reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hello Brian,
I’m interested in how much imput you yourself had in the design of the altar itself (It seems de riguer to farm out the most exciting part of the reordering to an artist.That was the plan for Cobh anyway…). How were the dimensions and shape determined? I’m sorry I haven’t yet caught up with you on my rather elliptical broadside against some, but not all, of the work on your website. I have to say that, in spite of primitive examples of square and even partially circular altar mensae I just cannot be doing with a square altar and especially in a Gothic church. In a large neo-Gothic church the altar should be a third of the total width of the main vessel, both for aesthetic reasons and so that the people, not all of them sitting in the extra special active participation zone near the sanctuary, can clearly see it. (IMHO)
Even if it is not intended, having four equal sides implies a fear of hierarchy and a dogmatic preference for equality over a nuanced expression of liturgical difference. Perhaps an equality of function between the ordained clergy and the laity? Even the primitive and Romanesque altars that were of this shape had one privileged side that was indicated perhaps with a higher level of richness or some other iconographical indicator.
The smallness of the altar, an alter Christus, becomes, I would imagine, even more noticable when a mass is being concelebrated. The altar, the objective ‘trunk’ is partially hidden in a thicket of branches of the vested clergy. Surely such a spectacle is more clericalist than of old. Then all approached the literally high altar with trepidation, a certain right-minded fear of the Lord?
Hear we are Brian, bright and early and ready for another day!
Concerning posting 1173:
I attached a scan of O’Connell’s book which contains the two references to the Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. For convenience I will give them again: SCR 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). This was in the context of indicating that a throne was not to placed on a plane higher than a main Altar.
However, our good friend O’COnnell also has a chapter in his book entitled: The Altar Steps. Here he makes it quite specific that an altar had to be raised on at leastthree steps to comply with the rubris of the Mass – especially when celebrated in solemn form with the assistance of a Deacon and Subdeacon. He points out that the number has varied over time; three is common; and five not unusually found in Cathedrals so as to ensure that the Altar is higher than the Cathedra.He gives a furtehr reference: the Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation of Rites 1265 (4) which seems to discourage anything more than five steps – though in Hungry the practice of having an extremely hight elevation for the Altar was characteristic feature of the country.
Concerning the rubric of the Mass, Praxiteles would point out that the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum maintains the usage of “ascending” to the Altar (cf. n. 178) thereby presuppoing that steps do in fact exist tobe ascended.
@brianq wrote:
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
1. Praxiteles contends nothing. Praxiteles merely states.
2. Praxiteles has consulted the major authority on the Caeremoinale Episcoporum the good Braziliam Ioachim Nabuco and his authoritative work Ius Pontificalium: Introductio in Caeremoniale Episcoporum. I am using the edition published by Desclé]the previous version[/I] of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. This is problematic because there were more than one version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The follwoing is the main line of versions and does not include local parallel lines:
The Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by decree of Pope Clement VIII on 14 July 1600.
A revised version was published by Pope Innocent X by decree of 30 July 1650.
A further revision was made by Pope Benedict XIII by decree of 17 July 1727.
Another revision was by Benedict XIV and published by decree of 25 March 1752.
A revised typical edition was published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and published by Marietti of Turin.4. Praxiteles has taken wise counsel from an acknowledged expert in this field and is advised that “because a new edition do not repeat all of the rubrics of a previous edition it cannot be automatically presumed that the contrary is the case”. That is substantially what has been argued up to now.
5. Nabuco, following the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ennuntiates that the throne is made of wood or sometimes of marble or another material. The principle to be followed for its adornment is: “color vestium throni sequitur colorem festivi vel temporis” (the colours of the adornments of the throne follow those of the [liturgical] feast or that of [ordinary] time) when used in a liturgical context.
That means, that when a bishop presides at the throne, the colours of the throne will be: green in ordinary time, white on Solemnities, red on the feasts of martyrs, purple for Lent etc.
When a Cardinal presides at the throne during a liturgical ceremony, the throne will be vested in his prelatial colours.
WIth the exception of Cardinal, basically the colours of the throne follow those of the Altar as a general rule.
Outside of the liturgical celebrations, the throne of a bishop or archbishop is to be covered in green – which is what I have adverted to about Armagh in its resent state (afterall, nobody has seen the present Archbishop going around in scarlet).
6. Again, the problem with the quotation above derives from an inadequate understanding of canonical jurisprudence and an application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity when one of continuity should have been applied.
