 New South Wales, Australia, 1999, Photograph showing altar, ambo, chair, and rear-projection screens, 2011. Photograph by H. Stephens.

xxviii 6:12 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy 319 Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Plan and sections, 2011. Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:13 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy 322 Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Photograph showing curved assembly seating, baptismal font, altar and ambo, 2011. Photograph by S. Hackett. 6:14 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy 324 Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Photograph showing assembly seating, ambo and chair, and altar, 2011. Photograph by S. Hackett. 6:15 Gregory Burgess, Church of St Michael and St John, 331 Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 1987, Plan and sections, 2010. Drawn by A. McCracken. 6:16 Gregory Burgess, Church of St Michael and St John, 334 Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 1987, Photograph showing assembly seating around sanctuary, 2010. Photograph by N. Hackett. 6:17 Gregory Burgess, Church of St Michael and St John, 337 Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 1987, Photograph of sanctuary with ambo, altar and chair, 2010. Photograph by N. Hackett. 7:1 R. Kevin Seasoltz, Schematic drawing of ‘floor plan [of] 354 ancient ’. Adapted from R. Kevin Seasoltz, The house of God: sacred art and church architecture, Herder and Herder, New York, 1963, p. 143. 7:2 P. Arthur d’Orazio, Purification of the Blessed Virgin 357 Mary Church, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, USA, 1970 – 1971, Plan. Adapted from D. DeBlasio, P. A. d’Orazio and W. Schickel, ‘Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, Liturgical arts, 1972, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 70. 7:3 George Yu, St Cornelius Church, Chadd’s Ford, 358 Pennsylvania, USA, 1991, Plan. Adapted from T. Stehle, ‘St. Cornelius Parish: Building for the Future,’ Liturgy 90, 1993, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 6. 7:4 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy 359 Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Plan. Adapted from architectural drawing, Prism Studio, provided by R. Lindstrom, n.d.. 7:5 Peter Gardiner, Plan for a church designed in 362 accordance with Tom Elich’s relationships based process, unbuilt, ‘Churches back to front’, 2005. From T. Elich, ‘Churches Back to Front’, Liturgy news, 2005, vol. 35, no. 3, p. 10.

xxix CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION: LITURGY AND CHURCH DESIGN; THE QUEST FOR AN IDEAL ORDERING

Innovation in ‘liturgical ordering’1 - the designing of church interiors primarily for liturgical celebration - characterises church architecture for the Catholic tradition since the mid-twentieth century. Yet there is ample evidence that many churches designed or reordered during this period are inadequate for enacting the liturgical rites. Many commentators, among them liturgists and architects, concur. This thesis establishes a framework in which this problem can be studied. By evaluating the liturgical ordering found in contemporary churches the thesis seeks to determine if there is an ideal ordering which might serve as a model for church design today and into the future. The impetus for new and adapted liturgical ordering in church design stemmed from the twentieth century liturgical movement. This ecclesial initiative for liturgical renewal encouraged the active participation of all the baptised in celebrating the liturgy. The bishops of the Catholic Church, assembled in Rome in 1962 for the Second Vatican Council (hereafter referred to as ‘Vatican II’ or ‘the

1 ‘Liturgical ordering’ perhaps derives from ‘liturgical reordering’ which denotes the spatial rearrangement of existing church interiors to enhance their suitability for liturgical worship. The term ‘reordering’ is used by Cuthbert Johnson and Stephen Johnson in Planning for liturgy: liturgical and practical guidelines for the re-ordering of churches, published in 1983. It appears in commentary by Stephen Johnson in the Vatican publication Notitiae, in reference to ‘the re- ordering of a church’ (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, p. 356). The term ‘ordering’ is used by Albert Gerhards in the context of ‘the construction and ordering of liturgical space’ (Gerhards & Künzel 1995, p. 232). ‘Ordering’ is used by Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, with explicit reference to spatial arrangement for liturgical celebration in a chapter of The spirit of the liturgy (2000, p. 77) titled ‘The altar and the direction of liturgical prayer’. ‘Liturgical ordering’ is used by Nigel Yates (2001, p. 188) in an appendix to Buildings, faith, and worship: the liturgical arrangement of Anglican churches 1600-1900, ‘The liturgical ordering of churches …’ in which he refers to ‘plans of churches’ and the ‘record of liturgical arrangements’. ‘Liturgical ordering’ conveys that the spatial arrangement of churches is not primarily dependant upon architectural and historical conventions but that this foremost aspect of church design is consistent with the order inherent in the Church’s liturgy. As distinct from more general terminology, ‘liturgical ordering’ highlights that ‘the very nature of a church is defined by the liturgy …’ (Benedict XVI 2007a, §41). Notably each of these authors writes from what may be broadly identified as a liturgical standpoint. ‘Liturgical ordering’ may thus be understood as a developing term, becoming established in liturgical usage but not yet in the architectural lexicon.

1 Council’), affirmed this . As their first conciliar task the bishops initiated the reform and promotion of the liturgy2. When they came to treat of the architectural setting for the liturgy, the bishops enjoined: ‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican Council II: Constitution on the sacred liturgy, 1963, §124. Hereafter ‘Vatican II 1963, SC’). The implementation of this conciliar injunction, in particular its first- stated decree that great care be taken when churches are built to ensure their suitability for the celebration of liturgical services, establishes the context of this thesis. Its second-stated decree, that churches be built suitable for the active participation of the faithful is, in effect, presumed in the first. The bishops had already identified the ‘full, conscious, and active participation’ of the faithful in liturgical celebrations as the highest priority in reforming and promoting the liturgy (Vatican II 1963, SC §14). This principle would influence every aspect of the renewal process, particularly reform of the liturgical rites and the design of churches for the celebration of these rites. But whereas the reform of the liturgical rites was programmed and monitored, there was considerably less

2 In its original secular usage, ‘liturgy’ (leitourgía in Koine Greek, from érgon, ‘work’ of the laós, ‘people) referred to public projects undertaken on behalf of the community. Early Christian usage of leitourgía in the Letter to the Hebrews (8:2) referred to Jesus Christ as ‘a (leitourgòs) of the sanctuary’ (Madden 1990, p. 740). At first Christians used leitourgía to refer to acts of ministry and of worship. The former meaning lapsed and by the fourth century leitourgía was used solely with reference to the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy by the Eastern Church, while in the Western church it fell into disuse. Reclaimed in the eighteenth century, ‘liturgy’ was used with reference ‘to the entire cultic activity of the church’ (Madden 1990, p. 741). Its use by Vatican Council II, which did not define ‘liturgy’ but rather described it in a theologically and pastorally rich variety of ways, has ensured that ‘liturgy’, often prefixed by ‘sacred’, became the term normally used when speaking of the Church’s divine worship (‘Constitution on the sacred liturgy’, Sacrosanctum concilium 1963, §2 - §14). is always an act of the Church by an assembly comprised of diverse and hierarchically structured orders and ministries. Its fundamental purpose is participation in the paschal mystery by which Jesus Christ has brought to humankind. Liturgy is characterized by and a spirit of praise, thanksgiving and hope. It is ordered by virtue of tradition and is canonical, that is, governed by rule. The Church’s liturgy is vested in rite, not a single act of worship but a complex of liturgical services. Its ritual is rhythmic and repetitive, incorporating prayer, proclamation, declamation, dialogue, song, silence, gesture, posture, and ceremonial. It engages the whole person, spiritually, emotionally and bodily (Kavanagh 1982, pp. 10, 43-55; Madden 1990, pp. 740-741).

2 coordination and scrutiny of the reform of church architecture. Hence the problem addressed in this thesis.

The conciliar injunction: background and context

Church architecture and in particular the spatial arrangement of churches has always been influenced by the liturgy. As Chapter Three will demonstrate, historically the liturgy has been the foremost such influence. Liturgy has not, however, been the sole influence. Architectural, artistic, symbolic, theological, philosophical, ecclesial and political influences have all contributed to shaping not only the churches in which the liturgy is enacted, but the liturgy itself. By the early twentieth century a separation had arisen between the liturgy and church design. This separation was exemplified in 1934 when Joaquim Nabuco, a liturgical , wrote an open letter to church builders. In this letter Nabuco (1934, p. 16) described the difficulty of celebrating the liturgy in churches designed without the liturgy in mind, observing that, ‘Therefore, I have to accommodate ceremonies to bricks and stones, when bricks and stones should be laid in accordance with the necessities of the ritual.’ Developing this theme Nabuco (1934, p. 16) urged that, ‘Pope Celestine’s words: “Lex credendi legem statuit supplicandi” [“The law of faith establishes the law for prayer”] should also be put another way for architects: “Lex supplicandi statuit legem aedificandi.” [“The law of prayer establishes the law for building”].’ Prompted by the liturgical movement and the innovation in liturgical ordering it had inspired even before the Council, the bishops at Vatican II sought to address the separation between liturgy and church design. They did so in a single sentence, yet in words of considerable consequence. That single sentence, ‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §124), should be interpreted with at least two contexts in mind. The first and more general context is the style of Vatican II pronouncements. The Council adopted a pastoral

3 rather than juridical style so as to better reflect its purpose and its orientation to the global Catholic community and the world at large. This pastoral style also suited its leitmotiv of ressourcement, a return to the sources, and aggiornamento, an updating or modernizing (O’Malley 2008, p. 37). As John W. O’Malley (2008, p. 306) observes, The documents of the council, of course, contain provisions for the implementation of its decisions and are in detailing the hoped-for outcomes. The constitution On the Sacred Liturgy, for instance, lays down clear norms for liturgical revisions. But in general the final documents are more intent on winning inner assent to truths and values and on raising appreciation for them.

The second context is the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium itself, in particular the foundational liturgical principles it enunciates. Foremost among these, as already noted, is full, conscious and active participation. These foundational principles incorporate an , that is, a theology of the Church, which would be comprehensively developed in later conciliar pronouncements. As these foundational liturgical principles inform the argument of the thesis and later serve as evaluation criteria, they will be outlined in Chapter Two. The immediate context of the injunction is the seventh and final chapter of the constitution, concerning sacred art and furnishings. Its principles, particularly concerning noble beauty, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and the Church not favouring any particular style, have been received as applying to architecture as well as to the liturgical and sacred arts (Vatican II 1963, SC §122, §123 & §124; McNamara 2009, pp. 188 – 193; Vigorelli 1965, pp. 268-275). And while the constitution does not elaborate upon the injunction, it directs the revision of laws which govern the material things involved in the liturgy, including churches and their furnishings (Vatican II 1963, SC §128). An alternative interpretation of the background to the conciliar injunction is proposed by Duncan Stroik (2009, p. 80) who suggests that, Perhaps one reason little was said about the theology of church building in Sacrosanctum Concilium is that the Fathers [bishops] of Vatican II did not perceive it was in need of correction at the time (SC 124). To conceive of the

4 church first of all in theological terms - before getting into the requirements for the liturgy … - allows us to see the big picture.

This is a somewhat nescient assertion. In teaching that churches were to be built suitable for liturgical celebration the Fathers of Vatican II were applying ressourcement and aggiornamento to church architecture. By enjoining that the liturgy have primacy in church design the conciliar bishops were retrieving the Church’s original theology of church building. Any suggestion that the liturgy is extrinsic to the Church’s theology of church building neglects liturgical enactment as theologia prima, a primary theology existing in its own right (Fagerberg 2004, pp. 41-43, 66-69; Irwin 1994, pp. 44- 46; Kavanagh 1984, pp. 75-89, 146-150). Some of the Fathers of Vatican II had already glimpsed ways in which the design of churches could be updated. Prior to the Council a number of new and reordered churches inspired by the liturgical movement were clearly demonstrating that ordering churches for liturgical celebration fostered active participation. As Chapter Four will show, the liturgical movement impelled the building of churches primarily for liturgical celebration as early as thirty years before Vatican II. Following the devastation of World War II an increasing number of new and rebuilt churches incorporated unconventional liturgical ordering in their designs. Many bishops would have been aware of this. Their ministry took them to new, rebuilt and reordered churches. A number of these same bishops had, in accordance with Church law, consented to the building of new churches and the rebuilding of damaged churches which were designed for the liturgy. 1161 of the 1917 Code of , in force at the time, defined a ‘church’ as ‘a sacred building dedicated to divine worship, chiefly for the purpose that it may be made use of by all the faithful for public services’ (Augustine 1921, p. 12). Canon 1162 required that the consent of the ‘’, or bishop of a diocese, be obtained for the building of a church (Augustine 1921, p. 14). In 1947 the German Liturgical Commission had published ‘Directives for the Building of a Church’ which was informed by the principles of the liturgical

5 movement. It will be mentioned again in Chapter Four. In 1957 this document was reproduced in English translation in Documents for sacred architecture (Torgerson 2007, pp. 230-237). In that same year the Diocesan Liturgical Commission of , Wisconsin, in the United States, promulgated its own ‘Diocesan Church Building Directives’ (Torgerson 2007, pp. 238-246). These directives in German and English would have guided some bishops in the church design process and alerted others to the changes occurring in church architecture. Eight years before the Council opened, John Berthram O’Connell, a leading specialist in liturgical ceremonial and rubrics, had written Church building and furnishing: the church’s way: a study in liturgical law. This authoritative manual would have been familiar to a number of bishops. O’Connell’s description of contemporary aspects of church design indicates familiarity with churches built in new forms, modern styles and with new and adapted spatial arrangements (O’Connell 1955, p. 41). For example, O’Connell observed of the altar that it need not be placed at the apsidal end of the church building but ‘may be set in the centre of the church, so that the congregation may assemble all around it’ (O’Connell 1955, p. 152). O’Connell (1955, p. 154) also observed that while legal custom may determine the conventional place adopted by the priest celebrant at the altar, ‘There is no written law forbidding the celebration of facing the congregation, in fact provision is made for it in the rubrics … .’ He cited the relevant rubric and related canonical approbation to justify this assertion. Bishops who referenced O’Connell and similar authors would have been aware of the prevailing law regarding church design. The Fathers of Vatican II were aware of developments in church design, though some were perhaps less conversant with the liturgical theology informing these changes. They were also well aware of problems besetting the liturgy, including the prevailing separation between liturgy and church design. Had the bishops perceived a need to either reject the innovation already occurring or to

6 confirm the status quo of preconciliar church architecture they could have done so. Instead they endorsed the importance of building churches that were well suited to liturgical celebration and active participation.

The conciliar injunction and its reaffirmation

‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §124). This conciliar injunction was reaffirmed in subsequent conciliar teaching, in documents promulgated to implement the reform and promotion of the liturgy, in the postconciliar revision of Church law, in papal pronouncements, and in authorised commentary. These reiterations are given here in chronological : The house of prayer in which the Most Holy Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful gather and where the presence of the Son of God, our Saviour, offered for us on the altar of sacrifice bestows strength and blessings on the faithful, must be spotless and suitable for prayer and sacred functions. … (Vatican Council II 1965, Decree on the life and ministry of priests, Presbyterorum ordinis §5).

In the new construction, repair, or adaptation of churches great care shall be taken that they are suitable for the celebration of divine services according to the true nature of the services and for the active participation of the faithful (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, Instruction, Inter oecumenici §90).

Importance of the Arrangement of Churches for Well Ordered Celebrations: The church, the house of prayer, must be well cared for and suited to prayer and liturgy. There the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved and the faithful gather for worship. There the presence of the Son of God, our Saviour, offered on the altar of sacrifice for us, is treasured and revered as the aid and solace of the faithful (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §24).

The very nature of a church demands that it be suited to sacred celebrations, dignified, evincing a noble beauty, not mere costly display, and it should stand as a sign and symbol of heavenly realities. … (Sacred Congregation for the and Divine Worship, 1978, , Dedication of a Church and an Altar 1978, Chapter II, §3).

In the building and repair of churches, the principles and norms of the liturgy and of sacred art are to be observed, after the advice of experts has been taken into account (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 1216).

7 When painful decisions have to be made in the re-ordering of a church the ultimate criteria must be liturgical, and not majority vote or personal whim or fancy. A choice must be made with a view to the actual celebration of the liturgy, and not for the aesthetic appearance of an empty church (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, p. 357; cf. Notitae, Appendix Three, p. 399).

For the celebration of the Eucharist, the normally are gathered together in a church, or, if there is no church or if it is too small, then in another place that is nonetheless worthy of so great a mystery. Churches, therefore, and other places should be suitable for carrying out the sacred action and for ensuring the active participation of the faithful (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman [III], §288).

... Here it is important to remember that the purpose of sacred architecture is to offer the Church a fitting space for the celebration of the mysteries of faith, especially the Eucharist. The very nature of a Christian church is defined by the liturgy, which is an assembly of the faithful (ecclesia) who are the living stones of the Church (cf. 1 Pet 2:5) (Benedict XVI 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, §41).

Thus has the conciliar injunction establishing the primacy of the liturgy in determining church design been consistently taught since Vatican II. Yet being oft-repeated has been no guarantee of effective implementation.

Postconciliar implementation of the conciliar injunction

Implementation of the conciliar injunction brought about the widespread introduction in church design of innovations in liturgical ordering already used in preconciliar churches designed under the influence of the liturgical movement. The patterns and trends that emerged in the liturgical ordering of new and reordered churches following the Council are surveyed in Chapter Four. Some churches have proven to be well suited to liturgical celebration. Many have not. Various reasons have been proposed for postconciliar churches being less than well-suited for the liturgy. Some hold that the barren architectural vocabulary of this period is inspired by philosophical modernity which is antithetical to religion. They claim that churches designed with this architectural vocabulary have proven incapable of bearing the weight of Christian mystery revealed in the liturgy (Barron 2004, pp. 75-79; Mannion 2001, pp. 54-56, 66- 69;

8 Nichols 1996, pp. 88-90). Others hold that a church is simply a shelter and setting for the liturgical assembly and need not be anything more (Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy 1978, §42; Debuyst 1968, pp. 54-59; Kavanagh 1982, pp. 14-17). It is argued that churches designed according to this conviction have proven incapable of imaging the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection which is at the heart of the liturgy (Doorly 2007, pp. 59-62). Still others have argued for the sacral and symbolic character of a church, established by and expressed through traditional cosmic and and sacred art. This leads to the conclusion that churches lacking such sacral and symbolic character cannot be expected to embody the Catholic tradition of church architecture (Chifley n.d. pp. 25-27; Pieper 1991, pp. 92-102; Schloeder 1998, pp. 168-170; Schloeder 2003, pp. 322-323). While acknowledging these arguments, this thesis neither endorses nor refutes them, for the concern here is not with the architectural style, theological meaning or the sacrality and symbolism of a church. Rather the thesis looks to the problem that has arisen from church design not being adequately informed by the liturgy itself. In a commentary on the architectural setting for the celebration of the liturgy published in Notitiae, the official organ of the Roman curial which oversees and regulates the Church’s liturgy, Stephen Johnson identifies two core sources of this problem. Though he refers only to liturgical reordering, his observations are true of the liturgical ordering of new churches as well. Johnson (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, p. 358) writes: Very few of the inadequacies to be found in re-ordered churches are faults of construction or design, since the quality of the work is often very high. The fault lies in the neglect of the liturgical and theological principles which should direct the whole work of re-ordering.

His use here of ‘design’ clearly is intended to differentiate architectural design from liturgical design. Johnson elaborates on this point by reflecting upon the significance of a postconciliar sanctuary ordering: One of the more unfortunate arrangements is that which places the altar, ambo and chair in a straight line across the sanctuary. The altar is flanked by the ambo and chair, unfortunately this arrangement creates a still-life impression – visually there is no depth, and there is no movement. What physical movement

9 there is during the liturgy tends to be always from side to side, since there is no need to move forward or backward. When such arrangements limit or positively deter movement, there is a great loss both spiritually and psychologically. Liturgical actions have a meaning and are symbolic. A procession recalls the character of the Church as a pilgrim on the earth. Other movements and gestures manifest a spirit of worship, adoration, praise, docility, attentiveness, humility, joy and sorrow. There must be a space for movement and a place for expression (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, p. 358).

Here, then, is one source of the current problem: an absence from the design process of a well informed understanding of the conciliar principles of liturgical renewal. This source is characterised by inadequate knowledge of the rites, symbol system, and ceremonial of the liturgy (Crouan 2000, pp. 59-60). Indeed attention to ceremonial all but disappeared from liturgical consciousness and praxis in as the postconciliar reform of the liturgy unfolded. Perhaps this came about because ceremonial became confused with rigid rubricism. Only in more recent years has the ceremonial dimension of liturgical celebration been reclaimed more widely in the Church. Yet devoid of ceremonial, liturgical celebration is much reduced and some of the requirements of liturgical space are overlooked. Johnson then takes issue with decisions about the ordering of churches which ignore liturgical directives. He describes instances when clearly defined liturgical design principles have been bypassed and alternatives adopted, even though the provision of alternatives was intended only for instances where implementing directives is infeasible: It is not sufficient to argue that because the Church allows an alternative solution, then one has the right to adopt the alternative solution. The conditions must be present which require the alternative solution. The directives which the Church has given are not to be interpreted but implemented … (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, p. 359).

Here is a second source of the problem in postconciliar church design: ignorance of or disregard for liturgical law. This has given rise to a mindset that treats authoritative directives about the design of liturgical space and furnishings as general guidelines which are open to a wide interpretation. This situation has not arisen because the authoritative directives are inflexible; though ‘preceptive in nature’ liturgical law tends to be more exhortatory than prescriptive (Huels

10 1997, p. 126). Rather, this source of the problem is all to do with directives not being received as foundational in the church design process. A third source of the problem is architecture, which is mimetic (cf. McNamara 2009, pp. 195-209, 217; Rose 2004, pp. 109-113; Thomas 2002, pp. 9- 49). Moreover, variation among types of liturgical ordering is finite. The evolution of liturgical ordering in church design since the mid-twentieth century reveals that particular orderings have been used over and again. When new or adapted use of a particular ordering refines prior application, the ordering is developed and its inadequacies overcome. When use of an ordering simply repeats prior application, design inadequacies and even errors are also repeated.

Liturgical ordering as a research framework

Each type of postconciliar liturgical ordering represents an architectural interpretation of the conciliar injunction that churches are to be built suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the whole assembly. To understand the reception of this injunction, and the outcomes of its implementation, therefore requires examination of the distinct types of postconciliar liturgical ordering. These orderings are variously drawn from Christian antiquity, adapted from historical usage, or of more recent innovation. As Chapter Four will show, though there were precursors to these orderings, their widespread incorporation in church design following Vatican II constitutes a radical shift from the normative preconciliar ordering of Catholic churches. Liturgical ordering transcends other integrant parts of church design including architectural style, building shape and structure, and cultural, environmental and geographical elements. These must harmonise with and even serve liturgical ordering. Where this is not the case, the ordering or spatial arrangement of a church can hardly be said to be truly liturgical. As a constitutive part of the ‘ordo’ or traditional pattern of the Church’s worship, liturgical ordering establishes and symbolises relationships within a church (Verghese 2004, p. 144). These relationships exist between the place for

11 the gathered assembly3 and the places for those who minister in the assembly, the loci of liturgical action at altar, ambo, chair, and other places of honour, the dedicated places for celebrating sacramental rites such as baptism and , and the places provided for gathering, transition, and ancillary purposes. As the architectural expression of ‘ordo’, liturgical ordering is much more than the arrangement of furniture for liturgical celebration. As David Torevell (2000, p. 177) observes, The use of symbolic space and positionings also fulfil a vital function in liturgy and are never only for the ease of congregational participation … Primarily strategic, they add to the creative, mnemonic and symbolic dynamics which unfold during every celebration. … Each item or ‘thing’ within the space is held in symbolic harmony by the relationship between the different items … it is the positioning of one to the other, in appropriate arrangement which constitutes the ‘informed’ symbolic space.

This becomes evident, for example, in the multivalent meaning of the altar. Functionally it is a table upon which bread, wine and the are placed for the Eucharistic liturgy. Yet it also the preeminent architectural presence of Christ and a material figure of sacrifice, offering, thanksgiving, banquet, fellowship, priesthood, and sacramental presence. The positioning of the altar in relation to the assembly may convey gathering and/or destination, communion with God and/or communion among Christians. Similarly the configuration of the place for the assembly may enhance or hinder participation in liturgical celebration. Yet it may also convey pilgrimage, community, corporate action, and being opened or closed to the world. There are five reasons for adopting liturgical ordering as the framework for this thesis. The first, but by no means principal reason, derives from personal experience. That so few postconciliar churches seemed to serve the liturgy well led to an intuitive awareness of the significance of the layout of liturgical space. It became clear that the arrangement of the space within which the liturgy is

3 ‘Assembly’ may be used to refer to all who gather to celebrate the liturgy: congregation, choir, ordained ministers and others who exercise liturgical ministry (eg. Kavanagh 1982, pp. 12-13). ‘Assembly’ may also be used to refer to the congregation only (eg. Gibbons 2006, p. 62). Both usages occur in this thesis. In instances of either usage the context is clear. Other terms used to refer to the congregation – ‘congregation’ is rarely used – include ‘the faithful’, ‘gathered community of the faithful’, ‘the people’, and ‘the ’.

12 celebrated exerts a greater influence on liturgical celebration than is often acknowledged. This influence is experienced by those who gather to become the liturgical assembly, by those who lead and minister to the assembly, and in their participation in and enactment of the liturgical rites. As well, the liturgical ordering of a church can enhance or detract from the harmony and beauty of the church building and the way in which it is experienced by those who gather for liturgical celebration and who visit for personal prayer. A second and compelling reason for using liturgical ordering as the framework for this thesis is that liturgical ordering has received relatively little scholarly attention. The diverse range of contemporary orderings has not been studied and examined in any depth. This is to the detriment of the church design process and ultimately to liturgical celebration for which churches primarily are built. In contrast there already exists a substantial body of research treating of other areas of church design. These areas include the history and evolution of church architecture, the foundations of church architecture in cosmology, symbolism and sacred geometry, the relationship between church architecture and the sacred and liturgical arts, the contribution of the twentieth century liturgical movement, and particular features such as the altar, baptistery or presidential chair. When determining the liturgical ordering of a church, architects and their Church clients are without a body of research data to which they might refer. It appears to be the exception when solid preliminary research into the spatial needs of the liturgical rites is undertaken in formulating the design brief for a church project. More often recourse has been had to a general notion of liturgical requirements, or to a predetermined notion of what a church should be like, or to an already existing layout that is deemed suitable. Discourse about liturgical ordering tends to be descriptive or given to articulating the merits of a preferred ordering. Meanwhile much of the commentary about architectural style, layout of liturgical space, the sacred and liturgical arts, and the outward appearance of churches tends to be ideological

13 and polemical. Such discourse wants for a stronger grasp of the conciliar injunction and the subsequent Church pronouncements regarding its implementation. The third reason for adopting liturgical ordering as the framework for this thesis is the impact of new and adapted orderings upon church design and liturgical celebration. Churches designed using a modern architectural vocabulary, novel structural shapes, and sparse interiors, and churches which do not visually identify as such, have impacted upon the way a church is experienced and upon liturgical celebration. Yet though it cannot be definitively proven, it may be reasonably assumed that postconciliar liturgical ordering has had a consistently greater impact. The impact of liturgical ordering is evident in the variety of spatial arrangements designed for the active participation of the gathered assembly in the liturgy. This impact can be seen in the restored emphasis on the places for the proclamation and preaching of the Scriptures. It is seen in the positioning of the altar to be freestanding, nearer the assembly, and separated in some way from the tabernacle of Eucharistic reservation. It is evident in the function of and symbolism accorded the presidential chair, in the places designated for music ministry during liturgical celebrations. It is reflected in the place of liturgical prayer and worship having precedence over places of devotion. It is evident in efforts to identify the best place for the baptismal font, to give prominence to the sacramental oils, and in rethinking of the place for reconciliation as a chapel rather than a confessional. Other architectural elements, like those mentioned above, apply more often to new than to existing churches. Yet liturgical ordering and reordering informs the design of new and older churches alike. The fourth reason for adopting liturgical ordering as the framework for this thesis derives from the liturgical, ecclesial and papal pronouncements and documents already cited. The primacy of the liturgy in the design of new and reordered churches must be realised first and foremost in the ordering of churches. This is not to imply that architectural style, construction materials,

14 iconographic programs, and the contribution to church design made by culture, environment, and location are unimportant. In conjunction with liturgical ordering these elements contribute to creating an integrated whole. However, liturgical ordering should inform the way these other elements are included in church design, rather than be determined by them. Even less should a preconceived idea of a church hold sway. This is made clear by Johnson (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, p. 358) with reference to determining the place of the altar: An altar should not be placed in a given position simply because it looks good there, or that the lines of the church demand that it should be there. The decision must be made on theological and liturgical grounds; and once this has been done, every effort must be made to ensure that the result is architecturally and aesthetically satisfying and fitting.

Johnson’s use of ‘theological’ here, as in the initial quotation from his commentary, refers to theological principles which are consistent with and often originate from the Catholic liturgical tradition. He notes some of these principles in Notitiae: The church’s symbolic function, and its sacramental character as a visible sign of the presence of God’s saving mercy, must be understood. A church must manifest something of the virtues of Christian life: is it a sign of humble service, or of triumphalism and power, a sign of poverty or wealth? Emphasis is often laid upon the need for simplicity in church design, but simplicity should not be equated with starkness. True simplicity is beautiful, it reflects the quality of single-heartedness and gives priority to the worship of God. … There can be very little for the total exclusion of decoration in a church. The form of decoration is subject to scrutiny, change or modification; but the principle is unchangeable – beauty and truth are inseparable (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson 1986, pp. 356-357).

Principles such as these, together with those which inform the ordering of liturgical space, constitute Johnson’s ‘theological and liturgical grounds.’ The fifth reason for adopting liturgical ordering as the framework for this thesis looks to the evolution of liturgical ordering. Chapter Three will briefly trace this evolution through five epochs. It will show that radical reorientation in liturgical ordering has occurred in the third and fifth epochs. During the third epoch, which culminated in the high middle ages, there evolved an effective separation between the assembly and the celebration of liturgical rites. During

15 the fifth epoch, which began in the twentieth century and continues in the present day, the participation of the assembly in liturgical celebration has been restored. This thesis engages with this ongoing evolution from the perspective of liturgical ordering.

A quest for the ideal ordering

Widespread innovation in liturgical ordering in response to the conciliar injunction may be read as constituting a quest for the ideal or preferred postconciliar ordering. This is not to suggest that every church project since the Council has proceeded with this in mind. As already acknowledged, architecture is mimetic and new designs are not always original. Yet since Vatican II there have been numerous church designs which have incorporated an ordering in a way that has considerably refined earlier similar layouts or developed a markedly new variant thereof. The best of such designs reflect heightened awareness of functional and symbolic liturgical requirements as well as notable architectural skill. Each of these designs, at least implicitly, represents a search for a liturgical ordering which will be more suitable than any other ‘for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’. So the thesis sets out to determine if there is an ideal liturgical ordering among the many that have emerged since the Council. The Church would do well to give preference to an ideal ordering as a model to inspire future church design.

The Australian experience and contribution

Changes in liturgical ordering in Australian church design only began to occur in the years just prior to Vatican II. This perhaps reflects Australia’s relative isolation in the early to mid-twentieth century and its very limited engagement with the liturgical movement. New and adapted orderings were already well established, even if not widely so, in Germany, France, England and the United States by the immediate preconciliar years. Some innovative design for Australian churches occurred around the time of the Council. In the decades that

16 followed many new churches were built and existing churches reordered. Few of these churches stand out for their architecture and even fewer for their liturgical ordering. Yet there are Australian churches which have contributed to the development of postconciliar liturgical ordering. Most of these churches have been built since Vatican II though some are older churches in which reordering has been undertaken to new designs. The thesis identifies the particular contribution made by the liturgical ordering of selected Australian churches, each one representative of an ordering that has been used in the design of a number of churches here as well as overseas. These contributions have potential for future application locally and beyond Australia’s shores. They reveal architectural and liturgical insight into the complexity of contemporary church design. They demonstrate design solutions for resolving the various limitations inherent in the general conception of every liturgical ordering. They are a reminder of what becomes possible when those involved in the design process are well-informed about the liturgy and architecture serves the liturgical setting.

The investigation of liturgical ordering

While the focus of this thesis is postconciliar liturgical ordering, the developments that have occurred since Vatican II reflect a longer evolution. This evolution suggests two conclusions which are accepted for the purposes of the thesis. The first is that liturgical ordering will continue to evolve because it does not exist of itself but always in response to the liturgy. Though the essence of the liturgy remains unchanging, liturgical rites and praxis are continually, albeit slowly, evolving. This much is evident even in the years since the Council. Therefore the quest for an ideal liturgical ordering will be always conditional and subject to further change. The second conclusion is that liturgical ordering has degrees of specificity. It can be treated of in a general conceptual way. This approach identifies patterns of spatial arrangement by which similar plans can be named and unified as types. It can also be treated of with reference to the detail

17 of relationships between persons and places within a particular plan, for liturgical ordering orders the assembly and its ministers by first ordering their places and the liturgical foci within a church. In its investigation of liturgical ordering, the thesis unfolds from the general to the specific. A comprehensive history of liturgical ordering is yet to be written, though such an account might be compiled from a number of sources. Preparing such an historical account is beyond the scope of the thesis. So it suffices here that the evolution of liturgical ordering is concisely outlined in five historical epochs. These epochs highlight historical transitions in liturgical ordering and set out the reasons for the evolution from one ordering to the next. Chapter Three traces this evolution from the earliest records of liturgical ordering to the mid- twentieth century. In doing so the chapter clearly identifies the first instance of significant change. It also shows the evolutionary nature of liturgical ordering due to which there can never be a perfect alignment between liturgy and church design. The end of this outline of the evolution of liturgical ordering in the mid- twentieth century, and the conclusions arising from it, serve as the point of departure from which the thesis proceeds. The theoretical foundations of twentieth century innovation in liturgical ordering, stemming from the liturgical movement, are identified in Chapter Four. In tandem with this, the chapter also traces the preconciliar emergence of new and adapted orderings. Chapter Four then surveys the response to the conciliar injunction as realized in the widespread incorporation of new and adapted orderings in church design. Many of these feature in the preconciliar evolution of liturgical ordering, either built or at least conceptually. In this postconciliar second section of the chapter types are introduced as a construct for describing orderings which share a similar plan. This chapter also outlines particular developments in postconciliar church architecture which have bearing on liturgical ordering. The use of types is common in architectural research and commentary. Types provide an organised construct for referring to buildings or settings having

18 similar style, or form, or function, or layout, as well as conceptual standpoints from which research can proceed. Most of the discourse about postconciliar liturgical ordering makes use of types, explicitly and implicitly, to describe and evaluate various orderings. Chapter Five describes and evaluates typologies of liturgical ordering as these have emerged since Vatican II, including in Australia. Looking to the various orderings that have been applied in church design here, the chapter then describes six types of ordering that are representative of the Australian context, namely: the basilican ordering, which may also be referred to as longitudinal, hall, axial, or processional; the cruciform ordering, which may also be referred to as cross-arrayed or transverse; the centralised ordering, which may also be referred to as central or circular; the antiphonal ordering, which may also be referred to as monastic, choral or ambi-axial; the U-arrayed ordering, which may also be referred to as horseshoe; and the fan-arrayed ordering, which may also be referred to as semicircular, radial or amphitheatre. These six types may be considered as forming an Australian typology of liturgical ordering. In Chapter Six case studies are made of six churches, one representative of each type. The case studies allow for a detailed examination of each type as instanced in the particular churches. These churches exemplify in some way a refinement or significant variant of each type of ordering and a resolution of its presenting limitations. The churches are: St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood for the basilican ordering; St Joseph’s Church at Malvern for the cruciform ordering; Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove for the centralised ordering; Our Lady of Fatima Church at Caringbah for the antiphonal ordering; St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy for the U-arrayed ordering; and the Church of St Michael and St John at Horsham for the fan-arrayed ordering. The conclusion to the thesis in Chapter Seven situates the present status of liturgical ordering in church design. It addresses the question of an ideal ordering. Lastly it suggests directions for further research. Before proceeding to this investigation of liturgical ordering, it is necessary to first identify and explain the methods that have been used in researching this thesis.

19 CHAPTER TWO

RESEARCH METHOD

This thesis has its genesis in personal experience and observation of Catholic churches as buildings suitable for the celebration of the liturgy. Over a number of years this experience and observation has included regular ministerial participation in liturgical celebration in sixteen churches and built or reordered in the second half of the twentieth century. More significantly it has also included involvement in the consultation and design process for the reordering of ten churches and chapels, some of which projects are ongoing. As well, structured observation of a number of churches designed for liturgical celebration has been made in Australia, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. These churches are listed in Appendix One.

Approach to research

To undertake research focused upon the interaction of two disciplines – architecture and liturgy – multiple methods were employed. This reflects the integrative approach to research described by Linda Groat (2002, p. 361) whereby ‘multiple methods from diverse traditions are incorporated in one study.’ In determining which research methods would be used and how these would relate to each other, two fundamental sources of research data were identified. The first of these sources are bodies of literature which inform the progression of the thesis through its four key chapters. These bodies of literature include texts and illustrations. The second of the sources are an Australian typology of liturgical ordering and churches representative of this typology which inform the latter chapters of the thesis. The research method used to identify the bodies of literature was content analysis, as described by Klaus Krippendorff (2004). It was used throughout the thesis. This method applies the research framework according to

20 a progression of purposes. It may be considered as a first ‘band’ in the approach taken to research. The subsequent interpretation and application of the content of the bodies of literature applied interpretive-historical research (Wang 2002a, pp. 135-171), logical argumentation (Wang 2002b, pp. 301-340) and case studies (Groat 2002, pp. 341-380). These strategies were sequenced in conceptually linked phases so that each led into the next. They may be considered as a second ‘band’ in the approach taken to research (Groat 2002, pp. 362-365). Operating in the background were the functional specialities of research, interpretation, history, and communications as described by Bernard Lonergan (1973, pp. 125- 145, 149-196, 355-368). While rarely to the fore in the research process, these interdependent functional specialities at times interacted with the nominated research strategies. In setting out the approach to research it was recognised that blending the methods of the first and second ‘’ to the extent possible was preferable to the methods being applied in parallel.

Identifying the bodies of literature

With liturgical ordering as the framework, the prescriptive and analytic purposes of content analysis were applied to database and catalogue searches, as well as to bibliographies and indexes in a number of identified monographs, essays and theses (Krippendorff 2004, p. 29). As the term ‘liturgical ordering’ is not widely used, words and terms that might infer liturgical ordering were included in preliminary content analysis sampling (Krippendorff 2004, p. 31). Sampling by single words and the few known established terms yielded content of varied meaning relative to liturgical ordering (cf. Krippendorff 2004, p. 24). Sampling by combinations of words resulted in identification of relatively few texts (Krippendorff 2004, p. 119). Appendix Two lists the key words, authors, serials, databases, and libraries and archives searched in the content analysis process. The database, catalogue, bibliography and index searches did not identify all of the resources that constitute the bodies of literature. Rather, it proved

21 necessary to manually search sections of libraries related to liturgy and architecture, and to similarly go through entire collections of some serials. While indexes in books sometimes led to relevant content, it often became necessary to peruse books in which there was some indication of content concerning liturgical ordering. The task of identifying bodies of literature for the thesis has been aided by personal interest in the relationship between liturgy and architecture. This interest, extending over many years, has led to the acquisition of books and essays which proved relevant in the task of content analysis. Though unplanned, this collection of resources has served the thesis well. Having sustained personal interest and revealed new horizons in the architecture of liturgy, it has now provided relevant data. The majority of works consulted were books and journal essays. A number of theses related to church architecture were reviewed, though relatively few made relevant reference to the layout and reordering of churches. Online searches identified a considerable list of items regarding church architecture. Much of it was commentary rather than researched data. And much of it was ideological and polemical, being part of the current debate concerning the nature and tradition of Catholic church architecture. This thesis is unconcerned with this debate, except where it impinges upon discourse about liturgical ordering. For the most part the studies that have been identified are in English or English translation, though reference has been made to selected publications in Spanish, Italian, German and French. Inclusion of the latter both augments and validates what has been written in English regarding the liturgical ordering of churches. This process identified content that may be conceptualized as four bodies of literature relevant to this thesis. These are: studies that inform the history and development of liturgical ordering in churches; architectural and liturgical studies that propose typologies of liturgical ordering; commentary about liturgical ordering or particular orderings; and the official liturgical, ecclesial and papal

22 documents and ritual books of the Catholic Church together with commentaries about them. The last-named of these bodies of literature, consisting of authoritative Church pronouncements regarding the liturgy and its architectural setting, is extensive. It includes constitutions and decrees promulgated by Vatican Council II, particularly the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, instructions concerning the implementation of this constitution, encyclicals and apostolic letters and exhortations from the , instructions and decrees from the , particularly the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments1, information published by this congregation in Notitiae, the of the Catholic Church, the Code of canon law, the instructions and introductions to the liturgical rites, and the liturgical rites. These various pronouncements, all originating from the Vatican, may be considered as constituting a first tier of Church pronouncements. Where possible, the authorised English translation of these pronouncements has been sourced from the Vatican website2. Else translations come from another Church source. Other sources were referenced only when authorised translations were unavailable. A second tier of Church pronouncements exists in directories or guidelines for church architecture that have been issued with the authority of national conferences of bishops. Such a directory is presently in preparation for the Church in Australia. A third tier of pronouncement may be identified in dioceses where the bishop has promulgated a directory or guidelines for church architecture particular to the local Church.

1 John M. Huels (2000, p. 125) identifies the predecessors of this congregation as being: ‘Until 7 May 1969, the Sacred Congregation for Rites; the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship until 10 July 1975; the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, until 4 April 1984; and the Congregation for Divine Worship, until 28 February 1989. As of 27 November 1983, the modifier “Sacred” was dropped from the names of congregations.’

2 The English translation of Church pronouncements on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va) has also been used to establish consistent spelling and capitalisation; the exception is quotations, which retain their original spelling. For example: ‘preconciliar’ is used to refer to the period prior to Vatican II and ‘postconciliar’ to the period since Vatican II; or when naming the sacraments of the Church, most are not capitalised (‘baptism’, ‘’), though ‘Eucharist’ is capitalised.

23 Though authoritative, these Church pronouncements do not all bear the same weight. Appendix Three outlines the status of different classes of Church pronouncement. It provides excerpts from the first tier of pronouncements identified above as pertain to the design and liturgical ordering of Catholic churches. These excerpts have been arranged under headings determined by foundational liturgical principles, architectural-liturgical foci and particular aspects of church design. Appendix Three then lists second tier English language directories and guidelines from the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada and the Philippines. It provides in table form a comparison of the contents of these national directories. Lastly, it lists a selection of diocesan documents on church architecture, some of which can be accessed online.

Identifying evaluation criteria

The injunction of the bishops at Vatican II constitutes the primary criterion for evaluating the liturgical ordering of churches in the postconciliar era: ‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §124). Yet this injunction does not stand alone but contains a number of liturgical principles which have been foundational in the reform and promotion of the liturgy. Indeed, as has been noted, the first imperative concerning church buildings effectively incorporates the second. This imperative reiterates the conciliar teaching that full, conscious and active participation by the faithful in the liturgy is the priority to be considered above all else. As the primary criterion for evaluating liturgical ordering, the conciliar injunction required elaboration to realise the methodological purpose of content analysis, namely ‘to point to performance criteria and precautionary standards’ that can be applied in the ongoing evaluation process (Krippendorff 2004, p. 29). Two elaborations of this purpose were inferred. The first consisted of the foundational liturgical principles which inform the conciliar injunction. These are

24 set out in the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, though some are better described in later Church documents. The operation of the foundational liturgical principles as criteria for evaluating liturgical ordering was general. It could be applied to conceptualizations of liturgical ordering, such as in sets of types, as well as to observation of churches as was undertaken in case studies. Even in this latter instance observation was interpretive rather than empirical. The second elaboration consisted of liturgical directives given in the instructions and rubrics of the Church’s ritual and ceremonial books. These directives may be considered as enacting the aforementioned principles in liturgical celebration. The operation of liturgical directives and rubrics as criteria for evaluating liturgical ordering was more specific. It required extrapolation from liturgical enactment to liturgical space. Its application was suited to case studies in which the detail of a particular liturgical ordering, as distinct from the type to which an ordering might belong, could be evaluated. The two elaborations, from foundational liturgical principles and liturgical enactment directives and rubrics, are outlined below. Foundational liturgical principles and liturgical enactment directives are both represented among the excerpts of documents collected in Appendix Three. A comprehensive sampling of liturgical directives and rubrics is summarised in Appendix Four. The documents excerpted in Appendix Three and those containing the directives and rubrics summarised in Appendix Four have been referenced by source. These sources include Vatican II, recent popes, and of the Roman curia. The foundational liturgical principles were readily identified in the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium. It sets forth the magisterial tradition of the Catholic Church regarding the nature and purpose of its liturgy: For the liturgy, “through which the work of our is accomplished,” most of all in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, is the outstanding means by which the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church (Vatican II 1963, SC §2).

25 These two entities, Christ and the Church, are foundational for understanding the liturgy (Vincie 2009, p. 15). The constitution enunciates a theology of Christ and of salvation through his paschal mystery, that is, by participation in his death and resurrection (Vatican II 1963, SC §5 and §6). The constitution also enunciates an ecclesiology which perpetuates the celebration of the paschal mystery, most especially through baptism and the Eucharist, and which perpetuates Christ’s mission by announcing him to the world (Vatican II 1963, SC §5 and §9). The constitution sets out the ways in which Christ, who is always present in his Church, is especially present in the liturgy: in the person of the ordained minister; in the Eucharistic species, that is in the bread and wine which the Church believes and teaches sacramentally become Christ’s body and blood; in the other sacraments; in the word, that is in the proclamation of the Scriptures; and in the Church, that is in the gathered assembly (Vatican II 1963, SC §7). The general instruction of the sequences these modalities of the presence of Christ: ‘Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §27). This manifold presence Christ is described by Everett A. Diederich (1978, pp. 330) as being ‘gradually made clear in the celebration of the Mass’ [his emphasis]. Christ’s presence ‘unfolds’ during the liturgy. His presence is experienced first in the assembly gathering and entering the liturgy through the introductory rites, then in the person of the priest who directs the prayer of the assembly and draws the attention of the people to the mystery of Christ’s presence in their midst, then in the proclamation of God’s word, and sacramentally in the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice at the altar (Diederich 1978, pp. 326, 330-342). The general instruction of the Roman missal further states that the altar on which the Eucharistic liturgy is celebrated ‘signifies Christ Jesus’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

26 2007, §298). This constitutes another mode of Christ’s presence, having a long history in the Catholic tradition. It is an architectural mode, as is explained in the Rite of Dedication of a Church and Altar of the Roman pontifical (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, Chapter 4, §4): At the altar the of the Lord is celebrated and his body and blood given to the people. Therefore the Church’s writers have seen in the altar a sign of Christ himself. This is the basis for the saying: “The altar is Christ”.

The teaching regarding the presence of Christ in the assembly, the gathered Church, has sometimes become contentious when the primacy of the assembly has been misunderstood as referring not to the initial experience of Christ’s ‘unfolding’ presence in the liturgy but to the assembly asserting primacy over Christ (McNamara 2009, p. 203). Yet as Judith M. Kubicki (2006, p. 45) explains, the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium ‘strongly affirms that the sacramental church is most completely expressed in the liturgical assembly’ when it states that the liturgy of its essence ‘is the outstanding means by which the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church. …’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §2). Pope John Paul II confirmed this Conciliar teaching in his apostolic letter, Dies Domini (John Paul II 1998, §31), reminding the Church that the ‘assembly [is] called together by the Risen Lord’ and so called, the assembly expresses ‘fully the very identity of the Church.’ This point is plainly stated by Kevin R. Irwin (2005, p. 70): ‘The liturgical assembly is not of our making. … Recall the words of the third eucharistic prayer [addressed to God the Father]: “From age to age you gather a people to yourself …” and “hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you”.’ Thus the liturgical assembly is never a community unto itself, but it called into being by God in Christ. Christ’s manifold presence, especially in the Eucharistic liturgy but also in baptism and the other sacraments, has implications for church design. In view of this the case studies undertaken in Chapter Six evaluated how the presence of

27 Christ is honoured and manifested in the design of each church, particularly in its liturgical ordering and its furnishings. The integral relationship of Christ and the Church in the liturgy is further revealed in its celebration. The Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium further teaches, in light of the modalities of Christ’s liturgical presence: Christ indeed always associates the Church with himself in this great work [the liturgy] wherein God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified. … Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the head and its members. (Vatican II 1963, SC §7).

Cyprian Vagaggini (1965, p. 67) explains that the presence of Christ in the liturgy ‘is so great that in these celebrations the action of the Church appears as an action of Christ himself in the Church and through the Church which he associates with himself …’. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, §1136) teaches even more explicitly that, ‘Liturgy is an "action" of the whole Christ (Christus totus). Those who even now celebrate it without signs are already in the heavenly liturgy, where celebration is wholly communion and feast.’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, §1140) goes on to teach that, ‘It is the whole community, the united with its Head, that celebrates ... ‘. Here the ecclesiology of St Paul, which would be taken up by Pope Pius XII, is evoked, of Christ as the ‘Head’ of his ‘Body’ which is the Church (Colossians 1:18; Kubicki 2006, p.49). The ‘Body’ refers not only to a particular liturgical assembly gathered in place and in time, but to ‘the Church of our ancestors and saints in heaven, united with all the Church on earth’ (Elich 2005, p. 10). A liturgical assembly celebrates the liturgy not just of and for itself, but as and for the ‘whole Christ’. Those who constitute a liturgical assembly participate in the liturgy not individually but united with Christ and each other. Indeed, Albert Rouet (1997, p. 47) asserts that so central to the liturgical celebration is Christ’s exercise of his priestly ministry and so totally is the liturgy his action that ‘the liturgy does not name any other actor than Christ’. Therefore the case studies in Chapter Six evaluated how the design and liturgical ordering of each church

28 provides a setting in which ‘signs perceptible to the senses’ are experienced and understood, how the sense of the ‘whole Christ’ represented by the assembly might be conveyed, and how the action of Christ in liturgical celebration is revealed. The Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium (Vatican II 1963, SC §14) turns next to the Council’s primary aim in the renewal of the liturgy and the second imperative of the conciliar injunction being considered here, namely actuosa participatio: earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation3 in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit ...

The reference to full, conscious and active participation effectively became a refrain in the constitution and in postconciliar liturgical documents, being frequently mentioned. Without fully explicating the meaning of full, conscious and active participation, the constitution did go on to state: It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private (Vatican II 1963, SC §27).

Accordingly, the constitution taught that: To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, , and songs, as well

3 In the authoritative translation from into English on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va) the text of §14 reads: ‘Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations …’ [my emphasis]. There is an error in this translation. The original Latin text, available at the same website, reads: ‘… ad plenam illam, consciam atque actuosam liturgicarum celebrationum participationem …’. Here in the original conciliar text, ‘plenam’, ‘consciam’, and ‘actuosam’ are all adjectives, qualifying the noun ‘participationem’. Therefore the correct translation must read: ‘… full, conscious, and active participation … ’. This translation is consistent with that provided in the commentary on the Constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, edited by Bugnini and Braga (1965, p. 7), which is in every other way identical with the English translation on the Vatican website. On this basis is the translation ‘… full, conscious, and active participation …’ used throughout this thesis.

29 as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the times all should observe a reverent silence. (Vatican II 1963, SC §30).

The constitution reinforced the importance of full, conscious and active participation by restating it with the imperative concerning the building of churches. As already acknowledged, the reformed liturgical services for which churches are to be suitably built presume full, conscious and active participation. Therefore the case studies of the sixth chapter evaluated how the design and liturgical ordering of each church fosters full, conscious, and active participation in the liturgy. As has been noted, the liturgy carries and communicates aspects of ecclesiology, the theology of the Church. In presenting norms drawn from the hierarchic and communal nature of the liturgy, the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium is concerned to uphold and express the unity of the Church while simultaneously honouring the hierarchical ordering of the Church community. The constitution refers to ‘differing rank, office’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §26), ‘servers, , commentators, and members of the choir’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §29), and ‘distinctions between persons according to their liturgical function and sacred orders’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §29). At the same time it insists that apart for distinctions for which specific provision is made, ‘no special honors are to be paid to any private persons or classes of persons’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §29), because above all else liturgical celebrations are public actions of the whole Church, ‘which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §26). The general instruction of the Roman missal (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §294) provides a clear and succinct application of these norms: The people of God, gathered for Mass, has a coherent and hierarchical structure, which finds expression in the variety of ministries and the variety of actions according to the different parts of the celebration. The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of all the participants, as well as facilitating them in the proper carrying out of their function. ... All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical

30 structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people.

The case studies in Chapter Six evaluate how the general ordering of each church in some way conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of all the participants, as well as facilitating them in the proper carrying out of their function. It further evaluated how each church building in its design and liturgical ordering reveals the Church’s hierarchical structure and how its spatial arrangement not only images but fosters unity among the members of the assembly. While evaluation using these criteria drawn from foundational liturgical principles primarily applied to the churches selected for case study, the tenor of these principles informed the whole thesis and will be recognised in commentary throughout. Outcomes deriving from these evaluation criteria were expressed as argument, description and conclusion. In the evaluation process interpretation was based on both observation and value judgment (cf. Lonergan 1973, pp. 247- 248). Drawings and photographs have been included to illustrate the evaluation process, particularly in the case studies. Evaluation using criteria drawn from liturgical enactment provided for more precise interpretation of liturgical ordering. These liturgical enactment criteria were applied to the selected case study churches. The liturgical rites for the celebration of Eucharist, baptism, confirmation, funerals, and, to a lesser extent, of , the of the sick, and religious profession, all have particular spatial requirements. As do rites particular to the Church’s requiring provision in the liturgical ordering of churches, particularly the Triduum of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, Celebration of the Lord’s Passion and Vigil. While these requirements are generally expressed in terms of relationships and requisites rather than measurements and dimensions, it was nevertheless possible to design a set of five liturgical enactment criteria which enabled evaluation. The variables and relationships which informed this design and the liturgical directives and rubrics from which the five criteria were derived are summarised in Appendix Four.

31 The liturgical enactment criteria were extrapolated from the requirements of the liturgical rites to describe spaces needed for celebration of the rites. The criteria are: • Entry space - at the doors or entrance to the church; • Processional space – from the doors or entrance through the midst of the assembly and into the sanctuary; • Ritual space - at the front or centre of the place for the assembly and/or within the sanctuary; • Assembly and music ministry spaces4 – the places for the assembled faithful, customarily called the nave, and the related place for the ministry of singers and musicians, customarily called the choir. • Sanctuary space – where the altar, ambo and chair for the priest celebrant are placed. Though empirical, evaluation using these criteria relied upon observation rather than measurement, as there are too many variables in liturgical enactment and church design for standard measurements to be determined.

Devising a typology

‘Type’ and ‘typology’ have acquired a range of meanings in architectural research and scholarship, from ‘class and category’ to ‘a more inclusive idea linking function to form’ and suggesting ‘a method or overall philosophy’ (Francescato 1994, pp. 254-255). Thus type ‘commonly refers to a kind, class, or category of people or things that have some characteristics in common’

4 ‘Assembly and music ministry spaces’ refers to places in a church traditionally called the nave and choir. There are two reasons for adopting this new term of reference. Firstly, in the spatial disposition of some types of postconciliar liturgical ordering, distinctions between sanctuary, nave, choir and baptistery no longer exist as clearly as in the past, or these spaces are in some way integrated, or multiple spaces are used to accommodate the congregation. ‘Assembly space’ thus has broader reference than ‘nave’, the latter being used only to refer to a traditional nave. Secondly, postconciliar Church documents associate the congregation and the choir, implying a clear relationship if not necessarily a spatial unity between them. ‘Assembly and music ministry spaces’ acknowledges this relationship between the assembled faithful and those who exercise ministry. ‘Choir’ is used only to refer to the traditional place of the choir as found in preconciliar churches.

32 (Lawrence 1994, p. 271). Typology, ‘though strictly speaking the study of types’ also refers to ‘a collection or group of types’ (Francescato 1994, p. 254). It is to be expected therefore, that type and typology will interpreted and applied in different ways because of their ‘multidimensional nature’ (Lawrence 1994, p. 271). This thesis has utilised ‘type’ and ‘typology’ in accordance with common usage. It is concerned with a single building type, the church, and in particular with church buildings designed and erected for the Catholic Church (Francescato 1994, p. 254). Within this context the thesis is further concerned with the liturgical ordering of such churches. Typologies have been used to describe and study the different orderings that are to be found in Catholic churches today. The process in content analysis by which standard or patterned characteristics are observed and correlated, thereby identifying ‘what something is, what it is to be called, and to what class it belongs’ is consistent with the conceptualization of types (Krippendorff 2004, p. 54). After considering the various types and related typologies put forward to describe liturgical ordering since Vatican II, a typology reflecting the Australian experience was devised. Two sets of data were used to identify the types for this typology. The first drew upon observation of liturgical ordering in numerous churches, such as those listed in Appendix One. This observation concentrated particularly on churches in Australia. The second drew upon the body of literature pertaining to liturgical ordering, which is largely descriptive. In some instances the advantages and limitations of orderings are identified. Sometimes a preference for a particular ordering is stated. In some instances writers have intentionally structured a typology by which to name, describe and assess a range of liturgical orderings. In other instances different orderings or categories of orderings are dealt with in a less structured way. These various typologies were evaluated by: • testing their accuracy to ensure that names of types corresponded with descriptions and plans;

33 • ascertaining whether each indicated type was representative of a liturgical ordering found in some form in a number of churches; • determining whether the types comprising each typology were representative of the range of liturgical ordering as identified or described by other writers; • noting types or significant variants thereof that were particular to one place, and considering whether this might be so of any type representative of the Australian context; in conjunction with, • identifying the presence of various types in Australian Catholic churches and, where a number of church with similar ordering are identified, refining existing descriptions to define an Australian type. The task of refining these sets of data with a view to devising a typology of liturgical ordering relevant to Catholic churches in Australia might ideally have referenced a comprehensive survey of all such churches. However recent data about the Catholic Church in Australia, compiled in 2004 and published by the (the Vatican) in 2005, listed 1,378 Australian parishes (Cheney 2010). It was reasonable to assume that each of these parishes has a church or at least a multipurpose facility that includes church usage. As well, a large number of parishes, particularly those in rural areas, have more than one church and often three or four. Given the vastness of Australia and the estimated number of churches, reference to an informal survey inclusive of all states and territories and to descriptions and illustrations in the relevant literature had to suffice. Taking this data into account and mindful of the types of postconciliar liturgical ordering described by others, six types were decided upon for case study. This typology adequately incorporated the variations that occur in the range of liturgical ordering in Australia. At the same time it provided enough differentiation between orderings to enable each type to be clearly identified and for the six types not to blur one into another. It is noted that with the addition of perhaps two types which are not representative of the Australian context, the typology devised for this thesis might well be considered as more comprehensive, accurate and representative than any described to date.

34 Dealing with the data

As outlined in Chapter One, the progression of the thesis begins with an evolutionary outline, treats of the preconciliar influence of the twentieth century liturgical movement, which leads to consideration of the emergence of new and adapted liturgical ordering in the postconciliar era. Discourse about these new and adapted orderings has been characterised by typologies of liturgical ordering, which are described and critiqued. The Australian experience of and contribution to the evolution of liturgical ordering is evaluated with reference to types representative of Australian churches. Taking all this into account, the thesis concludes with the question of an ideal liturgical ordering. The methods used to treat of the data in each phase of the progression of the thesis were underpinned by content analysis. If, as already indicated, content analysis is seen as a first ‘band’ in the approach to research these subsequent strategies formed a second such ‘band’. The first of these second ‘band’ strategies to be used was interpretive- historical research. It provides for ‘investigation into social-physical phenomena within complex contexts, with a view toward explaining those phenomena in narrative form and in a holistic fashion’ (Wang 2002a, p. 136). The interpretive- historical method was used with the preconciliar content of the thesis, namely the evolution of liturgical ordering as outlined in Chapter Three and the treatment of the influence of the liturgical movement in the first part of Chapter Four. Liturgical ordering in its evolution and twentieth century development was the phenomena under investigation; the meeting of the respective histories of church architecture and Catholic liturgy provided the context. The interpretive-historical strategy gave way to logical argumentation, the strategy used to deal with postconciliar liturgical ordering in the second part of Chapter Four. Whereas the earlier strategy self-defines as relating to a past condition, logical argumentation proved applicable to describing the new and adapted liturgical ordering identified in churches designed in accordance with the conciliar injunction. It was further applicable to the survey of typologies in

35 Chapter Five. In both chapters logical argumentation, with its emphasis on utilising categorization and elaboration as defining structures, provided for evaluation of both the various types and the typologies of liturgical ordering (Wang 2002b, pp. 331-332). The third strategy, which took the typology devised for the Australian context as its point of departure, was case studies. Linda Groat (2002, p. 346) describes the case study method as having five characteristics: 1) a focus on single or multiple cases, studied in their real life contexts; 2) the capacity to explain causal links; 3) the importance of theory development in the research design phase; 4) a reliance on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion [a strategy to address issues of validity and objectivity] ; and 5) the power to generalize to theory.

She further explains that case studies may be explanatory, descriptive or exploratory or a combination of these, and demonstrate that case studies may be most effective combined with other research methods (Groat 2002, pp. 346- 349). Case studies thus provided a strategy by which to explore and evaluate the Australian experience of and contribution to contemporary liturgical ordering. To utilise this method, a church representative of each Australian type of liturgical ordering had first to be identified.

Identifying Churches for Case Study

The decades following World War II were marked by considerable growth in Australia’s state capital cities. Regional cities and many larger rural towns also grew in population. This growth necessitated the building of new churches in the developing suburbs of the capital cities, while in regional cities and the larger rural towns existing churches were either extended or replaced by new and larger buildings. Thus in the period leading up to and following from Vatican II a number of new Catholic churches were built and existing churches renovated and reordered. Many of these churches were largely unnoticed beyond Catholic newspapers, though some received attention in architecture and liturgy journals. That so many went unnoticed would seem to indicate that many such churches

36 were unremarkable, both architecturally and in service of the liturgy. Consequently when it came to selecting churches for case study, those well- suited to this purpose were considerably fewer than the number built or reordered since the Council. Moreover, identifying churches that are representative of the typology devised for this thesis, rather than a sample based on architectural style, or decade of construction, or size, or architect, or even randomly, further restricted options. There are, for example, many more churches of the fan-arrayed type than of the antiphonal type to be found. Eight selection criteria were established to identify churches for case study: • first, the churches had to be Catholic so as to be suited for evaluation by Catholic liturgical criteria; • second, the churches were to be located in Australia, preferably in a number of different places, in this way highlighting the Australian experience and contribution; • third, the churches were to be parish churches, as distinct from cathedrals, chapels and oratories with their particular purposes and characteristics, as it is in parish churches that the normal celebration of the liturgy takes place, especially on Sundays; • fourth, the churches had to have been designed and constructed or liturgically reordered since Vatican II. Though not intentionally sought, the churches selected in accordance with this fourth criterion subsequently revealed something of the development of architectural-liturgical consciousness across the four decades that followed the conclusion of the Council; • fifth, the churches ought to demonstrate that liturgical celebration was a design priority in terms of both ritual enactment and symbolism; • sixth, the churches were to demonstrate architectural quality as revealed in the interpretation of the design brief, innovation, detail in plan, and ways in which the tradition of Catholic church architecture has been incorporated;

37 • seventh, each selected church was to be typical of other churches in having a similar liturgical ordering and thereby representative of a type; and • eighth, information was to be available about the architecture of church, including a design brief if one existed, a record of changes made to the church since it was built or reordered, and architectural drawings. These eight selection criteria were applied to the same churches canvassed in the informal survey that was made in the process of devising an Australian typology, to churches that were recommended for consideration by liturgists and architects, and to churches identified in the earlier content analysis.

Conducting Case Studies

Prior to undertaking the six case studies the types devised for the Australian context were first explored theoretically, in light of the available literature. There then followed the study of each selected church. Data compiled in the body of literature concerned with these churches included reviews from books and journals, promotional literature from architectural firms, commemorative booklets from the official opening and dedication, floor plans and sections, websites, and brochures published by parishes to describe the church and its features. In the data-gathering process, interviews were conducted with architects and parish clergy who were responsible for the design of a selected church. These interviews took an open approach, using leading statements and questions to introduce new topics of discussion. These topics included: priorities and principles in the design of the church; the influence of the liturgy in determining the spatial arrangement; the design process; whether a design brief was documented; design considerations not already mentioned; and constraints. Of the architects who designed the churches, five were available for interview while one was deceased. Of the clergy who had commissioned a new or reordered church design, only three of six were still at the parish and their successors knew little of the background to the design of the church. In one

38 instance a comprehensive design brief informing the liturgical ordering of the church was made available. Some parishes had used processes of liturgical education and consultation to inform the design. Though usually documented, information from these processes was not always readily accessible. Sometimes complex professional relationships between those involved in the design and construction of a church complicated the interpretation and inclusion of interview data in the case studies. For this reason, and in the ethical interest of beneficence towards those interviewed, the interview data included in the case studies was limited to that which could not otherwise be obtained (Steane 2004, p. 68). Only when interview data was not available from structured observation of the case study churches, from architectural drawings, or from the related literature, was it included in the thesis. In these few instances the source of this data has been acknowledged.

Summary

This thesis has brought together two disciplines, architecture and liturgy, which meet in the liturgical ordering of churches. The subject of the thesis, the liturgical ordering of Catholic churches since Vatican II, also forms the framework for its approach to research, a combination of four methods or strategies. These were described in terms of first and second ‘bands’. The first ‘band’ utilised content analysis across the whole thesis. The second ‘band’ integrated interpretive-historical, logical argumentation and case study strategies with content analysis and with each other to fulfil the purposes of each phase in the progression of the thesis. Content analysis and the interpretive-historical strategy are the first to be utilised as the evolution of liturgical ordering is outlined in the next chapter.

39 CHAPTER THREE

CONTINUITY AND CONTRADICTION: THE EVOLUTION OF LITURGICAL ORDERING FROM THE 1st CENTURY INTO THE 20th CENTURY

The evolution of the liturgical ordering of Catholic1 churches can be chronicled as a history of continuity and contradiction. Continuity can be discerned in the congruence of liturgical ordering with the liturgy. Contradiction can be observed when the liturgy was treated as a lesser consideration in determining church design. It is beyond the scope of the thesis to comprehensively treat of this history. Instead, four historical epochs which highlight the major shifts in the evolution of liturgical ordering are described, thereby setting the scene for the changes that have occurred during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. These epochs reveal an organic connection between the liturgy and liturgical ordering. They demonstrate that the liturgy has been the foremost influence on the evolution of liturgical ordering. The epochs attest to the genius of the Catholic Church in adapting existing architecture for its liturgy. They reveal the Church’s liturgy as a catalyst in the evolution of church architecture. The epochs confirm that liturgical ordering is not static but ever evolving, and possesses a dynamic unity (cf. Lonergan 1973, pp. 138-144). The explication of

1 During the first millennium Christianity developed in two distinct but related traditions, at first reflecting the division of the between East and West. In the West the Christian Church was called Catholic, meaning universal. In the East the Christian Church was called Orthodox, meaning adhering to right doctrine and worship. Catholic and Orthodox traditions, while substantially holding to the same faith, developed their own liturgical rites and customs. Liturgy in the West became known as the Roman or Latin Rite, and in the East as the . In places where the Catholic Church became established in the East, these Churches developed their own variations of the Roman or Byzantine Rites. These liturgical rites and their related liturgical theologies, symbolism and customs informed the evolution of church architecture, with distinctive features particular to East or West. During the middle of the second millennium the Christian Church in the West was further divided during the protestant reformation. From this the Catholic tradition continued and new protestant and reformed ecclesial communities emerged, the latter adapting Catholic liturgy to express their theology. New expressions of liturgical ordering and church architecture followed accordingly. While there may be occasional reference in this thesis to churches designed for Orthodox or protestant liturgical usage, the focus here is the ordering of churches for Catholic liturgy. Thus, many churches that may hold great architectural and liturgical interest are excluded from this study because they do not have bearing on the design of Catholic churches.

40 the evolution of liturgical ordering in this chapter serves as a significant point of departure for the argument of this thesis. The epochs reveal the relatively early emergence of two basic types of liturgical space from which have stemmed a number of distinct plans and which endure to the present day. These basic types, as realised in twentieth and twenty-first century liturgical ordering, are the subject of this thesis. The epochs also verify that the first era of far-reaching change in the history of liturgical ordering occurred during the middle ages, producing a rupture between the assembly and liturgical celebration. The second such era began in the early twentieth century and is ongoing. In epochal terms, this indicates that a fifth epoch continues to evolve in the present day.

The first epoch: precursor of the Christian church - from the 1st century to the early 4th century

An architectural setting for the ritual that prefigured the Eucharistic liturgy is first mentioned in Scriptural accounts of preparations made for the Jewish Passover that would become the . Jesus instructed two of his disciples: Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, “The Teacher asks, where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” He will show you a large room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.” (Mark 14:12-15; cf.: Matthew 26:17-18 and Luke 22:7-12).

In celebrating this particular Passover, Jesus established a new ritual which developed in the early Church, taking shape as the Eucharistic liturgy. It was and continues to be characterised by a covenant memorial binding the Last Supper tradition with the death and . It was and continues to be enacted through a great prayer of thanksgiving, a sequence of ritual actions, and the use of bread and wine as its principal symbols (Jungmann 1976, pp.5-16, 20; Smith & Taussig 1990, pp. 38-40). This thesis will show that the architectural setting for this Eucharistic liturgy has primarily been shaped by developments in liturgical ritual and praxis.

41 The is the primary source of data about the liturgical praxis of the early Church during the apostolic era that followed the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles (2:46) records that, ‘Day by day, as they spent much time together in the , they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts.’ The ‘breaking of bread’ referred to here is among the earliest terms for celebrating the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians (11:17–34) St Paul highlights the importance of the Eucharistic liturgy being an action of the entire community, urging Christians to ‘assemble as a church’ (11:18) and to ‘wait for one another’ (11:33) before eating when they come together. In this same passage (11:22) Paul distinguishes between domestic meals and the Eucharistic liturgy, which Josef Pieper (1991, p. 101) claims ‘has always been taken to mean that God’s house is reserved for sacred things; it is not a place for the ordinary daily activities of life.’ The Acts of the Apostles and St Paul’s letters also reveal the custom that members of the Christian community hosted the liturgical assembly in their homes: the house of Lydia, (Acts 16:40); the ‘church’ in the houses of Nympha (Colossians 4: 15b) and of Prisca and Aquila, (Romans 16: 3, 5); the church in Philemon’s house (Philemon 1b–2); and the house of Mary, the mother of John- Mark, ‘where many had gathered and were praying’ (Acts 12:12). Yet as Denis Crouan (2005, p. 28) observes, despite these Scriptural references, ‘… there is a lamentable lack of documents giving a detailed description of a Eucharistic celebration after the Resurrection of Christ!’ Even less is there data about the architectural setting for the liturgy, other than that the ‘places where the faithful gathered for the ‘breaking of the bread’ were nothing more than houses equipped with at least one rather large and well-furnished room …’ (Crouan 2005, p. 42). The sources of evidence about places of Christian worship from the apostolic era until the Edict of Milan in 313 CE are archaeological and literary (Hoppe 1994, pp. 60-62; White 1997, pp. 33-257). Primarily on the basis of archaeological survey, Richard Krautheimer (1986, pp. 23-37) regards this era

42 between the New Testament and the Peace of Constantine as having three distinct periods, ‘A.D. 50–150 … A.D. 150-250 … [and] A.D. 250-313.’ Though these first three centuries of Christianity can be regarded as being typified by a single era of worship in a domestic setting (Turner 1979, pp. 158-160; Wilkinson 2002, p. 117), Krautheimer’s threefold division, which is adopted by L. Michael White (1996, pp. 19-20) and referred to by Robin Gibbons (2006, pp. 31-48), is accepted for the purposes of this thesis. It elaborates developments in the spatial arrangement of the throughout these three overlapping yet distinctive periods. During the first period, 50 – 150 CE, the place and pattern of worship followed the model of the apostolic Church as outlined in the Acts of the Apostles. This was the period of the ‘’, the style and design of which would have varied according to the local architecture of different regions and cities (Gibbons 2006, p. 35; White 1996, pp. 103-110). The ‘house church’ was constituted by the Christian community gathering for the Eucharistic liturgy and fellowship in a large room of a domestic dwelling, usually the house of one of its members (Hoppe 1994, p. 62). Drawing on Krautheimer’s research, White (1996, p. 19) concludes that during this first period, ‘No architectural specialization occurred … to provide spatial articulation for religious use … .’ Thus, provided a room was large enough and could be configured for liturgical celebration, the ritual could be adapted to it. Yet as further exploration of the relationship between liturgy and architecture will show, this initial arrangement would not endure. The second period, 150 - 250 CE, correlates with the growth of the Christian Church and changing circumstances. The Christian population had become a significant presence in a number of centres, the tenets of Christian belief had become clearly defined, a hierarchy of clergy had emerged, and ‘The congregations had become increasingly organised and expanded their activities of divine worship and care of souls …’ (Krautheimer 1986, p. 25). To meet the needs of worship and ministry communities began to acquire buildings for:

43 assembly of the faithful, administration of the community, and distribution of charities; … structures within the local tradition of domestic building in the Roman-hellenistic world, yet adapted to the new needs of the Christian congregations’ (Krautheimer 1986, p. 26).

While some communities continued to meet in the homes of members, this period is characterised by the development of domus ecclesiae, ‘houses of the church’, in Roman usage a titulus or ‘title church’ (Doig 2008, pp. 5-6; Krautheimer 1986, p. 26). This term derives from oikos ekklisias in its original Greek usage (Krautheimer 1986, p. 26). The practice of designing churches for the Church and its rituals had begun. The oldest and most widely known domus ecclesiae is probably the reconstructed Christian building at Dura-Europos, a centre alongside the Euphrates River between Aleppo and Baghdad which prospered from about 100 BCE until 265 CE when it began to decline (Foley 2008, p. 46; Rykwert 1966, p. 22). This domus ecclesiae can be accurately dated, as it was destroyed in 257. Krautheimer (1986, p. 27) confirms that, …the structure was certainly in the hands of the [Christian] congregation between 240 and 250. At that time it underwent alterations designed to adapt it better to its functions as a community house.

Walls were removed to create an enlarged liturgical space for the Eucharistic liturgy celebrated by the Christian assembly. A dais was constructed at the eastern wall for the bishop and clergy, but there is no evidence of a fixed altar. Having studied evolving Christian ritual observances, Richard Kieckhefer (2004, p. 74) concludes that: … presumably a moveable table was placed on the platform and served as what we would call an altar. In every key respect the setting for worship at Dura shows a community and a tradition capable of imaginative transposition: a table could be an altar, a morsel could be a banquet, and a bloodless offering could be a sacrificial victim. Early Christians clearly sensed that the most basic purpose of the liturgy is to train the imagination, strengthening and sensitizing it for the perception of reality.

A smaller room served as a and included a . Across a central courtyard another room was converted into a baptistery, incorporating a ‘masonry baptismal font under a fairly elaborate canopy’ (Rykwert 1966, p. 22). Murals adorning this baptistery depict ideas associated with baptism

44 (Krautheimer 1986, p. 27). Informed by the detailed and specific alterations that created the domus ecclesiae at Dura-Europos, Krautheimer (1986, p. 28) holds that similar adaptations occurred in buildings throughout the Empire. The domus ecclesiae marked the beginning of a distinctive Christian architecture. Figure 3:1 shows a plan reconstruction of the Dura-Europos house before and after its renovation into a domus ecclesiae and an axonometric view.

3:1 Christian Building at Dura Europos, Syria, c. 240 – 257 CE, LEFT: Plan reconstruction of ‘before’ and ‘after’ renovation into a domus ecclesiae, and RIGHT: Axonometric reconstruction of the same domus ecclesiae. Adapted from L.M. White, The social origins of Christian architecture volume 1: building God’s house in the Roman world: architectural adaptation among pagans, Jews and Christians, Harvard Theological Studies 42, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, 1996, pp. 108 & 109.

The third period, 250 – 313 CE, was characterized by a growing need for larger spaces in which the Christian community might assemble. The Church required buildings constructed along the lines of the domus ecclesiae (White 1996, p. 20). Christian adaptation of larger dwellings into aula ecclesiae, ‘halls of

45 the church’, met this need (White 1996, p. 128). Growing Church communities and the larger size of the aula ecclesiae in which Christians celebrated the Eucharist led to the greater ordering of both the assembly and its liturgical space. Drawing upon three third century literary sources, the Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus, the Church History by Eusebius and the Canonical Letter of Gregory Thaumaturgus, White (1996, pp. 137-138) describes the impact of such ordering: In the diverse developments of the Christian aula ecclesiae interior arrangements tended to become more defined and gradually standardized as liturgy, clerical orders, and congregational seating became oriented in terms of the longitudinal axis of the hall plan. … the focal point of the hall was the set aside of altar, clergy, and bishop. … strict clerical ordering might have been an initial stimulus toward processional patterns of entry and exist. … Such formality … might lead quite naturally to further provisions for the chancel and the bishop’s well before the of basilical form. Likewise, developments in the catechumenate and in penitential practice were probably made more formal in spatial definition as the church edifice grew into the formal hall pattern.

The excavation of a double-church complex at Aquileia in Italy provides some indication of the liturgical ordering of aula ecclesiae. Precise dating of the buildings and ornamentation in the double-church differs (Doig 2008, pp. 46-48, Krautheimer 1986, p. 43, Minchin 1961, pp. 26-34, White 1997, pp. 202-203). However an inscription by Theodore, Bishop from 314 to 319 CE, helps date the development of the site (White 1997, p. 202). This evidence led Minchin (1961, pp. 26-27) to conclude that: At the end of the third century, or possibly at the very beginning of the fourth, an extensive building program was embarked upon … an impressive hall was built at the back of the site to the left of the original house … Between A.D. 314 and 320 an even larger hall was built on the other side of the original house …

The plan, dimensions and still extant pavement of the Aquileia complex are described by Krautheimer (1986, p. 43) who observes that its two large halls or double-church ‘resemble pre-Constantinian meeting houses, such as S. Crisogono in Rome.’ A schematic representation of the pavement is provided by White (1997, p. 201). Working from this mosaic pavement and the plan revealed by excavations, Minchin (1961, p. 29) attempted ‘to reconstruct the sort of building which the main pavement in Aquileia suggests stood above it,

46 before the permanent furniture was introduced about A.D. 400.’ Minchin’s reconstruction (fig. 3:2) places the bishop’s chair at the head of the Eucharistic hall, an altar-table nearer the centre, a nave and for the assembly, a in which catechumens and penitents would have stood and a separate baptistery. That this ordering was well enough established to inform the design of the hall structure and its paved floor indicates that it had already become the basic pattern of liturgical space.

Illustration has been removed due Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. to Copyright restrictions.

3:2 Double-church complex, Aquileia, Italy, c. 320 CE, BELOW LEFT: Developed site with buildings begun about 300 CE and additions which were made soon afterwards, ABOVE LEFT: Plan showing liturgical ordering of the second hall - bishop’s chair, table for the Eucharist, and separate place for baptism, and RIGHT: Perspective drawing of reconstruction of the sort of building which the excavated pavement suggests stood above it, late 3rd or very early 4th century. Adapted from B. Minchin, Outward and visible, Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1961, pp. 29 & 31.

The ‘double-church’ at Aquileia represents, … a transitional stage between the renovated domus ecclesiae and the monumental Christian basilica, since the halls are not true basilicas in architectural form. They are instead plain halls or aula ecclesiae (White 1997, p. 203).

By the end of this epoch a normative spatial arrangement had developed for the Church’s liturgy, leading White (1996 pp. 138-139) to suggest that, ‘the adaptation toward the aula ecclesiae had already achieved

47 accommodation of Christian assembly and worship.’ Therefore Christian adaptation of the basilica was perhaps more in continuity with what preceded and less ‘the dramatic transition in the settings for Christian worship’ than is sometimes supposed (Foley 2008, p. 81; cf. White 1996, p. 139). It is this transition which heralded the emergence of a new epoch.

The second epoch: the emergence of basilican, and centralised orderings - from the 4th century to the 6th century

The freedom of religion granted in 313 CE by the Emperors Constantine and Lucinius, known as in the Edict of Milan, meant that the buildings of the Christian Church could become more conspicuous, public and even monumental in character (Webb 2001, p. xv; White 1996a, p. 139). The Church needed larger buildings to accommodate increasingly larger assemblies and the spatial demands of formalised liturgy and ecclesial hierarchy. The Church effectively required a new architectural model for its place of worship. The primary need of the Christian Church centred on the liturgical assembly and the related communal, organisational and ministerial activities; Christians made ‘no attempt to build a temple for their God …’ (Gibbons 2006, p. 48). Krautheimer (1986, p. 41) observes that, ‘For both practical and ideological reasons it was impossible that this new Christian architecture should evolve from the religious architecture of pagan antiquity.’ However the Roman basilica proved well-suited to Christian use. Basilicas had no temple connotation, were large, prominent, functional and familiar (Webb 2001, p. xv). Basilicas served a variety of purposes: civic, imperial, funerary and religious. The emergence of Christian basilicas ‘simply represented one more type of basilica created by a new demand’ (Krautheimer 1986, p. 42). Indeed Krautheimer (1986, p. 42) emphasises that ‘the newly-built Christian basilicas were not derived from any specific type of Roman basilica … On the contrary, the Christian basilica both in function and design was a new creation within an accustomed framework’.

48 The foremost function of the Christian basilica was the Church’s liturgy, which shaped the layout (Smith 1997, p. 96). Ordering other types of basilica for liturgical celebration necessitated reorientation of the building and redesign of exterior and interior elements. Christian basilicas were oriented where possible: the apse at the eastern end aligned the building with the direction the assembly would face to pray (Turner 1979, pp. 183-184; Lang 2004, pp. 43-49). This brought into focus the rising sun, a symbol of the risen Christ and his final coming in glory at the end of time. In this the Christian adaptation of the basilica went beyond the functional configuring of space for celebrating the liturgical rites and reveals an explicit Christian cosmology with liturgical implications. As will be seen in Chapter Four, the orientation of the liturgical assembly, and therefore of churches, remains a concern for some even in the present day. Unlike civic basilicas which had a central main door set in the long wall of the hall and usually adjoining a public space, Christian usage located the doors to the end opposite the apse. The way into the church was often through a large walled atrium, then via a narthex and through doors into the nave of the basilica. As Marilyn J. Chiat (1995, p. 409) observes: … what had been a broad, colonnaded interior mall stretching right and left of the entering visitor, became a long processional tunnel of space leading the visitor compellingly from the entrance to the , the altar space at the opposite end of the nave.

Inside the basilica, the long nave and lateral aisles or side became the place for the assembly. There is evidence of some seating but not the rows of pews and chairs of the present era (Davies 1952, p. 37). The ordering of the assembly may have differed from region to region. Davies (1952, p. 38) speculates the ordering within the Christian liturgical assembly into such cohorts ‘as ascetics, virgins, widows and deaconesses’. Klaus Gamber (1993, p. 157) proposes that, ‘the faithful – men separated from women – traditionally did not stand in the centre nave but in the side naves.’ Thus the nave remained free for liturgical . As will be explained later, the nave effectively remained an open space until seating for the assembly became normative not many centuries ago.

49 Processions traversed the nave to the semicircular apse, which was the place for the bishop and his clergy (Foley 2008, p. 84). A synthronon comprising a central bishop’s chair and benches for the extending to either side was usually constructed around the apse wall. A freestanding altar was placed on the main axis ‘on or near the chord of the apse’ (Cobb 1978, p. 475; cf. Gibbons 1993, p. 71), that is, where the apse joined the nave. This enabled the assembly to gather around the altar (Gibbons 2006, p. 54; Foley 2008, p. 85). In some places the altar was placed further down, ‘well into the first third of the nave’ (Gibbons 1993, p. 71). To highlight and dignify the altar, a was placed over it, and cancelli, being low walls or rails, around it (Cobb 1978, p. 475). Curtains to the altar may have hung between the of the ciborium or from a beam, ‘but not necessarily during the liturgy itself’ (Cobb 1978, p. 475). Beyond the altar and projecting into the nave was a space also set apart by cancelli and designated as the solea-scholas. Set apart for solemn processions and the proclamation of the Scriptures, in later centuries it became the place of the liturgical choir, with the ambo or ambones usually situated on the side(s). At the western end of the basilica was a porch, ‘in which the catechumens and penitents stood’ (Gibbons 2006, p. 55). An indicative liturgical ordering of an early Roman Christian basilica is shown in Figure 3:3. Here the separation of clergy from laity and the use of low walls to define ritual spaces demonstrate how structured the layout of the Christian church had become in both formalised liturgical function and hierarchical representation. There is also a separation of men from women, as was often the practice (Foley 2008, p. 84). This early Roman liturgical ordering also confirms that from the fourth century such sacred furnishings as the altar and chair had taken on defined forms and become focal points of liturgical celebration. The same was true of the ambo and baptistery (Gibbons 2006, p. 63). Apart from these sacred furnishings and the spaces described by the cancelli, the nave of the basilica was unfurnished, providing for uninterrupted movement by the assembly during the liturgy (Foley 2008, p. 84).

50

1. Presbyterium: place in the apse for the throne of the bishop and benches for presbyters. 2. Sanctuarium (sanctuary): site of the altar, set off by a low barrier from the body of the church. 3. Solea-scholas: processional area set off by a pair of low walls. This area was used principally in the ceremonies of pontifical entrance and exit but was also used for the reading of Scripture. 4. Senatoreum and Matroneum: areas set off by barriers and used for the presentation of the gifts in the procession and for the reception of the Eucharist by the laity: men (viri) and women (mulieres)

3:3 Indicative early Roman liturgical ordering of chancel and nave in a Christian basilica. From E. Foley, From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the Eucharist, revised and expanded edn., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2008, p. 85, ©Liturgical Press.

The basilican church became identified with Roman liturgical praxis. For this reason alone it was resistant to change. This is demonstrated in the church of San Clemente (fig. 3:4). The upper early twelfth century basilica was built above an earlier fourth century basilica. The twelfth century structure substantially retains the plan of the earlier basilica. In turn this basilica was created by renovation of what was possibly an aula ecclesia that had been built in the third century to serve a Christian community (Webb 2001, p. 87). This community is believed to have existed there by the second century (Hager & Galazka 2001, p. 48; Webb 2001, pp. 87-91). The church of San Clemente also demonstrates how the indicative early Roman liturgical ordering shown above (fig. 3:3) became the established and defining characteristic of the Christian basilica.

