The Altar and its Ornament

In order that Mass be celebrated according to the prescribed rite, the following are required:

I. An altar, and that consecrated (canon 822, § 1). Now either the whole altar must be consecrated, if there is question of an immovable altar, or only the portable altar-stone, if there is question of a movable altar (canon 1199, § 1). Moreover, per se Mass must be celebrated on an altar of the proper rite; but when such an altar is lacking, it is lawful for a priest to celebrate according to his own rite on an altar consecrated for another Catholic rite, but not upon the antimensions of the Greeks (canon 823, § 2).¹ Finally, on papal altars no one may celebrate without apostolic indult (canon 823, § 3). With these things summarily noted, several things about the altar must be noted.

1. Notion of an altar. In the liturgical sense it is understood: 1. by the name of an immovable or fixed altar, the upper table together with the supports consecrated with it as one thing; 2. by the name of a movable or portable altar, a stone, usually small, which alone is consecrated and which is also called a portable altar-stone or sacred stone; or the same stone together with a support which nevertheless was not consecrated together with it (canon 1197, § 1).

In a consecrated church at least one altar, especially the major altar, must be immovable; but in a blessed church all altars can be movable (canon 1197, § 2).

2. Construction of an altar. a) Both the immovable table and the sacred stone should consist of one natural stone, whole and not friable (canon 1198, § 1).

b) In an immovable altar the stone slab or table must extend to the whole altar and suitably cohere with the support; the support should be of stone, or at least the sides or little columns by which the table is supported should be of stone (canon 1198, § 2).

c) The sacred stone should be so large that it holds at least the host and the greater part of the chalice (canon 1198, § 3).

d) Both in an immovable altar and in a sacred stone there should be, according to the norm of liturgical laws, a sepulcher containing relics of Saints, closed with stone (canon 1198, § 4). Concerning this, observe that for due consecration it is required that relics from the bodies of at least two martyrs be deposited in the sepulcher, and that these be enclosed with a stone cover. Nevertheless, for the validity of consecration the relics of only one martyr suffice.² For the rest, relics of other Saints can be added.

3. Consecration of an altar. Portable altar-stones can be consecrated validly and licitly by Cardinals (canon 239, § 1, 20), all bishops (canon 1199, § 2), vicars and prefects apostolic within the limits of their territory and while their office endures (canon 294, § 2), and abbots and prelates nullius (canon 323, § 2). Immovable altars can be validly consecrated by the same persons who validly consecrate portable altar-stones, excepting, however, vicars and prefects apostolic who lack the episcopal character. In order that they act licitly, the Ordinary of the territory must grant permission, with the right of Cardinals to consecrate altars of their own title remaining firm (canons 1155; 1199, § 2). The consecration of an immovable altar, which is done without the dedication of a church, although it can be done on any day, is nevertheless more fittingly done on a Sunday or another feast of precept (canon 1199, § 3).

4. Execration of an altar. a) An immovable altar loses consecration if the slab or table is separated from the support even for a moment of time; in this case the Ordinary can permit a presbyter to perform the consecration of the altar again with the shorter rite and formula (canon 1200, § 1). It is not execrated if the table, not separated from the support, is transferred to another church or to another place of the same church.³

b) Both an immovable altar and a sacred stone lose consecration: 1. if they are broken enormously, whether by reason of the quantity of the fracture or by reason of the place of anointing (canon 1200, § 2, 1), but not if they are merely scraped; 2. if the relics are removed or the cover of the sepulcher is broken or removed, except in the case in which the bishop himself or his delegate removes the cover in order to secure, repair, or replace it, or to inspect the relics. But a slight fracture of the cover does not induce execration, and any priest can secure a little crack with cement (canon 1200, § 2, 2 and 3).

c) The execration of a church does not carry with it the execration of altars, whether immovable or movable; and conversely (canon 1200, § 4).

