Living Our Liturgy: A Look At Our Worship Spaces

The Full Paper from which our podcast was developed from.

St. Francis Xavier College Church:

Buffering out the Scratches in a Crown Jewel of the Church

 By: Bretton M. DeLaria

            Saint Louis University is home to arguably one of the most beautiful pieces of church architecture ever or at least in Saint Louis. College students are blessed to have such a treasure available to them on campus, and the administration has and should continue to take pride in the church as well as invest as much time, talent, and treasure in preserving and maintaining it. Thus, this is why the administration undertook the project to renovate St. Francis Xavier College Church, or more commonly called College Church, during the 1990s. By looking at the church and taking the time to reflect how the building best serves the people and in accordance with both the Holy See and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, the university clearly showed their commitment and dedication to ensuring that College Church is a space that the worshipper can truly find the presence of God.

            In doing the renovations, though, the university took on a particularly difficult issue. The issue of pleasing the community in how you chose to renovate/rearrange a church can particularly become messy as different people see things differently. Overall, the university did a good job in recreating the church into a modern space that serves the needs of the community while still reflecting reverence. Yet, there were a few design flaws that have caused harm to the spirituality of the building primarily during liturgical celebrations. During the renovations three main changes have taken away from the beauty of the church and its celebrations, namely the moving of the tabernacle from the main naïve of the church, the relocation of the choir from the choir loft to the former sanctuary, and the removal of the pipe organ from the church.

            The renovation of a church seems to be a minute issue with larger crisis facing the modern Church, but the ability to create a worship space that effectively and reverently creates an atmosphere that allows the worshipper to transcend their own self to come into a deeper connection and understanding of God is very much an important aspect as it deals with the very salvation of the soul. When speaking about the Church and churches it is important to make a very crucial point in defining terms. When we speak of the Church, capital “C,” we refer to the very people of God, us. The Church is a “forming of holy people a temple of God built of living stones where the Father is worshipped in spirit and in truth” (USCCB 5). The US Catholic Conference of Bishop develops this idea of “living stone” from scripture itself. Jesus tells Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18). When Jesus commands this to Peter he is not literally saying that we’ll take Peter and set him in foundation and from that build a building, but rather Jesus is passing down the authority of his teaching to Peter so that the followers of Christ may have someone who knows and has been empowered by the Spirit to carry on the mission of Christ. Two very interesting things arise out of this scripture passage. First, this very passage is used to uphold the authority of the Catholic Church, because we believe that Pope is the successor of Peter, and just as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome so also do the bishops received teaching authority through Peter. Therefore, this validates any statements released by the Pope or Conferences of Bishop on issues of the worship space. Also in this passage, we find that imagery of stone, something strong and solid, is used to describe the people of God. Both scripture and the bishop’s affirm this analogy, but we are not just stone we are “living stone” (USCCB 5). We are the solid foundation, the make up of the Church, but we are alive and active and through our actions and prayers both personal and together we worship God. Then the church, the lower “c,” can be understood as the worship space or building itself. Too often have the people of God been misled or thought because of our poor use of terminology that the Church was the building, but we are to know that the Church is the people and the building is simply the worship space of the people. For the sake of avoiding confusion, this paper will try to refer to the “church” simply as the worship space.

            With this distinction made we can now move forward to connect the people of God with the worship space. The design and function of a worship space is very important, because it “the building itself becomes a sign of the pilgrim Church” (USCCB 6). If the building is truly to be a sign of the people of God and is to “reflect the Church dwelling in heaven” (USCCB 6) then understanding the true function of a space and both the needs and the community itself is important. The question then arises how you determine such things. The Conference of Catholic Bishops tell us in Built of Living Stones, the most recent publication made by the Conference of Bishop in the United States that deals with liturgical worship space, says, “Suitability for worship is determined by their through architectural design of the space and application of artistic gifts to embody God’s initiative and the community’s faithful response” (USCCB 7). The bishops are simply telling us that the end goal of the space should be one that can handle the physicality related to worship, meaning the number of worshippers and etc, as well as be a place that is and houses art that are “forms of worship themselves and both inspire and reflect the prayer of the community as well as the inner life of grace” (USCCB 7). Any space that doesn’t meet these expectations or can been seen as “trivial, contrive, or lack of beauty” can “detract” the community and complicate the personal and communal relationship and experience of God. (USCCB 7).  