51 Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to Copyright Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:4 Basilica of San Clemente, Rome, Italy, 4th and 12th centuries, ABOVE LEFT: Plan of the 12th century basilica, and ABOVE RIGHT: Plan of the preserved remains of the 4th century basilica above which the later church was erected. From P. Grimal & C. Rose, Churches of Rome, tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London, 1997, p. 48, BELOW LEFT: Plan detailing liturgical ordering, attributed to the 4th century basilica but corresponding with the 12th century plan of Grimal & Rose shown above left and with Webb 2001, p. 88. From R. Beny & P. Gunn, The churches of Rome, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 281, and BELOW RIGHT: Photograph showing liturgical ordering c. 2001. From J. Hager & G. Galazka, Pilgrimage: a chronicle of Christianity through the churches of Rome, Cassell and Company Ltd, a division of the Orion Publishing Group, Ltd, London, All rights reserved, 2001, p. 35.

52 The basilican plan established a pattern for Catholic churches that remained pre-eminent until the mid-twentieth century. By then the assembly had long ceased to gather at the altar, and the longitudinal character of this ordering had been accentuated by rows of seating. That the basilican plan attained such pre-eminence ought not to surprise. Its design intentionally served liturgical praxis and its creation following upon the domus and aula ecclesiae established the prototypical church. White (1996, p. 139) states that, ‘the basilica may be seen as a further adaptation, monumentalization, and ultimately a standardization of diverse pre-Constantinian patterns of development’. Yet such standardisation was not so absolute as to preclude developments in liturgical ordering. The advent of the transept was one such development. The transept, a transverse part of the church at right angles to the nave, initially built at the apsidal end of the nave and later built intersecting the nave, first became evident in the fourth century. The transept remains significant for twentieth and twenty-first century church design, particularly in the liturgical reordering of cruciform plan churches. The initial Tau cross church, ‘T’ in shape, was exemplified in the Basilica of St Peter (fig. 3:5) and in the churches of Santo

Stefano degli Abissini and Santa Prassede, all in Rome (Webb 2001, pp. 36).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:5 Basilica of St Peter, on the Vatican Hill, Rome, Italy c. 400 CE, LEFT: Perspective drawing, and RIGHT: Plan showing transept and altar over the memoria of St Peter. Adapted from R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer & S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986, p. 55.

53 Krautheimer (1986, p. 56) describes the liturgy and devotional functioning of the Basilica of St Peter: Opposite the nave the transept terminated in a huge apse. … Primarily, the transept enshrined the memoria of the apostle, the very focus of the entire construction. … The vast space of the transept would hold the crowds come to venerate the shrine. … The transept was common ground for congregation and clergy, and it served as the site for all the rites in which both actively participated: veneration of the shrine, communion, and .

It is not possible to determine with certainty why the transept was added to longitudinal basilican churches. Various liturgical, devotional, architectural and metaphysical explanations are proposed, though sources are rarely cited. Liturgical and devotional explanations include: • provision of space for liturgical practices such as the offering of gifts and ministering of holy communion (Davies 1952, p. 39; Davies 1986, p. 509; Doig 2008, p. 217; Krautheimer 1986, p. 56; Short 1925, p. 170); • changing the designated place for clergy from in front of the altar to either side of the altar, which duly evolved into the transept (Grimal & Rose 1997, p. 21); • accommodation of clergy when the apse ceased to be adequate for their increasing number (Krautheimer 1986, p. 56; Prentice 1936, p. 41); • that clergy might gather near to the altar during the Eucharistic liturgy (Davies 1952, p. 39; Prentice 1936, p. 41); • enabling clergy to sing liturgical chants and in antiphonal choir (Prentice 1936, p. 44); • that clergy might fulfil the liturgical ministry proper to them (Ching 1995, p. 35); • providing access to memoria and martyria for acts of veneration by clergy and laity (Davies 1952, p. 39; Davies 1986, p. 509; Doig 2008, p. 29; Krautheimer 1986, p. 56; Mauck 2002b, p. 458); and • ‘an evolution attributed to the need for increased capacity for crowds of pilgrims’ (Barrie 1996, p. 217). Architectural explanations for the emergence of the transept include:

54 • to distinguish Christian basilicas from other types of basilica (Foley 2008, p. 84, citing an unreferenced hypothesis of Christian Norberg- Schulz); • to function as ‘cul-de-sacs’ which concentrate attention upon the sanctuary (Davies 1982, p. 100); and • replicating the cruciform design ‘adopted from the of the period of Constantine’ (Mirsky 1965, p. 166); • providing structural support in addition to walls and columns in bearing the downward and outward pressure of towers, spires and (Short 1925, p. 170). Of these reasons, the first is conjecture, the second might apply to Tau cross and cruciform plans, and the others clearly refer to cruciform churches. Other explanations for the transept are metaphysical, symbolic and theological: • perennial symbolism of spirit in matter, eternity in time, divinity in humanity; symbolism of the human body, sacrifice, and the light of understanding (Whone 1977, p. 167); • ‘intuitive correspondence’ identifying the cruciform plan with the crucified Jesus Christ (Rykwert 1966, p. 28; Whone 1977, p. 167); • the centrality of the cross of Christ to the vocation of Christians, beginning with the Apostles (Foley 2008, p. 84, citing an unreferenced hypothesis of Christian Norberg- Schulz); and • realisation in built form of Constantine’s vision of the cross at the Milvian bridge (Doig 2008, p. 28). These explanations clearly relate to the cruciform shape rather than the Tau cross shape. Though both of these forms are found from late in the fourth century, the existence of a number of churches with a Tau cross plan indicates that the functional liturgical and devotional needs of the Christian community gave rise to the innovation of the transept. This is consistent with the emergence of new church designs, as well as liturgical items. Initially a response to liturgical need, symbolic or allegorical meaning was attributed later.

55 The earliest evidence of a cruciform church being built because its plan conformed to the cross of Christ’s crucifixion is the late fourth century Basilica Apostolorum at Milan (fig. 3:6). Inspired by Constantine’s Apostoleion in , its construction commenced in 382 CE. Krautheimer (1986, pp. 81-82) describes the Church of the Apostles as having the altar at the centre of the cross, where the nave and transept intersect, with of the Apostles deposited beneath the altar. The altar could be clearly seen from the nave and transept entrances.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:6 Basilica Apostolorum, Milan, Italy, c. 382 CE, Axonometric reconstruction. From R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer & S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986, p. 82.

The relationship between the plan and symbolism of the Church of the Apostles is described by Suzanne Lewis (1969, p. 205): The Basilica Apostolorum in Milan is the first large-scale cruciform church in the Latin West for which an explicit symbolism is documented. The dedicatory inscription … proclaims that ‘Ambrose built a temple for the Lord and consecrated [it] in the name of the Apostles with a gift [of] relics,’ and that ‘the temple is in the form of a cross … a triumphal image [which] marks the place with the sacred victory of Christ’.

Yet Lewis (1969, p. 205) cautions against reading back into this early history of church architecture a meaning or symbolism that found expression only in a later era:

56 It has been widely assumed that the symbolic connotations of the cruciform plan, when it reappeared in the late fourth-century churches … were similar, if not identical, to what they were to become in the Middle Ages. However, the freestanding cross-shaped church has not always occupied an exalted place among architectural forms as a declaration of the transcendental core of Christian faith.

Richard Viladesau (2006, p. 43) concurs, distinguishing the initial fourth and fifth century use of cross imagery in architecture and art from the richer theological use that would subsequently develop. From his study of the foundations of , Titus Burckhardt (2006, pp. 43-44) offers a similar perspective. He first describes an allegorical explanation of a church dating from the fourth to sixth centuries which makes no reference to the cross. He then describes a thirteenth century allegorical comparison of a church with ‘the Crucified’, namely Christ. Yet as the next section of this chapter will show, the ordering of the medieval cruciform church was fundamentally liturgical. This does not deny or diminish the metaphysical meaning of the cruciform plan, only its agency in occasioning the design of such churches. Contemporaneous with the development of the Christian basilica and its modified Tau cross plan was the less common centralised church building. Most often these structures served as or as memoriae and martyria, and less often as settings for the Eucharistic liturgy. Central plan circular or octagonal structures suited the baptismal liturgy. Usually there was a narthex, porch or antechamber. In this dimly lit space the preliminary rites of the baptismal liturgy were celebrated. Beyond was the well illuminated baptistery, with the font of water placed at the centre. The movement between these spaces and from darkness into light, together with the design of the baptistery, provided for a processional liturgy that symbolised the ‘journey’ of catechumens to baptism and then into the church to join the assembly gathered around the altar. Figure 3:7 shows a plan of the early Roman baptistery of San Giovanni in Fonte at the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano, the cathedral church of Rome. The baptistery was built by the emperor Constantine in about 315 CE, the narthex or porch was added in the

57 period 432 – 440 CE, and the chapels later in the fifth and seventh centuries. San Giovanni in Fonte ‘is thought to have been the only baptistery to exist in Rome until the latter part of the fourth century when the increasing numbers of Christians led to the provision of baptismal facilities in newly built churches’ (Webb 2001, p. 45).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:7 San Giovanni in Fonte baptistery, Rome, Italy, c. 315 CE, Plan: 1. Baptistery; 2. Narthex; 3. Baptismal font; 4, 5 & 6. Chapels. Adapted from M. Webb, The churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2001, p. 46.

Centralised church buildings were also well suited as memoriae and martyria, commemorating holy sites in the life of Jesus and providing places for veneration of Christian martyrs. The theological significance of these places commemorating death and resurrection resonated with baptisteries having a similar shape and plan, in accordance with the belief that through baptism a new Christian died with Christ and rose with him. Sometimes memoriae and martyria were erected adjacent to basilican churches, as exemplified in the basilica and rotunda built by Constantine in Jerusalem at the places traditionally identified with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Figure 3:8 shows such a perspective drawing and plan of this church and Anastasis, based on current

58 archaeological investigation and the testimony of Eusebius, a fourth century bishop of Caesarea (Doig 2008, p. 35; Hoppe 1994, p. 109).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:8 Constantinian basilica and Anastasis at Jerusalem, Israel, 4th century, LEFT: Plan of remains, and RIGHT: Perspective drawing of hypothetical reconstruction c. 335 CE. Adapted from R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer & S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986, pp. 61-62.

Some memoriae and martyria were independent of basilicas (Barral I Altet 2002, p. 44; Webb 2001, p. 151). Despite having a centralised plan their ordering for the Eucharistic liturgy tended to follow the pattern of basilicas, with a frontal setting for the altar, ambo and chair for the bishop. This is evident in the church of Santa Maria ad Martyres (fig. 3:9). This architectural marvel, erected in the early second century as the Pantheon, a temple to all gods, was the first pagan building in Rome converted into a Christian church. From its inception as a church, the principal altar has been located in the apse directly

59 facing the entrance. Other , tombs and adorn the side , recesses and walls.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:9 Church of Santa Maria ad Martyres (The Pantheon) at Rome, Italy, temple c. 117 – 138 CE, church 609 CE, Plan showing altar in the sanctuary opposite the entrance. Adapted from M. Webb, The churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2001, p. 150.

Among the finest of central plan memoriae outside of the Holy Land and Rome is the Church of San Lorenzo at Milan (Barral I Altet 2002, p. 44). Peter Kollar (1975, pp. 286) states that, ‘In complete accordance with the geometry, the altar is situated in the centre,’ but does not show the altar in the plan he provides. Kollar associates this placement of the altar with the meaning of the Eucharist offered thereon. Central placement of the altar would suggest that the assembly may have gathered around it for the Eucharistic liturgy. Xavier Barral I Altet offers a different interpretation, situating the altar in the eastern corner of the church, opposite the entrance and narthex. In this spatial arrangement, although San Lorenzo is a central plan church the liturgical ordering follows that of a basilican plan (fig 3:10).

60 Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:10 Church of San Lorenzo, Milan, Italy, c. 378 CE, Plan: 1. Narthex, 2. Aisle, 3. Central nave showing sanctuary and altar in eastern (uppermost) corner, 4. Chapel. Adapted from X. Barral I Altet, The early middle ages: from late antiquity to A.D. 1000, tr. L. Frankel, Taschen, Koln, 2002, p. 44.

With the Christian basilica prevailing as the prototypical church, fewer churches were designed with a central plan. Some churches having this plan today, such as the Church of Santa Constanza in Rome, have been adapted from their original function as and reordered for the current Eucharistic liturgy. Today Santa Constanza has a central altar and seating arranged around its circular colonnade (fig. 3:11).

3:11 Church of Santa Constanza, Rome, Italy, c. 326 – 330 CE, Photographs, LEFT: Interior showing view from the entrance to the central altar, with an apse beyond, c. 2009, and RIGHT: Interior showing view of elevated altar and arrangement of seating within the circular colonnade c. 2009. From H. Hayes, ‘Art History Images’, www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-santa-constanza, 2009, sourced 29 June 2010.

An intriguing Roman church designed with a central altar is Santo Stefano Rotondo, a circular building intersected by a cross which created four projecting chapels. Fifth century and current plans of Santo Stefano Rotondo are shown in Figure 3:12.

61 Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

3:12 Church of Santo Stefano Rotondo, Rome, Italy, c. 468 – 483 CE, Plans, LEFT: Plan showing 5th century church with central altar and four projecting chapels in the shape of a Greek cross, three of which were torn down in the 15th century. Adapted from P. Grimal & C. Rose, Churches of Rome, tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London, 1997, p. 42, and RIGHT: Plan showing existing church but not the central altar, with the sole remaining projecting chapel and altar, and adjacent porch, one of four original entrances. Adapted from M. Webb, The Churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2001, p. 97.

Nothing is known of the origins of Santo Stefano Rotondo, though hypotheses abound: • it was built on the remains of earlier structures and in the fifth century reconstructed into a church (James 1965, p. 330); • with dimensions closely approximating those of the Jerusalem Anastasis, it symbolically re-established Christianity’s most sacred sanctuary on Roman soil (Grimal & Rose 1997, p. 37; Hager & Galazka 2001, p. 56); • though there is no record of it sheltering St Stephen’s relics, its dedication to the Christian protomartyr and its circular plan are consistent with other martyria (Krautheimer 1986, p. 92; Webb 2001, p. 96); and • the ‘round basilica’ developed in Rome to preserve the gathering of the assembly around the altar following the introduction of solea-scholas between altar and assembly in basilicas (Mecozzi 1997, p.6). The last of these hypotheses is the only liturgical rationale proposed, regrettably without reference to sources. However given the prominence of Santo Stefano Rotondo’s central sanctuary with slightly elevated altar and

62 surrounding cancelli, it is conceivable that the church fulfilled a liturgical function (fig. 3:13). How its two annular spaces accommodated the arrangement of the ambo and other sacred furnishings, the ministers and choir, and the assembly remains unknown. The layout certainly provided scope for processions. Additional to the central altar, a chapel terminating the main axis of the church has an apse with another altar (Webb 2001, p. 97-98). At the other end of this same axis, to the south-west, is the only apse opening from the interior wall of the church (Grimal & Rose 1997, p. 42; Webb 2001, p. 97).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:13 Church of Santo Stefano Rotondo, Rome, Italy, c. 468 – 483 CE, Photograph showing central sanctuary and slightly elevated altar, c.1997. Adapted from P. Grimal & C. Rose, Churches of Rome, tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London, 1997, p. 42.

By the end of the second epoch three generic church plans existed: the basilica, its Tau cross derivation and the centralised. That the liturgy was the primary influence in the evolution and design of these plans is clear, even if the data is wanting in some aspects. These three plans have endured to the present day, sometimes retained with little adaptation, sometimes modified or substantially redesigned, and sometimes merged, but never supplanted. Their liturgical orderings evolved, responsive to the development of the Church’s liturgy and devotional observances. The advent of the transept was the genesis of cross-plan churches, beginning with the Tau cross and soon leading to the cruciform . The appearance of the cruciform Latin cross plan marked the transition to a third epoch in the history of liturgical ordering and a radical shift away from participatory liturgical celebration.

63 The third epoch: the medieval cruciform and longitudinal orderings - from the 6th century to the 14th century

This vast epoch was marked by a sequent reorientation of liturgical praxis which gave expression to the ‘Great Mystery’ of God (Gibbons 2006, p. 62; Krautheimer 1986, p. 284). It peaked during the medieval period. The evolution of liturgical ordering corresponded with this reorientation. A heightened sense of the religious symbolism of the church building emerged. From this period the church began to lose its identity as domus ecclesiae, ‘house of the Church’, and increasingly became identified as domus Dei, the ‘house of God’. New architecture gave expression to these shifts. First the Carolingian tradition, and then the Romanesque and the Gothic, proved eminently suitable. Though Rome remained faithful to the basilican plan, throughout Europe church design was influenced by architectural innovation ‘intended to impress the people, honour the divine, and offer a shelter worthy of the precious relics that they housed’ (Barral I Altet 1998, p. 13). The liturgical reorientation meant that the liturgy gradually became more formalised and clericalised. That is, the ritual became more structured and rubrical, and its celebration the domain of the clergy. There developed a ‘tendency to stress the sacred in terms of places and objects set apart’ (Gibbons 2006, p. 62). The use of Latin as the language of liturgical celebration had already become widespread, leaving many who did not speak or understand it unable to participate (Foley 2008, p. 147). Though Latin may have enlivened a sense of mystery and awe, it simultaneously obscured the meaning and awareness of what was being prayed (Kilde 2008, p. 75; Scott 2003, p. 163). This ‘gradually helped relegate the assembly almost to the position of observers, while the ordained ministers occupied the central areas both liturgically and architecturally’ (Gibbons 2006, p. 62). Simultaneously, altars proliferated to accommodate the number of priests now obliged to each celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy daily. Veneration of the saints became popular, necessitating architectural provision in churches for the housing of relics. Pilgrimage became

64 an expression of popular religiosity (Davies 1982, pp. 144-145; Kilde 2008, p. 65; Mauck 2002a, p. 19; Turner 1979, pp. 181-182). These developments in liturgy and popular religious practice that began in the sixth century and continued until the Renaissance were well served and even encouraged by the cruciform plan (Kilde 2008, pp. 66-70; Turner 1979, pp. 187-194). The core of this plan comprised a long nave and intersecting transept, culminating in an apse or sanctuary. On both sides of the nave there usually were aisles which continued beside the sanctuary to create an ambulatory leading through a round or square end. Radiating chapels opened off the ambulatory, generally serving devotional purposes by providing places of honour for relics from the life of Christ and the saints, and for images of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. The transept could be large and project beyond the aisle or in other instances be contained by the width of the aisles. These variations are exemplified in the church of Saint-Étienne at Vignory in France, and the cathedral of Sant’Iago at Santiago de Comopostela in Spain (fig. 3:14).

Illustration has Illustration has been removed due to been removed Copyright restrictions. due to Copyright restrictions.

3:14 Church of Saint-Étienne Vignory, France, c. 1050 and Cathedral of Sant’Iago, Santiago de Comopostela, Spain, c. 1075 – 1124, Plans of cruciform layout showing nave, aisles, ambulatory with radiating chapels, transept, choir and sanctuary, LEFT: Church of Saint-Étienne with a contained transept, and RIGHT: Cathedral of Sant’Iago with a projecting transept. Adapted from X. Barral I Altet, The romanesque: towns, cathedrals and monasteries, tr. C. Miller, Taschen, Koln, 1998, p. 20 & p. 68.

65 The development of the cruciform plan provided for unimpeded processional circulation around the church, as exemplified in the processional way for the liturgy of Palm Sunday at Salisbury (fig. 3:15) (Barral I Altet 1998, p. 68; Davies 1982, pp. 145-146). Processional ways enabled pilgrims to visit shrine chapels even during liturgical celebrations (Barral I Altet 1998, p. 68). They facilitated the carrying of the most sacred relics and objects in procession ‘to reconsecrate and renew the sacredness of the places and objects within the building that are located at a distance from the inner sanctum’ (Scott 2003, p. 166). Processional circulation also served to heighten the sense of the church as integrated and unified (Davies 1982, p. 145; Turner 1979, p. 185).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:15 Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Salisbury, England, 1220 – 1266, Plan showing the medieval Palm Sunday processional route which used the entire building, inside and out. This route was dictated by the Sarum Use, the official liturgy of the cathedral. From R.A. Scott, The gothic enterprise: a guide to understanding the medieval cathedral, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003, p. 168.

The liturgical ordering of the sanctuary and solea-scholas or choir also changed. The solea-scholas became integrally connected to the sanctuary, creating a chancel ‘clearly distinguished from the rest of the church’ (Kilde 2008, p. 73). and screens were used to establish this separation (Kilde 2008, p. 73; Scott 2003, p. 158). Extended, the choir became the place set apart for clergy who previously had gathered around the altar in the apse and transept to

66 celebrate the liturgy. In time these clergy, or the in monastic churches, became the central and sometimes sole participants in celebrating the liturgy. While such still exist in monastic churches and some of the great cathedrals, their use is markedly different from the medieval period. Today the participation of the entire assembly is presumed in liturgical celebration. The altar was gradually withdrawn from the assembly. As early as the fifth century, there were indications that ‘the laity in some places were restricted from designated areas close to the altar’ (Foley 2008, p. 146). By the eleventh century, ‘the synthronon, which in the early church had lined the eastern apse, had been eliminated, replaced by the high altar placed against a reredos’ (Kilde 2008, p. 72). Originally altars had been freestanding, placed at the front of the apse beneath a ciborium, and squarer rather than rectangular in shape. Once relocated to the end of the apse or sanctuary, altars lost their prominence. To counter this, medieval altars became elongated and were highlighted by surrounding ornamentation (Foley 2008, p. 143 and p. 149; Pocknee 1963, p. 43). Figure 3:16 shows a basilican altar of squarish shape beneath a ciborium, an elongated gothic altar with tracery reredos, and a still later neo-classical altar of rectangular shape and .

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:16 Comparison of three types of altar, LEFT: Basilica of Sant’ Elia, near Nepi, Italy, c. 1120, Photograph of the squarish basilican altar, c. 1963. From C.E. Pocknee, The Christian altar: in history and today, A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1963, p. 17, reproduced by permission of Continuum International Publishing Group, CENTRE: Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Lincoln, England, 1192 – 1280, Photograph of the elongated gothic altar, c. 2002. Adapted from G. Binding, High gothic: the age of the great cathedrals, tr. I. Taylor, Taschen, Koln, 2002, p. 195, and RIGHT: Giambattista Piranesi, Church of Santa Maria Aventina, Rome, Italy, c. 1765, Photograph of the rectangular neo-classical altar, c. 2001. From J. Hager & G. Galazka, Pilgrimage: a chronicle of Christianity through the churches of Rome, Cassell and Company Ltd, a division of The Orion Publishing Group, Ltd, London, All rights reserved, 2001, p. 165.

67 Various reasons are put forward for the lengthening of altars during the medieval era. Thomas A. Stafford (1955, p. 25) implies that this development was simply ‘in conformity with the splendour of the Gothic style’. Barry Copley (2002, p. 7) asserts that when the ambo disappeared from use during the middle ages, the altar ‘was elongated to allow for the reading of the and at either end.’ This reasoning fails to explain the continuing use of squarer altars, the design of some medieval altars which while rectangular in shape were not particularly long, and the design of altars after the medieval era that were not elongated, even though similar rubrics for reading the epistle and gospel applied until the mid-twentieth century. Cyril E. Pocknee (1963, p. 41) argues that lengthening altars had less to do with liturgical need than the opportunity afforded by longer altars for decoration above and beneath the mensa (altar table) to capture the attention of the assembly once altars were withdrawn a distance from the nave. If Pocknee is correct, this constituted an instance of architectural opportunity influencing the liturgical setting. As the practice of frequent reception of sacramental communion by the assembly declined, devotion to the same sacrament increased, and a niche for showing the consecrated bread or ‘host’ was often incorporated in the centre of the reredos behind the altar (Bradshaw 2007, p. 57; Kilde 2008, p. 72). A new liturgical ordering had evolved, deriving from a fundamental reorientation in which the liturgy became the domain of its ministers The assembled laity were not only excluded but not ‘strictly necessary for the efficacy of the sacrament’ (Bradshaw 2007, pp. 57-58). Kilde (2008, p. 74) observes that, ‘This new spatial arrangement corresponded to a new theology of the Mass, which focused less on the shared community of the congregation than on the sacrifice of Christ, represented in the Eucharist … .’ Figure 3:17 demonstrates the extent to which the screened choir and sanctuary separated clergy and altar from assembled laity, as exemplified in the Cathedral of Saint Cecilia at Albi in southern France.

68

3:17 Cathedral of Saint Cecilia, Albi, France, 1282 – 1512, ABOVE: Schematic drawing showing at the right end the principal altar, clergy in the choir, the screen, the assembly in the nave to the left of the , and a gallery and secondary nave altar at the left end of the drawing. Adapted from E. Foley, From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the Eucharist, Revised and expanded edn., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2008, p. 199, ©Liturgical Press, and BELOW: Plan showing nave, choir, presbytery or sanctuary, numerous radiating chapels and side altars, and the cathedra at the altar end of the choir. Adapted from J. Thomas, Albi cathedral and British church architecture, The Ecclesiological Society, London, 2002, p. 6.

Sometimes in larger churches a small sanctuary extension was added at the end of the choir or near the end of the nave. A secondary ‘nave’ or ‘people’s’ altar (fig. 3:18) was placed in this sanctuary extension so that the Eucharistic liturgy could be celebrated with the laity in attendance, though these altars were generally used for ‘private’ Masses (Foley 2008, p. 148; Scotto 1990, pp. 34-35). Though present at this liturgy, the participation of the laity was mainly ocular. Unable to understand the Latin in which they liturgy was prayed by the clergy and with rare, ‘their worship was focused primarily on the ritual gestures they were able to observe … and on the decoration of the liturgical

69 space and of the priestly ’ (Bradshaw 2007, pp. 57-58). Proximity to the altar was no longer associated with participation by the assembly in the liturgy. Not even the pastorally responsive liturgical ordering of the nave altar was able to recapture the earlier liturgical praxis of communal participation in the liturgy. Isolated from the liturgy, the laity embraced devotional practices to express their faith (Pecklers 2003, pp. 63-64).

3:18 Drawing of a nave altar situated outside the end of the choir, with the choir enclosed by the screen, sanctuary in the apsidal end, and access to the ambulatory surrounding the choir and sanctuary on both sides. Adapted from E. Foley, From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the Eucharist, revised and expanded edn., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2008, p. 147, ©Liturgical Press.

The reorientation of the liturgy during this third epoch also effected other changes in liturgical ordering: • The ambo was removed from its earlier place in the nave into the sanctuary, eventually to disappear until it was restored following Vatican Council II. Its disappearance reflected the increasing importance of the altar, a diminishing emphasis on the proclamation and preaching of the Scriptures, and an ecclesiological shift from the assembly as a community constituted by baptism and the Word (Gibbons 2006, p. 136). • Placing the altar at the end of the sanctuary necessitated the relocation of the bishop’s chair. Eventually a location on one side of the sanctuary near the altar became the norm. It remained so until the reforms initiated by Vatican Council II in the mid-twentieth century (Scotto 1990, p. 52); • As the practice of adult baptism became less frequent and infant baptism normative the font was relocated from a separate baptistery. It was variously moved to the place previously occupied by catechumens in the church portico or

70 narthex, or sometimes inside the nave near the entrance, or in a chapel opening off these spaces (Short 1925, p. 80; Turner 1979, p. 185). Fonts were scaled down to a size suitable for the baptism of infants (Foley 2008, p. 138). • Practices of Eucharistic reservation grew. There is early evidence of reservation in the sacristy (van Dijk & Walker 1957, p. 26). Repositories for the sacrament in churches included a secure cupboard within the reredos or altarpiece, an ambry built into a wall, a columba or hanging often in the form of a dove, a hanging pinnacled turret, a sacrament house or tower, a pyx enclosed in a casket or tabernacle upon the altar or suspended above it, and a cyphus or lidded cup or ciborium (Foley 2008, pp. 224-225 255; Metzger 1997, p. 137; Pecklers 2003, p. 79; Stancliffe 2008, pp. 141-142; van Dijk & Walker 1957, pp. 27-48). This thesis argues that the change realised in the liturgical reordering of Catholic churches by the fourteenth century was so far-reaching as to constitute one of only two such instances in the history of liturgical ordering. Indeed, Marcel Metzger (1997, p. 136) holds that, ‘The arrangement of church buildings from the Gothic periods betrays the deviation of the Latin liturgy … and the invasion of devotions’. This is a most significant observation. Even if liturgical historians had no reference to medieval liturgical rites, or to literary and artistic depictions of medieval liturgical celebration, the liturgical ordering of medieval churches would be enough to reveal the ‘deformation’ and ‘impoverishment’ of liturgical praxis (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 35). That the liturgical ordering of the late medieval period reflected the requirements of the liturgical rites for which it was designed is not in question. Liturgical ordering had evolved, responsive to a fundamental reorientation of liturgical praxis. As liturgical participation diminished, devotions increased: this fundamental reorientation indirectly contributed to spatial provision for devotional observances in the ordering of churches. Such a radical reorientation of the liturgy and liturgical ordering as occurred towards the end of the third epoch would not occur again until the twentieth century.

71 Meanwhile the eclipse of the laity in the medieval liturgy had created a void that was filled not only by devotional practices but also by unfounded fears about sin and death. These fears gave rise to ‘problematic, even scandalous, practices around Mass stipends and ’ (Foley 2008, p. 194). Clerical excesses, alongside other causes of dissatisfaction with the Church, would lead to the upheaval of the protestant reformation. This upheaval would in turn impel further changes to the liturgical ordering of churches. As would the Italian renaissance, which came to birth in the fifteenth century (Foley 2008, p. 194; Mauck 2002a, p. 20).

The fourth epoch: renaissance, counter-reform and a standardised liturgical ordering - from the 15th century to the mid 20th century

The Italian renaissance found expression within the Church in commissions for new churches and renovation of older ones (Hager & Galazka 2001, pp. 118-119). The foremost reordering of the liturgical setting of these churches was the removal of the choir and its screen from between the assembled laity and the altar. Access of the assembly to the altar was thereby restored. As Chapter Four will reveal, by the twentieth century not only access but also proximity to the altar would become a priority in liturgical ordering. Renaissance interest in classical architecture focussed attention on other aspects of church design. Kilde (2008, p. 94) notes that, ‘one important debate among church designers, builders, clergy and patrons concerned the proper plan for a Christian church – should it be cruciform or centralized?’ Thus there arose renewed interest in central plan churches (Kilde 2008, p. 96). The basic plan of centralized churches designed during this period was usually in the shape of a Greek cross (Wittkower 1988, p. 39). A surmounted the central square (Stancliffe 2008, p. 171). Yet though the renaissance had brought about a renewed architectural vision for church design, there had not been a parallel renewal in the Church’s and liturgical praxis. This would not occur until the reform

72 and promotion of the liturgy in the twentieth century. Despite the architectural stress on the centre of these churches, impetus to place the altar there and gather the assembly around it remained an exception. Stancliffe (2008, p. 172) observes that, ‘… in those centrally planned churches … the altar still tended to be placed in a recess opposite the principal door, or at any rate in that arm of a Greek cross shape …’. This is demonstrated in the church of Santa Maria della Consolazione at Todi (fig. 3:19).

Illustration has been removed http://www.humanistart.net/city due to Copyright restrictions. _church/church-form.htm

3:19 Cola da Caprarola, Church of Santa Maria della Consolazione, Todi, Italy, 1508 – 1606, LEFT: Plan. From J.G. Davies, Temples, churches and mosques: a guide to the appreciation of religious architecture, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982, p. 206, and RIGHT: Photograph showing the sanctuary from the entrance apse, indicating liturgical ordering, c. 2002. Adapted from P. Bess, ‘The Heavenly City, the Earthly City and the Parish Church,’ Humanist art review, http://www. humanistart.net/city_church/church-form.htm, 2002, Slide 48, sourced 10 October 2006.

In contrast with the centralised renaissance churches, a different liturgical ordering evolved in churches designed with a central plan merged with a nave. In these churches ‘the altar gets placed in the centre of a crossing space where the eastern part of the church is centrally planned, but there is an elongated western arm forming the nave … in addition, churches like this may have a coro [choir] behind the principal [central] altar in the eastern arm.’ (Stancliffe 2008, p. 172). The design of these churches suited liturgical processions, both through the nave and around the central altar. Some of the assembly could gather around the altar while others remained in the nave. The choir was located in the apsidal arm. Probably the best known church having a merged central plan and nave layout is the Basilica of Saint Peter at the Vatican in Rome. Its plan evolved. It began in the early sixteenth century as a centralized church of renaissance style.

73 It was completed in the seventeenth century as a cruciform church with centralized crossing in the baroque style (fig. 3.20) (Biéler 1965, pp. 54-55). A number of factors influenced this evolution. Certainly the liturgy was one of these factors, ensuring prominence for the papal altar and providing an imposing nave for processions. Other factors included the tradition of the confessio at the tomb of St Peter, the need to accommodate a large number of the faithful, and the Catholic response to the protestant reformation. By the time Saint Peter’s Basilica was completed several similarly planned churches had been built. Kilde (2008, p. 104) observes of the building of Saint Peter’s Basilica that: In this single important church we can trace the architectural discussion over the course of the sixteenth century, from the initial revival of interest is classically inspired centralized spaces … finally to their modification (by extending a portion of the building to create a nave) and adoption.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:20 Evolution of the plan for Saint Peter’s Basilica, , Rome, Italy, 1506 -1626, Plans by: 1. , 1514, 2. Rafael, 1516, 3. Antonio de Sangallo, 1537, 4. Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1546 – 1564, 5. Michelangelo Buonarroti and Carlo Maderno, 1607. Plan 5 reveals Michelangelo’s original Greek Cross plan and the nave extension by Maderno that created a merged centralised-cruciform Latin Cross plan. At the centre of the crossing is the papal altar covered by a , this altar being above the and the tomb of Saint Peter. From M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 38.

74 The catalyst for was the Catholic response to the protestant reformation. The reformers called for radical change in Catholic teaching and worship. This change included restoring a communal sense liturgy as in the early church, greater emphasis on the Scriptures, and less distinction between lay and ordained Christians. The reformers preferred austere church architecture and a table-like setting for celebrating the Eucharist (Mauck 2002a, p. 20; Turner 1979, p. 205). In response, the bishops of the Catholic Church were summoned to an ecumenical council2 held at Trent in northern Italy from 1545 to 1563. This council responded to the reformation with a counter-reform. Its liturgical priorities were to establish for the whole church a standardised Eucharistic liturgy characterised by strict observance of uniform texts and ritual, restore preaching, promote the baroque as an emotional stimulus to re-engage Christians in the mystical and supernatural, and to design churches conceived as a single unified space (Kilde 2008, pp. 98-100; Rose 2004, p. 73; White 2003, pp. 2-5). Such attention to the Church’s liturgical life would not occur again until Vatican II four centuries later. Two plans emerged as baroque expressions of Catholic counter-reform church architecture. The less influential plan was centralised and employed an ovular or elliptical shape (Rose 2004, p. 78). The church of San Andrea al Quirinale (fig. 3:21) at Rome has an elliptical plan. The entrance opens through one of the longer sides onto the short internal axis of the ellipse (Grimal & Rose 1997, p. 121). The original principal altar is situated in a sanctuary opposite the entrance; currently a freestanding altar has been placed a short way out from the sanctuary aedicule. Small chapels surround the nave. The elliptical cupola is

2 There have been twenty-one ecumenical councils in Christian history. The term ‘ecumenical’ derives from the Greek oikoumene. Present day usage of ‘ecumenical’ commonly refers to the movement to reunite Christians of different denominations. Traditional usage of ‘ecumenical’ refers to the whole inhabited world; so an is a gathering of all the bishops of the Church. In the first millennium ecumenical councils brought together bishops from East and West, that is, Orthodox and Catholic bishops. In the second millennium ecumenical councils brought together Catholic bishops. There have been three ecumenical councils since the protestant reformation: the , the (Vatican I) and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). At Vatican II, the most recent ecumenical council, Orthodox and protestant bishops and church leaders attended as observers.

75 surmounted by a drum and dome, creating a vertical axis at the centre of the church (Beny & Gunn 1981, pp. 179-181; Hager 2001, pp. 153-154). There is no evidence as to the arrangement of the assembly in the oval-shaped nave. San Andrea al Quirinale is described as having ‘an essentially theatrical (but at the same time devotional) effect’ (Beny & Gun 1981, p. 181). Hager & Galazka (2001, p. 153) concur, referring to the ‘fervour and drama’ evoked by its architecture. These descriptions reflect continuity of the ocular dimension of medieval liturgy which had not been reformed by the Council of Trent. The descriptions further reflect the eye-catching splendour and detail of baroque interiors and attention to the liturgical vesture, ceremonial and rubrics of the as decreed by the Council. White (2003, p. 14) takes up the same theme, describing how ‘new concepts of liturgical space adopted a theatrical form in which the altar was dramatically visible.’ And Kilde (2008, p. 99) states that, ‘watching became a new type of Christian participation’. In this the liturgical ordering of San Andrea al Quirinale seems contradictory. The church is centralised but its ordering frontal. Yet the location of the original altar meant that only about 60 percent of the area of the elliptical nave provided an uninterrupted view.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:21 Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Church of San Andrea al Quirinale, Rome, Italy, 1658 – 1671, Plan: 1. Portal, 2, 3 & 6. Side chapels, 4. Entrance to adjacent , 5. Sanctuary and principal altar. Adapted from R. Beny & P. Gunn, The churches of Rome, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 181.

The second and more influential counter-reformation plan ‘merged a central dome with a longitudinal nave’ and placed the sanctuary at the head of the nave beyond the crossing (Kilde 2008, p. 105). André Biéler (1965, p. 55)

76 asserts that, ‘At the basis of the baroque art of the counter-reformation lay a search for reconciliation between the middle ages and the renaissance, between the circular plan and that of the basilica’. An early example of this merged plan is the Church of Il Gesú (fig. 3:22) at Rome. Consecrated in 1584, the church was conceived as one huge hall (Hager & Galazka 2001, p. 137). The altar was placed in a broad apse comprising an elevated sanctuary. The are shallow. There are no side aisles. A series of interconnecting side chapels line the nave but do not draw attention from the body of the church.

3:22 Nanni di Baccio Bigio, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Giacomo da Vignola, Giovanni Tristano, Giovanni de Rosis & Giacomo della Porta, Church of Il Gesú, Rome, Italy, 1568 – 1584, Plan: 1. Entrance, 2. nave, 3. , 4. crossing and dome, 5. principal altar in the apse, 6. Transept, 7. Side chapels. Secondary altars are located in the transept and side chapels. The nave provides an uninterrupted view of the principal altar. Adapted from D. Hanser, ‘Architecture of the 16th – 18th Centuries in Europe: The Counter-Reformation Church’, http://hanser.ceat.okstate.edu/3083 /il%20gesu/il_gesu.htm, sourced 13 September 2010.

Though the altar was in plain sight, participation by the laity was nevertheless ‘limited to certain well-known prayers and responses’ (Yates 2008, p. 15), listening to sermons, and gazing upon the spectacle and beauty of the

77 liturgy being celebrated by the priest and ministers (White 2003, p. 115; Yates 2008, p. 15). Catholic liturgical praxis and the churches designed for it would retain these characteristics until the renewal of the twentieth century. The Church of Il Gesú became a model for churches that ‘were built all over Europe between the late sixteenth and early nineteenth centuries’ (Yates 2008, p. 15). Yates then draws out Minchin’s observations about the influence of churches having a similar plan to Il Gesú on church design from the counter- reformation period until the mid-twentieth century. Suffice here to briefly quote Minchin about these churches: ‘It is from them that we derived our idea of what, until a few years ago, we expected a Roman Catholic church to be like’ (Minchin 1961, p. 150; Yates 2008, p. 15). That the counter-reformation plan typified by Il Gesú had so great an influence was due in large part to the two volume Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae (IFSE: Instructions on the architecture and furnishings of churches) issued by Carlo Borromeo, of Milan 1560 – 1584 (Smart 1997, p. 167). Borromeo had been an influential participant in the Council of Trent and thus ‘had intimate knowledge of the Church’s official decrees and of their intent’ (Gallegos 2004). He was well placed to apply the liturgical reforms of the Council of Trent to church buildings and liturgical ordering (Smart 1997, p. 169). In the Instructions, Borromeo dealt in detail with almost every aspect of a church: location, design, plans, liturgical ordering, atrium, baptistery, altar, ambones, pulpit, confessional, façade, doors, , illumination, sacred art, bells, towers, furnishings, , ‘even the iron peg for the priest to hang his biretta on’ (White 2003, p. 4; cf. Gallegos 2004). Borromeo insisted ‘that the Latin cross or cruciform plan is the preferred configuration for Catholic churches’ (Gallegos 2004). Borromeo directed that the principal altar and main chapel altars be free- standing so that the liturgy could be celebrated ‘in accordance with the ancient rite of the church,’ which Smart interprets as , facing the people (IFSE, 10: Smart 1997, p. 172). To reinforce Catholic belief in the sacramental

78 presence of Christ, Borromeo confirmed the emerging practice of placing the tabernacle, a secure repository for reserving the consecrated Eucharistic bread, at the centre of the principal altar (Lang 2009). It is unclear how celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy versus populum was enacted with the centrally placed tabernacle. Prior to the innovation of placing the tabernacle at the centre of the altar, Eucharistic reservation had provided for the and communion of the sick. As Keith Pecklers (2003, p. 80) observes, ‘Gradually its purpose was extended to and devotional prayer.’ Intended to strengthen Eucharistic faith and piety, the requirement that the tabernacle be housed on the altar unintentionally led to a distortion of the relationship between the altar as the place of celebration and the tabernacle as the place of reservation. By placing the tabernacle on the altar a non-liturgical element was introduced to the centre of the liturgical setting (McDonnell & Meinberg 1965, p. 6). This arrangement would prevail until the reforms initiated by Vatican II. As Keith Pecklers (2003, pp. 79-80) explains: This was a radical departure from the medieval custom of reserving the Eucharist … Now the tabernacle was front and centre and would remain so until Vatican II, leading to a misguided interpretation of the tabernacle as being essential to the celebration of Mass. Tabernacles were built ever larger to demonstrate Catholic belief in the Eucharist, thus becoming more focal and important than the altar itself. In fact, the altar became a mere throne for the tabernacle (and monstrance during Eucharistic adoration); the Mass itself was soon subordinated to the cult of the Eucharist. Forty years after Vatican II, one can still find vestiges of this belief …

The misguided interpretation to which Pecklers refers demonstrates the influence of liturgical ordering in forming - or deforming – the understanding and beliefs of Catholics. It also reveals the impact of liturgical ordering upon liturgical enactment. In both aspects the consequences have lasted for more than four hundred years. Peckler’s observation is borne out in some of the postconciliar churches treated of in Chapters Four and Six of this thesis. The standardised Eucharistic liturgy decreed by the Council of Trent was promulgated by as the Roman missal in 1570. By describing the

79 liturgical setting required for celebrating this liturgy, Borromeo’s Instructions became the obvious complement to the new Missal. Written for his Archdiocese, the influence of the Instructions soon extended far beyond Milan. Matthew Gallegos (2004) explains that, Two Church publications were mainly responsible for disseminating Borromeo’s directives …. These were the description of ‘The Church and Its Furnishings in the Roman Missal, and the ‘Instructions for Consecrating a Church’ in The Ceremonial of Bishops. Borromeo was the principle [sic] author of both of the revised versions of these documents which resulted from the Council of Trent’s deliberations.

Thus was established a standardised liturgical ordering for churches. This ordering became normative for churches in Europe and wherever the Church was established through the missionary activity that accompanied European settlement (White 2003, p. 28, pp. 48-50). A generic plan for a parish church designed in accordance with Borromeo’s Instructions is shown in figure 3:23.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:23 Plan of a typical parish church designed in accordance with the Instructions of Carlo Borromeo. Adapted from P. Anson, Churches: their plan and furnishing, revised and edited by T. F. Croft-Fraser & H. A. Reinhold, The Bruce Publishing co., Milwaukee, 1948, p. 17.

80 Though this standardised ordering consistently retained its essential elements and configuration, the emergence of different architectural styles during the centuries between the Councils of Trent and Vatican II brought about variations. The nineteenth century revival of medieval and the emergence in the early twentieth century of modern architectural design exemplify these variations (White 2003, pp. 73-76). Figure 3:24 illustrates this with plans of a late baroque church, a gothic revival church, and a modern classicist church.

Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to Copyright removed due to restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

3:24 LEFT: Christopher Dientzenhofer, Church of St Nicholas, Mala Strana, Prague, Czech Republic, 1703 – 1711, Plan of late baroque church. From J.G. Davies, Temples, churches and mosques: a guide to the appreciation of religious architecture, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982, p. 228, CENTRE: William Wilkinson Wardell, Church of St Ignatius, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1867 - 1888, Plan of gothic revival church. Adapted from J. Tan, G. Hood & P. Hosking, St Ignatius’ church, Richmond, Victoria, St Ignatius Church, Richmond, 2004, p. 19, and RIGHT: Jože Plecnik, Church of the Sacred Heart, Prague, Czech Republic, 1932, Plan of modern classicist church. From W.J. Stock, European church architecture 1900 – 1950, tr. E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich, 2006, p. 133.

The Church of St Nicholas, left, shares the spatial arrangement of the Church of Il Gesú in Rome, with its sanctuary at the end of the church. The Church of St Ignatius, centre, applies the circulation system of its medieval precursor, with an ambulatory and chapels enclosing the sanctuary, but without a choir impairing the line of sight. In the Church of the Sacred Heart, right, the sanctuary extends into the nave, differentiated only by elevation and decoration.

81 Yet each of these churches was ordered according to Borromean requirements of a frontal sanctuary and altar with the tabernacle as the central focus. It had been liturgical custom that the assembly normally stood during the Eucharistic liturgy, as this posture honoured Christ’s resurrection (Foley 2008, p. 200). From the seventeenth century the introduction of seating for the assembly further standardised the liturgical setting. Furnishing the nave and transept with rows of benches, pews or chairs, established in these previously open spaces a similar degree of formalised ordering as already existed in the sanctuary. Earlier liturgical settings had made some provision of seating, though not for the whole assembly. A chair signifying the office of bishop had always been set apart for his use. There had long been seating for those needing it and for dignitaries. Over the centuries the use of seating had gradually spread (Bouyer 1967, p. 80; Foley 2008, p. 200). Coinciding with the increasing practice of making seating available, the restored emphasis on preaching following upon the Council of Trent became a catalyst for the provision of seating for the assembly. A consequence of introducing immovable pews into churches was to further reduce the liturgical participation of an already passive assembly (Bouyer 1967, p. 81). Another unintended consequence of seating the assembly was to recast the church from being ‘a place that emphasized movement to one that focused on hearing’, from being a processional space to an auditorium space (Foley 2008, p. 257). From this gradually received innovation, seating for the assembly became integral to the liturgical ordering of churches. By its design seating can enhance or detract from the liturgical participation of the assembly.

The transition from a standardised liturgical setting

The standardised liturgy and standardised liturgical setting extended through almost four hundred years, giving rise to manuals of liturgical ceremony and ordering. Typical of these was The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described by Adrian Fortescue. First published in 1917, this ‘ceremonial’ described the

82 Church’s liturgical rites in detail. Illustrations for each rite showed the order of ceremony and hierarchy of ministers within the liturgical setting. These illustrations in turn related to plans of a sanctuary and choir that were typical of the standardised liturgical ordering (fig. 3:25).

3:25 Indicative plans of: LEFT: A parish church: choir and sanctuary; and RIGHT: A cathedral church: choir and sanctuary. Adapted from A. Fortescue, The ceremonies of the Roman rite described, revised and augmented by J.B. O’Connell, Burns, Oates and Washbourne Ltd, London, 1932, pp. 4-5, reproduced by permission of Continuum International Publishing Group.

These drawings presumed a cruciform or basilican plan church, with the assembled laity ordered in rows of seating facing the sanctuary. Therefore the plans do not include more than an acknowledgment of the nave in relation to the sanctuary. This is indicative of the prevailing understanding that the liturgy was celebrated by the ministers in the sanctuary, while laity attended in the nave. The altar was against the east wall, reflecting the preferred orientation. A for the divine office was shown but no ambo, as the epistle and gospel were read at the ends of the altar. The sedilia provided seating for the ministering clergy and a throne for the bishop in the cathedral. In contrast, current versions of a ceremonial, such as Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite by Peter J. Elliott (1995, cf. pp. 15-34 & 337-339), first published in 1995, include illustrations showing the order of ministers and of ceremony, but do not include typical plans of a sanctuary or church. Instead, the liturgical setting is described with reference to Catholic liturgical documents and

83 customs. This change in ceremonials between 1917 and 1995 reflects twentieth century developments that departed from the standardised liturgical ordering. These developments were initially inspired by the liturgical movement and often made possible by new construction methods. Subsequently Vatican II would make way for new and adapted liturgical ordering that better provides for the postconciliar liturgy. Even prior to Vatican II, changes to the liturgical ordering and shape of Catholic churches made it problematic to draw a typical church plan. In Churches and Temples by Paul Thiry, Richard Bennett and Henry Kamphoefner, published a decade before the Council in 1953, the liturgical setting could no longer be depicted in the way it had been by Fortescue thirty-six years earlier. Instead, the liturgical ordering was depicted within a complex schematic diagram (fig. 3:26) showing the liturgical places and sacred furnishings of a church in relationship to each other, to the sanctuary and to the nave, which it called the ‘body of the church’. To ensure adequate space for the liturgy, further plans indicated ideal and minimum dimensions for a sanctuary.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

3:26 Schematic diagram of the ‘relationship of elements’ in a Catholic church, c. 1953. From P. Thiry, R. Bennett & H. Kamphoefner, Churches and temples, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, 1953, p. 29C.

84 By Vatican II the standardised liturgical ordering that had complemented the standardised liturgy mandated by the Council of Trent was disappearing. Churches were being built with new and adapted liturgical ordering that reflected the liturgical principles of the twentieth century liturgical movement, particularly the participation of the whole assembly in liturgical celebration. This period of transition from the standardised liturgical setting gradually brought the fourth epoch in the history of liturgical ordering to its close. This same period of transition marked the emergence of a fifth epoch in which liturgical ordering has, as in the high medieval period, evolved with far-reaching effect. The next chapter examines the development of liturgical ordering during the first eighty years of this current epoch.

Conclusions drawn from the four epochs

This chapter has traced the evolution of the liturgical ordering of Catholic churches through four epochs, describing the spatial arrangement of new plans and the development and adaptation of earlier plans. A number of conclusions follow accordingly. The implications of these conclusions for the fifth and current epoch in the evolution of liturgical ordering will be discussed in Chapter Four. The liturgy has been the foremost influence in the ordering of church buildings. As liturgical rites have developed and changed so too have the liturgical orderings of the churches in which the liturgy is celebrated. This is evident in every epoch: • In the first epoch, domestic dwellings were adapted to provide for celebration of the Eucharist liturgy and for baptism. Hall spaces were modified when assemblies grew in membership. • In the second epoch, the basilica and circular structures were modified to serve the liturgy. The basilica was the most suitable of extant building types during the fourth century and a natural successor to the aula ecclesia. The central plan was better suited to baptisteries, memoriae and martyria, with centralised churches for the Eucharistic liturgy the exception.

85 • In the third epoch, the liturgy developed away from the assembled laity and became the domain of clergy and monks. The liturgical reordering that followed images this radical reorientation of the liturgy. • In the fourth epoch, the Church countered the impact of the protestant reformation by standardising the liturgy and consequently the spatial arrangement of churches. Even when traced as incompletely as in this chapter, history shows liturgical ordering to be dynamic and ever evolving. Fundamentally this is due to the influence of the liturgy. Indeed, the congruence of liturgy and liturgical ordering throughout these epochs evinces an organic connection. Influences other than the liturgy have also affected the ordering of churches, including: • From the second epoch, Christian use the Roman basilica led to a pre-existing type of structure that had been modified for the liturgy becoming identified as the prototypical church. Later church plans tended to derive from the basilica rather than be designed anew with the liturgy as the starting point. In this sense the basilica contributed to shaping the liturgy as it developed. • In the third epoch, the gradual exclusion of the laity from participation in the liturgy made way for increasing devotional practices. This in turn led to modification of churches to provide places for these devotions. • Though the Catholic tradition has not preferred a particular architectural style for churches, in the fourth epoch it endorsed baroque architecture, not solely for the sake of liturgical celebration, but as part of its counter-reformation strategy. During the same epoch the gradual introduction of seating into churches was more social trend than liturgical imperative. Though seating provided comfort and established order in the place for the assembly it also diminished the processional character of the liturgy and constrained the laity to stand, sit and kneel in the one place. Tracing the evolution of liturgical ordering has manifested that the liturgy has not only been the primary determinant of this ordering but has also been the

86 most constant influence. Continuity is not apparent in other influences, even when the consequence of these influences has lasted for a significant time. Between the fourth and sixth centuries the basilica and centralised churches emerged as the two foundational church plans, with the basilica the dominant plan. While the essential layout of each remained unchanged, subsequent church designs deriving from these plans showed considerable innovation in response to liturgical development and change. This is apparent beginning with the second epoch: • The emergence of the transept in the second epoch prefigured the cruciform plan. In the same epoch two orderings of the centralised plan were tested, with the altar at the centre and with the altar near the perimeter. The first conformed liturgical ordering to architecture; the second applied the frontal basilican ordering within the architecture. The centralised plan remained the exception rather than the norm. • In the third epoch, the same liturgical ordering as evolved in cruciform plan churches was applied in new churches deriving from the basilican plan. Meanwhile, in Rome the plan of the earlier basilica endured. • In the fourth epoch, the basilican and centralised plan merged, creating a new plan that simultaneously centred the altar and provided for processional liturgy. It created two related places for the assembly, surrounding the altar and in the nave. Throughout the epochs described in this chapter, types of liturgical ordering were inserted into designs stemming from the basilican and centralised plans. Certainly liturgy influenced these designs, as the earlier foundational plans were extended, expanded and merged to better accommodate the desired liturgical ordering. Yet to some degree, liturgical ordering had to fit into churches having a derivative plan. Churches were not designed from the altar out, starting with and designing for the liturgical ordering. This is hardly surprising; architecture repeats itself and the range of orderings is finite.

87 The idea that churches might be liturgically ordered to foster the participation of the whole assembly in liturgical celebration and that this might be foundational to the design process, would only emerge in the twentieth century. This will become clearer in the next chapter. The transition from a standardised liturgical ordering that was inserted into a predictable plan, to an intentional liturgical ordering that informed the design process from the outset would bring the fourth epoch to a close. This same transition would herald the emergence of a new epoch. The next chapter will take up this fifth and present epoch, examining the new and adapted liturgical orderings that were to emerge in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

88 CHAPTER FOUR

DESIGNED FOR THE LITURGY: THE EVOLUTION OF NEW AND ADAPTED LITURGICAL ORDERING IN CHURCHES OF THE 20th AND 21st CENTURIES

The period during the twentieth century in which a common liturgical setting in Catholic churches ceased to be normative coincided with the growing influence of the liturgical movement in church design. In effect, the liturgical movement was the catalyst for new and adapted church plans which challenged the idea of a standardised layout. This transition was in turn coincident with the development of construction technology and new building materials that made it possible to span large spaces without the need for frequent vertical structural support. Chapter Three treated of the twentieth century in terms of the transition from a common liturgical setting. Beginning with this same transitional period, this chapter will demonstrate that present-day liturgical ordering can be traced from the new and adapted ordering of churches that originated in the liturgical movement prior to Vatican II. It will describe how the preconciliar evolution of liturgical ordering and church design paved the way for the conciliar injunction about building churches. This evolution is recorded in Church pronouncements and documents, in the writings of liturgists and architects, and in church designs. The chapter will survey the trends and innovations which chronicle the implementation of the conciliar injunction. It will address issues having bearing upon or arising from postconciliar liturgical ordering. Lastly, it will preface the emergence of typologies as a construct for scholarly and pastoral discourse about liturgical ordering.

The liturgical movement and developments in liturgical ordering

The liturgical movement ‘ultimately traces its roots and liturgical inspiration back to nineteenth-century France, to the Benedictine monastery of Solesmes and its founder, Dom Prosper Guéranger (1805-1875)’ (Pecklers 1998, p. 1). Initially a European movement, centred in French and German monastic

89 communities, it spread through the involvement of Benedictine monks to the USA in 1926 (Pecklers 1998, p. 235). Under their influence it came to Australia around 1940, though it would have been known a decade earlier through journals and books. Virgil C. Funk (1990, p. 695) explains that, ‘In its broadest meaning, the liturgical movement was a century-long effort made to enrich the appreciation and experience of worship.’ Though monastic in its origins and scholarly in its research, the liturgical movement had a profoundly pastoral dimension. It sought to educate the Catholic community about the nature of the liturgy, to form Catholics through their experience of worship, and to bring about their active participation in liturgical celebrations (Funk 1990, pp. 696-701). Denis McNamara (2009, p. 171) observes that, The spirit of the Liturgical Movement was characterized by optimistic hope that the riches of the liturgy could be opened up more completely for more people and that the people could be properly disposed to received them. … The term Liturgical Movement refers here to the great outpouring of ideas and holy desire for the renewal of the liturgy in the years before the Second Vatican Council.

The breadth of the liturgical movement, from the monastic to the parochial, from the scholarly to the pastoral, and from the ancient foundations of the Church in Europe to the former colonies of the New World, gave rise to diverse expressions of its focus, insights and momentum. Books and journals were published, scholarly and pastoral conferences held, Latin- for the people were produced and was revived (McNamara 2009, p. 171). A number of journals in particular devoted attention to church architecture and liturgical ordering, including the Belgian L’art d’eglise, the American , later renamed Worship, and Liturgical arts, the French L’art sacré and the German Das münster, the Italian Fede e arte, as well as the Swiss yearbook Ars sacra, later renamed Sakrale kunst (Funk 1990, pp. 701-702; Seasoltz 2005, pp. 253-261). These regular publications helped ensure the timely and widespread dissemination of news about and studies of developments in liturgical art and architecture. A frequent element of the latter was the emergence of new and adapted liturgical reorderings.

90 The liturgical movement, as befits the nature of movements, was not a single organization. Rather, the title ‘liturgical movement’ came to signify the dynamic interaction of different groups which shared a commitment to liturgical renewal as this was characterized in the twentieth century. It paralleled and interacted with a process of liturgical reform within the Catholic Church. This reform was carried out during the twentieth century variously by popes, the Roman curia, national conferences of bishops, the bishops acting together during Vatican II, and the initiatives of individual bishops. These official acts of the Church to reform its liturgy were informed by and in turn encouraged the liturgical movement (Funk 1990, p. 696; McNamara 2009, p. 172). The earliest of these was the motu proprio, issued by Pope Pius X in 1903, in the introduction to which he called for the active participation of the faithful in the liturgy: As it is indeed our most fervent wish that the true Christian spirit should flourish again in every field and be upheld by all the faithful, we should above all be mindful of the sanctity and dignity of the church building; for it is there that the faithful meet to draw that same spirit from its most important and indispensable source, active participation in the sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church (quoted in Funk 1990, p. 699-700).

The 1947 encyclical, of Pope Pius XII was the first papal encyclical ever devoted entirely to the liturgy (Funk 1990, p. 706). In a 1958 pastoral letter the Archbishop of Milan and future Pope Paul VI, Giovanni Battista Montini (1963, p.102), wrote that, ‘Mediator Dei may be called the “magna charta [sic] of the Church’s liturgical renewal’. This view was echoed by Alcuin Reid (2004, p. 127) who described it as ‘the “Magna Carta” that prepared for the general reform called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.’ With reference to the liturgical setting in the encyclical, Mediator Dei Pius XII (1947, §62) cautioned against antiquarianism: ‘… one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform [sic]’. He went on to state: What We have said about music, applies to the other fine arts, especially to architecture, sculpture and . … Modern art should be given free scope in the due and reverent service of the church and the sacred rites, provided that they preserve a correct balance between styles tending neither to extreme

91 realism nor to excessive "symbolism," and that the needs of the Christian community are taken into consideration rather than the particular taste or talent of the individual artist. (Pius XII 1947, §195).

And: … take great care to enlighten and direct the minds and hearts of the artists to whom is given the task today of restoring or rebuilding the many churches which have been ruined or completely destroyed by war. Let them be capable and willing to draw their inspiration from religion to express what is suitable and more in keeping with the requirements of worship. (Pius XII 1947, §196).

Clearly each of these papal pronouncements gives priority to fulfilling the requirements of the liturgy. Meanwhile in the same year, 1947, the German Liturgical Commission published its Directives for the Building of a Church, a document composed by Theodor Klauser (Torgerson 2007, pp. 230-237). A decade later, in 1957, the Diocesan Liturgical Commission of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, USA, published its Diocesan Church Building Directives (Torgerson 2007, pp. 238-246). These documents might be considered the forerunners of the many national and diocesan directories on church architecture, art and cultural patrimony that would be issued in the decades following Vatican Council II. The 1958 pastoral letter of Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini to the Archdiocese of Milan, referred to above in its affirmation of the encyclical, Mediator Dei, offered this reflection upon the importance and role of the of the liturgical setting: The eye must see. How can we help it to see? This is where the pre-eminence of the altar comes in: it must be central and visible. … The altar should be illuminated in such a way as to attract the eyes of all to it; not in a theatrical way, but with the greatest decorum. … And visibility should be an attribute no only of the altar, but of the whole sacred hall, which has been designed, in its entirety and in its details, as a perennial means of instruction and edification. … Hence, that the eye of the believer may know how to discover the glory of God in his church, every detail of the church must be kept in order and displayed in such a way as to give spiritual aid. (Montini 1963, p. 106).

These papal, national and diocesan documents attest to the Church’s engagement with the liturgical movement, from the beginning of the twentieth

92 century to the eve of the announcement of Vatican II in early 1959 (Alberigo 1995, p. 1). They show how the interaction between the liturgical movement and the Church in reforming and renewing the liturgy, and its architectural setting, found expression universally, nationally and locally. The reception of this impetus for liturgical reform was not consistent throughout the church, being largely dependent upon local bishops and their national organisations. While the publication of these ecclesial documents marked significant steps forward in the reform of the liturgy and of its architectural setting, and were received as endorsements of the initiatives of the liturgical movement, the Church also granted approval for particular liturgical changes in response to requests from bishops in different parts of the world. Even though the general disposition to liturgical developments and changes remained restrictive, specific permissions were nevertheless granted for such modifications as the singing of hymns in the vernacular rather than Latin, participation by the assembly in singing Gregorian chant which had been the domain of the priest and choir, the in which the assembly responded to the priest rather than other liturgical ministers on their behalf, evening celebrations of the Eucharistic liturgy, the use of a bilingual ritual, and for limited translation from Latin into the vernacular of the Roman missal (Funk 1990, pp. 699-712). The literature that deals with the development of and changes to church architecture in the preconciliar twentieth century is extensive, even from the perspective of liturgical ordering. This survey can but mention some churches which serve as markers in this development. The first of these is the Church of Notre Dame du Raincy (fig. 4:1), built at Raincy in suburban Paris. It was designed by Auguste Perret with his Gustave Perret in 1922 and constructed of reinforced concrete. While the liturgical ordering is essentially basilican plan, the use of ‘reinforced concrete showed its extraordinary possibilities as a building material … not only for secular buildings but also for churches’ (Seasoltz 2005, p. 240). Moreover the elevated sanctuary was contained not in an apse but contiguous with the nave, thereby creating a single unified liturgical setting.

93 Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:1 Auguste Perret and Gustave Pettet, Church of Notre Dame du Raincy, Paris, France, 1922, Plan. From P. Hammond, Liturgy and Architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 53.

Early in that same decade a German architect, Rudolf Schwarz, met , a priest and theologian. Guardini had already published The Spirit of the Liturgy, a foundational text for inaugurating the liturgical movement in Germany (Ratzinger 2000, p. 7). Schwarz and Guardini met through Quickborn, a Catholic youth movement which had its headquarters at Burg Rothenfels, a medieval castle. When in 1927 Guardini became director of Burg Rothenfels he called upon Schwarz to serve as architect for renovations (Kieckhefer 2004, pp. 232-234; Torgerson 2007, pp. 33-34). There had been a chapel ‘with a Gothic revival altar, a pieta over the tabernacle, and traditionally ranked pews separated by a central aisle’ (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 234). This was all dismantled and removed as Guardini the liturgist and Schwarz the architect set about designing a liturgical reordering and renewal of the chapel. In the postconciliar era such professional collaboration would become a widely accepted practice for the design of new and reordered churches. The resulting design constituted a radical change that gave spatial expression to the highest objectives of the liturgical movement. Choosing moveable furniture, Schwarz prepared a number of schemes for ordering the space for the liturgy, including arranging the assembly around three sides of the altar in two variations of a U-shape and a full enclosed oval-shape (fig. 4:2). As Kieckhefer (2004, p. 234) observes, The focus was entirely on the congregation and the priest, together forming a community gathered for worship, with no separation between them. The chapel

94 was a place where liturgical reforms born in the monasteries could reach wider circles.

Illustration has been Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:2 Rudolf Schwarz, Chapel at Burg Rothenfels, Rothenfels am Main, Germany, 1928, Plans of three schemes for the arrangement of the chapel. Note the liturgical ordering in which the assembly is gathered around three sides of the altar and priest, who is indicated as celebrating facing the people. Other liturgical furnishings such as the ambo are not shown, the emphasis clearly being on the ordering of the gathered assembly rather than the arrangement of the sacred furnishings. Adapted from R. Schwarz, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2007, pp. 40-41.

Rudolf Schwarz would go on to become one of the foremost architects and thinkers of the liturgical movement. In 1938 he published Vom bau der kirche, which was finally translated and published in English as The church incarnate twenty years later. This seminal work was less an exercise in architectural design than a theological and philosophical reflection upon the sacred as mediated in architecture. Schwarz (1958, p. 11) described the contemporary task thus: To build churches out of that reality which we experience and verify every day; to take this our own reality so seriously and to recognise it to be so holy that it may be able to enter in before God.

Schwarz was seeking to articulate a new iconography which the modern thinker cannot but recognise (Schloeder 1998, p. 234). He developed this new iconography by proposing seven ‘plans’, three reflecting the horizontal dimension, two with the vertical added to the horizontal, one metaphysical, and a seventh unifying plan. These plans are comprised of basic geometric forms to which he imparted meanings which relate to the life of Christ and to the liturgical assembly (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 236; Schloeder 1998, p. 234). Though the geometric forms are simple and familiar, their illustration and interpretation is

95 complex, such that some of the plans will be more readily recognized than others. Kieckhefer (2004, p. 237) suggests that, Ultimately, … it would perhaps be best to say that what Schwarz provides is not simply a series of plans for church design but a sequence of meditations showing how to think about church design … Each plan is the basis for a meditation; their connectedness is then subject matter for further meditation.

Selected drawings of each of Schwarz’s seven plans are shown in Figure 4:3.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:3 The ‘Seven Plans’ by Rudolf Schwarz from Vom bau der kirche, 1938. Adapted from R. Schwarz, The church incarnate: the sacred function of Christian architecture, tr. C. Harris, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1958, p. 37, p. 69, p. 95, p. 138, p. 157, p. 181 & p. 194.

Schwarz also became one of the ‘leading spirits’ of the Study Circle for Church Art which the architect Martin Weber had initiated at Burg Rothenfels (Schnell 1974, p. 46). From 1922 Weber had studied developments in the placement of the altar and the ordering of the assembly and choir in relation to it (Schnell 1974, p. 41; Unterhalt 2010, pp. 179-182). The Study Circle ‘worked consistently towards bringing the altar closer to the congregation’ (Schnell 1974, p. 46). After some success but also some difficulties in achieving this aim, Weber

96 advocated the T-shaped plan with the altar centred in the crossing, which he related to the early Christian custom of Tau-cross churches (Schnell 1974, p. 46). Another leading German architect, Dominikus Böhm, designed such a church at Ringenberg in Germany (fig. 4:4), which was completed in 1935. Hugo Schnell (1974, p. 46) describes it as, one of his most harmonious churches, … [for] as almost no other architect he reflected from work to work on the meaning and position of the altar and the much-discussed tabernacle, the sites for the font, ambo, confessional, choir and organ, the workday church … .

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:4 Dominikus Böhm, [unnamed] Catholic Church, Ringenberg, Germany, 1935, Plan showing liturgical ordering with centrally placed sanctuary and freestanding altar, with the tabernacle separate from the altar, and the assembly gathered on three sides of the altar. From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 60, cf. Schnell 1974, p. 43.

In the Ringenberg church the assembly is gathered at three sides of a free-standing altar so as to foster participation. Thus the Eucharistic liturgy could have been celebrated with the priest facing the people. The tabernacle is placed behind the altar in a slight projection of the church beyond the Tau shape. This removal of the tabernacle from its customary place upon the altar constituted a radical innovation that was contrary to the practice of almost four centuries and anticipated by fifteen years such practical rethinking of liturgical space in Germany (Funk 1990, p. 705). The seating for the priest and ministers was located at the end of the altar. There is a central aisle in the transept but not in the nave; indeed entrance to the sanctuary is not possible from the nave, as the

97 altar-rails have openings only on the transept sides of the sanctuary. The baptistery is located between two entrances at the rear of the nave. Meanwhile in England two new Catholic churches with a strong emphasis on the gathered liturgical assembly had been built. In 1935 the Church of the First Martyrs (fig. 4:5) was built at Bradford in England. Designed by a local architect, J. H. Langtry Langton, it has an octagonal plan, with a central sanctuary and altar. There are seven bays of seats, with the ambo located in the eighth bay behind the altar, beyond which is the sacristy. Insofar as the ambo aligns with the altar it could be said to be on the central axis, but the entrances are either side of this axis and there is no aisle on the axis. While there are other axes which intersect the sanctuary, none could be said to be dominant. The baptismal font is located adjacent to the narthex. Peter Hammond (1960, p. 69) observes of this church that it was the result of a ‘desire to create a building which would express the express the essential character of the eucharist as a corporate action in which the laity as well as the celebrant have their part to play.’

4:5 J. H. Langtry Langton, Church of the First Martyrs, Bradford, England, 1935, Plan showing liturgical ordering with altar at centre, ambo behind the altar, seating for the assembly in gathered circular arrangement. From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 69.

Four years later, in 1939, another centralized church was built in England, this time at Gorleston-on-Sea and to a cruciform plan (fig. 4:6). The Church of Saint Peter the Apostle was designed by Eric Gill and H. Edmund Farrell (Gill 1940, p. 52). Gill’s contention was that,

98 there is nothing whatever in the nature of an altar that implies that it should be anywhere in the middle. It began as a table around which people sat and partook of the consecrated bread and wine. It remains that thing. (cited in Hammond 1960, p. 70).

As is apparent in Figure 4:6, two plans of the Church of St Peter the Apostle differ in their location of pulpit, font, chapel, sacristy, porch and entrance, seating configuration and the existence of a central aisle in the nave. The altar is located at the centre, in the crossing. As the building conforms to the customary Latin cross plan, the surrounding seating accommodates more people in the nave than in the transept and ‘chancel’. The ambo or pulpit is located on the front pillar of the longer nave arm, though Gill maintained that if necessary preaching could be done from the altar steps (Gill 1940, p. 58). The baptistery is adjacent to the entrance.

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:6 Eric Gill and H. Edmund Farrell, Church of St. Peter, Gorleston-on-Sea, England, 1939, Plans showing cruciform setting with centralized altar. LEFT: From E. Gill, ‘To the Editor of Liturgical Arts’, Liturgical arts, 1940, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 52; note that this plan corresponds with photographs of the church interior c. 1940 (Gill 1940, p. 52.), and RIGHT: From P. Hammond, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, p. 70.

Whereas the rationale for the earlier described Church of the First Martyrs is clearly consistent with the inspiration and principles of the liturgical movement, Gill’s simplistic rationale for this church tends to the antiquarianism against which Pope Pius XII would subsequently caution. Hammond (1960, pp. 70-71) notes that Gill realised only too well, that this first attempt to translate his vision of a revived liturgy into terms of bricks and timber had brought to light a host of problems … But for all its faults, St. Peter’s Gorleston is one of the most courageous essays in planning for liturgy that the ‘thirties produced …

99 In 1942 the Church of St Mark (fig. 4:7) was built at Burlington in the United States. Clearly responsive to the liturgical movement, the commission was for a church ‘that would encourage an organic unity between clergy and laity in worship’ (Torgerson 2007, p. 37). Designed by Freeman, French and Freeman, the church was designed from a centrally placed altar out, much like the Church of St Peter the Apostle at Gorleston-on-Sea, with the assembly gathered around the altar in three equal sections and the priest able to celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy facing the assembly (Lavanoux 1943, p. 82; Pecklers 1998, p. 251). The fourth section behind the altar housed the pulpit, choir and organ, and provided sacristy access (Pecklers 1998, p. 251). It is noted by Pecklers (1998, p. 251) that even at the time of construction the division of the assembly into three parts was unfavourably critiqued.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright Illustration has been removed restrictions. due to Copyright restrictions.

4:7 Freeman, French and Freeman, Church of St Mark, Burlington, Vermont, United States, 1942, LEFT: Plan as originally built showing the central sanctuary, with pulpit and choir behind, and seating on the other three sides. From M. Lavanoux, ‘St Mark’s Church, Burlington, Vermont’, Liturgical arts, 1943, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 84, and RIGHT: Photograph showing sanctuary and ‘fourth section’ beyond c. 1953. From P. Thiry, R. Bennett & H. Kamphoefner, Churches and temples, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, 1953, p. 31C.

A notable feature of the Church of St Mark at Burlington, as with the earlier Church of the First Martyrs at Bradford, is the placement of the pulpit behind the altar. In contrast, the Church of St. Peter at Gorleston-on-Sea situated the pulpit in its traditional place in front of the sanctuary to one side of the nave. While pulpit and ambo are not synonymous, the latter being used for

100 proclamation of the Scriptures as well as preaching, the placement of the pulpit behind a central altar was clearly responsive to the different liturgical dynamics of preaching and praying. This preconciliar ordering may be seen as establishing a precedent for postconciliar liturgical ordering. This can be seen, for example, in the reordered Church of St Michael at Linz (fig. 4:28), treated of later in this chapter, and in St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy (fig. 6:13 and fig. 6:14) which is considered in Chapter Six. That same year Barry Byrne (1942, p. 59) designed a fan-arrayed church (fig. 4:8) and published his plan in Liturgical Arts. He designed the church ‘on the basis of the eucharistic liturgy, so that the plan and enveloping architectural form will be expressive of the primacy of that function’ (Byrne 1942, p. 59). He sought to emphasise the priest ‘carrying the people’s worship with him up to the altar …’ and ‘the grouping of the people around the sanctuary …’ (Byrne 1942, p. 60). These emphases all reflect the priorities of the liturgical movement.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:8 Barry Byrne, Plan for a church with fan-arrayed liturgical ordering. From B. Byrne, ‘Plan for a Church’, Liturgical arts, 1942, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 59.

There was a surge in church building after World War II. In parts of Europe, especially in Germany, churches were rebuilt and new churches erected to replace those damaged and destroyed in the conflict. Elsewhere new churches were built to meet the needs of post-war migration and growing cities. One of the earliest reconstructions was the cruciform plan Church of St Heribert (fig. 4:9) at Cologne-Deutz, which was undertaken by Rudolf Schwarz in 1947. He had

101 the floor of the church levelled, so that the elevated sanctuary from the original liturgical reordering was removed. He brought the sanctuary from the apse into the crossing and placed the immediately behind the altar in an elevated position over the rear sanctuary steps. The seating for the assembly was placed in the nave and transept with a place for the choir behind the sanctuary. The baptismal font was relocated to the apse. A few years later Schwarz would use a similar arrangement when liturgically reordering the Liebfrauen-Basilika at Trier, as well as designing a number of churches with a similar liturgical ordering to a cruciform plan. Other similar adaptations of German churches used the apse as a chapel for weekday Eucharistic liturgies or to house a pipe organ (Hammond 1960, pp. 139-140).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:9 Rudolf Schwarz, Church of St Heribert, Cologne, Germany, (nineteenth century) Reordered 1947, Plan showing the liturgical reordering after reconstruction. From R. Schwarz, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2007, p. 128).

The influence of the liturgical movement ecumenically became apparent in the design of the Episcopal Church of St Clement (fig. 4:10), built in 1948 at Alexandria, Virginia in the United States (Burns Carroll 1994, p. 13). Adopting the idea of a central altar, as already seen at Bradford, Gorleston-on-Sea and

102 Burlington, the plan of the Church of St Clement ‘encouraged congregational participation in worship, evolved from the European-based liturgical movement’ (Burns Carroll 1994, p. 13). The design foreshadowed what has become known as the ‘antiphonal’ setting: ‘Thus, the congregation sat on the two outer sides of a basically rectangular plan, with the middle section divided into three areas for the pulpit, altar and baptismal font’ (Burns Carroll 1994, p. 14).

4:10 Joseph H. Saunders Jr., Church of St Clement, Alexandria, Virginia, United States, 1948, Plan showing antiphonal liturgical ordering. From L. Burns Carroll, ‘Revisiting a Church of Radical Design – and its Visionary Priest’, Faith & form, 1994, vol. 28, Fall, p. 13.

Darby Wood Betts, the priest whose vision shaped the design of the church, considered ‘the central activity of Christian worship’ to ‘be around the Altar of God’ and that the liturgical ordering of the church symbolized the assembly as ‘a family called into being by its Father which is God, and therefore, as a family, we sit facing one another rather than looking at the backs of each other’s heads as does an audience’ (quoted in Burns Carroll 1994, pp. 13-14). Betts would go on to become a leader in the renewal of church design for Protestant ecclesial communities (Burns Carroll 1994, p. 15; Torgerson 2007, p. 90). Despite the emphases on the assembly as family and participation, the place for the liturgical choir in a gallery above the baptistery and broad entry aisle, and overlooking the rest of the assembly, very likely resulted in a tension between choral performance and congregational participation in sung parts of the liturgy.

103 In the early 1950s further development occurred in the design of new church plans in the United States. The fan-arrayed Church of Christ the King (fig. 4:11) at Seattle was designed by Paul Thiry. Arranged as a sweeping arc of almost 180°, the semicircular sanctuary was situated at the centre of the fan. Seating for the assembly was arranged in four equal bays of seats, each surrounded by aisles. The entrance, baptistery, crying room (a soundproof room for parents with infants) and an office were accommodated in a projection centred on the semicircular arc of the church exterior. The sacristies were accommodated in another projection of the building behind the sanctuary.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:11 Paul Thiry, Church of Christ the King at Seattle, Washington, United States, 1950, Plan showing fan-arrayed liturgical ordering. The four bays of seating are outlined but no pews or chairs shown. From G. Fitzgerald & P. Thiry, ‘Church of Christ the King, Seattle, Washington’, Liturgical arts, 1950, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 39.

The central-plan Blessed Sacrament Church (fig. 4:12) at Holyoke, Massachusetts was designed by Chester Wright and arranged ‘so that the assembly’s seats would radiate from the central altar’ (DeSanctis 1993, p. 30). There are sixteen radiating aisles and a peripheral aisle around the inside wall. A lantern supported by eight posts projects from the roof directly above the sanctuary and illuminates the church, creating a vertical axis centred above the altar. There are two horizontal axes intersecting the sanctuary and central altar. These axes are established by three entries into the church, at 90° to each other, and a fourth corridor entrance leading to sacristies. While ensuring a sense of the

104 gathered assembly and clear focus on the altar, this centralized arrangement creates a difficulty for the proclamation and preaching of the Scriptures.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:12 Chester Wright, Blessed Sacrament Church, Holyoke, Massachusetts, United States, 1950, Plan showing centralized plan and altar. From D.E. Hennessey & C.F. Wright, ‘Blessed Sacrament Church, Holyoke, Massachusetts, Liturgical arts, 1954, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 88.

Despite the presence of the liturgical movement in Ireland from 1954, it would not be until after Vatican II that a lasting architectural response would be realized. However in that same year a chapel, designed by Brendan O’Connor, was built to a variation of the U-arrayed plan. Hurley and Cantwell (1985, p. 37) describe the Chapel at Rossguill (fig. 4:13) as being, the first truly post-war modern church in Ireland. … The plan is a simple rectangle with the altar placed on the long wall, slightly recessed in a sanctuary which is top lit to lend emphasis to the space. The congregation is assembled on three sides of the sanctuary.

In fact the amount of seating on either side of the sanctuary constitutes only about twenty percent of the seating for the assembly.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:13 Brendan O’Connor, Chapel, Rossguill, Co. Donegal, Ireland, 1954, Plan. From R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 32.

105 Responsive to the liturgical movement like Schwarz and Böhm, another German architect who took a leading role in church design was Emil Steffann. He made a significant contribution in the decades between World War II and the early postconciliar period. Like Schwarz, with whom he sometimes collaborated, Steffann sought not to create a new style of church architecture but to design churches which of their essence were liturgical (Scholz 2004, p. 22). His contribution is typified in the Church of St Laurentius at Munich which opened in 1955 (fig. 4:14).

www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/Pfarrei/ Page005358.aspx

4:14 Emil Steffann, Church of St Laurentius, Munich, Germany, 1955, Plan. From F. Scholz, St. Laurentius in München: architektur, ausstattung, bedeutung, Oratorium des Heiligen Philipp Neri und Pfarrgemeinde St. Laurentius, Munchen 2004, p. 10.

An almost square building with a broad apse, the Church of St Laurentius is approached via a covered -walk. The only entry is at the corner of the church, into a low-roofed rear aisle. The place of reservation of the Blessed Eucharist is immediately visible at the other end of the aisle. It is screened from the nave by an ornamental grille. The sacristy is adjacent to the entrance. Beyond the sacristy, also opening off the rear aisle, is the baptistery. This brick- domed room is down four steps from the church floor and provides for baptism to be celebrated using a pedestal bowl or its surrounding pool. The place for the assembly is ordered in blocks of seating around the sanctuary, with the choir and organ located in the nave on the other side of the aforementioned grille.

106 Surrounded by an ambulatory, the elevated sanctuary projects from the apse into the nave. The altar is near the front of the sanctuary, providing the assembly with an immediate view during celebrations of the Eucharistic liturgy. Seats for the priest and other ministers are located at the apsidal end of the sanctuary. A small ambo is set back to one side between the altar and the seats (Scholz 2004, pp. 3-15). In 1957 Steffann proposed a similar design for the Church of St Elisabeth at Leverkusen-Opladen, but with seating for the assembly in a curving ‘U’ configuration and without an axial principal aisle. However the executed plan retained the basic seating plan of St Laurentius Church (Mackowiak 2010, pp. 210-211). Steffann used this liturgical ordering in subsequent church designs, anticipating the reform of Vatican II by a decade (Stock 2004, p. 133). In contrast with Steffann’s more traditional approach to designing liturgical space, Alfons Leitl created an architecturally innovative plan for St Barbara Church at Mühlheim/Ruhr (fig. 4:15). It also opened in 1955 (Mackowiak 2010, pp. 209-210). Polygonal in shape, the church has a central triangular sanctuary. The assembly is arranged in a V-configuration on two sides of this sanctuary, thereby ensuring proximity to the altar and to other members of the assembly. The font is located in a baptistery beside and between the two end bays of assembly seating and in line with the altar. Though this church has a dominant central axis, there is no apparent principal aisle for processions.

4:15 Alfons Leitl, St Barbara Church, Mühlheim/Ruhr, Germany, 1953 – 1955, Plan. From O. Mackowiak, ‘Das Kirchengestühl im modernen Kirchenbau’, in “Liturgie als bauherr”? Moderne sakralarchektur und ihre ausstattung zwischen funktion und form, eds. H. Körner & J. Wiener, Klartext, Essen, 2010, p. 209.

107 Auguste Perret, whose Church of Notre Dame du Raincy was mentioned earlier, held significant responsibility for the post-war rebuilding of the French costal city of Le Havre (Kidder Smith 1964, p. 106). Included in this effort was the Church of St Joseph (fig. 4:16) which opened in 1959. The church has a centralized plan. An inner circle accommodates the sanctuary with altar and seating for the priest and ministers. It also incorporates the initial rows of seating for the assembly which are arranged in an octagon that mirrors the shape of the sanctuary. Beyond these pews the ordering of the assembly takes up a wide cruciform plan. This is a consequence of the massive four-post pillars that bear the load of the tower and open lantern above the sanctuary (Kidder Smith 1964, p. 106; Stock 2002, p. 70). The tabernacle is located at the end of the cross-arm that is on the principal axis together with the altar and entrance. Though this church gives strong emphasis to the gathered assembly it is not well suited for proclaiming or preaching the Scriptures, there being no place within the church from which the whole assembly can be seen and addressed. Figure n. shows a plan and section of the Church of St Joseph.

Illustration has been removed due Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. to Copyright restrictions.

4:16 Auguste Perret, Church of St Joseph, Le Havre, France, 1959, LEFT: Plan. From F. Mecozzi, Church architecture: a tentative Roman Catholic prototype, Scholia Editions, Toronto, 1997, p. 22, and RIGHT: Section. From G.E. Kidder Smith, The new churches of Europe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1964, p. 108.

108 Though the influence of the liturgical movement on church architecture initially found expression in England, countries in Western Europe and in the United States, during the decade prior to Vatican Council II it was also taking root in other parts of the world, though not everywhere. In 1953 Hildebrand Yaiser, a Benedictine , wrote about priorities for church design in Japan, a missionary country that was then rebuilding after World War II. These priorities were: provision for adult ‘in a way which renders them unforgettable …’ (Yaiser 1953, p. 79); the use of ambones for proclaiming and preaching the Scriptures; the altar, and artwork simple and symbolic, so that these elements of the liturgical setting not only fulfil their functions but also convey their inherent meanings (Yaiser 1953, pp.79-80). Within seven years the Church of Our Lady of Kuwana (fig. 4:17) had opened, its design clearly informed by the liturgical movement. The building was circular and its ordering centralized. The altar was encircled with a ‘carpet’ of white pebbles, echoing a traditional element of Shinto shrines. So that the assembly could clearly see what was happening upon the altar, a lowset tabernacle was partially ‘buried’ in the mensa. In an era before cremation was approved by the Catholic Church, a columbarium of glass bricks within which to immure the ashes of the deceased was incorporated in the wall ‘behind’ the central altar, honouring Japanese burial custom (Tennien 1960, pp. 72 & 82).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:17 Jiro Miyagi & Kojima, Church of Our Lady of Kuwana, Kyoto Diocese, Japan, c.1960, Plan. From M. Tennien, ‘A Report from Japan’, Liturgical arts, 1960, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 78.

109 Architect J.B. Fernandes was also writing about church design in 1953. His context was post-colonial India. His priority was influenced not by the liturgical movement but by the conviction that Church architecture ought to be ‘Indianised’, consistent with the independence India had attained six years earlier (Fernandes 1953, p. 14). He proposed that the Church in India break from the old European styles of architecture imported by Portuguese and English colonisers and the missionaries who followed them. Instead, new churches would be designed featuring the architectural characteristics peculiar to each local region (Fernandes 1953, p. 14). In setting forth this vision, Fernandes articulated the importance of inculturating the Catholic tradition within Indian cultural traditions. Such inculturation has long been a priority of missionaries and provision for liturgical inculturation would be made by the Council (Vatican II 1963, SC §37-40). He illustrated his conviction with drawings for a proposed church for Madura (fig. 4:18) in southern India. While the design incorporates the local architectural style, it retains a conventional longitudinal ordering, uninformed by the liturgical movement.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:18 J.B. Fernandes, Drawings of a proposed church for Madura, India, 1952. From J.B. Fernandes, ‘Church Architecture in India’, Liturgical arts, 1953, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 26.

