Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Home › Forums › Ireland › reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches › Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
This statement, to beging with, is not accurate. Article 310 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, aka the GIRM, talks of a “sedes” and not of a “Cathedra”. I am sure that I do not have to spell out the difference between them.
Prax, my statement is accurate as GIRM applies even more so to a Cathedra since the sedes derives it meaning from the Cathedra.
Secondly, if you look at the text of 310 carefully, you will see that it simply says “locus eius magnus congruus est versus populum in vertice presbyterii, NISI aedis structura vel ALIA adiuncta id impediant”. You will notice that the text here is not prescreptive ordering that the “sedes” be facing the people or in the “vertice presbyterii”. Rather it is indicative and merely expresses a suggestion in law qualified by further considerations (NISI) to make it clear that we are not dealing with a prescriptive act.
Thirdly, the reason for the statement that the “sedes” could face the pople in the “vertice presbyterii” is to be found in the context of the architectural development of the Roman Rite, namely the Roman Basilica. But, as the Church does not canonize any architectural style, it does not canonize this arrangement either.
Agreed. Of course I never said that it was an obligation to locate the presider’s chair in the apse. You read that into my post yourself. What I was saying was that I exercised the option – an option that it is reasonable to assume is the preferred option as it is the only one specifically metioned in GIRM.
Fourthly, if we are going to speak of Cathedras, in the arrangement of the Lateran Basilica the Pope is not visible from the nave when seated on the Cathedra. Surely, if the Roman Pontiff is not visible from the nave when seated on his Cathdra, there is less reason for lesser mortals to be made more visible when seated on theirs.
prax, you’re not seriously suggesting that such an unsuccessful arrangement should be canonised? – despite what it explicitly says in the Cermonial of Bishops? (This reminds me of Monty Python’s ‘The Life of Brian’ when he takes one sandal off because it is hurting and the whole crowd take one sandal off).