reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

Brian!

Here is the text of canon 451. Nothing here about DELEGATION:

Can. 451 Each conference of bishops is to prepare its own statutes which must be reviewed by the Apostolic See and which are to organize, among other things, the plenary meetings of the conference which are to be held and to provide for a permanent council of bishops, a general secretariat of the conference, and also other offices and commissions which, in the judgment of the conference, more effectively help it to achieve its purpose.

iBrian
Here is the text of the GRIM 2000. It is not pertinent to the question of the canonical status of the POW. This text indicates those places in the Institutio Generalis of the Roman Missal where Episcopal Conferences are asked to decide specific questions which are specified in the text of the article. Even those decisions have to be referred to the Holy See before they can have its approval and obtain the force of law.

390. Conferentiarum Episcoporum est aptationes definire, et actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis, in ipsum Missale introducere, quae in hac Institutione generali et in Ordine Missae indicantur, uti sunt:

fidelium gestus et corporis habitus (cf. supra, nn. 24, 43);

gestus venerationis erga altare et Evangeliarium (cf. supra, n. 274);

textus cantuum ad introitum, ad praeparationem donorum et ad communionem (cf. supra, nn. 48, 74, 87);

lectiones e Sacra Scriptura peculiaribus in adiunctis desumendae (cf. supra, n. 362);

forma pro pace tradenda (cf. supra, n. 82);

modus sacrae communionis recipiendae (cf. supra, nn. 160-161, 284);

materia altaris et sacrae supellectilis, praesertim sacrorum vasorum, necnon materia, forma et color vestium liturgicarum (cf. supra, nn. 301, 329, 332, 342, 345-346, 349).
Directoria vero aut Instructiones pastorales, quas Conferentiae Episcoporum utiles iudicaverint, praevia Apostolicae Sedis recognitione, in Missale Romanum, loco opportuno, induci poterunt

@Luzarches wrote:

I know that Prax isn’t too much of a fan of Schwarz. He is right to point to the problem of the ‘legibility’ of liturgical symbolism and Schwarz could be accused of fabricating arbitrary categories

Perhaps we could now return to the question of the legibility of liturgical symbolism in modern architecture. We have laready pointed out the difficulties that we encounter with Schwarz whose lirurgical symbolism is clearly incommunicable because, in effect, it amounts to a private esoteric language accessible only to the initoiated. On the other hand, if we look at the work of Plecnik, we have a range of accessible liturgical symbols that is clearly connected with the symbolic and architectural canon of Western civilisation and that is a re-working of that canon. An example of that is the design of the church of St. Francis the main body of which is located at a slightly lower level and surrounded by a colonade on four sides. Surely, here we have a reference to the impluvium of a Roman domestic villa which archeologists such as Krautheimer have shown probably lay at the very origin of the first Christian churches: the impluvium was roofed and served as the body for the house church. The idea seem to be very much much part of Plecnik’s back-to-origins concerns which are also to be seen in his designs for ecclesiastical plate.

I merely throw out the idea to see if anybody is interested in it.

On Catholicism and the modern aesthetic the following might be of interest.

http://www.patrickpye.com/docs/logos2005.pdf

Very interesting link, Prax. The topic of my current dissertation is whether contemporary architecture, modernism with a small ‘m’, can ever become an appropriate vehicle for expressing orthodox Catholicism.

I agree completely that arrangements whereby the altar is either lower than other elements, presiding chairs, cathedras etc, or off central axis are harmful to right belief at this point in time. Of course there are noble examples from tradition where the cathedra is higher, the cathedral of Parma, or even more elevated, the cathedral of Girona in Spain. We’re in a muddle now because the central placement of chairs has been misappropriated from tradition.
Because a friut of Trent was the placement of tabernacles on main altars we have had to dethrone the Blessed Sacrament in order to enthrone the priest or bishop. The separation of the tabernacle from the main altar is a consequence of making ‘modes of Christ’s prescence’ into a critical issue, as if the faithfuls’ ‘comprehension’ of the nature of the dynamic mystery whereby the gifts are consecrated is somehow undermined by the abiding prescence of the lord in the tabernacle. (As well as the ‘facing the people’ chesnut…)
Another very unfortunate misappropriation from tradition has been the attempt to introduce the fixed ambo in counterpoint to the altar. I think that the faithful have been mislead into thinking that there is a parity between the prescence of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel and His prescence in the eucharist. As Paul VI reaffirmed, it is incorrect to claim a kind of equality here. The Word is present for the duration of the proclamation, to be sure, but is fully present, body and blood, soul and divinity, in the sacrament. The Gospel is, I suppose, a sacred induction into the mystery of the eucahrist. Therefore an ambo, I suggest should be in a high place, but not higher than the footpace of the main altar. It should be off-axis and well in front of the altar. It should also be reserved for the proclamation of the gospel alone. A legile should be set up on the epistle side of the sanctuary and used for the homily.
In this way a hierarchy of dignity can be established without creating confusions of parity, or false dichotomies developed in the 60’s (that have been shown to be false).

