Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

Hi Prax

You said @Praxiteles wrote:

The Cobh saga now appears to be focusing on the altar and on the distance between the altar and the nave. The spokesmman for the Trustees has been rabbiting on again about reducing the distance between the altar and the congregation. He believes that this is something “required” by Vatican II liturgy. Clearly, he does not eother know or realize that the source of this idea in modern church architecture has nothing to do with the lirurgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and a great deal to do with application of universal space to church architecture by Ruudolf Schwarz

BQ: I don’t think you’re correct here. The desire for a more appropriate proximity between altar and congregation is now – if maybe not directly after Vatican 2 -about expressing more clearly the nature and reality of the People of God. When we gather for worship Christ is truly present. We gather as one people within which the priest has a special ministry. Christ is truly present in the priest when he presides over the assembly as well of course but the guidelines produced by the Irish Bishop’s conference are clear that the primary symbol is the unity of the assembly – the People of God. This undestanding of the People of God has developed slowly since the beginning of the Twentieth Century and reached a high point in Vatican 2. It’s still developing now. The question is how should our understanding of the People of God be manifest in the church interior? We have come to realise that perpetuating an exclusive zone into which only male ordained may enter contradicts the reality of what the People of God is and this in turn undermines the liturgy. Does that mean the wholesale reorganisation of historic church interiors? No. Whatver is proposed must take into account the integrity of the architecural setting and must be sensitive to the particular faith community. However, to freeze the interior in a moment of time is to deny the constant striving for understanding of who we are and of our Christian mission.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Prax: If some philantrophist might be persuaded to put copies of this book in the christmas stokings of the above, they might just stop telling us (incorrectly) that Vatican II came up with this idea or that Vatican II canonized Schwarz’s ideas – which it most definitely did not.

BQ: I think in logic this is called a ‘straw man’ argument?

BQ