5. The title of an altar. a) Just as a church, so any altar of a church, at least an immovable one, should have its own title. The primary title of the major altar must be the same as the title of the church (canon 1201, §§ 1 and 2).

b) Altars cannot be dedicated to Blessed persons, even in churches and oratories to which their office and Mass have been granted, without an indult of the Apostolic See (canon 1201, § 4).

c) With the permission of the Ordinary, the title of a movable altar can indeed be changed, but not the title of an immovable altar (canon 1201, § 3).

6. Necessity of an altar. The precept of consecrating on a consecrated and not execrated altar is grave.⁴ Moreover, according to some it is never lawful to celebrate outside an altar; according to others this is lawful in a most grave necessity, for example for confecting Viaticum, because, they say, the precept of receiving Viaticum is divine, while the prohibition of celebrating outside an altar is ecclesiastical.

7. Things to be noted. a) The altar-stone, that is, the portable altar-stone or sacred stone, must be inserted in an altar made of wood or of another material.⁵

b) Both an immovable and a movable altar must be reserved only for divine offices and especially for the celebration of Mass, any profane use being altogether excluded (canon 1202, § 1).

c) No corpse should be hidden under the altar; but corpses which perhaps are buried near the altar should be distant from it by a space of at least one meter. Otherwise it is not lawful to celebrate Mass on the altar until the corpse is removed (canon 1202, § 2).

¹ An antimension is a consecrated cloth in which there are relics, and which, spread upon any table, can be used for saying Mass.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 February 1906, n. 4180, ad III.

³ The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 September 1879, n. 3504, ad I, which is opposed, seems to speak of the transfer of the table alone, separated from the support.

⁴ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title XX; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁵ Roman Missal, loc. cit.

II. Three altar cloths - or two, one of which is doubled - blessed by the bishop or by another having the faculty; this faculty belongs to the same persons who enjoy the faculty of blessing sacred vestments (n. 266). The altar cloths must be made of linen or hemp.¹ The upper cloth should be long, descending to the floor on both sides; the custom of using a shorter cloth cannot be observed.²

It is a grave sin to celebrate without any altar cloth; nevertheless this is lawful in grave necessity. The other things oblige under venial sin, for example the precept of using several cloths, of using blessed cloths, etc. Hence a respectively just cause excuses from every sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 375).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1819, n. 2600.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 June 1899, n. 4029, ad I.

III. A cross with the image of the Crucified, placed between the candlesticks and projecting in such a way "that the celebrating priest and the people assisting at the Sacrifice can easily and conveniently look upon the same Crucifix; which cannot happen if only a small cross is displayed."¹ Another cross is not required if there is a large statue of the Crucified on the altar, or if the image of the Crucified is painted on the altar panel as holding the first place;² nor is a blessed cross prescribed.³ If the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, a cross can be used or not used, according as custom bears.⁴ Finally, the use of placing the cross on the throne which serves for the public exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament cannot be tolerated.⁵

The obligation of using a cross is light.

¹ Constitution of Benedict XIV Accepimus, 16 July 1746; Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 June 1663, n. 1270, and 17 September 1822, n. 2621.

² Constitution of Benedict XIV, cited.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 July 1704, n. 2143.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 September 1741, n. 2365.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 June 1883, n. 3576, ad III; 11 June 1904, n. 4136, ad II.

IV. Two lighted candles.¹ Besides this, according to the rubric,² near the altar a candle is to be prepared, to be lighted at the elevation of the sacrament; but a contrary custom can be observed. The candles must be made of wax.³

Nevertheless, to the question: "Whether, considering even the great difficulty either of having true beeswax or of eliminating improper mixtures with other wax, the candles to be placed upon altars must be wholly and entirely of beeswax; or whether they can be mixed with other material, whether vegetable or animal?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁴ responded: "Considering the asserted difficulty, Negative to the first part; Affirmative to the second and according to the mind. The mind is that bishops should, according to their powers, take care that the paschal candle, the candle to be immersed in the baptismal water, and the two candles to be lighted at Masses be of beeswax, at least in the greatest part; but it is necessary that the material of the other candles which are to be placed upon altars be of the same wax in a greater or notable quantity. In this matter pastors and other rectors of churches and oratories will be able safely to stand by the norms handed down by their respective Ordinaries, nor are private priests who are going to celebrate Mass bound to inquire anxiously about the quality of the candles." Besides, the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁵ granted to missionaries in Oceania that they might use candles made and formed from whale fat, which in those regions are called bougies a l'etoile.

