reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

@brianq wrote:

Prax,

. Again, Caeremoniale Episcoporum makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
BQ

While I am pleased that this discussion seems to have resussitated the idea that liturgy is conducted in accordance with the norm of law, established by ecclesiastical authority, it appears that we are going to have dust off the concept a bit before we begin to realize how it functions.

In the quotation above, the following is claimed. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted by McConnell’s (sic) book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I am afraid that this assumption is not at all reasonable. The law presumes that those provisions mentioned in O’Connell’s book which cover areas not explicitely dealt with in the most recent legislation are, subject to certain conditions already mentioned, still in force, do have binding authority and must be complied with. Remember that the law operates on an hermeneutic of continuity and not one of discontinuity. In O’Connell’s book, only those provisions of law cited by him that have been aborgated have been superceded. Again, a little subtlty of mind please.

Thus, assuming that no other provision has been made elsewhere on the subject of the proportion of heights to be observed betewwn planes bearing High Altars and those bearing Cathedras, we have to take it that the lacuna legis is supplemented by the existing legislation quoted by O’Connell. Strictly speaking, the same is true of what he says about colours – pending the creation of another Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church in Armagh, the Cathedra should be covered in green. Otherwise, it could be read as an aspiration!!

@brianq wrote:

mac,

I have to take issue with your sweeping generalisation here. I readily accept yours and anyone else’s right to disagree with my views. I readily accept when I am wrong on a factual basis and will thoughtfully consider contrary views on those issues about which contrary views can be legitimately held e.g. aesthetics etc. The authority of true Catholic teaching is accepted fully on my part. I don’t know what you mean by a liberal and therefore couldn’t say if I am one or not. I suspect it is irrelevant anyway.

BQ

Dear Brianq,
I do not question you acceptance of Church teaching. I question the interpretation you have been given. You are free to explore these issues and expand your knowledge. Unlike many you appear to be willing to take that course. I am leagues behind you. I need every latin phrase translated for me.
What I do not understand about the above quote is what you mean by I readily accept when I am wrong on a factual basis and will thoughtfully consider contrary views on those issues about which contrary views can be legitimately held e.g. aesthetics etc. .

Expand please.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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).

BQ

In posting n. 1218 brian wrote:

“Prax,

The Ceremonial of Bishops (CB) is the law on this point. #47 states that ‘….the chair should have enough steps leading up to it for the bishop to be clearly visible to the faithful’. That is why the Cathedra is physically higher than the altar. Nothing is said about a specific number of steps. The Cathedra is sited where it is because GIRM310 states: ‘Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’…. Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar.

… It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.”

I could not deal with this until now as I was awaiting a mitered friend to lend me his Caeremoniale Episcoporum – which he kindly did last night.

In relation to article 47, it should be noted that this article begins by referring you to article 42 which gives us a definition of a cathedral, the place wherein a Cathedra is ubiquated. Cathedra (which is perhaps not quite accurately translated by the English word “chair”). No definition of a sedes is given in reference to a cathedra.

Please note that in the absence of a prescription concerning the relationship between the height of the altar and the height of the cathedra, the provisions of canon 2 (which you youeself quote) become operative and you are referred to the already existant norms which O’Connell mentions in his book. Thus, on this specific point, they continue to have force and they were not observed in the last re-ordering of the cathedral in Armagh. No one has the right to presume otherwise.

My point about an altar being raised is made patently clear from the illustration of the altar in Bordeaux cathedral. I regret to say taht the altar in the present Armagh arrangement looks as though it has been just abaodoned there on the floor having been taken out of its wrappers. It should really have been elevated on a praedella of a few steps which would also have served the principle of the altar always being Ascended to – as we find mentioned in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum article n. 178.

I wonder could anyone take a photograph of the altar presently in Armagh and do one of those computer images of how it would look had it been raised on a praedella of say three steps?

And here is another exampòe of the application of the classical disposition of a sanctuary. This time it is Sant’Appolinare in Classe in Ravenna which was consecrated in 549. Bear in mind, that many of the prescriptions that are lay down in the current liturgical books derive from contexts such as this. After all, returning the liturgy to its pristine sources was one of the objectives of the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council.

You will notice here that although the floor of the sanctuary is already quite high, the Altar is again raised on a praedella of sevral steps which will allow for the priest’s ascending to the Altar. Unless you know this background, you cannot properly understand how liturgical law thinks and operates.

Same arrangement in Santa Prassede in Rome.

Interestingly, the mosaic in the arch of the sanctuary bears the cipher of Pope Paschal I (817-824) indicating when it was exsecuted.

@brianq wrote:

Prax,

. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’…. . Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so….. McConnell’s book is a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
BQ

On the question of the construction of an altar and the ened to have it raised on a predella, let me quote paragraph no. 61 of Peter Elliott’s important work Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, second revised edition, 2005, at page 62, commenting on the GIRM says:

The steps around the altar should be planned carefully so that all the people can participate visually and so that the ceremonies can be carried out conveniently. The Missal assumes that can be celebrated either facing the people or facing the altar. A new main altar should be built to make it possible to celebrate Mass either way. therefore there should ample space on the footpace or “predella” on both sides of a freestanding altar for the celbrant to stand and genuflect and also so that he may conveniently walk around the altar when he insenses it. The footpace is usually covered with fine quality carpet

A further problem with the present arrangement of the altar in Armagh is the proportion employed between the rather large sanctuary floor on which the the altar is sitting, and the dimensions of the altar itself. It appears to be rather small for its rather expansive setting. That problem could be partially remedied by raising it on a smaller sized predella.

Hi Prax,

You contend that it is current liturgical law that the altar in a cathedral should be raised on steps and should be higher than the cathedra which should also be raised on steps. This is not the case. It is not the case because that was a law contained in the previous version of the Ceremonial of Bishops. The current CB states in section 2 of the preface: ‘The present volume ………takes the place of the previous ceremonial, which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’. I take that to mean that if it is not found in the current CB then it is not liturgical law. (The CB I am quoting from is published by The Liturgical Press and dated 1989).

BQ

@Praxiteles wrote:

What edition of the Caeremoniale was the last before the one you quote and at what point does it refer to colour and steps?

hi Prax,

Regarding the steps (I want to post a comment regarding colour in a later post) see the attachment you posted in #1173 (page 91 from McConnell’s book). The exact reference is in a footnote. Presumably he refers to the Ceremonial current when McConnell’s book was published in 1955.

@Praxiteles wrote:

As a matter of interest, does the translation of the Caeremoniale you quote have a decree of approval?

Yes.

BQ