@Luzarches wrote:
Hello Brian,
I’m interested in how much imput you yourself had in the design of the altar itself (It seems de riguer to farm out the most exciting part of the reordering to an artist.That was the plan for Cobh anyway…). How were the dimensions and shape determined? I’m sorry I haven’t yet caught up with you on my rather elliptical broadside against some, but not all, of the work on your website. I have to say that, in spite of primitive examples of square and even partially circular altar mensae I just cannot be doing with a square altar and especially in a Gothic church. In a large neo-Gothic church the altar should be a third of the total width of the main vessel, both for aesthetic reasons and so that the people, not all of them sitting in the extra special active participation zone near the sanctuary, can clearly see it. (IMHO)
Even if it is not intended, having four equal sides implies a fear of hierarchy and a dogmatic preference for equality over a nuanced expression of liturgical difference. Perhaps an equality of function between the ordained clergy and the laity? Even the primitive and Romanesque altars that were of this shape had one privileged side that was indicated perhaps with a higher level of richness or some other iconographical indicator.
The smallness of the altar, an alter Christus, becomes, I would imagine, even more noticable when a mass is being concelebrated. The altar, the objective ‘trunk’ is partially hidden in a thicket of branches of the vested clergy. Surely such a spectacle is more clericalist than of old. Then all approached the literally high altar with trepidation, a certain right-minded fear of the Lord?
I think Luzarches has raised several interesting points in this posting.
@brianq wrote:
Prax, On this specific point your beloved Canon law is not germain. This is a liturgical law item – see Can#2
BQ
This statement is problematic. If liturgical law is not part of Canon Law, what is it? Surely you are not contending that it is civil law or that it has its source of authority is other than an ecclesiastical one?
Indeed, Canon Law should be beloved. It is all that stands between us and ecclesial chaos and liturgical Wildwuchs. As in civil society, a Rechtsgesellschaft is all that separates us from the jungle.
@Praxiteles wrote:
1. Praxiteles contends nothing. Praxiteles merely states.
2. Praxiteles has consulted the major authority on the Caeremoinale Episcoporum the good Braziliam Ioachim Nabuco and his authoritative work Ius Pontificalium: Introductio in Caeremoniale Episcoporum. I am using the edition published by Desclée in 1956.
3. Your mention the previous version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. This is problematic because there were more than one version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The follwoing is the main line of versions and does not include local parallel lines:
The Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by decree of Pope Clement VIII on 14 July 1600.
A revised version was published by Pope Innocent X by decree of 30 July 1650.
A further revision was made by Pope Benedict XIII by decree of 17 July 1727.
Another revision was by Benedict XIV and published by decree of 25 March 1752.
A revised typical edition was published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and published by Marietti of Turin.4. Praxiteles has taken wise counsel from an acknowledged expert in this field and is advised that “because a new edition do not repeat all of the rubrics of a previous edition it cannot be automatically presumed that the contrary is the case”. That is substantially what has been argued up to now.
5. Nabuco, following the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ennuntiates that the throne is made of wood or sometimes of marble or another material. The principle to be followed for its adornment is: “color vestium throni sequitur colorem festivi vel temporis” (the colours of the adornments of the throne follow those of the [liturgical] feast or that of [ordinary] time) when used in a liturgical context.
That means, that when a bishop presides at the throne, the colours of the throne will be: green in ordinary time, white on Solemnities, red on the feasts of martyrs, purple for Lent etc.
When a Cardinal presides at the throne during a liturgical ceremony, the throne will be vested in his prelatial colours.
WIth the exception of Cardinal, basically the colours of the throne follow those of the Altar as a general rule.
Outside of the liturgical celebrations, the throne of a bishop or archbishop is to be covered in green – which is what I have adverted to about Armagh in its resent state (afterall, nobody has seen the present Archbishop going around in scarlet).
6. Again, the problem with the quotation above derives from an inadequate understanding of canonical jurisprudence and an application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity when one of continuity should have been applied.
hi Prax,
you can wriggle and you can squirm. You can quote all of the supereceded law you like but you’re just going to have to take it on the chin. Which bit of ‘The present volume …… takes the place of the previous ceremonial which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’ do you not get?
BQ
@Praxiteles wrote:
Concerning the rubric of the Mass, Praxiteles would point out that the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum maintains the usage of “ascending” to the Altar (cf. n. 178) thereby presuppoing that steps do in fact exist tobe ascended.
Hi Prax,
that is indeed a valid interpretation – though it would be pushing it to make the leap to saying that it is liturgical law that the altar must be ascended to – which I think you are inferring? liturgical law clearly permits other solutions (though I make use of the option of elevating the altar in most of my designs).
BQ
@Praxiteles wrote:
But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?
Hi Prax, no.