The candles must be placed upon the altar, not fixed to a wall almost touching the altar.⁶ For the rest, note:

a) Apart from an indult, by reason of some personal distinction it is not lawful for priests below a bishop - not even for the vicar general - to use more than two candles; by reason of some greater solemnity of a feast or Mass, it is lawful.⁷

b) It is a grave sin to celebrate without any light; this is lawful only by reason of administering Viaticum or by special permission. Likewise, it is more probably mortal to celebrate without any wax light, or with only lights from tallow or oil. Nevertheless this is lawful in a case of necessity, for example so that Viaticum may be administered or so that the people may hear Mass on a Sunday (St. Alphonsus, VI, 394, doubt 1). The other things oblige under venial sin; hence, for example, if two wax candles are lacking, it is lawful for a reasonable cause, even by reason only of devotion, to celebrate with one wax candle (St. Alphonsus, VI, 394).

c) If either light goes out during the celebration, the priest can continue while it is lighted again. If every light fails and no other can be had, if this happens after the consecration the Mass must be continued; but if before it, more probably it must be interrupted (St. Alphonsus, VI, 394).

d) It is illicit above or within the altar, besides wax candles, to use stearin candles,⁸ gas illumination, or electric light.⁹ Moreover, "electric light is forbidden not only together with wax candles upon altars, but also in place of candles or lamps"¹⁰ which are prescribed before the Most Holy Sacrament or relics of Saints.¹¹ For other places of the church and other cases, electric illumination is permitted according to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, provided that in all things the gravity which the holiness of the place and the dignity of the sacred liturgy demand is preserved. Nor is it lawful, during private or public exposition, to illuminate the interior part of the ciborium with electric lamps placed in that very interior part, so that the Most Holy Eucharist can be better seen by the faithful;¹² these things are also to be applied to stearin candles and gas illumination.

¹ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title XX.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 June 1899, n. 4029, ad II.

³ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁴ 14 December 1904, n. 4147.

⁵ 7 September 1850, n. 2985.

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 September 1865, n. 3137.

⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1857, ad IX, n. 3059.

⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 September 1875, n. 3376.

⁹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 June 1895, n. 3859; 16 May 1902, n. 4097; 22 November 1907, n. 4206; 17 January 1908, n. 4210, ad I; Secretariat of State to the bishops of Italy, 3 October 1923.

¹⁰ Namely, so that it is substituted in their place.

¹¹ Namely, on the occasion of their solemn exposition.

¹² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24 June 1914, n. 4322.

V. An antependium; namely, from the rubric:¹ "The altar is also to be adorned with a frontal of the color, as far as possible, corresponding to the feast day or office." It is required more probably under venial sin, unless the altar is of marble or another precious material, or has the form of a tomb (St. Alphonsus, VI, 395). No determinate material is prescribed, nor is it required that it be blessed. There are also those who judge that, from custom, celebration can take place without an antependium.

¹ General Rubrics, title XX.

"Altar stones or portable altars which consist of true hard and compact stone, even if not marble, ought to be held suitable; but those which have been made from pumice stone, or from gypsum, or another similar material, are altogether illicit. But as regards altars whose sepulcher or confession was dug not in the middle of the stone but in its front, they are not to be admitted, as not conforming to the prescriptions of the Roman Pontifical." S. R. C. 24 Nov. 1885.