During the same decade there was considerable new church design occurring in Mexico. Some of these churches retained traditional basilican and

110 cruciform plans with longitudinal ordering, while others adopted centralized plans in circular and square buildings. The style of these churches represented a break from the Spanish architecture of the colonial era but was inspired by modern architectural trends rather than traditional Mexican styles (Mexico: Illustrations 1955, pp. 112-119). Here, then, was a third manifestation of church design in the mid twentieth century: in Japan church design was being informed by both the liturgical movement and Japanese culture; in India church design remained seemingly uninfluenced by the liturgical movement but was seeking local architectural expression; and in Mexico church architecture was influenced by the liturgical movement and modern architectural trends. Figure 4:19 shows drawings for a church project at Guadalajara in Mexico. The liturgical ordering was centralised, with the baptistery placed in the forecourt rather than the church. The architectural style was contemporary, even futuristic.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:19. Enrique de la Mora, Plans and sections for the project of the Church of Saint Louis Gonzaga, Guadalajara, Mexico, c. 1955. From ‘Guadalajara on the March’, Liturgical arts, 1955, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 118.

In Australia the influence of the liturgical movement on the spatial arrangement of churches was first realised in St Mary’s Cathedral (fig. 4:20) at

111 Hobart from 1958 to 1961 (cf. Jarrett 1986, p. 4). The then Archbishop of Hobart, Guilford Young, was deeply committed to liturgical renewal. Anticipating the liturgical reforms of Vatican Council II, he initiated the reordering of the Cathedral by extending the sanctuary into the crossing, changed the direction of seats for the assembly that were in the transept to face the new sanctuary rather than side altars, and commissioned new sacred furnishings. The altar was placed at the centre of the crossing, the ambo to one side of the altar, the cathedra to the centre of the original sanctuary in front of a new ornamental screen. Later, after the conciliar reforms, the tabernacle was shifted from the altar to the front of a crossing . Later still the cathedra was relocated to the front of the crossing pillar to the place where the tabernacle had earlier been moved, and the tabernacle to the centre near the apsidal wall of the original sanctuary.

4:20 (William Wilkinson Wardell), Architect of Reordering unknown, St Mary’s Cathedral, Hobart, Australia, (1878 – 1881) Reordered 1958 – 1961 and after 1963, Photographs showing: LEFT: The initial liturgical reordering of the sanctuary prior to Vatican Council II, 1958 – 1961, and RIGHT: the further reordering of the sanctuary following the Council when the tabernacle was removed from the altar to the column at the right rear corner of the crossing, after 1963. Note the new sanctuary in the crossing and the seating arrangement for the assembly in nave and transept. From Archdiocese of Hobart archives, Hobart and St Mary’s Cathedral archives, Hobart.

Around the same time the Benedictine Abbey of New Norcia engaged in a project with the Rome-based International Institute of Liturgical Arts for the design of a new Abbey Church of the Most Blessed Trinity (fig. 4:21). Pier Luigi Nervi and Antonio Nervi were commissioned as architects and engineers. The

112 church was designed as a triangular structure with the sanctuary and monastic choir projecting from one corner and the seating for the assembly wrapping around the sanctuary (‘Abbey Church’ 1961, pp. 36-37). With this layout the monastic choir was open to the gathered assembly in the nave and the latter were drawn into participation in the liturgy. It remains unbuilt.

4:21 Pier Luigi Nervi and Antonio Nervi, Proposal for the Abbey Church of the Most Blessed Trinity at New Norcia, Western Australia, Australia, c. 1961, LEFT: Plan of the Abbey Church showing sanctuary with central altar, choir stalls, and seating layout for the assembly, and RIGHT: Perspective drawing of the sanctuary and choir. From ‘Abbey Church’, Liturgical arts, 1961, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 36-37. Images used by permission of the Benedictine Community of New Norcia.

While Pier Luigi Nervi and Antonio Nervi were designing a new Abbey Church for New Norcia, thirty-three designers were preparing plans for the Cardinal Lecaro Prize / Spaeth Competition. This competition was sponsored by the North American Liturgical Conference (O’Donnell 1961, pp. 1 – 31). Giacomo Lecaro was Archbishop of Bologna, Italy, and a patron of liturgical renewal. The competition, held in each year from 1961 until 1963, anticipated the changes in church design that would follow from Vatican II. Of the thirty-three plans submitted, half retained a traditional basilican ordering. Three plans provided a bidirectional altar arrangement, with the assembly configured on either side of the sanctuary in a rectangular building. It is difficult to interpret this design; it hardly prefigures the postconciliar antiphonal setting. Five plans were early versions of a fan arrangement, two utilised a Tau-

113 cross arrangement, and six had a centralised ordering. Many included separate chapels. Most conformed the ordering of the assembly to the shape of the church. What is evident in many of the designs is attention to the relationship between the assembly and the altar and provision for processional movement. About the same time Adé Béthune (1962, p. 76) made a number of observations regarding the limitations imposed by pews on liturgical celebration, concluding that: … I don’t think anyone has advanced any constructive suggestion for going back to standing. Admitting then that we must accept the pews, let’s do something as significant as possible with them. As a matter of fact, much is being done. Every day a new church is built in an L- shape, V-shape, T-shape, cross-shape, trapeze-shape, fan-shape, or even circular shape. These are not all successful but they are attempts to bring the people closer to the altar, for only if they can see the action of the mass, can they hope to take an intelligent and active part in it.

Here, in the year the Council opened, Béthune summarises the innovation which has occurred in preconciliar liturgical ordering. She simultaneously acknowledges the quest for an ideal ordering. This quest, most often implicit in the design process, became a distinguishing feature of postconciliar church architecture. The majority of churches built prior to Vatican II still retained the basilican or cruciform liturgical ordering that had become normative from the sixteenth century. To some extent the architecture of these churches was usually informed by the liturgical movement and the modern movement in architecture. Many such churches incorporated developments made possible by twentieth century construction methods and materials. Yet it would be the range of new orderings designed during the decades prior to the Council which would become the pattern for postconciliar liturgical ordering. The conciliar imperative would be the catalyst for this next stage in the evolution of liturgical ordering but it would be architecture’s mimetic character that would link the pre- and postconciliar periods. As Patrick J. Quinn (1963, p. 70) remarked in May 1963, just seven months before the promulgation of the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium:

114 The controversy over whether or not liturgy should be the major determinant in the form of our new churches is being brought sharply into focus by the realization that significant liturgical reforms will, in all probability, result from the deliberations at the Second Vatican Council.

The reforms anticipated in Quinn’s observation would, in December 1963, come to pass.

Vatican Council II and the impetus for new and adapted liturgical ordering

Suitable for the celebration of liturgical services

That the Council should have had so great an influence on the liturgical ordering of churches is less to do with what it taught about church design than what it taught about liturgy. As noted in Chapter One, church buildings receive only two brief references in the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium. The first reference has determined the subject of this thesis: ‘... And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §124). This admonition clearly drew on the conciliar teaching of the constitution, which expressed the desire ‘that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy’ and insisted that ‘this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §14). The second reference, also mentioned in Chapter One, dealt with one aspect of implementing the Council’s injunction: … there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing, and safety of the Eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability of the baptistery … (Vatican II 1963, SC §128).

As noted in Chapter Two, a series of postconciliar documents have enacted this directive. Appendix Two cites excerpts of these documents.

115 This same constitution established other liturgical principles that would inform the liturgical ordering of Catholic churches thereafter. As noted in Chapter Two, the constitution taught that: Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass … in the person of His minister … especially under the Eucharistic species. ... in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is present in His word … He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings (Vatican II 1963, SC §7).

Thus the significance of the entire liturgical setting is highlighted, with attention particularly drawn to the altar, the chair at which the priest celebrant presides, the ambo, the place for the assembly and those who serve the assembly as music ministers, the tabernacle, and the font for baptism. The constitution also taught that: Liturgical services are … celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops. Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church… (Vatican II 1963, SC §26).

Therefore the liturgical setting ought to foster and support the unity of the assembly around the bishop and the priests who act for him vicariously. In the Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, promulgated in 1965, the Council instructed that, ‘The church, the house of prayer, must be well cared for and suited to prayer and liturgy,’ (Vatican II 1965, §5) thereby reinforcing the earlier injunction of the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium. The conciliar teaching about the building of churches became the catalyst by which the preconciliar influence of the liturgical movement on the liturgical ordering of churches became widespread. Within a year of the promulgation of the constitution, the first of a series of instructions on its implementation was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. As quoted in Chapter One, this Instruction, Inter oecumenici, of 1964, required that: In the new construction, repair, or adaptation of churches great care shall be taken that they are suitable for the celebration of divine services according to the true nature of the services and for the active participation of the faithful (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, §90).

116 Three years later, the Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium reiterated the same teaching under the heading, ‘Importance of the Arrangement of Churches for Well Ordered Celebrations’: The church, the house of prayer, must be well cared for and suited to prayer and liturgy. There the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved and the faithful gather for worship. … (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, §24).

A concerted effort to liturgically reorder existing churches corresponded to the postconciliar impulse to erect new churches which would fully accord with the Council’s mandate that churches be suitable for liturgical celebration and for the active participation of the assembly. While the architectural task of designing new churches during the postconciliar period of transition had its challenges, the task of liturgically reordering existing churches had challenges of its own, three in particular. First, and most obviously, liturgical reordering had to occur within existing church buildings which had existing liturgical orderings that had ceased to be suitable or ideal for liturgical celebration and which were often limited in physical scope and potential for reordering. Second, there were instances where heritage considerations and the consequences of liturgical reordering did not align, with resultant tensions (Falkinger 2002, p. vi). Third, liturgical reordering represented a change to something new and a letting go of something familiar. As Michael E. DeSanctis (2002, p. 41) has pointed out: Few events in the life of a parish priest prove more daunting than renovation of his community’s place of worship. Not even the erection of a new church edifice, which requires and their associates to become at once fundraisers, project supervisors, and chief apologists of liturgical reform, matches the difficulty of modifying an existing structure. Building from the ground up can at least entice parishioners to dream of what might be … while renovation causes them often to dwell solely upon the demise of what has been …

The liturgical reordering of some Catholic churches in response to the impetus of the liturgical movement prior to Vatican II has already been noted. Following the Council there developed an expectation that existing churches should be liturgically reordered: The correctness of the Church’s liturgical-architectural renewal was made plain by the fathers of Vatican II, who defined it as one of the clergy’s chief duties and a goal to be pursued with “zeal and patience” (Constitution on the Sacred

117 Liturgy, nos. 14, 19). In the midst of the council, Pope Paul VI himself instructed priests to implement “wholeheartedly and loyally” the liturgical changes of the day (Motu proprio on Sacred Liturgy, 1964, introduction) (DeSanctis 2002, pp. 41-42).

Very often this initial reordering was mostly concerned with the arrangement of the sanctuary so as to provide a freestanding altar, a single ambo, and a chair at which the priest celebrant would preside. Where an existing altar was moved forward the tabernacle was relocated to a new plinth or ‘altar’. Where a freestanding altar was added to the sanctuary in front of an original altar the tabernacle was generally left in its place. Often and altar rails were removed, as in the revised rites were preached from the ambo and communion was received standing. That the sanctuary became the early focus of attention is understandable: many if not most priests understood the liturgy as something they celebrated, not as an act of the entire assembly; moreover the most immediate perceived requirements of the postconciliar liturgical renewal concerned the arrangement of the sanctuary, not of the whole church building (Gy 2003, p. 21). An early example of a reordered sanctuary layout is shown in Figure 4:22.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:22. A diagrammatic plan of a reordered sanctuary layout during Vatican Council II, 1964. From W. Cantwell, ‘The Design of Churches’, in Liturgy: renewal and adaptation, 7th edn., ed. A. Flannery, Scepter Books, Dublin, 1968, p. 124.

118 This diagrammatic plan was based on the aforementioned Instruction, Inter Oecumenici, which was published while Vatican II was still in session (Cantwell 1968, p. 120). Though only intended to be indicative, it poses a number of problems, including placing the chair behind the ambo and the , a solely functional item of sanctuary furniture, in a prominent place at the front of the sanctuary. As the conciliar teaching regarding the assembly’s ‘full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations’ was received, greater attention was given to the place of the assembly in church buildings. Irish architect Wilfrid Cantwell (1968, p. 132) was prompt in observing as early as 1964 that, ‘Active participation by the people in the liturgy requires not only good acoustics and good sight lines but also physical proximity to the centre of activity, the altar’. Taking three common preconciliar church plans, the Tau-cross, Latin-cross and basilican, he proposed options for liturgically reordering the whole church (fig. 4:23).

Illustration has been removed due Illustration has been removed due to to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:23. Diagrammatic representations of three church plans, 1964, ABOVE LEFT: Basilican Plan, ABOVE RIGHT: Tau Cross plan, BELOW: Latin Cross plan, and left to right in each of these plans: the traditional preconciliar liturgical ordering; the ‘advanced sanctuary’ liturgical reordering; and the ‘reoriented (including extended) sanctuary’ liturgical reordering. The arc is drawn at 27.5m from the altar; lightly shaded areas indicate limited contact with the altar; darker shaded areas indicate extensions. Adapted from W. Cantwell, ‘The Design of Churches’, in Liturgy: renewal and adaptation, 7th edn., ed. A. Flannery, Scepter Books, Dublin, 1968, pp. 136-141.

119 In conceptualising these plans, Cantwell first designed an ‘advanced sanctuary’, with the sanctuary was brought forward from its original location. The second design had a ‘reoriented sanctuary’, by which was meant that whole church interior was reoriented and, in one instance, extended. These new designs he contrasted with the preconciliar ordering. In all of these plans Cantwell (1968, pp. 136-141) drew arc at 21.3m (70’) which he regarded as being the maximum distance for contact with the altar. Similar efforts to educate those who would undertake the liturgical reordering of churches continued in the years that followed. In 1970 the journal Liturgical Arts put forward schemes for the liturgical reordering of a large church. The accompanying text advised that: There are two considerations that must be taken into account in a work of this kind. One is to bring the church in accord with the present spirit of renewal in the liturgy and worship. The other is to design in such a manner that the church will be culturally meaningful for present-day urban people (‘To update a large church built in the 1920s is a problem’, 1970, p. 52).

Three broad approaches were taken (fig. 4:24). Plan I relocated the altar to midway along the side of the nave and gathered the seating around it in a semicircle or fan arrangement. The original sanctuary became a chapel for reservation of the Eucharist. Plan II extended the sanctuary and realigned seating in the transept so that all seating faced the altar. Plan III involved only minor alterations, with the altar remaining in its original place in the apse. Plans I and II would be quite widely adopted in the following decades.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:24 Plans of three schemes to update a large church, LEFT: Plan I, CENTRE: Plan II, and RIGHT: Plan III. 1. Altar, 2. Reconfiguration of pews, 3. Arrangement of chairs, 4. Chapel, screened from original nave. Adapted from ‘To update a large church built in the 1920s is a problem’, Liturgical arts, 1970, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 52.

120 Regrettably not all reordering projects paid attention to ensuring the assembly’s proximity to the altar and its participation in the liturgy. As Seasoltz (1983, p. 100) observes of the postconciliar reordering of churches, this task and its purpose were not always clearly understood: In some instances the project has been little more than the application of superficial cosmetics or a shift of the furniture within the context of a basically unrenewed space. But other communities have undertaken the project not only as the renovation of a building but above all as the renewal of a body of human persons seeking to understand and embrace … [their ].

This fuller sense of liturgical reordering reflects an appreciation of the interrelationship of the church building, the liturgy celebrated therein, and those who assemble to celebrate the liturgy. More than twenty years after the Council, in response to a number of misconceptions about liturgical reordering, the Congregation for Divine Worship included a clarification in its publication Notitiae (Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson, S. 1986, 1986, p. 238): When painful decisions have to be made in the re-ordering of a church the ultimate criteria must be liturgical, and not majority vote or personal whim or fancy. A choice must be made with a view to the actual celebration of the liturgy, and not for the aesthetic appearance of an empty church.

This commentary recognizes the complexity of issues and interests that can be associated with liturgical reordering. It acknowledges the experience of loss that can be occasioned by ‘the demise of what has been …’ (DeSanctis 2002, p. 41). At the same time it affirms the primacy of the liturgy in determining the new design for any church that is being reordered. Building upon what had been learned during the earlier decades of post- conciliar liturgical reordering of churches, there has developed in recent decades much greater appreciation of the complexity of undertaking such projects. In Re- Pitching the Tent, Richard Giles writing from an Anglican perspective yet significantly informed by the Catholic tradition, outlines four key elements of reordering. The first is ‘proclaiming good news,’ in which he argues that the church building must enhance and not subvert the Church’s proclamation of (Giles 2004, pp. 103-110). The second element is ‘Christian nurture’, in which he argues for a liturgical setting that is beautiful in its simplicity and in the

121 ways it enables the expression of spirituality (Giles 2004, pp. 111-120). The third element is ‘movement’, by which he is referring to processional movement rather than dance, particularly where it is possible to design liturgical space that is ordered to the different places or foci of the Church’s rites (Giles 2004, pp. 121-126). The fourth element is ‘sacrifice’, by which he means not the Catholic Eucharistic sacrifice but the willingness of the local Church community to exercise sacrificial generosity, giving of themselves and their church building for others just as Jesus Christ gave of himself for others (Giles 2004, pp. 127-133). Later Giles (2004, pp. 214-246) outlines the stages for liturgical reordering, from consultation of the Church community, to appointing liturgists and architects to take forward a reordering project, to developing a plan and timeline for the project. His two consistent priorities in Re-Pitching the Tent are Christian community and dynamically ordered participation in the liturgy by the whole assembly and its ministers. His own reordering projects, notably the Anglican Church of St Thomas at Huddersfield in England and the Episcopalian Philadelphia Cathedral at Philadelphia in the United States each bear out his commitment to these priorities. This cathedral will be treated of in the context of variable use liturgical ordering later in this chapter. Richard Hurley (2001, pp. 114-126), Michael E. DeSanctis (2002, pp. 65- 75), Richard Vosko (2006, pp. 186-187) and David Stancliffe (2008, pp. 260-266) all address issues of reordering and conservation. Hurley writes from an Irish standpoint, acknowledging the difficulties that have arisen in reordering projects because of insensitive architects, ecclesial sentimentality and confusion about values. He argues that, The function of a church is not locked in a time warp, it evolves by way of liturgical change throughout the centuries, and churches are not intended to become static prisons of the spirit. The tension between renewal and conservation need not be a dividing wall, but a well spring of creativity (Hurley 2001, p. 115).

Hurley goes on to describe the heritage conservation implications in a number of reordering projects, highlighting the ways in which modern liturgical settings can be accommodated in heritage churches.

122 A similar point of view is held by Richard Vosko (2006, p. 186):

Even if a church or cathedral has been designated a landmark … it is possible to enhance the building for worship to accommodate the current ritual life of the congregation. The primary purpose of a church is worship of God. In the case of the Catholic Church, Vatican II initiated the liturgical reforms. … In order to accommodate these changes the building must be altered.

Vosko also refers a local example from the United States, highlighting the importance of a cooperative relationship between the Church and local heritage authorities. David Stancliff and Michael DeSanctis offer differing perspectives. Like Hurley and Vosko, Stancliffe’s treatment of liturgical reordering treats of the issue in general terms and then moves to a number of examples. He acknowledges the architectural and liturgical poverty of ill conceived reorderings that fail to fulfil their purpose and ‘scream at the character of the building’ (Stancliffe 2008, p. 259). He goes on to state that, Sometimes, but all too rarely, a scheme has been well thought through with an architect and executed in the best materials, so that the result looks as if it was just how the church was originally conceived to be (Stancliffe 2008, p. 261).

The implication that liturgical reordering ought to seamlessly blend in with the original structure assumes that the latter, even after renovation, is appropriate for the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy today. A contrasting standpoint is adopted by DeSanctis (2002, p. 65-66) who argues that in fidelity to Vatican II, Catholics need to come to terms with modern architecture and art. He states that, ‘If the reforms of Vatican II come hard to Catholics, it is precisely because we often behave as did Christ’s first disciples, awe-struck by built by human hands but blind to the Living Temple standing in our midst’ (DeSanctis 2002, p. 62). The conciliar teaching to which DeSanctis refers is §123 of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium which states: The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites. …. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honour … (Vatican II 1963, SC §123)

123 Writing from an Australian context but with observations that are relevant everywhere, Paul O’Donnell is concerned not with the specifics of liturgical reordering as with place and memory as rich sources of identity. He acknowledges the rapid and substantial change that the Catholic Church has been through in recent decades, including those changes that followed upon implementation of Vatican II, which ‘brought about more significant shifts than at any time since the Reformation’ (O’Donnell 2009, p. 430). O’Donnell observes that sometimes these changes have resulted in significant loss. Specifically, he refers to the ‘sometimes irresponsible dispersion and loss of sacred artefacts in the wake of unsympathetic and haphazard alterations to building fabric’ (O’Donnell 2009, p. 430). This last point relates to ill-conceived renovation projects, often undertaken in the name of spurious liturgical requirements, and the impact of architectural design or lack thereof. ‘Dispersion and loss’ can be consequent upon the unnecessary removal of original architectural elements and liturgical items so as to make way for a redesigned liturgical setting. Whatever the loss in terms of material value, O’Donnell’s concern is much more the loss of Catholic identity once place is radically altered and memory interrupted. As Peter Atkins (2004, p. 146) explains, The associations linked to place will form a solid platform for further experiences of a positive relationship with God in worship. … Buildings set aside for worship create a sense of anticipation of the next experience of the divine. … The church building and the church people are firmly linked. The liturgy needs to bind both the building and the community together.

Thus in the process of preparing for liturgical reordering it is important that the significance of memory for the sense of identity that is bound up in the experience of an existing church be well understood. It follows that it is similarly important to identify the associations and values of those who constitute the liturgical assembly, and to honour these in designing and implementing the reordering.

124 Postconciliar liturgical ordering and reordering of churches

New and adapted liturgical ordering

The increasing use of new and adapted liturgical ordering in the design of new churches and the renovation of existing churches gave rise to a new vocabulary which enabled different spatial arrangements to be readily identified. Most of the words used to identify different liturgical ordering were descriptors deriving variously from historical reference: basilican, monastic; from shape: cruciform, circular, ellipse, fan, U-shaped; from usage: antiphonal, multipurpose, variable use; or from some other characteristic: asymmetrical, juxtaposed, longitudinal, transverse. This list of descriptors is indicative, not exhaustive. Later in this chapter these descriptors will be examined in much greater detail and a typology of liturgical ordering proposed. Meanwhile many of these descriptors will be used more generally to identify the different liturgical orderings that emerged in the postconciliar period. In the decades following Vatican II, the spatial arrangements chosen for the liturgical ordering of new churches and the reordering of existing churches did not necessarily emerge or develop uniformly throughout the Catholic Church. Nor did the layouts adopted for church reordering projects necessarily correspond with those chosen for new church projects undertaken at about the same time. Nevertheless it is possible to outline the evolution of postconciliar liturgical ordering as the conciliar injunction that churches be built for the celebration of the liturgical services was implemented. In most instances this outline reflects what occurred in Australia as well as elsewhere in the world. Vatican II may be considered the catalyst for the widespread use of new and adapted liturgical ordering in church design. As already noted, early postconciliar liturgical ordering tended to be in continuity with preconciliar innovation, rather than original. Differences between pre- and postconciliar layouts reflect the reform of the liturgical rites. Such reform includes the restoration of the ambo for proclaiming and preaching the word, and the introduction of the chair for the priest celebrant in place of the sedilia.

125 During the 1960s the liturgical reordering of existing churches often concentrated on adapting the sanctuary layout to better accommodate liturgical reforms. In new church projects three spatial arrangements were widely used: the centralised ordering, the squared U-arrayed ordering and the fan ordering (fig. 4:25) (cf. Clausen 1992, pp. 126-135, 136-141; DeSanctis 1993, pp. 31-32; Gieselmann 1972, pp. 88-89, 124-129, 132-133, 136-141, 144-145, 154-155, 170- 173; Hurley & Cantwell 1985, pp. 58-59, 62-68, 71-80, 85-88; Schnell 1974, pp. 127-129).

Illustration has been Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to Copyright removed due to Copyright removed due to restrictions. restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:25 Plans of 1960s churches, LEFT: Gottfried Böhm, Church of the Resurrection of Christ, Cologne, Germany, 1964-1970, Plan exemplifying a centralized ordering. From W. Pehnt, Gottfried Böhm, tr. M. Robinson, Birkhauser, Basel, 1999, p. 80, CENTRE: Alexander Freiherr von Branca, Church of St Matthias, Munich, Germany, 1962-1965, Plan exemplifying a U-arrayed ordering. From R. Gieselmann, Contemporary church architecture, Thames & Hudson, London, 1972, p. 125; cf. Schnell 1974, p. 129, and RIGHT: Liam McCormick, Church of St Aengus, Burt, Co. Donegal, Ireland, 1967, Plan exemplifying a fan ordering. From R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1985, p. 66.

In the 1970s existing basilican plan churches were often reordered using a fan arrangement around a sanctuary relocated to a side wall (fig. 4:26), an approach that continued to be occasionally used in subsequent decades (DeSanctis 1993, p. 50, DeSanctis 2002, pp. 49-52). The relative success of this arrangement depended upon the width of the existing church, which determined whether a fan arrangement could be effective. It was also influenced by how adequately the reordering included a redesign of the original sanctuary and narthex and sometimes choir loft at the ends of the church, so that these two spaces no longer attracted the assembly’s attention. Another fan arrangement from this decade relocated the sanctuary to one side of the original central axis while retaining the essentially longitudinal character of the church (fig. 4:26). The

126 absence of symmetry in both schemes would subsequently become more widely accepted. As will be seen, in some quarters it was even recommended as an option. This shift represents a break with a consistent custom of church design since the second epoch in the evolution of liturgical ordering.

Illustration has been removed due Illustration has been removed due to to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:26 ‘Before’ and ‘after’ plans showing liturgical reordering of basilican plan churches using variations of a fan arrangement, LEFT: Antonio P. de Castro & Betsy Nelson, St Thomas Church, Braintree, Massachusetts, United States, Reordered 1988, Plans showing initial post-conciliar liturgical reordering with original sanctuary in apsidal end and temporary freestanding altar, and after reordering with fan arrangement around sanctuary relocated to side wall. Adapted from M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 50, and RIGHT: Filippo Mecozzi, Church of the Transfiguration, Rome, Italy, Reordered 1971, Plans showing initial post-conciliar liturgical reordering with original sanctuary in apse and temporary freestanding altar, and proposed reordering partially enacted with fan arrangement around a sanctuary relocated to right of main architectural axis. From F. Mecozzi, Church architecture: a tentative Roman Catholic prototype, Scholia Editions, Toronto, 1997, p. 75.

Cruciform plan churches were commonly reordered by bringing the sanctuary into the crossing and reconfiguring transept seating to face the new sanctuary (Hurley & Cantwell 1985, pp. 91-93, 118-120). Such reordering often resulted in the assembly being arranged in three separated blocks of seating, and left use of the original sanctuary poorly resolved. However despite such limitations, this scheme for reordering cruciform plan churches has proved successful and enduring (fig. 4:27). Variations of the fan-arrayed ordering were

127 popular for new churches constructed in the 1970s. Often planned with the sanctuary set in one corner of a squarish structure, this design created a 90° arc in the fan- arrayed place for the assembly (cf. Clausen 1992, pp. 164-166).

4:27 Plans exemplifying liturgical reordering of a cruciform plan, William Wilkinson Wardell, St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1860 – 1897, Plan showing original layout with sanctuary in apse. Seating in nave, aisles and transept faced in the direction of the altar, and RIGHT: Richard Falkinger, St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Reordered 1970 – 1973 and 1997 – 2000, Plan of liturgical reordering showing sanctuary in crossing and seating gathered around the sanctuary facing the altar. Adapted from R. Falkinger, Ringing the changes: new liturgy versus heritage. Chronicles 1971 – 2000, David Lovell Publishing, Melbourne, 2002, p. 5 & p. 73.

In the 1980s antiphonal and U-arrayed (fig. 4:28) arrangements were sometimes adopted for reordering projects (Frediani 1997, pp. 40-41, 45-47). This resulted from a more nuanced appreciation of the gathered assembly and active participation than was evident in earlier postconciliar years. The fan- arrayed ordering (fig. 4:29) continued to be used in new churches, often with a wider, more semicircular arrangement than in the previous decade (cf. Clausen 1992, pp. 186-187; DeSanctis 1993, pp. 38-39; Hurley & Cantwell 1985, pp. 121- 123, 130-133; Lindstrom 1988, p. 40, p. 48, pp. 50-55 & p. 64; Stegers 2008, pp. 108-109). This development may be interpreted as recognition that narrower fan-shaped plans were little more than a variation of the basilican ordering.

128 Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:28 U-arrayed liturgical ordering, Helmut Werthgarner, Church of St Michael, Linz, Austria, Reordered 1988, LEFT: Plan showing original basilican ordering, and RIGHT: Plan showing U- arrayed reordering. Adapted from G. Frediani, Le chiese: guide per progettare, Guis, Laterza & Figli Spa, Roma-Bari, 1997, p. 41.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:29 Clovis Heimsath, St Jerome Church, Waco, Texas, United States, 1988-1989, Plan showing semicircular fan-in-rectangle liturgical ordering Adapted from M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 39.

By the 1990s quite radical centralised reorderings were being undertaken in some basilican and cruciform plan churches (fig. 4:30) (cf. Crosbie 1999, pp. 82-83; Crosbie 2002, pp. 132-133, 154-159; Crosbie 2006, pp. 62-65). As Figure 4:30 reveals, while this ordering gathers the assembly around the altar, there are sightline limitations when the ambo and chair for the priest celebrant are placed at the centre. The antiphonal and U-arrayed orderings (fig. 4:31) were often

129 chosen for new churches (cf. Crosbie 1999, pp. 96-99; Crosbie 2002, pp. 144-147, 172-175, 178-181; Crosbie 2006, pp. 84-87; Stegers 2008, p. 29).

4:30 Plans exemplifying reordering to a centralised liturgical setting, LEFT: Heins & LaFarge, Saint James Cathedral, Seattle, Washington, United States, 1905 – 1907, Original plan showing minor postconciliar changes, including freestanding altar and ambo in sanctuary, and font in nave, with all seating facing the sanctuary, c. 1974; RIGHT: Bumgardner Architects, Saint James Cathedral, Seattle, Washington, United States, Reordered 1994, Plan showing central sanctuary, immersion font in nave, and seating facing sanctuary from four directions. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 212, ©Liturgical Press.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:31 Plans of antiphonal and U-arrayed orderings: LEFT: James Hundt, Corpus Christi Church at Ushers, New York, United States, 2004, Plan showing central altar and ambo and antiphonal seating in straight alignment for the assembly. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re- imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 64, ©Liturgical Press, CENTRE: Dieter G. Baumewerd, Saint Christopher Church, Westerland, Sylt, Germany, 2000, Plan showing central baptismal font with altar and ambo towards either end, and antiphonal seating for the assembly arranged in an elliptical curve. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 64, ©Liturgical Press, and RIGHT: Jake Rodriguez Architects & Victor Johnson, Church of Santa Maria de la Paz, Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, c.1995, Plan showing U-arrayed liturgical setting. Adapted from L. Nolte, ‘New Church in New Mexico: Santa Maria de la Paz’, Environment and art letter, 1995, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 32.

130 In the first decade of the twenty-first century a number of churches reordered after Vatican II have undergone a second reordering. Sometimes this involved the design of liturgical setting in which the altar was more centrally placed, with ambo and chair set back nearer the original sanctuary. Such arrangements represent a new understanding of the sanctuary, with the sacred furnishings ordered in accordance with their particular and distinct functions and often accommodated on more than one elevated platform (fig. 4:32). In other instances the reordering of the reordering returned the church to its original frontal layout, with some accommodation for the reformed rites in sanctuary design (cf. Mauck 1990, pp. 71-72 and ‘Madonna della strada chapel’ 2011).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:32 Plan and photograph of Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Architects, San Fernando Cathedral, San Antonio, Texas, United States, Reordered 2003, Plan showing central altar, U-arrayed seating for assembly, ambo and chair at front of original cross-shaped ‘colonial’ sanctuary which is now the place of Eucharistic reservation, and Photograph showing reordered liturgical setting viewed from the front of the original ‘colonial’ sanctuary. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Houses of God: religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 2006, p. 65.

In new churches there was a tendency for spatial arrangements which gather the assembly around the altar (fig. 4:33). Simultaneously there was a return to the basilican ordering in new church design (fig. 4:33) (Crosbie 2006, pp. 98-99, 148-149; Stegers 2008, pp. 160-161; 168-175, 178-181; Vosko 2006, pp. 62-67). Reasons for the latter vary. A preference for basilican ordering is

131 perhaps consequent upon a reinterpretation of the conciliar reform of the liturgy. It may represent the subjugation of the liturgy to a perceived traditional theology of church architecture (cf. Rose 2004, pp. 109-114; Stroik 2009, pp. 79- 88). It may also be an indication of an experience or perception of shortcomings in postconciliar liturgical ordering.

Illustration has been Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:33 Plans of three recent churches: LEFT: Edwards & Daniels Architects, St John the Baptist Church, Draper, Utah, United States, c. 2006, Plan exemplifying basilican ordering. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Houses of God: Religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 2006, p. 120, CENTRE: Lamott Architekten, Sacred Heart Church, Völkingen, Germany, 2001, Plan exemplifying U-arrayed ordering. From P. Richardson, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2004, p. 95, and RIGHT: Heinz Tesar, Church of Christus hoffnung der welt, Donau City, Vienna, Austria, 2000, Plan exemplifying fan- arrayed ordering. Adapted from I. Boyken & C. Richters, Heinz Tesar. Christus hoffnung de welt, Wein, Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart, 2002, p. 25.

Lastly, throughout the decades since Vatican II a small number of new churches continued to be built with the basilican ordering and less frequently with the cruciform ordering (fig. 4:34). The adapted layout of these churches provided for the functional needs of the reformed liturgy (cf. Crosbie 1999, pp. 52-55, 72-75, Crosbie 2006, pp. 118-121; Gieselmann 1972, pp. 32-33, 40-48, 52- 57, 67-73, 94-97; Hurley & Cantwell 1985, pp. 60-61, 88-90, 103-107, 112-114; Richardson 2004, pp. 148-151; Stegers 2008, pp. 27, 90-93, 114-117). However, as the case studies later in this thesis will demonstrate, neither the basilican nor cruciform ordering give ideal expression to the foundational liturgical principles set forth in Chapter Two.

132 Illustration has been Illustration has been removed removed due to Copyright due to Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

4:34 Plans, LEFT: Markus Allmann, Amandus Sattler & Ludwig Wappner, Church of the Sacred Heart, Munich, Germany, 2000, Plan showing basilican ordering. Adapted from P. Richardson, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2004, p. 151, and RIGHT: Gerald Allen & Jeffrey Harbinson, Church of St Therese, Wilson, North Carolina, United States, Plan showing cruciform ordering, c. 1999. From M.J. Crosbie, Architecture for the Gods, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 1999, p. 53.

Despite shifts in the patterns or trends by which different orderings have been favoured since Vatican II, no single ordering has attained normative status for the design and redesign of Catholic churches. The preference of particular orderings in different periods tends to reflect the state of liturgical theology, pastoral liturgy and the liturgical formation of clergy, laity and architects.

Less common liturgical ordering

Of the postconciliar liturgical ordering described in the previous section, most can be identified in the design of new and reordered Catholic churches in Australia. These orderings will be treated of further in case studies later in this thesis. There exist a number of other orderings that have been used less frequently in other countries and minimally if at all in Australia. These will be described here.

133 Among the more innovative of new liturgical ordering has been a setting designed in response to differing liturgical spatial dynamics for Word and Eucharist (fig. 4:35). In the Liturgy of the Word the Scriptures are proclaimed at the ambo and received by the assembly. Formed by the Word the assembly comes to pray the Liturgy of the Eucharist at the altar, from which communion is ministered and received.

Illustration has been removed Illustration has been removed due to due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:35 Johannes Krämer, Schematic drawing showing the different spatial dynamics of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, LEFT: Proclamation of the Word from the ambo, and RIGHT: Gathered for the Eucharist at the altar. Adapted from J. Krämer, ‘Gemeinschaftlich orientiert’, in Communio-räume: auf der suche nach der angemessenen raumgestalt katholischer liturgie, eds. A. Gerhards, T. Sternberg & W. Zahner, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2003, p. 195.

Churches designed for these distinct yet integral actions which occur in the one Eucharistic liturgy provide two intentional related spaces. One space is designed for the Liturgy of the Word and the Introductory and Concluding Rites, with seating for the assembly. The other space is open so that the assembly can gather at the altar for the Liturgy of the Eucharist (fig. 4:36). The procession by the assembly between the two spaces accentuates this difference. At the altar the assembly stands, a posture traditionally associated with prayer. In some countries including Australia the practice is for the assembly to kneel, a posture associated with adoration but difficult to accommodate in this liturgical setting. Advocates of this liturgical ordering identify the design with the custom of the early Church when the assembly moved to the altar to celebrate the Eucharist, and with perpetual pilgrimage of the people of God (Dahinden 1967, p. 73, Giles 2004, p. 181). Further, Lizette Larson-Miller (2002, p. 43) observes of this liturgical ordering that, characterised by directionality, movement, and

134 mystery, it thereby embodies the ecclesiology of Vatican II. Architecturally this ordering requires greater space than the majority of churches in which the liturgies of Word and Eucharist are celebrated in the same space. For effective gathering at the altar this setting is better suited to assemblies which are not large.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:36 Church designs with distinct spaces for Word and Eucharist, LEFT: Ottokar Uhl, Studentenkapelle [not Konviktskapelle], Stift Melk, Germany, 1966, Plan showing the ambo and benches for the assembly, and above, an unfurnished U-shaped space for the assembly to stand around the long altar with the priest celebrant at the head. Adapted from W. Zahner, ‘Raumkonzepte der Liturgischen Bewegung’, in Communio-räume: auf der suche nach der angemessenen raumgestalt katholischer liturgie, eds. A. Gerhards, T. Sternberg & W. Zahner, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2003, p. 92, and RIGHT: Franco Antonelli, ‘Liturgical space study, competition project (Italy)’, n.d., Plan showing ambo and assembly seating, and centre, the altar and unfurnished space for the gathered assembly. From J. Dahinden, New trends in church architecture, tr. C.J.B. Baumann, Studio Vista, London, 1967, p. 72.

A well known parish church designed with this liturgical ordering is St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco. It comprises a hall-like space ordered antiphonally for the Word, leading to an octagonal rotunda with central altar for the Eucharist (fig. 4:37). The church is entered through this rotunda and the baptismal font is located outside the rotunda opposite the entrance. The sacred furnishings are configured on the central axis. The presider’s chair is set in the apse-like end with the ambo opposite in the place for the Word, and the altar beyond in the place for the Eucharist.

135

4:37 John Goldman, St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, San Francisco, California, USA, 1995, Plan showing the place for the Word incorporating ambo, chair and assembly seating and the place for the Eucharist comprising unfurnished space around the central altar. Adapted from D. Elliot, ‘Saint Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church SGN.Plans-v07.med, 2006. From P. Fromberg, St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church, San Francisco, email 12 April 2011.

From the 1970s an asymmetrical arrangement of the place for the assembly and sometimes of the sanctuary was used in the reordering of a number of churches (cf. DeSanctis 1993, pp. 24-27; Seasoltz 1983, pp. 105-109, 118-12). Sometimes described as a ‘transverse’ or ‘juxtaposed’ plan, this ordering was also used in some new churches (cf. Crosbie 2002, pp. 112-113; Hurley & Cantwell 1985, pp. 94-98, 124-127, 134-135). Its various manifestations reveals some problematic features (fig. 4:38). The sense of being gathered can be compromised by members of the assembly facing other members of the assembly side-on. For some in the assembly the sanctuary is viewed across others whose seating is differently oriented. Processional patterns can seem awkward, particularly for communion which involves most in the assembly. Moreover, such churches lack an axial processional route, thereby diminishing ceremonial movement.

136 Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:38 Examples of churches with an asymmetrical ‘transverse’ plan, LEFT: Green & Abrahamson, Church of St Peter, Saratoga Springs, New York, United States, (1853) Reordered 1979, Plan of the liturgical reordering from longitudinal layout. From M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 25, R.K. Seasoltz, ‘Living stones built on Christ,’ Worship, 1983, vol. 57, no. 2, p. 119, courtesy of HGA Architects and Engineers, and RIGHT: Tyndall Hogan Hurley, Church of Our Lady of the Nativity, Newtown, Co. Kildare, Ireland, 1975, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, 1985, p. 97.

The transverse plan constitutes one variation of a theory expressed in the 1978 statement of the United States Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship and may have been influenced by it: The location of the altar will be central in any eucharistic celebration, but this does not mean it must be spatially in the centre or on a central axis. In fact, an off-centre location may be a good solution in many cases. Focus and importance in any celebration move with the movement of the rite. Placement and elevation must take into account the necessity of visibility and audibility for all (Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy 1978, §73, p. 38).

This paragraph was accompanied by before and after photographs illustrating an interpretation of this theory. The photographs show of a church in which the sanctuary had undergone reordering, though the arrangement of place for the assembly remained effectively unchanged and is less than ideally suited to active participation (fig. 4:39). The most striking aspect of this reordering by which ambo and altar are both placed off-centre is the centrality of the chair for the priest celebrant. Placed as it is on the central axis, elevated above the level of ambo and altar, and centred in front of the original high altar and altarpiece, the chair attains a throne-like prominence. It appears to be the focal point of the sanctuary and perhaps the whole church, a status normatively reserved for the altar.

137 Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:39 Frank Kacmarcik, St Mark’s Church, Shakopee, Minnesota, United States (1862 – 1868), Reordered 1976, LEFT: Photograph of sanctuary after minimal postconciliar liturgical reordering. Note original altarpiece at rear of sanctuary, with central altar on lower elevation at front of sanctuary, small ambo to left of altar and chair to the right, and RIGHT: Photograph of sanctuary after second liturgical reordering. There is a new elevated platform to the height of the original predella and the original altarpiece has been retained. Centred in front of the altarpiece on a still higher elevation is an imposing chair, with the ambo off-centre at the left and the altar off-centre to the right of the sanctuary. From Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Environment and art in Catholic worship, National Conference of Catholic Bishops / United States Catholic Conference, 1978, illustrations 12 and 13.

Another variation of the asymmetrical arrangement can be found in churches that underwent liturgical reordering while retaining something of the longitudinal directionality of the original design. The reordering of the Church of the Sacred Heart (fig. 4:40) at Roseville in the United States was initially planned with a symmetrical arrangement that retained some seating for the assembly in the manner of a basilican nave while simultaneously gathering some of the assembly around the altar. The latter was placed on the central axis towards the front of the nave, with the ambo behind it. At this stage no place was indicated for the chair or the baptismal font. The eventual reordering arrangement decided upon was irregular, with the altar slightly off-centre. The ambo and chair were placed between the places for the assembly that were arranged on either side of the altar and the now larger area seating in the rear half of the nave. It is unclear which aisle would be used for processions. The font was placed in the front of the original sanctuary at the left side. In both initial and final schemes the Eucharist is reserved in a tabernacle set in a sanctuary alcove, near to where the original altar would once have been placed (Bouchez Cavanaugh 1991, pp. 26-27).

138 Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to Copyright removed due to Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

4:40 Margaret Bouchez Cavanaugh, Church of the Sacred Heart, Roseville, Michigan, United States, Reordered 1976 & 1980, LEFT: Plan of original reordering, and RIGHT: Plan showing final layout. From M. Bouchez Cavanaugh, ‘The Whole Place is Holy’, Environment and art letter, 1991, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 27.

A cruciform plan church that retained a longitudinal arrangement of seating for many in the assembly when liturgically reordered to an asymmetrical layout was St John the Baptist Church (fig. 4:41) at Erie in the United States. Here the place for the assembly and the principal processional aisle as well as the transepts were arranged irregularly, the sacred furnishings placed off-centre in a new projection of the sanctuary into the crossing, and the tabernacle for Eucharistic reservation was centred in the original apse. Like the tabernacle, the baptismal font was located on the original central axis of the church, inside the nave near the main entrance. DeSanctis (2002, pp. 54-55) recalls that, What the parish encountered when the church was reopened … was a place whose basic geometry had remained intact but whose functional core was wholly transformed. Having been liberated from the chancel, the altar ambo [sic] and presider’s chair now stood virtually at the building’s crossing, beneath a refurbished groin vault. Flexible seating for members of the choir and other lay worshippers filled the transepts, while new pews straddled a processional aisle in the nave that had been moved off the building’s major axis. Worshippers entering the church through the main set of doors discovered two parallel axes of importance, one that ran trough the heart of the church and terminated at the tabernacle in the apse, another defined by a processional aisle whose terminus was the altar of sacrifice.

139

4:41 (Architects unknown) St John the Baptist Church, Erie, Pennsylvania, United States, Reordered 1993, Plan and photograph showing asymmetrical liturgical reordering. From M.E. DeSanctis, Building from belief: advance, retreat, and compromise in the remaking of Catholic church architecture, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2002, p. 54 and fig. 24, ©Liturgical Press.

A risk associated with any asymmetrical arrangement of the liturgical setting is that the assembly and its ministers may experience the layout as disorienting. This is all the more so when the reordered setting is designed for use in an existing church building which may already be architecturally symmetrical or have a dominant architectural axis with which the reordering is not in harmony. An essential matter for consideration in the design of new churches and the reordering of existing church buildings is the relationship of the architecture to the spatial arrangement, as to whether the structure and its design elements support the liturgical arrangement or seem to be at odds with it. Of the reorderings of the Church of the Sacred Heart and St John the Baptist Church one might well ask, ‘why?’ For as Paul F. Bosch (1999) has observed, ‘When your theology and your architecture are in conflict, architecture always wins.’ Yet another variation of an asymmetrical ordering has developed in the United States. The Chapel of Saint Ignatius at Seattle and St Martha Church at Harvey have similar liturgical settings within orthogonal spaces in which the main seating for the assembly is located facing a platform sanctuary with another bay

140 of seating angled off to one side (fig. 4:42). The arrangement provides for a processional aisle that leads to the altar, which is centred within the sanctuary. In both instances the font for baptism is located within the church at the place of entry from the narthex or gathering space. Both reserve the Eucharist in a separate chapel that can be accessed from within the church.

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due Copyright restrictions. to Copyright restrictions.

4:42 Plans showing asymmetrical liturgical ordering, LEFT: Steven Holl, Chapel of Saint Ignatius, Seattle, Washington, United States, 1997. From P. Richardson, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2004, p. 20, and RIGHT: Eskew, Dumez & Ripple, St Martha Church, Harvey, Louisiana, United States, 2003. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Houses of God: religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 2006, p. 50.

The range of asymmetrical orderings described in these variations and illustrated in these examples prompts the question as the how these orderings enhance liturgical celebration by fulfilling the foundational liturgical principles of Vatican II. These asymmetrical orderings also draw attention to the issue, already identified, of symmetry in church design. The spatial arrangements described here are also open to a critique which, if taken as characteristic of postconciliar liturgical ordering, might serve to reinforce a preference for more traditional basilican and cruciform plans. Around the same time that the ellipse was emerging as a variation of the antiphonal ordering in Europe and North America, it also began to be used for an adapted longitudinal liturgical setting, with interesting results (Königs 2004, pp. 982-987; Krause 2004, pp. 54-59; Stephens 2009, pp. 86-92). The Church of St Francis (fig. 4:43) at Regensburg in Germany is in exterior appearance an orthogonal building. Designed by Königs Architekten, its interior reveals an irregular ellipse-shaped liturgical setting that is inspired by the parish’s older

141 neighbouring baroque church. Its interior walls are angled and curve constantly in free geometry (Königs 2004, p. 984). The sanctuary is comprised of a circular platform at one end of the elliptical space, with the altar centred towards the front. The seating for the assembly is arranged asymmetrically in curves emanating from the sanctuary. The broad principal and subsidiary processional aisles curve like the walls and the seating. The font is adjacent to the sanctuary in front of a baptismal chapel.

Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to Copyright removed due to Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

4:43 Ulrich Königs & Ilse Königs, St Francis Church, Regensberg, Germany, 2001-2004, Plan and Sections showing longitudinal-elliptical liturgical setting. Adapted from U. Königs, ‘Parish centre in Regensburg’, Detail konzept, 2004, no. 9, p. 987.

A similar elliptical shape and spatial configuration has been used by Craig Hartman in designing the Cathedral of Christ the Light at Oakland (fig. 4:44) in the United States, though in this instance the building has this same elliptical shape. The ordering of the space for the assembly is symmetrical, with seating arranged in curves that emanate from the circular front of the sanctuary predella and a broad processional aisle on the central axis. Like St Francis Church, the cathedral has an elevated circular predella that is situated towards one end of the ellipse. It houses the altar. Unlike St Francis Church where the ambo and chair are placed on the same platform as the altar, in the cathedral the ambo and seating for the choir are set to one side of the predella and the bishop’s chair and

142 clergy seating to the other side, creating a slightly irregular plan at this end of the cathedral. This setting of liturgical furnishings with choir and clergy seating is enclosed in a low internal wall which defines the sanctuary space, behind which on the central axis is a chapel in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:44 Craig Hartman, Cathedral of Christ the Light, Oakland, California, United States, 2008, Plan. Adapted from S. Stephens, ‘Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s Craig Hartman explores immateriality and luminosity in Oakland’s Cathedral of Christ the Light’, Architectural record, 2009, no. 1, p. 92.

The origin of this liturgical ordering in an elliptical space might be traced to a project undertaken in 1923 by Dominikus Böhm who, working with Martin Weber, designed a church based on the principle of circumstantes, literally ‘standing around’ (fig. 4:45). The altar was placed within a round sanctuary near one end, albeit in the preconciliar arrangement for the Eucharistic liturgy of the Roman missal of Pius V. A place for preaching the Word is not indicated, nor the baptistery, though it may have been accommodated in the circular alcove to the left of the main entrance. The seating for the assembly was arranged in curves from a central aisle which constituted the only horizontal axis in the church. The seating curved forward, following the curve of the walls, inside which was a double ambulatory. Though the place for the assembly was no more fully gathered around the altar than is the case in St Francis Church at Regensberg or

143 the Cathedral of Christ the Light at Oakland, Böhm’s plan provided for a strong sense of the gathered assembly, anticipating these two churches that would be built more than eighty years later.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

4:45 Dominikus Böhm and Martin Weber, ‘Circumstantes’ church project, 1923, Plan. From G. Frediani, Le chiese: guide per progettare, Guis, Laterza & Figli Spa, Roma-Bari, 1997, p. 11.

There are two observable strengths of this elliptical-longitudinal liturgical ordering. The first strength is in the curved arrangement of the seating for the assembly, which provides for a heightened sense of being gathered and united in celebrating the liturgy. Moreover, the constant curve of the seating lessens the sense of rigid ordering that straight rows of seats can sometimes convey. The second strength is in the configuration of the principal aisle which provides for liturgical processions. This particular liturgical ordering accommodates in a single plan the benefits of both longitudinal and centralized settings, the former in the actual length of the church and the latter in the way the seating arrangement gathers and draws the assembly around and towards the altar. Further, there exists precedent for churches of this internal shape in the ovular churches of the baroque era.

144 Discrete developments affecting postconciliar liturgical ordering

The non-liturgical ordering of multiple-purpose churches

In the decades following World War II there was significant population growth in Australia, as elsewhere in the world. As new Catholic parishes were established, especially in the new suburban developments of larger cities, priority was often given to building a parochial school rather than a church, which would come later. These schools were designed so that a row of classrooms had interconnecting folding doors which could be opened to effectively create a long hall space the width of the classrooms. With classroom furniture stacked away these classrooms became a hall which could be set up to serve as the parish church during the weekend and then returned to the school configuration for the coming week. A variation of this arrangement in schools that had a hall was for this space to be converted into the church for weekend use. In both instances the liturgical ordering tended to be a simplified conventional basilican arrangement, with the sanctuary at one end and the assembly accommodated in rows of seating facing the front. As Henry Rohr (1966, p. 100) observed in 1966, ‘the so-called “church-school” holds a prominent position’ in contemporary patterns of church design. However these arrangements were not intended to be permanent. Once the parochial school was established and any debts associated with its construction in hand, parishes proceeded to build a church. Following the Council a different model of a church as multipurpose or shared space emerged. The origins of this model were likely not Catholic, but corresponded with the inspiration and desired engagement of the Catholic Church with the world that was outlined in the Vatican II Pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et spes. As well, the newfound post- conciliar engagement of the Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement that had been growing among many of the Christian ecclesial communities throughout the previous decades exposed the Catholic Church anew to the architectural-liturgical developments that had been occurring in church design

145 (Torgerson 2007, pp. 26-30 & p. 113). That some within the Catholic Church embraced for a time the convictions informing multi-purpose church design bears witness to the postconciliar ecumenical and secular engagement of the Catholic Church throughout this period. The vision for multipurpose or shared church spaces was articulated by John Gordon Davies at the First International Congress on Religion, Architecture and the Visual Arts that was held in New York and Montreal in 1967. He restated this vision in his book, The secular use of church buildings, published in 1968 (Torgerson 2007, p. 19). In his Congress speech Davies stated: I would sum up the Church’s function in one word: service. The Church exists, not for itself, but for others; it should therefore be an agent of reconciliation and liberation; it should concern itself with humanization; it should seek to meet the needs of men in the totality of their physical and spiritual existence. It should therefore plan its buildings in terms of the human needs of that sector of society within which it is serving, irrespective of whether or not those in need call themselves Christian. This is to say that we should plan multi-purpose buildings, the functions of which are determined not primarily by the restricted liturgical needs of a Christian group. The plan I am advocating, and it is capable of infinite variety, is one that embraces both sacred and secular within a single volume; one which neither shuts off the liturgy from the world nor the world from the liturgy … (quoted in Torgerson 2007, p. 21).

From a Catholic standpoint two problematic aspects of this vision for multipurpose churches are immediately evident. The first is the conviction that the Church’s function is service. In contrast the Catholic tradition believes that, ‘The Church’s first purpose is to be the sacrament of the inner union of men with God’ [emphasis original] (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §775). The Church exercises a commitment to service of the human community, especially the poor, but this service necessarily derives from its spiritual function. Thus, service is but one aspect of the Church’s function, not the summing up of all aspects of the Church’s function. The second problematic aspect is the view that the design of churches ought not to be primarily determined by liturgical needs, which is contrary to the conciliar injunction. Writing just five years later, Peter F. Smith (1972, p. 97-98) and Edwin C. Lynn (1972, pp. 25-63) independently endorsed the use of church buildings as urban church centres, not just for worship. Smith (1972, p. 97) reasoned that it

146 was timely for the Church to exercise its diakonic [service] function and opined, ‘in its new architecture, this function must be fully recognized.’ Reflecting on a then three year old church at Stoke Newington in England, he listed, the wide range of community-care activities’ in which the church was involved: daily meals for pensioners, a pre-school playgroup that met in the church hall, hosting a counselling service and meetings for prisoners’ wives, housing estate tenant/congregation meetings, and as a base for a youth and community worker (Smith 1972, p. 97).

Then he noted that, ‘Full use is not yet being made of the worship space, but it is anticipated that it will be used for W.E.A. [Workers Educational Association, providing adult education] and extra-mural lectures, debates, day conferences, etc.’ (Smith 1972, p. 97). While Smith thought that creating ‘spaces of maximum flexibility and therefore minimum determinancy’ was laudable, he cautioned against and tendency for this to ‘lead to multi-role space which is not efficient for anything: lowest common denominator environment’ (Smith 1972, p. 76). This, he observed, ‘is demonstrated in some recent experimental churches in England’ (Smith 1972, p. 76). Smith’s perspective is less a grand vision than a practical recognition of the service function of the Church and the opportunity for this that is provided by well designed church complexes. His subsequent advocacy for multiple use spaces and argument against dedicated worship spaces became polemical as he sought to demythologize church architecture. In holding to a reductionist view of Christ as ‘the ultimate secular man’ he revealed a biased reading of the Scriptures and a consequent functional, minimalist understanding of the liturgy and its setting (Smith 1974, pp. 12-17). Meanwhile Edwyn C. Lynn (1972, p. 31) advocated a new approach to thinking about church buildings: A new program is necessary to create an environment for the entire church and community. We have to discard the old categories of room use … We have to rethink the entire life of the church.

Lynn’s fundamental direction was to plan church building use not with Sunday liturgical functioning in mind, but to design ‘a full-functioning environment of seven-day-a-week religious life’ that would create new space designations (Lynn

147 1972, p. 33). He then outlined these new designations of such rooms as ‘meeting and worship space,’ ‘minister’s conference study,’ ‘adult program lounge,’ ‘media room,’ ‘projects room’, ‘regional service room,’ and even an ‘unfinished room’ to be finished at some later time by those with the enthusiasm to do so (Lynn 1972, pp. 33-53). Lynn’s proposal was similar to Smith’s, namely local church as community centre. He maintained that, ‘the full-functioning program in no way subtracts from the religious life of the church,’ but actually enhances the latter by adding to its vitality (Lynn 1972, p. 62). In effect Lynn was putting forward a pastoral proposal for a church complex that had facilities for and was welcoming of the wider community. Quite how involvement in local service would enhance worship is unclear, for it could also be argued that a dedicated worship space would have the same or better effect. Lynn (1972, pp. 240-269) further proposed interfaith centres, by which was meant interdenominational Christian structures with separate Catholic and protestant multipurpose worship spaces. This can be read as an acknowledgment of the high profile and the hopes of Christian in the years following Vatican II. The most influential proponent of multipurpose churches was Edward Anders Sövik, ‘a theologically sensitive, Evangelical Lutheran architect who has been designing spaces for Christian worship for more than forty years’ (Torgerson 1997, p. 19). In 1973 Sövik published Architecture for worship in which he reinterpreted the history of liturgy and church architecture, the meaning of the Incarnation, and the social implications of the Gospel: What this ultimately means is that there can be no more church building in the sense that is meant when we talk about “houses of God,” shrines, temples, naves, , or sacred edifices. We need to return to the non-church. Such a place can serve the greater community better, and can also be a better place for the Christian liturgy, than the “traditional” forms have ever been (Sövik 1973 p. 39).

Acknowledging that the house-churches of the early Christians would be inadequate to meet the needs of Christian communities today, Sövik advocated a new type of building. It would cater for educational, social and welfare purposes

148 as well as for liturgy, with regard to which he argued that there were ‘no requirements for a liturgical space’ (Sövik 1971, p. 40). Therefore, ‘…the structure is not to be a church; it is a place through which the church can minister.’ (Sövik 1973, p. 68). He renamed the church as the ‘centrum’ (fig. 4:46) and instructed that even though this centrum would be the place of liturgical celebration: … this does not mean that the room is a “nave,” a “sanctuary,” a “eucharistic hall,” or that it should have any ecclesiastically connotative title at all. It is a meeting place for people (Sökiv 1973, p. 68).

All of its furnishings including the altar table and pulpit were to be moveable. There would not be a baptismal font, but a fountain that could be used for baptism when required. Liturgical requisites would be portable and few in number. He recommended this model of multi-purpose non-church building for new projects and for the renovation of existing churches. In a somewhat contradictory concluding statement, Sövik (1973, p. 127) is adamant that, It isn’t buildings that need change but the people, and the renewal of buildings is only a means to help people understand the church and their faith as it ought to be understood.

Figure 4:46 shows Sövik’s scheme for multi-purpose centrum. Despite his insistence on not using any ecclesiastically connotative title, the liturgical centre in his scheme is identified as a ‘chancel’.

4:46 Edward A. Sövik, scheme for a multipurpose non-church centrum, ‘A single major space serves a great variety of purposes’, c. 1973. From E.A. Sövik, Architecture for worship, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1973, p. 73.

149 In Architecture for Worship, Sövik includes extensive plans for the at Charles City, Iowa in the USA, stressing that this complex ‘shows concern for flexibility of uses’ (Sövik 1973, p. 69). The complex comprises a centrum, choir room, nursery, infants and toddlers rooms, four classrooms, junior and senior high rooms, library and conference room, staff offices, kitchen, toilets, mechanical and storage rooms (Sövik 1973, p. 69). To suit the needs of different users of the centrum, drawings of ‘four alternate seating arrangements’ are provided (Sövik 1973, p. 80). The irony seems lost on Sövik that he was presenting as a model for his centrum a church complex in which most of the other rooms were designed for a particular purpose, except the centrum. To explain this, Mark Torgerson (1997, p. 38) observes that beyond Sövik’s theological rationale for the non-church, He seems to believe that relegating liturgical activities to an exclusive domain is inappropriate … for two primary reasons: 1) he is concerned with the economic liability of spending a significant amount of money on a room which is to be used infrequently …; and 2) he seems wary of a perceived tendency among believers to associate more genuine service to God with the worship area and is afraid that people might be prone to think they are serving God in a more inadequate way elsewhere in the world, something he would vehemently deny.

Sövik’s legacy is much criticized, substantially on the basis of his convictions concerning the non-sacral and impermanent character of Christian church buildings. These convictions are inconsistent with the ancient tradition of Catholic church architecture as expressed both in built form and in Church documents (cf. Doorly 2007, pp. 54-55; McNamara 2009, pp. 202-203; Rose 2001, pp. 154-166). Sövik is less criticized for his convictions concerning liturgy and liturgical ordering, for by virtue of its flexibility, his centrum could be arranged to meet the requirements of the liturgical rites and needs of the worshipping assembly. Yet Sövik’s convictions do warrant criticism from a Catholic standpoint. They effectively ignore or deny what is taught in the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium. Sövik does not adequately take into account the ecclesiology imparted by the Council. This ecclesiology is manifested in the liturgy and in the ordering of space for liturgical celebration, and in the symbol

150 system of the liturgy and its setting which in normal circumstances presumes permanence. Sövik (1969, p. 20) knew that advocating multipurpose worship spaces was contentious, however from the mid-1960s and during the 1970s there was more enthusiasm than criticism for his ideas. Throughout this period his influence was brought to bear significantly on the architectural theory and design of Catholic churches and to a lesser degree this influence continues (McNamara 2009, p. 195; Torgerson 2007, p. 22, pp. 78-79 & p. 172). In the 1970s and 1980s a number of multipurpose churches were built. Generally they comprised a dedicated chapel or sanctuary area that could be opened up to a larger hall space for the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy on Sundays. Two models of multi-purpose church emerged. One linked the dedicated chapel or sanctuary space to an open plan learning area of the parochial school. After school each Friday it would be cleared of its educational furnishings and resources and arranged as the nave of a church space for Sunday. This may be seen as a development of the earlier practice of temporarily converting adjacent classrooms into a hall-shaped church for Sunday use, as mentioned above (Rohr 1966, p. 100). The other model linked the dedicated chapel or sanctuary to a hall that was used by other groups through the week. In each instance folding doors or moveable wall panels separated the two distinct spaces. The incorporation of dedicated chapels or sanctuaries within multi- purpose churches negated Sövik’s imperative that everything be moveable and served at least two purposes. The first was to provide a permanent place for weekday celebrations of the Eucharistic liturgy, for the tabernacle and reservation of the Blessed Eucharist, and for private prayer. The second was to honour those sacred furnishings, particularly the altar, which are bearers of abiding symbolic meaning and thus intended to be permanent. The design of St Patrick’s Church (fig. 4:47) at Robertsdale in the United States exemplifies the second model of multi-purpose church.

151

4:47 J. Buchanan Blitch, Bill Argus Jr., & Eduardo Camacho, St Patrick’s Church, Robertsdale, Alabama, United States, c. 1979, Plan showing dedicated chapel and sanctuary, with possible extension into Areas 1 & 2. When not in use for worship Areas 1 & 2 are available for other social, educational and welfare uses. From J. Robinson & P. Markert, Religious buildings, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1979, p. 11. Blitch-Knevel Architects, Inc.

The rationale for St Patrick’s Church was described by Jeremy Robinson and Patricia Markert (1979, p. 11): The program for this Roman Catholic church called for a great deal of flexibility for round-the-week use, and it had as well to make a visible impression to tourists on the nearby highway leading to Alabama Gulf Coast beaches. Three specially divisible areas were required … a permanent chapel which can seat up to 80 people, a secondary seating area to bring the capacity to 250 on Sundays, and a third area which could be used for church services but could also be adapted to secular activities. The building can be used for one, two, or three separate functions simultaneously, or combined into one room …

As well as the three areas referred to, there are also storage spaces, a games room, a kitchen and toilets. Each of the three areas has its own entrance. As recently as 1991, a wide ‘permutation of types’ of multi-purpose church buildings was surveyed by Martin Purdy (1991, pp. 18-19). The identified types include: dual-purpose church and hall buildings; community-centred churches with some shared accommodation for worship and non-worship uses; pastoral centres linked and sharing facilities with other caring agencies and community use; and multipurpose church centres with a separate chapel or quiet

152 room. Purdy (1991, pp. 20-31) provides nine examples of such structures from the 1970s and 1980s. These associate the church or liturgical space variously with ecumenical cooperation, education, social and welfare services, recreational and community uses, and residential accommodation, always under one roof. However, by 1991 interest in multipurpose churches was waning. The multipurpose church has not endured as a preferred design. Though some such spaces are still in use much according to their original plan, other multipurpose church spaces have variously been converted to a multi-purpose hall when a new church has been built, or converted into a church and places for other activities constructed elsewhere. Over a number of years practical considerations alone may amount to adequate reason for having a permanent church space that has no other uses. More compelling, however, is the desire for a space that is set apart and ordered for liturgical celebration, which is why new churches are designed and existing churches are reordered.

Variable use liturgical ordering

In contrast with multi-purpose church space, the concept of variable use applies not to multiple users of the church but to multiple spatial arrangements within the church. The concept of variable use was explored by Schwarz (1958, p. 198) as early as 1938: It is conceivable that in the future our churches may come into being solely out of the act of worship itself. … The act of worship is indeed a spatial process whose “processio” is bound to a fixed spot, and as a “processio” of transformation it could be unfolded out of this spot: the altar. … The movements of the people, their changing position, the variation of the lighting, the solemn rhythms of the area of sound – all these together render that process which is the liturgy. It would be only a final step to give up the fixed structural space entirely and to use the structure simply as a means with which to render, in free creation, the ever-changing space.

Here Schwarz was not advocating something akin to Sövik’s non-church. Rather, his vision was twofold: first, the structure of the church building, and second, the altar as a fixed point of reference within the structure. Everything else was variable, most notably the assembly itself. It should be noted that though

153 Schwarz wrote about variable space in Vom bau der kirche and experimented with it at Burg Rothenfels, the opus of his life’s work as an architect of churches, Kirchenbau, published in 1960, provides no evidence of variable use in more than sixty church projects. William Seth Adams further develops the concept of variable use liturgical ordering. Quoting Frank Kacmarcik’s dictum that ‘we are formed or deformed by the art and environment we experience around us,’ Adams (1987, p. 232) argues that just as the liturgy is formative of the church, so too is the space within which the liturgy is celebrated. Insofar as other non-verbal elements of the liturgy can and do change, in like manner it also ought to be possible to vary the liturgical space, most especially in response to the seasons and days of the liturgical calendar. While it is true that the liturgy includes many changing elements and that the liturgical seasons influence these variations - for example in degree of solemnity, colour, and floral decoration or the absence thereof – it is equally true that the liturgy in its rites is archaic in structure, repetitive, and resistant to change (Kavanagh 1982, pp. 35-36). Four general standards for variable use liturgical ordering are proposed by Adams (1987, p. 235): (1) a single chamber for the assembly and the liturgical action; (2) a relationship between liturgical foci and people which encourages participation in the liturgical action and gives a sense of unity; (3) the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the table [the Eucharist] should be clearly related and integrated; (4) the furniture which serve as foci for liturgical action should be spatially related in significant ways.

Adams then identifies orderings which complement the rhythm of the Church’s liturgical calendar. Drawing upon the architectural theory of Christian Norberg- Schulz, Adams (1987, pp. 237-241) describes ‘domains,’ ‘paths’ and ‘places’ that inform a range of liturgical settings. These settings include straight rows, a choir or antiphonal ordering, and a circle modified into a ‘U’-shape. He outlines the use of different spatial arrangements during the liturgical seasons of Advent, Christmas, , and Easter, and through the year during (Adams 1987, pp. 239-242).

154 St Matthew Church (fig. 4:48) at Winter Haven in the United States was designed with such variability in mind. Within a large octagonal structure, the baptismal font at the entry constitutes the only unchanging sacred furnishing. The altar on its platform, though not fixed, is placed at or proximate to the physical centre of the church in each of the variable use settings. Inasmuch as the church building has a peaked roof where its eight sides meet in an apex above the centre of the church, it is unclear how this vertical axis is interpreted and experienced when the altar is moved away from the centre. According to seasonal liturgical settings and the various spatial relationships these are intended to evoke, the font and to a lesser extent the altar, though unchanging, cannot be said to be static. Meanwhile the ambo and chair for the priest celebrant, and the arrangement of seating for the assembly, are all variable.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

Illustration has been Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

4:48 Kevin L. Callahan, St Mathew Church, Winter Haven, Florida, United States, 1999, Plans for variable use according to liturgical season, ABOVE: Plan for Ordinary Time, BELOW LEFT: Plan for the Triduum of Easter BELOW CENTRE: Plan for the Season of Lent, BELOW RIGHT: Plan for the Easter Season. Adapted from C. Swarts, ‘Sand, Citrus Trees and the New St. Matthew Church’, Environment and art letter, 2000, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 70 & p. 72.

155 A different vision of variable use liturgical space is outlined by Gregory Wolfe (1998, p. 138) in his description of St Columban Church at Loveland, Ohio in the United States, which was designed by William Schickel and Joseph Theil: … the single most unique feature of St Columban’s is that it exemplifies the possibility for flexibility on a grand scale. The entire suite of pews (seating 650 people) and sanctuary can be moved into different patterns: a semicircular arrangement, a more traditional antiphonal pattern … and the present [U- arrayed] arrangement, with a central altar. … The purpose of this flexibility was not to encourage frequent changes but to make any future changes inexpensive and relatively painless. In the last fourteen years there have been three major seating plan changes.

A somewhat different approach to variable use liturgical space is taken by Giles, who holds to two fundamental convictions: Of supreme importance in the renewal of liturgy today is the rediscovery of the assembly as the minister of the eucharist, and indeed of the divine office and other forms of worship, too (Giles 2004, p. 55); [and] At the end of the day … the startling feature of Christianity is that at its heart stands a table. This table symbolizes the ministry and person of Jesus of Nazareth in more ways than can be chronicled (Giles 2004, pp. 61-62).

These two convictions resonate with the emphasis given by Schwarz to the people and the altar in formulating his rationale for variable use liturgical space. Like Schwarz, Giles (2004, p. 54) advocates a liturgical setting that is rendered free of pews so as to liberate the assembly to truly celebrate the liturgy. With regard to pews he defers to Kavanagh (1982, pp. 21-22), who has observed that: Pews, which entered liturgical space only recently, nail the assembly down, proclaiming that the liturgy is not a common action but a preachment perpetrated upon the seated … Pews distance the congregation, disenfranchise the faithful, and rend the assembly. … Pews are never mentioned in the Roman rubrics, nor is there any record that being without pews has ever killed Christians in significant numbers.

Ade Bethune (1994, p. 90) concurs with this point of view. She points to the ‘practical custom from antiquity’ of churches providing peripheral seating for those in the assembly who required it while the floor space in churches was otherwise free of seating, thereby enabling all the other members of the assembly to move with the liturgy . She observes that, ‘Even today, a generation after the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, we still seem to be planning our churches in a static rather than a dynamic mode’ (Bethune 1994, p. 92).

156 As to the altar, Giles (2004, p. 63) argues that, ‘At the centre of our liturgical space … we need to place a table; we have no choice.’ He is not arguing that the altar necessarily be placed in the physical centre of the church building, but at the centre of the assembly gathered to celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy: The best position for the altar table is that which most honours its purpose and prominence in the space, and which most easily facilitates the gathering of the assembly around it to offer the eucharistic prayer’ (Giles 2004, p. 63).

Giles’s convictions about variable use liturgical ordering are borne out in his reordering of Philadelphia [Episcopal] Cathedral (fig. 4:49). Here all the sacred furnishings except the cathedra and font are moveable. The altar, though not fixed, has an honoured place. Chairs can be rearranged to meet the needs of the assembly as it celebrates the liturgical rites. For example, while the preferred ordering for the Eucharistic liturgy is antiphonal, a v-configured frontal seating configuration better suited choral (‘Philadelphia Episcopal Cathedral’ 2011). So, also, can the place of liturgical leadership be arranged mindful of the assembly and the liturgy being celebrated (fig. 4:50).

4:49 George Yu, Philadelphia Cathedral, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (1898) Reordered 2002, Plan showing customary liturgical antiphonal ordering, 1. Cathedra, 2. Altar, 3. Ambo, 4. Assembly, 5. Baptismal font, 6. Entry. Drawn by A. McCracken, 2008.

157

4:50 George Yu, Philadelphia Cathedral, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (1898) Reordered 2002, Plans showing alternative locations for the place of liturgical leadership, signified by the chair of the presiding minister. From R. Giles, Re-pitching the tent: reordering the church for worship and mission, 3rd edn., Canterbury Press, Norwich, 2004, p. 61.

The rationale for variable use has not resulted in wide acceptance of this approach to liturgical ordering. The Church’s authoritative liturgical documents do not favour variable use. For example, The general instruction of the Roman missal (Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §309) states with regard to the ambo for the proclamation and preaching of the Word that: ‘… It is appropriate that this place be ordinarily a stationary ambo and not simply a moveable lectern’. With regard to the altar this same document states: ‘It is appropriate to have a fixed altar in every church’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §298) and again: The altar, moreover, should be in the place where it is truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §299).

Thus it is permitted to have a moveable altar, but this is to be regarded as the exception and never as the norm. The rationale for preferring permanent places for sacred furnishings is in part their symbolic value. As Aidan Kavanagh (1982, p. 17) explains: Altars on wheels, fonts that collapse, and presidential chairs that fold away do not free but neuter liturgical place. Since crucial values are perennial rather than disposable, they flock with usage to sustained focal points and thus help to reduce raw space in humane place. Crucial values so incarnated become roots for people’s lives. Gymnasia rarely play a profound role in most people’s maintenance of a secure identity.

158 When it comes to the assembly, The general instruction of the Roman missal (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §294) is somewhat less specific, stating that: The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of all the participants, as well as facilitating them in the proper carrying out of their function.

The general instruction of the Roman missal goes on to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the liturgical setting provides for the active participation of the assembly in the rites, including the provision and arrangement of seating: It is expedient for benches or seats usually to be provided for their use. ... benches or chairs should be arranged, especially in newly built churches, in such a way that the people can easily take up the postures required for the different parts of the celebration and can easily come forward to receive Holy Communion (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §311).

In the matter of variable use liturgical ordering, there are two vital issues which warrant further examination. The first concerns the ongoing work of liturgical renewal and the manner of liturgical celebration, as to whether this renewal can ever attain the degree of freedom that renders pews obsolete and seating for the assembly variable. The second concerns the tension in the liturgical ordering of a church between permanence and stability on the one hand, and freedom and flexibility on the other, and the extent to which the latter serves to sustain or diminish the symbolism inherent in, for example, the altar. A lesser consideration, particularly in light of Adams’ argument, would be to ask whether moving the assembly, its ministers, and the furniture is an effective means of highlighting liturgical seasons, given that it is additional to the verbal and non-verbal means already in customary usage.

Implications for liturgical ordering of orientation in the Eucharistic liturgy

Of the range of liturgical orderings considered in this chapter, all have in common a freestanding altar. In the decades prior to Vatican II, the influence of

159 the liturgical movement on the design of churches had led to altars being moved away from the end wall of the sanctuary to a place where the altar was unencumbered by such embellishments as gradines, or reredos screens. In new and reordered churches where this change had been made it became possible for the priest to celebrate from either side of the altar, though customary practice was that he stood on the side nearest the assembly. The Eucharistic liturgy celebrated at these freestanding altars used the then current edition of the centuries-old preconciliar Roman Missal. From the first instance in implementation of the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium it was recommended that the altar be freestanding. The Instruction, Inter oecumenici (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, §91) stated in Chapter V on ‘The proper construction of churches and altars in order to facilitate the active participation of the faithful,’ that: It is proper that the main altar be constructed separately from the wall, so that one may go around it with ease and so that celebration may take place facing the people; it shall occupy a place in the sacred building which is truly central, so that the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful is spontaneously turned to it.

In doing so the Church was formally restoring its earliest known practice regarding the altar, determining that it ought once again to be freestanding. What was experienced as new was provision for celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy to take place with the priest celebrant ‘facing the people’ across the altar. The practice of celebration facing the people was not imposed; it was simply to be provided for. This arrangement, commonly called versus populum or toward the people, contrasts with the preconciliar practice versus apsidem, toward the apse. The latter bears the historical meaning of celebrating the Eucharistic liturgy or oriented, that is, facing towards the east. Lang (2007, p. 95) holds this to be synonymous with the exhortation given often by Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa 395 – 430 CE, ‘conversi ad Dominum’ or ‘turn toward the Lord’. John Baldovin (2008, p. 111) questions whether this exhortation was literal or spiritual:

160 …It is not really possible to know for sure whether the people actually turned to face east during the eucharistic prayer or whether the command was a spiritual exhortation along the lines of “Lift up your hearts”.

This latter Roman exhortation, ‘lift up your hearts,’ ‘,’ was and remains part of the dialogue leading into the Eucharistic prayer. Orientation within a church has influenced the actual layout of the space and placing of the sacred furnishings only in some instances, such as during the medieval era when altars were moved to near the apsidal wall and ceased to be freestanding, thereby determining that there was only one place in which the priest and assembly could relate to the altar and to each other. In other eras orientation has had little if any telling influence on liturgical ordering. Nevertheless it has influenced the relationship between the assembly and priest celebrant, and the way they are ‘ordered’ to each other hierarchically and in their unity. The promulgation by Pope Benedict XVI (2007b) in 2007 of the motu proprio, has added a new dimension to the present-day liturgical ordering of churches. This pronouncement made celebration of the preconciliar Eucharistic liturgy according to the 1962 edition of the Roman missal more widely available. This is the Roman missal first promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570 by which a standardised Eucharistic liturgy was established for the entire Latin rite Church. The Roman missal of 1962, promulgated by Pope John XXIII, is the most recent edition. As noted in Chapter Three, this rite of the Eucharistic liturgy is customarily celebrated versus apsidem, though as mentioned in Chapter One, this orientation is not prescribed as law (O’Connell 1955, p. 154). Versus apsidem celebration is not readily accommodated in some liturgical orderings. The possibility that a church might need to be liturgically ordered for celebration of both pre- and postconciliar Eucharistic liturgies - the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms of the one Roman Rite - adds a dimension that has rarely been part of the liturgical ordering or reordering of churches in the decades since Vatican II.

161 The postconciliar practice of versus populum celebration was popularly received and quickly became widespread. However this change gave rise to a scholarly and pastoral debate about what constitutes authentic Catholic tradition regarding the direction faced in liturgical prayer. This debate is ongoing. It is premised on two fundamental convictions, one theological and one historical. The theological conviction concerns the role of the priest celebrant of the Eucharistic liturgy. In the first part of this liturgy, comprised of Introductory Rites and the Liturgy of the Word, the priest directs the prayer of the assembly, listens with the assembly to the proclamation of the Scriptures, preaches to the assembly, and prays with and for the assembly and the whole Church. This first part of the liturgy ‘is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense’ (Ratzinger 2000, p. 81). To this first part of the Eucharistic liturgy might be added the Concluding Rites in which the priest blesses the assembly and it is sent forth. In the second part of the Eucharistic liturgy, comprised of the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Communion Rite, the priest addresses prayer to God, with and for the assembly. Though it includes some dialogue with the assembly, this is by way of invitation to prayer and to communion with God and each other, thereby serving the act of praying. Joseph Ratzinger (2000, p. 81) therefore argues that in this second part of the liturgy for priest and assembly to be face- to-face is unimportant: ‘It is not now a question of dialogue but of , of setting off toward the One who is to come’. This understanding of the role of the priest during the liturgy informs the conviction that priest and people ought to face the same direction in prayer during the second part of the Eucharistic liturgy. Priest and assembly should together face east or what is sometimes referred to as the ‘liturgical east’, that is versus apsidem. There are other theological reasons put forward in support of this conviction. Ratzinger (2000, p. 80) suggests that when the priest celebrant faces the assembly across the altar, they become a ‘self-enclosed circle’, together turning not to God by to one another. Klaus Gamber (2002, p. 32) argues that

162 the decisive question regarding the position of the priest at the altar is the character of the Mass as a sacrifice. The person offering the sacrifice turns towards the person to whom the sacrifice is being presented. By early Christian conceptions, one did this by turning to look towards the east. Another reason is cosmological, as the course of the sun and the stars begins from the east. The rising sun symbolises the resurrection of Christ and the expectation of his final coming in glory. Facing east also evokes eschatological symbolism of the original paradise of the first man and woman, as recounted in the Book of Genesis (1:26–2:24). The same primordial myth heralds the promise of salvation, that is, the return of all that paradise signifies (Larson-Miller 2002, p. 39). It follows that if the priest is facing the assembly across the altar then it is deprived of the transcendent dimension symbolised by the rising sun and anticipated sacramentally in the Eucharistic liturgy (Lang 2004, pp. 100-109). Various theological reasons favouring versus populum celebration can be put forward in response to the versus apsidem conviction. One reason concerns the Scriptural names by which the Eucharist is known in the Catholic tradition. These include ‘Eucharist’ itself, deriving from the Greek and meaning thanksgiving; the ‘wedding feast of the Lamb’ in eschatological anticipation and hope; the ‘Lord’s Supper’ in remembrance of the supper Christ took with his disciples on the night before he died; the ‘Breaking of Bread’ from Jesus’ action at table; the ‘Synaxis’, meaning the Eucharistic assembly; the ‘memorial’ of Christ’s passion and resurrection; the ‘Holy Sacrifice’ because the Eucharist makes present Christ’s one sacrifice; and the ‘Holy and ’ and ‘Sacred Mysteries’ because the Eucharist is the centre of the Church’s sacramental life (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1328, §1329 & §1330). Many of these Scriptural names and the images they evoke are better symbolised by a priest and assembly gathered around an altar which is at the same time the table of the Lord, than by being unidirectional before an altar. Another reason is the conciliar teaching regarding the modes of Christ’s presence during the Eucharistic liturgy. As already outlined, The general

163 instruction of the Roman missal expresses this teaching. It first cites Christ’s promise: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst’ (Matthew 18:20) and then states: ... Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §27).

As has been noted, this passage gives succinct expression to the earlier conciliar teaching which also refer to Christ’s promise (Vatican II 1963, SC §7): ... Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, … but especially under the Eucharistic species. … He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20).

Christ’s presence upon the altar in the forms of bread and wine is sacramental. When priest and assembly are gathered around the altar each revelation of Christ’s presence is honoured as the liturgy comes to its high point in the that concludes the Eucharistic prayer. Christ’s presence, already revealed in the gathered assembly, in the Scriptures proclaimed and preached, in the priest who directs the assembly’s prayer and offers the Eucharistic sacrifice, becomes sacramental upon the altar. It is held that his sacramental presence should be paramount for the assembly and that this is most clearly attained by being gathered around the altar. The historical conviction that versus populum celebration it is not an authentic part of the Catholic tradition draws on historical evidence. The Catholic tradition has from early in Christian history observed the practice of orienting churches by designing them with the apse or sanctuary directed towards the east (Bouyer 1967, p. 27; Lang 2007, p. 97). While this has been widely honoured historically it has not always been the case. A significant number of churches, including some of great importance, are not oriented (Lang 2007, p. 97; Scotto 1990, p. 12; cf. Krautheimer 1986, p. 52, p. 55 & p. 164). The tradition of orienting churches is closely linked to the pattern that has become evident

164 throughout this chapter, of churches being ordered to meet the needs of the liturgy. Thus it is argued that the to the east first existed for liturgical celebration in which both priest and assembly faced east when at the altar. It is further argued that the concept of celebrating the Eucharistic versus populum stems not from ancient practice but from the liturgical movement of the twentieth century, and that this in turn was influenced by an earlier rationalist effort to ‘divert attention away from the Eucharist as sacrifice … and toward the much more comprehensible notions of the Eucharist as assembly and meal’ (Nichols 1996, p. 96). Gamber (1993, p. 138) quotes Theodor Klauser in the latter’s Guidelines for the design of the house of God according to the spirit of the Roman liturgy, published in 1949: ‘There are some indications that in the church of the future, the priest will again be standing behind the altar and will celebrate Mass facing the people, as is still being done in the old Roman basilicas.’ Here Klauser’s use of ‘again’ indicates the existence of a precedent in the practice of the early Church but this cannot be definitively established. Moreover his mention of the then current practice in the old Roman basilicas refers to the situation in occidental basilicas which were built with the apse at the western end. When the Eucharistic liturgy was celebrated in these basilicas it was celebrated ad orientem, facing east, which by coincidence also meant that the priest was versus populum, facing towards the people across the altar. This circumstance has also posed a difficulty in determining ancient liturgical practice. It is quite clear that from at least as early as the medieval liturgy until after Vatican II the normative position of the priest at the altar was versus apsidem. Even accepting an ad orientem disposition in churches that faced east, the question remains as to which way priest and assembly faced in the many churches that faced west or another direction. It has been argued by Bouyer (1967, pp. 55-56) that so firmly established was the practice of facing east regardless of the geographical disposition of the church that,

165 Even when the orientation of the church enabled the celebrant to pray toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who, then, turned East: it was the whole congregation, together with him.

This ordering of the assembly would have presented a conflict of symbolism, because facing east would have necessitated that the congregation face away from the altar. The fourth and fifth century tradition of the Fathers of the Church, which affirmed the custom of facing east, also saw the altar as a sign of Christ. From this came the saying, repeated in the Roman Pontifical, that, ‘The altar is Christ’ (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, Roman Pontifical, Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar, ch. 4, §4). A different interpretation is offered by Jaime Lara (1994, p. 214) who observes that, In the Roman basilicas, where the apse was at the west end, the presider likewise stood at the altar facing eastward, but this time he would have to face the congregation across the table.

He further remarks, in a footnote: However, it would be unthinkable that the assembly would turn its back upon the bishop or the altar, both of which had early on become primary symbols of Christ (Lara 1994, p. 214, no. 18).