This idea of functionality can be grouped into to “three factors that must be weighed from the standpoint of divine worship” (Filthaut 35). The first factor is making sure the “structure must offer sufficient room” (Filthaut 35). This simply means, as earlier stated, that there is enough room to provide for the physical needs of the congregation. There should be sufficient space in a worship pace to accommodate communal worship, space for before and after services, room for private prayer, and meet the physical needs of congregation members, especially those with any type of physical disability. The second factor states that the structure should “bring [divine worship an] order of precedence to the fore” (Filthaut 35). The design and structure should aid the congregation through its setup and design to know what part of the service is taking place, so that they are able to see, understand, and know what part of the service is going on. Finally a space must “contribute to [divine worship’s] meaningful execution” (Filthaut 35). Again, the design should aid the congregation, but also allow the celebrant to easily execute parts of the liturgy. Filthaut has set up these factors in order for those pursuing building or renovating a space to meet the physical and spiritual needs of a community. His three factors closely relate to those teachings of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

St. Francis Xavier College Church overall meets these requirements. College Church every Sunday can meet the physicality needs of the size of the congregation. The worship space is large enough to house worshippers every Sunday and has the ability to add overflow seating in the back nave of the church as well as the side transepts. The nave is “the architectural term for the place where the congregation gather for worship” (Collins). The transepts usually refer to the side wings off the nave. For better understanding of these concepts, please refer to Figure 1. College Church also meets the needs of handicap members of the congregation through handicap entrances and a lift to get to the sanctuary for anybody with special needs. The parish, terms commonly referring to the local community that makes up the membership of a specific church, and university have ensured that there is proper lighting and sound. By ensuring things like lighting and sound they are ensuring that the “attentiveness…in posture and eye contact” is met since the Church calls it “a requirement for full participation and involvement” (Quinn 31). So when it comes to some of the basic physicality needs of the community, College Church is able to meet them.

The issues then is not with the basic physicality or the artwork, which is very beautiful and reverent, but the issue is the setup that the renovations invoked which have complicated the physicality and hidden one of the most beautiful pieces of art in the building therefore detracting from the spirituality of the space. That most beautiful piece of art is not just art, but rather it is the dwelling place of the physical body of Jesus, as the Catholic Church believes, the tabernacle. The tabernacle in College Church was moved from just behind the sanctuary, “the front part of the church from which the service is conducted,” to a side transept (Collins). If you were to enter the main doors of the Church you would find the tabernacle to the right of the sanctuary tucked away from view. There may not seem to be a real issue with where the tabernacle is placed, but if we take into consideration what we stated from the United States Conference of Bishops along with Filthaut’s about the general ideal of worship space we can find some problems with the tabernacle’s placement. We need to understand the very purpose of the tabernacle before we try to see why its placement is a problem. According to Archbishop Quinn the tabernacle’s purpose is to “bring communion to the sick and to be the object of private devotion” (Quinn 40). The function of being the object of private devotion plays more importance when discussing the function of the tabernacle with in the worship space.

In College Church, the current location of the tabernacle is not functional. By having the tabernacle in the side transept along with seating for mass it does not create an appropriate spiritual atmosphere for someone to truly enter into a deep dialogue, through personal prayer, with the true presence of Jesus, found in the Eucharist. By having it in its current location, the tabernacle is not visible upon entrance to the worship space, which prohibits members of the congregation from being able to fully reverence the Eucharist before being seated for mass. Where the tabernacle currently resides there is no real definition in the space compared to the nave that allows the worshiper to know that the gold box in the wall is housing the Eucharist. Also, the current setup is not in compliance with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which states “Location should be easy accessible for people in wheelchairs and those with other disabilities” (USCCB 29). If you look at Figure 2 you will see that the current setup is simply a couple chairs facing the tabernacle among other chairs facing the sanctuary. This setup allows a person in a wheelchair to have one option. They can only face the tabernacle from a distance. The space is not larger enough for a wheel chair to be seated in front of the tabernacle, and the setup of the chairs blocks them from sitting behind the stationary chairs.

 The current design fails to “provide the quiet focus needed for personal prayer,” because the setup doesn’t help restrict the noise of other members of the congregation. (USCCB 30).  Now some may believe that the person trying to have a personal devotion with the Eucharist before mass should be able to focus even though there is noise, but unfortunately not all members of the congregation posses the ability to fully block out the noise. We also should not blame members of our congregation for not being able to focus, but rather we should try to assist them by observing silence before mass. We can see after not only just looking at the tabernacle setup, but also exploring its drawbacks that the design seems to lack a “carefully designed and appointed [space]” (Quinn 40). The drawback of the space creates a feeling that USCCB is trying to avoid in that the tabernacle appears to be “temporary, makeshift, and difficult to find” (USCCB 74).