BQ
Hi all
back to ‘the Place of Worship’. It has been stated previously in this forum that Fr Paddy Jones is its author. This is not the case. Fr Jones was not the author. It was drafted by an advisory committee of which Fr Jones was not a member.
BQ
ps Gian, I have read your last post and agree with Prax it raises good points for discussion which I’ll certainly do when I get time.
@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
you can wriggle and you can squirm. You can quote all of the supereceded law you like but you’re just going to have to take it on the chin. Which bit of ‘The present volume …… takes the place of the previous ceremonial which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’ do you not get?
BQ
Sorry Brian!
But, you will just have to do a course in the Sacred Canons and learn how they work.
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
that is indeed a valid interpretation – though it would be pushing it to make the leap to saying that it is liturgical law that the altar must be ascended to – which I think you are inferring? liturgical law clearly permits other solutions (though I make use of the option of elevating the altar in most of my designs).
BQ
Brian!
Praxiteles is not interpreting anything. Praxiteles is quoting article 178 of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum which says that he “ascends” to the Altar. Clearly, the text is explicit and that is law. The altar MUST be ascended to. How, might I ask, can that be done without steps?
If liturgical law permits other solutions, could you cite a few numbers of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum?
Originally Posted by Praxiteles
But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax, no.
BQ
Ah, yes. Now I understand.
It was the Catholic Theological Union LIturgy faculty that Cardinal George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, was not happy with and when it refused to reform itself and bring it self into the mainstrem (i.e. abandon the whachy), he set up his own Liturgy Faculty at the University of St. Mary in Mundelein in direct opposition to it. Nothing like determined action and it looks as though Francis George is about to put order on the house in Chicago. Sooner or later, the Catholic Theological Union liturgy faculty will come to heel
@brianq wrote:
Hi all
back to ‘the Place of Worship’. It has been stated previously in this forum that Fr Paddy Jones is its author. This is not the case. Fr Jones was not the author. It was drafted by an advisory committee of which Fr Jones was not a member.
BQ
ps Gian, I have read your last post and agree with Prax it raises good points for discussion which I’ll certainly do when I get time.
Brian!
I have the very document (third edition 1994) here to hand. The names of the Committee are to be found on page 4. Joe Duffy, the artistcally inclined bishop of Clogher is forst on the list. Number 5 on the list is: Revd Patrick Jones (and no academic qualification is indicated). There can be little doubt that is our one and only LYTUPGOS, Paddy Jones. Just in case you do not believe me I will scan the page and post it.
Just done it. Here is the evidence:
Back to the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis !
If we accept that the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis is the source for normative presecription on the subject of arranging liturgical space, as they call it, and specifically for the disposition of the sacntuary, then how do we explain this?:
Which is the most important element within the space? If one knew little about Catholicism would one necessarily infer from this space that the altar is pre-eminent? They would more likely infer that the font, ambo, altar and tabernacle were absolutely equal in importance, with no differentiation. I think that this space would suit someone between Lutheranism and Calvinism.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Is that the waiting room for the main church?
I do not think so. There are not any coat hangers to be seen. But, perhaps Brian will talk us through this little one!!
To my mind, Luzarches has hit the nail on the head (cf. Eamonn Duffy’s book The Stripping of the Altars and the Edwardine Ordinals of November 1547).
Let us pray that Bishop Adrian of Cobh and the Elders of FOSCC will reflect on todays Gospel (Mark 7):
‘It was of you hypocrites that Isaiah so rightly prophesied in this passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless, the doctrines they teach are only human (planning) regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human(architectural) traditions.’
Can someone help me understand how we are any closer to God by changing:
http://www.saintsavioursdublin.ie/churchpictures_large/Old%20Dominic%20Altar.jpg
TO
http://www.saintsavioursdublin.ie/churchpictures/New%20Saint%20Dominic%20Altar.jpg
Just an example of how silly some of these interpretations of liturgical requirements can be.. I’m just amazed that poor St Dominic has not been adorned on either side with some nice bits of carpet!
Thanks,
Fearg.@Sirius wrote:
Let us pray that Bishop Adrian of Cobh and the Elders of FOSCC will reflect on todays Gospel (Mark 7):
‘It was of you hypocrites that Isaiah so rightly prophesied in this passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless, the doctrines they teach are only human (planning) regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human(architectural) traditions.’
Sirius, as ever comes on to insult.
I am very glad that he is so cognisant of what God is thinking and what is in the hearts of the ‘Elders of FOSCC’.
It must be pointed out that his argument could equally be applied to the Trustees of St. Colman’s and their friends, but then I have no idea what is in the Mind of God and as for what is in the hearts of FOSCC – well “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