Here again is a circumstance where celebration ad orientem is simultaneously but unintentionally celebration versus populum. The ordering of an occidental church highlights the complication posed by churches with architectural layouts that do not conform to the tradition of orientation. These layouts include churches designed with: • the altar placed near the centre of the nave instead of at the apsidal end; • the placed in the centre of the nave rather than in the apse; and • galleries erected at the end of the nave and/or along its sides. Such variations in liturgical ordering demonstrate the difficulty in ascertaining the direction that was faced at the altar during the Eucharistic liturgy. Indeed, in some churches it is not even possible to determine how the assembly used the nave and aisles. There exists archaeological evidence ‘to show that several west- facing buildings were deliberately re-oriented in the fifth century … by the addition of a second apse and second altar to the east’ (Lara 1994, p. 214). And

166 there is a ‘ninth-century ivory sacramentary cover in Trier, showing an archbishop celebrating Mass versus populum surrounded by his … most probably a visual testimony of a west-apse celebration’ (Lara 1994, p. 216). Discourse and debate about orientation continue precisely because the archaeological and historical data are inconclusive. Both sides of the debate present well-reasoned, logical hypotheses made on the basis of what is known of early liturgical ordering. At present the data seems to favour the view that the praxis of the Church of first millennium was for priest and people to pray the Eucharistic liturgy ad orientem. Yet there remain a number of contrary indicators that point to versus populum celebration. Faced with this situation and informed by his own scholarly research of the ad orientem question, Lara (1994, p. 220) has drawn some helpful conclusions for the time being: We see that missa [Mass] versus populum was never as high a priority as missa versus orientem, which entered relatively early, although at different moments in different parts of the Christian world.

Lara (1994, p. 220) holds that celebration ad orientem implied a positive choice but not a negative judgment of versus populum. He recognises that the questions asked of liturgical space today differ from those of previous ages, reflecting the differences in human and theological paradigms (Lara 1994, p. 220). He begs the question of the meaning of ‘east’ and the ‘rising sun’ in an era that no longer identifies with the cosmology that informed the directionality of prayer for early Christians. Yet he acknowledges a new appreciation of subconscious archetypes and symbols and the importance of cultural context (Lara 1994, pp. 220-221). He muses about the contribution that proxemics and semiotics might make to the debate (Lara 1994, p. 221). Finally Lara (1994, p. 221) concludes: Considering the merely archaeological and historical data … it would seem that the Church has been quite ingenious in spatial arrangements and has allowed for quite a number of creative possibilities, more than we might have at first thought.

More recently, John Hill (2009, p. 268) has commented upon an address given in 2006 by Enzo Bianchi, Prior of the monastery of Bose in Italy, on the subject of orientation:

167 Should the priest face the people (especially during the Eucharistic prayer) or should he rather ‘face the Lord’ (i.e. face the east)? Bianchi, after surveying the possible answers to these questions, concludes that ‘no ritual form, no liturgical text or gesture, can ever of itself exhaust the riches of God’s mystery.

Hill (2009, p. 268) concludes that, ‘There is something to be said for both points of view, and neither can claim the entire high ground.’ Churches built and reordered between the 1930s and early 1960s, as described earlier in this chapter, were designed for celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy set out in the Roman missal of Pope Pius V. Yet as their plans reveal, these churches were designed with the participation of a gathered liturgical assembly in mind. It remains uncertain whether those who today celebrate this Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite are willing to do so in churches with an ordering influenced by the liturgical movement, or prefer to do so in churches with a frontal basilican or cruciform ordering. In many instances postconciliar liturgical reordering of preconciliar churches, such as by relocation of the tabernacle from the altar and introduction of the ambo and the chair for the priest celebrant, has resulted in spatial arrangements adequately suited to the postconciliar Ordinary form of the Eucharistic liturgy. Yet this does not fully resolve the question of an intentionally designed liturgical ordering that provides for the celebration of both forms of the Roman Rite. While not specific concerns of this thesis, renewed discourse about the orientation of the priest celebrant, together with greater provision for celebration of the Extraordinary form of the Eucharistic liturgy, prompt further exploration of contemporary liturgical ordering. These considerations beg the question as to a liturgical ordering well-suited to celebration of both Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Eucharistic liturgy in the same church.

Liturgical ordering for baptism, Eucharistic reservation, and reconciliation

As well as the primary purpose of liturgically ordering churches for the celebration of the liturgy, developments in sacramental-liturgical theology and pastoral-liturgical praxis have led to changes in the liturgical settings for baptism,

168 reservation of the Eucharist, and reconciliation. Occurring gradually, these changes may be understood as constituting new ordering of particular places within a church in relation to the principal liturgical ordering of postconciliar churches for the Eucharistic liturgy.

The place for celebrating baptism

Prior to Vatican II, baptisteries and baptismal fonts were customarily located near the entrance to the church, in the narthex, at the rear of the nave or in a nearby chapel. With the revised baptismal rites providing for baptism to be celebrated during the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy, there was an initial postconciliar trend to place the font near to or within the sanctuary. This frontal placement enabled the assembly to see the rite of baptism being celebrated without needing to change posture. In the case studies in Chapter Six this setting for the font is evident in St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood and St Michael and St John Church at Horsham. By the 1980s the emphasis had shifted to baptism marking entry into the Church community. The preferred place for celebrating baptism returned to locating fonts near the Church entrance (Kuehn 1992, pp. 111-112). During the same period the restored practice of baptism by immersion was growing, so many of these fonts were designed with a bowl for infant baptism with a pool for the baptism of adults. This location of the font also reminded the assembly of baptism. Entering the church members of the assembly could sign themselves with baptismal water. In the case studies this setting for the font is evident in St Joseph Church at Malvern and Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove. The most recent shift, though it has not become widely established, has been to locate the font in the midst of the assembly, usually on the principal axis with the altar, creating a place of honour between these two sacred furnishings (Kuehn 1992, pp. 113-114). This ordering of altar and font highlights Christian initiation beginning with baptism and being completed in the Eucharist. It reinforces baptism as the sacrament of the common priesthood of the faithful

169 that is shared by all in the assembly, lay and ordained. The place of honour, so called, provides a designated place for the celebration of other sacraments and rites such as confirmation, marriage and funerals. Two such settings for the font are evident in the case studies of Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove and St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy. Significantly, in the ordering of both churches the font is also placed at the entrance to the church, thereby emphasising this sacrament as initiation into the Church community. Postconciliar church design has for the most part departed from the traditional practice of designing the baptistery as a space separated from the setting for the Eucharistic liturgy, though this remains an option. Regarding the location of the baptistery or font Philip Bess (2006, p. 148) has remarked, I have yet to see anywhere either a baptistery or a baptismal font that can successfully carry all the symbolic weight associated with baptism as a rite of initiation and purification performed at mass, outside of Mass, at the , by total immersion, by sprinkling, in the front of the church, at the entrance to the church, or historically even outside the church. The only essential elements for baptism are water and the Trinitarian protocols, and there is obviously no one historically preferred place for the baptistery. … I think it therefore to locate the baptistery on the basis of either symbolism or prudential judgment, and then just live with the accompanying inconveniences.

It is not yet clear whether any of the places for celebrating baptism outlined above provides a lasting solution. However as the case studies in Chapter Six will demonstrate, the location of the baptistery or baptismal font needs to be determined in relation to the liturgical ordering of the church, especially the setting for the Eucharistic liturgy.

The place of Eucharistic reservation

From the time of Carlo Borromeo in the sixteenth century, the tabernacle for reservation of the Eucharist had been placed at the centre of the principal altar in the church. In that position it became in the minds of many the defining characteristic of a Catholic church. Implementation of the postconciliar liturgical reforms occasioned a clearer understanding of the Eucharistic liturgy and Eucharistic reservation. As reservation of the Eucharist which derives from the

170 liturgical celebration of the Eucharist, preference was given to reserving the Eucharist apart from the altar and ideally in a dedicated chapel apart from the sanctuary. The 1964 Instruction, Inter oecumenici stipulated that: The most holy Eucharist shall be reserved in a solid and inviolable tabernacle placed in the middle of the main altar or on a minor, but truly outstanding altar, or, according to lawful customs and in particular cases to be approved by the local ordinary, also in some other noble and properly adorned part of the church (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, §95).

By 1967 the subsequent Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, was recommending that: The place in a church or oratory where the Eucharist is reserved in a tabernacle should be truly a place of honour. It should also be suited to private prayer so that the faithful may readily and to their advantage continue to honour the Lord in this sacrament by private worship. Therefore, it is recommended that as far as possible the tabernacle be placed in a chapel set apart from the main body of the church, especially in churches where there frequently are and funerals and in places that, because of their artistic or historical treasures, are much visited by many people (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, §53).

The same Instruction explained the reason for this recommendation: In the celebration of Mass, the principal modes of Christ’s presence to his Church emerge clearly one after the other: first he is seen to be present in the assembly of the faithful gathered in his name; then in his word, with the reading and explanation of Scripture; also in the person of the minister; finally, in a singular way under the Eucharistic elements. Consequently, on the grounds of the sign value, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that, through reservation of the sacrament in the tabernacle, Christ not be present eucharistically from the beginning on the altar where Mass is celebrated. That presence is the effect of the consecration and should appear as such (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, §55).

Thus the reservation of the Eucharist in a separate chapel became the normative expectation. The 1975 version of The general instruction of the Roman missal, in force in Australia until 2007, stated: Every encouragement should be given to the practice of Eucharistic reservation in a chapel suited to the faithful’s private adoration and prayer. If this is impossible because of the structure of the church, the sacrament may be reserved at an altar or elsewhere, in keeping with the local custom, and in a part of the church that is worthy or properly adorned (Congregation for Divine Worship 1975, §276, p. 45*).

171 The most recent legislation regarding reservation of the Eucharist has amended and expanded that of 1975. The 2002 edition of The general instruction of the Roman missal, which took effect in Australia in 2007, states: It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated. Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the , a. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. §303); b. Or, likewise, in some chapel suitable for the faithful's private adoration and prayer and organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §315).

The sequence in which the places of Eucharistic reservation are described here might be interpreted by some as giving preference to the sanctuary. This is not necessarily so. The option of reserving the Eucharist in a chapel, recommended in the Instruction, Eucharisticum Mysterium, quoted above, is also referenced in this text. What seems more significant is the emphasis given to ‘the judgment of the diocesan Bishop.’ While the authority of the diocesan Bishop is established in Church law (The code of canon law 1983, Can. 838 §4 & Can. 1215 §1), it is unusual for it to be so particularly highlighted. Touching upon theological discussion about the custom of reserving the Eucharist and postconciliar dialectic about the place of Eucharistic reservation, Joseph Ratzinger (2000, p. 90) has observed that, The Eucharistic Presence in the tabernacle does not set another view of the Eucharist alongside or against the Eucharistic celebration, but simply signifies its complete fulfillment. For this Presence has the effect, of course, of keeping the Eucharist forever in the church.

This viewpoint would not exclude the option of reserving the Eucharist in a chapel. Yet it would seem to favour reserving the Eucharist in the sanctuary. The influence of these different directives and recommendations for the place of Eucharistic reservation is evident in Catholic churches that have been built or reordered since Vatican II. Many churches never changed from locating the tabernacle in the sanctuary and continue to reserve the Eucharist there.

172 Among the churches studied in Chapter Six, Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove effectively locates the tabernacle in the sanctuary. Some new churches were designed with separate chapels, though there was a challenge to situate such a chapel in a place that was at once a place of honour, in relationship with the altar, and readily identified and accessed from the entrance to the church. Three markedly different such designs are evident in the case studies: St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood and St Michael and St John Church at Horsham locate the tabernacle in a chapel adjacent to the sanctuary where it can clearly be seen from within the church; Our Lady of Fatima Church at Caringbah locates the tabernacle in a discrete chapel which is accessible from within the church; and in St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy the tabernacle is located in a chapel that extends from the church and is clearly visible from inside it. In older churches that underwent liturgical reordering, some had existing side chapels and altars well-suited to Eucharistic reservation and to private prayer and adoration. The case study of St Joseph Church at Malvern shows such an arrangement. In St Joseph’s Church, as at Our Lady of Fatima Church at Charnwood and St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy, the chapel of Eucharistic reservation is also accessible externally, so that people can visit to pray when the church is closed. In many older churches there was no suitable alternative for placement of the tabernacle other than within the sanctuary. The relocation of tabernacles to places perceived as unworthy or lacking dignity understandably gave rise to disquiet and even anger in Church communities. Today the matter of determining the place for Eucharistic reservation is usually approached by well- informed clergy, liturgists and architects with reverence, sensitivity and even caution.

The place for celebrating reconciliation

At the time of the Council reconciliation, the sacrament whereby sins are absolved, known then as ‘confession’ and now celebrated using the Rite of

173 Penance, was ministered in confessionals which had evolved from a design first established by Carlo Borromeo in the sixteenth century. These confessionals provided an enclosed or partitioned space for the priest confessor, with adjacent space for penitents on one or both sides. The confessor and penitent communicated through a small grille, each able to hear but not see the other so as to preserve the penitent’s anonymity. In some churches these confessionals have been retained and are still in use, often with part or all of the partition removed so that confessor and penitent are within one albeit quite small space. This is the case at Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove, as is described in the case studies. By the 1970s reconciliation ‘rooms’ were being created, sometimes by converting the older confessionals but as often by walling in a no longer used side chapel, former baptistery or corner of the church. These rooms provided greater space for confessor and penitent in a subdued and prayerful setting, inviting a pastoral counselling approach to celebrating the sacrament. Reconciliation rooms were incorporated in the designs of St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood, St Michael and St John Church at Horsham, and St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy, as is evident in the plans of these churches shown in Chapter Six. From the later 1980s a preference emerged for reconciliation chapels. The distinction between reconciliation chapels and the better designed reconciliation rooms remains somewhat blurred. Sometimes screened by glass, a filled grille or solid wall, reconciliation chapels have been designed with ritual celebration as well as pastoral counselling in mind, are both aspects are rightly included in the celebration of this sacrament. The development of reconciliation chapels has coincided with greater thought being given to the relationship between the place of reconciliation and other parts of the church, particularly the baptistery and the place of Eucharistic reservation. Reconciliation chapels are observed in the case studies of St Joseph Church at Malvern and Our Lady of Fatima Church at Caringbah.

174 From the initial confessional design introduced by Carlo Borromeo the anonymity of the penitent has been ensured through use of a grille between the penitent and priest confessor. It remains a requirement of The code of canon law (1983, Can. 964 §2) that the place of reconciliation provide the option for penitents to confess through a grille. Today reconciliation chapels are designed with both face-to-face and grille options for penitents.

Conclusions drawn from this chapter

This Chapter has traced the emergence and development of new and adapted liturgical ordering during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. It has shown the influence of the liturgical movement on the design of churches in the decades prior to and following World War II. This influence was in effect confirmed by Vatican II in the bishops’ injunction giving primacy to the liturgy in church design. New orderings and adaptations of older orderings thereafter became the norm for church design projects. This chapter has described the emergence of new and adapted liturgical ordering during the preconciliar decades. It has demonstrated the considerable extent to which these and other orderings have been incorporated in churches designed since the Council. This validates the assertion of the thesis that the second period of history in which far-reaching change in liturgical ordering occurred was during the twentieth century, in the lead-up to and in response to Vatican II. The extent of change occasioned by new and adapted liturgical ordering and the innovation this often involved, confirms what has already been clearly demonstrated in Chapter Three; that the ordering of church space is responsive to significant change in liturgical theology and praxis. The Council initiated a reform and promotion of Catholic liturgy that included revision of the Church’s rites, restoration of the Scriptures in Catholic liturgy, revision of liturgical ministries and the ways in which these are exercised, renewal of the Church’s liturgical-sacramental symbol system, and most importantly, insistence upon the

175 full conscious and active participation of the assembly. In the work of designing new churches and redesigning older churches, these vital aspects of the Church’s liturgical life were foremost in reforming spatial arrangements. While the development and spread of different orderings was not uniform from place to place, it has nevertheless been possible to identify the patterns of development during the decades since the Council. It has also been possible to identify trends that for a time exerted influence on liturgical ordering and church design. Further, contemporaneous issues have also been identified which, while not explicitly concerned with liturgical ordering, have impinged upon it or raised questions about it. That architects have used diverse orderings in designing postconciliar churches may be interpreted as constituting a quest for the ideal liturgical ordering. Yet this diversity betrays the extent to which these same orderings have been found wanting as suitable for liturgical services. The foremost reason for this, evident in many churches designed since Vatican II and exemplified in this chapter, has been inadequate understanding of conciliar teaching regarding the reform and promotion of the liturgy. This is particularly so of norms pertaining to the architectural setting of the liturgy. As John Huels (1997, p. 126) observes: Liturgical law gives no blueprint for the arrangement of the seating for the people in the place of worship. Rather, it provides broad principles which need to be heeded but whose interpretation and application is left to local churches.

In light of the canonical requirement (Code of canon law 1983, §1216) that experts in liturgy be consulted in the church design process, Huels (1997, p. 127) further observes that: Many architects lack liturgical expertise and are happy to build whatever parishioners want, even if the result is not satisfactory for the celebration of the rites. Thus, one or more trained consultants skilled in the principles of church design and knowledgeable about the requirements of the liturgy are necessary.

The same lack of liturgical expertise is similarly found among clergy. An informed understanding of the liturgy is indispensible in designing the ordering of Catholic churches. This necessity will be further explicated in the following chapters.

176 As new and adapted liturgical ordering became widespread, architects, liturgists and others with an interest in the spatial arrangement of churches began to describe and evaluate the various orderings. This gave rise to orderings being named and classified, most often by grouping them in typologies. In some instances the typologies were conceptual and were represented in schematic drawings. In other instances the typologies were based upon the comparison of churches having similar or differing spatial arrangements. It is to these typologies that the thesis now turns.

177 CHAPTER FIVE

THINKING IN TYPES: TYPOLOGIES AS A CONSTRUCT FOR DISCOURSE ABOUT LITURGICAL ORDERING

Typologies of liturgical ordering

Organising types of liturgical ordering in a typology, which for the purposes of this thesis is understood as a set of types, provides a theoretical construct in which both conceptual and actual types can be described, contrasted and evaluated. Architecture scholars and writers classify buildings by type. For example, the Builders series of books published by Academy Editions includes titles treating of the museum, theatre, library, airport and church as types of building (cf. Heathcote & Spens 1997, inside back dust-jacket). Particular types of building are classified by period and place. Twentieth century church architecture in Germany (Schnell 1974) and European church architecture 1950-2000 (Stock 2002) treat of the type church classified by century or part thereof and by country or continent. Particular types of building are also classified according to a particular design focus. The sun in the church: cathedrals as solar observatories (Heilbron 1999) treats of the type church which may be further typified by the incorporation in their design of solar observatories. Another classification within the type church treats of the liturgical ordering or interior spatial arrangement of churches. Classification of different arrangements has created typologies of liturgical ordering. For example, The church incarnate (Schwarz 1958) offers a preconciliar conceptual typology of liturgical ordering and Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II (Hurley 2001) a postconciliar typology of liturgical ordering informed by actual churches. The latter is further classified by place. Architects and liturgists have used types in discourse about liturgical ordering to conceptualise church interiors, describe spatial arrangements, explain liturgical benefits and limitations, argue a preference, present an historical perspective, and to evaluate the suitability of

178 identified types. Typologies order types for these purposes. Typologies also demonstrate that the design process is mimetic, even though each design has unique characteristics. Typologies bypass the need to always establish context that arises when each type is treated as a discrete concept. All of these characteristics are evident in this chapter which treats of typologies of liturgical ordering. Most of those who participate in this discourse simply describe and comment upon the types of liturgical ordering that can be identified in churches built or reordered in the last forty years. Many, but not all, provide images in schematic form or use illustrations of actual church plans to illustrate their typologies. Only a few enter into more thorough investigation and elaboration of liturgical ordering. Even these studies reveal limitations of scope and extent of research. As becomes apparent, there is neither a uniform vocabulary nor commonly accepted typology of liturgical ordering in postconciliar church design. In most instances commentators propose their own typologies of liturgical ordering or refer to types and typologies already identified by others. These typologies will be surveyed in chronological order so that the evolution of types and typologies may be traced and any sequential or organic development observed. The inadequacy of these typologies, evident in the scope of types identified, in limited use of types in church design, or lack of congruence between descriptors, descriptions and illustrations, will bring to the fore a number of needs. In particular the inadequacy of these typologies will highlight the need for common descriptors of types, for a common typology of these types, and for consistent criteria by which types of liturgical ordering may be evaluated. Also apparent is the need for a typology informed by the development of discourse about types as identified in this chapter, yet relevant to the Australian context, so that case studies of liturgical ordering in Australian postconciliar church design may be undertaken.

179 Beginning at the time of Vatican Council II: types identified by Kevin Seasoltz (1963)

As early as 1963, the year in which the conciliar Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium was promulgated, Kevin Seasoltz set out a typology of liturgical ordering. Writing in the context of ‘various possible conceptions of the liturgical assembly,’ Seasoltz (1963, p. 138) outlines four basic dispositions of the assembly. Distinct variations within two of these dispositions expand the four into six types of liturgical ordering (fig. 5:1): • ‘advancing column / people on the march;’ • ‘concentric gathering around Christ: monastic choir;’ • ‘concentric gathering around Christ: general liturgical assembly;’ • ‘amphitheatre / arc;’ • ‘gathered on three sides of the chancel;’ and • ‘floor plan [of] ancient basilicas.’

5:1 R. Kevin Seasoltz, Schematic drawings of six possible conceptions of the liturgical assembly, UPPER LEFT: advancing column / people on the march, UPPER RIGHT: concentric gathering around Christ: monastic choir, CENTRE LEFT: concentric gathering around Christ: general liturgical assembly, CENTRE RIGHT: amphitheatre / arc, LOWER LEFT: gathered on three sides of the chancel, LOWER RIGHT: floor plan [of] ancient basilicas. Adapted from R.K. Seasoltz, The house of God: sacred art and church architecture, Herder and Herder, New York, 1963, pp. 139-143.

Seasoltz examines and critiques each of these. Notably, his ‘advancing column’ / ‘people on the march’ type would be described by others as basilican or longitudinal and his ‘floor plan [of] ancient basilicas’ type as U-shaped.

180 Seasoltz summarises the descriptions and reasoning that accompanies each ordering by explaining that, The design of a church involves the creation of a space in which the Christian assembly gathers for the liturgy. In considering the character of the spatial setting, the architect must keep in mind two fundamental truths concerning the nature of the worshipping Church. First, the liturgy is always a communal action; … Secondly, within the Christian community, there is a diversity of function based on a hierarchy of persons. (Seasoltz 1963, p. 143).

In describing these types Seasoltz draws on insights into liturgical ordering stemming from the influence of the liturgical movement upon church design. His insights have proven to be remarkably prescient. With this typology of liturgical ordering Seasoltz established an interest in liturgical ordering to which he would return some four decades later. By that time many other scholars and practitioners of architecture and of liturgy had described their own typologies of liturgical ordering. These sets of types are treated of in the first part of this chapter. They establish the context out of which, in conjunction with observation, a typology of liturgical ordering in the Australian context will be described, in the second part of the chapter.

Types identified by Reinhard Gieselmann (1972)

Writing nine years after Seasoltz, Reinhard Gieselmann establishes a typology of three liturgical orderings: ‘longitudinal spaces’, ‘transversal spaces’, and ‘centralised spaces’. He bases these descriptors on the morphology of layout plans for a sample of fifty churches and built during the 1960s, according to the interior spatial arrangement of each building. Longitudinal spaces derive ‘from the traditional idea of the nave’; transversal spaces from where ‘the attempt has been made to obtain a closer association between congregation and altar’; and centralised spaces are ‘churches with a centralised layout’ (Gieselmann 1972, p.27). Thus in plan there are churches classified as transversal spaces which in every other respect appear to be longitudinal, and centralised spaces which on the basis of plan might have been classified as longitudinal or transversal. A limitation of this typology is that one effectively

181 needs to experience a church to determine the type to which it belongs. To the extent that it is possible to identify a plan typical of each type, these are shown in figure 5:2.

Illustration has been Illustration has been removed Illustration has been removed due to due to Copyright restrictions. removed due to Copyright Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

5:2 Plans typical of Gieselmann’s typology: LEFT: Roger Bastin, Church of Notre-Dame, Sart-en- Fagnes, Belgium, 1965-1968, Plan typical of longitudinal space, CENTRE: Hans Kammerer & Walter Belz, Roman Catholic Parish Centre, Korb, Germany, 1963-1966, Plan typical of transversal space, and RIGHT: Josef Lackner, Konzilsgedächtniskirche, Vienna, Austria, 1965-1968, Plan typical of centralised space. Adapted from R. Gieselmann, Contemporary church architecture, Thames and Hudson, London, 1972, p. 33, p. 89 & p. 139.

Types identified by W. Jardine Grisbrooke (1972)

In the same year W. Jardine Grisbrooke published his findings on liturgical ordering as part of the research undertaken at the Institute for the Study of Worship and Religious Architecture at the University of Birmingham in England. Grisbrooke examines the plans of several hundred churches built in the preceding twenty years and, with few exceptions, classifies them in twenty basic geometric categories. These twenty categories are based on the shape of the churches or at least their liturgical space in plan, variously oblong, square, triangular, cruciform, T-cruciform [Tau], circular, octagonal, hexagonal, semi- circular, elliptical and Fan-shaped. Variation within each of these shapes is determined by the placement of the ‘altarplace’, from the then current German ‘altarplatz’, a term Grisbrooke prefers to ‘liturgical focus’ and ‘sanctuary’ due to various connotations of these latter terms (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 30-33). On further examination Grisbrooke (1972, pp. 32-33) recognises that the twenty plans ‘in fact provide for only five basic dispositions of the assembly’:

182 ‘facing the altarplace’, ‘on three sides of the altarplace’, ‘on four sides of the altarplace’, ‘a part-circle round the altarplace’, and ‘a circle around the altarplace’. Thus his development of a typology of liturgical ordering shifts from the shape of the church or liturgical space with the altarplace as the distinguishing criteria, to the ‘disposition’ or ordering of the assembly in relation to the altarplace. This reveals a significant progression in his thinking. Lastly he recognises that ‘the same architectural layout … may provide for more than one of these dispositions, and conversely the same disposition may be provided for by a number of architectural layouts’ (Grisbrooke 1972, p. 33). That is to say, while there is a relationship between the shape of a church and the liturgical space within, the former does not definitively determine the spatial arrangement of the liturgical setting. Rather, different liturgical ordering types may be provided for in churches with a variety of shapes. In tabulating these configurations of church shape and liturgical ordering Grisbrooke identifies thirty-three possibilities, thereby demonstrating that the range of orderings is finite. The same is true of building shapes. Grisbrooke’s data is supported by thirty-eight schematic drawings. Figure 5:3 samples the five basic dispositions of the assembly which constitute his basic types of liturgical ordering. A4, D11, and E12 indicate liturgical orderings that correspond with the shape of the church, while B7 and C14 suggest liturgical orderings which relate less well to the shape of the church.

Illustration has Illustration has been Illustration has Illustration has Illustration has been been removed removed due to been removed due been removed removed due to due to Copyright Copyright restrictions. to Copyright due to Copyright Copyright restrictions. restrictions. restrictions. restrictions.

5:3 W. Jardine Grisbrooke, Schematic drawings exemplifying the five basic dispositions of the assembly or liturgical orderings. Within each scheme ‘A’ indicates the Altarplace, LEFT TO RIGHT: A4, facing the altarplace, B7, on three sides of the altarplace, C14, on four sides of the altarplace, D11, a part-circle round the altarplace, and E12, a circle around the altarplace. From W.J. Grisbrooke, ‘The Shape of the Liturgical Assembly: Some Third Thoughts’, Research bulletin, University of Birmingham Institute for the Study of Worship and Religious Architecture, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 1972, p. 32, p. 37, p. 38, p. 40 & p. 41.

183 Types identified by Richard Vosko (1981 – 2006)

The contribution of Richard Vosko to the discourse about liturgical ordering is significant. His foundational context is informed by Edward T. Hall’s pioneering study of the eight dimensions of proxemic behaviour, first published in The hidden dimension in 1966. One of these dimensions is the sociofugal- sociopetal axis, which refers to the degrees of communication and relationship that become possible along a continuum which ranges from sitting back-to-back to sitting face-to-face. Hall (1990, pp. 108-110 & 122-123) applies these descriptors to hospitals and offices. Vosko (1981, p. 28; 2006, pp. 56-59) applies the ‘sociofugal’ and ‘sociopetal’ descriptors to the liturgical setting by adapting them to two distinct seating plans (fig. 5:4). A sociofugal seating plan in a church arranges seating in parallel rows facing in one direction towards a single focus. It provides for minimal relationship among members of the assembly. A sociopetal seating plan in a church arranges seating so that it is in some way gathered around a central focus while simultaneously fostering participation among members of the assembly (Vosko 2006, pp. 57-59).

5:4 Richard Vosko, Plans showing sociofugal and sociopetal liturgical orderings, LEFT: Sociofugal plan; RIGHT: Sociopetal plan. From R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 58, ©Liturgical Press.

184 In his initial reference to the sociopetal plan, Vosko (1981, p. 28) observes that, During liturgical celebrations, which accent people’s participation in relationship to functional focal points and other people, it seems that a sociopetal pattern of seating would be best. A sociopetal arrangement of a room will orient everyone toward the centre …

Developing this argument he later observes that: A better worship environment for the liturgy is one that fosters the full participation of every person present. Such an arrangement of any assembly is called a “sociopetal” plan. … It can and most often does create the kind of worship setting where the participation of the whole congregation is expected. The assembly, including the clergy, engages in the ritual activities together, each according to different offices and ministries. This approach to the assembly space simply recognizes that the work to be done here is done by all (Vosko 2006, p. 58).

Building on this foundation, Vosko further develops his approach to liturgical ordering with reference to series of types. In 1997 he refers to the ‘longitudinal processional plan’ that was customary in preconciliar churches (Vosko 1997, p. 6). This plan is an example of a sociofugal arrangement. He associates the fan- shaped ‘pattern’ or ‘environment’ with the longitudinal processional plan inasmuch as it is characterised by a frontal layout in which the assembly faces the sanctuary rather than being gathered around it. In contrast he proposes, what I call the “Neo-Renaissance” model. This model is the circle in the square. It brings the table into the midst of the room. I don’t think the fan shape or the semi-circular shape is enough (Vosko 1997, p. 6).

Though drawings are not provided to illustrate the “Neo-Renaissance” model, it is clear that this liturgical ordering tends more to a centralised or sociopetal arrangement than is possible with fan or even semi-circular shaped plans. Writing six years later about seating plans that foster participation, Vosko (2003, p. 242) states: No doubt the ubiquitous longitudinal seating plan (rows of pews) that defined preconciliar places of worship in now considered a serious hindrance to the active and conscious participation called for by the reformers (CSL 27, GIRM 294) [‘Constitution of the sacred liturgy’ §27, ‘General instruction to the Roman missal’ §294]. Newer seating arrangements are best described as choral, u-

185 shaped, semi-circular and centralized. They all serve the purpose of drawing the entire assembly into the enactment of the paschal event.

Here Vosko clearly describes five seating arrangements for the assembly, namely longitudinal, choral, U-shaped, semicircular and centralized. Once related to the other liturgical places for altar, ambo, chair font, and processional ways, these seating arrangements become types of liturgical ordering. Notable here is his inclusion of the semicircular arrangement among those well-suited to the liturgy. Earlier he excludes it. Vosko further develops his typology of liturgical ordering in God’s house is our house, published in 2006. As already noted, his starting point in this instance is once again the insight provided by the proxemics of sociofugal and sociopetal arrangements of the assembly. Before listing what he this time identifies as ‘floor plans’ rather than ‘seating plans’, he makes two important points, one theological and the other architectural. The first concerns the ecclesiology of Vatican II and its emphasis on ‘the rights and duties of all baptized persons’ (Vosko 2006, p. 61). If, as the Council taught, the liturgy is the work of the entire assembled Church, then the relationship between laity and clergy and their respective mutual roles in liturgical celebration ought no longer to image a preconciliar model of ecclesial hierarchy. Therefore churches today should be liturgically ordered or reordered as ‘places that allow and expect and celebrate the full, conscious and active participation of all the baptized assembly’ (Vosko 2006, p. 62). Further, The responsibilities that the clergy have in our worship can never honestly be expressed in terms of power and authority. Instead, the tone of voice, gracious manners, the content of homilies, the body language, the seating preference, and the overall “presidential” style of bishops and priests during the liturgy are expressions of leadership and service (Vosko 2006, pp. 62-63).

It follows that the liturgy itself and the space in which it is celebrated ought to enable clergy to lead and serve the assembly accordingly. The second point is architectural. It clearly reflects the difference between sociofugal and sociopetal spatial arrangements as well as the ecclesiology of Vatican II. Vosko (2006, p. 62) states that, ‘the design of a church

186 building is now to be based on relationships and not divisions’. His reference to divisions relates to the normative preconciliar longitudinal or cruciform plans in which a church was divided into two or more ‘rooms’, the sanctuary separated from the nave not only by elevation but also by a chancel arch and altar-rail or rood-screen, and sometimes also by the distance created by a choir between the nave and sanctuary. In contrast, postconciliar plans reveal a preference for single or one ‘room’ churches. As Robert Habiger (1997, p. 4) explains, ‘a single-room space has the altar, ambo and sacramental actions in the midst of the assembly rather than physically or psychologically separated into another space or room.’ Vosko’s reference to relationships refers to liturgical ordering which unites laity and clergy and fosters their celebration of the liturgy as a gathered assembly. This is not to question the architectural unity that existed in many churches built prior to Vatican II. However, it does not follow that unity in design necessarily leads to unity among members of the assembly in liturgical celebration. Next Vosko (2006, p. 63) traces the development of postconciliar liturgical ordering and in doing so suggests a typology comprised of five floor plans: In the period following the council, three types of floor plans emerged in building or renovating churches. The fan shape, the semi-circular and the horseshoe arrangements became popular ways to implement the liturgical norms. Recently, the choral or monastic plan has also been used.

He includes seven illustrations showing variations of the antiphonal plan. Continuing, he devotes attention to his preferred plan, the centralised layout, which completes the typology. His reasons for preferring the centrally planned church will be considered later in this chapter. A further five illustrations show the centralised plan. Figure 5:5 shows plans of two antiphonally ordered churches and one centrally ordered church from among the illustrations included by Vosko. Relatively little distinguishes the antiphonal plan shown centre from the centralised plan shown right.

187

5:5 Plans of churches used by Richard Vosko to illustrate the antiphonal and centralised liturgical orderings: LEFT: Davis & Rexrode Architects, St Peter the Apostle Church, Boerne, Texas, United States, 1999, Plan showing antiphonal ordering, CENTRE: The Kerns Group, St Rose of Lima Church, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States, Renovated and reordered 1987 – 1988, Plan showing antiphonal ordering, and RIGHT: The Kerns Group, St Bede Church, Williamsburg, Virginia, United States, c. 2006, Plan showing centralised ordering. Adapted from R. Vosko, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2006, p. 64 & p. 66, ©Liturgical Press.

Types identified by Dennis McNally (1985)

Two other writers in the 1980s describe typologies having two types. These typologies echo though do not derive from the foundations in sociofugal and sociopetal proxemics that inform Vosko’s typology. Dennis McNally (1985, p. 51) addresses the relationship between, the constant elements of environment which evoke the sense of the housed mystery while attending to a peripheral concern for the particular articulations of this environmental invocation.

In doing so he contrasts the pre- and postconciliar liturgical environments, observing that: With the post-conciliar emphasis on the Assembly, the presidency of one of its members, the vernacular reading of the Sacred Scriptures, and the replacing of the banquet-table-altar in the midst of the people, the function of the environment becomes again clearly important (McNally 1985, p. 52).

In examining postconciliar liturgical praxis McNally (1985, p. 52) argues that the ‘flow’ of the assembly is the principal determinant of the liturgical environment: When one considers the way that the people must move into the church, how they must attend, and how they must leave, in other words, when one considers the flow [his emphasis], one must admit that there are only two possibilities, the hall-basilica or the cross-circle, the long and the round.

188 In reaching this conclusion he acknowledges that it is consistent with what many theorists hold, ‘that there are only two forms that churches actually take, the circular and the long’ (McNally 1985, p. 52). The circular flow form, that is, of cruciform and centralised plan churches, would be consistent with a sociopetal seating arrangement. The longitudinal flow form, that is, of hall-basilica plan churches, would be consistent with a sociofugal seating arrangement. McNally surveys both of these ‘flow’ arrangements using plans of churches that date from the fifth to the twentieth centuries and which include the major architectural eras and styles. His samples for hall-basilica and circle plans are straightforward. One of the churches in his sample of the hall-basilica plan is the Church of Il Gesú at Rome (cf. fig 3:22) about which he observes: The Gesu … [has] an altar placed in such a way as to make the attention during the Liturgy itself, necessarily focused on one end … the flow is then on a long oriented axis (McNally 1985, p. 53).

Among his sample of churches having a circular floor plan is the Church of San Vitale at Ravenna (fig. 5:6). He observes of this church that: San Vitale has a round nave but a narrow apse-ended hall in the East which makes of the round space a separate place. The flow within the narrow sanctuary is circular though the infra-structure appears as a small basilica. There is space behind the altar and at the two sides and in the galleries above (McNally 1985, p. 62).

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due Copyright restrictions. to Copyright restrictions.

5:6 Church of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy, 521 – 547 CE, LEFT: Plan; and RIGHT: Section. From X. Barral I Altet, The early middle ages: from late antiquity to A.D. 1000, tr. L. Frankel, Taschen, Koln, 2002, p. 135. Note: the illustration of San Vitale provided by McNally (1985, p. 62) is of poor quality and unsuited to reproduction.

189 McNally’s consideration of churches having the cross as their floor plan is not as consistently clear. In his sample of these churches he includes the tomb chapel of Gala Placidia at Ravenna (fig. 5:7). He observes that it, … is built very early with the cross as floor plan and the altar in the centre. The placing of the altar focuses the attention, during the Liturgy, on the centre while the congregation can be standing or seated all around. In effect, the church’s flow is circular’ (McNally 1985, p. 58).

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:7 Tomb chapel of Gala Placidia, Ravenna, Italy, fifth century, Plan. From D. McNally, Sacred space: an aesthetic for the liturgical environment, Wyndham Hall Press, Bristol, IN, 1985, p. 58.

McNally offers as his other sample churches the cathedrals of San Marco at Venice in Italy and Notre Dame at Paris in France. San Marco has an explicit cruciform plan while Notre Dame contains its transepts within its side walls, though vertically they project above gallery level. Due to postconciliar liturgical reordering McNally (1985, p. 65) is compelled to acknowledge: San Marco and Notre Dame, are built on a cross plan. However, they have been adapted so that there may be a focus at one termination of the cross or it may be at the centre.

That is, their ‘flow’ form may be longitudinal or circular. From this survey McNally (1985, p. 65) confirms his preliminary remark, that: … the flow form seems to have only two possibilities, a circular or a longitudinal attitude of the congregation. The first is more actively participatory because the assembly’s members must face one another and, at least peripherally, take one another into account. The longitudinal attitude is not necessarily antipathetic to participation in the community but it is very conducive to receptive worship, or passive worship. ... both of these flow-forms have surfaced in liturgical interiors in the recent past and … both may be adapted for the participatory Liturgy which seems preferred.

190 This last reference to ‘liturgical interiors in the recent past’ surely indicates an awareness of distinct postconciliar orderings which are, in Vosko’s terms ‘sociopetal’ and in McNally’s terms of ‘circular flow form’.

Types identified by Jean Lebon (1987)

In a brief treatment of ‘the Liturgy of Vatican II churches,’ Jean Lebon (1987, p. 75) asserts that, ‘the place makes the assembly. So this question should occupy anyone who is concerned with the liturgy’. He notes the difficulty of celebrating the postconciliar liturgy in churches that were designed for the preconciliar liturgy. He provides a schematic drawing (fig. 5:8) to contrast the difference in the layout of churches designed for these two liturgies, using arrows to show the types of relationship formed.

Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:8 Jean Lebon, Schematic drawings of church layouts for, LEFT: the preconciliar liturgy, and RIGHT: the postconciliar liturgy. The arrows show the types of relationship formed. From J. Lebon, How to understand the liturgy, tr. M. Lydamore & J. Bowden, SCM Press, London, 1987, p. 75.

Lebon (1987, p. 75) observes that: In the first plan … there is a forward and upward relationship, with a marked separation between the places where the principal action is carried out and an emphasis on the power of the clergy. In the second plan there is an upward relationship which is also circular (the people can see one another); while each keeps to his or her own space, the areas of action and the ‘leaders’ are closer to the people.

On the horizontal plane, Lebon’s schematic drawings reveal marked similarity to Vosko’s (1981, 2006) sociofugal and sociopetal seating plans. However Lebon adds a further dimension in referring to the ‘upward relationship’, presumably the relationship with God represented on the vertical plane. What Lebon does

191 not clarify is whether this relationship is understood to be primarily between the assembly and God, or each member of the assembly and God or, in the preconciliar liturgy, between the clergy and God.

Types identified by William Seth Adams (1987)

The ideas of William Seth Adams were first mentioned in the section on variable use liturgical ordering in Chapter Four. His appreciation of the influence of liturgical space is articulated in a 1987 address in which he asserts that: … liturgical spaces are powerful teachers. They teach the church about the church, about who we are, how we work, what we do, what is important to us, who is important to us; and they teach us about God’ (Adams 1999, p. 150).

In putting forward his ‘apology’ for liturgical space to be variable and flexible, he also proposes six types of liturgical ordering which could be used to create diverse liturgical settings for the seasons and days that comprise the Church’s liturgical year. The first two types are related, deriving from a plan whereby the altar/table and ambo (put in proper balance) are placed with the assembly on three sides, either in sets of straight rows [the first type] or in a fan-shape [the second type] (Adams 1987, p. 239).

Though he sees these options as constituting variations within a single spatial arrangement, the difference between them is considerable. The first type in fact creates a squared U-shaped configuration of three blocks of seating, often separated by the absence of seating in the corners. In contrast his fan-shape second type suggests a semicircle in which the seating for the assembly is continuous. Adams’ (1987, p. 240) third type takes its title from Frederic Debuyst’s phrase, “static procession”: This would be two narrow ranks of chairs, set in strict rows, divided by an axial middle aisle. The assembly would face “east,” the altar/table and ambo (being in proper balance) located at the east end.

He is describing a typical longitudinal-plan church. His fourth type of liturgical ordering ‘would be the setting of the assembly in choir, several straight rows of

192 chairs facing each other across a central axial aisle.’ The altar and ambo are placed within this central aisle (Adams 1987, p. 240). The fifth liturgical ordering Adams identifies is the circle. For this ordering he proposes a modified centralised layout with the altar and ambo placed not at the centre but set back from it, with the circle remaining open behind the ambo and altar. He also highlights the need for the sense of a vertical rather than horizontal axis (Adams 1987, p. 241). His sixth type is a ‘”rotund” U-shape, broken at appropriate aisles and deep enough for the centre to be obvious,’ with the altar and ambo placed ‘so that no-one was behind presider or ’ (Adams 1987, p. 241). Beyond these short descriptions Adams (1987, p. 242) does not further develop his ideas. However in concluding he suggests that, ‘Many possibilities remain to be imagined and explored’. This may be somewhat fanciful. While there are certainly more spatial arrangements for liturgical celebration than Adams identifies, the possible configurations are finite and the remaining possibilities are likely to include variations within the range of types of liturgical ordering.

Types identified by Bill Beard (1988)

In the inaugural issue of Environment and art letter in 1988, the major feature is an essay by Bill Beard titled ‘Seating for Catholic Worship: A Primer.’ In this essay Beard outlines ‘five aspects of seating design: capacity, relationships, furniture, costs and configuration’ (Beard 1988, p. 2). Liturgical ordering is influenced by capacity, relationships and configuration. In formulating six configurations and determining ideal proximity within each configuration, Beard references the document Environment and art in Catholic worship: Benches or chairs for seating the assembly should be so constructed and arranged that they maximise feelings of community and involvement. The arrangement should facilitate a clear view not only of the one who presides and the multiple focal points of reading, preaching, praying, music and movement during the rite, but also of other members of the congregation. This means striving for a seating pattern and furniture that do not constrict people, but

193 encourage them to move about when it is appropriate (Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy 1978, §68, p. 36).

Beard’s six configurations (fig. 5:9), understood in relation to the ‘multiple focal points’ of the liturgy, constitute a typology of liturgical orderings (Beard 1988, p. 3). The six configurations are: ‘gothic,’ ‘processional,’ ‘antiphonal,’ ‘juxtaposed’ ‘central,’ and ‘radial’. For each of these he provides one or more typical plans as well an evaluation. The plans indicate the liturgical centre with ‘+’ and proximity to the liturgical action with arc lines measuring 45 feet (13.7m) for best seating and 65 feet (19.8m) beyond which facial and personal expressions are lost. The plans are to the same scale and have identical seating capacities.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:9 Bill Beard, typology of six liturgical orderings, 1. gothic, 2. processional, 3. antiphonal, 4. juxtaposed, 5. central, 6. radial. Adapted from B. Beard, ‘Seating for Catholic Worship: A Primer’, Environment and art letter, 1988, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3.

Beard’s gothic configuration is a traditional cruciform plan. After describing it he notes that: Formality and hierarchical order dominate, with the climax occurring far from most of the seating. This configuration, especially when the capacity is large, is simply not able to function in support of the vision of liturgy articulated by Vatican II and the following reforms. It may support strong participation through

194 song, but can do little to uphold a strong and ongoing sense of assembly action (Beard 1988, p. 3).

Without detracting from these observations it must also be noted that in the gothic and cruciform plans, proximity is effectively determined by the width of nave, aisles and transept in conjunction with the length of the nave and depth of the transept. After describing his processional configuration, a typical basilican plan, and noting its familiarity, Beard (1988, p. 3) observes that: Processionally-oriented actions fare well here, but not communal actions. From the similarity to theatres and other settings, we tend to think of ourselves as an audience in this setting.

As with the gothic configuration, proximity in the processional plan is clearly related to the width of the church. For the processional plan and sometimes for the gothic plan not only is communal action limited, but the sense of being a gathered assembly can be diminished as well. Having acknowledged the monastic origins of the antiphonal configuration, Beard (1988, p. 3) explains that, with the action in the midst of the assembly, proximity and interaction are good, but the line of view may suffer with larger capacities; bending the pattern lessens this problem. This plan fits readily into many spaces and can handle large capacities.

The matter of line of view may depend upon whether the floor is level, stepped or raked, and the ordering of altar, ambo, and chair in the central axial aisle which constitutes the sanctuary. The fourth configuration, juxtaposed, corresponds with the asymmetrical transverse ordering discussed in Chapter Four. Beard (1988, p. 3) observes that it, lacks a shared focus which increases the challenge of executing effective liturgical movement and ministerial actions. The multiple orientations tend to fragment the gathered community.

The central configuration, Beard explains, … evokes theatre-in-the-round. Its geometry suggests a highly interactive, close- up, participatory worship process, while creating distinct seating “neighbourhoods.” This plan, perhaps more than others, needs a great awareness of choreography and acoustics (Beard 1988, p. 3).

195 While the central plan clearly fosters a strong sense of the gathered assembly and of the liturgy as an action of the whole Church, the idea that it evokes theatre-in-the-round might also suggest a passive audience response similar to that claimed of the processional configuration. Theatre-in-the-round is not inherently participative. Moreover nearly all theatre involves performers and audience, even when the latter are brought into the performance. The analogy whereby the actors are the clergy and ministers, and the audience is the assembly or congregation, does a disservice to the liturgy in which everyone is an active participant. Beard’s sixth configuration is the radial, a fan-shaped arrangement. He states that it ‘is amphitheatre-shaped, usually with a flat floor. … Radial seating supports processions and community interaction’ (Beard 1988, p. 3). He further discusses the flexibility provided by this configuration for seasonal variations and larger numbers of people when chairs are used rather than pews. This is indicated in one of the two drawings of this configuration that he provides. A similar comment might apply to his reference to the amphitheatre shape of this plan as to his descriptive use of theatre-in-the-round. Further, it is difficult to see how he can assert that this arrangement supports processions and community interaction without stating the same of the antiphonal and central orderings. Beard (1988, p. 3) concludes by asserting that liturgical praxis ‘should have the greatest weight in determining the approach to seating.’ This view is consistent with the conciliar injunction regarding the primacy of the liturgy in determining the design of a church. Indeed, Beard (1988, p. 3) further proposes that, the seating pattern should be a priority so that it can give form to the architecture of the building, not only shaping its floor plan but also influencing the three-dimensional form.

Types identified by Michael E. DeSanctis (1993 – 2002) and James F. White (2003)

Michael E. DeSanctis has long shown interest in the spatial arrangement of churches for liturgical celebration, though identifying types of liturgical

196 ordering has been a secondary consideration. In an essay, Renewing the city of God (1993) he considers the reform of Catholic church architecture in the United States. He identifies three types of church building: ‘the postconciliar ’, ‘the fan-shaped church’ and ‘the modified long-plan church’ (DeSanctis 1993, p. 15, cf. p. 41). For each of these types the primary point of reference is the shape of the church building, not the interior ordering. Consequently within the postconciliar hall church type, which he traces back to the pre-Constantinian aula ecclesiae and to later single-nave structures, are churches which might otherwise be identified as basilican/longitudinal, transverse/juxtaposed and U- shaped. They may be new churches or reordered older churches. He ventures that, ‘what differentiates postconciliar hall churches from their predecessors, perhaps, is the degree to which their interior fixtures are worked into a coherent ensemble of ritual stations’ (DeSanctis 1993, p. 18). This would seem to be another way of stating that the liturgy has determined the layout. He proposes St Leo Church at Pipestone, Minnesota (fig. 5:10), as an example of a postconciliar hall church that fulfils this criterion.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:10 Edward A. Sövik, St Leo Church, Pipestone, Minnesota, United States, 1968, Plan. Adapted from M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 20.

DeSanctis (1993, p. 34) holds that the fan-shaped church became a hallmark of the early postconciliar period: By the early 1970s … the fan-shaped church had become a staple of postconciliar design, as common to Catholic architecture in our time as the cruciform configuration had become during the Middle Ages. In fact, to many Catholics, churches designed “in the round” represented the clearest evidence that something fundamental to worship had changed with Vatican II.

197 As with his previous type, within the fan-shaped type DeSanctis includes a number of plans, ranging from an arrangement with the sanctuary in the corner of a square building to semicircular and U-shaped plans. Two asymmetrical fan- shaped churches are also included. Figure 5:11 shows plans of the fan-shaped St Margaret of Cortona Church at Columbus, Ohio, and the asymmetrical Church of the Blessed Sacrament at East Hartford, Connecticut.

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:11 Plans of fan-shaped churches, LEFT: Pietro Belluschi, St Margaret of Cortona Church, Columbus, Ohio, United States, 1963 – 1970, and RIGHT: Russel Gibson, Church of the Blessed Sacrament at East Hartford, Connecticut, United States, 1973. From M.E. DeSanctis, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 1993, p. 31 & p. 34.

The third type DeSanctis identifies, modified long-plan churches, are preconciliar church buildings having a basilican or cruciform plan that has been liturgically reordered since Vatican II. Of such churches he observes: Special problems are posed, however, by the conversion of buildings erected before the Council whose naves are especially long and/or filled with systems of columns, posts or piers that carry a roof. These, which might be called “long- plan” churches, neither convert easily to halls nor to radially planned spaces in which the entire assembly can gather close to the altar, ambo and chair. Thus, they require other means of reordering (DeSanctis 1993, p. 42).

A common response was to thrust the sanctuary platform or bema into the nave so that at least some seating could be turned from a frontal orientation to create a sense of the gathered assembly and to lessen the distance between the assembly and the sanctuary. As has been noted, in cruciform-plan churches the

198 sanctuary was often extended into the crossing of nave and transept; in basilican plan churches, a frontal or a side-wall fan-shaped reordering was common. Among the more interesting modifications of long-plan churches that DeSanctis mentions is the reordering undertaken at the Gethsemane Abbey Church at Trappist, Kentucky (fig. 5:12). Here the monastic choir and visitors’ chapel were reconfigured as a single space for the monastic Liturgy of the Hours. The sanctuary was rearranged, and the crossing and transept became the place for the assembly during the Eucharistic liturgy.

5:12 American artist William Schickel, Gethsemane Abbey Church, Trappist, Kentucky, United States, Reordered 1968, LEFT: Plan of the original liturgical ordering and RIGHT: Plan of the liturgically reordered church. Adapted from G. Wolfe, The art of William Schickel, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1998, p. 62, cf. DeSanctis 1993, p. 42.

A decade later James F. White adopted the three types identified by DeSanctis to outline the development of Catholic church forms since Vatican II. White (2003, p. 152) notes that, Observation would indicate that by the early twenty-first century the fan- shaped plan, with altar, pulpit, and presider’s chair in the middle of the long side, had become the most popular in new Catholic churches.

199 This may be true numerically, but the popularity of fan-shaped churches has not lasted. While many fan-shaped churches were built in the 1970s and 1980s, by the early 1990s the preference for this liturgical ordering was waning. The limitations of the fan-shaped ordering had become apparent, assessment of it less favourable, and better orderings were being developed. When DeSanctis next describes types of liturgical ordering his context is historical. Earlier he had identified the aula ecclesiae as a source of postconciliar hall-churches. More recently in the context of the evolving space of liturgical prayer he turns first to the ‘domestic space’ of the domus ecclesiae that predated the aula ecclesiae in the second and third centuries (DeSanctis 2002, pp. 28-29). He looks next to the ‘basilican space’ that was adapted for Christian churches from the peace of Constantine, noting that, ‘so enduring was the basilican model of liturgical space that it remained the basis of Catholic church design up to the time of the Second Vatican Council’ (DeSanctis 2002, p. 30). Though this is an over-simplification of the complex evolution that was surveyed in Chapter Three, his purpose is not historical but to move swiftly to the ‘modern, centralized space’. In making this transition he observes of the basilican space, with another generalisation, that, ‘the floor plan was a given, an inflexible template into which the requisite parts of a church building were fitted like parts of a familiar puzzle’ (DeSanctis 2002, p. 30). This reflects the basilican plan filled with pews rather than in its ancient more flexible state. He asserts that, Despite the immense popularity of basilican-type churches, however, they possessed an inescapable limitation: They could not facilitate the kind of active lay involvement in worship that the church of the twentieth century had come to embrace. … The postconciliar church building … with its centralized seating arrangement and modest decorative scheme, bears little resemblance to the large and opulent structures of the past. Its interior space is focused upon the primary poles of liturgical action … Architectural elements that previously fractured the worshipping body (altar rails, chancel screens, elongated nave spaces) have been discarded altogether, so that the local group of Christians may now sit down at table in spaces truly conducive to communal worship (DeSanctis 2002, pp. 31-32).

While some of the assertions concerning the size and decoration of churches might be questioned, his point is to highlight the design of the modern,

200 centralised space for celebration of the liturgy by the whole assembly. To illustrate the three types of church building that mark the evolving space of liturgical prayer, DeSanctis provides drawings of early Christian house-churches at Capernaum in Israel and Dura-Europos in Syria (cf. fig. 3:1), a drawing of a Roman basilica at Silchester in England, and a plan of the basilican church of San Clemente at Rome in Italy (cf. fig. 3:4). To illustrate a postconciliar modern, centralised space he provides a plan and photograph of Our Lady of Grace Church at Greensburg, Pennsylvania (fig. 5:13).

5:13 Prisco, Serena, Sturm Architects, Our Lady of Grace Church, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, United States, 1999, Plan and photograph of the church interior. From M.E. DeSanctis, Building from belief: advance, retreat, and compromise in the remaking of Catholic church architecture, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 2002, pp. 32-33, ©Liturgical Press.

Thus in both sets of types DeSanctis had as his primary concern to contrast churches designed prior to Vatican II with those designed in the postconciliar period. Among the latter, he identifies the types of liturgical ordering that have evolved in service of the liturgy and the liturgical assembly.

Types identified by John Kasper (1996)

The contribution of John Kasper to discourse about typologies of liturgical ordering is found in an online catechetical tool, ‘Gathering the Assembly,’ which is designed ‘to assist communities that are embarking on a new building project’ (1996). Kasper references Beard’s (1988) typology but offers only five of Beard’s types: ‘antiphonal’, ‘central’, ‘radial’, ‘processional’ and ‘juxtaposed’. The gothic,

201 cruciform plan is inexplicably omitted. The descriptors of each type, which Kasper calls seating plans, are substantially his own and are not illustrated. He relates these seating plans to aspects of liturgical celebration. Describing the antiphonal type Kasper (1996) observes: This style of seating, reminiscent of the monastic tradition or “choir seating,” allows the assembly to be in full view of each other. Within this arrangement, worship is clearly an interactive experience.

Of the central type he states: This arrangement most clearly creates a sense of “gathering around” the table of the Word and the table of the Eucharist. The strong central focus generates a feeling of common purpose and identity. It requires a sense of ease with the community and comfort with interactive ritual (Kasper 1996).

And of the radial type: This seating configuration has been introduced in many post-Vatican II worship spaces. While it provides less of a sense of the assembly focusing on one another, it allows for clear attention to ambo and altar (Kasper 1996).

In describing the processional layout Kasper refers to its familiarity among preconciliar churches and the challenge it poses for liturgical reordering. He states that, ‘while it allowed for triumphant procession, it placed the assembly behind one another and further from the altar and ambo than other seating patterns … ’ (Kasper 1996). Though the central axial aisle of processional or longitudinal churches doubtless allowed for triumphant procession, it is doubtful that most Catholics would recall this aspect, as it was more the mystery associated with liturgical and devotional rituals within the sanctuary than the triumphalism of processions that characterised preconciliar liturgical praxis. In dealing with the juxtaposed type, Kasper treats of it solely in terms of liturgically reordering an existing church, though a number of new churches with a juxtaposed or transverse layout already existed when Kasper was writing. The implication would seem to be that he sees it as a last resort rather than an option that some might prefer. Kasper (1996) advises that, ‘the design decision must be informed by the needs of the community, the requirements of the liturgical ritual and the limitations inherent in the space itself.’ In this statement,

202 as in his descriptions of the five seating plans, it is clear that Kasper recognises the necessity of designing churches for liturgical celebration.

Types identified by Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete (1997)

In the 1960s a new lay ecclesial faith ‘itinerary’ or community was formed in impoverished barrios on the outskirts of in Spain. Known as the this itinerary sought to catechise adults who had been baptised in the Catholic Church but had never received the or education in faith that ought to accompany the sacraments of Christian initiation. The Neocatechumenal Way has become an international community and within it an architectural and iconographic program has developed. This program has been influenced by the teaching of Vatican II on liturgy and ecclesiology and by one of the founders of the movement, Francisco (Kiko) Argüello Wirtz. During the years 1991 to 1993 the Department of Architectural Design in the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Venice funded research into the symbolic dimension of the contemporary church. This project paid particular attention to the architectural-iconographic program of the Neocatechumenal Way. The conclusions of this study by Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete were published in 1997 in Spazi celebrativio: figurazione architettonica simbolismo liturgico. This monograph has been referenced here in Spanish translation: Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II (Bergamo & Del Prete, 1997, p. 7). As with Vosko, McNally, Lebon and DeSanctis, Bergamo and Del Prete (1997, pp. 66-67) identify two basic spatial arrangements in church design: the preconciliar axial liturgical ordering and the postconciliar centralised liturgical ordering. They contrast the spatial dynamics of the historical axial liturgical focus with the spatial dynamics of the present-day centralised liturgical focus (fig. 5:14).

203 Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due removed due to Copyright to Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

5:14 Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete, Drawings demonstrating preconciliar and postconciliar spatial dynamics, LEFT: axial liturgical focus, and RIGHT: centralised liturgical focus. Adapted from M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 67.

In undertaking their project, Bergamo and Del Prete (1997, p. 71) studied, … the different possible configurations of the hall [the liturgical space within a church building] in function of the organisation of the liturgical foci and of the disposition of the assembly with a view to finding out how the organization of the spaces and the different types that are nowadays most commonly used correspond to the principles of the Liturgical Renewal of Vatican Council II.

From their research Bergamo & Del Prete (1997, pp. 74-77) identify fourteen types of liturgical ordering (fig. 5:15): • ‘en batallon’ [in rows]; • ‘en abanico’ [fan-shaped]; • ‘cuadrado diagonal’ [diamond-shaped]; • ‘informe’ [having no particular shape]; • ‘circulo sobre el diametro’ [circular on diameter]; • ‘rectangulo hacia lo ancho’ [rectangular]; • ‘cruz Latina en batallon’ [Latin cross in rows]; • ‘central sin abside’ [centralised without an apse]; • ‘central octogonal’ [central octagonal]; • ‘central cuadrada’ [centralized square]; • ‘en semicirculo’ [semicircular]; • ‘en circulo abierto’ [open circle]; • ‘eliptica’ [elliptical]; and • ‘central de cruz Griega’ [centralized Greek cross].

204 Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:15. Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete, typology of fourteen types of liturgical ordering. Adapted from M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, pp. 74-77.

Each of these types of liturgical ordering is shown in plans for assemblies of 40, 200 and 500 persons. Within some orderings there are variations, as is evident in the plans of the central octagonal type shown in figure 5:16. Here the central octagonal type designed for 40 persons is constituted by a closed centralised ordering. For 200 persons it comprises either a partly open

205 centralised ordering or U-shaped ordering. And a U-shaped ordering is adopted for an assembly of 500 persons. Thus the descriptors do not necessarily refer to a single ordering, but sometimes to multiple orderings. Moreover the way in which these same descriptors are applied is inconsistent. Some describe the configuration of the assembly in relation to the liturgical centre, some describe the shape of the structure, and some are a combination of both these elements.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:16 Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete, Plans of the central octogonal liturgical ordering organised for liturgical assemblies of, left to right, 40, 200 and 500 persons. Adapted from M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 76.

The research undertaken by Bergamo and Del Prete is clearly thorough. Almost every type of postconciliar liturgical ordering identified in this thesis can in general terms be recognised in their typology: basilican, cruciform, antiphonal, centralised, fan-shaped, U-shaped, transverse or juxtaposed, circumstantes, and elliptical. Because of the emphasis placed by the Neocatechumenal Way on post- baptismal catechesis, the baptismal font features prominently in the liturgical ordering of churches designed in accordance with its architectural-iconographic program. Of the fourteen orderings in Bergamo and Del Prete’s typology, Types 9 to 14 would conform to this program, with Types 9, 10 and 11 illustrating the preferred shape and organisation of the liturgical setting. In this layout the chair for the priest celebrant is placed at the centre of a synthronon, a setting that in the early Church was usually reserved for a bishop. In front of the chair is the ambo, then the altar. At the centre of the setting is an octagonal baptismal font containing a cruciform pool for baptism by immersion. Because of the size of

206 such a font and its proximity to the altar, the latter needs to also be designed to large dimensions, lest the altar be visually overwhelmed by the adjacent font. This is evident in figure 5:15, above, where the altar in Types 8 to 14 is shown as considerably larger than the altar in Types 1 to 7. A number of churches designed in accordance with this linear layout of chair, ambo, altar and font feature in Espacios celebrativos / Spazi celebrativio. Indeed, its last chapters could give rise to the impression that this publication of research findings is in fact an apologia for the distinctive type of liturgical layout identified with the architectural-iconographic program of the Neocatechumenal Way. Plans of two of the churches, one reordered the other built new, are shown in figure 5:17. Both plans show the assembly gathered around the centrally aligned axial liturgical foci of chair in synthronon, ambo, large altar and octagonal font housing a cruciform pool.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:17 Plans of churches having the distinctive Neocatechumenal Way liturgical ordering elaborated by Maurizio Bergamo and Mattia Del Prete: LEFT: Mauro Codussi, Church of Santa Maria Formosa, Venice, Italy, (1492), Reordered c. 1990, Maurizio Bergamo, Plan. From M. Bergamo & M. Del Prete, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao, 1997, p. 193, and RIGHT: Mattia Del Prete, Anna Gennarini, Massimo Marconi and Gabriella Diotallevi, Church of San Bartolomeo in Tuto, Scandicci, Florence, Italy, 1978 – 1982, Plan. From E. Pasotti, S. Borghese, Caal & Ikne [sic], San Bartolomeo in Tuto: a parish for the third millenium[sic]. Church and crown of the mysteries, tr. K. McGarr, Parish San Bartolomeo in Tuto, Florence, 1998, p. 14.

Types identified by James F. White and Susan J. White (1998)

Collaboration between James F. White and Susan J. White resulted in a guidebook for building and renovating a Christian church. In Church architecture:

207 building and renovating for Christian worship, they set out their fundamental understanding of a church building: Each church consists of six distinct spaces: gathering space, movement space, congregational space, choir space, altar-table space, and baptismal space. In addition, there are three essential liturgical centres or furnishings: altar-table, baptismal font or pool, pulpit (White & White 1998, p. 4).

These lists would be qualified or modified for Catholic liturgical praxis. Within their treatment of congregation space, two different general spatial configurations, the longitudinal or basilican plan and centralised plans, are evaluated (fig. 5:18).

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:18 Schematic plans of longitudinal or basilican and centralised types of space, in which ‘A’ is the Altar and ‘P’ the pulpit, or ambo, LEFT: longitudinal, or basilican plan, and RIGHT: centralised plans. From J.F. White & S.J. White, Church architecture: building and renovating for Christian worship, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1998, pp. 15 -16.

As with others who contrast these two types, White and White draw attention to the limitations of a long nave for participation by the assembly in the liturgy. They highlight the opportunity provided by centralised plans to bring the assembly as close as possible to the liturgical centres. They conclude that, In short, there is no simple answer to the question of what shape works best for congregational space today, although there does seem to be consensus that the long nave is not acceptable (White & White 1998, p. 17).

Types identified by David Philippart (1999)

As was noted in Chapter Three, rows of seating in churches constitutes a relatively recent innovation, stemming from the seventeenth century. This historical note serves as David Philippart’s starting point in his commentary on seating plans, in which he specifies a typology of liturgical ordering. He begins by portraying the celebration of the liturgy by the assembly in early Christian basilicas:

208 Most often … they all stood together on the same side of the altar – usually facing east – they stood ready for Christ to come again in glory. For the liturgy of the word in basilicas, maybe people brought stools. Maybe they sat on the floor. Maybe they stood the whole time. But it’s clear that there was no fixed seating. This is why the basilicas were such great places for liturgy: They allowed for movement and for various postures. They allowed for large assemblies to pull in tight and smaller ones to spread out. Most importantly, they gave people access to each other and to the ambo, altar and chair. (So much so that small railings were often set up around the altar to keep people back just a few feet so that the bishop and other ministers could enact their ministries). The length of the building was never intended to keep people back, to keep people away from the altar. To add permanent rows of seats is to radically alter the nature of the basilica. (Philippart 1999a, pp. 81-82).

Philippart’s observation here about fixed seating highlights how integral such seating has become to the understanding of liturgical ordering in the present era. He then continues, proposing a new liturgical ordering within the basilican plan: I’m all for using the basilica as a model for contemporary churches, but only if you aren’t clogging it with rows and rows and rows of seats – whether pews or chairs. Keep the long axis, but then create separate places for the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the eucharist, and make sure that a procession can form from one place to the other. And if you’re going to introduce fixed seating, you have to arrange those seats very, very carefully (1999a, p. 82).

Here Philippart describes the ordering identified in Chapter Four which provides for the different spatial dynamics of Word and Eucharist, namely proclamation and gathering, accommodating these within a basilica-shaped structure. In light of his conviction about taking great care in arranging seating, Philippart proceeds to comment upon different seating plans that have been used in the liturgical ordering and reordering of churches since Vatican II. He mentions the ‘semicircular’ or ‘fan-shaped’ church first, remarking that, after 30-plus years of celebrating liturgy in these semi-circular or fan-shaped arrangements, we’ve sensed the major problem with this arrangement … [it] might be more akin to theatre-in-the-round than face-front theatre, but it’s still theatre. And baptized people at liturgy are not spectators’ (Philippart 1999b, p. 102).

He turns next to ‘choir’ or ‘antiphonal-style’ seating, noting that monastic usage has long determined that it is good for singing, and notes that it is also good for processions. He mentions adaptations such as the turning in of the seats somewhat at both ends so as to better face the middle of the central axis. He

209 highlights the symbolic value of this ordering: ‘… antiphonal seating leaves two “ends” open: symbolically, one end opened toward God and the future, and the other end opened toward the world and the present mission’ (Philippart 1999b, p. 102). He also comments on the U-shaped seating plan that is deep enough that it doesn’t function like a fan- shape and is more semi-elliptical than semicircular, thus avoiding the problems that are inherent in those designs’ (Philippart 1999b, p. 103).

In passing he mentions the ‘circular’ arrangement, without making any comment. His closing comment is a reflection upon the way in which the arrangement of seating can help or hinder the gathered assembly to fulfil its liturgical role. The same is true of liturgical ordering, of which the configuration of seating is an integral part.

Types identified by Renato Bollati, Sergio Bollati, Giancarlo Cataldi, Enrico Lavagnino and Guiseppe Lonetti (2000)

Returning to the twofold ordering of basilican or centralised, sociofugal or sociopetal, longitudinal flow form or circular flow form, another variation is proposed by Renato Bollati, Sergio Bollati, Giancarlo Cataldi, Enrico Lavagnino and Guiseppe Lonetti (2000, p. 186). They offer a typological process that classifies churches of Rome from 250 until 1750, based on floor plans, as being either ‘impianti assiali’, that is, of axial design, or ‘impianti polari’, that is, of polar or centred design. After tracing the evolution of these two types of churches with reference to Roman churches of every era, they conclude that there are two ‘solutions’ for new churches at the beginning of the third millennium. One solution is ‘monodirezionati’ or mono-directional, the other ‘pluridirezionati’, or coming from many directions. The first solution, consistent with the axial design, is the ‘soluzione seriale’, a one-directional sequence of spaces along an axis. The second solution, consistent with the polar design, is the ‘soluzione organica’, an organic coming together at the centre from different angles (fig. 5:19).

210 Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:19. Renato Bollati, Sergio Bollati, Giancarlo Cataldi, Enrico Lavagnino & Guiseppe Lonetti, Plans and perspective drawings of types, LEFT: The axial or longitudinal sequenced solution, and RIGHT: The polar or centralised organic solution. From R. Bollati, S. Bollati, G. Cataldi, E. Lavagnino & G. Lonetti, ‘Il processo tipologico della chiese a Roma (250-1750)’, in Reconquering sacred space: the church in the city of the third millennium, eds. C. Rosponi, G. Rossi & D.G. Stroik, Il Bosco e la Nave, Rome, 2000, p. 186.

In Chapter Three it was noted that the axial and centralised plans were merged in the design of cruciform-centralised churches during the Italian renaissance and of basilican-centralised baroque churches. Some of these churches are illustrated in Bolati, Bolati, Cataldi, Lavagnino and Lonetti’s (2000, p. 186) typological process and the dominant directional tendency used to classify their respective types. Given the historical context informing this evolutionary typology, a third solution might well have been indicated, once again blending axial and centralised types.

Types identified by Richard Hurley (2000 – 2001) and Kevin Seasoltz (2001 – 2005)

A uniquely Irish perspective of types of liturgical ordering is provided by Richard Hurley and echoed by Kevin Seasoltz. Hurley’s context is historical and he is as much concerned with the architects who have designed churches as with the churches they have designed. The four types of liturgical ordering that provide his frame of reference for commenting on churches are: ‘longitudinal layouts,’ ‘transverse plans,’ ‘circular plans,’ and ‘antiphonal layout’. He notes the emergence of these orderings between 1960 and the last years of the twentieth century and provides brief descriptions of each: (1) longitudinal shape derived from the traditional idea of nave and sanctuary, (2) transverse emphasis, in which there is a closer planning relationship between the congregation and the altar, (3) centralised layout, giving rise to circular

211 buildings, but rarely if ever concentric to the altar, (4) Antiphonal plan, where the congregation is gathered mainly on two opposite sides of an axial space containing the altar, ambo and celebrant’s chair (Hurley 2000, p. 15).

He adds that these ‘plans reflect a development in liturgical practice, and architecture, from that of silent spectator worship (longitudinal plan) to full participation (antiphonal plan)’ (Hurley 2000, p. 15). Evaluating these four types of liturgical ordering, Hurley acknowledges that despite inherent limitations in the traditional longitudinal layout, very gradually improvement has occurred in the postconciliar period. He mentions moving of the altar towards the centre ‘either physically or symbolically, thereby promoting and assisting corporate worship and active participation’ (Hurley 2000, p. 15). However even then, the altar is still separated from the assembly, ‘thereby creating a stage presentation of the liturgy’ (Hurley 2001, p. 56). Hurley also observes that longitudinal churches designed with a broad front - that is, of nave and sanctuary - convey a feeling of spaciousness and greater opportunity for members of the assembly to gather nearer the sanctuary and altar. However when broad fronted sanctuaries accommodate font, ambo, altar, chair and tabernacle there can be a tendency for only lateral movement during liturgical celebration (Hurley 2001, p. 56). The strength of the longitudinal layout is that it has ‘a sense of discipline, not always present in plans of a looser generative form’ (Hurley 2001, p. 56). Figure 5:20 shows a plan of a church having a longitudinal layout from among those Hurley samples.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:20 De Blacam & Meagher, Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, Rowlah, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1983, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1985, p. 137, cf. Hurley 2001, pp. 55-56.

212 Hurley (2000, p. 16) describes transverse plans as evolving from the recognition that ‘a church should not have a static axial concept but should reflect a sense of movement in the overall plan form’. Here he acknowledges another attribute of transverse or juxtaposed plans, that as well as often being asymmetrical these churches are often without axes (Hurley 2001, pp. 72-74). In contrast to the formalism of the longitudinal layout, transverse plans have a domestic quality, reflecting their emergence as a counter to the experience of celebrating the liturgy in churches with a longitudinal layout (Hurley 2000, p. 16; Hurley 2001, p. 57). In the light of these characteristics of transverse plans, it is somewhat difficult to reconcile Hurley’s inclusion of churches having fan-shaped plans in this type. While fan-shaped churches may reflect ‘a closer planning relationship between the congregation and the altar’ (Hurley 2000, p. 15), such churches are frequently both symmetrical and axial, bearing a formalism more in keeping with longitudinal layouts than with transverse plans. Vosko and Philippart have suggested as much. It may have been better had Hurley identified fan-arrayed churches as a distinct type. These churches constitute a fifth of an earlier sample by Hurley and Cantwell (1985, pp. 30-31) and even more among the transverse plans included in the sample under consideration (Hurley 2001, pp. 57-80). Figure 5:21 shows two transverse plan churches from Hurley’s sample.

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:21 Churches having transverse plans, LEFT: Don Henihan, Church of the Incarnate, Fettercairn, Tallaght, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1983, Plan, and RIGHT: Scott Tallon Walker, St Laurence O’Toole Church, Baldoyle, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1982, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 73 & p. 74.

213 Hurley notes the long history of circular buildings in Ireland, linking this with circular plan churches. His sample of circular churches highlights that in Ireland centralised churches are invariably of a circular form. In other countries the centralised plan is found in buildings of various shapes. Indeed, the circle is the significant characteristic of these plans in Ireland: ‘the adaptation of the circular plan combines with another idea, that of the assembly encircling the altar, and the walls encircling the assembly’ (Hurley 2001, p. 16). Except that in most Irish circular churches the assembly does not encircle the altar but is rather gathered in a fan ordering or a circular variation of the circumstantes ordering described in Chapter Four. Hurley’s description of these churches, with his acknowledgment that they are rarely truly centralised, and his sample of churches having a circular plan, bears this out. Plans of three churches from his sample of circular plans, each highlighting the typical seating arrangement and circular form – in one instance ‘fractured’ - are shown in figure 5:22.

Illustration has been Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to Copyright removed due to Copyright Copyright restrictions. restrictions. restrictions.

5:22 Churches having circular plans, LEFT: Liam McCormick, St Aengus Church, Burt, Co. Donegal, Ireland, 1967, Plan, CENTRE: Tyndall Hogan Hurley, Church of the Apostles, Ballybrack, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1982, Plan, and RIGHT: O’Sullivan Campbell, Church of the Resurrection, Killarney, Co. Kerry, 1995, Plan. Adapted from R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 82, p. 83 & p. 90.

Hurley (2001, p. 101) notes a connection between the postconciliar antiphonal layout and the Irish monastic tradition. He traces the antiphonal plan to the Eucharist Room (fig. 5:23) he designed for the National Institute for Pastoral Liturgy in an existing building at Carlow1 (Hurley 2000, p. 17).

1 The National Institute for Pastoral Liturgy transferred from Carlow to St Patrick’s College, Maynooth in 1996.

214 Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to Copyright removed due to Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

5:23 Richard Hurley, National Institute for Pastoral Liturgy Eucharist Room, Carlow, co. Carlow, Ireland, 1980, Plan and photograph from entrance showing ambo, central altar and informal antiphonal arrangement. From R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 94 & p. 95.

Explaining the liturgical setting of the Eucharistic Room, Hurley states that it has no defined sanctuary, but is rather a ritual space for the participation of everyone in the assembly, ‘demanding maximum movement’ (Hurley 1996, p. 246). He describes the ordering of the space: The layout of the room is oriented towards an informal antiphonal gathering surrounding a central area focused on the altar. This was a development of the idea of a family gathering around the table. Within this grouping, the chief celebrant sat at one end of the axis with the altar and the ambo placed on the other side of the altar, on axis facing up the room. The surrounding stools provide an informal seating arrangement for the assembly (Hurley 2001, pp. 94- 95).

He describes the central axis as ‘disguised’, a ‘counter-balance’ to the informality with which the assembly is ordered within the space (Hurley 1996, p. 245). Hurley (2001, p. 95) continues, describing the antiphonal layout as it has developed in Ireland, by which churches have been designed to, … achieve a total integration of priest and people in the liturgy and envisage a totality of worship space …’ within which ‘… the nave, sanctuary and aisles …’ form …’a single entity, the edges blurred, with the “sanctuary” area placed on a central spine. This can mean the alignment on a single axis of baptismal font, ambo, altar, celebrant’s chair and tabernacle.

All three churches in his sample have a partly closed antiphonal setting, with the seating for the assembly curved inwards at both ends. In this the setting is clearly designed with the Eucharistic liturgy in mind where attention is focused on the altar, as distinct from the monastic setting where the normally parallel seats or

215 stalls on either side are intended primarily for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. Figure 5:24 shows plans of two antiphonal churches from Hurley’s sample. In St Colman’s Church at Lambeg the sequence of liturgical foci along the central axis from the entry is baptismal font, chair for the priest celebrant and ambo towards one end, the centre vacant, and altar and tabernacle towards the other end. In the Church of the Irish Martyrs at Naas the sequence from the entry is baptismal font, chair for the priest celebrant, ambo off-axis, the centre vacant, and then altar and tabernacle. As will be noted in later examination of the antiphonal liturgical ordering, a vacant centre space usually means that altar and ambo are juxtaposed towards either end. This arrangement can obscure the significant sacramental and symbolic meaning of the altar.

Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:24 Churches having an antiphonal layout, LEFT: Kennedy Fitzgerald, St Colman’s Church, Lambeg, Co. Antrim, Ireland, 1995, Plan, and RIGHT: Eamon Hedderman, Church of the Irish Martyrs at Naas, Co. Kildare, Ireland, 1997, Plan. From R. Hurley, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin, 2001, p. 97 & p. 99.

Hurley explains the origin of his four types of liturgical ordering by stating: ‘Between 1960 and the last years of the [twentieth] century many different plan forms emerged, which can be broadly divided into 4 main categories’ (2001, p. 40). He references Gieselmann (1972) whose contribution to discourse about liturgical ordering in the postconciliar period was by then almost thirty years old and mostly concerned with the 1960s. Hurley (2001, p. 41) observes that, ‘The overall concept of each church type shows many varieties within it, giving rise to an exuberance of different external manifestations of the

216 same function’. The relative inconsistency of classifying fan-shaped plans with transverse plans has already been noted. Another type, the cruciform plan, found among new-built postconciliar churches in Ireland, has not been included in any of Hurley’s four church types. As well, a number of preconciliar cruciform-plan churches in Ireland have been liturgically reordered, six of which are described by Hurley (2001, pp. 115-124). As with the fan-arrayed type of liturgical ordering, the cruciform ordering might well have been included by Hurley with his other types, as it is difficult to determine which of the longitudinal, transverse, centralised or antiphonal types might best include the cruciform plan among its ‘varieties’. Plans of two postconciliar Irish cruciform churches are shown in Figure 5:25.

Illustration has been removed due to Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:25 Plans of postconciliar Irish cruciform churches, LEFT: A. & D. Wejchert, Church of the Holy Trinity at Donaghmede, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1978, Plan, and RIGHT: De Blacam & Meagher, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church at Firhouse, Co. Dublin, Ireland, 1979, Plan. From R. Hurley & W. Cantwell, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1985, p. 137, cf. Hurley 2001, p. 111 & p. 114.

The Church of the Holy Trinity at Donaghmede has the shape of a Greek cross. Its sanctuary projects into the crossing from the chancel arm of the cross within which are a weekday chapel of transverse plan and sacristies. Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church at Firhouse has the shape of Latin cross. It is a glass-walled structure situated inside a walled courtyard, with the sanctuary centred in the crossing and the liturgical choir behind the sanctuary in the chancel arm, which

217 also houses the sacristy. The glass walls mean that members of the assembly can see all the others in the assembly whether seated in nave or transept. Despite the suggestion of a degree of incompleteness in Hurley’s typology, he nevertheless makes a significant contribution to discourse about liturgical ordering. There are aspects of his commentary not included here, being outside the scope of this thesis, which offer informed insight into the detail of his sample of Irish churches. By extension, a number of his observations might apply to postconciliar churches elsewhere. This survey of typologies of liturgical ordering began with a series of orderings conceived by Kevin Seasoltz. When he returns to this subject thirty- eight years later, instead of exploring what had evolved from the six types of liturgical ordering he had conceptualized in 1963, he inexplicably takes up the four types proposed by Hurley. Referencing Hurley (2000, p. 14), Seasoltz (2001, p. 428) writes: Since the second Vatican Council many different plans for church buildings have emerged; they fall into four general categories: 1) longitudinal shape based on the traditional division of nave and sanctuary; 2) transverse emphasis, in which there is a careful planning of the relationship between assembly and altar; 3) centralized layout, giving rise to more or less circular buildings, but rarely if ever concentric to the altar; and 4) antiphonal plan, in which the assembly is gathered on two opposite sides of an axial space containing the altar, ambo and presider’s chair. These plans reflect an understanding of liturgical celebration ranging from that of silent spectator worship (longitudinal plan) to full, active, and conscious participation by the whole assembly (antiphonal plan).

In this first instance he offers no further information. Two years later Seasoltz (2003, p. 239) reiterates substantially the same text, again referencing Hurley (2000, p. 15). In this instance he specifies the layout of the antiphonal plan as containing, ‘the altar at one end, the ambo at another and the presider’s chair placed in close relation to both altar and ambo’. This time he further develops these four types, much along the lines of Hurley’s earlier commentary about the evolution of these four orderings in Ireland. The same typology is outlined again two years later and followed by a similar description of what had occurred in Ireland (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266). Here Seasoltz’s description is preceded by an overview of developments in church

218 architecture in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and is followed by a similar discussion concerning the United States. In this third instance he omits the explanation about the centralised layout being ‘rarely concentric to the altar’ (Seasoltz 2003, p. 239), having apparently recognised that though this is so in Ireland it is not the case elsewhere. However he retains the description of the specific layout of the antiphonal plan (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266). In this he is incorrect: some antiphonal plans place the altar at the physical centre of the axial sanctuary space with the ambo at one end and the chair for the priest celebrant at the other end. Still others place the baptismal font at the end nearest the entrance, the altar at the centre, and ambo and chair at the other end. The appropriation by Seasoltz of the four types initially described by Hurley demonstrates the deficiency of uncritically adopting an existing typology. Hurley writes solely within an Irish context. Seasoltz, from the United States, writes for a much wider audience, arguably modifying his descriptions as the limitations of using Hurley’s types out of context came to his attention. As with Hurley, there are spatial arrangements that Seasoltz does not consider but which Vosko, Beard, DeSanctis, Kasper, Bergamo and Del Prete, Adams and Philippart all include. However, Seasoltz’s more regrettable pretermission in taking up Hurley’s types of liturgical ordering, is that Seasoltz does not return to his original conceptual typology. In that typology he anticipated the various types that others have subsequently identified and described.

Types identified by Philip Bess (2002 – 2006)

Philip Bess offers two typologies of liturgical ordering, the first comprising two types and the second an expansion of it to four types. He observes that, There are two paradigmatic forms of Christian church: the centralized plan and basilican plan … while both of them can be characterized as possessing a formal unity, the unity of the centralized plan (owing to its omnidirectional quality) is a unity of stasis and perfection; while the formal unity of the basilican plan (owing to its privileging of a particular direction) is a unity of dynamism and procession (2002).

219 In light of this he examines the tension or misfit that exists historically and in the postconciliar period between the liturgical purpose of a church and different forms of church building, namely the centralized, basilican and cruciform plans. He then suggests rationales for four different orderings, noting that his taxonomy is not intended to be exhaustive: … there is an argument for the centralized plan based upon the geometry of the circle and its symbolic representation of the unity and changeless perfection of God. There is an argument for the basilican plan based upon the dynamism of both nature and history. There is an argument for the cruciform plan that includes the preceding argument; but also an argument for the form both as symbolic of the mystical Body of Christ and – at the crossing of nave and transept – best expressive of the intersection of heaven and earth and the communion of God and Man at the axis mundi. There may be a contemporary argument for the elliptical plan that would have to do with the dynamic relationship and movement between the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist as dual foci of the Catholic Mass. (Bess 2002)

In further adapting these types Bess (2006, pp. 140-141 & p. 152) notes the stasis of the centralized plan, the dynamic directionality of the basilican plan, and the synthesis of stasis and dynamic directionality in the cruciform plan. He illustrates his four types of liturgical ordering with plans of preconciliar churches (fig. 5:26). Bess (2006, p. 140) favours these types as ‘legitimate church forms and styles arguably still suitable for various forms of Catholic community’ today. Yet he does not develop his argument by including plans and images of postconciliar churches that would be representative of these types.

Illustration has IllustrationIllustration hashas IllustrationIllustration hashas Illustration has been removed beenbeen removedremoved beenbeen removedremoved been removed due due to Copyright duedue toto CopyrightCopyright duedue toto CopyrightCopyright to Copyright restrictions. restrictions.restrictions. restrictions.restrictions. restrictions.

