Vienna on 43rd Street

Lovely sketches by Mr Alderman. Thanks, Andrew.

Not to be a spoilsport, but doesn’t current legislation forbid multiple altars not segregated into chapels being built in a church.

Sayeth the GIRM, “267. Minor altars should be fewer in number. In new churches they
should be placed in chapels separated in some way from the body of
the church.” It doesn’t specify what “some way” they should be separated, but that they shouldn’t be out in the open. This has often been interpreted in a very extreme way since 1970, but since there is a long and legitimate history of the practice, it seems sensible that one should be fairly loose in interpreting this passage. An excessive number of altars crowding out the main altar is a bad thing (Seville Cathedral, are you listening?), but transept altars are “separated in some way” from the nave in some sense. Another document, the preface to the Rite of Dedication of an Altar, throws in the modifiers, “somewhat separated if possible from the body of the church” (emphasis mine.) The 2003 GIRM simply specifies one altar to be “preferable” in a church, without reference to side chapels, and I think in all likelyhood refers to preferring new churches not have two “high altars” as an unintentional imitation of the old high altar and island altar of sacrifice seen in some redesigned older churches. Indeed, there are extant regulations about how saints might be depicted above new side altars, which presupposes the erection of new side altars in some context anyway.

Considering we live in an age where the Pope has freely taken upon himself to ignore the spoilsport abolition of cassock oversleeves and Cardinal Arinze says regarding the use of the maniple, essentially, “why not?” I think we can get away with a fairly loose interpretation of this law. Of course, we must perservere in holy obedience and if I have been too fast and loose with the GIRM, one can always quiet one’s conscience by calling them “side shrines” and waiting to dedicate them on some happier day when we needn’t worry about such unfortunate issues.

A much better church that what we’ve now got. Now how about that cafe and surrounding piazza?

Yes, new legislation does say that minor altars should be fewer in number, but would the fact that the Mass is said in the Traditional way somehow exempt the church from that rule or suggestion?

I agree that the sketches show a MUCH better church than what we now have, BUT where is the confessional? I can’t see it.

I like what you did with the Sanctuary: there is ONLY a High Altar and there are actual ALTAR STEPS, not just one as we have it now.

I like the High Altar. This would encourage other priests to use a movable Low Altar, which is better than a fixed Low Altar.

Oh, and the Baptistry!!! The new location is far better and less convenient than the location of the Baptistry now.

LatinMass1983, regarding side altars, my appeal to current canon law is because while the Tridentine Rite is said at St. Agnes, there’s also 1970 Missal masses said there as well, so there’s less of the comparative freedom one might get at, say, an ICRSP or FSSP church.

Managing St. Agnes is tough, given how compact it is. I was only able to get a rough estimate of the lengthwise dimension of the nave–around 90 feet–and have done two variant plans accounting for a margin of error, one of which was the ‘best case’ scenario (posted here) and the ‘worst case’ with regards to space which I will probably put on my blog eventually. As it stands the ‘worst case’ really doesn’t require that much change in my design save some tightening of dimensions here and there, and has a separate baptistery and spacious sanctuary.

Regarding the confessionals, it seems I didn’t make them sufficiently clear on the plan as you’re the second one to ask. There are two–one opposite the baptistery and one on the lower end of the right transept–the boxy three-compartment element inset into the wall. You can see one of them in the sectional drawing as well.