"The consecration both of a stable Altar and of a Traveling or portable Altar, as regards the essential prayers, rites, solemnities, is altogether the same; in this however it differs, that the portable Altar, or stone, in the middle of which the Sacred Relics are stored, is anointed with sacred unction only on the surface; but on the contrary in a fixed Altar not to be transferred, another sacred unction is employed, by which the stone is joined in the corners and connected with the lower support or structure; and by this method not one stone, but the whole Altar, is judged consecrated. Therefore a portable Altar is execrated if either it has been enormously broken, or the sepulcher of the Relics violated; but a fixed altar is execrated even if, without violation of the sepulcher, the stone alone is removed from the support. Thus Alexander III, chap. Ad haec, On the Consecration of a Church or Altar: 'To this, if the Altar has been moved, or only that stone placed beneath which contains the seal has been broken or enormously diminished, it must be consecrated anew.' And in chap. Quod, same title: 'But an altar in which the table, to which the blessing of consecration is applied by pontifical ministry, has been removed or enormously broken, ought not undeservedly to be consecrated.' And although there are not lacking those who think that a fixed Altar loses consecration even if the whole Altar is transferred from the place in which it was built and anointed with sacred ceremonies to another place, nevertheless the common opinion is that in this case a new consecration is not necessary. The reason is that although a fixed Altar in this seems to differ from a portable altar, that the latter is transferable from one place to another, but the former is not so, and therefore is called fixed and immovable, nevertheless this difference is merely extrinsic, accidental, and respective to the place itself rather than between the Altars themselves; for the formal reason by which a fixed Altar intrinsically differs from a portable one properly consists in this, that a fixed Altar has and essentially imports the joining of the Table with its lower structure, or base, to which the Table therefore must necessarily be united; where on the contrary a portable Altar by its nature imports being separated from a base; for because of this it is portable, because of itself it has separation from the base; otherwise it would no longer be a portable Altar but a fixed one. Hence the essence of a fixed Altar truly and properly consists in the said joining, that is, in the mensa or table united with the base; and it imports fixation in such a place for this reason, that he who had it constructed willed it there: which therefore is something extrinsic and accidental to the Altar itself. For that same one could have been built elsewhere. Wherefore since the Altar is supposed to preserve the same joining, namely of the Table with its base, notwithstanding its transfer from one place to another, it must be said that it still retains its own being and, consequently, its consecration, which had accrued to it: for it is fitting that the accessory, since it is founded upon the principal, follow the nature of the principal; from Rule 42, On Rules of Law in VI. Therefore, so that that word 'moved' may be verified, it is not necessary that the Table have been transferred from one place to another, but it suffices that it has been separated from its base; and thus through this the Altar needs a new consecration. Hence the Gloss both to Canon Si motum and to Chapter Ad Haec, I, v. Altar; Panormitanus in the same place and others, by Altar understand the Altar Table itself which is connected with its lower structure; but by moved they understand the supervening disjunction of the same Table, or even of the consecrated Stone, from the lower structure itself; so that the sense of that Text: If the Altar has been moved, etc., is this: If the Table itself, or the consecrated Stone of the Altar, has been disjoined from its lower structure: the Altar must be consecrated anew. But if the Table which we call the mensa, placed upon a stone and stable Altar, although it is of such size that it surpasses or at least equals the subject structure, nevertheless had never been joined and united with the lower support, and in some way bound together in the corners through sacred unction, it would not lose Consecration by removal and translation from place to place, because in this case it would have no other character except that of a portable Altar, which is execrated only either through enormous fracture or through violation of the sepulcher of the Relics. Therefore since in the proposed species of fact the matter is of a fixed and stable Altar, and the superimposed Stone of the great Altar was removed from the lower support to which it had been joined through Sacred unction, it plainly follows that through removal of this kind the Altar was execrated and needs a new Consecration, as the S. R. C. declared." Note of Gardell. n. 4562.