5:26 Plans of churches used by Bess as examples of his typology, left to right: Cola da Caprarola, Church of Santa Maria della Consolazione, Todi, Italy, 1508 – 1606, centralised plan, Sant’Apollinaire in Classe, Ravenna, Italy, 549 CE, basilican plan, Jan & Pieter Applemans, Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp, Belgium, 1352 – 1521, cruciform plan, and Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Church of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale at Rome, Italy, 1568 – 1671, elliptical plan. Adapted from P. Bess, Till we have built Jerusalem: architecture, urbanism, and culture, ISI Books, Wilmington, 2006, p.140, p. 141 & p.142.

220 It is significant that Bess provides a liturgical rationale only for his fourth type, the elliptical plan, for which he says there ‘may’ be a ‘contemporary’ argument. However, it is not clear from his rationale for the elliptical plan how it is arranged spatially. The arguments for his other three types are architectural, historical and symbolic. This is hardly surprising, for Bess (2002) suggests that the, church building indeed should serve the needs of the liturgy; but that this in fact should not be the first principal [sic] of church building. Because the implication of this is that the liturgy dictates the form of the building. … it has not done so historically.

While the liturgy is not the sole determinant of the design of a church, this thesis has concluded that historically the liturgy has been the first principle of church building. The consistent conciliar and postconciliar teaching of the Catholic Church that the liturgy is to be the primary determinant in the design of a church does not constitute an innovation but emphatically restates the tradition. A later exception to Bess’s aversion to providing liturgical detail about his typology follows upon his recommendation of the cruciform plan for parish churches and cathedrals (Bess 2006, p. 145). As well as the historical, theological and symbolic reasons he provides, he recommends that the altar be placed at the crossing in a slightly elevated position, that the ambo be significantly elevated, that the assembly be seated primarily in the nave and secondarily in the transept, and that the apse be used for the reservation of the Eucharist and weekday liturgy, and perhaps as the place for the choir (Bess 2006, pp. 146-147).

Types identified by Albert Gerhards (2002 – 2003)

A significant development in the understanding of liturgical space emerged in Germany during the last decade. Resulting from collaboration between architects and liturgists, a liturgical setting often referred to as ‘communio räume’ or ‘communio spaces’ has been developed conceptually and in built form (Gerhards 2002). The ellipse is the preferred shape for communio

221 space and the antiphonal setting the preferred ordering. Communio spaces aim ‘to make tangible in the service the specificity of the unity between God and people’ (Gerhards 2002, p. 27). It is a conceptual approach to design which intends that ‘architectonic quality and liturgical dignity are given equal status’ (Gerhards 2002, p. 27). Gerhards contrasts communio spaces with ‘Catholic church space’ of the past decades. In this he refers not to preconciliar churches but to the earlier plurality of spatial concepts developed in the second half of the twentieth century and realised in postconciliar churches. He argues that the design of these churches often interpreted active participation in the liturgy as liturgical activism and that this in turn resulted in ‘container-like structures with platforms for the “executive”’ (Gerhards 2002, p. 27). Though he does not specify the orderings to which he is referring, the fan-shaped, transverse and centralised layouts as incorporated in some church designs might well apply. In contrast the elliptical communio space provides for a better appreciation of the substance of the Eucharistic liturgy than is possible in conventional arrangements. Communio spaces constitute an improvement in the ‘spatial constellation’ of postconciliar church design (Stegers 2008, p. 29). The elimination of platforms from beneath altar, ambo and chair for the priest celebrant dispels any suggestion that liturgical celebration is staged. Here are two basic types of liturgical ordering drawn from the postconciliar period. The earlier type of Catholic church space from this period differentiates places within the church and persons within the assembly. Communio spaces are designed with spatial unity and the unity of the assembly foremost. The assembly is grouped around the focal points of altar and ambo. These function as “poles” of the longitudinal space along both sides of which the community is assembled. The open space in the centre between the altar and the ambo ‘symbolises the unattainability of the divine presence’; that is, the vacant centre represents an ‘anticipation of the presence of God’ (Stegers 2008, p. 29). Elliptical in shape and freed from platforms and steps, this ‘spatial concept

222 seeks a unifying element between the contrasts of central and longitudinal focus’ (Gerhards 2002, p. 31). Importantly, ‘the community gathered in celebration is never a purpose in its own right, circling around itself and introspective; instead it is addressed to the wholly Other, to God’ (Gerhards 2002, p. 31). Gerhards proposes Saint Christopher Church at Westerland, Sylt, Germany (cf. fig. 4:31) as the best known example of communio space. The elliptical communio space outlined by Gerhards in effect constitutes an antiphonal ordering as this type is described by others. While Gerhards and Hurley would concur about the way in which this liturgical ordering can unify the assembly and its ministers, the elaboration of its liturgical and spatial dynamic by Gerhards indicates a different meaning, whether intended or derived, to that given by Philippart. The latter identifies as symbolised in the two axes openness to God and openness to the world. For Gerhards openness to God is at the centre, not at one of the ends. The explanation of the communio räume type of liturgical ordering proposed by Gerhards is complex and nuanced.

Types identified by Paul Post (2003)

The Institute for Liturgical Studies at Groningen and the Liturgical Institute of the Faculty of Theology at Tilburg University collaborate in an ongoing ‘research program investigating ritual and liturgical dynamics in general, and church architecture in particular’ (Post 2003, p. 7). In exploring the development of Catholic liturgical space in the Netherlands from 1850 until the present day, Paul Post outlines a developmental typology that significantly reflects his interest in centralistic and polycentric layouts. The first type is representative of the period 1850 to 1950 during which the longitudinal or basilican church was prevalent. Post refers to this type of church as being a ‘sacral space’ and describes its liturgical ordering: ‘The spatial layout, the axes and pews are directed towards the high altar situated in the sanctuary, elevated against the apsis wall’ (Post 2003, p. 16). He argues that this type of layout is

223 much more dynamic than is often thought, in which view he concurs with McNally and Bess. Coming to the conciliar and postconciliar period, Post considers the 1960s in the Netherlands to have been typified by ‘agora-churches’. These churches resulted from a questioning of the essential purpose of a church, leading to spaces evocative of ‘a large sheltered market square’ with a multifunction polycentric spatial arrangement. Different zones of space provide that ‘groups in various compositions find space for equally various activities and rites’ (Post 2003, p. 17). The same principle of denoted spaces also informed the design of liturgical space. Figure 5:27 shows a plan of the Pastoor van Ars-kerk at Loosduinen in The Hague, with its ‘central processional aisle or via sacra ...’ and ‘various spatial sections, mostly circularly divided, in which repertoires of liturgy and devotions … can be carried out’ (Post 2003, pp. 17-18).

5:27 Aldo van Eyck, Pastoor van Ars-kerk, Loosduinen, The Hague, Netherlands, 1968-1969, Plan. From P. Post, Space for liturgy: between dynamic ideal and static reality, Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, Groningen & Liturgisch Instituut, Tilburg, 2003, p. 56.

Post’s (2003, p. 18) third period, the 1970s and 1980s, is typified by the ‘circumadstantes-model’ in which ‘the pews, and increasingly chairs, are grouped in various manners in a half circle around the liturgical centre with altar and lectern’. While multifunction spaces continue to exist, these decades herald the ‘(re)sacralization’ of liturgical space, with reorganisation [liturgical reordering] ensuring that the primary focus is the sanctuary or liturgical centre (Post 2003, p.

224 18). The fourth period, beginning in the 1990s, is marked by the ‘communio- model’, much as described by Gerhards. Post (2003, p. 18) outlines the basic characteristics of this type: ‘The liturgical centre is placed in the middle of the gathered community with the table and ambo functioning as poles.’ He acknowledges the familiarity with this model that comes ‘via the choir stall seating arrangement’ (Post 2003, p. 18). Lastly, Post considers seating arrangements, noting how some liturgical reordering projects have created greater space and better dynamics for liturgical celebration than modern new churches which are ‘filled and defined by a traditional massive pew plan’ (Post 2003, p. 37).

Types identified by Mark G. Boyer (2004)

In Mark G. Boyer’s first edition of The liturgical environment: what the documents say (1990), the treatment of ‘suitable liturgical space’ is limited to citation of the Church’s liturgical documents (Boyer 1990, pp. 28-29). By the second edition, this section is revised and expanded to include ‘three general designs’ (Boyer 2004, pp. 8-10). Boyer identifies these three general designs as the basilica–cruciform, the post-Vatican II design resembling a theatre, and the stadium which is either circular or elliptical. While other contributors to the discourse about liturgical ordering might treat these three general designs as five types, namely basilican, cruciform, theatre, circular, and elliptical, in Boyer’s context these spatial arrangements effectively constitute only three: the preconciliar basilican and cruciform, the fan-shaped, and the antiphonal. Boyer describes the first general design, the basilica and cruciform plan, solely in historical terms, without any reference to how both plans have been modified when liturgically reordered to better provide for liturgical celebration and participation. Moving to his second general design Boyer (2004, p. 9) describes the earlier postconciliar liturgical ordering as resembling a theatre: Churches were built in squares, semicircles, hexagons, or octagons. The sanctuary was placed in a corner of the square or against the wall of a semicircle, hexagon or octagon. Pews or chairs were arranged so that people

225 were arranged on three sides around the sanctuary. Even though worshippers could see each other, see more around them, and found themselves closer to the action, they still faced a single platform sanctuary, reminiscent of a stage, backed up against a wall. The focal point was essentially unchanged from a pre- Vatican II building.

He then explains the dynamic of such a setting, whereby the ministers ‘perform’ and the members of the assembly assume a passive, non-participatory role as observers. Though perhaps overstating the limitations and consequences of the variations of the fan-shaped ordering, his conclusions reflected those of Philippart. Of his third general design Boyer (2004, pp. 9-10) writes: A floor plan of architecture that is more participatory is that of the stadium, which is circular or elliptical. People are arranged all around the centre of action. … All are in full view of each other and interact with each other. … About the only place in sacred architecture where the stadium model has been employed is in monastery churches … where what is often referred to as antiphonal seating has survived. Monks sit together on opposite sides … The space in between … is usually stark or minimally decorated, because anything in between would hinder active participation.

While Boyer makes it clear that he is describing the antiphonal layout which fosters participation by gathering the assembly around the altar, ambo and priest-celebrant, his use of the stadium analogy is comparable to his earlier use of the theatre as a descriptor. A stadium fosters participation no more than a theatre. Just as a theatre has actors or performers and an audience, so a stadium has athletes or sporting teams and spectators. Additionally, there are a number of churches with an antiphonal ordering that are orthogonal or shaped other than as a circle or ellipse.

Types identified by Richard Kieckhefer (2004)

The three traditions of church-building put forward by Richard Kieckhefer correspond in general terms with the three general designs of Boyer’s liturgical ordering. Kieckhefer (2004, pp. 11-12) proposes three basic patterns in church design which he calls the ‘classic sacramental church,’ the ‘classic evangelical church,’ and the ‘modern communal church.’ He describes each of these types in

226 terms of spatial dynamics, liturgical usage, aesthetic impact and symbolic resonance. His perspective is historical. The classic sacramental church dates to the earliest era of public church building and thus to the basilica. The cruciform layout would be another form of classical sacramental church. Its standard features include a longitudinal nave, chancel divided into sanctuary and choir, processional space or aisles, and the altar as the focal point. Because of their longitudinal shape, there is a tendency in these churches towards segmentation and order. These churches are often lavishly adorned and have strong symbolic resonance. This creates a heightened sense of both the transcendence and immanence of God (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 11, p. 15 & p. 183). The classical sacramental church corresponds historically and in traditional liturgical usage with the basilica in Boyer’s typology. The classic evangelical church dates from the protestant reformation and is effectively an auditorium for proclaiming the gospel. The focal point is the place of preaching, normally the pulpit. The quality of acoustics for the spoken word is particularly important in these churches and they are likely to be smaller than the classical sacramental church. Interaction between the preacher and members of the assembly is encouraged. Of plain design and dignified setting, these churches are intended to edify more than to impress, so are likely to carry less decoration than the classical sacramental church (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 11 & p. 15). The classic evangelical church, with its auditorium plan, is similar to Boyer’s theatre type, though these types differ totally in liturgical function. The modern communal church emphasises the Christian assembly as it gathers socially and to celebrate the liturgy. Hospitality is important so gathering spaces are provided apart from the worship space and there is a transitional dynamism between them. The focal point of the liturgical setting is normally the altar or pulpit, which may be permanent of moveable. Seating is usually arranged around the liturgical focal point, which fosters a heightened sense of group identity. The symbolism of these churches may lack the richness of the classic sacramental church but is likely to be more evident than in a classic evangelical

227 church (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 12 & p. 15). The modern communal church corresponds with the stadium church described by Boyer. Kieckhefer acknowledges an essential difference between his first basic pattern, the classic sacramental church, and the other two basic patterns. This first pattern in church design has a history that is both architectural and liturgical. In contrast, the classical evangelical church and the modern communal church each emerged in response to a particular historical movement. These other two basic patterns in church design do not have so complex a history. With this in mind Kieckhefer (2004, p. 14) reflects that, From a strictly historical perspective this categorization may appear strangely lopsided, because the “classic sacramental” church includes the vast preponderance of forms churches have taken over the centuries, while the “classic evangelical” church represents a particular development within some (not all) Protestant denominations, and he “modern communal” church is a recent development that might not seem worthy of equal footing with the grand traditions it reacts against. But if we focus more on the range of options available now, the perspective shifts, and the forms that loom so large historically occupy a less significant and more contested place.

In setting forth the modern communal type, Kieckhefer (2004, p. 15) emphasises the communal dimension. This pattern might equally or even preferably have been called the ‘modern participatory church’, for participation in the liturgy became a priority for the Catholic Church as well as other ecclesial communities in during the twentieth century. Kieckhefer (2004, p. 279) deals with the participation of the entire assembly in the liturgy relatively briefly. In doing so he notes the emergence of centralised, transversal, fan and U-shaped seating arrangements during the twentieth century and recounts particular objections to the centralised plan. It is not clear whether these orderings, having been acknowledged, constitute expressions of the modern communal church.

Types identified by Nicholas W. Roberts (2004)

In his ‘building type basics’ handbook for places of worship, Nicholas W. Roberts provides comprehensive advice on most every design and construction aspect of a church, temple, or mosque. In treating of churches he

228 deals first with the sacred furnishings of altar, ambo and chair, and next with the place of the assembly in terms of posture, circulation, accessibility and proximity within the church space (Roberts 2004, pp. 37-42). He then proposes five types of liturgical ordering: ‘the circle,’ ‘the square plan,’ ‘U-shape,’ ‘antiphonal,’ and ‘fan shape’ (Roberts 2004, pp. 42–43). His descriptions of these five types are succinct and refer to exemplar churches for each type, three of which were designed for Catholic communities and liturgy (fig. 5:28).

Illustration has been removed dueIllustration to Copyright has been restrictions.removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:28 Plans of churches named by Roberts as exemplifying his typology of liturgical ordering, ABOVE LEFT: Eero Saarinen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chapel, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, Circle type, and ABOVE CENTRE: Karl Band, St Rochus Church, Türnich, Germany, Square type. Adapted from N.W. Roberts, Building type basics for places of worship, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004, p. 42, ABOVE RIGHT: Williamson Pounders, St Thomas More Church, Paducah, Kentucky, United States, U-shape type. Adapted from M.J. Crosbie, Architecture for the Gods, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic.), 1999, p. 96, BELOW LEFT: Rudolf Schwarz, Church of the Holy Family, Oberhausen, Germany, Antiphonal type, and BELOW RIGHT: ZGF, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, Fan shape type. Adapted from N.W. Roberts, Building type basics for places of worship, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004, p. 42 & p. 43.

Despite the quantity of information Roberts provides, his clarity becomes blurred as he relates descriptions to church plans. The consequence is overlap and erroneous identification of some types. Of the circle Roberts (2004, p. 42) writes only that this type, ‘with the sanctuary at one edge, is exemplified by Eero

229 Saarinen’s chapel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology …’. No account is given of the many circular churches in which the sanctuary is centralised and the assembly gathered around it rather than facing it. ‘The square plan’, he explains, with seating on the diagonal, is used at St. Rochus, Türnich, Germany … This shape provides an excellent location for the sanctuary and the baptismal font within the economy of an orthogonal plan’ (Roberts 2004, pp. 42-43).

As the plan shows, the seating is on the diagonal and is also curved in a fan shape. It is difficult to see what distinguishes this spatial arrangement from that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at Utah, except for the obvious difference in seating capacity. Roberts (2004, p. 43) then suggests that: U-shape seating can be provided in a square plan, as at … St. Thomas More Church in Paducah, Kentucky … as can “antiphonal” seating, whereby members of the assembly are seated across from one another within a square plan, as at Rudolf Schwarz’s Church of the Holy Family, Oberhausen, Germany.

The plan referred to here is not antiphonal, but U-shaped, a squarer form of that which is illustrated in the previous plan. Moreover, antiphonal ordering can also be found in elliptical and other shaped buildings. Roberts (2004, p. 43) then observes that: A fan shape is popular with many Evangelical churches, because it optimizes the efficiency of the seating layout and visibility of the sanctuary. In very large churches it is frequently used in conjunction with a gallery … as at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

As has been noted, the fan shape was also popular for Catholic churches in the decades following Vatican II, though is less so today.

Types identified by Julie Moran (2005)

A typology of four orderings is provided by Julie Moran in an essay that considers seating arrangements in the context of a theology of the assembly. She states that, ‘The basic plan of modern churches can be generalised into four different models: Processional, … Radial, … Antiphonal, …Central’ (Moran 2005, pp. 6-7). Each type is described with ample detail, evaluated, and illustrated with the plan of a church. These plans appear to have been taken from The new churches of Europe by G.E. Kidder Smith (1964). While all four plans are of

230 ‘modern’ churches none are postconciliar. Three of the plans show parish churches; the fourth plan shows a monastic church. As is apparent with the plans selected by Roberts, architectural drawings must fairly accurately correspond with their related descriptions to adequately fulfil their purpose. Those chosen to illustrate Moran’s four types do not consistently do so. Moran (2005, pp. 6-7) describes the processional ordering: This model has been the design of churches for centuries. Such a church is a long rectangular space where the sanctuary is placed against the wall at one of the short ends. The presider may be quite a distance from the rest of the assembly who sit in rows facing the sanctuary end. The model provides clear sight lines, especially for those towards the front, and allows for great processions through the assembly. … However, this model above all places the assembly far from the altar and ambo and seats people behind one another. … This design can suggest that the liturgy is an action undertaken by the presider alone, with the rest of the church present as spectators.

The processional ordering is illustrated by a plan of St Michael’s Church at Frankfurt in Germany. Though not rectangular this church is certainly processional in design. The sanctuary projects from the apse into the crossing, separated from the apsidal wall by an ambulatory. Though designed for the preconciliar Eucharistic liturgy, the liturgical ordering and especially the forward placement of the altar and the direction faced by the transept seating took good account of the liturgical assembly. Figure 5:29 shows plans of St Michael’s Church as illustrated in Moran’s essay and with the liturgical ordering in greater detail.

Illustration has Illustration has beenIllustration removed has been beenIllustration removed has been dueremoved to Copyright due to dueremoved to Copyright due to restrictions.Copyright restrictions.Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

5:29 Rudolf Schwarz, St Michael’s Church, Frankfurt, Germany, 1954, LEFT: Plan used with Moran’s description of the Processional type. From J. Moran, ‘Seating the Church in the church’, Liturgy news, 2005, vol. 39, no. 1,p. 7, cf. Kidder Smith 1964, p. 162, and RIGHT: Plan showing detailed liturgical ordering, including seating arrangement for the assembly in the nave and west transept and for the choir in the east transept. Adapted from R. Schwarz, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 2007, p. 208.

231 Regarding the radial ordering Moran (2005, p. 7) observes: This ‘fan-shaped’ design became very popular after the Second Vatican Council. Buildings constructed on this model come in many different forms but all contain a sanctuary jutting out from a corner or a long wall, with pews or seats around its three sides. Members of the assembly can see a little more of the community than just the backs of people’s heads and are closer to the altar and ambo. It therefore reinforces a stronger sense of the gathered Church at liturgy. However, the design can be very similar to that of a theatre where everyone ‘faces the front’ and can still reinforce the passive ‘audience’ role of he congregation.

The radial ordering is illustrated by the plan of the Bruderklausen Church at Birsfelden in Basel, Switzerland (fig. 5:30). Moran (2005, p. 7) states of the antiphonal ordering that, This design is [sic] recalls the monastic tradition. The model is represented by a rectangular shaped building where the assembly sit ‘choir style’, divided into two groups facing each other across the centre aisle of the longitudinal building axis. The altar and ambo are located in the central aisle space. They are often placed between the assembly at opposite ends, or with the altar in the middle and the ambo and font at either end. In this design the people’s role is strongly supported by the shape of the building.

Just as the radial ordering is described as coming in many different forms, the same might also be stated of the antiphonal ordering. The centre aisle which serves as the sanctuary can be located on the shorter axis. As well as the rectangle, this spatial arrangement can be found in churches of diverse shapes, the ellipse foremost among them. The plan chosen to illustrate the antiphonal ordering is of the friary church of Sainte Marie de la Tourette (fig. 5:30) at Tourette in southern France. This plan, while antiphonal, is ill suited. It shows the monastic antiphonal setting, designed primarily for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours rather than the Eucharist. The altar and other sacred furnishings are located in a sanctuary beyond the choir seating, not in the central aisle space as is the case when an antiphonal setting is designed for the Eucharistic liturgy. Moran (2005, p. 7) describes the fourth ordering, the central, as being, … a building that is circular or elliptical where the altar and ambo are placed in the middle of the space and the assembly surrounds them. … Like the antiphonal design, the central focus of these spaces clearly shows a common purpose and identity. The building invites all to participate in the common action and provides an intimate sense of the assembly gathered round the table of word and sacrament.

232 Moran also explains that central plan churches are often designed with a vertical axis at the middle of the space to draw the attention upwards and create a sense of the transcendence of God, while also compensating for the absence of a dominant horizontal axis. The central ordering is illustrated by a plan of the Church of St Albert (fig. 5:30) at Saarbrücken in Germany. The layout of this church is along the lines of the circumstantes plan described in Chapter Four, tending towards being centralised but without the assembly being significantly gathered around a central altar and ambo.

Illustration has Illustration has been removed Illustration has been been removed due to Copyright restrictions. removed due to due to Copyright Copyright restrictions. restrictions.

5:30 Plans of churches used to illustrate Moran’s Radial, Antiphonal and Central types: LEFT: Hermann Baur, Bruderklausen Church, Basel, Switzerland, 1959, Radial type, CENTRE: Le Corbusier, Friary Chapel, Sainte Marie de la Tourette, Tourette, France, 1960, Antiphonal type (not 1955 as stated in Moran 2005, p. 7), and RIGHT: Gottfried Böhm, Church of St Albert, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1957, Central type. From J. Moran, ‘Seating the Church in the church’, Liturgy news, 2005, vol. 39, no. 1, p. 7, cf. G.E. Kidder Smith, The new churches of Europe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1964, p. 102, p. 118 & p. 272.

Two further and significant points are made by Moran. She notes that, Renovating existing church spaces presents special challenges. Often it will be desirable to try to change from one model to another or to create a hybrid model so that the sense of an active and participating assembly is strengthened. … This may mean the incorporation of different seating models; for example the best arrangement for a long narrow building might be a combination of processional and antiphonal seating (Moran 2005, p. 7).

She also reminds her readers of the impact of churches upon the liturgy celebrated within them: The design of a church can foster or hinder the full, active and conscious participation of God’s people. So to be serious about the participation and action of the assembly means to be serious about the environment in which it prays’ (Moran 2005, p. 7).

233 Types identified by Robert Proctor (2005)

In a study of churches designed by a team led by Isi Metzstein and

Andrew MacMillan, of the Scottish architectural practice Gillespie, Kidd and Coia, Robert Proctor describes two related typologies of liturgical ordering. His context is ‘the relationship between architecture and liturgy’ during the transitional time leading up to and following from Vatican II (Proctor 2005, p. 291). Of the churches he considers, only one was intentionally designed for the celebration of the postconciliar Eucharistic liturgy (Proctor 2005, p. 315). The significance of the types of liturgical ordering identified by Proctor is twofold. In his consideration of the spatial settings of the churches of Gillespie, Kidd and Coia, he identifies the range of liturgical ordering that emerged in the pre- and postconciliar years in the United Kingdom. He also describes a preconciliar type not identified by others which is indicative of innovation inspired by the liturgical movement. He identifies three general types: ‘traditional plans’, ‘wedge-shaped plans’ and ‘plans for community worship’ (Proctor 2005, pp. 302-315). He also names a number of other types which may be read as forming a second set of types: ‘basilican plans’ (Proctor 2005, p. 293), ‘longitudinal plan’ (Proctor 2005, p. 297), ‘circular’, ’elliptical’ and ‘wedge- shaped’ plans (Proctor 2005, p. 297), ‘rectangular plans’ (Proctor 2005, p. 302), ‘centralized plan’ (Proctor 2005, p. 320), ‘U’-shaped and ‘T-shaped’ plans (Proctor 2005, p. 311), and an ‘auditorium plan inside a square’ (Proctor 2005, p. 314). Bearing in mind the period about which Proctor is writing, the basilican, longitudinal, rectangular and elliptical plans are identical or constitute variations of traditional plans; circular, centralised, U-shaped, T-shaped and auditorium inside a square plans are all plans for community worship; and the wedge- shaped plans are actually variations of the basilican ordering configured in accordance with the shape of the building. As with other typologies described in this chapter, some of the plans referred to by Proctor are defined by their liturgical ordering and others by the shape of the church.

234 Proctor’s study of the churches of Gillespie, Kidd and Coia begins with churches having a basilican or longitudinal ordering. He traces the introduction of the wedge-shaped ordering, the T-shaped ordering in which the place of the assembly is in three separate bays of seating in front of and either side of the sanctuary, and the U-shaped ordering. Designs of the latter ranged from a setting with long straight pews configured continuously along the front and sides of the sanctuary to a shallower arrangement of shorter straight pews set as in a curve around the front and sides of the sanctuary (Proctor 2005, p. 314). The period studied concludes with the auditorium in a square ordering which elsewhere is commonly identified as fan-shaped. Only the last of these churches was designed for the postconciliar liturgy. Churches designed to a wedge-shaped plan mark the first innovation as the architects modified the basilican or longitudinal plan (fig. 5:31). As Proctor (2005, p. 306) observes, the wedge-shaped church is also unconventional, with its wedge-shaped outline and seating plan, the sanctuary taking up the wider end. … most churches with wedge-shaped plans had the sanctuary at the narrow end.

Illustration has been removed due Illustration has been removed due to to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:31 Two preconciliar wedge-shaped churches designed by Isi Metzstein and Andrew MacMillan of Gillespie, Kidd & Coia, LEFT: Isi Metzstein and Andrew MacMillan, St Paul’s Church, Glenrothes, Scotland 1956 - 1958, Plan, and RIGHT: Isi Metzstein and Andrew MacMillan, St Martin’s Church, Castlemilk, Glasgow, Scotland, 1957 - 1959, Plan. Note that the earlier design better demonstrates the innovation of the wedge-shaped ordering. Adapted from R. Proctor, ‘Churches for a Changing Liturgy: Gillespie, Kidd & Coia and the Second Vatican Council’, Architectural history, 2005, vol. 48, p. 307 & p. 309.

235 By inverting the normative configuration of contemporaneous wedge- shaped churches, such as Neustra Señora de los Ángeles (1959) at Calle Norte- Sur in Spain (Kidder Smith 1964, pp. 236-239 & p. 287) and the Church of the Resurrection of the Lord (circa 1954) at Saint Louis, Missouri in the United States (Dreher, Murphy & Mackey 1954, p. 13), Metzstein and MacMillan’s wedge- shaped ordering brought more people nearer to the altar. It thereby increased, the sense of intimacy, and thus of participation, in the relationship of the congregation to the liturgy; and the perspectival illusion also increases the altar’s apparent proximity and scale (Proctor 2005, p. 306).

While the seating arrangement retained the straight rows of pews in the manner of a longitudinal plan, these became longer nearer the sanctuary. In this the wedge-shaped plan is the reverse of the auditorium in a square ordering, where the least seating is nearest the sanctuary and the most at the rear of the place for the assembly. Proctor (2005, p. 306) cites only one precedent for Gillespie, Kidd and Coia’s wedge-shaped plan, ‘the fairly obscure church of Saint-Agnès at Fontaine-Les-Grés’ in France, built in 1956. An earlier church of similar design is St Anne’s Church at Saint Louis, Missouri in the United States, 1950 - 1952. Plans of these churches are shown in figure 5:32.

Illustration has been removed due http://edifices-parcs-proteges-champagne-ar to Copyright restrictions. denne.culture.fr/fiches_mh/10_fontaine-les- gres_eglise.php

5:32 Two wedge-shaped churches predating those designed by Gillespie, Kidd & Coia, LEFT: Michel Marot, Church of Saint-Agnès, Fontaine-Les-Grés, France, 1956, Plan. Adapted from Les monuments historiques en Champagne-Ardenne, ‘Fontaine-Les-Grés, Église Saint-Agnès’ 2010, http://edifices-parcs-proteges-champagne-ardenne.culture.fr/fiches_mh/10_fontaine-les-gres_ eglise.php, sourced 16 March 2011, and RIGHT: Joseph Dennis Murphy, St Anne’s Church, Normandy, Missouri, USA, 1952, Plan. Adapted from F.J. Sprenke and J.D. Murphy, ‘Three Churches in the Mid-West’, Liturgical arts, 1950, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 91, and ‘Saint Ann’s Church, Normandy, Missouri’, Liturgical arts, 1952, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 114.

236 The types identified in Proctor’s study illustrate the growing importance during the period prior to Vatican II of designing churches for the assembly’s active participation in the liturgy. The types he describes serve as a reminder that most postconciliar liturgical ordering originated in preconciliar church design, when an earlier form of the Eucharistic liturgy was celebrated. An exception is the heretofore unacknowledged wedge-shaped plan, which constitutes an elemental development to bring the assembly closer to the altar. It seems to have first emerged in the United States and subsequently in France and Scotland. There is no indication that the earlier wedge-shaped plan influenced Metzstein and MacMillan’s designs. In the quest for suitable spatial settings for the liturgy, the ordering of the wedge-shaped church marks a conservative departure from the traditional longitudinal basilican ordering. Its absence from more recent typologies indicates its transitional status.

Types identified by Eugene Potente Jr. and David Zersen (2008)

In their congregational planning guide, Shaping Worship Space, Eugene Potente Jr. and David Zersen contrast traditional ‘processional’ plans with ‘communitarian’ plans (Potente & Zersen 2008, p. 35 & p. 52). The preconciliar preference for processional plans with linear interiors is traced from the basilica of the early Church to the later cruciform church building (Potente & Zersen 2008, pp. 24-28). In contrast, they explain that alternative arrangements have been sought in the postconciliar period, including ‘fanned’ and ‘antiphonal’ orderings (Potente & Zersen 2008, p. 52). They observe that processional plans, with their ‘strong hierarchical seating plan, central aisle, worship locus inside a proscenium apse, great distance from front to back’ are familiar to many people and that, ‘there is strength in this plan as it seeks to focus the worshipper on God and the divine revelation in Word and Sacrament’ (Potente and Zersen 2008, p. 52). They also acknowledged limitations of this traditional plan, with ‘the seating in straight-line pews with a centre aisle, providing less flexibility and less interactive participation of the community’ (Potente and Zersen 2008, p. 35).

237 Alternatively, the fanned and antiphonal types of liturgical ordering that have emerged as communitarian ways of enabling ‘the assembly to be mindful of one another as the worshipping body of believers,’ draw attention to the members of the assembly, ‘who are gathering to confess their faith together, to speak words of peace to one another, and to embrace the One who is Emmanuel, God with us’ (Potente and Zersen 2008, p. 35 & p. 52). This basic ‘typology’ of processional and communitarian and, within the latter, fanned and antiphonal orderings, is accompanied by a series of photographs that highlight different aspects of church design. Figure 5:33 shows a Communitarian setting.

5:33 Dennis Horbinski, St Elizabeth Seton Church, New Berlin, Wisconsin, United States, 1998 – 1999, Photograph showing communitarian liturgical setting with font near entrance and assembly seating gathered around the central altar and ambo. Adapted from E.J. Potente and D.J. Zersen, Shaping worship space: how Christians shelter and adorn their liturgies, Concordia University Press, Texas, 2008, Plate 10.

Types identified by Rudolf Stegers (2008)

A developmental typology of liturgical ordering is set forth by Rudolf Stegers, leading to the ideal of ‘communio’. In effect, he advocates the communio räume ordering proposed by Albert Gerhards, Klemens Richter and Thomas Sternberg, among others (Stegers 2008, p. 29). Like Bergamo and De Prete before him, in outlining types of liturgical ordering Stegers tends towards his preferred type. For the former it is the distinctive Neocatechumenal Way

238 variation of the U-shaped or centralised orderings. For Stegers it is communio spaces. Stegers (2008, p. 6) begins by recognising a foundational twofold ordering, versions of which have been identified by a number of others in this survey. He classifies churches as having an ‘axial plan’ or a ‘centralised plan’. He observes the fundamental difference between these plans: ‘on the one hand, the eccentric orientation, on the other, the concentric assembly of the congregation’ (Stegers 2008, p. 28). He recognises ‘the differentiation between the axial and the radial, and with it the similar but not identical differentiation between “unified” and “partitioned”’ (Stegers 2008, p. 28). Unified spaces are those which are experienced as a whole, while partitioned spaces are those in which the parts of the space are emphasised over the whole, as shown in figure 5:34.

Illustration has been Illustration has been removed due to removed due to Copyright restrictions. Copyright restrictions.

5:34 Church plans exemplifying unified and partitioned spaces, LEFT: Peter Zumthor, Sogn Benedetg Chapel, Somvix, Switzerland, 1988, Plan of a unified space showing altar, seating and entrance. From W.J. Stock, European church architecture 1950-2000, tr. Jenny Marsh & Elizabeth Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich, 2002, p. 180, and RIGHT: Richard England, St Joseph’s Church, Manikata, Malta, 1974, Plan of a partitioned space showing entrance, nave, offset sanctuary and walled sanctuary zones, and sacristy. Adapted from R. Stegers, Sacred buildings: a design manual, tr. J. Reisenberger, Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel, 2008, p. 72.

The developmental typology put forward by Stegers involves the four types just mentioned, the axial and radial, and the eccentric and concentric. He portrays the development from axial to eccentric and from radial to concentric using schematic plans of church arrangements (fig. 5:35). The axial to eccentric is

239 shown using longitudinal, fan, and combined longitudinal-antiphonal orderings. The radial to concentric is shown using U-shaped, circumstantes and centralised orderings. From this, Stegers moves to the ideal of communio space which has already been described in this chapter.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

5:35 Rudolf Stegers, Schematic plans of liturgical orderings showing the development from axial to eccentric and radial to concentric. From R. Stegers, Sacred buildings: a design manual, tr. J. Reisenberger, Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel, 2008, p. 28.

Some of his commentary about the communio spaces ordering, while accurate in spatial matters, is less so liturgically. For example, Stegers mentions ‘confrontation between the priest and congregation giving way to integration,’ and refers to members of the assembly being able to ‘wander with their chairs back and forth from table to lectern to table’ (Stegers 2008, p. 29). During the Eucharistic liturgy, a priest celebrant will engage with the assembly as he enacts his ministry at the chair, the ambo or the altar. In some instances he may be facing the assembly, if this is what Stegers means by confrontation; at other times he may be in the midst of the gathered assembly. Different orderings will influence the engagement between priest and assembly but it overstates the spatial strengths of the communio space to suggest that it can achieve an integration which is unattainable in other

240 orderings. As to movement, it is conceivable that the assembly might move from an ordering comprising seating at the ambo for the Liturgy of the Word to standing around the altar during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is highly unlikely that anyone would wander with a chair back and forth between the altar and ambo, as these are not simultaneously the focus during the Eucharistic liturgy.

Types identified by Mary Patricia Storms and Paul Turner (2009)

The final series of types in this survey has been identified by Mary Patricia Storms and Paul Turner (2009, pp. 40-41). In their Guide for Ministers of Liturgical Environment they describe four layouts or types of church building: ‘basilica,’ ‘hall,’ ‘central,’ and ‘monastic’. They invite readers to think about the layout and style of their church building (fig. 5:36) and to consider its place in the history of liturgical architecture, prompting such reflection with a series of questions: Does it follow the basilica-style – a long, narrow rectangle with central aisle leading forward to the sanctuary? Does it have transepts? Perhaps the shape of your building is more square, like a large hall, but still with a central aisle leading toward a sanctuary at the far end? Or does your building follow a more central plan in which the nave takes a semicircular shape, with the assembly seated so that all face the sanctuary and multiple aisles lead toward it from outside? Or is the seating in your building … designed in a monastic style: the assembly sitting along two sides of the church with the altar, ambo, and presider’s chair in the centre? (Storms & Turner 2009, p. 40).

Illustration has Illustration has Illustration has Illustration has been been removed been removed due been removed removed due to due to to Copyright due to Copyright Copyright Copyright restrictions. restrictions. restrictions. restrictions.

BASILICA HALL CENTRAL MONASTIC

5:36 Mary Patricia Storms and Paul Turner, Plans showing liturgical ordering types, left to right, Basilica, Hall, Central and Monastic. Adapted from M.P. Storms & P. Turner, Guide for ministers of liturgical environment, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, 2009, p. 41.

241 Granted that Storms and Turner are providing a guide and not a comprehensive presentation on liturgical ordering, their descriptions and illustrations ought nevertheless to correspond. Nor do their descriptors reflect common, if not uniform, usage as has become evident in this survey of typologies. For example, common usage would describe the basilica as having a longitudinal layout. Basilicas are often not at all narrow, especially when the width of the nave is extended by two or more aisles at its sides. What can make the nave seem narrow is its length in relation to its width. In view of this the hall layout might well be considered a variation of the basilica. Further, the basilica is rarely represented with a cruciform plan; such plans are generally described as cruciform, cross-shaped and occasionally as gothic. The description of the central layout evokes the image of a fan or radial layout, whereas what is illustrated is a modified cruciform plan with a centralised layout. This constitutes a version of blended longitudinal and centralised plans as seen, for example, in St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Illustrations of a fan-shaped layout and of a centralised layout in a circular or geometrically similar building might have helped ensure clarity of description and image. The monastic layout is well described and illustrated.

Conclusions drawn from the typologies

Beginning with 1963, the year in which the Council promulgated the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, typologies of liturgical ordering have been identified and outlined in this chapter. The identified typologies manifest varying degrees of research, conceptual capacity and clarity, and architectural and liturgical knowledge. These approaches to classification of liturgical ordering, even when not conceived as such, demonstrate that typologies have become the accepted construct for discourse about the layout of churches. Typologies enable developments to be traced. They may be used to contrast different types of church layout so that the respective benefits and limitations may be considered. They are used to argue

242 that a particular type is superior to others and therefore preferable. Sometimes typologies simply describe what is observed. This survey of typologies has established that discourse about liturgical ordering is hindered by the lack of a common vocabulary. There is not yet a widely accepted typology of postconciliar liturgical ordering. Rather, there exists differing terminology, definitions, and types that overlap. Moreover, some who formulate typologies base their classifications or categories upon the earlier work of others. This has the affect of enhancing the use of descriptors of particular types but also of perpetuating reference to types that are too broadly defined or inadequately described. This survey of typologies has confirmed the conclusion of the previous chapter, that there are two basic types of liturgical space. These can be characterized as longitudinal and centralised. As has become apparent, these two basic types are known by many names which have their origins in different contexts. Most if not all of the new and adapted types of twentieth century liturgical ordering derive in some way from these two basic types, though some are the result of greater innovation than others. Grouped by common type or descriptor, these liturgical settings include: • the longitudinal, basilican, axial, processional, sociofugal or hall ordering; • the cruciform, cross-shaped, Greek-cross, Latin-cross or Gothic ordering; • the central, centralised, circular, concentric, sociopetal or polar ordering; • the antiphonal, monastic, communio, choral or choir ordering; • the U-shaped, eccentric or horseshoe ordering; • the fan-shaped, radial, auditorium, theatre or semicircular ordering; • the circumstantes, circumadstantes or elliptical ordering; and • the transverse, transversal, informe or juxtaposed ordering. Some of these orderings represent a blend of the two basic types of liturgical space. Each of the typologies treated of in this chapter includes at least some of the types of liturgical ordering identified in Australian Catholic churches. Yet

243 most of these typologies also reveal shortcomings: too few types are identified to constitute a detailed typology; descriptions and illustrations of types lack differentiation or are inconsistent; sets of types are incomplete; or types are particular to a country. Such limitations render typologies ill-suited to inform the selection of churches for case study. This is unsurprising: the typologies were formulated for different purposes, with none devised to portray the Australian context. A review of the surveyed typologies reveals that the types illustrated by Seasoltz (1963), Beard (1988), and Bergamo and Del Prete (1997) include the most identified types of postconciliar liturgical ordering in Australian Catholic churches. However, their classification and description of types does not comprehensively develop the characteristics and variations of these types. Similarly, the types mentioned and commented upon by Philippart (1999) incorporate most of the types identified in Australia. Yet despite insightful observations about some of these types, there is not enough data to constitute an Australia typology. It is thus clear that none of the typologies surveyed is ready-made for the Australian context. Nevertheless, the typology elaborated for Australia can draw upon and refine the types that have been described in these typologies. It can relate identified types to the orderings that have been most widely utilised in the design of postconciliar Australian Catholic churches. This typology will thereby build on existing observations and insights about types of liturgical ordering. By defining types anew, it will establish a typology particular to the Australian context.

A typology for the Australian context

Accordingly, the typology for the Australian context outlined here identifies six types of liturgical ordering. These types are the basilican, cruciform, centralised, antiphonal, U-arrayed and fan-arrayed orderings. The names chosen for the six types include both architectural and liturgical descriptors. This reflects

244 the denotation of the surveyed typologies, as well as frequency of usage. The relationship of the six types that comprise the Australian typology to the diverse types already identified in this chapter is tabulated in Appendix Five. Each of the six types is represented among the preconciliar churches described in Chapter Four and the postconciliar churches illustrated in Chapters Four and Five.

The basilican type

The basilican type (fig. 5:37) is characteristically constituted by the rectangular structure in which it is housed. It might also be called the longitudinally-arrayed type. A basilican church may be quite elongated or tend towards being squarer. The spatial arrangement is linear, strongly influenced by a dominant central axis. In this ordering, the sanctuary housing the altar, ambo and chair is located at one end of the church. Whereas in the past the sanctuary was commonly a separate space or ‘room’ defined by an apse or a chancel arch, contemporary basilican-plan churches tend to simply insert the sanctuary into one end of the orthogonal space. The place for the assembly is substantially determined by seating configured in straight rows facing the sanctuary. These rows extend from the sanctuary towards the main entrance at the opposite end of the church. The ordering of the present-day basilican type thus differs markedly from the ancient basilica, described in Chapter Three.

5:37 Basilican type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. Drawn by A. McCracken.

245 Unlike the cruciform plan, in the liturgical reordering of preconciliar basilican-plan churches there has not emerged a normative rearrangement. As already described, some basilican plan churches have been reconfigured to create a fan-arrayed space in which the sanctuary is placed along a side wall. Others have projected a narrow sanctuary into the front of the nave, with adjacent seating angled or antiphonal in arrangement. Others again have adapted the space to create as centralised a plan as possible. The basilican type as described for this Australian typology has an axial longitudinal arrangement. The basilican ordering creates an essentially processional church. Within the assembly, it conveys an image of the Church as a pilgrim people, united and journeying together towards the Lord. The basilican ordering also provides a heightened sense that the liturgical assembly is constituted hierarchically. As previously noted, the introduction of pews, beginning in the seventeenth century, fundamentally altered the freedom of the assembly to move within basilican-plan churches. Considered liturgically, the basilican ordering does not readily appear to foster the full, conscious and active participation of the assembly, with so frontal a liturgical focus. Those who continue to favour the basilican ordering perhaps do so more for historical, theological and symbolic reasons than to fulfil the conciliar injunction. Stroik (2009, pp. 85-86) argues for the suitability of the basilican ordering, ‘because the basilica type and the meanings it embodies are timeless and as relevant today as in previous ages.’ Similarly, Moyra Doorly (2007, p. 122) favours the reordering of churches already reordered following Vatican II, so that they ‘are restored to their original forms … to re-create a hierarchy of spaces’. Her convictions about postconciliar church design point to preconciliar basilican and cruciform-plan churches, in which there was a clear distinction between the sanctuary and nave, as being the ‘original forms’ she has in mind (Doorly 2007, pp. 47-62).

246 The cruciform type

The cruciform type (fig 5:38) describes a church which has in plan the shape of a Latin cross. It might also be called the cross-arrayed type. The cruciform spatial arrangement may be axial, centralised, or a blend of both. This depends on the dimensions of the nave, transept and crossing. In this ordering the liturgical action is centred upon a sanctuary situated in the crossing. The place for the assembly is arranged in the nave and transept, and occasionally in the apsidal end, so that people face the sanctuary from three, and sometimes four, sides. This spatial arrangement represents a shift from the customary preconciliar ordering of cruciform-plan churches, in which seating in the nave, aisles or side naves, and transept was oriented towards the liturgical east or sanctuary end. This was despite the fact that those seated in the aisles and transept usually faced side chapels, and often could not see the main altar or much of the sanctuary. In turn, this preconciliar ordering represents an earlier shift stemming from the seventeenth century, when seating began to be introduced into churches, thereby ordering the assembly into rows and limiting its movement during the liturgy.

5:38 Cruciform type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. Drawn by A. McCracken.

247 The change in the liturgical ordering of cruciform-plan churches, and the continuity inherent within this shift, is outlined by Alejandro Garcia-Rivera (2008, p. 2) in his description of the Cathedral of Metz in France: This church had two altars. One altar stood pressed against the Eastern wall of the cathedral. … This altar was meant to be a kind of horizon, a place where heaven and earth meet. This horizon was located at what would have been characterized as the “head” of the cathedral. When viewed from above the floor plan of the cathedral has the form of a cross. The pre-Vatican II altar is located where Jesus’ head would have hung in agony. The other altar, in contrast, was found on the centreline of the nave, near the intersection of the “arms” and the “body” of the cross. This intersection would have been characterized as the “heart” of the cathedral. It is located on the cross shape near where Jesus’ heart would have beaten until the last breath would be offered to the Father.

Garcia-Rivera (2008, p. 3) explores interpretations of the two altars, arguing that they are not adequately explained in terms of ‘before’ and ‘after’ Vatican II, but only in terms of ‘living continuity, a place where a memory comes alive and gives life, and life abundantly through a Beauty that takes form in the liturgy’. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to expound the ecclesiology implicit in the two altars. Nevertheless, it is noted here that the place of the preconciliar altar embodies a theology of the Church as the ‘body of Christ’, first enunciated by St Paul. The place of the postconciliar altar embodies a theology of the Church as ‘sacrament’ and ‘communio’, deriving from St John. Garcia-Rivera’s argument favouring a living continuity is consistent with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI regarding the relationship between Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Eucharistic liturgy in the Roman Rite. In his Motu proprio, Summorum pontificum, Benedict XVI (2007b, §1) teaches that: The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex Orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same ‘Lex Orandi’. … They are, in fact, two usages of the one Roman Rite.

The general instruction of the Roman missal (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §6) is even more explicit about the relationship between the preconciliar and postconciliar missals:

248 … both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected upon, it also becomes clear how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfilment in the new.

By inference, the same can be said of the continuity between the preconciliar and postconciliar altars described by Garcia-Rivera. The cruciform liturgical ordering described in this typology may thus be understood to be in continuity with, rather than a departure from, the preconciliar cruciform plan. The extent to which a church with the cruciform ordering fulfils the liturgical vision of Vatican II depends significantly upon its actual layout. For example, the place for the assembly in the nave and both sides of the transept can be designed with a degree of connection so as to foster a sense of the gathered assembly. Or the nave and transept can remain unconnected, effectively functioning as three distinct spaces. Like the basilican ordering, the cruciform plan can be well-suited to liturgical processions, and the length of the nave can similarly mean that some of the assembly are a distance from the altar. Reasons from iconography, symbolism and ecclesiology are proposed in support of the cruciform type. Bess (2006, pp. 145-146) holds that churches having a cruciform plan ‘look like’ churches; their processional character reinforces each person’s pilgrimage in faith; their shape configures the assembly as the ‘body of Christ’; and their plan is the best ‘fit’ between building-form and postconciliar ecclesiology, sacramental theology, and liturgy. This last assertion might not withstand scrutiny from any of the three named perspectives. The Council articulated a many-faceted ecclesiology enlivened by images of the Church, and the cruciform plan ‘fits’ with only some facets of this ecclesiology. Postconciliar sacramental theology has the paschal mystery as its foundation, with recognition of the cross as its core symbol, yet always leading beyond Christ’s death to his resurrection. Moreover, though the cross is a central liturgical symbol, reading a cross in plan is more readily accomplished than relating oneself bodily and spiritually to the shape and proportions of a cross-shaped building. The latter requires a heightened personal perception of symbolic identification (Leach 2002, pp. 211-214 & 219-224).

249 As noted earlier in this chapter, Bess offers a detailed description of the cruciform type liturgical ordering. He proposes: … The altar itself should be located at the “hottest” architectural spot in the church: at the crossing, the axis mundi connecting the sacred vertical with the mundane horizontal at the end of the Christian pilgrim’s procession … only slightly elevated, and that for visual purposes. … The ambo could be significantly elevated, as it is in many medieval churches, to underscore that the divine Word which dwelt among us nevertheless comes to us from on high. … The primary seating for the congregation (if the congregation sits) should be in the nave, with secondary seating in the transept. … The apse of the cruciform church plan can be used for both a smaller devotional chapel … and possibly even for traditional use by a choir. … the apse is also the proper location for the tabernacle … at the end of the horizontal axis that connects the entrance, the nave, the altar, and … the chair of the celebrant … (Bess 2006, pp. 146-147)

This proposal is informed by liturgical, architectural, symbolic, and historical convictions. It only selectively conforms to the conciliar imperative regarding church buildings, and to the principles and norms for church design enunciated in postconciliar pronouncements.

The centralised type

The centralised type (fig. 5:39), which might also be called the centrally- arrayed type, is typically found in churches that are circular, polygonal or square (Vosko 2006, p. 66). This liturgical ordering locates the liturgical focus at or near the centre of the church. The place for the assembly is arranged in a concentric pattern around the liturgical centre or sanctuary.

5:39 Centralised type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. Drawn by A. McCracken.

250 A vital consideration for the centralised ordering is whether the assembly completely surrounds the liturgical centre, or whether a segment of this space is left open. If the latter, this space may function as the place for the ambo, chair, tabernacle or baptismal font. It may be an unoccupied space that simply remains open, thereby evoking connection between liturgical celebration and life outside the liturgical setting. Or it may function as both a liturgical and an open space. Such an opening through the place for the assembly can create a horizontal axis, especially if there is a processional aisle on the same axis on the opposite side of the central altar. This horizontal emphasis contrasts with the vertical emphasis of a centralised space. The centre, generally beneath the apex of the , or otherwise above the altar, is usually perceived as constituting a vertical axis. This axis mundi or cosmic axis evokes a sense of the transcendent, linking earthly and heavenly realms, the human with the divine. In contrast, an assembly which completely surrounds the liturgical centre can be perceived as being too self- enclosed. The concerns of Benedict XVI in this regard were noted in Chapter Four. The open and closed manifestations of the centralised type are reviewed by Adams. He recognises the inclusiveness, common centre, wholeness, safety, and symbolic perfection of closed round liturgical spaces. With these attributes in mind, he asks, ‘Ought the church to gather in a configuration that suggests that we have arrived, that where we are is “perfect” or “complete”?’ (Adams 2002, p. 114). He thinks not, answering that, ‘Perfection and completion are properties peculiar to God, not to ourselves or our institutions’ (Adams 2002, pp. 114). He also draws attention to ‘the peril of exclusivity implicit in inclusivity’ (Adams 2002, p. 113). He considers ‘performance’ of the liturgy at its symbolic centres of altar/table, ambo, and font, ‘along with the ordering of the assembly’ (Adams 2002, p. 117). His concern here is with the engagement of the assembly in liturgical ‘performance’ through listening, seeing, and dialogue. Adams (2002, pp. 117-118) suggests that being placed behind the focal points of the liturgy is dislocating:

251 … if one is not within the sweep of the view of the presider, preacher, or , then one is not truly “there.” This ought to render the circle, fully enclosed, suspect and finally unacceptable for the liturgical assembly.

So he proposes a modified arrangement that is centralised but not a full circle. In this setting the ordering of the assembly remains open to the space beyond its circular configuration. With eccentric placement of the altar, ambo and presider, and with the baptismal font at the physical centre, two liturgical foci are created (Adams 2002, pp. 123-124). This proposal would seem to create a baptistery, with the Eucharistic liturgy a lesser consideration, rather than a setting designed primarily for celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. Adams (2002, p. 124) explains that the ‘broken’ circle signifies ‘imperfection’, a symbolism with which the Church community ought to be able to identify. Early use of the centralised type in twentieth century church design indicates that it was deemed well-suited for the active participation of the assembly in liturgical celebration. The suitability of this ordering as a model for the design of church buildings today is outlined by Vosko (2006, pp. 66-67), who asserts that: … this plan resonates best with the vision of the liturgy enunciated by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. By its very nature the circle symbolizes and fosters unity in the Body of Christ. It is also an archetype of the relationship between heaven and earth, God and creation. … … The circular plan invites participation and discourages spectatorship … There is no audience or stage. Dualistic notions of God and creation, heaven and earth, clergy and laity, are gone and relational notions are suggested. … The behaviour of the assembly during worship can be affected by the plan itself. Standing in a circle, all know they are vital to what is being done here. The Church is encountered as the body of believers, face to face.

The antiphonal type

The antiphonal type (fig. 5:40) is most often found in churches of a rectangular or elliptical shape. It might also be called the axially-arrayed type. The spatial arrangement is determined by a broad central axis that divides the church along its length or across its width. This axis constitutes the focus of liturgical enactment and becomes the sanctuary. The place for the assembly is arranged on either side of the broad axis, so that members of the assembly face

252 the sanctuary and, across the sanctuary, other members of the assembly. The antiphonal ordering can tend towards being centralised or linear, depending on the length of the axial sanctuary and placement of the sacred furnishings.

5:40. Antiphonal type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. Drawn by A. McCracken. Among postconciliar orderings the antiphonal type has regrettably become contentious. For example, the Guidelines for the building and renovation of churches of the Archdiocese of Chicago (2004, p. 2) state that, ‘An antiphonal seating arrangement, originally designed for monastic choirs, is not suitable for parish churches’. Though some may deem the gathering of the assembly in two distinct groups facing each other across the sanctuary to be unsuitable for the Eucharistic liturgy, all liturgical ordering spatially divides the assembly to some extent. Aisles create divisions within the assembly. So, too, do orderings in which the place for the assembly is arranged on two or more sides of the altar. It seems more likely that serious concerns about the antiphonal ordering have arisen due to variations in the arrangement of the sanctuary on the broad central axis, and how these arrangements are interpreted. As can be observed in the layout of a number of antiphonally-ordered churches (cf. fig. 4:31, fig. 5:5 & fig. 5:24), the altar is placed towards one end of the axial sanctuary and the ambo in a complementary place towards the other end. This arrangement might suggest a symbolic equivalence of altar and ambo that does not accord with Catholic liturgical tradition. Placing the ambo and altar

253 in equivalent places towards the ends of the axial sanctuary could lead to an erroneous understanding of the liturgy by implying that the proclamation of the Word and the offering of the Eucharist are equal, rather than complementary. In contrast, an antiphonal arrangement which places the altar at the centre of the axial sanctuary, with the ambo and chair towards either end, or with ambo and chair at one end and baptismal font at the other, manifests the altar’s pre-eminence (cf. fig. 4:10 & fig 6:9). This ordering ensures that the symbolic and functional significance of the altar are maintained. As Peter Williams (2009, p. 445) points out: The placement of the altar in the centre of the rectangular space acknowledges and reinforces that the altar is the primary symbol of Christ in the liturgical assembly. The altar represents the place of Eucharistic sacrifice as well as the table whereby the faithful will come to receive the “Bread of Life and the Cup of eternal Blessing”.

The success of the antiphonal ordering is tied to at least two factors additional to the suitable placement of the altar. The first of these factors is the length of the sanctuary in the principal axis and the ordering of the assembly along both of its sides. Where this principal axis is not too long, and especially if the seating is angled inwards at the ends of the space, a sense of the gathered assembly is evoked. This disposition of the assembly creates a centralising flow. In contrast, the sanctuary can seem excessively long if members of the assembly need to turn significantly from end to end to remain engaged in the liturgy. This disposition of the assembly creates a linear flow and can detract from any sense of being gathered. It can also compromise the spatial unity of the sanctuary. The second factor is the use of the antiphonal arrangement to its full potential in liturgical celebration. As Williams (2009, p. 445) concludes from the experience of celebrating the Church’s rites within the antiphonal setting of St Patrick’s Cathedral at Parramatta (New South Wales, Australia): The placement of the [chair] and the ambo at either end of the long expanse which in effect is a large sanctuary facilitates generous processional movements mandated at various points [during the liturgy] … The placement of the assembly in a stepped arrangement on either side of the sanctuary enables their focus to be on the ritual action and implies that ‘full, active and conscious participation’ is to be the goal of liturgical engagement … .

254 The U-arrayed type

The U-arrayed type (fig. 5:41) may be found in a church of any shape. The spatial arrangement conveys the impression of being centralised, though is rarely so. It is constituted by the placement of the sanctuary towards the open end of a curved or orthogonal U-shaped seating configuration. The place for the assembly enables people to face the sanctuary, and to see and hear other members of the assembly. Early use of this ordering mostly adopted an orthogonal arrangement. More recent use indicates a preference for the curved configuration.

5:41 U-arrayed type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. Drawn by A. McCracken. The suitability of the U-arrayed ordering for liturgical celebration is explained by Thomas Stehle. He observes that the ‘modified U-shape … corrects many of the problems of the more typical fan or circular arrangements’ (Stehle 1993, p. 5). Though he gives no further detail, a number of these problems have been identified in this chapter. Furthermore, what is true for fan and centralised orderings may also be true for the limitations or problems of cruciform and antiphonal orderings; the U-arrayed ordering might correct these as well. Stehle explains how the U-arrayed ordering creates a ‘successful hybrid of the two dominant ancient Christian forms - the central plan … and the basilican or longitudinal plan …’ (Stehle 1993, p. 5). The longitudinal form is realised along the processional axis created between the entrance and the altar. The central form is realised by the enclosing curve of the ‘U’ around the altar. This occurs

255 even though the altar is not at the physical centre of the church, but is towards the ‘head’ of the place for the assembly near the top of the ‘U’ (Stehle 1993, pp. 5-6). With this placement, the altar may be interpreted as simultaneously signifying centre and destination. Both of these meanings have been identified in the evolution of liturgical ordering. The U-arrayed liturgical ordering provides for a strong sense of the gathered assembly. At the same time it constitutes the assembly as hierarchically ordered. The arrangement of the place for the assembly supports its unity and fosters full, conscious and active participation. Spatial relationships within the U- arrayed setting encourage processional movement between the doors, altar, ambo, font, and place for the assembly. This liturgical ordering retains a sanctuary that is situated towards the front or ‘head’ of the church. The assembly can draw near to the altar to receive communion. The U-arrayed type offers a number of options for placement of the tabernacle and baptismal font. The open end of the U-shaped space, even though partly occupied by the sanctuary, conveys a sense that the assembly - and the liturgy it celebrates - is not complete unto itself. This bears out the teaching of the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium that, ‘the sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the Church’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §9). By conveying that there is something beyond the liturgical celebration, the open end of the U-arrayed ordering draws attention to the mission of the Church in the world.

The fan-arrayed type

The fan-arrayed type (fig. 5.42) is most often found in churches having a square, semicircular or crescent shape, but may also be found in rectangular and circular buildings. In square churches the sanctuary is normally located in one corner, with the assembly arranged in a radiating sweep of the 90° space. In semicircular, crescent-shaped and rectangular churches, the sanctuary is usually situated at the mid-point of the long side of the church, with the assembly arranged in a radiating sweep of up to 180°. Though arrayed in a fan-shape, this

256 liturgical ordering tends to be more linear in a square church and more centralising in a semicircular church.

5.42 Fan-arrayed type liturgical ordering, Schematic plans. Drawn by A. McCracken.

As DeSanctis (1993, p. 34) and Moran (2005, p. 7) both observe, in the decades following Vatican II the fan-arrayed ordering was popularly used in the design of Catholic churches. For many people it came to represent what they expected a postconciliar church to be like. This was as true in Australia as elsewhere. Churches are still being designed with the fan-arrayed plan; the nation’s newest cathedral, St Patrick’s at Bunbury in Western Australia, which opened in March 2011, has a fan-arrangement. The strengths of the fan-arrayed ordering have been clearly identified in the survey of typologies earlier in this chapter. This ordering offers a sense of the gathered assembly, though this is significantly influenced by the extent of its sweep. It draws the attention of the assembly to the sanctuary. It can provide good line of sight to altar, ambo and chair. It is well-suited for processions, though the scope of ceremonial movement is effectively determined by the placement and length of the aisles. As early as 1952, H.A Reinhold expressed a preference for the fan-arrayed ordering. He argued that the body of a church ought to be created from its ‘inner organs’ out, so as to fulfil ‘its essential purpose’, (Reinhold 1952, p. 5). He believed that the place for the assembly was between the two foci of baptismal font and altar, respectively signifying the beginning and end of the Christian

257 pilgrimage. He described a plan that would ‘bring the congregation close to the altar, bring the congregation close together, eliminate obstructions. The result would be a fan-shape or diamond shape,’ the latter nevertheless having a fan- arrayed ordering (Reinhold 1952, p. 6). The limitations of the fan-arrayed ordering have also been identified. As the fan-arrangement is commonly found in theatres, it is thought that in churches with this layout, members of the assembly may tend to become an ‘audience’ observing the liturgy rather than active participants in it. This is especially so if the seating is raked. Though intended to bring the assembly closer to the altar, the configuration of the place for the assembly generally provides the least seating nearest to the altar, and the most seating furthest from it. Having been widely utilised in church design during the decades following Vatican II, today the fan-arrayed ordering has in most instances been surpassed by other types of liturgical ordering. These types are deemed to better fulfil the conciliar imperative.

258 CHAPTER SIX

POSTCONCILIAR CHURCH DESIGN IN AUSTRALIA: SIX CASE STUDIES IN LITURGICAL ORDERING

The churches selected for case study are representative of the six types of liturgical ordering described at the end of Chapter Five. Each of these types has been identified in the design of numerous Australian Catholic churches since Vatican II. Other types which occur less frequently have been excluded. The six churches also incorporate design refinements for their respective types, which enhance their suitability for liturgical services. As noted in Chapter One, the six churches selected for case study are: • St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, for the basilican type; • St Joseph’s Church at Malvern, Victoria, for the cruciform type; • Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove, New South Wales, for the centralised type; • Our Lady of Fatima Church at Caringbah, New South Wales, for the antiphonal type; • St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy, New South Wales, for the U-arrayed type; and the • Church of St Michael and St John, Horsham, Victoria, for the fan-arrayed type. The case studies are essentially concerned with the ways in which and extent to which these six churches fulfil the conciliar injunction, ‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §124). Two elaborations of this injunction, outlined in Chapter Two, were developed for the purpose of evaluating these churches. The first elaboration consists of foundational liturgical principles which inform the conciliar injunction. These principles are: • Celebration of and participation in the paschal mystery; • Christ’s manifold presence in the Eucharistic liturgy;

259 • Liturgy as an action of Christ and the Church; • Full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful; and • Unity of the gathered assembly, hierarchically ordered. These principles do not admit of direct or consistent correlation with particular architectural attributes in church design. Rather, the foundational liturgical principles find expression in diverse design elements which are described for each case study insofar as they are evident in the selected church. Therefore, conclusions drawn from the evaluation of each church based on this first elaboration are reported with the more specific conclusions drawn from the evaluation of each church according to the criteria of the second elaboration. The second elaboration consists of liturgical enactment criteria which draw upon liturgical directives and rubrics. These directives and rubrics are summarised in Appendix Four. The criteria are: • Entry space: this space may be a portal or transitional space that serves as a threshold between secular and worship spaces. Or it may be a sequence of arrival, portal, gathering, hospitality and transitional spaces. Single or sequenced, entry space should accommodate liturgical welcoming and sprinkling rites as well as processional movement. • Processional space: this space serves as a ‘ceremonial path’ connecting the entry space and the altar (Habiger 1995, p. 5). Processional space should enable gracious ceremonial movement which avoids congestion of ministers through entry and ritual spaces and upon arrival at the altar. • Ritual space: this space provides for action by the whole assembly in the ministering of communion. It accommodates rites of sending out, such as the of catechumens and the departure of children for ‘their own liturgy of the word’ (Habiger 1995, p. 6). It is a locus for sacramental-liturgical enactment to which members of the assembly are called forth during such rites as Christian initiation, marriage, , and funerals. Ritual space should therefore be at or near the liturgical centre of the church, yet ‘not create a chasm between the assembly and the altar and/or ambo’ (Habiger 1995, p. 6).

260 Because it is intended for both communal and personal participation in significant moments of life, ritual space is described by Habiger (1995, p. 6) as the ‘place of intimacy’ and by Randall Lindstrom (interview, 4 August 2008) as a ‘place of honour’. • Assembly and music ministry spaces: these spaces facilitate the full, conscious, and active participation of the worshipping assembly and those who lead its singing. These related spaces should give the assembly a sense of being gathered together and to the altar, so as to engage corporately in enacting the liturgical rites. These spaces should foster unity, while simultaneously reflecting the hierarchical ordering of the liturgical assembly. • Sanctuary space: this space is the primary focus of liturgical enactment. It is centred on the altar, in relation to which are placed the ambo and chair for the priest celebrant, and sometimes the tabernacle of Eucharistic reservation. It should also accommodate priest concelebrants, deacons, and servers, or a place for them should be located nearby. Sanctuary space should provide for ease of processional and other ceremonial movement. Unimpeded sightlines and access from assembly and music ministry spaces are desirable. These liturgical enactment criteria allow for more structured reporting. In some case studies each criterion is treated discretely, even though the spaces described are interrelated. In the other case studies, two or more of the spaces identified by the liturgical enactment criteria significantly overlap. In these instances, the related criteria are treated as a single space fulfilling multiple liturgical purposes. Conclusions about each church and the liturgical ordering it represents are reported within the case studies. More general conclusions about liturgical ordering are reported after the sixth case study.

The Basilican Ordering: St Thomas Aquinas Church, Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory

St Thomas Aquinas Church is located at Charnwood in ’s north- western Belconnen district. Constructed of white masonry and roofed with red

261 concrete tiles, the architecture of this church employs a modernist vocabulary. Its design displays a preference for a domestic scale rather than monumentality, ‘like a house, a true home for all parishioners’ (Giurgola 2006, p. 35). St Thomas Aquinas Church is carefully designed and meticulously detailed. It is clear that the spatial composition of the interior is of utmost importance in the design, as are the intentional symbolism of the transitional sequence of entry spaces and the arrangement of the sanctuary, as can be seen in figure 6:1. The church is traditionally oriented, that is, facing east. Designed by an architectural team led by Romaldo Giurgola, then of Mitchell/Giurgola and Thorp, the church was officially opened and dedicated in 1989.

Entry space

Entry to the church is via a sequence of discrete spaces, which are all on the same level. The first space is an open court, with the presbytery to the west and church to the east. The perimeter of the court is defined by twelve columns fashioned in Tasmanian celery-top pine, their height approximating that of the nearest walls of the church and presbytery buildings. In the symbolism of the church design, Giurgola (1994, p. 4) explains that these twelve columns ‘make subtle reference to the Twelve Tribes of Israel’. A Scripturally literate person might also interpret these twelve columns as making reference to the twelve Apostles (Mark 3:14-19) or the twelve gates of the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:10-14). Giurgola (1994, p. 4) describes this court as establishing, the sacred ground of the Church to prepare in mind and spirit those who enter its walls, as well as creating a place for fellowship and the sharing of conversation following each Mass.

The twelve columns define the walled western side and the open north and south sides of the court. These open sides are parallel with the church’s side walls, guiding people to converging diagonal walls either side of the entrance and to the entry doors.

262

PLAN 1 Altar 2 Ambo 3 Chair 4 Place for the assembly 5 Baptismal font 6 Blessed Eucharistic chapel 7 Reconciliation chapel 8 Narthex 9 Open court 10 Toilet 11 Aisles 12 Sacristies 13 Music ministry 14 Devotional image

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

6:1 Romaldo Giurgola, St Thomas Aquinas Church, Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1994, Plan and sections, 2010. Drawn by A. McCracken.

263 The columns, with their intrinsic verticality, were designed as a defining architectural element of the entry court and narthex. Since commencing this case study, the entry court has been covered by a steel-framed shadecloth structure. Though clearly intended to shelter the parish community, covering the entry court with a tensioned membrane has fundamentally altered the experience of transition through the spaces by which one enters the church. The church’s timber doors open from the entry court into a square narthex. Its shape is further defined by an implied square formed by four more Tasmanian celery-top pine columns. These columns support the beams of a pyramidal timber vault and a , which fills the narthex with light. These design elements can be seen in plan and section in figure 6:1. This space has been described by Graham Jahn (1994, p. 79) as ‘an esonarthex, an [sic] kind of enclosed “antechurch” at the entrance.’ By implication the entry court therefore is a kind of exonarthex. On the columns are carved the names of the : Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Here the intended symbolism and experience becomes clearer: The Narthex is a place of transition: from the original Word of the , alluded to by unadorned pillars in the Entry Court, to the New Word proclaimed by the New Testament and its as symbolised by the Narthex’s four apostolic columns. This Narthex also makes a simple unobstructive connection back to the early Christian churches of Rome and Byzantium, where the transition from outside to inside was always made through a narthex porch which formed a quiet threshold to the nave (Giurgola 1994, p. 5).

In its height, the design of this narthex departs from the custom of the narthex being low-roofed and dimly lit to mark the transition from the profane to the sacred, from the open atrium into the loftier church space (Visser 2000, pp. 28-29). The design of the narthex in St Thomas Aquinas Church perhaps reflects contemporary redefinition of this space to include any interior entry or gathering space that functions as ‘a transitional space between the secular and the sacred and serves to buffer the nave from … the city street’ (Schloeder 1998, p. 138). Along the two enclosed sides of the narthex are sacristies, storage rooms and toilets, accessed via unobtrusive doors.

264 The narthex fulfils its function as a transitional space through which the faithful enter the church. From the flow which begins with the external converging diagonal walls, the narthex brings people together to form a liturgical assembly. The four columns aid this process, drawing people to walk through the centre rather than close to the side walls. Proceeding from the narthex into the church, an aisle traversing the back of the church is encountered. With a low ceiling and dim lighting, this space echoes what is traditionally experienced in a narthex. As figure 6:1 illustrates, though this part of the church is clearly designed to foster movement, at least twenty people can assemble in the narthex and rear cross-aisle for rites of welcome and sprinkling.

Processional space

As one moves into the church, the interior opens up. From the rear of the nave to the apsidal wall of the sanctuary, a timber-panelled ceiling and the roofline of the church rise continually at an incline of approximately 15°. From the same place at the rear of the nave, the floor is raked downwards towards the front of the sanctuary at an angle of approximately 2°. The effect of the ascending ceiling and descending floor is to draw people forward. A central aisle provides a strong link from the entrance, through the place for the assembly, to the sanctuary, which is clearly the processional destination. This processional aisle accommodates two persons walking side by side but no more. A procession with three ministers carrying cross and candles, or with a with pallbearers, would not proceed with ease. Indeed, the central processional aisle is no wider than the side-aisles, which provide mainly for circulation. These side-aisles retain low ceiling height the length of the church. Three sets of paired columns on each side of the church support the nave walls and side-aisle .

Ritual space

The space at the front of the nave, where the central aisle meets a front cross-aisle, is compact. The reconfiguring of pews, described below, has opened

265 this space up significantly, as can be seen in figure 6:1. Even so, processions of the assembly each Sunday for communion, and for the veneration of the cross on , places for a couple celebrating marriage, or for a coffin and the during a funeral, might fill this space. The sanctuary area, though wide, is shallow, providing relatively little space for ritual actions that might appropriately be celebrated in front of the altar.

Assembly and music ministry spaces

The place for the assembly, designed to accommodate 400, is almost square, such that the church does not seem long or narrow. Three crossbeams supporting the ceiling emphasise the width of the church. Following from the transition through the entry court and narthex, which brings people together and helps establish some sense of gathering, the final stage in this transition seems inconsequential. The church interior is visually engaging and draws people to move into the assembly space. Yet at this point the act of gathering becomes reduced to walking down the central aisle or behind the rear pews and down a side-aisle, and choosing where to sit. Originally the pews were configured in two blocks aligned in straight rows along either side of a central aisle, all facing the sanctuary. During the case study period, the pews were reconfigured to an angle of approximately 15° from the side aisles. This has resulted in a splayed ‘V’ arrangement along the central aisle, which can be seen in figure 6:2. Being angled on a raked floor has resulted in a slight slope of the pew seating, from the centre to the side-aisles. This reconfiguring of the place for the assembly gives its members a stronger sense of being gathered with one another. Parishioners on the other side of the church are glimpsed more readily than was possible in the original configuration. However, the vertical pew ends continue to create a physical and visual barrier between people sitting across the centre aisle from each other. The revised seating configuration focuses the attention of the assembly towards the centre of the sanctuary where the altar, ambo and chair are placed, as is shown in figure

266 6:1. This heightens participation in the Eucharistic liturgy. These relatively minor modifications disclose the primacy of the liturgy in ordering the space. Participation is aided by sound amplification using speakers discretely located in the ceiling above the place for the assembly.

6:2 Romaldo Giurgola, St Thomas Aquinas Church, Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1989, Photograph showing place of the assembly with angled seating either side of principal aisle, 2010. Photograph by S. Hackett.

The place for the assembly is defined by a northern wall of solid masonry, pierced only by a small oculus of coloured glass. The south wall to the height of the side-aisle ceiling comprises framed glass windows. These overlook a rectangular cloister enclosing a courtyard. Mosaic Stations of the Cross are arranged along the cloister’s side walls, providing for processional movement in the practice of this devotion. Though the cloister does not fulfil the traditional role of linking religious buildings which have different functions, it nevertheless evokes a Catholic tradition that links the church building with creation and nature in a garden setting. The courtyard has been planted with indigenous flora. Light enters the place for the assembly through the windows of the southern wall. There are also windows at the rear of the side-aisles. These windows filter natural light. The northern side of the church and particularly the side-aisle, being effectively without windows, is noticeably darker than the southern side. Sixteen lamps are suspended from the ceiling in a pattern of four

267 by four to provide artificial illumination. These lamps are covered by fabric shades fitted to delicate steel frames. They have been designed with a strong geometric form, predominantly vertical with horizontal flanges on the lower edge. Plain red near the hem of these shades echo the motif of the sanctuary window. A small space in the north-east corner of the nave and side-aisle is given over to music ministry. In this location singers and musicians are clearly one with the assembly. Sound is projected into the place for the assembly and can be heard in the sanctuary. There is easy access for a cantor to approach the ambo, which is on the same side of the church. A baby grand piano has been placed in the adjacent baptistery, partly screened from the assembly by a potted plant. It is not evident from the original plan of the church whether it was intended that music ministry function in this space. However, placement of a substantial musical instrument so proximate to the font is less than desirable. It may indicate inadequate spatial provision for music ministry. While it is not uncommon to find that the space required for choir and musicians has been underestimated, this poses a particular problem for the basilican ordering. In earlier epochs, when most churches were designed with a basilican or cruciform plan, the choir was originally located between the altar and assembly, as illustrated in Chapter Three. In recent centuries the preference in churches with this ordering was to locate the organ and choir in a gallery above the narthex. This location no longer fulfils the liturgical norms for music ministry. These norms require that the place for the choir be designed so that it may fulfil its function, be part of the gathered assembly, and enable those serving in music ministry to participate fully in the liturgy. Yet there is not an obvious place for choir and musicians that is integral to the place for the assembly in present-day basilican churches. Providing adequately for music ministry may ultimately require further reconfiguration of the place for the assembly, or substantial reordering the church, so that singers and musicians have enough space in which to exercise their ministry.

268 Sanctuary space

The sanctuary is composed of three zones across the width of the church, as can be seen in figures 6:1 and 6:3. Architecturally, these zones are defined by floor level, wall height and sanctuary depth. Liturgically, these zones are defined by ritual and devotional usage. The central zone comprises the setting for the Eucharistic liturgy. The baptistery is on its northern side. The Blessed Eucharist chapel is to the south. Jahn (1994, p. 79) notes that, … each of the three functions [the Eucharistic liturgy, baptism, and Eucharistic reservation] is expressed in different architectural terms, clearly articulated on the external face of the building as a cross, a quadrant, and a shelter respectively.

6:3 Romaldo Giurgola, St Thomas Aquinas Church, Charnwood, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 1989, Photograph showing angled assembly seating; principal aisle; and sanctuary at front with three zones: baptistery at left; Blessed Eucharistic chapel at right; and ambo, altar and chair at centre, 2010. Photograph by J. Walker.

The central zone of the sanctuary is elevated by two steps. The altar is at the centre, in line with the processional aisle, the ambo is to the north of the altar and the chair to the south. This arrangement can be seen in figures 6:1 and 6:3. Earlier photographs show ambo and chair on opposite sides (Jahn 1994, p. 78). These three sacred furnishings are finely crafted in Huon pine and Tasmanian myrtle. The altar is rectangular in shape and table-like in appearance, emphasising the meal dimension more than the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharistic liturgy. While beautifully designed and crafted, it does not convey the

269 permanence and symbolism customarily associated with the altar as the pre- eminent architectural symbol of Christ. The chair is substantial and functional, with a solid back and open sides. It is clearly the place from which a priest presides over the assembly and directs the prayer. However, there is nothing particular about where the chair is placed to facilitate the priest’s ministry or to unite him with the assembly. The ambo is tall and quite narrow. It has a dominant vertical emphasis that does not harmonise with the horizontal emphases of the altar, chair, and font in the adjacent baptistery. Though these sacred furnishings are clearly related to each other, the way they are placed closely together in a row at the same elevation indicates little differentiation between them. Only their arrangement across the sanctuary, with the altar at the centre, suggests its greater importance. Behind the altar is a soaring white-painted brick wall. It features a cross in glass which encompasses the height and width of the wall, as can be seen in figure 6:3. Crafted in transparent glass, the crossing of the vertical and horizontal lines of this cross is highlighted by a motif of five crosses in red glass. These may be interpreted as representing the five wounds of the crucified body of Jesus. This imagery has rich symbolic meaning in the Catholic tradition, including the ‘birth’ of the Church from Christ’s side, the blood and water flowing from his side as the source of sacramental life, and prophetic fulfilment of Christ’s wounds bringing healing to humanity. Given the non-figurative representation of the five wounds in the window, it might require liturgical catechesis for this sign to become perceptible to those who look upon it. Though of simple design, the effect of light passing through the cruciform window evokes a sense of mystery, of God who is eternally beyond as well as ever present. The narrow vertical windows in the adjacent north and south walls, and a broad skylight above the central sanctuary, enhance the sense of mystery through the play of light and shadow on the white walls. The incorporation of a sacristy behind the baptistery on the north side, and the design of the place of Eucharistic reservation on the south side, creates a broad recess in the central

270 zone. This recess evokes the traditional apse of a church. Its depth, though slight, adds prominence to the ambo, altar and chair. At the base of this apsidal wall is a bench built in brick to blend in with the surrounding walls. This bench is at seat- height for much of its length, and built higher at the south end to serve as a credence table for liturgical requisites. The baptistery is shallower than the other sanctuary zones, due to the aforementioned work sacristy. The walls rise to full ceiling height. The floor is elevated by a single step. Though presumably designed like this to aid visual participation in celebrations of baptism, this elevation removes the font from the level of the assembly. Doing so risks losing something of the sense of baptism as the sacrament of the entire Christian community, which all its members, the whole ‘body of Christ’, have in common. This observation does not indicate an insurmountable obstacle. It simply draws attention the relationship between the assembly and the font, and points to an interpretation of the baptistery that was probably unintended in the design. Linking the font by place and elevation to the sanctuary can associate it too closely to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained, whose ministry is identified with the sanctuary. The sense of baptism as the sacrament of the common priesthood of all the faithful, lay and ordained, may thereby be diminished. The baptistery might have achieved an appropriate prominence if sightlines had been ensured by font design, perhaps including a step immediately beneath the font, rather than by floor elevation throughout this zone. A comparable arrangement has been successful in the Blessed Eucharist chapel across the church. The baptismal font is crafted in the same timbers as the other sanctuary furnishings, with a ceramic bowl for the water. This font is designed for baptism by infusion, that is, by pouring of water. The rear baptistery wall incorporates a deeply recessed stained glass window portraying ‘baptismal elements of the River Jordan and descent of the ’ (Giurgola 1994, p. 5). Though the baptistery is spacious, the presence of the baby grand piano clutters the space and dominates the font, which has been pushed close to the baptistery wall and

271 nearer to the ambo, as can be seen in figure 6:1. If the font was placed at the centre of the baptistery without anything else in this space, its presence and symbolism would be suitably honoured. Participants in the rite of baptism could then be accommodated around the font, whether celebrated apart from or during the Eucharistic liturgy. The small Blessed Eucharist chapel features the only curved wall in the church. The Eucharist is reserved in a tabernacle fixed to a ledge at the end of a glazed ceramic wall, which protrudes into the chapel from the south wall. The chapel has the same floor level as the front of the nave. The height of this zone is about two thirds that of the rest of the sanctuary. Much of this height is hidden by a brick curtain-wall that rises above a broad rectangular entrance to the chapel. The curtain-wall incorporates a large circular opening which, together with a narrow window in the corner, provides natural light. It was intended that this light and the way it falls upon the white walls of the chapel create a sense of transcendence (Giurgola 1994, p. 5). A small statue has been placed against the curved wall across from the tabernacle. Though the chapel is a devotional space, the addition of a statue interrupts the subtle curve of the wall and the way the wall otherwise guides attention towards the tabernacle. The chapel might best have been kept exclusively for Eucharistic reservation, and places for devotional images sought elsewhere in the church. In this regard, it is noted that churches designed in the decades following the Council often made less provision for devotional images than has been the case since. As a consequence, the liturgical setting and simple beauty of a number of churches have been compromised by the later addition of devotional images. In some instances, unsuitable placement and dubious quality have meant that these images do not adequately fulfil their purpose. The symbolism of the three sanctuary zones is described by Giurgola (1994, p. 5) as representing the Trinity and reflecting the most important parts of the liturgy. If this means only that the three identifiable zones of the sanctuary represent the belief of the Church that God is a Trinity of persons, Father, Son

272 and Holy Spirit, each active in the Church’s liturgical celebration, then this symbolism is straightforward. However, if each zone signifies one of the Persons of the Trinity, the meaning is less apparent. It could be said, for example, that the baptistery signifies the Holy Spirit, because it is through baptism that the Holy Spirit is first received. As well, the Holy Spirit is imaged in the baptistery window. The Blessed Eucharist chapel could only be taken as signifying the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ, whose risen body in the form of bread is reserved in the tabernacle. The central zone would then signify the Father. Insofar as the Eucharistic prayer is addressed to the Father and the Eucharistic sacrifice offered to the Father, this is plausible. However, there is no architectural or liturgical image representing the First Person of the Trinity in this zone. Further, to hold the celebration of baptism and the Eucharist as ‘the most important parts of the liturgy’ is faithful to Catholic tradition, but the tabernacle does not fulfil a liturgical function. Rather, its purpose flows from the Eucharistic liturgy. The Church reserves the Eucharist for communion of the sick and dying and for prayerful adoration, which occur outside of the liturgy. The place of the tabernacle in its chapel, related to, yet separate from the altar, shows this quite clearly.

Further observations

As an example of contemporary basilican ordering, St Thomas Aquinas Church reflects many of the reservations that were expressed about this layout in Chapter Five. Being neither large nor long, it is spared the problem of members of the assembly being remote from the sanctuary. Indeed, with the place for the assembly almost square in shape, the width of the church further ensures that no-one is distant from the sanctuary. The reconfiguring of the pews has affirmed the essential role of the assembly in the liturgy, enhancing its sense of being gathered and providing increased potential for participation. However, these improvements remain relative to its frontal ordering, when contrasted

273 with churches which have been designed to foster the full, conscious, and active participation of the gathered assembly. The limitations of the basilican ordering as revealed in St Thomas Aquinas Church perhaps indicate that its ordering was informed by a preconceived idea of how the interior of a church should be ordered. Suitability for the celebration of liturgical services may have originally been understood only in terms of such a preconception. This is not to say that the Church’s liturgical rites cannot be celebrated reverently in a church having the basilican ordering, only that the stated priorities of the Council in the reform and promotion of the liturgy may be more difficult to realise in this arrangement. Here the perspective of history helps. As noted in Chapter Three, the basilican church was never intended to have pews. Liturgical praxis indicates that, as initially designed, the basilican church was well-suited to liturgical celebration and participation. During the liturgy the assembly could move within the basilica, which also provided for ceremonial gesture and processions. St Thomas Aquinas Church further reveals some of the limitations that may be identified in basilican plan churches built during the postconciliar era. One limitation indicated in St Thomas Church, which is of concern in many basilican churches, is the provision of a place for music ministry. It is difficult to place singers and musicians so that that can lead the assembly in song while remaining one with the assembly. Another limitation arises from the relocation of the baptismal font from its traditional place at or near the entrance to the church to a place in or adjacent to the sanctuary. Other than placing the font in the midst of the assembly, in or adjacent to the central aisle, the only place for the font is at the front. As already observed, removing the font from the assembly and incorporating it within the sanctuary risks disenfranchising the members of the assembly from the primary symbol of their common baptismal priesthood. Placing the font in or near the sanctuary further emphasises the front of the church and concentrates the important liturgical actions and symbols there. Given that the sense of the gathered assembly is already limited by the

274 ordering of the assembly in rows of pews facing the sanctuary, placing the font at the front may enhance visual participation, but achieve little more. When font, ambo, altar, chair, and tabernacle are aligned across the front of a church, the result can be diminishment rather than strengthening of their symbolic and functional qualities. Each sacred furnishing needs to stand in its own right if it is to express its symbolism and fulfil its function. This is why, for example, the Church does not use one long table on which baptism is celebrated in a bowl of water, the Scriptures are proclaimed, and bread and wine consecrated. Instead the Church sets aside a font for baptism, an ambo for the and Book of Gospels, and an altar for bread and wine. Crowding symbols attenuates symbolism.