It appears that the source for the diploma in liturgical consultancy is the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. This will require a little further investigation.

The link below connects to a list of (mainly) American “liturgical consultants”. Most seem to have gone through the pro-forma mill at the Catholic Union in Chicago. Reading the various approaches to “liturgical consultancy” is interesting and very enlightening – some of it goes some way to explain the liturgical turmoil experienced in some parts of the USA. It is also interesting to note just how much of a manual for this group is the book Built of Living Stones the US counterpart of The place of worship. Even more interesting is the almost universal absence of any reference to the Instituto Generalis Romani Missalis, Sacrosanctum Consilium and other normative texts. Again we have the recurrence of the notion of “People of God”. I am not certain that it is always used in the same sense as when found in its theological context in Lumen Gentium and I am almost certain that it is used without reference to the theological debate surrounding the idea in 1970s which did much to qualify and nuance it. But, see for yourself:

http://www.liturgical-consultants.org/members/alphabetical

I am posting some comments from Stephen Schloeder’s book Architecture in Communion published in San Francisco by Ignatius Press in 1998. Schloeder is a good representative of the contemporary ascendent current of thought in the United States on liturgy and art. While I do not quite share everything Shloeder says, especially in translating principles into practical architecture, I do recognise a freshness in his approach deriving from a critical mind at work on an hegemony that has been far too compaisant and far too much of a monopoly for far too long.

@Praxiteles wrote:

The following link gives an interesting account of the operations of the so called liturgical consultants in the U.S.A.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20592

That sounds all too familiar. The line taken by the various church officials and architects and so called ‘liturgical consultants’ is exactly what was used by the church representatives, Prof. Cathal O’Neill and planning consultant Brian McCutcheon in Cobh – they were not destroying the architectural heritage of St. Colmans they were bringing it back to its original design and ‘fixing’ Pugin obvious errors. Thankfully An Bord Pleanala didn’t swallow this mendacious line.
I wonder has there ever been a time before this when the ‘Shepherds’ and their firends have railroaded wholesale over their flock in such heartless fashion. How can they talk about ‘community’ when they are prepared to ignore completely the heartfelt wishes of their congregations.

Hi Prax

may I provide some clarification regarding liturgical consultants, the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago and ‘Built of Living Stones’?

A ‘liturgical consultant’ (LC) in the instance you have referred to is, as far as I’m aware, an American phenomenon. An LC was actually first referred to in the predecessor to ‘Built of Living Stones’ (BOLS), ‘Environment and Art in Catholic Worship’ (EACW). EACW mentioned an LC but did not explain what one was or did.

The Catholic Theological Union in Chicago (CTU) was formed as an amalgamation of theological teaching schools of various separate Catholic Church orders – a pooling of resources. Thus CTU is a Catholic teaching entity. It runs a course to train LCs at the request of the Archdiocese of Chicago which attempted to fill the void regarding what an LC did. The course was originally conceived to supply LCs for the archdiocese but it quickly attracted a much wider attendance. The students are balanced between ordained ministry, artists, architects.

As I said above BOLS succeeded EACW. Over the years EACW aroused much antipathy as it was considered fairly radical. I understand that it was often presented during church building renovation projects as ‘authorative’ when in fact it had the same status as the Place of Worship (POW). Also similarly to POW it was issued by the American bishop’s equivalent of our Irish Episcopal Commission on the Liturgy and not he American bishops’ conference (though validly so as the American episcopal liturgy commission were empowered to do so by the conference). As a result of rising resistance to EACW, not least of which by the some of the bishops themselves, and the fact that EACW was not voted upon by the conference, it was decided by the conference to have a new document drawn up (BOLS) and voted upon. It is ironic (for you Prax) that you consider it suspect as the main reason it came into existence was as a result of conservative lobby pressure. Many LCs consider it to be retrograde step.

BQ
(yes as you might have guessed I am a LC and i attended the CTU course).