Pius IX, 26 May 1867, by special Rescript as regards a Privileged Altar declared "that it suffices for constituting the quality of a fixed Altar that in the middle of a stable and immovable Altar, although not consecrated, a stone even removable be placed." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 100. The S. I. C., 20 March 1846, likewise declared as regards a Privileged Altar: by a fixed or local Altar "the S. C. understood indeed a fixed altar, which cannot be moved from the place, but not one whose upper part or mensa is of whole stone or so joined with lime that the consecrated stone cannot be removed; otherwise, when an altar which had been conceded privileged because of the image of some Saint was destroyed, after new construction it would need a new privilege." But by a portable Altar "it understood an Altar, as it is called viaticum, which consists only of one whole stone of such magnitude that it can contain the foot of the chalice with the paten at least for the greater part, or which is transferred from one place to another." Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Indulgence 6.

In the first centuries there was no prescription concerning the material of the altar, so that wooden, stone, and metallic altars existed. Nor was the form defined, so that even a three-footed table was used. By canon 26 of the Council of Epaone (517, Harduin, II, 1050), stone altars are prescribed. But even afterward, for quite a long time, indeed even in the eleventh century, wooden altars are still found.

The consecration of an altar distinct from the consecration of the church is already prescribed in canon 14 of the Council of Agde (506, Harduin, II, 999).

The use of celebrating over the sepulcher of the martyrs in cemeteries gave occasion to placing the relics of saints in altars, so that thus altars had three principal parts: the table, the support, the sepulcher (Wernz, III, 463). Nevertheless, still in the rigor of law, Ferraris denied the necessity of relics (Prompta Bibliotheca, Altare, n. 14-17) in the middle of the eighteenth century; today, from c. 1200, §2, 2°, it cannot be doubted.

If you consider the ancient use of the pagans, the name altar, as of a larger structure, is more aptly fitted to fixed altars, while the sacred stone should rather be called a portable ara than a portable altar (cf. Leclercq, Dict. d'archeologie, v. Autel; Matthaeus a Coronata, n. 100).

Caius, a priest, had charge of a certain mission in England. When the Bishop visited that mission, he found some things, as it seemed to him, less conformable to ecclesiastical laws. Among other things, a chasuble of yellow-colored silk thread was used for Mass; other chasubles were made externally of silk mixed with cotton, but internally of alpaca; electric light was attached on either side of the tabernacle and served to give light; and the chalice used for celebrating Mass bore the donor’s name engraved around the foot, with the inscription “Pray for the happy condition of N.” added. In the decree of visitation the Bishop prescribed that these things were to be reformed according to the rubrics unless Caius could allege approved authors who permitted them. Hence Caius asks:

1. From what material must chasubles be made?

2. Must the color of vestments for Mass be observed under pain of sin?

3. What is prescribed concerning altar lights?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Of what material should the chasuble be made?

Chasubles should be of silk, or silver or gold cloth, although the cross and other ornaments on them may be of linen, wool, or cotton.¹

1 Gasparri, De SS. Eucharistia, n. 692.

1 Génicot, Theol. Moral. Institutionee, vol. II, p. 246.

2. Is the color of the vestments a matter of precept?

Yes, of light precept, according to St. Alphonsus, VI,

3. What is prescribed about the lights of the altar? There should be two wax lights, or more according to the quality of the Mass, on the altar while Mass is being said. Besides these, no lights should be placed on the altar, though nothing prevents lamps, gas, or the electric light, from being used in the church to give light; but any theatrical effect should be avoided.¹

4. The case. Yellow vestments have often been forbidden and they should not be used.²

2 Gasparri, De SS. Eucharistia, n. 693.

Chasubles of silk mixed with cotton should not be used; unless the cotton appears only in the ornaments and accessories. The Sacred Congregation of Rites answered (23 March, 1882) that lining of cotton or linen or wool, and we may add alpaca, for silk chasubles could be tolerated in poor churches.

The electric light on the tabernacle is forbidden (S. R. C. 13 April, 1883).

There is nothing reprehensible in the inscription on the chalice.³

3 Ibid., n. 749.