The Church as pilgrim people of God

The ecclesiology that best corresponds with the basilican ordering is of the pilgrim Church. This is manifested in the spatial flow by which all are journeying in a single direction towards the fulfilment of faith in Jesus Christ. This theology of Church, taught in the Dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, highlights the celebration of the liturgy by the whole body of Christ, ‘the pilgrim Church in her sacraments and institutions, which pertain to this present time …’ and those who ‘… have been received into their heavenly home and are present to the Lord’ (Vatican Council II 1964, §48 & 49). This theology of the pilgrim Church is served well by design elements which foster a spirit of journey and evoke a sense of moving together in a single direction. At St Thomas Aquinas Church, the sequence of entry spaces, and the effective way in which the diagonal walls of the court and the four columns in the narthex channel the people together, help create the sense of being a pilgrim people. The opening in the apsidal wall featuring a glazed cross symbolically leads the assembly beyond the celebration of the liturgy in time and place to what is beyond, namely the Church’s destiny in Christ and the celebration of the eternal liturgy.

275 The Cruciform Ordering: St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria

St Joseph’s Church is located at Malvern, an older south-eastern suburb of Melbourne. Built in 1908 and facing north, the church is of Romanesque revival style. It is constructed of red brick with white detailing, and is roofed in grey slate. Photographs reveal that St Joseph’s Church underwent occasional interior change prior to Vatican II. A first postconciliar liturgical reordering was undertaken in 1972. A second reordering was undertaken in 2006, with Graeme Law of the architectural practice, Graeme Law and Associates, as the principal architect. The liturgical arrangement of the church consequent upon this second reordering, which can be seen in figure 6:4, is evaluated in this case study. In the second reordering, the architecture of the early twentieth century has been carefully blended with a liturgical ordering of the early twenty-first century (O’Sullivan & O’Sullivan 2007, p. 1). By virtue of its style, a significant architectural element used throughout the church is the circle, particularly in the form of an arch. The circle and arch are used in the design of doorways, windows, and ornament. Within the church, broad arches connect the nave, transept, chapels and alcoves. The ceiling is designed as a basket-handle arch, thereby accentuating the width of the nave and sanctuary (Ching 1995, p. 14). The circle, already prominent in the design of St Joseph’s Church, has been used again in its liturgical reordering. In the course of the building’s history, the ornamentation of the church interior has sometimes been detailed in polychrome finishes. An investigation of the original painting scheme revealed a monochrome finish. This scheme was reinstated in the 2006 reordering, complementing a small range of colours and natural materials specific to the reordering. The interior walls are painted off- white, excepting the apsidal wall, which is painted a shade of gold. There is minimal use of colours to highlight selected ornamentation. Wood and stone have been used for the sacred furnishings and wood for assembly seating. Lesser new use has been made of glass and plasterboard.

276

PLAN 1 Altar 2 Ambo 3 Chair 4 Place for the assembly 5 Baptismal font 6 Blessed Eucharistic chapel 7 Reconciliation chapel 8 Narthex 9 Gathering space 10 Toilet 11 Aisles 12 Sacristies 13 Music ministry 14 Devotional shrines 15 Meeting rooms

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

6:4 Graeme Law, St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria, Australia, (1908) Reordered 2006, Plan and sections, 2010. Drawn by A. McCracken.

277 Entry space

Prior to the 2006 reordering, five entrances to the church were in use. Two of these have been retained and the others closed, as indicated in figure 6:4. Up seven steps from a paved drive, the main doors of the church lead into a and, via its curving glass wall, into the south-east corner of the nave. Around the corner of the church, a ramp for those with a disability, and adjacent steps, lead via the south-east tower vestibule into the same corner of the nave. This corner is an approximately square space formed by the wall of the church, and the walls and doorways of the two vestibules. The fourth side of this space is open to the nave. The original choir gallery above gives this square space a low ceiling. The space is adorned by an of St Joseph. This entry space between the two vestibules fulfils something of the purpose of a narthex. It creates a single entry into the church from two portals and serves as a place of transition as people enter. It is well suited to ceremonial use. Moving into the church, the rear of the nave is unfurnished, as can be seen in figure 6:4. It is a place for gathering and hospitality. Being fully open to the church, it is ideal for rites of welcome and sprinkling which are celebrated at the entrance. With the vesting sacristy located in the south-west corner of the church, this space provides well for the forming up processions. It could also provide for overflow seating if needed.

Processional space

The open space at the rear of the nave leads into to the processional aisle, at the beginning of which is the baptismal font. The font is fashioned in granite and flows with living water, emphasising the new life that is given in baptism. Being a bowl rather than pool, the font is suited to baptism by infusion. Centred at the beginning of the aisle, the font highlights baptism as the primary sacrament of initiation into the community of the Church. Members of the assembly are invited to sign themselves with water from the font as they gather.

278 This gesture calls to mind their own baptism and reminds them of their dignity as a baptised people. At its beginning, the central processional aisle is almost 5 metres wide, which facilitates ease of movement around the font. Towards the mid-point of its length, the aisle narrows in a funnel effect, to a width of 1.5 metres. This is just wide enough for cross and candle-bearers, or for a coffin and pall-bearers. The aisle widens towards the front, in a curve that merges with the sanctuary steps and traces the arc of the almost circular sanctuary. The overall impression is of a processional way defined by a pair of sweeping inverse curves. As it narrows, the aisle draws the assembly towards the sanctuary, while simultaneously drawing the assembly together across its width. The design of the aisle creates strong visual directionality from the font to the altar, as can be seen in figure 6:5. The central processional aisle and the sanctuary are finished in blue-gum parquetry, with edges neatly defined in ironbark. As the shape of the sanctuary effectively defines the other liturgical spaces, it will be examined next.

6:5 Graeme Law, St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria, Australia, (1908) Reordered 2006, Photograph from gathering space showing curving principal aisle, uniting the assembly and linking the font in centre foreground with the altar in the sanctuary, 2010. Photograph by S. Hackett.

279 Sanctuary space

The use of the curve on the horizontal plane continues from the centre aisle around the sanctuary, here echoing the semicircular arch which is used throughout the church. The sanctuary has the shape of an elongated circle, that is, two semicircles with a band .9 metres wide linking them, as can be seen in figure 6:4. The rear semicircle sits within space occupied by the original 1908 sanctuary. The front semicircle projects about two thirds of the way into the crossing, though its circular form means that the sanctuary occupies less than half the area of the crossing. The sanctuary is spacious and is elevated by two steps. As multiple elevations help differentiate sanctuary space and aid line-of- sight, different elevations could have been used effectively in the design of the sanctuary. There is a risk in designing a sanctuary as a large single-level platform, that it can evoke a sense of performance space rather than liturgical space. This is not a concern in St Joseph’s Church, as the sanctuary elevation is low enough to avoid resembling a stage and is freestanding. A higher platform placed against a rear wall might appear more stage-like. The deep and wide sanctuary accommodates the altar, ambo and chair. Each of these sacred furnishings has its own place within the sanctuary, ensuring appropriate distinction for each, while retaining unity between them. Different configurations of altar, ambo and chair within the sanctuary were experimented with using the previous circular sanctuary from the 1972 reordering. A decision was made about the preferred arrangement for the 2006 reordering and duly incorporated into the plan (Brian O’Sullivan, interview, 23 July 2008). The squarish altar is crafted in laminated Jarrah, solid and substantial in appearance, and placed just into the front semicircle of the sanctuary. The use of the curve is repeated in the base of the altar, which curves out from a central square base to a broad square mensa, the underside of which is similarly curved. The mensa evokes sacrifice and its tapering base evokes a table. It thereby highlights both sacrificial and meal dimensions of the Eucharistic liturgy. The

280 altar is clearly intended to be the primary focus in the church and, situated in an almost circular sanctuary, the centre around which the assembly gathers. The ambo, like the altar, is crafted from laminated Jarrah and comprises a square vertical pillar with an angled lectern positioned at the top. It is placed on the band that links the semicircular front and rear of the sanctuary. The height of the pillar base of the ambo is visually pleasing in relation to the height of the altar. Though solid in structure, the ambo appears small in contrast even with the square base of the altar. Considerably refined from a more monumental ambo designed by the architect for another church, this ambo appears perhaps too inconspicuous. The use of a larger square in the base pillar, or a larger lectern, might have heightened the significance given by the ambo to the Word, without competing with or diminishing the altar. The placement of the ambo relatively close to the western edge of the sanctuary further lessens its presence. This might have the effect of diminishing the significance of the proclamation and preaching of the Scriptures. In contrast, the chair for the priest celebrant, also crafted in laminated Jarrah, has prominence within the sanctuary simply by virtue of its design. The chair clearly represents the place and role of the priest presiding and leading the prayer during the liturgy. Like the ambo, the chair is placed upon the narrow band linking the semicircles that make up the sanctuary, but further from the sanctuary edge and nearer the altar. It has been noted that the design process included experimentation with different configurations of altar, ambo and chair in the previous sanctuary. The present arrangement is the outcome of this process. While respecting the intentions of this process, the chair might have been just as well or even better placed behind the altar, in the centre of the rear semicircle of the sanctuary, perhaps elevated by a single step. Such placement might better unify the gathered assembly than does placing the chair slightly back and to one side of the altar. Doing so would also make use of the rear half of the sanctuary. A stand for the paschal candle, used at the ambo during the Easter season and at the

281 head of a coffin during a funeral, but otherwise at the baptismal font, is beautifully designed and crafted in the same timber as the sanctuary furnishings. A stylised crucifix is suspended in the alcove which once housed the principal altar. The central placement of this crucifix has been determined by the spring-point of the original sanctuary arch. Its corpus, cast in bronze, hangs from a solitary horizontal beam. One wrist is nailed to this wooden beam while the other has broken free and reaches up, a sign of Christ’s resurrection. At the same time, ‘the face of Christ looks at the congregation and confronts them with the reality of the crucifixion’ (O’Sullivan & O’Sullivan 2007, p. 9). The imagery of this striking crucifix, and its reference to the paschal mystery and the Eucharist, are clearly signified and readily perceived.

Ritual space

The space provided in and around the sanctuary as well as at the baptismal font meets the requirements of the liturgical rites. The font is in the midst of the assembly, thereby highlighting the priesthood of all the baptised. Water from the font could easily be used to sprinkle a coffin at the beginning of a funeral. The widening processional aisle and the space between the front of assembly seating and the sanctuary steps will accommodate the ritual requirements of the liturgical rites. As is evident in figure 6:4, the arc of assembly seating, tracing the front of the sanctuary, would suggest that participants in rites celebrated in this space might best be gathered around the sanctuary rather than only in front of it at the head of the processional aisle. There is also space at the front and rear of the sanctuary, and again behind the sanctuary, for use as required in the liturgical rites. Gaps between the sides of the sanctuary and the side walls allow parishioners access to the space behind the sanctuary and to the adjacent transept chapels, without needing to enter the sanctuary. The step up to the level of the space beside and behind the sanctuary and chapels might better have been ramped to provide access for persons with disability.

282 Assembly and music ministry spaces

The semicircular curve is also used in the ordering of the place of the assembly, which accommodates 300 – 350 worshippers. As has been observed a number of times, cruciform plan churches with the sanctuary located in the crossing, often have nave and transept seating for the assembly configured in three distinct spaces, even though all face the sanctuary. This was the situation that resulted from the 1972 reordering of St Joseph’s Church. It was not to be repeated in 2006. Among the successes of this liturgical reordering has been the arrangement of short straight pews - and chairs in the front row of the nave - as if in a continuous curve around the semicircular front of the sanctuary. This has created continuity between nave and transept seating. The participation of the assembly is enhanced by its unity and a strong sense of being gathered around the altar, as can be seen in the arrangement of assembly seating shown in figure 6:6. Participation is further aided by sound amplification through a system of inconspicuous wall-mounted speakers.

6:6 Graeme Law, St Joseph’s Church, Malvern, Victoria, Australia, (1908) Reordered 2006, Photograph from rear of the sanctuary showing curving assembly seating connecting nave and transept; also rear view of chair, altar and ambo in foreground, 2010. Photograph by S. Hackett.

The connection across aisles between pews in the continuous curve is enhanced by the ends of the pews being open, in contrast with the barrier

283 formed by pew-ends. By setting the circular front of the sanctuary further back into the crossing in the 2006 reordering than it had been in the 1972 reordering, space was created for the continuous curve of seating. The architect noted that a slightly smaller sanctuary would have allowed even more gathered seating in the curved configuration (Graeme Law, interview, 22 July 2008). The nave floor is raked from the entry to the front at a slope of 5°. This aids sightlines where the assembly space contains the most seating. The smooth, sweeping curves which describe the central processional aisle, in conjunction with the raked floor, draws the vision and movement of the assembly towards the sanctuary. The tapering pattern created by the succession of pews along the processional aisle adds to this effect. The sequence of nave windows, decorative mouldings, and Stations of the Cross, which give the appearance of becoming higher as the floor level declines, also leads the eye forward. Some seating in the west transept is allocated to singers and musicians. In a cruciform plan church the transept is well-suited as the place for music ministry. It is preferable to the choir gallery at the rear of the nave. In the transept, musicians and singers are clearly integral to the assembly and able to participate in the liturgy. A cantor can easily approach the ambo, which is on the same side of the church. Sound is projected into the nave and across the sanctuary into the east transept. Since the 2006 reordering, the place for the organ and electric keyboard, and consequently for some pews, has been reconfigured. This means that the arrangement of seating in the west transept no longer mirrors the seating arrangement in the east transept. Nevertheless, the continuous curve of seating from the nave into the transept, and the intended ordering of the gathered assembly, has been retained. This ordering of the place for the assembly might be read as a variation of a fan-shaped layout, but the interruption to the curve of the pews by walls at the corners of the crossing, and the greater depth of seating in the nave, negate any semblance of the typical fan layout. Moreover, beyond the nave and transept the depth of space in the rear half of the sanctuary and to the apsidal wall conveys

284 the form of a cross, even if assembly seating is not arranged in strict conformity with it. Within the acknowledged limitations of a cruciform plan church, the use of the curving circular form in the liturgical reordering of St Joseph’s Church fosters the unity of the entire assembly and promotes the participation of all in the liturgical celebration. The 2006 reordering has achieved harmony between this existing architectural form and the liturgy. Indeed, clever use of the curving circular form on the horizontal plane highlights the primacy accorded the liturgy in the present design. A number of other spaces open from the assembly and music ministry spaces. A chapel for reservation of the Eucharist is located adjacent to the east transept and the sanctuary. Internal access to the chapel is via an arch from the rear sanctuary space. External access is through a side door. The tabernacle is atop a marble and timber plinth, centred beneath an arch that defines the chapel as separate from the transept. The tabernacle plinth is aligned with planters on each side and with columns that form part of the arch structure. This setting discourages direct access from the transept. A lamp hangs above the tabernacle to honour the . Though it is not the assembly’s focus during liturgical celebration, the tabernacle is readily seen from much of the church. The arch and suspended lamp draw attention to the presence of the tabernacle beneath. A statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, devotion to whom under this title is associated with the Eucharist, stands between windows in the east wall. Within the chapel three chairs face the tabernacle for use by those who come to pray. This means they also face the transept beyond. Those who choose to gather in the east transept during the celebration of the liturgy do so with the tabernacle beside or partially behind them. Placement of the tabernacle in the centre of the chapel, instead of beneath the arch, would have given it slightly less visibility from the place of the assembly, but not necessarily any less prominence. Seating could have been arranged to offer those who come to pray two or three different orientations within the chapel space. This alternative placement would have allowed for access from the transept as well as via the

285 rear sanctuary space and external door. The lamp could still have hung from the centre of the arch. Placement of the tabernacle against the eastern or northern walls of the chapel would have worked less well, due to the location of the door providing external access. In an alcove opposite the chapel across the transept, the sacred oils are reserved in an ambry fashioned from the same materials as the tabernacle plinth. Often an ambry containing the sacred oils is located proximate to the baptistery or font, as two of the three sacred oils are used in the rite of baptism. In St Joseph’s Church, a preference has been made for using the east transept chapel and alcove for reservation, the chapel for the Blessed Eucharist and the alcove for the sacred oils. The oils would be taken from the ambry to the places in the church where the sacramental rites are celebrated, such as at the font for baptism or at the sanctuary for the confirmation and anointing of the sick. Adjacent to the sanctuary and west transept is a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. A statue of Our Lady of the faces into the chapel from between windows in the west wall. Prie dieu and chairs are provided for those who come to pray. The chapel is large, so during the Eucharistic liturgy when people ought not to be visiting the chapel for devotional purposes, it is used for young children to quietly play. In the alcove across the transept a ‘mission cross’, being a large traditional crucifix, has been erected, ‘given as a and as a challenge to live our faith’ (O’Sullivan & O’Sullivan 2007, p. 11). The former transept entrances, at the centre of the eastern and western walls, have both been converted for other purposes. A reconciliation chapel has been built into the porch of the east transept, as is indicated in figure 6:4. A circular stained glass window, visible through the glazed wall and door of this chapel, continues the architectural use of the semicircular arch. The chapel is suitably furnished for the celebration of the , though it should also include a grille for penitents who prefer anonymity. The original confessionals on the sides of the nave have been stripped of their partition walls

286 and successfully converted into devotional shrines to St Vincent de Paul and St Mary MacKillop. In some churches, confessionals converted into shrines continue to look like converted confessionals, their prior purpose still apparent. In the west transept an angled wall projects into the music ministry space, screening the door to a toilet that is equipped for persons with disabilities. This toilet has been built in the west porch. Two former doorways have been bricked in, creating a wall with two highset semicircular windows. An original toilet in the north-west corner of the church, accessed externally, has been permanently closed.

Further observations

In reordering a church with a cruciform shape for liturgical celebration, the design of St. Joseph’s Church at Malvern has exceeded what has generally been achieved in churches with this plan. A setting has been created in which liturgical celebration has primacy. This setting clearly manifests the modes of Christ’s presence. It forms and communicates a sense of the assembly, gathered and united. It provides for celebration of the liturgical rites and seasons, and facilitates the proper carrying out of the different liturgical ministries. Most churches with a cruciform ordering are older preconciliar structures built to a traditional plan in which the priest, ministers and assembly all faced in one direction. A few of these churches have been reordered by extending the sanctuary slightly into the crossing and arranging the place for the assembly in relation to the extension. This has generally resulted in a fan-configuration of assembly seating nearest the sanctuary and straight rows in the nave. As already observed, the reordering of cruciform-plan churches has more often projected a new sanctuary into the crossing. The place for the assembly is then arranged on three sides, with seating in the transept turned to face the new sanctuary. As described in Chapter Four, a number of preconciliar churches influenced by the liturgical movement were designed with a similar plan. Relatively few cruciform- plan churches have been built in the postconciliar era. It seems likely that the

287 cruciform shape has been preferred in the design of these churches because it constitutes a traditional, symbolic and recognisable form of Catholic church, rather than because it is ideally suited for liturgical celebration. In the reordering of St Joseph’s Church, the limitation imposed by three separate areas of assembly seating has been substantially overcome through two design innovations. The integration of these innovations marks a significant achievement. Firstly, the sanctuary is designed in circular form and positioned so that it occupies part of the original sanctuary space while also projecting into the crossing. This form encourages gathering. It also ensures that the corners of the crossing remained unoccupied. Secondly, it was decided to curve the nave and transept seating in a continuous and concentric pattern, which traces the front of the sanctuary. Thus, in both nave and transept, members of the assembly experience unity and being gathered around the altar. Another development in the design of St Joseph’s Church also warrants recognition. In both reordered and new cruciform plan churches designed with the sanctuary in the crossing, there is generally a question of how best to use the original sanctuary or traditional chancel space. While possibilities depend upon the width and depth of this space and access to it, clearly some solutions are better than others. This space can serve well as a chapel for Eucharistic reservation or as an important devotional shrine. Using this space as the baptistery is less suitable, unless it can in some way be clearly connected with the place of the assembly. Situated at the head of the church beyond the altar, use of this space as a baptistery also risks conveying that baptism is the culmination of the Christian journey, rather than its beginning. Creating rooms in this space, whether as a reconciliation chapel, sacristies, or for storage, effectively changes the shape of a church from cruciform to Tau-cross. In St Joseph’s Church this space serves as an ambulatory around the rear of the sanctuary, providing access to the transept chapels and sacristies. This ambulatory is elevated by a step, probably because of a pre-existing floor, the removal of which was deemed unnecessary, too difficult or too costly. Ideally,

288 though, such an ambulatory would have the same floor level as the place of the assembly, or be ramped. In recognising these design elements, which contribute to the success of the present plan, it is acknowledged that St Joseph’s Church was well-suited to the liturgical reordering under consideration here. The church is relatively wide, with an open nave and transept. Arches provide structural support within the internal walls, leaving the church free of columns. The original sanctuary area was spacious enough to accommodate about half of the new sanctuary and provide circulation space beyond. The use of the curving circular form in the original architecture predisposed the church to further use of this form for the sanctuary and ordering of the assembly. In contrast, cruciform plan churches with a spire or dome over the crossing are often limited by columns supporting structures above. Columns can impede continuity in the place of the assembly by limiting the scope for a curved seating plan through the nave and transept. Yet despite the limitations of such layouts and of non-circular planar elements, the use of so primary a form as the circle, or variation thereof, ought to be a considered in the reordering of any cruciform-plan church. There are a number of other design elements in the 2006 reordering of St Joseph’s Church that deserve note, though these are not specific to the cruciform ordering. These elements include: • the redesign of previous portals to provide a single place of entry; • the provision of hospitality space behind the place for the assembly, and of a broad aisle around the baptismal font to initially gather the assembly; • the sense of movement in the tapering central aisle that leads to and opens around the sanctuary; • the use of curving circular forms throughout the church, which simultaneously establishes a formal liturgical setting while eliminating the rigidity that can result from straight lines, and which creates a sense of flow or movement; and • the decision to relate the reservation of the sacred oils to the reservation of the Eucharist rather than to the font.

289 The Church as communio

The preconciliar liturgical ordering of St Joseph’s Church would have reflected a theology of the Church as pilgrim people. However the ecclesiology that best corresponds with St Joseph’s Church since its postconciliar reordering - and with the churches of the remaining four case studies - is the theology of Church as communio. Regarded as the synthesising ecclesiology enunciated by Vatican II, communio derives from the Trinitarian communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a communion of love. The Church shares in this communion and establishes communio amongst its members through union with Jesus Christ, the Son. Moreover, as Matthew Levering (2010, p. 53) observes, communio reveals the true nature of hierarchy and order in the Church: ‘… the (hierarchical) ecclesial communion of believers makes manifest the (ordered) communion of Trinitarian Persons, at the same time it makes manifest the unity of the Trinity.’ Within the community of the Church, communio is lived and built up through participation in the paschal mystery. As the Dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium teaches, this participation begins with baptism, finds its richest and sustained expression in the Eucharistic liturgy, and is lived out within and from the Church community (Vatican Council II 1964, §11). Ratzinger (1992) explains communio in this way: Communio must first be understood theologically [that is, in relation to the inner life of God]. Only then can one draw implications for a sacramental notion of communio, and only after that for an ecclesiological notion. Communio is a communion of the body and (e.g., 1 Cor 10:). … The Church is entirely herself only in the sacrament, i.e., wherever she hands herself over to him and wherever he hands himself over to her creating her over and over again.

He elaborated this explanation in a paper given at a pastoral congress: It [communio] enjoys a sacramental dimension that is absolutely explicit in St Paul: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body …’ (1Cor 10:16ff.) … In the Eucharist, Christ, present in the bread and wine and giving Himself anew, builds the Church as His Body and through His Risen Body He unites us to the one and triune God and to each other (Ratzinger 2002, p. 5).

290 Shifting from theology to praxis, communio demands that liturgical celebration must engage the members of the assembly in full and active participation, with clear awareness of what they are doing. Bernard Cooke (1999, p. 49) explains that, This means that a group of Christians brought together for Eucharist must understand that they, gathered in the name of Christ and acting as his body, are co-celebrants with Christ present in their midst.

Designing a liturgical setting that is grounded in communio will draw on both divine and human dimensions of this ecclesiology. Communio implies a liturgical ordering that: fosters the union of the assembly with God through Christ; provides for liturgical celebrations by the whole body of Christ which sacramentally makes present the mystery embodied in communio; and expresses the unity of the members of the assembly with each other. This has implications for the way in which hierarchy is conceived of and manifested in liturgical ordering. As Larson-Miller (2002, p. 39) observes: A theological recapturing of the concept of hierarchy as inclusive and constitutive of communion within the [Church] leads us to reevaluate the liturgical space in which this inclusive hierarchy celebrates the “source and summit” of its being.

Hierarchy includes the ordering the Church community by rank, office, order, and liturgical function (Vatican II 1963, SC §26 & SC §29). Yet as an ecclesial characteristic, hierarchy must also bring forth in the Church the full meaning of the ordered communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To this end hierarchy is integrally bound to that unity of the Church which is constitutive of communio (Levering 2010, pp. 52-53).

The Centralised Ordering: Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kingsgrove, New South Wales

Foundation piers had been set in place for a new church in the south- western Sydney suburb of Kingsgrove, when the bishops attending Vatican II began discussing the reform and promotion of the liturgy. In view of the anticipated liturgical renewal stemming from the Council, and the changes this

291 would bring to church design, the project was halted. Subsequently, a new centralised plan, responsive to the conciliar imperative, was prepared by Robert Maclurcan of the architectural practice, Maclurcan and Brown, and construction recommenced. The Church of our Lady of Fatima is built of brick and has a pitched tiled roof. After the initial delay, it was blessed and opened in 1970. Since then, there have been a number of modifications within the church, but the liturgical setting has not been substantially reordered. A plan and sections of the church, showing its present-day liturgical ordering, can be seen in figure 6:7. In the course of this case study, note will be made of the modifications that have occurred, and the impact of these changes on liturgical celebration will be evaluated. Due to its centralised ordering, the church cannot be said to face a particular direction. However, for ease of reference, the main entrance may be said to face north, in view of which the longer axis in the church runs north- south, and the shorter axis east-west. The design of the church features strong geometric forms. Its symmetrical shape is best described as an irregular hexagon, with two pairs of opposite side walls, each of identical lengths, and front and rear walls of different lengths. The church has five internal levels: the main assembly level, which is raked; a gallery providing additional tiered seating; the sanctuary; a podium beyond the sanctuary; and sacristies and storage beneath the podium. The ceiling is comprised of tapering steel frames supporting radiating timber rafters and wood panelling. The exposed rafters draw attention upwards to a large skylight which forms the apex of the ceiling. Originally a ‘stalagspire’ of tapering, bronze-tinted fibreglass tubes descended from the centre of the skylight, while a slender, tapering flèche incorporating a cross, reached skyward from the apex of the roof (‘New church designed with central altar’ 1971, p. 15). A problem with water seeping into the ‘stalagspire’ necessitated its removal. Only the external flèche and its internal stem remain.

292

PLAN 1 Altar 2 Ambo 3 Chair 4 Place for the assembly 5 Baptismal font 6 Blessed Eucharist tabernacle 7 Reconciliation chapel 8 Narthex 9 Crying room 10 Toilet 11 Ambulatory 12 Sacristies 13 Music ministry 14 Devotional shrines

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

6:7 Robert Maclurcan, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kingsgrove, New South Wales, Australia, 1970, Plan and sections, 2011. Drawn by A. McCracken.

293 Entry space

The main entrance is through a hexagonal lobby. Not large enough to be a gathering space and having a low ceiling, this lobby fulfils the purpose of a traditional narthex. Upon entering the church, the gallery extends overhead for about four metres, beyond which the full height of the interior is revealed. To left and right of the main entrance an ambulatory traces the walls of the church. This ambulatory is widest near the doors, thereby providing for liturgical rites that are celebrated at the entry to the church. Moreover, because this space is wide and the church centralised, many in the assembly can observe these rites and participate in them with ease. Original plans show a baptismal font in bowl form at the centre of the lobby or narthex, which is also identified as the baptistery. It is unlikely that the font was ever located there; a photograph taken in 1971 shows the font on the podium, to the west of the tabernacle. In 1997, the baptismal font was relocated to the central aisle near the entrance and redesigned to incorporate a pool, as can be seen in figure 6:7. In this redesigned font, flowing water enters the upper bowl, which provides for baptism by infusion. Water flows from this bowl into the lower pool, where baptism can be celebrated by immersion. The pool is shaped as tomb, calling to mind the theology of St Paul, of baptism as a participation in the death of Jesus, a going into the tomb with him, that united with him in death we might rise with him in his resurrection (Romans 6:3-5). An ambry for the sacred oils is affixed to the ambulatory wall nearby. Located near the entrance to the church, the font serves as a reminder that baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the Church community. Members of the assembly can sign themselves with water from the font in recollection of their own baptism. Set within the central aisle, the font is aligned with the altar on the long axis of the church, as shown in figure 6:7. The aisle leads from the font to the altar, where the Eucharist is celebrated. The Eucharist completes Christian initiation and nourishes the life of faith. This placement of the font

294 provides for a coffin to be sprinkled with baptismal water directly from the font during the introductory funeral rites, which are celebrated at the church door.

Processional space

From the entrance, the broad central processional aisle passes on both sides of the baptismal font and then narrows slightly until it reaches the open space that fully surrounds the sanctuary. This open space enables those participating in processions to arrive at the sanctuary and disperse to their various places without coming to a halt. Processions in churches without enough space in or near the sanctuary can become slow-moving queues rather than acts of gracious ceremonial movement. The processional aisle is similar in length to those along the east-west axis, but has greater prominence. This is due to its alignment between the main doors and the sequence of focal points to which it leads, giving the aisle a significant beginning and destination. The width of the aisle and the placement at its beginning of the baptismal font, also contribute to its prominence. The aisle is wide enough to accommodate cross and candle bearers, or a coffin and pall- bearers. It can be seen from throughout the place for the assembly, which enhances its function. The proximity of the vesting sacristy, and of the narthex and ambulatory, provide well for the forming up of processions.

Ritual space

As already noted, the open space surrounding the sanctuary effectively functions as a continuation of the processional aisle, as is evident in figure 6:7. It is also the space into which eight other aisles emerge from the place for the assembly. This open space is defined at is outside edge by pews and the steps that ascend to the podium. At its inside edge it is defined by the sanctuary step. Solid pew-front kneelers, removed in 1996, once formed a visual and physical barrier at the front of the eight bays of assembly seating. Rails surrounding the sanctuary, removed in 1994, had a similar effect of separating spaces. Today,

295 with pew-front kneelers and sanctuary rails removed, the centre of the church is much more open and the entire space considerably more unified. The open space surrounding the sanctuary provides well for ritual needs. There is room to gather a large number of persons, either around or in front of the sanctuary. The open space likewise provides for members of the assembly to approach and draw near to the altar to receive communion. Near the front of the sanctuary, the termination of the central processional aisle and the configuration of pews on either side at this point, provide space for a coffin and for ease of movement around it. The spatial needs of the rites of Christian initiation and marriage are also met. The open space provides ease of access to the front and rear of the sanctuary, as well as to the podium, when ritual use is made of these spaces. In contrast with many churches, there is more ritual space outside the sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima Church than within it. Flexible use of this space enhances the appropriate participation of the assembly in these rites.

Assembly and music ministry spaces

From the main entrance, the church opens up to left and right with a strongly linear and centralising arrangement of pews and aisles, as can be seen in figure 6:7. Pew ends are open, which fosters a sense of connection across the aisles which intersect the church. The place for the assembly is conformed to the shape of the building, with a seating configuration of eight bays of pews, four on each side of the church. Despite the breadth and length of the church, no-one is distant from the sanctuary. Six of the bays of seating have nine rows or equivalent. The two bays intersected by the processional aisle have eleven rows of seating. Gallery seating, described below, extends the number of rows by two. Its sense of greater distance from the sanctuary is due more to elevation than to the additional rows of seating. The total seating capacity is given as 1,750 persons, making Our Lady of Fatima Church one of the largest parish churches in Australia (‘New church designed with central altar’ 1971, p. 15).

296 The place for the assembly is defined by the surrounding ambulatory and the open space around the sanctuary. These spaces for movement provide access to the narrower radiating aisles that lead to seating in the eight bays of pews. In the act of gathering for liturgical celebration, members of the assembly go to their chosen places either through the centre of the church or around the ambulatory. The centralised liturgical ordering provides a clear sense of the assembly being gathered around the altar, as can be seen in figure 6:8. To enhance participation, sound is amplified through two speakers which are suspended from the lowest horizontal ceiling beam on the southern side of the church. A retractable screen for the projection of hymn lyrics and ritual texts is mounted in front of the eastern podium wall. While some of the assembly face this screen at a convenient angle, the nearer to the podium the more difficult is the viewing angle. The raked floor of the church provides for good line-of-sight. It is also evocative of an amphitheatre, perhaps because the design of the church has a dramatic, if not theatrical, quality. This element highlights the suitability of the church for ceremonial movement and gesture in liturgical celebration.

6:8 Robert Maclurcan, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kingsgrove, New South Wales, Australia, 1970, Photograph showing assembly seating, principal processional aisle, sanctuary with altar, ambo and chair, and tabernacle beyond altar; note the illumination of the sanctuary from the skylight above, 2011. Photograph by H. Stephens.

297 Gallery seating extends the place for the assembly when overflow space is needed. The gallery is set out in sections of tiered seating, which face the sanctuary at the same angles as the bays of pews below. Visually, the gallery is a defining horizontal band between the row of windows that encircles the church at the top of the walls beneath the gallery, and above the tiered seating at gallery level. Originally filled with transparent glass, the gallery windows have been replaced with stained glass depicting God’s work of creation. Set between these two rows of windows, the horizontal course formed by the gallery creates a line of separation between the descending earth-bound floor-level of the church, and the ascending ceiling with its apex filled with natural light. This natural light floods the centre of the church and illuminates the sanctuary. In contrast, the lighting of the place for the assembly is subdued. This effect of natural light adds to the somewhat dramatic character of the church. Light from above reveals the sanctuary, while dimmer light throughout the place for the assembly is more evocative than revealing. It would be overstating the impact of the gallery to suggest that it symbolically divides the earth beneath from the heavens above, yet it does suggest immanence and transcendence. The structure of the church could be interpreted as signifying heavenly realities, at least conceptually. The vastness and directionality of the ceiling, the fall of the place of the assembly to the sanctuary, the play of different intensities of light, and the radiating ceiling beams and floor aisles, all contribute to this effect. These design elements also create a church interior that is experienced as ‘alive’ and dramatic. Floodlights fixed around the rim of the skylight, and ceiling lights beneath the gallery, supplement natural lighting. Original architectural drawings designate the sides of the podium as the place for the choir and organ, the latter housed in a pit next to the podium steps. Today the place for music ministry is adjacent to the podium, incorporated into the place of the assembly in the bay of pews to the east of the sanctuary. A level platform has been built over the raked floor for the organ and an electric

298 keyboard. Between the platform and choir seating, there is unfurnished space for other instruments, musicians and singers. The projection of hymn lyrics is conveniently coordinated nearby. Sound is directed into the centre of the church and is easily heard throughout the place for the assembly and in the sanctuary. The setting for music ministry is ideally suited to the leadership that musicians and singers provide in liturgical celebration. Those serving in music ministry are clearly part of the gathered assembly. They can relate to liturgical action in the sanctuary. A cantor would need to cross to the far side of the sanctuary to sing at the ambo.

Sanctuary space

The sanctuary comprises a relatively small single-step platform that takes the shape of the building, as can be seen in figures 6:7 and 6:8. The altar is placed centrally on the main axis, slightly forward of the ambo and the chair for the priest celebrant, which are placed to west and east of the altar respectively. The mensa of the altar is cut from white marble. It has an inverted pyramidal underside, which sits upon a hexagonal base of black marble. The mensa is rectangular and neither long nor very wide. In its composition the altar conveys both the sacrificial and meal dimensions of the Eucharistic liturgy. The ambo is also fashioned of white and black marble. It is pillar-like in form, hexagonal at the front but cut away to a straight edge at the back. A lectern with the same shape projects from the top. The chair is constructed of the same materials and has the same shape as the ambo. The back of the chair repeats the form of a hexagon and the front is cut away to create a seat. While the reiteration of the hexagon in the sacred furnishings may have had conceptual appeal, the use of the hexagon in the design of the chair creates so unusual an effect as to appear contrived. As might be expected of a church designed in the 1960s, these sacred furnishings reflect the early postconciliar era. This was a time when older elongated altars were being moved forward from the apsidal wall and new altars continued to retain a more rectangular than square shape. Though the sanctuary

299 of Our Lady of Fatima Church is not large, there is room to accommodate an altar of greater depth. This was also a period when Catholics, laity and clergy alike, were still becoming accustomed to the restoration of the Word and to the presidential role of the priest in the liturgy. Pulpits were no longer in use, but the ideal dimensions and functional requirements of the ambo were not yet apparent. While the ambo in Our Lady of Fatima Church is adequate for its purpose, and complements the altar in its material construction and hexagonal base, it lacks presence in relation to the wider altar. Despite the small sanctuary, in so spacious a church a greater separation of the altar, ambo and chair would have enhanced the function and symbolism of each. As already mentioned, an altar or communion rail originally defined the sanctuary space, together with its single step elevation and the ‘stalagspire’ above. Today, the sanctuary is defined by its timber edge, which highlights its elevation, and the flood of light from above. Like the surrounding space and place for the assembly, its floor-covering is a sea-green carpet. Because of the raked floor throughout the place for the assembly, the sanctuary is much lower than the perimeter ambulatory. The ascent of eight steps behind the altar to the podium and tabernacle further impresses the relatively minimal area and height of the sanctuary. Elevation of the altar within the sanctuary by two or three steps would have given it due prominence. This church was designed at a time when a sanctuary was generally understood to be a single defined space, normally designed as an elevated platform set against a wall. Yet here the tabernacle was placed on a separate and much higher platform. The same principle of separate platforms might have very effectively been applied to the altar, ambo and chair. This would better identify their particular functions and heighten awareness of the modalities of Christ’s presence which they signify. The podium was designed to fill the space between the southern-most bays of pews in the place for the assembly. The sanctuary is thereby fully surrounded and, though not at the actual centre of the church, certainly constitutes its liturgical centre. The podium may be considered part of the

300 sanctuary, or at least an extension of it, albeit on a separate platform. It is elevated seven steps above the floor level at the centre of the church. In a wide alcove at the centre of the podium, and further elevated by another step, is the tabernacle. It is in line with the baptismal font and altar. The tabernacle is hexagonal in shape, echoing the form used in the altar, ambo and chair. It is set on a smaller altar of similar design to the altar of celebration. With this setting, the tabernacle is clearly linked to the altar from which the Eucharist is reserved, as can be seen in figures 6:7 and 6:8. The early postconciliar period occasioned experimentation with the placement of the tabernacle in relation to the altar. This experimentation included placing the tabernacle on a lower altar in front of a significantly elevated altar of celebration, placing the tabernacle on a shelf affixed to the front of the altar, or placing the tabernacle in a significantly elevated position behind the altar (Bruggink & Droppers 1971, pp. 44-61; Cantwell 1968, pp. 128- 129; Gieselmann 1972, pp. 52-54, 67-69; Martin & Ramsay 2006, pp. 211-212). The latter option was adopted in the design of Our Lady of Fatima Church, as shown in figure 6:8. Insofar as this development followed upon four centuries during which the tabernacle was housed at the centre of the altar, it is unsurprising that an elevated position was deemed appropriate for it. Moreover, because some, perhaps many Catholics regard the tabernacle as signally identifying a church as Catholic, an elevated tabernacle was deemed befitting of the reserved Eucharist. However, such placement risks overwhelming or diminishing the altar, which has been from ancient times the pre-eminent architectural-liturgical sign of Christ. Indeed, Catholic tradition honours the altar as a ‘presence’ of Christ (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, Roman pontifical: Rite of dedication of a church and an altar, ch. 4, §4). In the ordering of churches for the postconciliar liturgy, a significantly elevated placement of the tabernacle behind the altar may give undue focus to the tabernacle which, as already noted, has no liturgical function. For this reason, and possibly others, the early

301 postconciliar innovation of locating the tabernacle at an elevated position behind the altar, proved to be short-lived. Though other changes have been made in Our Lady of Fatima Church to enhance its suitability for the liturgy, the tabernacle setting retains its original design. Marking the conclusion of the dominant axis and atop an ascent of steps, the tabernacle appears as a sort of grand destination. Its prominence is further emphasised by a tubular skylight which illuminates the tabernacle, and by the imposing crucifix above it. Two large, suspended sanctuary lamps honour the presence of the reserved Eucharist and further draw attention to the tabernacle. Its visual dominance is highlighted by the base of the tabernacle altar and the footpace upon which it sits, being at about the same level as the mensa of the altar of celebration in the sanctuary. Architecturally, neither altar nor tabernacle ought to dominate the other. The setting and design of the altar and tabernacle should give appropriate honour to both. It should be evident that the tabernacle derives its function and significance from the altar, and not vice versa. The altar should be accorded primacy of place, for only on the altar is Christ’s sacrifice re-presented in the Eucharistic liturgy. Yet with the altar set low at the axial centre of Our Lady of Fatima Church, and the tabernacle set high behind it, the prominence of the latter seems disproportionate. Nor is the tabernacle well placed for the faithful to come and pray. The seats nearest the tabernacle face away from it. Those which face the tabernacle are more distant from it. There is no provision for people to ascend to the podium to pray. In any case, it seems likely that anyone praying on the podium would feel rather conspicuous. Reappraisal of the relationship of the altar and tabernacle might include consideration of the relative elevation and design of each, as well as creation of a place for prayer proximate to the tabernacle. Despite structural limitations, some modification of the existing setting might yet establish improved architectural and liturgical balance between the tabernacle and altar, while simultaneously improving devotional access to the tabernacle.

302 The original plans for the church provided for a pulpit to be erected in the projection of the podium west of the tabernacle. Nearby there was to be a chair for a bishop. It is unclear whether this chair would be used when a visiting bishop was the celebrant of the liturgy, or when he presided at the liturgy but not as celebrant. Neither a pulpit nor bishop’s chair appears in a photograph published five months after the church was opened, so it may be concluded that neither was ever installed. The presence of the tabernacle and planned incorporation of a pulpit and bishop’s chair, along with the choir and organ as already described, clearly identify the podium as a sanctuary space.

Further observations

A number of places in the church are set apart for devotional practices. East of the main entrance and opening off the ambulatory is a shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. The Stations of the Cross line the walls beneath the gallery on either side of the cross-church axis. Other devotional images include the Sacred Heart of Jesus, St Joseph the Worker, St Anthony of Padua, St Patrick, and Mary the Mother of Jesus. All of these images are located beneath the gallery along the walls nearest the main entrance, away from the Stations of the Cross. The devotional images are spot-lit. They surround the liturgical space but do not intrude upon it. While it has been common to locate sacristies behind the sanctuary, in Our Lady of Fatima Church this arrangement has meant that the sacristies are somewhat impractically also located downstairs, beneath the podium. This poses the difficulty of moving up and down while carrying liturgical requisites. In 2000, the vesting sacristy was relocated from beneath the podium to a small room adjacent to the shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, east of the main entrance and near the stairs to the gallery. This is a convenient location for processions along the central aisle, and conforms to current norms for the church building. Churches designed with a centralised ordering, as exemplified by Our Lady of Fatima Church at Kingsgrove, are well suited for liturgical celebration,

303 while also manifesting some limitations. Centralised churches, by virtue of their plan, can accommodate a large number of people and ensure good proximity to the sanctuary for the whole assembly. However, the same limitation with seating pertains to the centralised ordering as to the fan-arrayed ordering. While members of the assembly are drawn closer to the altar, at the same time the seating nearest the altar accommodates considerably fewer people than the seating furthest from the altar; this is quite evident in figures 6:7 and 6:8. Another limitation of the centralised ordering is the use of screens for the projection of hymn lyrics and ritual texts. The appropriateness of data projection during the liturgy is a contentious issue. If data projection is desired, a church in which the assembly faces the sanctuary from a number of angles requires multiple screens. In Our Lady of Fatima Church, four digital screens mounted on the panelled front of the gallery would suffice. The centralised ordering of Our Lady of Fatima Church is clearly intended to give primacy to the liturgy. It conveys a strong sense of the assembly being gathered, together with each other and together around the central altar. The arrangement of the place for the assembly fosters participation. Centralised liturgical ordering tends to ensure that there is space for ritual enactment, for processions, and for the assembly to approach close to the altar to receive communion. The same space readily accommodates the celebration of the various liturgical rites and seasons. The irregular hexagonal shape of Our Lady of Fatima Church contributes to the success of its centralised ordering and to its suitability for liturgical celebration. The strong geometry of its design highlights the dominant axis along the processional aisle to the altar. The shorter cross-church axis intersects the long axis at the altar. Without this, the long axis might appear to pass beyond the altar, giving the tabernacle even greater prominence. This clarity of liturgical focus is not always attained to the same degree in circular centralised churches, especially when horizontal axes are poorly defined. Yet axial aisles, which lead to the sanctuary and altar, are often the strongest element in the horizontal plane.

304 Axial aisles help define the place for the assembly, as well as providing for access and processions. Our Lady of Fatima Church demonstrates the value of designing major aisles along horizontal axes. Churches with a centralised ordering are almost invariably designed with a vertical axis between the sanctuary and the apex of the ceiling, even when the sanctuary is not at the centre of the church. This axis, whether indicated by a vertical architectural element or implied in the design, generally provides a stronger ’anchor’ for a centralised church than do aisles and perimeter walls. In Our Lady of Fatima Church, this vertical axis was originally suggested by the aforementioned ‘stalagspire’ descending beneath the skylight; today it relies upon the internal stem beneath the flèche and the light from the skylight illumining the sanctuary beneath. The brightness of this ‘column’ of light, contrasting with the dimmer illumination of the place for the assembly, may be symbolically read as the lux mundi, calling to mind Christ as ‘light of the world’. Centralised liturgical ordering does not necessitate that the altar be at the actual centre of a church, nor that the assembly be gathered completely around the altar. Our Lady of Fatima Church demonstrates as much. It resolves less well how best to use the space directly behind the altar. When not occupied by the assembly, uses that are both architecturally and liturgically suitable may prove difficult to identify and design. Having less space behind the altar, as is the case in Our Lady of Fatima Church, perhaps helps resolve this issue. As was apparent in discussion of the centralised ordering in Chapter Five, reasons have been put forward favouring and opposing the complete encircling of the sanctuary by the assembly. A practical consideration of this aspect of the centralised ordering becomes apparent in the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. Centralised ordering is effectively defined by placing the altar at the physical or liturgical centre of a church. However, it can prove more difficult to place the ambo and chair in relation to the altar and to the gathered assembly. Even if some members of the assembly are behind the priest celebrant when he is at the altar, at worst they may be excluded from some degree of visual

305 participation. At the altar, the priest is essentially addressing prayer to God. The occasions when he addresses the assembly in greeting and invitation to prayer are relatively few. In contrast, when the priest presides at the chair, and during the Liturgy of the Word when the Scriptures are proclaimed and preached at the ambo, visual and aural liturgical engagement is presumed, including eye contact. This presents a problem when the assembly is gathered completely around the sanctuary, thereby making it not only impossible to face everyone but difficult to turn fully to those behind, particularly during the readings and . For this reason alone it seems preferable when churches are designed with a centralised ordering, that the segment of space behind the altar remains open, or be used for a purpose other than assembly seating. Some centralised churches have used this space for the reservation of the Blessed Eucharist. This can be designed as a chapel set apart from the sanctuary and place of the assembly, or behind the altar within the liturgical setting, as in this case study. Some have used this space for music ministry. This ensures that singers and musicians are well situated in relation to the assembly, and are in an advantageous place to lead the singing. However, it results in them being behind the ambo and chair. Some churches are designed with sacristies filling this space, thereby creating a visual and physical barrier. Some designs locate the baptismal font in this space. Doing so inverts the sequence of the sacraments of initiation, as has already been noted in discussion of the cruciform ordering. The placement of the font in Our Lady of Fatima Church is a much better option. Being near the main entrance, the font highlights baptism as initiation into the community of the Church. Placed in the central aisle, the font is in the midst of the assembly, calling to mind the participation of all the baptised in the common priesthood of Christ. Via the central aisle, the font leads to the altar where Christian initiation is completed and nourished in the Eucharistic liturgy. In a centralised plan, most of the assembly are able to see the font, though good sightlines would also be assured if it was located behind the altar.

306 Lastly, though not particular to the centralised ordering, it is noted how effectively the absence of barriers such as pew-ends, pew-front kneelers, and sanctuary rails, contributes to spatial unity. In turn, this hopefully fosters unity among the faithful who gather to celebrate the liturgy.

The Antiphonal Ordering: Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, New South Wales

The fourth case study church, also dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima, is located at Caringbah in the Sutherland Shire, south of Sydney. Constructed of masonry with bagged finish, timber boards, and cladding, and roofed in metal, Our Lady of Fatima Church is the largest structure in an ensemble of buildings. Intended as a community centre, these buildings are set around a central foyer and two courtyards. Though part of a complex, the church is made conspicuous by its mass, finish, and the apparent solidity of its walls; and by the prominence of its entrance from the foyer. The other major structure in the complex serves the parish community. A plan and sections of Our Lady of Fatima Church can be seen in figure 6:9. The differentiation of functions within the ensemble of buildings has been carefully planned, as has the detail of the church design. Ordered around a central altar, Our Lady of Fatima Church cannot be said to face a particular direction. For ease of reference, the longer axis of the church runs approximately north-south and the shorter axis approximately east-west. The narthex is centred along the church’s western wall. Keith Cottier of the architectural practice, Allen Jack + Cottier, led the team of architects who designed the church. It was dedicated and officially opened in 1999. Commenting on the church at that time, Cottier (1999, p. 7) noted: This church is an attempt to interpret the principles and objectives of the Second Vatican Council document on the Liturgy, in a way that is relative to contemporary society. It’s [sic] forms are derived from that liturgy and not from traditional church forms; they are also derived from its specific site, its particular surrounds and environment.

307

PLAN 1 Altar 2 Ambo 3 Chair 4 Place for the assembly 5 Baptismal font 6 Blessed Eucharistic chapel 7 Chapel of reconciliation 8 Narthex 9 Foyer 10 Audio-visual 11 Ambulatory 12 Sacristies 13 Music ministry 14 To the weekday chapel, vesting sacristy, shrine, and other facilities in the church complex

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

6:9 Keith Cottier, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, New South Wales, Australia, 1999, Plan of complex, Plan and sections of church, 2011. Drawn by A. McCracken.

308 Entry space

The church is entered via a transitional sequence of spaces, beginning at a bell tower. A covered way leads from the tower into a tranquil south courtyard, and then into a spacious foyer. For those coming to celebrate the liturgy, the foyer serves as the gathering space. Beyond the foyer is the north courtyard. Stations of the Cross, illustrated in glass and illuminated from beneath, are set within the courtyard paving scheme. To the east of the foyer are the church and its related chapels for the Blessed Eucharist and reconciliation, sacristies, and an audio- visual control room. To the west of the foyer are a chapel for weekday celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy, devotional shrine to Our Lady of Fatima, vesting sacristy, piety stall, parish offices, meeting room, kitchen, and toilets. The entry doors to the church are centred in the eastern wall of the foyer. They open into the narthex, which is carefully proportioned and detailed. Its low ceiling has two levels and is predominantly violet in colour. Lighting is subdued. The recessed side walls are finished in textured gold and incorporate low-set timber joinery. A rectangular portal opens into the church. The narthex mediates entry into the church which, in this complex of spaces, is set apart solely for liturgical celebration. Other places are provided for devotional practices and personal prayer. This evinces the primacy of the liturgy in the design of Our Lady of Fatima Church. Entering the church from the narthex, an ambulatory surrounding the liturgical setting continues the low ceiling-level of the narthex. The ambulatory opens out into the broad and high orthogonal liturgical space. The doors, narthex and the ambulatory at the point of entry provide well for rites of welcome and sprinkling. There are places for a coffin on both sides of the baptismal font. A number of people - perhaps as many as twenty - can gather across the width of the open central axis, on either or both sides of the font, in ways suited to different rites. The entry space can be easily seen from most of the place for the assembly, yet the design of the low-ceilinged narthex and ambulatory conveys a sense of place separate from the lofty and open spaces of liturgical celebration. This differentiation is further accentuated by a timber

309 structural system, shown in section in figure 6:9, that rises from the floor to the ceiling, defining both the vertical church space and the ambulatory. The timber structural system is reminiscent of the post, truss and beam structure in the Grailville Oratory at Loveland, Ohio, in the United States, by artist and designer William Schickel and architect Richard Tweddle (Wolfe 1998, pp. 46-53). Indeed, Gregory Wolfe’s (1998, p. 51) description of effect of the timber structure in the Grailville Oratory, aptly captures the effect of the timber structural system in Our Lady of Fatima Church: Moving into the nave is like entering a small abstracted forest. … Each … post has its … projecting truss reaching up like a stylized branch – or an arm upraised in prayer. Something akin to visual music is created by the rhythmic regularity of the forms and the many geometrical intersections and patterns that the eye takes in from every part of the space.

The geometric pattern of the timber structural system evokes the pointed arch, calling to mind the vocabulary of familiar earlier styles of church architecture. The ascending lightness of the beams recalls the internal frame of a tent. This may be read as evoking the ‘tent of meeting’ described in the Book of Exodus. The ‘tent of meeting’ was a place set apart for encountering God: Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp (Exodus 33:7).

Horizontal levels in the timber structural system correspond with horizontal bands of wall-surface finishes. Traversing the church, the timber structural system suggests seven parallel zones, three for the assembly on either side of the central axial sanctuary zone. In these ways the timber structural system acts as an agent both of memory and liturgical ordering. It imparts a sense of the church as home and shelter for the liturgical assembly. It contributes to the spatial unity of the building.

Assembly and music ministry spaces

Ordered antiphonally, the place for the assembly accommodates 600 people. It is arranged on two sides of the broad axial sanctuary. The floor of the

310 assembly space rises in three tiers, each of two steps, and is carpeted. Seating on these tiers is configured in a wide central bay of pews and, across aisles, narrower bays of pews, which are angled towards the altar. There are ten rows of pews in each bay. Pew-ends are open, which helps members of the assembly relate with others across the aisles, thereby enhancing the sense of unity. These design elements ensure good line-of-sight for members of the assembly, foster a sense of being gathered, and encourage participation in the liturgy, as can be seen in figures 6:9 and 6:10. Access to the three tiered levels is by stairs. This may limit members of the assembly with mobility problems to the front pews, which are on the same floor level as the sequence of entry spaces and the sanctuary. A benefit of the antiphonal liturgical ordering is that it allows all in the assembly to approach close to the altar to receive communion. However, the tiered floor somewhat inhibits ease of processional movement to receive communion. There has been minor modification of the seating configuration since the church opened, to improve the arrangement of music ministry space.

6:10 Keith Cottier, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, New South Wales, Australia, 1999, Photograph showing tiered assembly seating, central axial sanctuary with font at left, altar centre, ambo and chair at right, 2011. Photograph by H. Stephens.

311 The ordering of the place for the assembly fosters full, conscious and active participation. Members of the assembly are able to see and hear each other. The assembly and its ministers are proximate to each other and to the sacred furnishings. Participation is aided by sound amplification through speakers suspended from the centre of the ceiling, above the altar. Though not mounted within the ceiling or otherwise disguised, the speakers do not detract from the church interior. Hymn lyrics and other texts and images are projected onto two floor-level screens situated at the east end of the sanctuary. These are angled at 90° so that each screen is visible to half the assembly. The place for music ministry is at the front of the angled side-bay of pews to the north-east of the altar. Space equivalent to three rows of pews is provided for singers and musicians. There is ready access to the ambo for a cantor. Singers and musicians are clearly part of the gathered assembly. Members of the assembly seated behind the place for music ministry would hear unamplified singing less clearly than those beside the choir and across the church. The organ is at sanctuary level, placed near the east ambulatory. The screens for projection of hymn lyrics are near the place for music ministry. As with all data projection during liturgical celebration, preparation and sequencing of ritual and hymn texts needs to be well coordinated, to ensure that what is being vocalised corresponds with the projected words.

Processional, ritual and sanctuary space

A characteristic of antiphonally ordered churches is the incorporation of processional and ritual spaces within the sanctuary layout. Because the latter is designed along an axis, it effectively supplants the processional aisle. Setting the sanctuary on the long axis of antiphonally ordered churches invites significant processional movement. However, when the sanctuary is set along the short axis, as in Our Lady of Fatima Church, there is less scope for processions. Ceremonial movement therefore needs to be carefully choreographed, so as to use the available space in ways that contribute to liturgical celebration and avoid

312 the appearance of meagre formalism. Thus, the entrance procession enters the church through the narthex and moves to the altar, from which its participants disperse to their places. Other processions, for example, of the Book of Gospels or Eucharistic gifts, and at communion, move a shorter distance. The entire sanctuary space may be used for ritual actions, though the space between the baptismal font and altar is ideally suited to this purpose. The font is within the sanctuary space nearest the narthex. It comprises an upper bowl and semicircular pool. The bowl provides for baptism by infusion, for members of the assembly to sign themselves with blessed water as they enter the church, and for the sprinkling of a coffin. The pool provides for baptism by immersion. It is thoughtfully designed. A candidate for baptism descends four steps into the water, kneels to be lowered into the water three times using the Trinitarian formula, then stands, and ascends the steps, emerging from the pool towards the altar. The pool is covered with a metal grille when not being used. The curved side of the pool is edged by a light steel railing to prevent people walking onto the grille or into the pool. While ensuring safety, the grille and railing have less aesthetic quality than the font and other sacred furnishings. Ideally, the pool should permanently flow with water and so convey the powerful symbolism of the sacrament for which this substantial font has been designed. The sacred oils, of Baptism or Catechumens and of , used in the rite of baptism, are reserved on posts of the timber structure nearest the font. The altar stands beyond the font at the centre of the church, where the short and long axes would intersect. However, only the short axis is emphasised at floor level. The space between the font and the altar is well-suited to the needs of the liturgical rites. The continuation of this space around and beyond the altar can also be used. Indeed, antiphonally-ordered sanctuary space, as exemplified in Our Lady of Fatima Church, effectively provides for ritual enactment in diverse ways. The use of the sanctuary space can be tailored according to needs and circumstances, such as the number of people present, and celebration within or apart from the Eucharistic liturgy.

313 The centrally placed altar is rectangular, but almost square, in shape. It has a stone base and a timber mensa, the underside of which tapers out from the stone base. The mensa is up-lit from the corners of the stone base. The mass of the altar and its rectangle-on-rectangle design establish a strong presence and a sense of permanence, as can be seen in figure 6:11. The design of the altar, with its tapering mensa, conveys both an altar of sacrifice and table of the Lord. However its material composition is inverted. Custom and liturgical norms prefer a stone mensa so as to signify Christ, the ‘living stone’ and ‘’ (1 Peter 2:4-6); there is less concern with the materials that support it, provided these are worthy of their purpose. In this altar, stone has been used as the base and the mensa crafted in timber. The floor beneath the stone base, and throughout the sanctuary, is tiled with polished concrete-aggregate.

6:11 Keith Cottier, Our Lady of Fatima Church, Caringbah, New South Wales, Australia, 1999, Photograph showing altar, ambo beyond, chair to right of ambo, and rear-projection screens in background, 2011. Photograph by H. Stephens.

It has already been observed that the placement of the altar ensures good line-of-sight from the place for the assembly, and enables the faithful to approach near to the altar to receive communion. When the priest is standing at the altar, the Eucharistic bread and wine can be seen from throughout the

314 church, including from seats set back from the altar and near the chair. Four skylights set as a square above the altar shed natural light upon it. This concentration of light at the centre of the church contrasts with the lower level of light around the ambulatory. The ambo stands beyond the altar on the short axis. It is crafted in timber and well designed for its purpose. Behind the ambo, again centred on the short axis, are the angled rear-projection screens. The placement of the screens necessitates that the ambo be some distance forward. This makes ease of eye contact with members of the assembly who are seated in the bays of pews nearest the eastern wall, rather difficult. As noted in Chapter Four and in the previous case study, it is less than ideal that some of the assembly are located behind the ambo during proclamation and preaching of the Word. The chair for the priest celebrant, placed across from the ambo towards the front of the place for the assembly, is less conspicuous. Contrasted with altar, ambo and font, and even with the rear projection screens, the chair seems to lack a defined place of its own, as can be seen in figure 6:9. This is not to conclude that its placement is inadequate for presiding in the assembly and directing the prayer. Rather, it is to acknowledge that unlike the other sacred furnishings, the chair does not benefit from being on the dominant short axis. Nor is it in harmony with the symmetry of the liturgical ordering. Consequently, the mode of Christ’s presence in the ordained minister, which is signified by the chair, is diminished. The chair could have been placed where the two screens stand and a different projection system designed. Alternatively, the chair could have been placed in front of the font, requiring a change of location only when the pool is used for baptism, usually during the Easter Vigil. A further option would have been to design a bay of pews to accommodate the chair for the priest celebrant in the front row. This arrangement has proved successful in some French churches, though it requires that the priest turn to greet and address the assembly when presiding at the chair (cf. Paredes Benitez 2009, pp130-134).

315 Further observations

The west side of the church incorporates rooms that serve the liturgical, sacramental and devotional life of parishioners. The reconciliation chapel is beside the narthex and accessible from the ambulatory. The Blessed Eucharist chapel is adjacent. It is accessible from the ambulatory and foyer. Towards the southern end of this chapel is a dividing grille. An external door allows people to visit the chapel in the space outside the grille, even when the complex is closed. The chapel accommodates the tabernacle, and seating and prie dieu for those who come to pray. The Oil of the Sick is reserved near the tabernacle, thereby associating the sacrament of anointing of the sick with communion of the sick and with , the last rite for someone dying. The lighting design of Our Lady of Fatima Church has already been alluded to. In addition to the skylights which bring natural light into the centre of the church, three types of window are incorporated into the design. There is a clerestory window between the upper reach of the walls and the ceiling. This band of clear glass sheds light throughout the church. At times of bright sunlight, the clerestory can create an impression that the ceiling floats above the walls. Both upper end walls of the church are pierced by a circular window. Approximately one meter in diameter, divided into quarters and filled with blue and clear glass, these windows are a modern variation of the wheel and rose windows of earlier church styles. In the same end walls at ambulatory level are five small, slightly rectangular windows. From the place for the assembly, these appear set between the timber posts that support the low ambulatory ceiling. From outside, these five windows are centred between the six pilasters of the end walls. Filled with clear glass, these windows admit relatively little light. The skylights and clerestory, and circular and square windows, are all evident in figure 6:10. A scheme of artificial lighting uses recessed down-lights in each ceiling panel and spotlights above the sanctuary. There are also small recessed down-lights in the ambulatory ceiling, which give enough light for safe movement.

316 Designing antiphonal ordering for a church invariably presents three challenges. The first concerns the choice of the long or short axis, to determine the disposition of the sanctuary and the assembly. Use of the long axis establishes distance between the altar, ambo and chair, and thereby provides for processions. It allows for a straight or curved configuration of assembly seating on either side of the sanctuary, though the latter is preferable. It results in longer rows of seating, but fewer rows deep are needed. Use of the short axis brings the altar, ambo and chair closer together, thereby providing less scope for processional movement. It allows for shorter rows of straight, angled or curved seating; a tightly curved arrangement would create a centralised rather than antiphonal ordering. When the rows of assembly seating are shorter, more rows deep are needed. This difference is demonstrated when Our Lady of Fatima Church is compared with St Patrick’s Cathedral at Parramatta, in western Sydney. The former, ordered along the short axis, accommodates thirty-one worshippers in each row of pews. St Patrick’s Cathedral, ordered along the long axis, accommodates fifty worshippers in each row (Giurgola 2006, p. 48 & p. 111). A second challenge is the ordering of the sanctuary. Problems arising from placing the altar and ambo towards either end of the central sanctuary space were considered in Chapter Five. The design of Our Lady of Fatima Church avoids these problems. However, it was faced with the problem of determining places for the altar, ambo, chair and font, when antiphonal sanctuary space implies three focal places, not four. These three places are the centre and the two ends. As the altar is the focus of the Eucharistic liturgy and is pre-eminent among the sacred furnishings, it seems self-evident that it be placed at the centre. The ambo and chair could be placed at either end, an arrangement which works well, but presumes that the font is located elsewhere. When the font occupies one end, the arrangement of the ambo and chair needs to take account both of liturgical enactment and of the modes of Christ’s presence which are signified in the ambo and chair.

317 The third challenge in designing antiphonal ordering concerns seating the assembly on two sides of the sanctuary, facing the altar and one another. If a presenting problem of the cruciform ordering is that it often results in three separate ‘naves’, surely an equivalent problem arises with the two sides or ‘naves’ of an antiphonal ordering. The latter provides a different experience of spatial separation than occurs in cruciform-plan churches, but there is separation nonetheless. While seeing and hearing members of the assembly across the sanctuary may manifest clearly the presence of Christ in the assembly, it less clearly conveys a sense of the assembly’s unity. Configuring the endmost seats on an angle towards the altar goes some way to overcoming this limitation. However, the sense of unity remains relative.

The U-arrayed Ordering: St John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy, New South Wales

St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy, on the central coast of New South Wales, is the most recently built of the churches selected for case study. It was opened and dedicated in 2007. The church, which faces north, is a steel-framed structure, finished in zinc cladding and cement render. It has the form of a truncated cylinder. Six ‘shard’ towers constitute a distinctive vertical feature of the building and its site. An orthogonal projection from the northwest quadrant of the cylinder houses liturgical support spaces at ground level. Parish offices are located above. A plan and sections of the church are shown in figure 6:12. Liturgical principles have informed both the architecture of St John the Baptist Church and its ordering. This is reflected in the layout of the church and in its material construction. The correlation of liturgy with architecture in the design of the church is explained by project architect and liturgical designer Randall Lindstrom, then of PMDL Architecture and Design: ‘The forms reveal their ecclesiastical and hierarchical nature, with sacred spaces clad in zinc, and circulation/support spaces clad in render’ (Lindstrom n.d., p. 1).

318

PLAN: 1 Altar 2 Ambo 3 Chair 4 Place for the assembly 5 Baptismal font 6 Blessed Eucharistic chapel 7 Chapel of reconciliation 8 Gathering space 9 Devotional shrines 10 Children’s Liturgy of the Word room 11 Ambulatory 12 Vesting & work sacristies 13 Music ministry 14 Place of honour

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

6:12 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Plan and sections, 2011. Drawn by A. McCracken.

319 Entry space

A broad canopy sheltering a pathway leads to the entry of St John the Baptist Church. This canopy incorporates the first of the shard towers. The second and largest shard tower is opposite the main doors. It houses a peal of three bells near its apex, and the Blessed Eucharistic chapel at ground level. This chapel can be entered through an external door. Ceremonial doors, filled with coloured glass, face the canopied pathway. A wide portal adjacent to these doors leads past a piety store into a progressively widening conch-shaped passageway, which wraps around the cylindrical church. This passageway serves as a metaphor for the or life journey (Lindstrom n.d., p. 1). Storage cupboards and notice boards line the passageway. Further along the widening passageway are four more shard towers, each housing a devotional shrine illuminated by a concealed skylight. These shrines are clearly spaces set apart for quiet prayer. Large internal windows in the wall opposite the shrines provide a view of the church interior. The low ceiling of the entrance passageway, its continuous curve away from the world outside and into the church, and its measured lighting, fulfil the transitional function of a narthex. The passageway widens to become the gathering space. Stations of the Cross adorn the curving wall beyond the four devotional shrines. The scale and arrangement of the Stations of the Cross makes them more suitable for personal devotion than communal prayer. On this same wall and aligned with the principal axis of the church, is an ambry for the sacred oils. At the western end of the gathering space are a meditation garden and the reconciliation chapel. A corridor leads to sacristies, toilets and a children’s liturgy room. Glass doors, inscribed with the words of Psalm 121, ‘The Lord will guard your coming and going both now and forever,’ mark the entrance into the church. Beyond these doors an ambulatory accommodates rites which are celebrated at the entrance. A coffin could be sprinkled with water taken from the baptismal font, the design of which partly defines the entry space. The font is on the primary axis, together with the entry doors, altar, and, through ornamental

320 gates, the tabernacle in the Blessed Eucharist chapel, as can be seen in figure 6: 12. This axis intersects the platform housing the ambo and chair, which are placed off-axis in front of the ornamental gates. Lindstrom (n.d., p. 1) states that from the church doors, ‘it is revealed that the path to the altar is via the waters of baptism, and watched over by the Word’. This is an uncommon metaphor for the function of the Scriptures, for the Word is proclaimed that it might be received by the assembly. Perhaps it is an eloquent way of observing that the Christian life, begun in baptism, is ever under the watchful care of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ; and that fidelity to the Word is the condition for approaching the altar.

Assembly and music ministry spaces

Within the doors an ambulatory extends around the cylindrical church to left and right. Short aisles also lead around the baptismal font into the centre of the church. Located near the doors of the church, the font serves as a reminder of baptism as initiation into the Christian community. Members of the assembly entering the church may sign themselves with the blessed water of the font. Water flows continuously from a square upper bowl into a lower pool, thereby imaging living water. The upper bowl is designed for the baptism of infants by infusion or immersion, and the lower pool for baptism of adults by immersion. An adult candidate for baptism would enter the font via steps beside the square upper bowl, kneel or stand in the water to be baptised, and then walk out of the pool via its gently ramped innermost side towards the altar. A side wall of the pool incorporates a paschal candle stand. To either side of the baptismal font, five rows of pews follow the curve of the cylindrical wall and then straighten to form the U-arrayed ordering of the place for the assembly, which seats 400 people. In the broad central space in front of the pews a further three rows of chairs can be added to supplement pew seating. This arrangement conveys a sense of the place for the assembly originating from and incorporating the waters of baptism in its continuous U-

321 arrayed form, as can be seen in figure 6:13. This constitutes a powerful architectural expression of the assembly as a baptised people. It evokes the union with Christ and each other that is established through Christian initiation.

6:13 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Photograph showing curved assembly seating to left and right of the baptismal font, with the altar near the centre and the ambo at left, 2011. Photograph by S. Hackett.

In outlining postconciliar developments in the placement of the baptismal font, in Chapter Four, an apposite remark of Bess (2006, p. 148) was quoted: I have yet to see anywhere either a baptistery or a baptismal font that can successfully carry all the symbolic weight associated with baptism as a rite of initiation and purification performed at mass, outside of Mass, at the Easter vigil, by total immersion, by sprinkling, in the front of the church, at the entrance to the church …

A visit to St John the Baptist Church might well prompt Bess to revise his position. Here the font carries and conveys with exceptional clarity the rich symbolism of baptism. This font has been ideally placed for celebrating the baptismal liturgy in its various ritual expressions. Baptism may be celebrated by immersion and infusion. The font is simultaneously at the church entrance and in the midst of the gathered assembly. It may be conveniently and significantly used during the Eucharistic liturgy, at funerals, and during the Easter Vigil. All the while it reminds the assembly of their identity as a baptised people.

322 The U-arrayed configuration of the place for the assembly is intersected by three radial aisles on each side of the church. The middle aisle forms a secondary axis across the church. The end bay of seats on the eastern side of the church continues the U-shaped arrangement, with the rows of pew seating tapering off as the straight end of the U-arrayed configuration meets the curve of the cylindrical wall. Behind this last bay of assembly seating the perimeter ambulatory becomes a ramp, inclining to meet a two-step elevation. On the western side of the church and adjacent to end of assembly seating is the organ console, with chairs for singers and musicians beyond. This music ministry seating traces the curve of the wall, so that sound is projected towards the centre of the church. There is space for other musical instruments. The ambo projects on a platform adjacent to the place for music ministry, thereby providing ready access for a cantor. The pipe organ sits above a projecting ledge, the underside of which works like a tester above the ambo and chair. The design of the pews is simple and dignified. Though the pews are straight rather than curved, their relatively short length allows that they be configured to form the curve of the U-arrayed ordering. The absence of pew- ends contributes to the sense of unity among members of the assembly. In conjunction with the liturgical ordering, this design element helps create a sense of the assembly being gathered together and around the altar. The raked floor throughout the place for the assembly provides good line-of-sight to the altar, ambo and chair. Members of the assembly can see and hear each other. Screens incorporated into the window scheme on opposite sides of the church aid participation by displaying hymn lyrics and ritual texts.

Processional, ritual and sanctuary space

As with the previous case study, the layout of St John the Baptist Church blends processional, ritual and sanctuary spaces in one central space, as is shown in figure 6:14. In this instance the U-arrayed configuration of the place for the assembly substantially encloses this central space. The liturgical centre of this

323 space is set back from the physical centre of the cylindrical structure. The axial ordering, which gives prominence to the font, means that there is no central processional aisle from the doors to the sanctuary. Nevertheless, the axis could be said to invite liturgical processions around the font and through the central space to the altar, as well as from the altar to the ambo.

6:14 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Photograph showing assembly seating, with ambo and chair at left and altar towards the centre, 2011. Photograph by S. Hackett.

Between the font and the altar is an open space for ritual action, aptly described by the architect as a ‘place of honour’ (Randall Lindstrom, interview, 4 August 2008). This space is well-suited for the celebration of marriage, the presentation of candidates for the sacraments of initiation, anointing of the sick, and for the rites celebrated at the coffin during a funeral. The central liturgical space around the altar, and at the ambo and chair, enhances ritual enactment. The sacrament of confirmation is conferred at the chair. In keeping with the clarity of intention in the design of St John the Baptist Church, doors to the west of the altar, along the aisle adjacent to the place for music ministry, serve as the point of departure for children participating in their own Liturgy of the Word. The altar, on a two-step predella, is set back from the cross-axis of the church, as can be seen in figures 6:12 and 6:14. The altar is crafted in polished

324 stone, with detailed trim and square openings, giving it permanence and aesthetic quality. The mensa is substantial. Its base comprises two diagonal intersecting semicircular structures which form the legs of the altar, while also referencing the cylindrical curve of the building. In its design, the altar conveys both sacrifice and meal dimensions of the Eucharistic liturgy. Elevated on its own predella and freestanding, the altar also attains considerable prominence. That the priest and ministers have to ascend to the altar heightens the sense that the altar is a place of encounter with God. The faithful can approach the front and sides of the altar to receive communion. The radiating aisles between the bays of seating, and the open central space, facilitate the communion procession. Beyond the altar, in front of the ornamental gates to the Blessed Eucharist chapel, the platform housing the ambo and chair for the priest celebrant projects from the curve of the cylindrical wall. It has the same two step elevation as the altar predella. The ambo is placed in the front west corner and the chair is set back on the east side. These sacred furnishings are placed to maximise visibility of both, though from some places in the church they are partially obscured by the altar. The ambo and chair both incorporate the same stone and design elements as the altar, as well as timber. This differentiation emphasises the altar as a presence of Christ and, while not diminishing what the ambo and chair signify, emphasises their more functional roles as places of proclamation, preaching and presiding. The canopy above the ambo and chair, formed by the ledge housing the pipe organ, draws attention to the proclamation of the Scriptures and the liturgical leadership of the priest. The sloping underside of the canopy directs attention to the Blessed Eucharistic chapel beyond. In front of the organ and suspended from the ceiling is a large crucifix. It hangs at the front of a large disc of coloured and textured antique glass, the design of which emphasises the vertical. A smaller circle, off-centre within the larger one, surrounds the meeting of the vertical and horizontal timbers of the crucifix. In its high position, this ensemble or ‘glory’ symbolically expresses the

325 unity of the theology which informs the design of the church with the liturgy that is celebrated within the church. The ‘glory’ is illuminated by a broad louvered skylight, set in the angled roof above the central axis. Ceremonial funerary glass doors are located to the east of the Blessed Eucharist chapel and the chair of the priest celebrant. These doors are aligned on another axis created by the altar and the external canopied way. It is these same doors that are initially seen at the church’s main portal. These doors are opened only at the rite of commendation and farewell during a funeral, when the human body of a deceased person is carried in its coffin from the church for the final time. Thus, these doors mark the fulfilment of the Christian journey of faith that is symbolised through the way taken when entering the church. At the same time, passing through these ceremonial funerary doors symbolises the deceased person going home to God. These funerary doors, which mostly remain closed, are a permanent reminder for parishioners that God, who is the centre of all liturgical worship, is also the fulfilment and destiny of every life journey.

Further observations

A strength of the design of St John the Baptist Church is the value and dignity that attaches to the places and sacred furnishings which manifest the modes of Christ’s presence: • the place for the assembly, in whose members Christ is present. • the chair for the priest celebrant, in whom Christ offers the Eucharist; • the ambo, where Christ speaks when the Scriptures are proclaimed; • the altar, the timeless symbol of Christ’s presence in every church; • the baptismal font and place of honour where, through human agency, Christ himself ministers the sacraments; and • the tabernacle, vessel of Christ’s enduring sacramental presence. Moreover, these places and sacred furnishings are interconnected in a way that is not always apparent Catholic churches. In the relationship that exists between

326 these places, and in what each sacred furnishing signifies, the primacy of the liturgy in the design and ordering of St John the Baptist Church is made plain. A number of design elements further enhance this liturgical setting. The journey motif is reinforced by the use of river-stone paving along the canopied pathway, around the conch-shaped passageway into the gathering space, into the font and beneath assembly seating. It is also used beneath the altar, ambo and chair. Thus, the river-stone paving marks the pilgrim-like progression into the church and the unity of the assembly and its ministers in the focal places of the liturgy. The impact of the paving is softened by parquetry flooring in the central church space. An integrated series of fifty-six stained-glass windows featuring non- figurative images of St John the Baptist and the communion of saints is set in the upper walls of the truncated cylinder. These windows evoke a sense of the liturgy celebrated in the here-and-now being one with the eternal liturgy of heaven. The stained-glass windows admit light into the church, as do a lower row of clear windows and the axial skylight. The series of stained-glass windows is complemented by larger stained-glass windows set in some of the eighteen wall openings just above floor level. St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy shares five design elements with the Cathedral of the Resurrection at Évry in outer-suburban Paris, France. The cathedral, designed by Mario Botta, also has a truncated cylindrical form. Both buildings are naturally lit through glass-filled sections of roof. In St John the Baptist Church the rectangular skylight aligns with the central horizontal axis of the church; in the Cathedral of the Resurrection, sections of glass roof follow the perimeter of the drum, framing a triangular ceiling (Lavigne 2000, p. 39). The walls of both structures incorporate bands of horizontal windows, though at Évry these are internal and do not admit light. Both churches are entered via an ambulatory or passageway that traces the form of the structure (Lavigne 2000, p. 41). In both churches the baptismal font is encountered upon entering the church from the ambulatory or passageway. Here the likeness ends. At Évry the

327 ambulatory leads into a broad cross-aisle separating the sanctuary and assembly space, with the altar to the left and seating to the right. At Woy Woy the passageway opens into the centre of the church, with the altar directly ahead and assembly seating to the left and right. The cathedral at Évry has a broad frontal basilican ordering; the church at Woy Woy has a U-arrayed ordering. The U-arrayed ordering of St John the Baptist Church appears to be without familiar precedent in other forms of public architecture. It is possible to identify other churches and a few synagogues with a U-arrayed ordering. Plans of the other churches indicate similar arrangement of the entry, altar, ambo, chair, and sometimes of the baptismal font and music ministry space (cf. DeBlasio, d’Orazio & Schickel 1972, p. 70; Stehle 1993, p. 6; Wolfe 1998, pp. 138-139). Yet while other churches have many characteristics in common with St John the Baptist Church, none has attained the relationship of liturgical foci, distribution of liturgical functions, and clarity of liturgical symbolism, that are evident here. The U-arrayed ordering is open, not closed in upon itself. In St John the Baptist Church this open dimension finds two expressions. The first is the Blessed Eucharist chapel. Though the tabernacle has no liturgical function and the chapel is separated by ornamental gates, an integral relationship exists between the altar and tabernacle. The tabernacle serves as a reminder of the care taken by the Church community of members who are sick or housebound and unable to join the assembly to celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy. Communion of the sick and dying is an act of service that flows from the liturgy, as does every act of service and charity by parishioners. Such acts are not limited to the Church community but constitute part of the Church’s mission in the world. Further, the chapel is set apart as a place of prayer, fostering spiritual growth throughout the lifelong faith journey. While not liturgical acts, personal prayer and adoration flow from the Eucharistic liturgy and lead back to it. Thus, the Blessed Eucharist chapel inspires two essential Christian practices, namely prayer and service. The second expression of openness is found in the ceremonial funerary doors which are on axis with the altar and the canopied way. The doors have an

328 eschatological dimension, serving as a reminder of the destiny of life’s journey and as a witness to hope in the resurrection of the dead. The doors signify the completion of what was begun in baptism, namely human living of the paschal mystery. The funerary doors are a sign perceptible to the senses of an eternal reality which is the hope of Christians. St John the Baptist Church is a profoundly liturgical structure. It reveals the potential of the U-arrayed ordering to fulfil the conciliar injunction. Yet every church structure is more than its liturgical ordering, and the form and design of this church contributes significantly to its achievement. It remains to be ascertained how effectively the U-arrayed ordering might be used in a church having a different shape, such as an ellipse, or rectangle, or even described by the U-shape itself.

The Fan-arrayed Ordering: Church of St Michael and St John, Horsham, Victoria

The Church of St Michael and St John is located in the rural city of Horsham, in the Wimmera region of Victoria. Designed by Gregory Burgess of Gregory Burgess Architects, the church’s fluid forms are characteristic of what is often described as organic architecture (Dovey 2004, p. 101). Its curving masonry walls support a wing-like metal roof. The south-facing church sits low on its site, as if growing out of the ground, and ascends to a solitary high point behind the sanctuary. Opened in 1987, the church accommodates 600 people. The design of the Church of St Michael and St John integrates two forms. The primary form is the vesica pisces which constitutes the shape of the main church space. Unlike other fan-arrayed churches mentioned in this thesis, here the shorter axis is dominant, thereby creating a church that is shallow and wide (Tawa 1986, p. 31). The general form of the vesica pisces recurs throughout the building. The vesica-shape is revealed explicitly in the sanctuary, where it is defined by the front elevation and rear wall. It is revealed implicitly in the narthex where it is partially traced by the internal wall. The secondary form is a

329 series of overlapping fluid curves. These create discrete and open spaces around much of the building, amplifying its volume while disguising its basic shape. The vesica is an ancient geometric form adopted by Christians and utilised in sacred architecture and art, particularly in medieval gothic design (Hiscock 2007, pp. 157-161). Created by ‘two circles whose circumferences passed through each other’s centres,’ the Christian vesica symbolises the intersection of heaven and earth (Strachan 2003, p. 68). One circle represents heaven and the other earth. In architecture, the overlap of the two circles represents Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humankind; in art the overlap circumscribes his image (Strachan 2003, pp. 68-71). Christ’s mediation is fulfilled in the paschal mystery, of which the Eucharistic liturgy is the celebration par excellence. In gothic design the vesica served as a longitudinal container for the triangular and hexagonal forms that comprised its geometry (Hiscock 2007, pp. 152-153). In the design of the Church of St Michael and St John, which can be seen in figure 6:15, the vesica serves as a lateral container for the gathered assembly. The sanctuary, adjacent alcove chapel and music ministry spaces, and reconciliation chapels, project from the southern side of the vesica into the circle which represents heaven. The narthex, vesting sacristy, and other service rooms extend from the northern side of the vesica into the circle which represents earth. Thus the vesica, though reinterpreted in the liturgical ordering of this church, still bears its ancient meaning. A distinctive feature of the church is the patterning of its brickwork. The lower courses in the exterior walls have a primal quality, evoking a strong connection with the earth and creation. In the interior walls, a progressive lightening of colour and shade as the courses ascend is a metaphor for the paschal mystery. Here the brickwork pattern evokes a sense of darkness giving way to light, and of death giving way to life.

330

PLAN 1 Altar 2 Ambo 3 Chair 4 Place for the assembly 5 Baptismal font 6 Blessed Eucharistic chapel 7 Chapel of reconciliation 8 Narthex 9 Gathering space 10 Book/piety shop 11 Ambulatory 12 Sacristies 13 Music ministry

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

6:15 Gregory Burgess, Church of St Michael and St John, Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 1987, Plan and sections, 2010. Drawn by A. McCracken.

331 Entry space

A broad projecting veranda leads to the main entry of the Church of St Michael and St John and into a narthex. The narthex is a transitional space between the profane and the sacred. It also serves as a place of gathering and hospitality. It incorporates a small bookshop and provides access to the vesting sacristy, a kitchen and facilities corridor. The narthex and church are visually linked through internal windows. Central and side doors open from the narthex into the church. Recesses beside the central doors contain . The doors are filled with glass panels which in shape resemble a wing, but paired, also have the appearance of a stylised heart. The narthex projects into the back of the church, where it effectively divides the rear of the place for the assembly. Aisles trace the curved narthex wall, merging at the entry doors into the processional aisle. The narthex can accommodate thirty or more people for rites celebrated at the church doors. Inside these doors, there is room at the beginning of the processional aisle for smaller groups. These groups would include: parents and infants, together with sponsors, who have come to celebrate baptism; the bride and groom, their parents and attendants, at a wedding; the pallbearers and coffin at a funeral; and the priest celebrant and ministers. The aisles which trace the narthex walls extend this space. Though this entry space is immediately inside the main doors, because of the layout of the church, those who pause there to celebrate rites of welcome and sprinkling are actually in the midst of the gathered assembly. Parishioners seated towards the rear of the place for the assembly would be easily able to see and participate in rites celebrated at the doors. Others nearer the sanctuary might need to turn around to engage with the liturgical action.

Processional space

Just as the narthex projects into the vesica-shape at the entry to the church, so the sanctuary projects into the opposite side of the vesica at the front of the church. The processional aisle, which marks the short axis of the church, is

332 therefore relatively short. It would be important that a significant procession have formed up in the narthex or even under the veranda, so that it was already proceeding in orderly manner, before passing through the doors into the church. The processional aisle is wide enough to easily accommodate a procession that includes cross and candle bearers, or pallbearers and a coffin.

Ritual space

There is a broad expanse of open space between the front of each bay of pews and the steps leading into the sanctuary. This space wraps around the curving front of the sanctuary. It continues into the Blessed Eucharistic chapel and baptistery on the east side of the church, and into the place for music ministry on the west side. In turn, the place for the assembly wraps around the ritual space, ensuring good line-of-sight from throughout the church. The size and shape of the ritual space enables flexible use. Participants in the liturgical rites are able to gather in front of the sanctuary at the head of the processional aisle, around the front curve of the sanctuary, or within the sanctuary when appropriate, as can be seen in figure 6:15. The ritual space enhances the scope for ritual movement, such as in the presentation of candidates for Christian initiation, confirmation, marriage, and the departure of children for their own Liturgy of the Word. The communion procession, involving most members of the assembly, is likewise accommodated with ease. So too, is the placing of a coffin, with space to move around it, during a funeral liturgy.

Assembly and music ministry spaces

The place for the assembly is arranged in four bays of straight pews, which are angled towards the sanctuary, as is shown in figure 6:16. The ends of the pews in the outer bays conform to the arc of the vesica. The line of this same arc continues through the sanctuary. The effect of this is to create a strong sense of the pews being gathered to the altar, even though at its widest sweep relative to the altar, the place for the assembly is angled at only 150°.