With the current space of College Church there are two good possibilities on where to place the tabernacle. The USCCB stresses, “Careful planning is needed so that placement chose does not draw attention of the faithful away from the Eucharist” (USCCB 30). With that in mind, the first solution would be to keep the tabernacle in its current transept, but to remove the stationary chairs that face the sanctuary. By doing this the space becomes separate from the nave and creates a side chapel in the worship space. Renovating the area to make the transept feel more like a chapel for the Eucharist would have to take place, as well as providing sufficient “kneelers and chairs [in the space] for those who come to pray” (USCCB 30).   This idea and design would fulfill the original function of the architectural design of the whole space, which is classified as a “Latin cross,” because the building was designed to mirror the image of the medieval cross (Cunningham 16).  Cunningham also tells us, “In later Middle Ages there was a proliferation of separate chapels, in either the aisle or transept” (Cunningham 16). Not only would this follow call back to the original design of such a building, but it brings the past to life by using the space appropriately and fulfills the spiritual and functional needs while making the tabernacle permanent within the space. This solution would have pros as it would answer the problems of enough space for private devotion, meet the physical needs of members, and would allow for a known distinct place where the Eucharist resides. A drawback to this plan is that it takes away the number of seating for mass, which currently is not a large issue but could be in the future.

The other possible solution is to simply move the tabernacle back to behind the sanctuary. This solution would be much less expensive and would directly confront the issue of having difficulty in finding the tabernacle. This idea seems to contradict the statement of the Bishops earlier. This placement would be directly behind the altar seemingly taking attention from the Eucharist liturgy. Catholic Bishops do not forbid such a move, but offer some concern and suggestion towards this type of placement. They state,

“When a tabernacle is located directly behind the altar, consideration should be given to using distance, lighting, or some other architectural device that separates the tabernacle and reservation area during Mass, but that allows the tabernacle to be full visible to the entire worship area when the Eucharistic liturgy is not being celebrated” (USCCB 30).

By placing the tabernacle back behind the altar we again are connecting with our historic roots as this is the original placement of the tabernacle. The original area given to the tabernacle is ornately done with marble, which would offset it outside the Eucharistic liturgy. The original area of the tabernacle has a distance already from the altar, which would meet the needs of the bishops. The capabilities with lighting in the space already exist and would be possible to bring more attention to the altar during mass. It should also be noted that priest himself becomes a tool in blocking the tabernacle during the Eucharistic liturgy.  

The question would still remain about silence for those seeking personal prayer with the reserved Eucharist. The solution of observing silence has a couple of possibilities. The first is creating a gathering space before you enter the nave, which would allow the worship space to be silent and any conversation to take place in the gathering space. With the design and limited space of College Church the idea of adding on is not feasible and the current gathering space is not big enough to accommodate everyone, as well as there are multiple doors to enter into the worship space that are not connected to the gathering space. You would hope that the talking would be discouraged somewhat more by placing the tabernacle behind the sanctuary as it becomes move visible. The hope then would be that the visibility would encourage people to spend time in prayer with the Eucharist. The realistic aspect is that people will still talk. A much simpler technique that is being employed at churches is having the lecture going to the ambo, the podium used to proclaim scripture, and asking the congregation to observe silent prayer about five to ten minutes before mass starts. This solution has no cost, and placing the tabernacle in the main nave behind the sanctuary would allow the congregation to focus in deep prayer during those five and ten minutes.

Before the tabernacle can be placed behind the sanctuary in the main nave, a major change must occur. The choir currently occupies this space and would have to be moved. The current area behind the sanctuary is not an appropriate place for the choir at all. As we saw concern with the placement of the tabernacle behind the sanctuary interfering with the Eucharistic liturgy so does the same concern exist with the choir occupying that space. The reason distraction from the Eucharistic liturgy is so important is because Catholics believe that during this part of the liturgical the bread and wine are transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ. “The celebration of the Eucharist is the center of the entire Christian life, both for the universal Church and for local faith communities” (USCCB 20).  Therefore the “focus of the liturgy of the Eucharist is, of course, on the Eucharist itself” (Akin 110). The person’s “attentiveness expressed in posture and eye contact is a requirement for full participation and involvement” in the mass (USCCB 31).