333 The pew-ends are open, thereby creating a sense of connection among members of the assembly across the aisles, in a continuous curve around the church. This sense of connection is interrupted only where the narthex projects into the place for the assembly. While the configuration of pews fosters an awareness of others in the assembly, there is nowhere in the place for the assembly where members are actually facing each other. The participation of the assembly is aided by sound amplification through two speakers suspended unobtrusively from the ceiling, one on each side of the church. Assembly space is naturally lit by windows in the upper walls, above the narthex and in the lower walls at the side porches. Artificial light is provided by suspended lamps and wall- mounted up-lights.

6:16 Gregory Burgess, Church of St Michael and St John, Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 1987, Photograph showing four bays of angled assembly seating around sanctuary at right, 2010. Photograph by N. Hackett.

To east and west of the sanctuary are similar but not identical alcoves. Originally the western alcove was the Blessed Eucharist chapel, with seating provided for personal prayer. This alcove was also used during the liturgy as the place for music ministry. Adjacent to this alcove are two reconciliation chapels. The baptistery occupied the eastern alcove. It was visible from throughout the church and was well-suited for the celebration of baptism during or apart from the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy. This space also gave prominence to the font, a

334 broad bowl designed for baptism by infusion. Both alcoves have the same floor level as the place for the assembly and are adjacent to, yet clearly separate from the sanctuary. By 2002 it had become apparent that the space provided for music ministry was inadequate. To enable those involved to better fulfil their liturgical function, it was decided, in consultation with the architect, to relocate the tabernacle to the eastern alcove. The western alcove then became the place for music ministry. It also houses a devotional shrine to the Blessed Virgin Mary and an image of Saint Mary MacKillop. The relocated tabernacle was placed before the curving wall of the eastern alcove on the side nearest the sanctuary, establishing a new Blessed Eucharist chapel in the former baptistery. It can be seen from most places in the church. Next to it is a table of complementary design, upon which the Scriptures are open, reverencing the Word as a mode of Christ’s presence. The baptismal font was moved from the centre of this alcove to a smaller yet defined space between the alcove and place of the assembly. It stands in front of a gently curving wall. The tabernacle and font are thus placed in distinct, if not separate places, within one alcove. Though not an ideal arrangement, functionally and symbolically the font and tabernacle still fulfil their purposes. The tabernacle relates to the altar nearby in the sanctuary. The font is near to the assembly and is on the same floor level. The celebration of baptism during the Eucharistic liturgy would engage the whole assembly. An alternative place for the font might have been inside the entry doors at the beginning of the processional aisle, but this would have necessitated some reconfiguring of assembly seating. While neither the font nor tabernacle has a necessary function in the Eucharistic liturgy, the thoughtful relocation of both tabernacle and font demonstrates the importance of relating these sacred furnishings to the whole liturgical setting. Since the relocation of the tabernacle, the alcove for music ministry has provided greater space for singers and musicians. It houses an organ and electric keyboard, and chairs that can be arranged according to need. To sing at the ambo, a cantor must cross to the sanctuary. Though adjacent to the sanctuary,

335 the place for music ministry is clearly a distinct space, defined as such by the line of the vesica. The disposition of the western alcove to the place for the assembly is such that the choir directs its singing across the gathered assembly. Those serving in music ministry remain identified with the assembly by being on the same floor level and near to assembly space.

Sanctuary space

The design of the church accords significant emphasis to the vesica- shaped sanctuary. The roofline of the church ascends from low veranda awnings to a single high point centred above the sanctuary wall. Though not semicircular, this wall evokes the tradition of the apse. In its upper reach is a contemporary , formed by five overlapping circles which emerge from a cross. This is another expression of the death-to-life paschal mystery symbolism of the church design. A large canopy suspended over the sanctuary evokes the Holy Spirit. The canopy partially obscures the rose window. The sanctuary has an elevation of three steps. It is comprised of a platform which houses a centrally placed altar, with ambo and chair to east and west respectively. The design of the altar, ambo and chair, all crafted in timber, incorporates the horizontal curve which is characteristic of the building. A vertical curve in the design of each sacred furnishing echoes the pattern in the brickwork of the sanctuary wall. Yet the sacred furnishings are of individual design, ensuring that each has a distinctive presence. Though not solid, the altar has greater mass than the ambo and chair, indicating its pre-eminence and permanence. It images a table for the Eucharistic banquet more than an altar of sacrifice. Its mensa repeats the vesica-shape, with rounded ends. While not prohibited, such a shape is unusual in light of Catholic custom by which, stemming from Scriptural origins, altars are usually designed with four corners (cf. Ezekiel 43:13-15 & Revelation 9:13). The design of altars referred to elsewhere in this thesis reflects this custom, without specifying it. The size and height of the ambo is well suited to proclamation and preaching of the Scriptures. The faldstool-like chair for the

336 priest celebrant images servant-leadership of the worshipping assembly. The sanctuary setting, and the arrangement of its sacred furnishings, can be seen in figure 6:17.

6:17 Gregory Burgess, Church of St Michael and St John, Horsham, Victoria, Australia, 1987, Photograph from side aisle of sanctuary, showing ambo at left, altar at centre and chair at right, 2010. Photograph by N. Hackett.

Though placed well apart across the sanctuary, the altar, ambo and chair nevertheless appear as if lined up to face the assembly. The shape of the sanctuary offers considerably greater scope in terms both of placement of the sacred furnishings and varied levels of elevation. For example, the broad but still enclosing curve of the apsidal wall is ideally suited to placement of the chair at its centre, on the line of the dominant vesica, and elevated by a single step. So placed, the chair would have a unifying effect that is consistent with the function of liturgical presidency. As the sanctuary is quite shallow, this would only marginally increase the distance between the assembly and priest celebrant. There is space within and surrounding the sanctuary for the altar to sit slightly further forward, still at the level of the present footpace. The ambo should have a prominent place but ought not to interrupt assembly sightlines to the altar. Unless the sanctuary was to be redesigned, it is difficult to identify a place for the

337 ambo that improves on the present layout. The design of the sanctuary does not include access for persons with disability. The broad suspended canopy hovers over and marks the sanctuary space. In Catholic tradition, covering the altar with a baldachin, ciborium or tester fulfilled the liturgical function of symbolising the Holy Spirit, who is prayerfully invoked during the Eucharistic liturgy. It simultaneously fulfilled the architectural function of drawing attention to the altar. In the Church of St Michael and St John, the canopy is spread in two curved wings across the whole sanctuary. From the centre of the canopy, the altar beneath is illuminated through a vesica- shaped opening. In its winged design, reminiscent of Scriptural dove imagery, and in the light it mediates, the canopy is a clear evocation of the Holy Spirit. It is less clear whether the canopy is intended to reverence only the altar, or for such reverence to extend over the entire sanctuary.

Further observations

The relationship between the sanctuary and the place for the assembly in the Church of St Michael and St John is best understood in terms of the architectural and symbolic references which inform the liturgical design. Architecturally, the relationship is described in the interface between horizontal and vertical design elements. Symbolically, it is revealed in the design of the church as a metaphor of the paschal mystery. Michael Tawa (1986, p. 31), quoting architect Gregory Burgess, explains that: [The] horizontal amplitude, generated to give ‘an intimate relationship for each person with the sanctuary and a strong sense of fellowship and communion in worship’, is complemented by an increasing verticality towards the altar. … The ideas of exhaltation [sic] and resurrection are interpreted for the worshipper metaphorically in terms of flight through a gathered inclined ascent. The major roof, spread like great wings above the cave-like containment of the lower spaces, together with the dual horizontal and vertical tensions directed towards and beyond the sanctuary, charge the space with a soaring dynamism.

This dynamism is also evident in the sequence of abstracted wing-like windows which pierce the church walls beneath the ascending roofline. These windows not only admit light but serve to emphasise the upward sweep of the ceiling

338 towards its apex atop the sanctuary wall. Light also enters the church through windows above the narthex and in the walls. Those containing stained glass portray the Blessed Trinity, the Eucharist, and the sacramental life of the parish community. From these different perspectives, each points in some way to participation in the paschal mystery. In the decades following Vatican II, the fan-arrayed ordering became the preferred, yet most criticised, liturgical ordering. Its popularity may have been little more than imitation of what others had previously done to implement the conciliar imperative. As new and adapted orderings emerged or were refined in recent decades, the popularity of the fan-arrayed ordering has diminished. The Church of St Michael and St John, designed two decades after the Council, is a notable improvement on many of the fan-arrayed churches that preceded it. By designing the multifaceted symbolism of the church to reveal the paschal mystery, the structure itself conveys the sacramental-liturgical pattern of all the liturgical rites, especially the Eucharist. Fan-arrayed churches have been designed with the place for the assembly configured within as little as a 60° sweep from the sanctuary, to a sweep of more than 180°. The former is, in effect, a fanned longitudinal arrangement; the latter tends towards a centralised ordering. As noted, the Church of St Michael and St John has a sweep of approximately 150°. Liturgical celebration in fan-arrayed churches differs markedly, depending on the angle of the place for the assembly, relative to the sanctuary. In evaluating this ordering, it must therefore be acknowledged that the suitability of fan-arrayed churches for liturgical services and active participation becomes a matter of degree. The angle that determines assembly seating probably makes more difference than any other factor in the design of a fan-arrayed church. Yet as the Church of St Michael and St John demonstrates, the suitability of a fan-arrayed church depends on more than liturgical ordering. The wide and shallow space described by the vesica pisces enables the place for the assembly to be configured quite differently from a square church with a corner sanctuary,

339 or from a semicircular church with the sanctuary at the hub. The use of smaller vesica-shaped sanctuary and narthex spaces, intersecting with the dominant vesica-shaped space, has further refined the effectiveness of this plan. A common reservation expressed about fan-arrayed churches is that they resemble theatres. Consequently, it is argued that this disposes the assembly to expect that the liturgy will be performed for them, rather than actively engage them. The Church of St Michael and St John would challenge this perception, for there is little about it that is theatre-like. While a fan-arrayed seating configuration in a church may be similar to that of an amphitheatre or theatre-in- the-round, in most other aspects they differ. Some churches with a fan-arrayed seating configuration have raked seating. Others, like the Church of St Michael and St John, have a flat floor throughout the place for the assembly. The type of seating differs, with churches generally having pews or chairs. In contrast most theatres having interlocking upholstered seats with dividing arm-rests. Sanctuaries in fan-arrayed churches tend to be spacious and well lit, with permanent sacred furnishings that encourage familiarity. Stages in theatres rely on surrounding darkness to contrast with the spot-lit stage. The further a stage projects into an audience the simpler the design of the set. Performers come and go from the stage, whereas liturgical ministers remain with the assembly through the liturgy, regardless of whether their function has been completed or they have more to do. Theatre aisles are designed solely for access; church aisles are designed for processional movement. Other than a fan-arrayed seating configuration, the element these churches and theatres have most in common is a single-level sanctuary or stage. Though preconciliar churches generally used multiple elevations within the sanctuary, a tendency of postconciliar church design has favoured single level sanctuary elevation. Fan-arrayed churches often have a sanctuary set on a level platform that is elevated three or four steps. These sanctuary spaces sometimes resemble a stage, subtly evoking an expectation of performance rather than participation. The sanctuary of the Church of St Michael and St John avoids such

340 resemblance through the design of its curving apsidal wall, rose window, and canopy. Nevertheless, this sanctuary might still have benefitted from multiple elevations. The fan-arrayed Church of St Michael and St John represents a high-point among churches designed with this liturgical ordering. The primacy of the liturgy is apparent in its design, interpreted initially in the symbolism that has been incorporated into its architecture, and then in the ordering of its interconnected spaces. The symbolic elements of the design communicate their presence, if not always their meanings, more effectively than the spatial elements of the church’s ordering.

Conclusions drawn from the case studies

The conclusions drawn from each case study pertain to the design of the selected church and the type of liturgical ordering it represents. The general conclusions that follow are drawn from the case studies as a whole. In these conclusions, reference is made to the six case study churches by way of observation and example. However, the architectural and liturgical principles set out in these conclusions might inform the liturgical ordering of any church.

Suitable for liturgical services and active participation

A number of design elements contribute to the suitability of the churches studied for the celebration of liturgical services and active participation. These include: • referencing the liturgy to inform not only the layout of the church, but also its architectonic form; • ensuring the pre-eminence of the altar by placing it at the liturgical centre of the church, and orientating the place for the assembly to it; • designing the altar, ambo and chair as a suite, while ensuring that the symbolism and function of each sacred furnishing is evident;

341 • configuring the place for the assembly so that members of the assembly experience being gathered together and gathered to the altar; • using curved or angled seating configurations to enhance the gathering of the assembly; • designing pews with open ends, so as to create a sense of connection between parishioners, and spatial continuity across aisles; • placing a wide central processional aisle on the dominant axis, and using this axis to establish a link between the liturgical focal places; and • designing the program of iconography to harmonise with the liturgical setting. Other elements lessen the suitability of the churches studied for the celebration of liturgical services and active participation. The resulting effect of these elements serves to identify design attributes which remedy such limitations. These include: • placement of the baptismal font proximate to the assembly, differentiated from yet leading to the altar; • identifying a place for the tabernacle which reverences the reserved Eucharist, and which reflects the proper relationship between the sacrament celebrated at and ministered from the altar, and the place of reservation; • provision of spaces at the entry into the church, and at the front of the place for the assembly and/or around the sanctuary, designed to accommodate and enable the movement of participants in the rites which are celebrated there; • use of more than one elevation in the sanctuary to differentiate the places for the altar, ambo, and chair, and to improve sightlines; • utilising the breadth and depth of the sanctuary to establish places for the altar, ambo and chair, while ensuring their unity; • designing and placing of the chair for the priest celebrant in relation to the assembly and the altar, to be a unifying element while also reflecting inclusive ecclesial hierarchy;

342 • ensuring the space for singers and musicians is suitable large and carefully located in relation to the assembly and sanctuary, so that they are able to fully exercise their ministry and participate in the liturgy; and • providing a sequence of transitional spaces at the church entrance.

Hierarchical structure and liturgical roles

The ordering of a church and the assembly within it should manifest the Church’s ‘hierarchical structure and the diversity of [liturgical] roles’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §294). In the case study churches, the diversity of liturgical roles is manifested in the places for the assembly, priest celebrant, singers and musicians, and those who minister in the sanctuary. However the full diversity of roles, which includes deacons, acolytes, and catechumens, is found in only some Australian parish churches. It is not apparent in any of the case study churches. The representation of hierarchical structure is mostly limited to the placement and elevation of the altar and the chair for the priest celebrant, in relationship to the assembly and to the other sacred furnishings. In all six case study churches, the altar has been placed at the liturgical centre of the church. That is, none of the churches has an altar juxtaposed with the ambo or placed off-axis. In every church the altar is placed at the same elevation as the ambo and chair, though in St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy the altar is on a separate platform. In four of the six churches, the chair is placed to one side of the altar and the ambo to the other side. In St John the Baptist Church, the chair is on a sanctuary platform with the ambo. They are placed off-axis and are unaligned with each other. In Our Lady of Fatima Church at Caringbah, the chair is similarly placed off-axis between the ambo and the front of the place for the assembly. In none of the churches studied is the chair placed as preferred, namely ‘in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §310), though St John the

343 Baptist Church approximates this preferred placement. When designed with the communio ecclesiology in mind, the preferred place for the chair can become a unifying element. If distant, or of exaggerated elevation, the preferred place can evoke a sense of rank, rather than of inclusion. Though limitations in the placement of altar and chair have been noted in some of the case studies, there is no instance where the placement of the chair emphasises hierarchy over unity. In all six churches the ordering of the altar and chair in relation to the assembly contributes to a sense of the assembly being gathered.

Signs perceptible to the senses

The case studies revealed design features related to the liturgy, which might be said to ‘participate’ in the liturgy by virtue of their presence in the fabric of the church and the ways this presence can be experienced by the assembly. These signs perceptible to the senses comprise: • architectural representations of God the Father, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the saints; • architectural devices which evoke a sense of the transcendent or spiritual; and • iconography representing Christ and the saints, who in turn are represented by the assembly acting as the ‘whole Christ’ in liturgical celebration; In the case study churches, these signs can be identified in: • the ascending ceiling and the apsidal-wall glass cross in St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood; • the lofty ceiling and apex skylight, and the shaft of light descending from the apex of the ceiling, in Our Lady of Fatima Church Kingsgrove; • the ascending roofline, sanctuary canopy, and rose window in the Church of St Michael and St John at Horsham; • the crucifix, with its suggestion of resurrection, suspended in the sanctuary arch in front of a gold background, in St Joseph’s Church at Malvern; • the timber structural system of ascending pointed arches, and the two circular windows, in Our Lady of Fatima Church at Caringbah; and

344 • the ‘glory’ and crucifix, and the series of stained glass windows and funerary doors in St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy. The case study churches demonstrate that architectural expressions of God and of the numinous contribute to the liturgical setting, particularly when they correspond with the ordering of the church and the celebration of the liturgy. Iconography is invariably figurative. It functions differently to signs like those noted above, which are predominantly architectural even though they might include a figurative component. Sometimes iconography serves as a reminder that the assembly is one with the company of heaven; sometimes it is intended for devotional prayer; and in some instances both purposes are realised. Here, different liturgical design values become apparent. In some of the case study churches, the Stations of the Cross and images of Mary and the saints form part of the liturgical setting. This is evident where images have been hung on church walls or placed in chapels and shrines which open onto the liturgical setting. In other case study churches, an intentional distinction has been made between liturgical and devotional spaces. In these instances, the Stations of the Cross are set out in a courtyard or gathering space; images of Mary and the saints are located in chapels and shrines that are distinct from the liturgical setting. The case study churches demonstrate that both approaches to iconography can complement the ordering of a church for the liturgy. The section, ‘The design of the church – devotions’ in Appendix Four, clearly sets out the norms for including iconography in church design.

Distinctive design elements of church design

In evaluating the Church of St Michael and St John at Horsham, the frequent argument that fan-arrayed churches resemble theatres was addressed. Other orderings are generally not subject to similar critique. For example, the basilican ordering is not evaluated with reference to a civic hall or school auditorium. As was observed of the fan-arrayed ordering, distinct design elements generally ensure that Catholic churches differ markedly from other

345 types of building, even if they seemingly have similar layouts. These distinct design elements include: • transitional entry spaces; • the configuration and style of seating; • the unity of the place for the assembly and the sanctuary; • the symbolism of spaces designed for liturgy; • the lighting schemes of churches; • the processional use of aisles; • orderings which promote active participation; • the centrality and pre-eminence of the altar; and • what is symbolised or signified by the font, ambo, tabernacle, and other sacred furnishings. Therefore, caution ought to be exercised in evaluating any liturgical ordering in terms of similarity in plan to spectator and audience venues such as halls, stadia, arenas and theatres.

Observations about assembly seating

While liturgical ordering is concerned with much more than arranging the furniture, the configuration of seating in the place for the assembly is of considerably importance. It is observed that the case study churches for the basilican and cruciform orderings have seating arrangements in which pews are angled forward from the central aisle. In contrast, the preconciliar ordering of such churches would have configured pews in straight rows. In fact, this was the original seating plan in both churches, even though St Thomas Aquinas Church at Charnwood is a postconciliar structure. It is also observed that the cruciform and U-arrayed case study churches arrange short straight pews to have the effect of a curve, while the other churches rely on combinations of angled and straight rows to promote the sense of being gathered. As well, the cruciform and U-arrayed case study churches use moveable chairs in front of permanent pews.

346 The complex art of liturgical ordering

Lastly, it is evident that while liturgical ordering may be considered in terms of the spaces and furnishings that are required for celebration of the rites, each of the orderings evaluated is more than an amalgam of these spaces and furnishings. Liturgical ordering takes account of: • the detailed layout of a church, in relation to other aspects of the design; • the use of design elements from the tradition of church architecture; • the design of furnishings; • the intended ways in which the celebration of liturgical rites will be enacted; • the expectation of full, conscious, and active participation in the liturgy; • the relationships that are expressed by virtue of the design; and • the ecclesiology that is revealed in the design. Liturgical ordering may therefore be considered an art of some complexity.

347 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION

This thesis set out to investigate the implementation of the conciliar injunction from the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium: ‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful’ (Vatican II 1963, SC §124). Liturgical services of their nature presume the full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful. Accordingly, the concentration of this thesis has been on the primacy of the liturgy in determining the design of Catholic churches since the Council, with active participation ever in mind.

Concluding observations about the approach to research

This investigation of liturgical ordering has been undertaken using multiple research methods. The interdisciplinary character of the project, bridging architecture and liturgy, necessitated this approach. The first ‘band’ of research method consisted of content analysis, applied progressively through the thesis. Terminology proved to be crucial. ‘Liturgical ordering’ is not well enough established in the lexicons of liturgy and architecture to generate the desired content. Therefore, a list of related words and phrases was devised. The availability of databases and indexes also became a concern; where these have not been compiled, it was necessary to identify data through manual searches. These limitations noted, the prescriptive, analytic and methodological purposes of content analysis fitted the task of identifying and then classifying content, thereby clarifying the relevant bodies of literature. The content analysis process of validation enabled the use of numerous church plans to identify patterns in liturgical ordering. This meant that onsite evaluation of churches could be limited to those selected for case study. In turn, the identification of patterns led to the classification of types of liturgical ordering.

348 The premise of content analysis that ‘texts have meanings relative to particular contexts, discourses, or purposes’ proved well founded in the discourse about types of liturgical ordering (Krippendorff 2004, p. 24). As noted, such meanings were frequently imprecise as described or illustrated, and lacked consistency in usage. This confirmed an initial observation that contemporary discourse about liturgical ordering wants for a common terminology. The second ‘band’ of research method comprised three interconnected and sequenced strategies, which in turn drew upon content analysis for data. These strategies were interpretive-historical, logical argumentation and case studies. The first provided a useful framework for two tasks: surveying the evolution of liturgical ordering across four historical epochs; and more closely, tracing the emergence of new and adapted liturgical ordering in the fifth epoch up until Vatican II. The interpretative exercise was twofold, first reading the history of Catholic church architecture through the lens of liturgical ordering; and second, identifying changes in light of liturgical reform. Logical argumentation was applied to the postconciliar period. Patterns in the recent evolution of liturgical ordering were described and design trends were traced. In preparation for the case studies, twenty-six typologies were examined. These typologies, described by individual and collaborating authors, derive from liturgical ordering, assembly seating arrangements, and the structural shape of churches. Some of the typologies incorporated the development of types and sets of types over a number of years, as well as multiple sets of types. This exercise confirmed the need for a comprehensive typology in present-day discourse about liturgical ordering. Case studies were undertaken using a typology relevant to the Australian experience of liturgical ordering. The case study strategy enabled what might otherwise have remained conceptual to be observed and evaluated empirically. It provided a means by which to identify the contribution of postconciliar church design in Australia to the continuing implementation of the conciliar injunction.

349 Concluding observations about liturgical ordering

Prior to the Council there existed a common or standardised ordering of Catholic churches. This standardised ordering began to disappear due to the influence of the twentieth century liturgical movement. It ceased to exist as the conciliar liturgical reforms took root in the liturgical praxis of the Church. New and adapted liturgical ordering, already emerging during the preconciliar period, became normative. This thesis recognised in the new and adapted orderings, an implicit quest for the ideal ordering. It asked if an ideal liturgical ordering for the celebration of the liturgy can be identified. By initially tracing the evolution of liturgical ordering in the design of Catholic churches from the earliest known evidence, the thesis established that liturgical ordering has not been static, but has evolved through the centuries. More particularly, the thesis demonstrated that the changes in liturgical ordering following upon Vatican II constitute one of only two periods of far-reaching change, the first having occurred during the high middle ages. The survey of the evolution of liturgical ordering also revealed a precedent for the conciliar injunction that had not previously been apparent. It became evident that throughout the history of church architecture, the liturgy has been the foremost influence on church design. Liturgical change brought about change in liturgical ordering. In view of this, it may be concluded that the conciliar injunction, ‘And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services …,’ clearly reflects historical praxis and is in continuity with Catholic tradition. Coming to the twentieth century, the thesis investigated more closely the developments in liturgical ordering that resulted from the influence of the liturgical movement during the preconciliar era. Significantly, all of the post- conciliar orderings identified for case study can first be identified in churches designed prior to Vatican II. It may therefore be concluded that the new and adapted liturgical ordering which came into widespread use after Vatican II, in fact derived from the liturgical movement earlier in the twentieth century. Such

350 a conclusion is, however, relative, for though most orderings can be identified prior to Vatican II, these orderings were further developed and refined in the decades following the Council. Similarly, there emerged in the development of some orderings a range of architectural interpretations, creating a variety of church plans of the same type. The liturgical reforms of the Council also brought about specific changes in postconciliar ordering, including: • the restoration of the Word in the liturgy, which led to the return of the ambo to the sanctuary, and the effective demise of the pulpit; • the shift from the sedilia to the chair for the priest celebrant; • the requirement that the altar be freestanding to allow for celebration facing the assembly; • the relocation of the tabernacle and baptismal font; and • the preference for one ‘room’ rather than two ‘room’ churches. These changes have resulted in postconciliar orderings that share similar spatial arrangements with their preconciliar prototypes, but differ markedly in some aspects of their liturgical setting. Reservations concerning the evaluation of orderings that are perceived to have equivalents in other types of building were addressed at the end of the last chapter. There it was concluded that many elements in church design distinguish churches from other building types. A related perspective is put forward by Tom Elich (2005, p. 10): We do not have any architectural models for a structured space where a large group of people act in concert as a single Body. Sporting arenas, concert halls and other performance spaces might encourage vigorous and profound audience involvement, but they all envisage a number of performers and an audience. No matter how much the football crowd sweats and screams, they are not playing football. In a church, the whole body is actually offering liturgical worship. This has significant consequences for the way in which the space in the church is organised. Set around an axis which opens the Church to the transcendent action of God, the people need to relate not only to the presider, leader or minister, but also to one another in order to have a sense of the corporate action which they undertake in worship.

351 Elich’s emphasis is less on the supposed unsuitability of other building types as a basis for church design, than on the lack of an architectural model in which a large group of people can together participate in a single act. What is implicitly called for is a new model or plan, a new liturgical ordering that provides for the celebration of the liturgy by the ‘whole Christ’ as represented by the gathered assembly and its ministers, in which ‘all the baptised are present as active celebrants of the liturgy’ (Elich 2005, p. 10). Elich’s reasoning resonates with the stated aim of this thesis, to determine if there exists an ideal liturgical ordering which might serve as a model for church design today and into the future.

An ideal architectural model?

The conclusion to this undertaking is indicative rather than definitive. It is indicative for two reasons. The first concerns the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II; the second concerns the detail in each liturgical ordering project. The conciliar reform of the liturgy, summarised for the purposes of this thesis in the foundational liturgical principles, is still being implemented in the life and liturgy of the Church. The Council’s highest priority in the reform and promotion of the liturgy, to bring about the full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful, has long begun, but is not yet fully realised. Indeed, as the task of implementing the Council’s vision has become better understood, the pace of liturgical reform has slowed. It has been established in this thesis that the evolution of liturgical ordering is responsive to change in the liturgy. So long as the liturgical reforms of Vatican II remain to be fulfilled, determining an ideal liturgical ordering remains somewhat tentative. Meanwhile, churches continue to be built without the primacy of the liturgy being adequately acknowledged in the design process (Crouan 2000, pp. 49-53, 71-92; Ferrone 2007, pp. 68-109; Searle 2006, pp. 70- 85). The second reason for an indicative rather than definitive conclusion is the uniqueness of each liturgical reordering project. The thesis has described different types of liturgical ordering. It has commented upon typologies of

352 liturgical ordering. It has surveyed churches representative of the range of contemporary orderings. Lastly, it has evaluated six churches, each typifying a different ordering. It is evident that churches with the same type of liturgical ordering can be markedly different from each other. As is clear from the churches sampled and evaluated in the thesis, such differences can occur because of: the relationship between the ordering of the space and the form of the structure; the configuration of the place for the assembly in relation to the altar, ambo and chair; the priority given to fostering unity and/or emphasising hierarchy in the church design; the inclusion of liturgical symbolism in the fabric of the church; and the values and needs of the Church community that commissions a new church or reordering project. Though liturgical ordering may be described in terms of type, the ordering of a church is considerably more detailed. With these reasons for an indicative conclusion in mind, the question of an ideal liturgical ordering for Catholic churches in the present era can be addressed. Among the many types of liturgical ordering considered in the thesis, the U-arrayed ordering exhibits the most comprehensive response to the foundational liturgical principles. This type has been described in the typology for the Australian context, in Chapter Five (pp. 255-256). It has been evaluated in the case study of St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy, in Chapter Six (pp. 318- 329). Indeed, it is the realisation of the U-arrayed type in this church, with its curving ‘U’ form, that has given rise to this indicative conclusion. Liturgically, the place for the assembly fosters unity. It conveys a sense of being gathered, as an assembly and around the altar. The places for the altar, ambo, chair and font, in relation to each other and to the place for the assembly, engage the gathered community and its ministers in celebrating the liturgy. The assembly can approach near to the altar to receive communion. The design of the altar draws attention to the bread and wine offered on its mensa, thereby signifying the liturgy as source of the Christian life. The U-arrayed liturgical ordering is not enclosed, but is open between its ends. This may be interpreted

353 as openness to the presence and action of God, to the mission of the church, and to the world encountered beyond the liturgy. Architecturally, the U-arrayed ordering incorporates the centralised and axial plans. Its centralising flow is evident in the configuration of the assembly and its ministers, and in the pre-eminence of the altar in the liturgical setting. Its axial flow is evident in the strong central processional way. The placement of the altar on the dominant axis towards the ‘head’ of the open ‘U’ setting, establishes the altar as both centre and destination of the liturgical assembly. In turn, this reflects the communal and eschatological dimensions of the Eucharistic liturgy. The elevated placement of the altar captures a sense of the liturgy as summit, where the praise and thanksgiving of the Church are offered to God. The basic layout of the U-arrayed ordering functionally images the ‘floor plan [of] ancient basilicas’ as conceptualized by Seasoltz (cf. fig. 5:1), the first illustration of which is shown reoriented in figure 7:1. This liturgical setting long predates the introduction of rows of seating into basilican churches. It ought not to be confused with the basilican ordering as often referred to in this thesis and identified as a type for case study in Chapter Six.

7:1 R. Kevin Seasoltz, Schematic drawing of ‘floor plan [of] ancient basilicas’. Adapted from R.K. Seasoltz, The house of God: sacred art and church architecture, Herder and Herder, New York, 1963, p. 143.

Seasoltz (1963, pp. 142-143) completes his evaluation of various possible liturgical arrangements of the assembly by concluding that:

354 It would seem that the image which most adequately expresses the mystery of the Christian assembly is that which is based on the floor plan which prevailed in the ancient basilicas. This arrangement is functional and, at the same time, it symbolizes the Church on the march, waiting for the return of the Lord, and the Church which has already received the Savior. Between the two personal zones of the chancel and the nave, there is rapport and circulation. The Word is readily proclaimed by the ministers and received and confessed by the faithful. Throughout the whole liturgy there is a concentration of the assembly, both ministers and faithful, on the sacrifice which is accomplished at the altar. All the members of the assembly can see and hear and act. Above all the arrangement facilitates a genuine dialogue between the faithful and the celebrating priest.

Though the structures of the ancient Christian basilica and St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy have little in common, the liturgical ordering of the twenty- first century church echoes that of the ancient church. In its U-arrayed ordering, St John the Baptist Church might therefore be interpreted as fulfilling the Council’s appeal for ressourcement, a return to the sources, and aggiornamento, a modernising. Adams has come to a similar conclusion about the U-arrayed ordering. His rationale for variable use liturgical ordering and his types of liturgical ordering have been described in Chapters Four and Five. In determining the ideal ordering for the ‘definitional seasons’ (Adams 1987, p. 240) of Christmas and Easter, he concludes: Perhaps, then, our best option is to choose a “rotund” U-shape, broken at appropriate aisles and deep enough for the centre to be obvious. At the top of the “U,” the east end, the altar/table and ambo could sit in proper balance, placed so that no one in the assembly was behind presider or preacher, even though these foci were “inside” rather than on the perimeter of the arc. … the font’s placement might still be at an aisle, with reference to whichever is the primary entry to the room (Adams 1987, pp. 241-242).

Seasoltz and Adams could well have been writing about St John the Baptist Church. Seasoltz (1963, p. 142) implicitly stresses the horizontal axial sense of the ancient basilica by drawing attention to ‘the Church on the march.’ In contrast, Adams (1987, pp. 141-142) emphasises that ‘the axial sense of the space should be vertical.’ The design of St John the Baptist Church creates a strong axial sense in both horizontal and vertical planes. The horizontal axis is defined by the alignment of doors, font, altar, and tabernacle. This axis serves as

355 the principal processional route, movement along which gives it further prominence. The vertical axis is defined by the ‘glory’ suspended from the ceiling at the centre of the church. It draws the eye to look upward and to take in the rising roofline and ascending bands of stained glass windows. There are a number of common elements in churches having the U- arrayed liturgical ordering. These include: • the U-configuration of assembly seating in which a curve of pews or chairs straightens and extends on both sides; • the place for music ministry at one end of the ‘U’, adjacent to the sanctuary, where it is well-suited to leading the assembly in song; • the place for the altar inside of the ‘U’ yet towards the ‘head’ of the church; • open space in front of the altar, which can serve as a place of honour during celebration of the liturgical rites; • the place for the ambo and chair, separated from the altar by the design of sanctuary space, and located at or just beyond the end of the U-configured seating; the whole assembly can see and hear the , and priest at the ambo, and the priest celebrant at the chair; • a central axis on which are located the baptismal font and altar, and which serves as a processional way; • the place for the baptismal font at the entry, yet within the place for the assembly; • the reservation of the Eucharist in a place separate from the sanctuary; and • a vesting sacristy proximate to the doors into the church. A formulaic approach to designing a church according to this variation of the U- arrayed liturgical ordering would incorporate these elements. Three churches illustrate the postconciliar evolution of the U-arrayed liturgical ordering. Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church (fig. 7:2) at Ellwood City in Pennsylvania, was built in the early 1970s. It conforms to the preceding description except for the baptismal font which, though located at the entry, is not in the midst of the assembly. This reflects preconciliar practice,

356 unchanged so soon after the Council. The tabernacle is located on its own platform to one side of the sanctuary.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

1 Entry 2 Baptismal font 3 Place for the assembly 4 Altar 5 Ambo and Chair 6 Music ministry 7 Blessed Eucharistic tabernacle 8 Reconciliation confessional 9 Vesting sacristy

7:2 P. Arthur d’Orazio, Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, USA, 1970 - 1971, Plan. Adapted from D. DeBlasio, P.A. d’Orazio and W. Schickel, ‘Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, Liturgical arts, 1972, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 70.

St Cornelius Church (fig. 7:3) at Chadd’s Ford in Pennsylvania, which opened in 1991, advanced the development of this ordering. The font is placed at the entry to the church and within the place for the assembly, though in a cut- away section of the pews. The seating configuration in the place for the assembly, though formed in a U-shape, is comprised of bays of straight pews which do not quite convey the curve of the ‘U’, but rely on a change of angle at each aisle. The chair for the priest celebrant is set within a semicircular synthronon. This recalls the ancient basilican practice of the bishop’s chair being placed in a synthronon at the centre of the apse. The same setting for the chair is used in the preconciliar U-arrayed Church of St Laurentius (fig 4:14) in Munich,

357 Germany. While there is logic in the location of the Blessed Eucharist chapel in relation to the gathering space, it lacks a clear relationship the altar.

Illustration has been removed due to Copyright restrictions.

1 Entry 2 Baptismal font 3 Place for the assembly 4 Altar 5 Ambo and Chair 6 Music ministry 7 Blessed Eucharist chapel 8 Reconciliation chapel 9 Vesting sacristy 10 Gathering space

7:3 George Yu, St Cornelius Church, Chadd’s Ford, Pennsylvania, USA, 1991, Plan. Adapted from T. Stehle, ‘St. Cornelius Parish: Building for the Future,’ Liturgy 90, 1993, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 6.

The third church is already familiar. St John the Baptist Church (fig. 7:4) at Woy Woy constitutes a further refinement of the U-arrayed ordering from the preceding churches. Three differences are observed between the two earlier churches and St John the Baptist Church. In the latter, the font is placed inside the entry in a setting that is also integral to the place for the assembly; in the earlier churches the placement of the font essentially relates to the entrance. In St John the Baptist Church, the sanctuary is designed as two distinct podia; in contrast, the sanctuaries of the earlier churches are comprised of two elevated, connected sanctuary forms. In the earlier churches, the chair for the priest celebrant is centred at the head of the sanctuary; in St John the Baptist Church it

358 is off-centre. This placement of the chair is perhaps the only instance of St John the Baptist Church not having improved on the earlier variations of the U-arrayed ordering.

1 Entry 2 Baptismal font 3 Place for the assembly 4 Altar 5 Ambo and Chair 6 Music ministry 7 Blessed Eucharist chapel 8 Reconciliation chapel 9 Sacristies 10 Gathering space

7:4 Randall Lindstrom, St John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy, New South Wales, Australia, 2007, Plan. Note the rows of moveable chairs in front of the permanent pews, to accommodate larger assemblies; and in the gathering space, to provide for overflow crowds. Adapted from architectural drawing, Prism Studio, provided by R. Lindstrom, designer, n.d.

The development of the U-arrayed liturgical ordering has been paralleled by a change in the structural form of the churches designed for this ordering. The earliest church is an orthogonal building; the next, an irregular octagon over which a circular drum was circumscribed; and the most recent, a truncated cylinder. Each church has required a projecting wing to accommodate facilities that could not be contained within the church structure. All have an entry into the church which is on the dominant axis, though the two more recently built

359 churches have portals that are not aligned with and do not relate directly to the entry. The Church of St Michael at Linz in Austria (fig. 4:28) underwent liturgical reordering to a U-arrayed setting in 1988. While it has much in common with these three churches, it lacks a central processional approach through the assembly into the middle of the church, and its baptistery is not located at the point of entry. The U-arrayed church as described here and exemplified by St John the Baptist Church at Woy Woy, is a form of building intentionally designed to provide for the celebration of all the liturgical rites, and for the full, conscious, and active participation of the entire assembly in the liturgical act. It substantially fulfils the directives of postconciliar liturgical, ecclesial and juridical pronouncements concerning church design, as excerpted in Appendix Two. It resolves difficulties apparent in other orderings by placing the font in relation to the entry and assembly, and the tabernacle in relation to the altar. This variation of the U-arrayed liturgical ordering is better-suited than any other ordering considered in this thesis for the celebration of liturgical services and active participation. As the ideal liturgical ordering, at least for the time being, it will serve well as a model for church design.

The tasks that await

‘For the time being’ conveys the relative nature of the conclusion reached. Of the ideal U-arrayed ordering, there are at least two considerations that warrant further investigation. The first is the structural forms for which this liturgical ordering might be designed. The ellipse or vesica pisces or oval would readily accommodate the U-arrayed ordering. It is uncertain whether a U-shaped church would be a good fit for an ordering of identical shape; having walls which fully trace the arrangement of assembly seating might impress the form of the U too strongly.

360 The second consideration concerns the place of Eucharistic reservation. Though not a liturgical focal point, the location of the tabernacle is nevertheless integral to the catholicity of any church. The three plans tracing the postconciliar refinement of the U-arrayed ordering each locate the tabernacle in a different part of the church building. In the earliest church the tabernacle is within the liturgical setting; in the two more recent churches the tabernacle is located in a separate chapel, only one of which relates the tabernacle directly to the altar. Placement of the tabernacle in the U-arrayed ordering, as in any church, requires careful planning. Another liturgical ordering that may benefit from further investigation is the circumstantes or circumadstantes ordering (fig 4:45) described in Chapter Four. It seems likely there will always be Church clients, architects, clergy and designers who will prefer to build a longitudinal church, inspired by the traditional basilican plan. The circumstantes ordering provides a long processional aisle, which implies a linear flow. At the same time it gathers the assembly in a concentric pattern around the front of a circular sanctuary, which implies a centralised follow. The recent use of this ordering for churches at Regensburg in Germany (fig. 4:43) and Oakland in North America (4:44) has revealed two variations of the circumstantes ordering, each used effectively. The general plan of the circumstantes ordering has the potential to function well with large assemblies, as the curving rows of seating can extend back and out from the sanctuary. The circumstantes ordering may yet prove to be an excellent alternative to preconciliar basilican and cruciform-plan churches. An essay titled ‘Churches back to front’ by Tom Elich, which has been referred to in Chapter Two and again in this chapter, begs the question of process in designing churches for liturgical celebration. His concern is to move beyond prevailing assumptions: One of the most persistent mind-sets exposed by a discussion of church plans is that every church needs a front and a back connected by a bridal aisle. I think it is necessary to rethink our ingrained assumptions in order to resolve apparently contradictory requirements … (Elich 2005, p. 10).

361 What Elich advocates is a new process in church design. Putting aside notions of front and back, his design process is instead based on liturgical relationships. These relationships are to inform the ordering of the church. To establish the credibility of this process, he invited architects to submit schematic drawings of churches planned ‘back to front’. One of these drawings, a plan by Peter Gardiner of Peddle Thorp Architects, is shown in figure 7:5.

7:5 Peter Gardiner, Plan for a church designed in accordance with Tom Elich’s relationships based process, ‘Churches back to front’, unbuilt, 2005. Note the similarity in liturgical ordering with St Barbara Church by Alfons Leitl at Mühlheim/Ruhr, Germany, 1953 – 1955, in fig. 4:15. From T. Elich, ‘Churches Back to Front’, Liturgy News, 2005, vol. 35, no. 3, p. 10.

Elich (2005, p. 12) outlines the intention of this design: …the gathering/entry space leads directly to a tiled area where the font is located. To one side is the Eucharistic chapel, to the other the main worship area. This plan aligns the altar/ambo, font and tabernacle on a single clear axis with the external cross. … Processions move from the entry between the assembly to the altar end of the liturgical space. The north entry takes people after Mass to lawns and the community hall.

The liturgical flow evident in this design concept justifies further investigation of the process Elich proposes. Postconciliar liturgical ordering has been treated of in this thesis in light of the Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, in particular the injunction that churches be built suitable for the celebration of liturgical

362 services. Postconciliar liturgical ordering may yet come to be examined in light of the current discourse about the interpretation of Vatican II. Indeed, Stroik (2009, p. 78) has already articulated a number of questions relevant to such a critique. Benedict XVI focused the debate concerning interpretation of the Council in a 2005 address. On that occasion he contrasted a ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’ with a ‘hermeneutic of reform’ and, by implication, continuity (Benedict XVI 2005). The question this poses for liturgical ordering is the same as is posed for every outcome of the implementation of the Council, a question of continuity, or discontinuity. This would ask if the new and adapted orderings stem from legitimate reform within the Catholic tradition, or if they are innovations devoid of authentic integration with tradition (cf. Benedict XVI 2011). It would ask whether the types of liturgical ordering identified and evaluated in the thesis are representative of both interpretations of Vatican II, of the hermeneutic of reform and the hermeneutic of discontinuity. These questions should probably be addressed. Historically, the design of liturgical ordering has been informed by architectural systems deriving from geometry, cosmology, music, and philosophy. These systems drew upon inherent spiritual or esoteric principles. They determined form, proportion, ratio, decoration, ornamentation, symbolism and hierarchy. The tradition of sacred geometry, the classical orders, and the principles of gothic architecture, are examples of ancient systems (Doig 2008, pp. 169-196; Kollar 1975, pp. 75-119; McNamara 2009, pp. 82-133). As recently as the twentieth century, modern architectural systems have been devised. Le Corbusier constructed his Modulor grid from observing nature and art (Bouvier & Cousin 2005, p. 54). Hans van der Laan developed his theory of the plastic number from human apprehension of form, space and size (Remery 2011, pp. 195-204). Architectural systems inform church design and influence the human experience of and relationship with liturgical space. This is evident in the case study churches of St John the Baptist at Woy Woy and St Michael and St John at

363 Horsham. It may be timely that the interplay between architectural systems and liturgical ordering be investigated. Lastly, attention needs to be given to the terminology which serves contemporary discourse about the primacy of the liturgy in church design. As observed at the beginning of the thesis, ‘liturgical ordering’ is becoming established in liturgical usage and proving beneficial. However, it has not yet been received into the architectural lexicon, even though the ‘ordering’ of church space inferred by ‘liturgical’ is essentially architectural. Liturgical ordering is, in effect, architectural design informed by liturgical principles, rites and enactment. There is a related question as to whether ‘liturgical ordering’ ought only to be used when church design is primarily informed by the liturgy, or to refer more generally to the spatial arrangement of churches regardless of the emphasis given to the liturgy in their design. The descriptors used to identify different orderings likewise warrant attention. As became evident in Chapter Five, the meaning and use of descriptors is inconsistent. Clarification of descriptors is desirable. So, too, is the development of a common set of descriptors which clearly convey the types of liturgical ordering that are evident in contemporary church design. Continuing exposition may lead to ‘liturgical ordering’, common descriptors of types of ordering, and a comprehensive typology of orderings, becoming well established in liturgical and architectural usage. Further, investigation of the functions such concepts and terms perform in architectural and liturgical discourse, ought to refine the meaning of these concepts and terms. In this regard the approaches set forth by Adrian Forty (2000, pp. 80-85, 94-95; cf. pp. 240-248) and by Kevin W. Irwin (1994, pp. 83-259) are apposite.

‘… And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services …’

Those few words, ‘… And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services …’ have

364 become the catalyst for one of the most extraordinary periods in the history of Catholic church architecture. Inspired by the liturgical movement and impelled by this conciliar injunction, there has emerged an epoch of innovative design that will continue long beyond the present day. In the endeavour to implement the injunction, to design and build churches that are suitable for the celebration of liturgical services, there emerged new and adapted liturgical ordering. Some orderings have proven to be more faithful to the injunction and more suitable for liturgical celebration than others. The investigation of postconciliar liturgical ordering in this thesis can but inform the process of building churches, and impress upon those who participate in this process the indispensible primacy of the liturgy in church design.

365 REFERENCES

‘Abbey church’ 1961, Liturgical arts, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 36-37.

Adams, W.S. 1987, ‘An apology for variable liturgical space,’ Worship, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 231-242.

Adams, W.S. 1999, Moving the furniture: liturgical theory, practice, and environment, Church Publishing, New York.

Adams, W.S. 2002, ‘On round liturgical spaces: not quite a circular argument,’ in Searching for sacred space: essays on architecture and liturgical design in the episcopal church, ed. J. A. Runkle, Church Publishing, New York, pp. 107-128.

Alberigo, G. 1995, ‘The announcement of the council: from the security of the fortress to the lure of the quest,’ in History of Vatican II, vol. 1, eds. G. Alberigo & J.A. Komonchak, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, pp. 1-54.

Anson, P.F. 1948, Churches: their plan and furnishing, revised & ed. T. F. Croft- Fraser & H.A. Reinhold, The Bruce Publishing Co, Milwaukee.

Archdiocese of Chicago, Office for Divine Worship 2004, Guidelines for the building and renovation of churches, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Atkins, P. 2004, Memory and liturgy: the place of memory in the composition and practice of liturgy, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants.

Augustine, P.C. 1921, A Commentary on the new code of canon law, vol. VI: administrative law (can. 1154-1551), B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis.

Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, National Liturgical Commission 1988, Discussion paper on the tabernacle, National Liturgical Commission, Canberra.

Baldovin, J. 2008, Reforming the liturgy: a response to the critics, Pueblo, Collegeville.

Barral I Altet, X. 1998, The Romanesque: towns, cathedrals and monasteries, tr. C. Miller, Taschen, Koln.

Barral I Altet, X. 2002, The early middle ages: from late antiquity to A.D. 1000, tr. L. Frankel, Taschen, Koln.

Barrie, T. 1996, Spiritual path, sacred place: myth, ritual, and meaning in architecture, Shambhala Publications, .

Barron, R. 2004, Bridging the great divide, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Beard, B. 1988, ‘Seating for catholic worship: a primer,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.2-3.

366 Benedict XVI (J. Ratzinger) 2005, Address to the Roman Curia, http: //www. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_b en_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_ en.html, sourced 16 May 2011.

Benedict XVI (J. Ratzinger) 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, St Pauls Publications, Strathfield, NSW.

Benedict XVI (J. Ratzinger) 2007b, Motu proprio, Summorum pontificum, (unofficial English translation, issued by Vatican Information Service), United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Newsletter - Committee on the Liturgy, vol. 43, pp. 18-19.

Benedict XVI (J. Ratzinger) 2010, Apostolic exhortation, Verbum Domini, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/document s/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html, sourced 16 October 2010.

Benedict XVI (J. Ratzinger) 2011, Address to participants in the congress promoted by the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm on the 50th anniversary of foundation, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011 /may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110506_sant-anselmo_en.html, sourced 20 June 2011.

Beny, R. & Gunn, P. 1981, The churches of Rome, Simon & Schuster, New York.

Bergamo, M. & del Prete, M. 1997, Espacios celebrativos: estudio para una arquitectura de las iglesias a partir del Concilio Vaticano II, Grafite – Ediciones EGA, Bilbao.

Bess, P. 2002, ‘The heavenly city, the earthly city and the parish church,’ Humanist Art Review, http://www.humanistart.net/city_church/church-form. htm, sourced 10 October 2006.

Bess, P. 2006, Till we have built Jerusalem: architecture, urbanism, and culture, ISI Books, Wilmington.

Béthune, A. 1962, ‘Acoustics, light, and seating for the people’s participation in the mass,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 65-66, 75-76.

Béthune, A. 1994, ‘The dynamics of open floor space,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 90-92.

Biéler, A. 1965, Architecture in worship: the Christian place of worship, tr. O. Elliott & D. Elliott, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

Binding, G. 2002, High gothic: the age of the great cathedrals, tr. I. Taylor, Taschen, Koln.

Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy 1978, Environment and art in Catholic worship, United States Catholic Conference, Washington.

367 Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales 1984, The parish church: principles of liturgical design and reordering, Catholic Truth Society, London.

Bollati, R., Bollati, S., Cataldi, G., Lavagnino, E. & Lonetti, G. 2000, ‘Il processo tipologico della chiese a Roma (250-1750),’ in Reconquering sacred space: the church in the city of the third millennium, eds. C. Rosponi, G. Rossi & D.G. Stroik, Il Bosco e la Nave, Rome.

Bosch, P.F. 1999, ‘Architecture always wins: part 1,’ Worship Workbench Series, Essay 32, Lift up your hearts, http://www.worship.ca/docs/ww_32. html, sourced 11 January 2004.

Bouchez Cavanaugh, M. 1991, ‘The whole place is holy,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.26-29.

Bouvier, Y. & Cousin, C. 2005, Ronchamp: chapel of light, Néo editions, PARIS.

Bouyer, L. 1967, Liturgy and architecture, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Boyer, M.G. 1990, The liturgical environment: what the documents say, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.

Boyer, M.G. 2004, The liturgical environment: what the documents say, 2nd edn., The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.

Boyken, I. & Richters, C. 2002, Heinz Tesar. Christus hoffnung de welt, Wein, Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart.

Bradshaw, P. 2007, ‘The genius of the Roman rite revisited,’ in Ever directed towards the Lord, ed. U.M. Lang, T&T Clarke, London, pp. 49-61.

Bruggink, D.J. & Droppers, C.H. 1971, When faith takes form: contemporary churches of architectural integrity in America, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Bugnini, A. & Braga, C. (eds.) 1965, The commentary on the constitution and on the instruction on the sacred liturgy, tr. V. P. Mallon, Benzinger Brothers, New York.

Burckhardt, T. 2006, The foundations of Christian art, ed. M.O. Fitzgerald, World Wisdom Inc., Bloomington, Indiana.

Burns Carroll, L. 1994, ‘Revisiting a church of radical design – and its visionary priest,’ Faith & form, vol. 28, Fall, pp. 13-15.

Byrne, B. 1942, ‘Plan for a church,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 58-60.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1999, Our place of worship, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ottawa.

368 Cantwell, W. 1968, ‘The design of churches,’ in Liturgy: renewal and adaptation, 7th edn., ed. A. Flannery, Scepter Books, Dublin, pp. 120-141.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, tr. St Paul’s Publications / Libreria Editrice Vaticana, St Paul’s Publications, Strathfield, NSW.

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales 2006, Consecrated for worship: a directory on church building, Catholic Truth Society, London.

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (Paul VI Institute for Liturgy) 1999, Liturgical guidelines on church architecture, Paulines Publishing House, Pasay City.

Cheney, D.M. ‘The hierarchy of the Catholic Church: current and historical information about its bishops and dioceses,’ http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org, sourced 1 March 2010.

Chiat, M.J. 1995, ‘Form and function in the early synagogue and church,’ Worship, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 406-426.

Chiffley, E. n.d., ‘The altar: place of sacrifice and sacred space in the religious building,’ in Altar and sacrifice: the proceedings of the second international colloquium of historical, canonical and theological studies on the Roman Catholic liturgy, tr. & ed. members of Centre International d’Etudes Liturgiques UK, The Saint Austin Press, London, pp. 21-34.

Ching, F.D.K. 1995, A visual dictionary of architecture, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Clausen, M.L. 1992, Spiritual space: the religious architecture of Pietro Belluschi, University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Cobb, P.G. 1978, ‘The architectural setting of the liturgy,’ in The study of liturgy, eds. C. Jones, G. Wainwright & E. Yarnold, SPCK, London, pp. 473-487.

(The) Code of canon law 1983, tr. The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland in association with The Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand and The Canadian Canon Law Society, Collins Liturgical Publications, London.

Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, Order of Christian funerals, in The rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops [USA], 1990, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 911-1118.

Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, Rite of Christian initiation of adults, 1987, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, E.J. Dwyer, Sydney.

Congregation for Divine Worship 1975, The Roman missal: The sacramentary, 1985, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York.

369 Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, tr. International Committee on English in the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Congregation for Divine Worship, Johnson, S. 1986, ‘A reflection on the architectural setting for the celebration of the liturgy,’ Notitiae, 238, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 356-359.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2002, Directory on popular piety and the liturgy, tr. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, St Pauls Publications, Strathfield, NSW.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2004, Instruction, Redemptionis sacramentum: on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the most holy Eucharist, St Pauls Publications, Strathfield, NSW.

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal (Interim Text for Australia), St Pauls Publications, Strathfield, NSW.

Cooke, B.J. 1999, ‘Body and mystical body: the Church as communio,’ in Bodies of worship: explorations in theory and practice, ed. B.T. Morrill, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 39-50.

Copley, B. (ed.) 2002, The Cathedral of St Stephen – Brisbane, The Cathedral of St Stephen, Brisbane.

Cottier, K. 1999, ‘Notes from the architect’ in Opening and solemn dedication of Our Lady of Fatima Church Caringbah by Cardinal Edward Bede Clancy, Catholic Communications, Sydney, pp. 7-8.

Crosbie, M.J. 1999, Architecture for the gods, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic).

Crosbie, M.J. 2002, Architecture for the gods. Book II, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic).

Crosbie, M.J. 2006, Houses of god: religious architecture for a new millennium, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave (Vic).

Crouan, D. 2000, The liturgy betrayed, tr. M. Sebanc, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Crouan, D. 2005, The history and the future of the Roman liturgy, tr. M. Miller, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

370 Dahinden, J. 1967, New trends in church architecture, tr. C.J.B. Baumann, Studio Vista, London.

Davies, J.G. 1952, The origin and development of early Christian church architecture, SCM, London.

Davies, J.G. 1982, Temples, churches and mosques: a guide to the appreciation of religious architecture, Basil Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.

Davies, J.G. 1986, ‘Transept,’ in A new dictionary of liturgy and worship, ed. J.G. Davies, SCM Press Ltd, London, pp. 509-510.

DeBlasio, D., d’Orazio, P.A. & Schickel, W. 1972, ‘Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 40, no. 2, p.70.

Debuyst, F. 1968, Modern architecture and Christian celebration, Ecumenical Studies in Worship No. 18, eds. J.G. Davies & A.R. George, Lutterworth Press, London.

DeSanctis, M.E. 1993, Renewing the city of God: the reform of Catholic architecture in the United States, Meeting House Essays, no. 5, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

DeSanctis, M.E. 2002, Building from belief: advance, retreat, and compromise in the remaking of Catholic church architecture, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Diederich, E.A. 1978, ‘The unfolding presence of Christ in the celebration of the Mass,’ Communio, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 326-343.

Doig, A. 2008, Liturgy and architecture from the early church to the middle ages, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire.

Doorly, M. 2007, No place for God: the denial of the transcendent in modern church architecture, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Dovey, K. 2004, ‘Art, community, environment, spirit,’ Architecture Australia, vol. 93, no. 6, p. 101.

Dreher, G, Murphy and Mackey [sic] 1954, ‘Church of the Resurrection of Our Lord,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 13-14

Elich, T. 2005, ‘Churches back to front,’ Liturgy news, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 10-11.

Elliott, P.J. 1995, Ceremonies of the modern Roman rite: the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours, 2nd revised edn., Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Fagerberg, D.W. 2004, Theologia prima: what is liturgical theology, 2nd edn., Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Falkinger, R. 2002, Ringing the changes: new liturgy versus heritage. Chronicles 1971-2000, David Lovell Publishing, Melbourne.

371 Fernandes, J.B. 1953, ‘Church architecture in India,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13, 14 & 27.

Ferrone, R. 2007, Liturgy: sacrosanctum concilium, Rediscovering Vatican II, Paulist Press, Mahwah NJ.

Fitzgerald, G. & Thiry, P. 1950, ‘Church of Christ the King, Seattle, Washington,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 38-39.

Foley, E. 2008, From age to age: how Christians have celebrated the Eucharist, revised and expanded edn., The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Fortescue, A. (revised and augmented by J.B. O’Connell), 1932, The ceremonies of the Roman rite described, 4th edn., Burns, Oates and Washbourne Ltd, London.

Forty, A. 2000, Words and buildings: a vocabulary of modern architecture, Thames & Hudson, London.

Francescato, G. 1994, ‘Type and the possibility of an architectural scholarship,’ in Ordering space: types in architecture and design, eds. K.A. Franck & L.H. Schneekloth, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 253-270.

Frediani, G. 1997, Le chiese: guide per progettare, Guis, Laterza & Figli Spa, Roma-Bari.

Funk, V.C. 1990, ‘The liturgical movement,’ in The new dictionary of sacramental worship, ed. P.E. Fink, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 695-715.

Gallegos, M. 2004, ‘Charles Borromeo and Catholic tradition,’ Sacred architecture journal, vol. 9, http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/charles_borromeo_ and_catholic_tradition/sourced 16 September 2010.

Gamber, K. 1993, The reform of the Roman liturgy: its problems and background, tr. K.D. Grimm, Una Voce Press, San Juan Capistrano, California, and The Foundation for Catholic Reform, Harrison, New York.

Gamber, K. 2002, The modern rite: collected essays on the reform of the liturgy, tr. S.M.P. Reid, Saint Michael’s Abbey Press, Farnborough.

Garcia-Rivera, A. 2008, ‘Introduction,’ in Living beauty: the art of liturgy, A. Garcia-Rivera & T. Scirghi, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, PP. 1-16.

Gerhards, A. & Künzel, A. 1995, ‘The relationship between art, liturgy, and congregation in liturgical space: a project from the diocese of Aachen, Studia liturgica, vol. 25, pp. 231-246.

Gerhards, A. 2002, ‘Spaces for active participation: theological and liturgical perspectives on Catholic church architecture,’ in European church architecture 1950-2000, ed. W.J. Stock, tr. J. Marsh & E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich, pp. 16- 51.

372 Gibbons, R.P.P. 1993, Altar, pulpit, chair: a study of some contemporary attempts to solve the problem of their relationships within a single worship space, PhD thesis, University of London, London.

Gibbons, R. 2006, House of God: house of the people of God, SPCK, London.

Gieselmann, R. 1972, Contemporary church architecture, Thames and Hudson, London.

Giles, R. 2004, Re-pitching the tent: reordering the church building for worship and mission, 3rd edn., Canterbury Press, Norwich.

Gill, E. 1940, ‘To the editor of Liturgical arts,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 52 & 58.

Giurgola, R. 1994, ‘From the architect,’ in St. Thomas Aquinas parish church, The Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn on behalf of the Parish of Charnwood, Canberra.

Giurgola, R. 2006, Luminous simplicity: the architecture and Art of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Parramatta, Macmillan Art Publishing, South Yarra, Victoria.

Groat, L. 2002, ‘Case studies and combined strategies,’ in Architectural research methods, L. Groat & D. Wang, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 341- 380.

Grimal, P. & Rose, C. 1997, Churches of Rome, tr. E. Jephcott, Tauris Parke Books, London.

Grisbrooke, W.J. 1972, ‘The shape of the liturgical assembly: some third thoughts,’ Research bulletin, University of Birmingham Institute for the Study of Worship and Religious Architecture, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, pp. 30-41.

‘Guadalajara on the march,’ 1955, Liturgical arts, vol. 23 [cover erroneously indicates vol. 24], no. 3, p. 118.

Gy, P-M. 2003, The reception of Vatican II: liturgical reforms in the life of the Church, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee.

Habiger, R.D. 1995, ‘Appropriate space for weddings and funerals,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 4-7.

Habiger, R. 1997, ‘1 room worship,’ Modern liturgy, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4-6.

Hager, J. & Galazka, G. 2001, Pilgrimage: a chronicle of Christianity through the churches of Rome, Cassell, London.

Hall, E.T. 1990, The hidden dimension, Anchor, New York.

Hammond, P. 1960, Liturgy and architecture, Barrie and Rockliff, London.

373 Hanser, D. n.d., ‘Architecture of the 16th – 18th centuries in Europe: the counter- reformation church,’ http://hanser.ceat.okstate.edu/3083/il%20gesu/il_gesu. htm, sourced 13 September 2010.

Hayes, H. 2009, ‘Sacred destinations,’ www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome- santa-constanza, sourced 29 June 2010.

Heathcote, E. & Spens, I. 1997, Church builders, Academy Editions, Chichester.

Heilbron J.L. 1999, The sun in the church: cathedrals as solar observatories, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Hennessey, D.E. and Wright, C.F. 1954, ‘Blessed Sacrament Church, Holyoke, Massachusetts,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 88.

Hill, J. 2009, ‘Can succeed?,’ The Australasian Catholic record, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 259-276.

Hiscock, N. 2007, The symbol at your door: number and geometry in religious architecture of the Greek and Latin middle ages, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire.

Hoppe, L.J. 1994, The synagogues and churches of ancient Palestine, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Huels, J. 1997, ‘Should we reject certain floor plans?,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 126-127.

Huels, J.M. 2000, ‘Assessing the weight of documents on the liturgy,’ Worship, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 117-135.

Hurley, R. & Cantwell, W. 1985, Contemporary Irish church architecture, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin.

Hurley, R. 1996, ‘The Eucharist room at Carlow Liturgy Centre: the search for meaning, Worship, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 238-250.

Hurley, R. 2000, ‘20th century,’ in Sacred places – the story of Christian architecture in Ireland, eds. R. Hurley & P. Larmour, The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, Dublin, & The Royal Society of Ulster Architects, Belfast, pp. 14-31.

Hurley, R. 2001, Irish church architecture in the era of Vatican II, Dominican Publications, Dublin.

Irish Episcopal Commission for Liturgy 1994, The place of worship: pastoral directory on the building and reordering of churches, 3rd edn. (revised and expanded), Veritas, Dublin.

Irwin, K.W. 1994, Context and text: method in liturgical theology, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

374 Irwin, K.W. 2005, Models of the Eucharist, Paulist Press, New York.

Jahn, G. 1994, Contemporary Australian architecture, State Library of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

James, E.O. 1965, From cave to cathedral: temples and shrines of prehistoric, classical and early Christian times, Thames and Hudson, London.

Jarrett, G. 1986, St Mary’s cathedral: history and guide, St Mary’s Cathedral, Hobart.

John Paul II (K. Wojtyla) 1998, Apostolic letter, Dies Domini, http://www.vatican. va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_ dies-domini_en.html, sourced 12 December 2010.

John Paul II (K. Wojtyla) 1999, Letter to artists, http://www.vatican.va/ holy_ father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_23041999_artists_en.html, sourced 12 December 2010.

John Paul II (K. Wojtyla) 2003, Apostolic letter, Spiritus et sponsa, http:// www. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jpii_apl_20031 204_spiritus-et-sponsa_en.html, sourced 12 December 2010.

John Paul II (K. Wojtyla) 2003, Encyclical, , http:// www. vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P7.HTM, sourced 12 December 2010.

Johnson, C. & Johnson, S. 1983, Planning for liturgy: liturgical and practical guidelines for the re-ordering of churches, St Michael’s Abbey Press, Farnborough.

Jungmann, J.A. 1976, The Mass: an historical, theological, and pastoral survey, tr. J. Fernandes, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Kasper, J. 1996, ‘Floor plans for worship spaces,’ Digital Liturgy Resources Online, http://members.aol.com/liturgies/FloPla.html, sourced 27 May 2003.

Kavanagh, A. 1982, Elements of rite: a handbook of liturgical style, Pueblo Publishing Company, New York.

Kavanagh, A. 1984, On liturgical theology, Pueblo Publishing Company, New York.

Kidder Smith, G.E. 1964, The new churches of Europe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Kieckhefer, R. 2004, Theology in stone: church architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley, Oxford University Press, New York.

Kilde, J.H. 2008, Sacred power, sacred space: an introduction to Christian architecture and worship, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

375 King, G. 1987, ‘The status of Church documents,’ Compass theology review, vol. 21, Spring, pp. 15-16.

Kollar, L.P. 1975, Symbolism in Christian architecture in the first millennium, PhD thesis, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Königs, U. 2004, ‘Parish centre in Regensburg’, Detail konzept, no. 9, pp. 982- 987).

Krämer, J. 2003, ‘Gemeinschaftlich orientiert’,’ in Communio-räume: auf der suche nach der angemessenen raumgestalt katholischer liturgie, eds. A. Gerhards, T. Sternberg & W. Zahner, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, pp. 191-196.

Krause, C. 2004, ‘Zwischen himmel und erde,’ Deutsche bauzeitung, no. 11, pp. 54-59.

Krautheimer, R. 1986, Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 4th edn., revised by R. Krautheimer and S. Curcic, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Krippendorff, K. 2004, Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Kubicki, J.M. 2006, The presence of Christ in the gathered assembly, Continuum, New York.

Kuehn, R. 1992, A place for baptism, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Lang, U.M. 2004, Turning towards the Lord: orientation in liturgical prayer, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Lang, U.M. 2007, ‘The direction of liturgical prayer,’ in Ever directed towards the Lord, ed. U.M. Lang, T&T Clarke, London, pp. 90-107.

Lang, U.M. 2009, ‘Tamquam cor in pectore: the Eucharistic tabernacle before and after the Council of Trent,’ Sacred architecture journal, vol 15, Spring, http:// www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/tamquam_cor_in_pectore_the_eucharistic _tabernacle_before_and_after_the_coun/, sourced 2 May, 2011.

Lara, J. 1994, ‘Versus populum revisited,’ Worship, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 210-221.

Larson-Miller, L. 2002, ‘Hierarchy and liturgical space,’ in Postmodern worship and the arts, eds. D. Adams & M.E. Moynahan, Resource Publications, San Jose, pp. 33-45.

Lavanoux, M. 1943, ‘St Mark’s Church, Burlington, Vermont,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 82, 84-85.

Lavigne, E. 2000, La cathédrale de la Résurrection d’Évry, Éditions du patrimoine, Paris.

376 Lawrence, R.J. 1994, ‘Type as analytical tool: reinterpretation and application,’ in Ordering space: types in architecture and design, eds. K.A. Franck & L.H. Schneekloth, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 271-287.

Leach, N. 2002, ‘Vitruvius crucifixus: architecture, mimesis, and the death instinct,’ in Body and building: essays on the changing relation of body and architecture, eds. G. Dodds & R. Tavernor, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp.210-225.

Lebon, J. 1987, How to understand the liturgy, tr. M. Lydamore & J. Bowden, SCM Press, London.

Les monuments historiques en Champagne-Ardenne, ‘Fontaine-Les-Grés, Église Saint-Agnès’ 2010, http://edifices-parcs-proteges-champagne-ardenne.Culture. fr/fiches_mh/10_fontaine-les-gres_eglise.php, sourced 16 March 2011.

Levering, M. 2010, Christ and the priesthood: ecclesial hierarchy and the pattern of the Trinity, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Lewis, S. 1969, ‘The Latin iconography of the single-naved cruciform Basilica Apostolorum in Milan,’ The art bulletin, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 205-219.

Lindstrom, R.S. 1988, Creativity and contradiction: European churches since 1970, The American Institute of Architects Press, Washington.

Lindstrom, R. (n.d.) [Designer’s notes about St John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy], provided by Randall Lindstrom, 4 August, 2008, p.1.

Lonergan, B.J.F. 1973, Method in Theology, 2nd edn., Darton, Longman & Todd, London.

Lynn, E.C. 1972, Tired dragons: adapting church architecture to changing needs, Beacon Press, Boston.

McDonnell, K. & Meinberg, C. 1965, ‘Architecture and the constitution on the sacred liturgy,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 2-6, 12.

McNally, D. 1985, Sacred space: an aesthetic for the liturgical environment, Wyndham Hall Press, Bristol, IN.

McNamara, D.R. 2009, Catholic Church architecture and the spirit of the liturgy, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Mackowiak, O. 2010, ‘Das kirchengestühl im modernen kirchenbau,’ in “Liturgie als bauherr”? moderne sakralarchektur und ihre ausstattung zwischen funktion und form, eds. Hans Körner and Jürgen Wiener, Klartext, Essen, pp. 201-211.

Madden, L.J. 1990, ‘Liturgy,’ in The new dictionary of sacramental worship, ed. P.E. Fink, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 740-742.

377 ‘Madonna della strada chapel’ 2011, Loyola University of Chicago, http://www. luc.edu/sacramental_life/Madonna_Della_Strada_Renovation.shtml#renovation, sourced 4 June 2011.

Mannion, M.F. 2001, ‘Toward a new era in liturgical architecture,’ Studia Anselmiana, no. 131, pp. 45-76.

Martin, C. & Ramsay, A. 2006, A glimpse of heaven: Catholic churches of England and Wales, English Heritage, Swindon.

Mauck, M. 1990, Shaping a house for the Church, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Mauck, M.B. 2002a, ‘Architectural setting (historical),’ The new SCM dictionary of liturgy and worship, ed. P.F. Bradshaw, SCM Press, London, pp. 17-21.

Mauck, M.B. 2002b, ‘Transept,’ The new SCM dictionary of liturgy and worship, ed. P.F. Bradshaw, SCM Press, London, p. 458.

Mecozzi, F. 1997, Church architecture: a tentative Roman Catholic prototype, Scholia Editions, Toronto.

Metzger, M. 1997, History of the liturgy, tr. M. Beaumont, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

‘Mexico: Illustrations’ 1955, Liturgical arts, vol. 23 [cover erroneously indicates vol. 24], no. 3, pp. 101-120.

Minchin, B. 1961, Outward and visible, Darton, Longman & Todd, London.

Mirsky, J. 1965, Houses of God, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Montini, G.B. 1963, ‘Liturgical formation: a pastoral letter by Pope Paul VI when cardinal-archbishop of Milan (February 7, 1958),’ tr. L. Doyle, Liturgical arts, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 101-117.

Moran, J. 2005, ‘Seating the Church in the church,’ Liturgy news, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 6-7.

Morrisey, F.G. 1995, Papal and curial pronouncements: their canonical significance in light of the Code of Canon Law, 2nd edn., Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, Ottawa.

Nabuco, J. 1934, ‘A Letter from a master of ceremonies to the builder of a cathedral,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 16-21).

National Conference of Catholic Bishops 2000, Built of living stones: art, architecture and worship, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Washington.

‘New church designed with central altar,’ 1971, Sydney morning herald, 21 January, p. 15.

378 Nichols, A. 1996, Looking at the liturgy: a critical view of its contemporary form, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Nolte, L. 1995, ‘New church in New Mexico: Santa Maria de la Paz,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 31-35.

O’Connell, J.B. 1955, Church building and furnishing: the Church’s way. A study in liturgical law, Burns & Oates, London.

O’Donnell, P. 1961, Churches for tomorrow, F & W Publishing Co., Cincinnati.

O’Donnell, P. 2009, ‘“Place” as the locus of “memory”: conserving the cultural patrimony of the Church,’ The Australasian Catholic record, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 426-439.

O’Malley J.W. 2008, What happened at Vatican II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

O’Sullivan, B. & O’Sullivan, B. 2007, St Joseph’s Parish Malvern. Church renovations 2006, St Joseph’s Parish, Melbourne.

Paredes Benitez, C. (2009), Faith: spiritual architecture, Loft Publications, Barcelona.

Pasotti, E., Borghese, S., Caal, Ikne, 1998, San Bartolomeo in Tuto: a parish for the third millenium [sic]. Church and crown of the mysteries, tr. K. McGarr, Parish San Bartolomeo in Tuto, Florence.

Paul VI (G.B. Montini) 1965, Encyclical, Mysterium fidei, http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091 965_mysterium_ en.html, sourced 9 August 2008.

Pecklers, K.F. 1998, The unread vision: the liturgical movement in the United States of America 1926-1955, Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Pecklers, K.F. 2003, Worship, Continuum, London. Pehnt, W. 1999, Gottfried Bohm, tr. M. Robinson, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.

‘Philadelphia Episcopal cathedral’ 2011, http://www.philadelphiacathedral.org/ galleries/ view/587-a-lenten-evensong, sourced 22 May 2011.

Philippart, D. 1999a, ‘The long axis,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 81-82.

Phillippart, D. 1999b, ‘Seating plans,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 102-103.

Pieper, J. 1991, In search of the sacred: contributions to an answer, tr. L. Krauth, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

379 Pius XII (E. Pacelli) 1947, Encyclical, Mediator Dei, http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en. html, sourced 14 September 2010.

Pocknee, C.E. 1963, The Christian altar: in history and today, A.R. Mowbray & Co., London.

Post, P. 2003, Space for liturgy: between dynamic ideal and static reality, Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, Groningen & Liturgisch Instituut, Tilburg.

Potente, E. & Zersen, D. 2008, Shaping worship space: how Christians shelter and adorn their liturgies, Concordia University Press, Texas.

Prentice, S. 1936, The heritage of the cathedral: a study of the influence of history and thought upon cathedral architecture, William Morrow and Company, New York.

Proctor, R. 2005, ‘Churches for a changing liturgy: Gillespie, Kidd & Coia and the Second Vatican Council, Architectural history, vol. 48, pp. 291-322.

Purdy, M. 1991, Churches and chapels: a design and development guide, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Quinn, P.J. 1963, ‘New churches for old,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 70-73.

Ratzinger, J. 1992, ‘Communio: a program,’ Communio, vol. 19, no. 3, http:// www.communio-icr.com/articles/ratzingerprogram.html, sourced 14 January 2011.

Ratzinger, J. 2000, The spirit of the liturgy, tr. J. Saward, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Ratzinger, J. 2002, ‘The ecclesiology of Vatican II,’ L’osservatore Romano. Weekly edition in English, 23 January, p. 5.

Reid, A. 2004, The organic development of the liturgy, St Michael’s Abbey Press, Farnborough.

Reinhold, H.A. 1952, Speaking of liturgical architecture, Liturgical Programs University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Remery, M. 2011, Mystery and matter: on the relationship between liturgy and architecture in the thought of Dom Hans van der Laan OSB (1904-1991), Brill, Leiden.

Richardson, P. 2004, New sacred architecture, Laurence King Publishing, London.

Richstatter, T. 2000, ‘Classification of Roman documents’, My home page. Fr. Tom Richstatter, O.F.M., http://www.tomrichstatter.org/dDocuments/d51law. htm#Classification%20%20Roman%20Documents, sourced 28 August 2010.

380 Roberts, N.W. 2004, Building type basics for places of worship, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Robinson, J. & Markert, P. 1979, Religious buildings, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Rohr, H. 1966, ‘Modern trends in Australian church building,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 100.

Rose, M.S. 2001, Ugly as sin, Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, New Hampshire.

Rose, M.S. 2004, In tiers of glory: the organic development of Catholic Church architecture through the ages, Mesa Folio Editions, Cincinnati.

Rouet, A. 1997, Liturgy and the arts, tr. P. Philibert, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.

Rykwert, J. 1966, Church building, Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, vol. 120, Hawthorn Books, New York.

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, Rite of baptism for children, in The rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops [USA], 1990, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 361-466.

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1971, Rite of confirmation, in The rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops [USA], 1990, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp.469-515.

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, Pastoral care of the sick: rites of anointing and viaticum, in The rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops [USA], 1990, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 761-908.

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1973, Introduction, Rite of penance in Rite of penance. Rite of reception of baptised Christians into with the Catholic Church 1975, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, E.J. Dwyer, Sydney, pp. 4-19.

Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, Roman pontifical and [selected rites] in The rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 2, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops [USA], 1991, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 341-448.

381 Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1981, General introduction, Lectionary for mass, in Lectionary, vol. 1, Collins Liturgical Australia, Sydney, pp. xvii-xlvi.

Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, Instruction, Inter oecumenici, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Rome.

Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, in Worship and liturgy, 1978, ed. J.J. Megivern, McGrath Publishing, Wilmington, pp.308-342.

Sacred Congregation of Rites 1968, Instruction, Pontificalis ritus, http://www. Lexorandi.es/Recursos/Documentos/PontificalisritusEnglish.pdf., sourced 11 April 2011.

Sacred Congregation of Rites 1969, Rite of marriage, in The rites of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, tr. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops [USA], 1990, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 717-758.

Schloeder, S.J. 1998, Architecture in communion: implementing the Second Vatican Council through liturgy and architecture, Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Schloeder, S.J. 2003, The church of the year 2000: a dialogue on Catholic architecture for the third millennium, PhD thesis, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA.

Schnell, H. 1974, Twentieth century church architecture in Germany, tr. P.J. Dine, Verlag Schnell & Steiner, Munich.

Scholz, F. 2004, St. Laurentius in Munchen: architektur, ausstattung, bedeutung, Oratorium des Heiligen Philipp Neri und Pfarrgemeinde St. Laurentius, Munchen.

Schwarz, R. 1958, The Church incarnate: the sacred function of Christian architecture, tr. C. Harris, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago.

Schwarz, R. 1958, The church incarnate, tr. C. Harris, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago.

Schwarz, R. 2007, Kirchenbau: welt vor der schwelle, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg.

Scott, R.A. 2003, The gothic enterprise: a guide to understanding the medieval cathedral, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Scotto, D. 1990, The table of the Lord, St. Bede’s Publications, Petersham, Massachusetts.

Searle, M. 2006, Called to participate: theological, ritual and social perspectives, eds. B. Searle & A.Y. Koester, Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

382 Seasoltz, R.K. 1963, The house of God: sacred art and church architecture, Herder and Herder, New York.

Seasoltz, R.K. 1983, ‘Living stones built on Christ,’ Worship, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 98- 122.

Seasoltz, R.K. 2001, ‘Transcendence and immanence in sacred art and architecture,’ Worship, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 403-431.

Seasoltz, R.K. 2003, ‘In the Celtic tradition: Irish church architecture,’ in Ars liturgiae: worship, and praxis, ed. C.V. Johnson, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago, pp. 231-252.

Seasoltz, R.K. 2005, A sense of the sacred: theological foundations of Christian architecture and art, Continuum, New York.

Short, E.H. 1925, The house of God: a history of religious architecture and symbolism, Philip Allan & Co. Ltd., London.

Smart, D.H. 1997, ‘Charles Borromeo’s Instructiones fabricate et supellectilis ecclesiasticae: liturgical space and renewed ecclesiology after the Council of Trent, Studia liturgica, vol. 27, pp. 166-175.

Smith, D.E. & Taussig, H.E. 1990, Many tables: the Eucharist in the New Testament and liturgy today, SCM Press, London.

Smith, P.F. 1972, Third millennium churches, Galliard Ltd, London.

Smith, P. 1974, ‘Peter Smith on post religious churches,’ RIBA Journal, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 12-17.

Smith, P.E. 1997, ‘Sant’Apollinare in Classe,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 96.

Sövik, E.A. 1969, ‘Comment on multi-purpose worship spaces,’ Faith & form, vol. 2, April, pp. 20-21.

Sövik, E.A. 1971, ‘The architectural requirements of liturgical space,’ Journal of the American society for church architecture, no. 12, pp. 39-44.

Sövik, E.A. 1973, Architecture for worship, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis.

Sprenke, F.J. & Murphy, J.D. 1950, ‘Three churches in the mid-west: Saint Ann’s Church,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 18, no. 4, p.91-93.

Sprenke, F.J. & Murphy, J.D. 1952, ‘Saint Ann’s Church, Normandy, Missouri,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 114-115.

Stafford, T. A. 1955, Within the chancel, Abingdon Press, New York.

383 Stancliffe, D. 2008, The Lion companion to church architecture, Lion Hudson, Oxford.

Steane, P. 2004, ‘Ethical issues in research,’ in Surviving your thesis, eds. S. Burton & P. Steane, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, pp. 59-70.

Stegers, R. 2008, Sacred buildings: a design manual, tr. J. Reisenberger, Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel.

Stehle, T. 1993, ‘St. Cornelius Parish: building for the future,’ Liturgy 90, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 4-10, 15.

Stephens, S. 2009, ‘Skidmore, Owings and Merrill’s Craig Hartman explores immateriality and luminosity in Oakland’s Cathedral of Christ the Light,’ Architectural record, vol. 197, no. 1, pp. 86-93.

Stock, W.J. 2002, European church architecture 1950-2000, tr. J. Marsh & E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich.

Stock, W.J. 2004, Architecture guide: Christian sacred buildings in Europe since 1950, tr. E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich.

Stock, W.J. 2006, European church architecture 1900 -1950, tr. E. Schwaiger, Prestel, Munich.

Storms, M.P. & Turner, P. 2009, Guide for ministers of liturgical environment, Liturgy Training Publications, Chicago.

Strachan, G. 2003, Chartres: sacred geometry, sacred space, Floris Books, Edinburgh.

Stroik, D. 2009, ‘Domus Dei et domus Ecclesiae: the church building as a sacred place,’ in Sacrosanctum concilium and the reform of the liturgy, ed. K.D. Whitehead, Fellowship of Catholic Scholars / University of Scranton Press, Chicago, pp. 73-88.

Swarts, C. 2000, ‘Sand, citrus trees and the new St. Matthew Church,’ Environment and art letter, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 68-72.

Tan, J., Hood, G., & Hosking, P. 2004, St Ignatius Church, Richmond, Victoria, St Ignatius Church, Richmond.

Tawa, M. 1986, ‘Primordial reality. Greg Burgess,’ Tension, no. 10, pp. 29-31.

Tennien, M. 1960, ‘A report from Japan,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 72, 78- 80, 82.

Thiry, P., Bennett, R.M., & Kamphoefner, H.L. 1953, Churches and temples, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.

384 Thomas, J. 2002, Albi Cathedral and British church architecture, The Ecclesiological Society, London.

Torevell, D. 2000, Losing the sacred: ritual, modernity and liturgical reform, T & T Clark, Edinburgh.

Torgerson, M.A. 1997, ‘An architect’s response to liturgical reform: Edward A. Sövik and his “non-church” design,’ Worship, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 19-41.

Torgerson, M.A. 2007, An architecture of immanence: architecture for worship and ministry today, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

‘To update a large church built in the 1920s is a problem,’ 1970, Liturgical arts, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 52.

Turner, H.W. 1979, From temple to meeting house: the phenomenology and theology of places of worship, Religion and Society no. 16, Mouton Publishers, The Hague.

Unterhalt, S. 2010, ‘Der Altarraum im Kirchenbau der Moderne,’ in “Liturgie als bauherr”? moderne sakralarchektur und ihre ausstattung zwischen funktion und form, eds. H. Körner and J. Wiener, Klartext, Essen, pp. 177-182.

Vagaggini, C. 1965, ‘I. Nature of the sacred liturgy and its importance in the life of the Church,’ in The commentary on the constitution and on the instruction on the sacred liturgy, eds. A. Bugnini & C. Braga, tr. V.P. Mallon, Benzinger Brothers, New York, pp. 62-79.

Van Dijk, S.J.P. & Walker, J.H. 1957, The myth of the aumbry, Burns & Oates, London.

Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium , http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ docu ments/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html, sourced 30 July 2008.

Vatican Council II 1964, Dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat- ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html, sourced 30 July 2008.

Vatican Council II 1965, Decree on the life and ministry of priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docume nts/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html, sourced 30 July 2008.

Verghese, B. 2004, West Syrian liturgical theology, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants.

Vigorelli, V. 1965, ‘Sacred art and sacred furnishings,’ in The commentary on the constitution and on the instruction on the sacred liturgy, eds. A. Bugnini & C. Braga, tr. V. P. Mallon, Benzinger Brothers, New York, pp.268-284.

385 Viladesau, R. 2006, The beauty of the cross: the passion of Christ in theology and the arts, from the catacombs to the eve of the renaissance, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Vincie, C. 2009, Celebrating divine mystery: a primer in liturgical theology, Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Visser, M. 2000, The geometry of love: space, time, mystery and meaning in an ordinary church, Viking, London.

Vosko, R. 1981, Through the eye of a rose window: a perspective on the environment for worship, Resource Publications Inc., Saratoga.

Vosko, R. 1997, ‘Putting your story in the stone,’ Modern liturgy, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 4-7.

Vosko, R.S. 2003, ‘Designing places for worship in a post-conciliar age: forty years of mixed blessings,’ National bulletin on liturgy, vol. 36, pp. 238-245.

Vosko, R.S. 2006, God’s house is our house: re-imagining the environment for worship, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

Wang, D. 2002a, ‘Interpretive-historical research,’ in Architectural research methods, L. Groat & D. Wang, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 135-171.

Wang, D. 2002b, ‘Logical Argumentation,’ in Architectural research methods, L. Groat & D. Wang, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 301-340.

Webb, M. 2001, The churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton.

Wedig, M.E. & Vosko, R.S. 2007, ‘Chapter V: the arrangement and furnishings of churches for the celebration of the Eucharist,’ in A commentary on the general instruction of the Roman missal, eds. E. Foley, N.D. Mitchell & J.M. Pierce, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, pp. 351-382.

White, J.F. 2003, Roman Catholic worship: Trent to today, 2nd edn., Pueblo, Collegeville.

White, J.F. & White, S.J. 1998, Church architecture: building and renovating for Christian worship, Abingdon Press, Nashville.

White, L.M. 1996, The social origins of Christian architecture vol. 1: building God’s house in the Roman world: architectural adaptation among pagans, Jews, and Christians, Harvard Theological Studies 42, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge.

White, L.M. 1997, The social origins of Christian architecture vol. 2: texts and monuments for the Christian domus ecclesiae in its environment, Harvard Theological Studies 42, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge.

386 Whone, H. 1977, Church, monastery, cathedral: a guide to the symbolism of the , Compton Russell Element, Tisbury, Wiltshire.

Wilkinson, J. 2002, From synagogue to church: the traditional design, Routledge Curzon, London.

Williams, P.G. 2009, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral Parramatta – a contemporary building speaking to the past, the present and the future,’ The Australasian Catholic record, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 440-449.

Wittkower, R. 1988, Architectural principles in the age of humanism, Academy Editions, London.

Wolfe, G. 1998, The art of William Schickel, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

Yaiser, H. 1953, ‘The liturgy as a basis for new churches in Japan,’ Liturgical arts, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 79-80.

Yates, N. 2001, Buildings, faith, and worship: the liturgical arrangement of Anglican churches 1600-1900, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Yates, N. 2008, Liturgical space: Christian worship and church buildings in western Europe 1500-2000, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire.

Zahner, W. 2003, ‘Raumkonzepte der liturgischen bewegung,’ in Communio- räume: auf der suche nach der angemessenen raumgestalt katholischer liturgie, eds. A. Gerhards, T. Sternberg & W. Zahner, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, pp. 70-94.

387 APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE STRUCTURED OBSERVATION OF CHURCHES

The churches listed have been built or liturgically reordered in response to the influences of the liturgical movement or Vatican II. Observations were structured by reference to: the interior spatial arrangement and its suitability for the liturgical rites; relationships in plan between the place(s) of the assembly and the foci of altar, ambo, chair and font; the relationship between the spatial arrangement and the plan of the structure; and reference in design elements to traditional church forms. In creating a record of observations, notes were made, plans sketched, photographs taken, and data in monographs, serials and online cross-referenced. Nine cathedrals, churches and chapels for which liturgical reordering is current or pending are not included in this list.

The architects / architectural practices and designers named in the list are responsible for the design of contemporary churches and the reordering of older churches. The original architects of reordered churches are not listed.

Australia

Our Lady of Fatima Church, (Caringbah) Sydney, Australia, Keith Cottier, 1999.

Our Lady of Fatima Church, (Kingsgrove) Sydney, Australia, Robert Maclurcan, 1970.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, (Middle Park) Melbourne, Australia, Graeme Law, reordered 2007.

Saint Anthony’s Church, (Marsfield) Sydney, Australia, Enrico Taglietti, 1969.

Saint Gregory the , (Doncaster) Melbourne, Australia, Graeme Law, 1985.

Saint John the Baptist Church, Woy Woy, Australia, Randall Lindstrom, 2007.

Saint Joseph’s Church, (Malvern) Melbourne, Australia, Graeme Law, reordered 2006.

388 St Mary’s Cathedral, Perth, Australia, Peter M. Quinn, completed & reordered, 2009.

St Mary’s Church, Hamilton (Victoria), Australia, Francis Punch, 1988.

Saint Michael and Saint John Church, Horsham, Australia, Gregory Burgess, 1989.

Saint Peter Julian Church, Sydney, Australia, Randall Lindstrom, reordered 2009.

Saint Thomas Aquinas Church, (Charnwood) Canberra, Australia, Romaldo Guirgola, 1989.

Austria

Christus, Hoffnung der Welt Katholische Kirche, Vienna, Austria, Heinz Tesar, 2003.

Seelsorgezentrum Baumgarten, Vienna, Austria, Johann Georg Gsteu, 1965.

France

Église paroissiale Saint-François, Paris, France, Corinne Callies & Jean-Marie Duthilleul, 2005.

Église Notre Dame de L’Arche D’Alliance, Paris, France, Architecture-Studio, 1998.

Église Notre Dame de Pentecôte, Paris, France, Franck Hammoutène, 2001.

La cathédrale de la Résurrection, Évry (Paris), France, Mario Botta, 1996.

La chapelle Notre Dame du Haut, Ronchamp, France, Le Corbusier, 1954.

Germany

Herz Jesu Kirche, Munich, Germany, Markus Allmann, Amandus Sattler & Ludwig Wappner, 2000.

Liebfrauen-Basilika, Trier, Germany, Rudolf Schwarz, reordered 1959.

Pfarrkirche Herz Jesu, Völkingen-Ludweiler, Germany, Ansgar Lamott, Caterina Lamott & Sonja Schmuker, 2001.

Pfarrkirche Maria Königin, Saarbrücken, Germany, Rudolf Schwarz, 1959.

Pfarrzentrum Sankt Franziskus, Regensburg, Germany, Ulricj Königs & Ilse Königs, 2004.

Sankt Laurentius Kirche, Munich, Germany, Emil Steffann, 1955.

389 Sankt Michael Kirche, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Rudolf Schwarz, 1954.

Trierer Dom, Trier, Germany, Gottfried Böhm & Nikolaus Rosiny, restored and reordered 1960 – 1975.

Italy

La Chiesa Dio Padre Misericordioso, Rome, Italy, Richard Meier, 2004.

La Chiesa di Santa Maria in Vallicella / Chiesa Nuova, Rome, Italy, Richard Falkinger, reordered 1974.

United Kingdom

Church of Saint Charles Borromeo, London, United Kingdom, Michael Anderson, reordered 1978 – 1984.

Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King, , United Kingdom, Frederick Gibberd, 1967.

United States of America

St Mary’s Cathedral, San Francisco, USA, Pietro Belluschi, 1963 – 1970.

390 APPENDIX TWO LITERATURE DATA SEARCH

Keywords

The following words were used separately and/or in phrases (e.g. ‘cruciform plan’, ‘chiesa architettura’, ‘liturgical ordering’, ‘sakralarchitektur Vatikan II’) for database, catalogue, index, bibliography, and online searches:

altar ecclesial altarraum ecclesiastical antiphonal église architecture estetica architektur estética architettura esthétique arquitectura fan assembly fan-shaped ästhetik gottesdienst basilican hall bestellung horseshoe central iglesias centralised kirche centralized kirchenbau chiesa l’architecture choral liturgia church liturgica communio-räume liturgical cross-shaped liturgie cruciform liturgique culte liturgy culto longitudinal design mono-axial

391 Words used separately and/or in phrases for database, catalogue, index, bibliography, and online searches, continued:

monastic sacra movement sacred movimiento sacrée nachkonziliaren sagrada neuordnung sakralarchitektur ordering sakralen raum ordinamento sakralraum ordnung sanctuary pedido santuario plan tipologia postconciliaire tipologie postconciliar typology postconciliare types professional u-förmigen radial u-shaped religiosa Vatican II reordenación Vaticano II reordering Vatikan II réorganisation worship restauración restauration restaurierung restauro restoration riadattamento riordino ristrutturazione

392 Databases

The following databases were searched to access monographs, journals, essays, newspaper records, theses and dissertations:

ARCH (Australian Architecture database) ARI (Australasian Religion Index) AULOTS (Australasian Union List of Serials in Theological Collections) Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals CPLI (Catholic Periodical & Literature Index) JSTOR (Journal Storage database) PQDT (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database) RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects Library) The Sydney Morning Herald Archives database

Libraries & Archives

References were sourced from the following libraries and archives:

Archives, Archdiocese of Hobart & St Mary’s Cathedral, Hobart, TAS Catholic Institute of Sydney, Veech Library, Strathfield, NSW Catholic Theological College, Mannix Library, East Melbourne, VIC Sacred Heart Monastery Library, Kensington, NSW St John’s University Library, Collegeville, MN, USA St Mark’s National Theological Centre, Memorial Library, Barton, ACT The Australian Catholic University Library, Watson, ACT The University of Melbourne Architecture Library, Carlton, VIC The University of New South Wales Library, Kensington, NSW University of South Australia Library, Adelaide, SA The Library, Camperdown, NSW University of Technology, Sydney Library, Ultimo, NSW

393 Serials

The following serials were accessed in the data search. Some of these serials regularly include articles and essays on aspects of contemporary church architecture. More often a particular issue is dedicated to church / religious / sacred architecture, with a number of articles and essays featured in a single issue:

Antiphon Intercom Architecture Australia Liturgical arts l’architecture d’aujourd’hui Liturgical ministry Architectural record Liturgy Architectural review Liturgy 90 Architectural review Australia Liturgy news The architectural review Living architecture architektur.aktuell Modern liturgy / Ministry & liturgy Assembly National bulletin on liturgy A10 New liturgy The Australasian Catholic record Questions liturgiques / Australian journal of liturgy Studies in liturgy AV (Arquitectura viva) monographs Research bulletin (Birmingham) Chiesa oggi Sacred architecture journal Church building St Mark’s review Communio Studia Anselmiana Concilium Studia liturgica C3 Techniques & architecture db (Deutsche bauzeitung) The summit Detail konzept ume Environment and art letter Worship Faith & form Worship 2000

394 Authors

The References lists all authors and works that have been cited in the thesis. Among these authors the following were included in the preliminary data gathering for this research project:

Wilfrid Cantwell M. Francis Mannion Aidan Cavanagh Marchita Mauck Justus Dahinden Michael Rose Richard Vosko Steven J. Schloeder John Gordon Davies Rudolf Schwarz Michael E. DeSanctis R. Kevin Seasoltz Richard Giles Peter Hammond Edward A. Sövik

Richard Hurley James F. White Randall Lindstrom Nigel Yates

In the process of gathering data the following authors were identified as contributing to the discourse about the liturgical ordering of churches in the 20th and early 21st centuries:

William Seth Adams Michael E. DeSanctis Bill Beard Michael Crosbie Maurizio Bergamo Frederick Debuyst Philip Bess Mattai Del Prete Renato Bollati Richard Falkinger Sergio Bollati Alejandro Garcia-Rivera Paul F. Bosch Albert Gerhards Wilfrid Cantwell Richard Gieselmann Giancarlo Cataldi Richard Giles Margaret Bouchez Cavanaugh W. Jardine Grisbrooke Mark G. Boyer Peter Hammond

395 Authors who have contributed to the discourse about the liturgical ordering of churches in the 20th and early 21st centuries, continued:

Richard Hurley Nicholas W. Roberts John Kasper Rudolf Schwarz Richard Kieckhefer R. Kevin Seasoltz Johannes Krämer Edward A. Sövik Uwe Michael Lang David Stancliffe Jaime Lara Rudolf Stegers Enrico Lavagnino Mary Patricia Storms Jean Lebon Duncan Stroik Guiseppe Lonetti Cynthia Swarts Dennis McNally Paul Thiry Filippo Mecozzi Paul Turner Julie Moran Richard Vosko David Philippart James F. White Paul Post Susan J. White Eugene Potente Jr. Walter Zahner Martin Purdy David Zersen Joseph Ratzinger

396 APPENDIX THREE

LITURGICAL, ECCLESIAL AND PAPAL DOCUMENTS AND PRONOUNCEMENTS

Part I: The Status of Documents Cited

Sources

The sources of Catholic texts and pronouncements referred to in the thesis and excerpted extensively in this appendix are: • The Code of canon law. • The Catechism of the Catholic Church. • Ecumenical councils, in this instance Vatican Council II (1962 – 1965). • Popes, in particular Pius X (1903 – 1914), Pius XII (1939 - 1958), Paul IV (1963 – 1978), John Paul II (1978 – 2005) and Benedict XVI (2005 -). • The Roman Curia, in this instance the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, previously known as: until 7 May 1969, the Sacred Congregation for Rites; until 10 July 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship; until 4 April 1984, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship; and until 28 February 1989, the Congregation for Divine Worship. The use of ‘sacred’ in the names of congregations ceased as of 27 November 1983 (John M. Huels (2000, p. 125). • National conferences of bishops. • Diocesan bishops.

Types and authority of documents and pronouncements

The variety of types of documents and pronouncements promulgated within the Catholic Church considerably exceeds those referred to in the thesis and excerpted in this appendix (Morrissey 1995, p. 9, p. 21 & p. 23). The types of documents and pronouncements cited are: • The Code of canon law (King 1987, pp. 15-16) is universal in application; it differentiates between canon law and liturgical law (Canon 2); defines the status

397 of pronouncements and authentic interpretation of pronouncements (Canons 7- 34); and specifies laws relating to particular elements of churches. • The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a comprehensive compendium of magisterial teaching which describes the faith of the Catholic tradition; states Church teaching pertaining to liturgy and the nature of churches; and teaches rather than legislates, though its exposition of Catholic teaching may convey related legislation. • From Vatican Council II, • Constitutions are the highest level of conciliar document; in content dogmatic, theological or pastoral; and are addressed to the universal Church. • Decrees build upon the principles of constitutions; and particular in content; and are addressed to a given cohort within the community of the Church or to ‘a special form of apostolate’ (Morrisey 1995, p. 21). These and other types of conciliar documents have legislative content, the intention and authority of which was explained by Pope Paul VI in 1966 (Morrissey 1995, p. 22): The Council has laid down laws, and they must be respected. But on other occasions it formulated principles, criteria, desires which must be given concrete expression in new laws and instructions, in new organisms and offices, in spiritual, cultural and moral movements, and in organizations. This requires much work from many persons for quite a number of years.

• From the popes (Morrissey 1995, pp. 11- 20), • Encyclicals ‘are papal acts in the form of letters’; addressed to a certain category of persons within the Church; an authoritative exercise in papal teaching; and generally are not used to establish law. • Apostolic exhortations are commonly used to put forward the teaching and recommendations of meetings called Synods of Bishops; and as their title indicates they are exhortative, not legislative. • Apostolic letters are directed to a particular category of persons within the Church; express social and pastoral teaching; and are not legislative.

398 • Motu proprios are apostolic letters written on a pope’s own initiative and directed to the universal Church; are legislative in nature and second only to the Code of canon law; and used to modify or more directly enact existing legislation. • Letters are directed to different groups of persons within and beyond the community of the Church; variously explaining or articulating points of Catholic teaching and tradition; and are not legislative. • From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, • Decrees promulgate liturgical rites and books in accordance with papal mandate; and ‘the highest juridical value is given to the norms in the liturgical books’ (Huels 2000, p. 125). • General instructions / introductions outline the theology and juridical norms of liturgical rites and books; publication indicates a reform of a liturgical rite or book; content concerned with the discipline of liturgical celebration and the specific rubrics which direct disciplinary praxis ‘have the same weight as other universal laws, including the canons of the Code of canon law (Huels 2000, p. 125). • Instructions explain existing law; do not make new law unless approved forma specifica by the pope which changes them from executive to legislative in character; and may be corrective in tone (Huels 2000, p. 124). • Directories provide guidelines and recommendations; and show how existing law might be interpreted (Richstatter 2000). • Notitiae is the Congregation’s publication of commentary and announcements; it includes allocutions, legislative acts, reports on liturgical research and from liturgical commissions, a chronicle and advisory comment.

399 • From national conferences of bishops, • National directories providing liturgical, theological, pastoral and architectural guidelines for church projects, as summarised in Part III of this appendix. • Advice or comment from a bishops liturgical commission or related advisory body. • From diocesan bishops, • According with universal Church law, the regulation of liturgy within the diocesan Church; • Diocesan directory of church architecture.

Part II: Excerpts on church design

The following excerpts from liturgical, ecclesial (including juridical) and papal pronouncements have been selected in view of their description of, reference to or implications for the design of churches for liturgical celebration.

Excerpts taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is the magisterial compendium of Catholic teaching, and The Code of canon law which contains the universal law of the Catholic Church, both in authorised English translation, are referenced by these titles. Excerpts taken from other sources are referenced by the promulgating Church authority (council, pope, Roman curial dicastery or other body), type of pronouncement or ritual book or document, and title of same. Roman custom refers to pronouncements by using the first two words of the text in the original Latin. For example, the Vatican Council II Constitution on the sacred liturgy is customarily referred to as Sacrosanctum concilium from, ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; …’, in English translation, ‘This Sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful …’.

400 The church building

... Christians construct buildings for divine worship. These visible churches are not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1180.)

By the term church is understood a sacred building designated for divine worship to which the faithful have the right of entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 1214.)

A church is … a sacred building dedicated to divine worship for the use of all the faithful and the public exercise of religion. (Code of canon law 1917, §1161.)

A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful - this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial." In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1181.)

... A church must also be a space that invites us to the recollection and silent prayer that extend and internalize the great prayer of the Eucharist. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1185.)

... The church has an eschatological significance. To enter into the house of God, we must cross a threshold, which symbolizes passing from the world wounded by sin to the world of the new Life to which all men are called. The visible church is a symbol of the Father's house toward which the People of God is journeying and where the Father "will wipe every tear from their eyes." Also for this reason, the Church is the house of all God's children, open and welcoming. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1186.)

The cathedral church is the church that is the site of the bishop’s cathedra or chair, the sign of his teaching office and pastoral power in the particular Church [Diocese], and a sign also of the unity of believers in the faith that the bishop proclaims as shepherd of the Lord’s flock. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §42.)

The diocesan cathedral “in the majesty of its building is a symbol of the spiritual temple that is built up in souls and is resplendent with the glory of …The cathedral, furthermore, should be regarded as the express image of Christ’s visible Church, praying, singing, and worshiping on earth…” (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §43.)

…the cathedral church should be regarded as the centre of the liturgical life of the diocese. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §44.)

Effective measures should be taken to instill esteem and reverence for the cathedral church in the hearts of the faithful. Among such measures are the

401 annual celebration of the dedication of the cathedral and pilgrimages in which the faithful, especially in groups of parishes or sections of the diocese, visit the cathedral in a spirit of devotion. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §45.)

The cathedral church should be a model for the other churches of the diocese in its conformity to the directives laid down in liturgical documents and books with regard to the arrangement and adornment of churches. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §46.)

Designing churches for liturgical celebration

... And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §124.)

In the building and repair of churches, the principles and norms of the liturgy and of sacred art are to be observed, after the advice of experts has been taken into account. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 1216.)

The church, the house of prayer, must be well cared for and suited to prayer and liturgy. There the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved and the faithful gather for worship. There the presence of the Son of God, our Saviour offered on the altar of sacrifice for us, is treasured as the aid and solace of the faithful. There priests and people are called together to respond gratefully to the gifts of Christ, who through his humanity never ceases to pour forth the divine life upon the members of his Body. (Vatican Council II 1965, Decree on the life and ministry of priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, §5.)

For the celebration of the Eucharist, the People of God normally are gathered together in a church, or, if there is no church or if it is too small, then in another place that is nonetheless worthy of so great a mystery. Churches, therefore, and other places should be suitable for carrying out the sacred action and for ensuring the active participation of the faithful. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §288.)

In the new construction, repair, or adaptation of churches great care shall be taken that they are suitable for the celebration of divine services according to the true nature of the services and for the active participation of the faithful. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, Instruction, Inter Oecumenici, §90.)

The Importance of the Arrangement of Churches for Well-ordered Celebrations The house of prayer where the most holy Eucharist is celebrated and preserved should be kept clean and in good order, suitable for prayer and sacred celebrations. It is there too that the faithful gather and find help and comfort in venerating the presence of the Son of God, our Saviour, offered for us on the altar of sacrifice. …

402 Pastors must realize then that the way the church is arranged greatly contributes to a worthy celebration and to the active participation of the people. Above all, the main altar should be so placed and constructed that it is always seen to be the sign of Christ Himself, the place at which the saving mysteries are carried out, and the centre of the assembly, to which the greatest reverence is due. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §24.)

The primary consideration in the whole matter of re-ordering a church must be liturgical. Consideration must be given to the character of a liturgical assembly, the function of the People of God, its hierarchical structure and the diversity of function exercised by its members. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1986, S. Johnson, Notitiae, 238, vol. 22, no. 5.)

When painful decisions have to be made in the re-ordering of a church the ultimate criteria must be liturgical, and not majority vote or personal whim or fancy. A choice must be made with a view to the actual celebration of the liturgy, and not for the aesthetic appearance of an empty church. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1986, S. Johnson, Notitiae, 238, vol. 22, no. 5.)

... Here it is important to remember that the purpose of sacred architecture is to offer the Church a fitting space for the celebration of the mysteries of faith, especially the Eucharist. The very nature of a Christian church is defined by the liturgy, which is an assembly of the faithful (ecclesia) who are the living stones of the Church (cf. 1 Pet 2:5). (Benedict XVI 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, §41.

The whole Body of Christ celebrates the liturgy

Liturgy is an "action" of the whole Christ (Christus totus). Those who even now celebrate it without signs are already in the heavenly liturgy, where celebration is wholly communion and feast. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1136.) It is the whole community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, that celebrates ... (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1140.)

… in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §7.)

Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops. Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; ... (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §26.)

... The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §10.)

403 The manifold presence of Christ in the liturgy

The celebration of Mass, as the action of Christ and the People of God arrayed hierarchically, is the center of the whole Christian life for the Church both universal and local, as well as for each of the faithful individually. In it is found the high point both of the action by which God sanctifies the world in Christ and of the worship that the human race offers to the Father, adoring him through Christ, the Son of God, in the Holy Spirit. In it, moreover, during the course of the year, the mysteries of redemption are recalled so as in some way to be made present. Furthermore, the other sacred actions and all the activities of the Christian life are bound up with it, flow from it, and are ordered to it. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §16.)

... Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross", but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20). (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §7.)

In order that they should achieve a deeper understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist, the faithful should be instructed in the principal ways in which the Lord is present to His Church in liturgical celebrations. He is always present in a body of the faithful gathered in His name (cf. Matt. 18:20). He is present too in His Word, for it is He who speaks when the Scriptures are read in the Church. In the sacrifice of the Eucharist He is present both in the person of the minister, "the same now offering through the ministry of the priest who formerly offered himself on the Cross," and above all under the species of the Eucharist. For in this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species "is called 'real' not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but 'par excellence'.". (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §9.)

... Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §27.)

404 ‘Actuosa participatio’

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit ... (Vatican Council II, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium 1963, §14.)

It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private. (Vatican Council II, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium 1963, §27.)

To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §30.)

It should be made clear that all who gather for the Eucharist constitute that holy people which, together with the ministers, plays its part in the sacred action. It is indeed the priest alone, who, acting in the person of Christ, consecrates the bread and wine, but the role of the faithful in the Eucharist is to recall the passion, resurrection and glorification of the Lord, to give thanks to God, and to offer the immaculate Victim not only through the hands of the priest, but also together with him; and finally, by receiving the Body of the Lord, to perfect that communion with God and among themselves which should be the product of participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass. For the faithful achieve a more perfect participation in the Mass when, with proper disposition, they receive the Body of the Lord sacramentally in the Mass itself, in obedience to his words, "take and eat." Like the passion of Christ itself, this sacrifice, though offered for all, "has no effect except in those united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity.... To these it brings a greater or less benefit in proportion to their devotion." All these things should be explained to the faithful, so that they may take an active part in the celebration of the Mass both by their personal devotion and by joining in the external rites, according to the principles laid down in the Constitution on the Liturgy … (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §12.)

For promoting and elucidating active participation, the recent renewal of the liturgical books according to the mind of the Council fostered acclamations of the people, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and canticles, as well as actions or movements and gestures, and called for sacred silence to be maintained at the

405 proper times, while providing rubrics for the parts of the faithful as well. In addition, ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to the established liturgical norms. In the songs, the melodies, the choice of prayers and readings, the giving of the homily, the preparation of the prayer of the faithful, the occasional explanatory remarks, and the decoration of the Church building according to the various seasons, there is ample possibility for introducing into each celebration a certain variety by which the riches of the liturgical tradition will also be more clearly evident, and so, in keeping with pastoral requirements, the celebration will be carefully imbued with those particular features that will foster the recollection of the participants. Still, it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2004, Instruction, Redemptionis sacramentum, §39.)

The Second Vatican Council rightly emphasized the active, full and fruitful participation of the entire People of God in the eucharistic celebration. Certainly, the renewal carried out in these past decades has made considerable progress towards fulfilling the wishes of the Council Fathers. Yet we must not overlook the fact that some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of this participation. It should be made clear that the word "participation" does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration. In fact, the active participation called for by the Council must be understood in more substantial terms, on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relationship to daily life. The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium encouraged the faithful to take part in the eucharistic liturgy not "as strangers or silent spectators," but as participants "in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, actively and devoutly". This exhortation has lost none of its force. The Council went on to say that the faithful "should be instructed by God's word, and nourished at the table of the Lord's Body. They should give thanks to God. Offering the immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, they should learn to make an offering of themselves. Through Christ, the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and each other". (Benedict XVI 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, §52.) In their consideration of the actuosa participatio of the faithful in the liturgy, the Synod Fathers also discussed the personal conditions required for fruitful participation on the part of individuals. One of these is certainly the spirit of constant conversion which must mark the lives of all the faithful. Active participation in the eucharistic liturgy can hardly be expected if one approaches it superficially, without an examination of his or her life. This inner disposition can be fostered, for example, by recollection and silence for at least a few moments before the beginning of the liturgy, by fasting and, when necessary, by sacramental confession. A heart reconciled to God makes genuine participation possible. The faithful need to be reminded that there can be no actuosa participatio in the sacred mysteries without an accompanying effort to participate actively in the life of the Church as a whole, including a missionary

406 commitment to bring Christ's love into the life of society. (Benedict XVI 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, §55.)

Unity, hierarchy, order, ministry

The people of God, gathered for Mass, has a coherent and hierarchical structure, which finds expression in the variety of ministries and the variety of actions according to the different parts of the celebration. The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of all the participants, as well as facilitating them in the proper carrying out of their function. ... All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §294.)

"The members do not all have the same function." Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of , by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church. The ordained minister is, as it were, an "icon" of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1142.)

In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §28.)

In the celebration of the sacraments it is thus the whole assembly that is leitourgos [minister], each according to his function, but in the "unity of the Spirit" who acts in all. "In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the norms of the liturgy." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1144.)

Servers, lectors commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God's people. Consequently they must all be deeply imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, each in his own measure, and they must be trained to perform their functions in a correct and orderly manner. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §29.)

For the purpose of assisting the work of the common priesthood of the faithful, other particular ministries also exist, not consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders; their functions are determined by the bishops, in accord with liturgical

407 traditions and pastoral needs. "Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1143.)

The worship "in Spirit and in truth" of the is not tied exclusively to any one place. The whole earth is sacred and entrusted to the children of men. What matters above all is that, when the faithful assemble in the same place, they are the "living stones," gathered to be "built into a spiritual house." For the Body of the risen Christ is the spiritual temple from which the source of living water springs forth: incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, "we are the temple of the living God." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1179.)

The plan of the church – the assembly and its ministers

The general plan of the sacred building should be such that is reflects in some way the whole assembly. It should allow for the distribution of all in due order and facilitate each one’s proper function. (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, Roman pontifical: Rite of dedication of a church and an altar, ch.2 §3.)

The people of God, gathered for Mass, has a coherent and hierarchical structure, which finds expression in the variety of ministries and the variety of actions according to the different parts of the celebration. The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of all the participants, as well as facilitating them in the proper carrying out of their function. The faithful and choir should have a place that facilitates their active participation. The priest celebrant, the deacon, and the other ministers have places in the sanctuary. Seats for concelebrants should be prepared there. If, however, their number is great, seats should be arranged in another part of the church, but near the altar. All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people. ... . (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §294.)

Places should be arranged with appropriate care for the faithful so that they are able to participate in the sacred celebrations visually and spiritually, in the proper manner. It is expedient for benches or seats usually to be provided for their use. ... benches or chairs should be arranged, especially in newly built churches, in such a way that the people can easily take up the postures required for the different parts of the celebration and can easily come forward to receive Holy Communion. Care should be taken that the faithful be able not only to see the priest, the deacon, and the lectors but also, with the aid of modern technical means, to hear them without difficulty. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §311.)

408 The choir should be positioned with respect to the design of each church so as to make clearly evident its character as part of the gathered community of the faithful fulfilling a specific function. The location should also assist the choir to exercise its role more easily and conveniently allow each choir member full, sacramental participation in the Mass. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §312.)

The organ and other lawfully approved musical instruments are to be placed in an appropriate place so that they can sustain the singing of both the choir and the congregation and be heard with ease by all ... . (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §313.)

A proper arrangement of a church and its surroundings that appropriately meets contemporary needs requires attention not only to the elements related more directly to the celebration of the sacred actions but also to those things conducive to the appropriate comfort of the faithful that are normal in places where people regularly gather. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §293.)

…provision should be made for a gathering place of the people near the cathedral church – another church, a suitable hall, a square, or a cloister – where the blessings of candles, of palms, and of fire, as well as other preparatory celebrations, may take place and from which processions to the cathedral church may begin. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §54.)

The plan of the church - sanctuary

The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed and where the priest, deacon, and other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be celebrated properly and easily seen. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], § 295.)

The sanctuary or chancel, that is, the place where the bishop, presbyters, and ministers carry out their ministries, should be set apart from the body of the church in some way – for example, by being at a somewhat higher level or by its distinctive design and ornamentation – in such a way that even the layout of the sanctuary highlights the hierarchic offices of the ministers. The sanctuary should be sufficiently spacious for the rites to be carried out without obstruction to movement or to the view of the assembly. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §50.)

409 The plan of the church – chair, cathedra, seating for ministers

The chair of the priest celebrant must signify his office of presiding over the gathering and of directing the prayer. Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary, unless the design of the building or other circumstances impede this: for example, if the great distance would interfere with communication between the priest and the gathered assembly, or if the tabernacle is in the centre behind the altar. Any appearance of a throne, however, is to be avoided. It is appropriate that, before being put into liturgical use, the chair be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual. Likewise, seats should be arranged in the sanctuary for concelebrating priests… The seat for the deacon should be placed near that of the celebrant. Seats for the other ministers are to be arranged so that they are clearly distinguishable from those for the clergy and so that the ministers are easily able to fulfil the function entrusted to them. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §310.)

... Seats, benches, or stools should be provided in the sanctuary, so that concelebrants, ... as well as the ministers, all have their own places, and in such a way facilitate the exercise of their various parts in a celebration. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §50.)

The honoured and traditional name for the chair of the bishop is the cathedra. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1968, Instruction, Pontificalis ritus, §10.) The chair (cathedra) of the bishop ... "should express his office of presiding over the assembly and of directing prayer." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, §1184.)

In all cases there is to be only a single Episcopal chair and the bishop who sits on it is the one who is celebrating or presiding pontifically at the celebration. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1968, Instruction, Pontificalis ritus, §13.)

Depending on the design of each church the chair should have enough steps leading up to it for the bishop to be clearly visible to the faithful and truly to appear as the one presiding over the whole community of the faithful. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1968, Instruction, Pontificalis ritus, §12.)

From now on there is to be no baldachin over the bishop’s chair; but the valuable works of art from the past are to be preserved with utmost care. Further, existing are not to be removed without consultation with the commissions on liturgy and art. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1968, Instruction, Pontificalis ritus, §11.)

The bishop’s cathedra or chair …should be a chair that stands alone and is permanently installed. Its placement should make it clear that the bishop is presiding over the whole community of the faithful. Depending on the design on each church, the chair should have enough steps leading up to it for the bishop to be clearly visible to the faithful. There is to be no baldachin over the bishop’s chair…

410 Apart from the cases provided for by law, only the diocesan bishop, or a bishop he permits to use it, occupies this chair. Seats are to be provided in a convenient place for other bishops or prelates who may be present at a celebration, but such seats are not to be set up in the manner of a cathedra. The chair for a priest celebrant should be set up in a place separate from the site of the bishop’s chair. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §47.)

The plan of the church - ambo

In the celebration of the Mass with a congregation, the readings are always proclaimed from the ambo. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §58.)

The dignity of the word of God requires that the church have a place that is suitable for the proclamation of the word and toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns during the Liturgy of the Word. It is appropriate that this place be ordinarily a stationary ambo and not simply a moveable lectern. The ambo must be located in keeping with the design of each church in such a way that the ordained ministers and lectors may be clearly seen and heard by the faithful. From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Exsultet (Easter proclamation) are to be proclaimed; it may be used also for giving the Homily and for announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the word should go up to it. ... . (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §309.)

The cathedral church should have an ambo or lectern…But the bishop should address the people of God from the bishop’s chair (cathedra), unless local conditions suggest otherwise. The cantor, the commentator, or the choirmaster should not normally use the ambo or lectern, but should carry out their functions from another suitable place. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §51.)

Either permanently or at least on occasions of greater solemnity, the lectern should be decorated simply and in keeping with its design. (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1981, Lectionary for mass: Introduction, §33.)

In order that the lectern may properly serve its liturgical purpose, it is to be rather large, since on occasion several ministers must use it at the same time. Provisions must also be made for the readers to have enough light to read the text and, as required, to have sound equipment enabling the congregation to hear them without difficulty. (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1981, Lectionary for mass: Introduction, §34.)

The lectern or ambo must be worthy to serve as the place from which the word of God is proclaimed and must be a striking reminder to the faithful that the table of God’s word is always prepared for them. The present blessing may only

411 be imparted to a true lectern, that is, not a simple, movable stand, but a lectern that is fixed and of design worthy of its function. Because of the architecture of a particular church, a lectern may have to be movable, but if it is truly becoming of its function, and designed with beauty, such a lectern may be blessed. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1173.)

By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings. After each reading, whoever reads gives the acclamation, to which the gathered people reply, honoring the word of God that they have received in faith and with grateful hearts. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §59.)

The reading of the Gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches that great reverence is to be shown to it by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor: whether the minister appointed to proclaim it prepares himself by a blessing or prayer; or the faithful, standing as they listen to it being read, through their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them; or the very marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §60.)

Close Relationship Between the Word of God and the Mystery of the Eucharist The Church has honoured the word of God and the Eucharistic mystery with the same reverence, although not with the same worship, and has always and everywhere intended and endorsed such honour … The Church is nourished spiritually at the table of God’s word and at the table of the eucharist: from the one it grows in wisdom and from the other in holiness. In the word of God the divine covenant is announced; in the eucharist the new and everlasting covenant is renewed. The spoken word of God brings to mind the history of salvation; the eucharist embodies it in the sacramental signs of the liturgy. (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1981, Lectionary for mass: Introduction, §10.)

Place for proclaiming the Word of God There must be a place in the church that is somewhat elevated, fixed, and of a suitable design and nobility. It should reflect the dignity of God’s word and be a clear reminder to the people that in the Mass the table of God’s word and of Christ’s body is placed before them. The place for the readings must also truly help the people’s listening and attention during the liturgy of the word. Great pains must therefore be taken, in keeping with the design of each church, over the harmonious and close relationship of the lectern with the altar. (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1981, Lectionary for mass: Introduction, §32.)

412 The solemn proclamation of the word of God … the proclamation of the word of God, and the Gospel in particular, should be made more solemn, especially on major liturgical feasts, through the use of the , carried in procession during the opening rites and then brought to the lectern by a deacon or priest for proclamation. This would help the people of God to realize that “the reading of the Gospel is the high point of the liturgy of the word”. Following the indications contained in the Ordo Lectionum Missae, it is good that the word of God, especially the Gospel, be enhanced by being proclaimed in song, particularly on certain . The greeting, the initial announcement: “A reading from the holy Gospel” and the concluding words: “The Gospel of the Lord”, could well be sung as a way of emphasizing the importance of what was read. (Benedict XVI 2010, Apostolic exhortation, Verbum Domini, §67.)

The word of God in Christian churches In order to facilitate hearing the word of God, consideration should be given to measures which can help focus the attention of the faithful. Concern should be shown for church acoustics, with due respect for liturgical and architectural norms. “Bishops, duly assisted, in the construction of churches should take care that they be adapted to the proclamation of the word, to meditation and to the celebration of the Eucharist. Sacred spaces, even apart from the liturgical action, should be eloquent and should present the Christian mystery in relation to the word of God”. Special attention should be given to the ambo as the liturgical space from which the word of God is proclaimed. It should be located in a clearly visible place to which the attention of the faithful will be naturally drawn during the liturgy of the word. It should be fixed, and decorated in aesthetic harmony with the altar, in order to present visibly the theological significance of the double table of the word and of the Eucharist. The readings, the responsorial psalm and the Exsultet are to be proclaimed from the ambo; it can also be used for the homily and the prayers of the faithful. The Synod Fathers also proposed that churches give a place of honour to the sacred Scriptures, even outside of liturgical celebrations. It is good that the book which contains the word of God should enjoy a visible place of honour inside the Christian temple, without prejudice to the central place proper to the tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament. (Benedict XVI 2010, Apostolic exhortation, Verbum Domini, §68.)

The plan of the church - altar

It is proper that the main altar be constructed separately from the wall, so that one may go around it with ease and so that celebration may take place facing the people: it shall occupy a place in the sacred building that is truly central, so that the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful is spontaneously turned to it. … Moreover, the presbyterium or sanctuary area around the altar shall be of sufficient size that the sacred rites may be conveniently celebrated. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, Instruction, Inter oecumenici, §91.)

413 It is therefore of the greatest importance that the celebration of the Mass—that is, the Lord's Supper—be so arranged that the sacred ministers and the faithful taking part in it, according to the proper state of each, may derive from it more abundantly those fruits for the sake of which Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood and entrusted it to the Church, his beloved Bride, as the memorial of his Passion and Resurrection. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §17.)

The Church’s children have the power to celebrate the memorial of Christ and take their place at the Lord’s table anywhere that circumstances might require. But it is in keeping with the Eucharistic mystery that the Christian people erect a permanent altar for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and they have done so from the earliest times. The Christian altar is by its very nature properly the table of sacrifice and of the paschal banquet. It is: - a unique altar on which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in mystery throughout the ages until Christ comes; - a table at which the church’s children gather to give thanks to God and receive the body and blood of Christ. In every church, then, the altar is the centre of the thanksgiving that the Eucharist accomplishes and around which the Church’s other rites are, in a certain manner, arrayed. At the altar the memorial of the Lord is celebrated and his body and blood given to the people. Therefore the Church’s writers have seen in the altar a sign of Christ himself. This is the basis for the saying: “The altar is Christ.” (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, Roman pontifical: Rite of dedication of a church and an altar, ch. 4 §4.)

Both a fixed and a moveable altar are to be reserved exclusively for divine worship and are entirely exempt from profane use. (Code of Canon Law 1983, Can. 1239 §1.)

An altar … on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is celebrated is said to be fixed if it is so constructed that it is joined to the floor and therefore cannot be moved; it is moveable if it can be transferred. (Code of Canon Law 1983, Can. 1235 §1.)

It is fitting that there be a fixed altar in every church … . (Code of Canon Law 1983, Can. 1235 §2.)

It is appropriate to have a fixed altar in every church. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §298.)

The altar should be constructed and adorned in accordance with the provisions of the law. It should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally. The altar of the cathedral church should normally be a fixed altar that has been dedicated. This altar should be freestanding to allow the ministers to walk around it easily and to permit celebration facing the people. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §48.)

414 The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §299.)

An altar whether fixed or movable is dedicated according to the rite prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; but it is permissible for a movable altar simply to be blessed. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §300 .)

According to Church custom the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone, in fact of a single natural stone; nevertheless, even another material, worthy and solid, in the judgment of the conference of bishops can be used. The supports or the foundation can be of any material. (Code of Canon Law 1983, Can. 1236 §1.)

In keeping with the Church's traditional practice and the altar's symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone. Nevertheless, the Conference of Bishops may judge that another material may also be used that is worthy, solid, and artistically made. The supports or base for upholding the table, however, may be made of any sort of material, provided it is worthy and solid. … . (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §301.)

In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §303.)

The ancient tradition of keeping the relics of martyrs and other saints under a faxed altar is to be preserved according to the norms given in the liturgical books. (Code of Canon Law 1983, Can. 1237 §2.)

The practice of placing relics of Saints … under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §302.)

…on the altar where this memorial is celebrated, there should be at least one white cloth, its shape, size, and decoration in keeping with the altar’s design. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §304.)

Only what is required for the celebration of the Mass may be placed on the mensa of the altar: namely, from the beginning of the celebration until the proclamation of the Gospel, the Book of the Gospels; then from the Presentation of the Gifts until the purification of the vessels, the with the , a ciborium if necessary, and, finally, the , the purificator, the pall, and the Missal. In addition, microphones that may be needed to amplify the priest's voice should be arranged discreetly. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the

415 Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §306.)

The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration (cf. above, no. 117), are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful's clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §307.)

The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a . If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §117.)

There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §308.)

Floral decorations should always be done with moderation and placed around the altar rather than on its mensa. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §305.)

The plan of the church - tabernacle

The most holy Eucharist shall be reserved in a solid and inviolable tabernacle placed in the middle of the main altar or on a minor, but truly outstanding altar, or, according to lawful customs and in particular cases to be approved by the local ordinary, also in some other noble and properly adorned part of the church (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, Instruction, Inter Oecumenici, §95).

Where the Eucharist is allowed to be reserved in keeping with the provisions of law, only one altar or location in the same church may be the permanent, that is, regular place of reservation. As a general rule, therefore, there is to be but one tabernacle in each church and it is to be solid and absolutely secure. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §52.)

The blessed Eucharist is to be reserved habitually in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 938 §1.)

416 The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is habitually reserved is to be immovable, made of solid and non-transparent material, and so locked as to give the greatest security against any danger of profanation. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 938 §3.)

In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer. The one tabernacle should be immovable, be made of solid and inviolable material that is not transparent, and be locked in such a way that the danger of profanation is prevented to the greatest extent possible. Moreover, it is appropriate that, before it is put into liturgical use, it be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §314.)

The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitable adorned and conducive to prayer. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 938 §2.)

The place in a church or oratory where the Eucharist is reserved in a tabernacle should be truly a place of honour. It should also be suited to private prayer so that the faithful may readily and to their advantage continue to honour the Lord in this sacrament by private worship. Therefore, it is recommended that as far as possible the tabernacle be placed in a chapel set apart from the main body of the church, especially in churches where there frequently are marriages and funerals and in placed that, because of their artistic or historical treasures, are much visited by many people. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §53.)

…moreover, in the course of the day, the faithful should not omit to visit the blessed sacrament, which must, in keeping with the liturgical laws, be reserved in the churches with great reverence in a most honourable location. Such visits are a proof of gratitude, a pledge of love, a service of adoration owed to Christ the Lord there present. (Paul VI 1965, Encyclical, Mysterium fidei, §66.)

Care should be taken that the faithful be made aware of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle by the use of a veil or some other effective means prescribed by the competent authority. According to the traditional practice, a lamp should burn continuously as a sign of honour shown to the Lord. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §57.)

A special lamp to indicate and honor the presence of Christ is to burn at all times before the tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 940.)

In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of

417 Christ. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §316.)

In the celebration of Mass, the principal modes of Christ’s presence to his Church emerge clearly one after the other: first he is seen to be present in the assembly of the faithful gathered in his name; then in his word, with the reading and explanation of Scripture; also in the person of the minister; finally, in a singular way under the Eucharistic elements. Consequently, on the grounds of the sign value, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that, through reservation of the sacrament in the tabernacle, Christ not be present eucharistically from the beginning on the altar where Mass is celebrated. That presence is the effect of the consecration and should appear as such. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1967, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, §55.)

As reservation of the sacrament and Eucharistic devotion derive from the celebration of the eucharist and participation in it, so the tabernacle derives from the altar. Because of the strong relationship of the reserved sacrament with the actual celebration of the Eucharist, it is a pre-eminent example of devotions which accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some way derived from it, and lead the people to it. It is helpful therefore to maintain a link (perhaps in design, materials of construction, or a common axis) between altar and tabernacle. This does not necessarily mean that the tabernacle needs to be physically close to the altar or sanctuary. The liturgy presumes that the people will be fed with the body and blood of the Lord consecrated during the same Mass at which they receive communion. People are fed from the altar table not from the tabernacle. Recourse to the tabernacle before or after communion is extrinsic to the liturgy and, when it is necessary, a special minister of communion can bring hosts to the altar or take them back to the tabernacle during the Mass. This should not be required at smaller gatherings or on weekdays. (Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, National Liturgical Commission 1988, Discussion paper on the tabernacle.)

It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated. Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop, a. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. §303); b. Or, likewise, in some chapel suitable for the faithful's private adoration and prayer and organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §315.)

It is recommended that the tabernacle, in accordance with a very ancient tradition in cathedral churches, should be located in a chapel separate from the main body of the church. But when, in a particular case, there is a tabernacle on the altar at which the bishop is to celebrate, the blessed sacrament should be

418 transferred to another fitting place. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §49.)

In no way should all the other things prescribed by law concerning the reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist be forgotten. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §317.)

The plan of the church – baptistery

The baptistery or the area where the baptismal font is located should be reserved for the sacrament of baptism and should be worthy to serve as the place where Christians are reborn in water and the Holy Spirit. The baptistery may be situated in a chapel either inside or outside the church or in some other part of the church easily seen by the faithful; it should be large enough to accommodate a good number of people. After the Easter season, the Easter candle should be kept reverently in the baptistery, in such a way that it can be lighted for the celebration of baptism and so that from it the candles for the newly baptised can easily be lighted. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, Christian initiation, General introduction, §25.)

Therefore in the celebration of baptism the washing with water should take on its full importance as the sign of that mystical sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection through which those who believe in his name die to sin and rise to eternal life. Either immersion or the pouring of water should be chosen for the rite, whichever will serve in individual cases and in the various traditions and circumstances to ensure the clear understanding that this washing is not a mere purification rite but the sacrament of being joined to Christ. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, Rite of Christian initiation of adults, 1987, §206.)

Even when it is not a parochial church, the cathedral should have a baptistery, at least for the celebration of baptism at the Easter Vigil. The baptistery should be designed and equipped in keeping with the provisions of The Roman Ritual. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989b, Ceremonial of bishops, §52.)

In the construction and decoration of the baptistery great pains are to be taken to ensure that it clearly expresses the dignity of the sacrament of Baptism and that it is a place well suited to communal celebrations. (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1964, Instruction, Inter oecumenici, §99.)

The baptistery or site of the baptismal font is rightly considered to be one of the most important parts of a church. For it is the place for celebrating baptism, the first sacrament of the New Law, through which those who firmly accept Christ in faith and receive the Spirit of adoption become in name and in fact God’s adopted children. Joined with Christ in death and resurrection like his, they become part of his Body. Filled with the anointing of the Spirit, they become God’s holy temple and members of the Church, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1080.)

419 Because baptism is the beginning of the entire Christian life, every cathedral and parish church ought to have its own baptistery or a special place where the baptismal font flows or is situated… . (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1081.)

The baptismal font, particularly one in a baptistery, should be stationary, gracefully constructed out of a suitable material, of splendid beauty and spotless cleanliness; it should permit baptism by immersion, wherever this is the usage. In order to enhance its force as a sign, the font should be designed in such a way that it functions as a fountain of running water; where the climate requires, provision should be made for heating the water. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1085.)

The oils used for the celebration of the sacraments of initiation, holy orders, and the anointing of the sick according to ancient tradition are reverently reserved in a special place in the church. This repository should be secure and be protected by a lock. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1125.)

In administering sacraments in which holy oils are to be used, the minister must use oils made from olives or other plants, which, except as provided in canon 999, n.2, has recently been consecrated or blessed by a Bishop. Older oil is not to be used except in a case of necessity. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 847 §1.)

The parish priest is to obtain the holy oils from his own Bishop and keep them carefully in fitting custody. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 847 §2.

The plan of the church – reconciliation

The sacrament of penance is celebrated in the place and location prescribed by law. (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1973, Rite of penance: Introduction, §12.)

When a number of penitents assemble at the same time to receive sacramental reconciliation, it is fitting that they be prepared for the sacrament by a celebration of the word of God. Those who will receive the sacrament at another time may also take part in the service. Communal celebration shows more clearly the ecclesial nature of penance. The faithful listen together to the word of God, which proclaims his mercy and invites them to conversion; at the same time they examine the conformity of their lives with that word of God and help each other through common prayer. After each person has confessed his sins and received absolution, all praise God together for his wonderful deeds on behalf of the people he has gained for himself through the blood of his Son. If necessary, several priests should be available in suitable places to hear individual confessions and to reconcile the penitents. (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1973, Rite of penance: Introduction, §22.)

Penitential celebrations are gatherings of the people of God to hear the proclamation of God’s word. This invites them to conversion and renewal of life and announces our freedom from sin through the death and resurrection of

420 Christ. The structure of these services is the same as that usually followed in celebrations of the word of God and given in the Rite for Reconciliation of Several Penitents. (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1973, Rite of penance: Introduction, §36.)

The practice of reserving a special place in churches for the celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation is a clear expression of the truth that sacramental confession and absolution constitute a liturgical action which involves the entire body of the Church and is intended to renew the participation of the faithful in the Church’s offering of the sacrifice of Christ. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1203.)

The rite of blessing [of a confessional] in which our faith leads us to take part moves us to learn that again and again we should thank God, who shows his almighty power most of all when in mercy he pardons our sins. We come to this confessional as sinners and we leave forgiven and restored to grace, because of the ministry of reconciliation that Christ Jesus has entrusted to his Church. Out of Christ’s goodness those who are weighed down by sin are relieved of their burden when they come to the confessional; those who come here with the stains of evil upon them go away cleansed, washed in the blood of the Lamb. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1208.)

The proper place for hearing sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 964 §1.)

As far as the confessional is concerned, norms are to be issued by the , with the proviso however that confessionals, which the faithful who so wish may freely use, are located in an open place, and fitted with a fixed grille between the penitent and the confessor. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 964 §2.)

Except for a just reason, confessions are not to be heard elsewhere than in a confessional. (Code of canon law 1983, Can. 964 §3.)

The design of the church – art and beauty

Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of human genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God's praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning the human spirit devoutly toward God. …all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world… The Church has been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings should worthily and beautifully serve the dignity of worship, and has admitted changes in materials, style, or ornamentation prompted by the progress of the technical arts with the passage of time. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §122.)

421 The Church has always sought to ensure that all those things that are involved in any way in divine worship should be worthy, becoming, and beautiful; that they first be blessed, and then kept exclusively for sacred celebrations, and never turned to commonplace uses. It is the Church’s intention to maintain this practice. Consequently, those objects that through a blessing are set aside for divine worship are to be treated with reverence by all and to be put only to their proper use, never profaned. (Congregation for Divine Worship 1989a, Book of blessings, §1076.)

In encouraging and favoring art that is truly sacred, Bishops should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in the matter of sacred vestments and appointments. And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §124.)

Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy. All artists who, prompted by their talents, desire to serve God's glory in holy Church, should ever bear in mind that they are engaged in a kind of sacred imitation of God the Creator, and are concerned with works intended to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their devotion and their religious formation. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §127.)

… revision of canons and ecclesiastical statutes apply in particular to the worthy and well planned construction of places of worship, the design and construction of altars, the nobility, placement, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle, the practicality and dignity of the baptistery, the appropriate arrangement of sacred images and church decorations and appointments. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §128.) In order to communicate the message entrusted to her by Christ, the Church needs art. Art must make perceptible, and as far as possible attractive, the world of the spirit, of the invisible, of God. It must therefore translate into meaningful terms that which is in itself ineffable. Art has a unique capacity to take one or other facet of the message and translate it into colours, shapes and sounds which nourish the intuition of those who look or listen. It does so without emptying the message itself of its transcendent value and its aura of mystery. … (John Paul II 1999, Letter to artists, §12.

… The Church needs architects, because she needs spaces to bring the Christian people together and celebrate the mysteries of salvation. After the terrible destruction of the last World War and the growth of great cities, a new generation of architects showed themselves adept at responding to the exigencies of Christian worship, confirming that the religious theme can still inspire architectural design in our own day. Not infrequently these architects have constructed churches which are both places of prayer and true works of art. (John Paul II 1999, Letter to artists, §12.)

422 With this heightened sense of mystery, we understand how the faith of the Church in the mystery of the Eucharist has found historical expression not only in the demand for an interior disposition of devotion, but also in outward forms meant to evoke and emphasize the grandeur of the event being celebrated. This led progressively to the development of a particular form of regulating the Eucharistic liturgy, with due respect for the various legitimately constituted ecclesial traditions. On this foundation a rich artistic heritage also developed. Architecture, sculpture, painting and music, moved by the Christian mystery, have found in the Eucharist, both directly and indirectly, a source of great inspiration. Such was the case, for example, with architecture, which witnessed the transition, once the historical situation made it possible, from the first places of Eucharistic celebration in the domus or “homes” of Christian families to the solemn basilicas of the early centuries, to the imposing cathedrals of the Middle Ages, and to the churches, large and small, which gradually sprang up throughout the lands touched by Christianity. The designs of altars and tabernacles within Church interiors were often not simply motivated by artistic inspiration but also by a clear understanding of the mystery. The same could be said for sacred music, if we but think of the inspired Gregorian melodies and the many, often great, composers who sought to do justice to the liturgical texts of the Mass. Similarly, can we overlook the enormous quantity of artistic production, ranging from fine craftsmanship to authentic works of art, in the area of Church furnishings and vestments used for the celebration of the Eucharist? It can be said that the Eucharist, while shaping the Church and her spirituality, has also powerfully affected “culture”, and the arts in particular. (John Paul II 2003, Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, §49)

In this effort to adore the mystery grasped in its ritual and aesthetic dimensions, a certain “competition” has taken place between Christians of the West and the East. How could we not give particular thanks to the Lord for the contributions to Christian art made by the great architectural and artistic works of the Greco- Byzantine tradition and of the whole geographical area marked by Slav culture? In the East, sacred art has preserved a remarkably powerful sense of mystery, which leads artists to see their efforts at creating beauty not simply as an expression of their own talents, but also as a genuine service to the faith. Passing well beyond mere technical skill, they have shown themselves docile and open to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The architectural and mosaic splendours of the Christian East and West are a patrimony belonging to all believers; they contain a hope, and even a pledge, of the desired fullness of communion in faith and in celebration. This would presuppose and demand, as in Rublëv's famous depiction of the Trinity, a profoundly Eucharistic Church in which the presence of the mystery of Christ in the broken bread is as it were immersed in the ineffable unity of the three divine Persons, making of the Church herself an “icon” of the Trinity. Within this context of an art aimed at expressing, in all its elements, the meaning of the Eucharist in accordance with the Church's teaching, attention needs to be given to the norms regulating the construction and decor of sacred buildings. As history shows and as I emphasized in my Letter to Artists, the Church has always left ample room for the creativity of artists. But sacred art

423 must be outstanding for its ability to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church's faith and in accordance with the pastoral guidelines appropriately laid down by competent Authority. (John Paul II 2003, Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, §50.)

Sacred art was another fruitful topic addressed by the conciliar Constitution. It gave rise to many developments. The Council gives clear instructions to continue to leave considerable room for it in our day too, so that the splendour of worship will shine out through the fittingness and beauty of liturgical art. To this end it will be appropriate to make provision for projects to train the various craftsmen and artists who are commissioned to build and decorate places destined for liturgical use. At the root of these guidelines is a vision of art, and sacred art in particular, that relates it to "the infinite beauty of God in works made by human hands". (John Paul II 2003, Apostolic Letter, Spiritus et sponsa, § 5.)

The profound connection between beauty and the liturgy should make us attentive to every work of art placed at the service of the celebration. Certainly an important element of sacred art is church architecture, which should highlight the unity of the furnishings of the sanctuary, such as the altar, the crucifix, the tabernacle, the ambo and the celebrant's chair. Here it is important to remember that the purpose of sacred architecture is to offer the Church a fitting space for the celebration of the mysteries of faith, especially the Eucharist. The very nature of a Christian church is defined by the liturgy, which is an assembly of the faithful (ecclesia) who are the living stones of the Church (cf. 1 Pet 2:5). (Benedict XVI 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, § 41.)

This same principle holds true for sacred art in general, especially painting and sculpture, where religious iconography should be directed to sacramental mystagogy. A solid knowledge of the history of sacred art can be advantageous for those responsible for commissioning artists and architects to create works of art for the liturgy. Consequently it is essential that the education of seminarians and priests include the study of art history, with special reference to sacred buildings and the corresponding liturgical norms. Everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty. Special respect and care must also be given to the vestments, the furnishings and the sacred vessels, so that by their harmonious and orderly arrangement they will foster awe for the mystery of God, manifest the unity of the faith and strengthen devotion. (Benedict XVI 2007a, Apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum caritatis, § 41.)

The design of the church – devotions

Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly endorsed, provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all when they are ordered by the . Devotions proper to particular Churches also have a special dignity if they are undertaken by mandate of the bishops according to customs or books lawfully approved.

424 But these devotions should be so fashioned that they harmonise with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some way derived from it, and lead the people to it, since, in fact, the liturgy, by its very nature far surpasses any of them. (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §13.)

The use of sacred images is of major importance in the whole area of popular piety, since culturally and artistically they assist the faithful in encountering the mysteries of the Christian faith. Indeed, the veneration of sacred images belongs to the very nature of Catholic piety. … Here, the principles apply which govern the liturgical use of images of Christ, Our Lady, the Saints. These have been traditionally asserted and defended by the Church in the knowledge that "the honour rendered to the image is directed to the person represented". … So as to ensure that the iconography used in sacred places is not left to private initiatives, those with responsibility for churches and oratories should safeguard the dignity, beauty and quality of those sacred images exposed for public veneration. Likewise, they should avoid the de facto imposition on the community of pictures or statues inspired by the private devotion of individuals. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2002, Directory on popular piety and the liturgy, §18.)

The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful . (Vatican Council II 1963, Constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, §125.)

… images of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints, in accordance with the Church’s most ancient tradition, should be displayed for veneration by the faithful in sacred buildings and should be arranged so as to lead the faithful toward the mysteries of faith celebrated there. For this reason, care should be taken that their number not be increased indiscriminately, and that they be arranged in proper order so as not to distract the faithful’s attention from the celebration itself. There should usually be only one image of any given saint. Generally speaking, in the ornamentation and arrangement of a church as far as images are concerned, provision should be made for the devotion of the entire community as well as for the beauty and dignity of the images. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, The general instruction of the Roman missal [III], §318.)

The Church blesses sacred images because of their cultic significance. This is especially true of the images of the Saints which are destined for public veneration, when she prays that, guided by a particular Saint, "we may progress in following the footsteps of Christ, so that the perfect man may be formed in us to the full measure of Christ". The Church has published norms for the exposition of sacred images in churches and other sacred places which are to be diligently observed. No statue or image is to be exposed on the table of an altar. Neither are the relics of the Saints to be exposed on the table of an altar. (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2002, Directory on popular piety and the liturgy, §244.)

425 Part III: Comparison of national directories; diocesan directories

National Directories

National conferences of bishops may publish directories on church design, though it belongs to each diocesan bishop to determine liturgical regulations within the diocese entrusted to his care (Can. 838 §4). The English- language directories listed below have been approved for publication by national conferences of bishops or their respective commissions for liturgy.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Our place of worship, 1999

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, Consecrated for worship: a directory on church building, 2006 (Replaced The parish church: principles of liturgical design and reordering, 1984)

Irish Episcopal Commission for Liturgy, The place of worship: pastoral directory on the building and reordering of churches, 3rd edn. (revised and expanded), 1994 (First Edition 1966)

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Liturgical guidelines on church architecture, 1999

National Conference of Catholic Bishops [United States], Built of living stones: art, architecture and worship, 2000 (Replaced Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, 1978)

Comparison of Directory Content

CONTENT OF CANADA ENGLAND & IRELAND PHILIPPINES UNITED DIRECTORIES: the Our place of WALES The place of Liturgical STATES church building – worship Consecrated worship: guidelines on Built of living background, for worship: a pastoral church stones: art, features, design directory on directory on the architecture architecture church building building and and worship reordering of churches History • • • Theology • • • • • Liturgical Space • • • Assembly • • • • • Rites • • • • Sanctuary • • • • Nave • • Altar • • • • • Ambo • • • • • Celebrant Chair • • • • •

426

CONTENT OF CANADA ENGLAND & IRELAND PHILIPPINES UNITED DIRECTORIES: the Our place of WALES The place of Liturgical STATES church building – worship Consecrated worship: guidelines on Built of living background, for worship: a pastoral church stones: art, features, design directory on directory on the architecture architecture church building building and and worship reordering of churches Tabernacle • • • • • Music ministry • • • • • Baptistery/Font • • • • • Holy Oils Ambry • • • • Reconciliation • • • • • Gathering Space • • * • * Narthex/Entrance • • * • * Devotional • • • • • Sacred Art • • • • • Liturgical Arts • • • • Weekday Chapel • Bells • Sacristies • • • • • Toilets • • • Storage • • Sound system • • • • Lighting • • • Heating/cooling • Security • • New build • • • • • Reordering • • • • • Design Process • • • • Cultural heritage • • • Architectural style • Dedication Rites • • • Other Bibliography Laws Mortuary Inculturation Master Plan Other Crying Room Disposition Other chapels Wake chapel Calendar

* Treats the Gathering Space and Narthex/Entrance as one.

Diocesan Directories

In keeping with the prerogative of a diocesan bishop to determine liturgical regulations for the diocese entrusted to his care, bishops may promulgate particular laws and norms relating to church buildings. These directories on church design and construction may be published for use in conjunction with national directories such as those outlined above. The diocesan directory of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Guidelines for the building and renovation of churches, is cited in the thesis. A sample of other diocesan directories may be accessed at:

427 Diocese of Charleston, USA: Guidelines for the building and renovating of church edifices in the diocese of Charleston http://www.catholic-doc.org/br/files/g-guidelines.pdf

Diocese of La Crosse, USA: Policy and procedure for building or renovating in the diocese of La Crosse http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/ministry_resources/sacred_worship/06Reso urces/Art%20and%20Arch/Policy%20and%20Procedure%20for%20Building%20or %20Renovating%20Churches%20%20Revised%20May%202006.pdf

Diocese of San Bernadino, USA: Policies for design of new and renovated worship spaces for the diocese of San Bernardino http://home.catholicweb.com/ocre/files/25_Liturgical_Subcommittee.pdf

Diocese of San Jose, USA: A house of prayer: building and renovation guidelines http://www.dsj.org/files/guidelines.pdf

Diocese of Sandhurst, Australia: Refurbishment of a church http://www.sandhurst.catholic.org.au/policies-and-key-documents/refurbish ment-of-a-church.html

428 APPENDIX FOUR

LITURICAL ENACTMENT CRITERIA

Criteria based on liturgical enactment

‘Liturgical enactment’ describes what might otherwise be referred to as ‘performance’. The latter is considered a less than ideal term even though the phenomena of liturgical enactment may be observed as performance. There are two reasons for preferring ‘liturgical enactment’ to ‘performance’. The first is that the liturgy is celebrated by the whole gathered assembly in its diverse orders and functions; it is not celebrated by some for all the others in the way actors or musicians perform for an audience. The second reason is that the liturgy is fundamentally transformative rather than performative. The liturgy transforms those who celebrate it over and again. The spatial requirements for liturgical celebration, when well designed, provide not only for the enactment or performance of liturgical ritual but also contribute to the transformation realised through the liturgy. The liturgical enactment criteria outlined here draw upon the rites for the celebration of Eucharist, baptism, confirmation, funerals, and the Easter Triduum. To a lesser extent these criteria draw upon the rites for the anointing of the sick, marriage, ordination and religious profession. The particular spatial requirements of every rite are not outlined, as many are common to a number of rites. For example the spatial requirements for religious profession are in effect represented in the requirements of other rites even though their purposes are not the same. The liturgical enactment criteria have been extrapolated from the requirements of the rites to describe the spaces needed for celebration of the rites. These criteria are: • Entry space at the entrance or doors to the church; • Processional space in the central or main aisle; • Ritual space where the sanctuary and the place for the assembly meet; • Assembly and music ministry spaces for the gathered community and choir;

429 • Sanctuary space for the altar, ambo and priest celebrant’s chair.

Sources of liturgical enactment criteria

These five liturgical enactment criteria derive from the rubrics and directives of the liturgical rites, including the , rites of the Easter Triduum, Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, Rite of Baptism for Children, Rite of Confirmation, Rite of Marriage, and Order of Christian Funerals, as well as rites for Anointing of the Sick, Ordination of Priests, and the Rite of Religious Profession. Rubrics and directives for these rites are sampled below and should be read in conjunction with the collection of excerpts from pronouncements and documents given in Appendix Three, Part II.

Entry space

At the entrance into the church or at the doors of the church space is needed: • for accepting adults into the Order of Catechumens (Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, §48-§60, pp. 21-27); • for welcoming children presented for baptism, their parents and sponsors (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, §35, p. 376); • for greeting the bride, bridegroom, their parents, witnesses and attendants at a wedding (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1969, §19, p. 725); and • for receiving the body of a deceased person at a funeral, together with mourners, and to sprinkle the coffin with blessed water (Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, §159, p. 975).

Processional space

In the main aisle space is needed to enable processional movement from the entrance to the altar, sanctuary or place near the sanctuary for: • the two candle-bearers and between them an or other minister with the cross, together with thurifer, acolytes, lector, concelebrating clergy, deacon

430 and priest, to begin the Eucharistic liturgy and sacraments celebrated within the Eucharistic liturgy (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §120b, p. 56); • the gathered assembly during the rite of communion; and members of the assembly during the procession with gifts; and for collections. • the children presented for baptism, their parents and sponsors (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, §42, p. 378); • the priest celebrant, assisting ministers, bride and bridegroom and their parents, and two witnesses (Sacred Congregation of Rites 1969, §20, p. 725); and • the presiding and assisting ministers, the coffin and those bearing it, and mourners at a funeral (Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, §162, p. 975) and of the same persons, the coffin, and the family of the deceased to the place of committal (Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, §176, p. 984).

Ritual space

Between the sanctuary and place for the assembly, in front of or surrounding the sanctuary, or otherwise near to the sanctuary, space is required for: • the procession of the faithful during the Eucharistic liturgy to receive communion under the species of bread and wine, in most churches indicating a number of ministers with room for the faithful to move from receiving the consecrated bread to receive the consecrated wine and then back to their places (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §160 & §162, pp. 64-65, and §284-§285, p. 93); • the presentation to catechumens of a and a cross, and the coming forward of the elect, for example at each scrutiny and to receive the and the Lord’s Prayer (Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, §64, p. 28, and §139- §167, pp. 73-104); • the celebration of confirmation, generally of a number of candidates, involving the bishop and priests associated as ministers of the sacrament, each candidate

431 and godparent(s), sponsor(s), and assisting ministers (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1971, §21, p. 487 and §26 & §28, pp. 490-491; Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, §322 & §326, pp. 210-211); • the celebration of marriage (cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites 1969) including places for bride and bridegroom, the priest or other celebrant, and attendants; and the place for signing the civil marriage certificates and register by bride and bridegroom, two witnesses and the celebrant, even though these actions are not properly part of the marriage rite; • the gathering of the sick (though not described in the ritual book) for the laying on of hands and anointing when this sacrament is celebrated in a church; this is possible only for the sick who are not hospitalised or housebound and who have reasonable mobility (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 1972, §139 & §141, pp. 834-835); • the chair(s) for the ordaining bishop and candidate(s), the prostration of candidates for ordination, and for ordinands to kneel during the laying on of hands, and for other actions such as the during the rites of ordination (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, §2, p. 27, §11, p. 28, §18, p. 33, §2, p. 38, §11, p. 39, §18, p. 43, §20-§21, pp. 43- 44, §31, p. 63, §14-§15, p. 67, §21-§25, p. 72, §33-§34, p. 75); • the chair for the celebrant and room for kneeling or prostration of those making religious profession (Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship 1978, §48, p. 220 and §61, p. 224); • the placing of the coffin, with the paschal candle at its head and allowing for movement around the coffin to sprinkle it with and it; and, when a funeral is celebrated during the Eucharistic liturgy, for the faithful to approach and receive communion, which usually requires that the communion procession pass by both sides of the coffin (Congregation for Divine Worship 1969, §162, p. 975, and §173, p. 982); • the washing of feet in the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday (Congregation for Divine Worship 1975, p. 136);

432 • the prostration of the priest celebrant and assisting clergy in the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday and in the same liturgy for the veneration of the cross by the priest, clergy, and faithful, and communion of the faithful (Congregation for Divine Worship 19751985, §4, p. 140, §18-§20, p. 158 and §25, p. 166); and • the celebration of baptism and confirmation in the Easter Vigil during the night of Holy Saturday (Congregation for Divine Worship 1975, 1985, §37-§44, pp. 193- 203).

Assembly and music ministry spaces

Within the church the place for the assembly, customarily called the nave, and the related place for music ministry require spaces for: • the active participation of the faithful and the choir so that all can exercise their function in celebrating the liturgy (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §294, p. 96-97); • the members of the assembly to be able to stand, sit, kneel, greet one another during the sign of peace, and move in procession to communion, with seating arranged to facilitate postures, gestures and movement, and to be able to see and hear those who minister in the sanctuary, and to be heard by those who minister and by one another (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §311, p. 101); and • the choir and musicians so that they are clearly part of the gathered community, able to exercise the ministry of music during liturgical celebrations and still share in full, sacramental participation in the Eucharistic liturgy, with the organ and other instruments appropriately located to support the singing of the choir and the assembly (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §312-§313, pp. 101-102).

Sanctuary space

Within the sanctuary space is required for:

433 • the altar which is normally to be fixed, freestanding so that it can be incensed and the Eucharistic liturgy celebrated facing the assembly, placed so as to be the centre of the assembly’s attention, and usually elevated (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §123, p. 56, §298-§301, pp. 97-98); • the candles and cross which are placed on or around the altar, the first option requiring an altar large enough for six candles and an altar-cross, and the latter option requiring additional floor-space around the altar (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §307-§308, p. 99); • the ambo which is normally stationary and permanent, suitably placed for the attention of the assembly during the Liturgy of the Word and so that those proclaiming the readings from Scripture and preaching the homily may be seen and heard, and usually elevated (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §309, p. 100); • the chair for the priest celebrant, preferably placed facing the assembly at the head of the sanctuary (centred behind the altar) or as necessary in another place to signify the priest’s office of presiding, and so that the priest may be seen and heard by all in the assembly (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §310, p. 100); • the seat for the deacon near that of the priest celebrant, for other ministers in such place(s) as distinguish them from the clergy and enable the exercise of their functions; and for concelebrating clergy in or near the sanctuary in accordance with available space (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §294, p. 96 and §310, pp. 100-101); • the tabernacle for reservation of the Blessed Eucharist when it is located in the sanctuary, at a place apart from the altar of celebration, and near which burns a lamp to indicate and honour the sacramental presence of Christ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §314-§316, pp. 102-103);

434 • the credence table to hold the liturgical requisites, normally located at one side of the sanctuary and convenient to the altar so as to fulfil its purpose without attracting the assembly’s attention (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §118c, p. 55); and • the requirements the various rites and liturgies, such as seats for those conferring confirmation and ordination when not from the celebrant’s chair, a place for the bride and bridegroom if they enter the sanctuary, and for extraordinary ministers of holy communion to approach the altar (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §162, p.65).

Spaces not included in the liturgical enactment criteria

A number of occasional liturgical and devotional spaces have not been included in the liturgical enactment criteria. The necessity to provide these spaces is accepted. However there are many ways such provision can be made. It ought always to work in with the liturgical ordering of a church and never be contrary to it. Spaces related to the liturgy include the gathering place for the blessing and distribution of palms on Passion Sunday, places for portable for the reading of the Passion in three voices on Passion Sunday and Good Friday, the place for the altar of repose on Holy Thursday, and the place for the Easter fire which begins the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday. Spaces related to devotional practices include those that are permanent and others which are seasonal or occasional. Permanent devotional items include a freestanding or wall-mounted crucifix, the Stations of the Cross, and images (statues, icons, tapestries and other media) of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. Seasonal or occasional devotional items include the Advent wreath, Christmas crèche or crib, a statue to be carried in procession, and devotions attaching to a cultural Catholic community, such as the Polish tradition of a tableau of Christ’s tomb which is venerated on Good Friday.

435 Measurement

The directives and rubrics of the liturgical books avoid specifying measurements. The nearest the directives come to indicating measurement is with reference to distance. For example, The general instruction of the Roman missal states that the chair for the priest celebrant may be placed elsewhere than at the head of the sanctuary, ‘if the great distance would interfere with communication between the priest and the gathered assembly …’ (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments 2007, §310, p. 100). Commentators occasionally propose indicative measurements. Mark E. Wedig and Richard S. Vosko (2007, p. 373) observe of the layout of a church that: One key environmental factor is distance. Beyond a certain point (some studies suggest sixty feet or about eighteen meters) it becomes more difficult to see and hear what is going on.

The conclusions of Wilfrid Cantwell and Bill Beard about this same concern are noted in the thesis. Cantwell (1968, p. 132) nominates seventy feet or 21.3 metres and Beard (1988, p. 2) sixty-five feet or 19.8 meters as the desirable maximum distances for any member of the assembly to be from the altar. It is also observed by Wedig & Vosko (2007, p. 366) about the altar that its size, should be generous enough that the symbolic presence of the altar table, the cup, and the plate are evident to the assembly. It should be scaled “for the action of a community and the functioning of a single priest – not concelebrants.” Also, the placement of multiple vessels upon the altar table to assure the proper distribution of the Eucharist to all members of the assembly should not result in the design of altar tables that are out of scale in a given architectural context.

There are too many variables in the liturgical directives and rubrics to enable normative measurements to be determined for all churches. Liturgical ordering and church size significantly influence the ways in which spaces for the celebration of the liturgical rites are designed. Because of their general layout, some orderings accommodate ritual spatial needs better than others. In view of these factors, case study evaluation of churches according to liturgical

436 enactment criteria, though empirical, relies on observation and estimation rather than on predetermined or indicative measurement.

437 APPENDIX FIVE

TABLE OF TYPOLOGIES OF LITURGICAL ORDERING

The typologies treated of in Chapter Five are here correlated in chronological sequence with the six types of liturgical ordering adopted as representative of the Australian context. Some types correlate with more than one of the six Australian types, hence multiple entries. For ease of reference the types are presented in three sets: • ‘Basilican ordering’ and ‘Cruciform ordering’; • ‘Centralised ordering’ and ‘Antiphonal ordering’; and • ‘U-arrayed ordering’ and ‘Fan-arrayed ordering’.

BASILICAN CRUCIFORM ORDERING ORDERING Advancing column, people on the Gathered on three sides of the chancel march (Seasoltz 1963, p .142) (Seasoltz 1963 p. 138) Longitudinal spaces On three sides of the altarplace (Gieselman 1972 pp. 28-73) (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 33, 36-39)

Transversal spaces Sociopetal (Gieselman 1972, pp. 74-121) (Vosko 1981, p. 28)

Facing the altarplace Cross-circle / circular flow form (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 32-37) (McNally 1985, pp. 52, 58-65)

Sociofugal Assembly on three sides … in sets of (Vosko 1981, p. 28) straight rows (Adams 1987, p. 231) Hall-basilica / longitudinal flow form Circular and upward relationship (McNally 1985, pp. 52-57, 65) (Lebon 1987, p.75)

Static procession Forward and upward relationship (Adams 1987, p. 240) (Lebon 1987, p. 75)

Forward and upward relationship Gothic (Lebon 1987, p. 75) (Beard 1988, p. 3)

438 BASILICAN CRUCIFORM ORDERING ORDERING Processional Central de cruz Griega (centrale a croce (Beard 1988, p. 3) Greca / centralized Greek cross (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 77) Postconciliar hall church Cruz Latina en batallon (croce Latina a (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 15-29) battaglione / Latin cross in rows) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 75) En batallon (a battaglione / in rows) Transverse plans (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 74) (Hurley 2000, p. 15)

En abanico (a ventaglio / fan-shaped) Transverse plans (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 74) (Hurley 2001, pp. 57-80)

Rectangulo hacia lo ancho (a Transverse emphasis rettangolo allargato / rectangular) (Seasoltz 2001, p. 428) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 75 Longitudinal processional plan Cruciform plan (Vosko 1997, p. 6) (Bess 2002)

Longitudinal Catholic church space of the past (White & White 1998, p.16 decades (Gerhards 2002, p. 27) Longitudinal axis Sacral space (Philippart 1999b, p. 102) (Post 2003, p. 16)

Impianti assiali (monodirezionati) Transverse plans (axial design / from one direction) (Seasoltz 2003, pp. 240-242) (Bollati et al 2000 (1994), p. 186) Longitudinal layouts Basilica - cruciform (Hurley 2000, p. 15) (Boyer 2004, pp. 8-9)

Longitudinal layouts Longitudinal space of the classic (Hurley 2001, pp. 41-56) sacramental church (Kieckhefer 2004, pp. 11-60) Longitudinal shape Processional (Seasoltz 2001, p. 428) (Moran 2005, pp. 6-7)

Basilican plan T-shaped plan (Bess 2002) (Proctor 2005, p. 311)

Basilican space Transverse emphasis (DeSanctis 2002, pp. 29-30) (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266)

439 BASILICAN CRUCIFORM ORDERING ORDERING Catholic church space of the past Cruciform plan decades (Bess 2006, p. 141) (Gerhards 2002, p. 27) Sacral space Sociopetal plan (Post 2003, p. 16) (Vosko 2006, pp. 58-59)

Longitudinal plans Eccentric character (Seasoltz 2003, pp. 239-240) (Stegers 2008, p. 28)

Longitudinal Basilica (Vosko 2003, p. 242) (Storms & Turner 2009, pp. 40-41)

Hall church (White 2003, p. 152)

Basilica - cruciform (Boyer 2004, p. 8)

Longitudinal space of the classic sacramental church (Kieckhefer 2004, pp. 11-60) Processional (Moran 2005, pp. 6-7)

Elliptical plan (Proctor 2005, p. 297)

Longitudinal plan (Proctor 2005, p. 297)

Simple rectangular plans (Proctor 2005, p. 302)

Traditional plans (Proctor 2005, pp. 302-306)

Basilican plan (Proctor 2005, p. 305)

Wedge-shaped plans (Proctor 2005, pp. 306-310)

440 BASILICAN CRUCIFORM ORDERING ORDERING Longitudinal shape (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266)

Basilican plan (Bess 2006, p. 141)

Sociofugal plan (Vosko 2006, pp. 57 – 59)

Processional / basilica / linear interior (Potente & Zersen 2008, pp. 52, 94, 95) Axial character (Stegers 2008, p.28)

Basilica (Storms & Turner 2009, pp. 40-41)

Hall (Storms & Turner 2009, pp. 40-41)

CENTRALISED ANTIPHONAL ORDERING ORDERING Concentric gathering around Christ: Concentric gathering around Christ: General Liturgical Assembly Monastic choir (Seasoltz 1963, p. 140) (Seasoltz 1963, p. 142) Centralised spaces Choir (Gieselman 1972, pp. 122-173) (Adams 1987, p. 240

On four sides of the altarplace Antiphonal (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 33, 38-39) (Beard 1988, p. 3)

A circle round the altarplace Modified long-plan churches (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 33, 41) (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 41-51)

Sociopetal Antiphonal (Vosko 1981, p. 28) (Kasper 1996)

Cross-circle / circular flow form Eliptica (ellittica / elliptical) (McNally 1985, pp. 52, 58-65) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 77)

441 CENTRALISED ANTIPHONAL ORDERING ORDERING Circle Choir / antiphonal (Adams 1987, p. 241) (Philippart 1999b, p.102)

Circular and upward relationship Antiphonal layout (Lebon 1987, p.75) (Hurley 2000, p. 17)

Central Antiphonal layout (Beard 1988, p. 3) (Hurley 2001, pp. 91- 101)

Fan-shaped churches Antiphonal plan (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 29-41) (Seasoltz 2001, p. 428)

Central Elliptical plan (Kasper 1996) (Bess 2002)

Central sin abside (centrale senza Communio spaces abside / centralized without an apse) (Gerhards 2002, p. 27) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 75) Central octagonal (central ottagonale / Communio-model central octagonal) (Post 2003, pp. 18, 62-63) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 76) En circulo abierto (a cerchio aperto / Antiphonal plans open circle) (Seasoltz 2003, pp. 243-245) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 77) Centralized Modified long church (White & White 1998, p. 16) (White 2003, p.152)

Circular Stadium (antiphonal / elliptical) (Philippart 1999b, p.102) (Boyer 2004, pp. 9-10)

Impianti polari (pluridirezionati) Longitudinal space of the classic (polar design / from many directions) sacramental church (Bollati et al 2000 (1994), p. 186) (Kieckhefer 2004, pp. 11-60) Circular plans Transitional space [of the] modern (Hurley 2000, p. 16-17) communal church (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 11-60) Circular plans Antiphonal (Hurley 2001, pp. 81-90) (Roberts 2004, p. 43)

Centralized layout Antiphonal (Seasoltz 2001, p. 428) (Moran 2005, p. 7)

442 CENTRALISED ANTIPHONAL ORDERING ORDERING Centralized plan Antiphonal plan (Bess 2002) (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266)

Modern, centralized space Elliptical plan (DeSanctis 2002, pp. 30-32) (Bess 2006, pp. 141-142)

Catholic church space of the past Sociopetal plan decades (Vosko 2006, pp. 58-59) (Gerhards 2002, p. 27) Circumadstantes-model Choral / monastic plan (Post 2003, pp. 18, 60-61) (Vosko 2006, pp. 63-65)

Circular plans Antiphonal / antiphonally (Seasoltz 2003, pp.242-243) (Potente & Zersen 2008, pp. 35, 52, 93)

Centralized Ideal of ‘communio’ (Vosko 2003, p. 242) (Stegers 2008, p. 29)

Fan-shaped church Monastic (White 2003, p. 152) (Storms & Turner 2009, pp. 40-41)

Stadium (antiphonal / circular) (Boyer 2004, p. 9)

Transitional space [of the] modern communal church (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 11-60)

Central (Moran 2005, p. 7) Circular plan (Proctor 2005, p. 297)

Plans for community worship (Proctor 2005, p. 310-315)

Centralized plan (Proctor 2005, p. 310)

Centralized plan (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266)

443 CENTRALISED ANTIPHONAL ORDERING ORDERING Centralized plan (Bess 2006, pp. 140-141)

Sociopetal plan (Vosko 2006, pp. 58-59)

Centralized plan (Vosko 2006, pp. 65-67)

Concentric character (Stegers 2008, p. 28)

Central (Storms & Turner 2009, pp. 40-41)

U-ARRAYED FAN-ARRAYED ORDERING ORDERING Floor plan [of] ancient basilicas Amphitheatre / arc (Seasoltz 1963, pp. 142-143) (Seasoltz 1963, pp. 141-142)

Centralised spaces Transversal spaces (Gieselman 1972, pp. 122-173) (Gieselman 1972, pp.74-121)

Sociopetal Centralised spaces (Vosko 1981, p. 28) (Gieselman 1972, pp. 122-173)

Cross-circle / circular flow form On three sides of the altarplace (McNally 1985, pp. 52, 58-65) (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 33, 36-39)

Assembly on three sides A part-circle round the altarplace (Adams 1987, p. 239) (Grisbrooke 1972, pp. 33, 38-40)

‘Rotund’ U-shape Assembly on three sides (Adams 1987, p. 241) (Adams 1987, p. 239)

Circular and upward relationship Fan-shape (Lebon 1987, p.75) (Adams 1987, p. 239)

444 U-ARRAYED FAN-ARRAYED ORDERING ORDERING Juxtaposed Circular and upward relationship (Beard 1988, p. 3) (Lebon 1987, p.75)

Postconciliar hall church Radial (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 15-29) (Beard 1988, p. 3)

Fan-shaped churches Fan-shaped churches (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 29-41) (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 29-41)

Modified long-plan churches Modified long-plan churches (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 41-51) (DeSanctis 1993, pp. 41-51)

Juxtaposed Radial (Kasper 1996) (Kasper 1996)

Informe (informe / having no particular En abanico (a ventaglio / fan-shaped) shape) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 74) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 74) Central octagonal (central ottagonale / Cuadrado diagonal (a qauadrata central octagonal) diagonale / diamond-shaped) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 76) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 74) Central cuadrada (centrale quadrato / Circulo sobre el diametro (a cerchio sul centralized square) diametro / circular on diameter) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 76) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 75) En semicirculo (a semicerchio / semi- En semicirculo (a semicerchio / semi- circular) circular) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 76) (Bergamo & Del Prete 1997, p. 76) U-shaped / semi-elliptical Fan-shaped pattern / environment (Philippart 1999b, p. 103) (Vosko 1997, p. 6)

Transverse plans Fan-shaped / semicircular (Hurley 2000, p. 15) (Philippart 1999b, p. 102)

Transverse plans Transverse plans (Hurley 2001, pp. 57-80) (Hurley 2000, p. 16)

Transverse emphasis Circular plans (Seasoltz 2001, p. 428) (Hurley 2000, p. 16-17)

Catholic church space of the past Transverse plans decades (Hurley 2001, pp. 57-80) (Gerhards 2002, p. 27)

445 U-ARRAYED FAN-ARRAYED ORDERING ORDERING Agora-churches Circular plans (Post 2003, pp. 17-18, 55-59) (Hurley 2001, pp. 81-90)

Transverse emphasis Centralized layout (Seasoltz 2003, p. 239) (Seasoltz 2001, p. 428)

Transverse plans Modern, centralized space (Vosko 2003, pp. 240-242) (DeSanctis 2002, pp. 30-32)

U-shaped Catholic church space of the past (Vosko 2003, p.242) decades (Gerhards 2002, p. 27) Modified long church Circumadstantes-model (White 2003, p.152) (Post 2003, pp. 18, 60-61)

Fan-shaped church Circular plans (White 2003, p. 152) (Seasoltz 2003, pp 242-243)

Auditorium space of the classic Transverse plans evangelical church (Vosko 2003, pp. 240-242) (Kieckhefer 2004, pp. 11-52) Transitional space [of the] modern Semi-circular communal church (Vosko 2003, p. 242) (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 11-60) Antiphonal Fan-shaped church (Roberts 2004, p. 43) (White 2003, p.152)

U-shape Modified long church (Roberts 2004, p. 43) (White 2003, p. 152)

Plans for community worship Theatre (fan-arrayed) (Proctor 2005, pp. 310 – 315) (Boyer 2004, p. 9)

U-shaped plan Auditorium space of the classic (Proctor 2005, p. 311) evangelical church (Kieckhefer 2004, pp. 11-52) Transverse emphasis Transitional space [of the] modern (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266) communal church (Kieckhefer 2004, p. 11-60) Sociopetal plan Circle (with the sanctuary at one edge (Vosko 2006, pp. 58-59) …) (Roberts 2004, p. 42)

446 U-ARRAYED FAN-ARRAYED ORDERING ORDERING Horseshoe arrangement Square plan (with seating on the (Vosko 2006, p. 63) diagonal ...) (Roberts 2004, pp. 42-43). Radial character Fan shape (Stegers 2008, p. 28) (Roberts 2004, p. 43)

Eccentric character Radial (Stegers 2008, p. 28) (Moran 2005, p. 7)

Auditorium plan inside a square (Proctor 2005, p. 314)

Design for the new liturgy (Proctor 2005, pp. 315- 316)

Centralized plan (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266)

Transverse emphasis (Seasoltz 2005, p. 266)

Sociopetal plan (Vosko 2006, pp. 58-59)

Fan shape arrangement (Vosko 2006, p. 63)

Semi-circular arrangement (Vosko 2006, p. 63)

Fan / fanned (Potente & Zersen 2008, pp. 35, 52)

Axial character (Stegers 2008, p. 28)

447