Not only must we understand the importance of the Eucharistic liturgy, but we also must understand the function of the choir itself. The choir is especially important in the liturgy as it recognizes and utilizes the talents of the congregation. The choir also provides leadership within the community for music. On that same note though it is important to understand that the “function does not consist on putting on performances,” but rather the choir is to be servant leaders while remaining a part of the congregation (Filthaut 49). With all this in mind we can then understand that the choir’s placement can be seen as a distraction. 

 Before we enter into this discussion it must be stated that this discussion of choir placement is no way intended to be an attack on our choir here at the college, but rather exploring possible solutions to their placement. We are quite blessed with a very talented and unique group of individuals that add to the spiritual life of our Masses. This discussion is not pointing out anything wrong with choir directly, but issues revolving around the necessary needs of the choir distracting from the Eucharistic liturgy itself.

 If you were to go to a 10:00pm Sunday mass you would find the choir not intentionally, but because of human’s and how our attention functions, drawing your attention away from what is going on in the mass. The issue here is the choir’s needs verse the congregation’s attention. For example, the conductor needs to be able to use his arms to conduct the choir, but the current location he is directly behind the priest. So when he goes to bring the choir in to lead the congregation in praise during the mass, especially during the Eucharistic celebration, his arms are up in the air conducting. The conducting has motion and the focus on the altar is still. The eye naturally goes to the movement breaking the attention and focus of the congregation. The solution is not to ask the conductor not to move his arms, because the choir needs his leadership. Again telling the congregation they just need to focus harder is not a real solution either. If the status quo is kept we violate the bishop’s orders which state, “The placement of the choir should never distract from liturgical action” (USCCB 33). Even though the choir’s actions such as perpetration of the musicians and singers between songs, the movement of the conductor, and just the basic twitches and itches members have to itch are a distraction it is important to acknowledge that the current placement does allow them to “be part of the assembly and can be heard” (USCCB 33). Though there some positives to the current setup, but even though the placement may have seem like part of the congregation by facing them towards the congregation it appears as if they are a performance group, which is not the nature of this type of choir. The performance appeal is not what will further the Church, so the choir should be moved in way that they are more with the congregation. It would be unfair to the congregation and choir to keep the setup this way if it distracts from the most important part of the liturgy.

The original solution sought out would be to move the choir back the choir loft, but by placing the choir again in the loft they are separated from the congregation which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops frown upon. Also, moving the piano to the loft would be difficult and unreasonable. So the simpler solution would be to move the choir into one of the side transepts. The choir then moves from directly facing the congregation to actually becoming part of the body of the congregation that is seated in the cross formation. Risers would most likely need to be placed in that area so the choir could still see the conductor. Having the choir here allows them to be heard, but also slightly hidden from sight as to not distract the congregation. Moving the piano and musical instruments would be done easily, and the only consideration into making major purchase would be to ensure there are proper electrical and microphone outlets. The fall back would again limit the space for the whole congregation, but again the current size of the congregation does not fill up the side transepts during mass. If future growth of the congregation was expected then the choir could be moved further back in the transept allowing more space for congregational seating.

The choir as stated earlier does play an integral part in the liturgy and therefore they should be allotted the necessary resources to produce music that uplifts the soul to God. The choir is currently limited only with the main instrument of the piano. It is not only unfair to the people of God as well as the choir, but unfair to the designers and architects as well as the space itself not to have an organ. Such a grandiose space deserves the honor of housing one of the most majestic instruments in the Church. Imagine College Church packed full for the Mass of the Holy Spirit with only standing room left. Right before mass begins there is a hush in noise as the procession lines up. After that hush a mighty roar of the bass of the organ shakes the very foundation of the building while the soprano and tenor functions ring away to the opening hymn. The organ sings of the glory of God as the choir joins in and the incense rises to the heavens carrying the praises of the congregation below. What a glorious and beautiful scene to set the mood of the mass. Now some would erase such a beautiful scene with the idea that the organ symbolizes the “old Church.” Now while the organ is seen as the traditional instrument of the Church it is ridiculous to bar a musical instrument with such grandeur and power, because you fear it symbolizes a former time in the Church. If anything the organ connects us again to our past history, and it is important to pay heed to our history as well as embrace our future. For without our past we would not be where we are today. So it is important to realize “the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem for it is the traditional instrument that adds wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up the spirit to God and higher things” (Akin 183).

Since Vatican II many other instruments have been allowed to be used in worship as long as they uphold the “dignity of the place of worship” and “contribute to uplifting the faithful” (Akin 183). For this reason we have seen the progression of the piano used as well as a guitar mass written for an acoustic guitar. Now as these instruments are very fine and suitable for achieving different levels of spiritual movement it is hard for them to compete with the organ itself. The organ is like no other instrument. The organ’s sound is unique as the organist has many options in how to manipulate the air that travels through the pipes. It is one that is massive, and because of its size instills a certain fear of the Lord in the person when it plays bringing them to a higher level of being. College Church deserves to be blessed with such an instrument, and not only is it logical to include it for the good of the soul, but it is also an investment into the spirituality of the building and financial worth of the building. The pipes themselves are a beautiful work of art, and would be most appropriately placed as to not distract on the entrance wall of the building around the stain glass window. The congregation deserves such a treasure and until they are able to get one, they are being deprived spiritually.

All of these renovation and changes will cost money of course. The most expensive change of them all to be expected would be the addition of the pipe organ. Now this paper isn’t a demand to have everything fixed overnight, nor does it expect that to happen. The hope of this work is that through reading it you consider and think about these changes and issues. Maybe next time you are sitting in College Church you will think about looking for the tabernacle and imagine it again behind the sanctuary. Or maybe you will be sitting before mass and imagine the pipe organ singing out a prelude hymn that moves you to pray before the Eucharist. In order to even begin to make these changes come to place is to imagine them. Once we can see and imagine these changes along with the spiritual benefit they will have for us we will find that it is worth our time, energy, and resources.  The bishop’s have set forth guidelines to understand the “complex task” of building or renovating a worship area (USCCB 60). The imagining of a space is just the beginning. To discover the new space the worshipping community must demand “prayer and reflection, technical expertise, and study” (USCCB 60). The whole project must be grounded in prayer, because prayer is “the reason we build or renovate churches and the means by which we discern Christ’s guidance in our work” (DeSanctis 95). The process begins with praying about the necessity of such an undergoing, and once a community can come to a consensus on this they can move to look at the history or study of the community.  Taking the time educate the community creates a sense of ownership of the project, because in the process people will be able to voice concerns, values, and the vision (USCCB 60).  Finally, once the community embraces the idea technical experts are brought in to review the needs, design a space that fits those needs, and estimate a cost to present to the community. The estimate will allow the community to reflect, a form of prayer, on the project and how they will finance such a project. Even before the financing can begin the project must be presented to the bishop of the diocese for approval, because the project is not only the community’s project but a project of the whole diocese (USCCB 60).  The education process and self-study will help the community to feel more confident and own the project, because they will have knowledge behind why it is need and feel more compelled once they are inspired and energetic about the project itself. A long term financing plan is also key. Most dioceses will help finance new buildings by giving out loans, but to receive the loan communities must have a certain amount raised in pledges and cash in hand to begin construction. Cost cuts can be made to save money, but never should these cuts compromise “the durability, stability, and structural soundness” of the space (USCCB 60).

So when it comes to creating a new space within College Church we must first come together as a community to examine our values and needs. We must study our past and look towards our future and the needs of the present. Financially we must all look to see what we can give, because this space is our own and when we work together “to build a beautiful church” we are in fact performing “an act of worship because beauty is a reflection of God” and calls us to transcendence (USCCB 64).

Bibliography

Akins, James. Mass Confusion: The Do’s & Don’ts of Catholic Worship. El Cajon, CA: Catholic

Answers Inc., 1999.

Collins, Rev. Ken. "Architecture and Furnishing." Rev. Ken Collins' Web Site. 2008. Christian

Church (Disciples of Christ). 25 Nov. 2008 <http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/architecture.htm>.

Cunningham, Colin. Stones of Witness : Introduction to Church Architecture. Grand Rapids:

Sutton, Limited, 1999.

DeSanctis, Michael E. Building from Belief : Notes on Advance, Retreat and

Compromise in the Remaking of Catholic Church Architecture. New York:

Liturgical P, 2005.

Filthaut, Theodor. Church Architecture and Litgurical Reform. Baltimore, MD: Helicon P, Inc.,

1968.

Schnurr, Masg. Dennis. "Art, Architecture, and Worship." National Conference of Catholic

Bishops, Built of Living Stones, Dec. 2000, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: United

States Catholic Conference, Inc., 2000.

The New American Bible. Darragh: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1971.

Quinn, Archbishop John. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Environment and Art in

Catholic Worship, 2 Nov. 1977, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: United States

Catholic Conference, 1978.