brianq
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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:
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
@Praxiteles wrote:
That was a valiant effort but I am afraid your normae generales are not quite up to scratch when it comes to dealing with the sacred canons of the Code of Canon Law and you will find that a close and accurate study of Book I of the same text will make clear that the law is a good deal more subtle than you make it out to be.
Prax, On this specific point your beloved Canon law is not germain. This is a liturgical law item – see Can#2
@Praxiteles wrote:
For example, where prior dispositions exist and these have not been abrogated and are not contrary to subsequent norms and no new explicit provision has been made, then they retain their force. Hence, note carefully the arrangement of the sancturay in the Cathedral of St. André in Bordeaux. Can you source the reference to the abandonment of the use of “green” to denote an archbishop or bishop? I do believe that the Cathedra in Armagh should have been sent ot the upholstrers!!
The introduction to the Ceremonial of Bishops explicitly states that all previous versions of the ceremonial (those which include directives on the use of coloured upholstery and numbers of steps etc ) are abrogated.
All of that having been said I think there is a discussion to be had on how the use of different levels in a sanctuary can be used to signify theological meaning.
BQ
@Praxiteles wrote:
On the question of the erection of the Cathedra in Armagh Cathedral, someone has pointed out to me the relevant text containing the rules on the height of a Cathedra and its relation to the height of the High Altar and the stalls of canons: not surprisingly, it was in J. O’Connell’s Church Building and Furnishing: The Church’s Way. As pointed out out, the Cathedra “is to be on a platform approached by three steps – so that it is higher than the canons’ stalls in the chancel, but not higher than the footpace of the High Altar”. Conveniently, he also gives the references for this rule which is found in the Cottectanea Sacrae Congregationis Rituum nn. 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). While other rules mentoned by O’COnnell have been explicitly abolished, the one concerning the height of the Cathedra in relation to the High Altar has not been explicitely abrogated.
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’. This location in my opinion is at the crossing of nave and trancepts which is the ‘architectural’ centre of the space and is the natural focus of the interior. It is presumably why the original altar i.e. the one before Liam McCormick’s reordering, was placed there too. It is also the place where those in the trancepts can see it. 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.
@Praxiteles wrote:
I may seem churlish, but I also have to point out that the colour of the cloth on the cathedra (not to mention the other chairs) is wrong. The colour “red” is reserved for a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. “Green” is reserved for all other archbishops and bishops. This oversight is also remarkable when you notice the heraldic achievement inset in the floor before the Cathedra which correctly displays a “green” galero.
Strictly speaking the colour is not wrong as those rules have been abandoned. The background is that the Cathedra in Armagh is the original one when those laws were applicable. It was retained and incorporated as it was into the new layout. You would have a point in saying why not conform to them as a traditional element and I wouldn’t have a problem on that basis. That is an example of where we can have two legitimate views. But it is simply wrong to take the view that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell has to be complied with and therefore what has been done now is illegitimate.
BQ
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Looking at the floor in Armagh Cathedral I can’t help thinking that all those miles of barley twist and acres of celtic squiggle can’t be too easy on anyone with a delicate constitiution – it’s all too fussy for a liturgical setting.
Gian
My design for the floor was conceived in such a way as to relate both in pattern and colour to the existing mosaic floors (seen in the foreground of the left hand image in your post) in a contemporary way.
BQ
@MacLeinin wrote:
True Catholic teaching holds no authority for them. The pity is that they seem like nice people but like all liberals they are totally illeberal in their attitudes to anyone who disagrees with them.:(
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
@MacLeinin wrote:
the poor congregation in Armagh have gone through three seperate re-orderings
Mac,
Was there a third reordering? When was it?
BQ
Hi Prax,
apologies but I am not able to keep up with all of the issues raised in all of your posts as quickly as you are posting them, hence I am somewhat behind. This post is regarding POW and the discussions we had about Irish Episcopal Condferences etc (round about posts 1142/1143 etc)
In summary you were contesting my point regarding the issue and status of POW. My point was that it is an authentic church document representing the mind of the Irish bishops on the architectural setting for liturgy and as such it requires consideration by any community contemplating such work. Your contention is that it is merely a private document produced by Bishop Duffy and need be given no more consideration than any other publication about church architecture.
Following on from that you contested my point that the Irish Episcopal Commission for the Liturgy (IECL) can issue documentation with the authority of the Irish Bishop’s Conference (IBC) (post 1142). My point in referring to Can 455 was that each Bishop’s Conference is to draft its own statutes and therefore can contrive to delegate to an episcopal commission if it sees fit. (I don’t actually know if that is the case here in Ireland but it is a possibility?).
As regards post 1143 I did indeed make a mistake and quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point. Indeed subsequent sections do refer specifically to issues that do require recognitio which would tend to support my interpretation. My point was, therefore, that if the bishop can regulate the construction and ordering of churches without the need for recognitio then presumably IECL and IBF can do so also. POW is issued to assist bishops carry out such regulation and would not need recognitio.
Of course POW doesn’t need recognitio anyway as it does not institute any changes. As I said in a previous post it brings together directives from various liturgical sources and presents them in one location. There is no daylight between it and the sources it quotes / refers to. To ignore it, or to treat it as a private treatise is to ignore GIRM, Eucharisticum Mysterium etc etc.
BQ
(ps I intend to follow up most of the other posts when I get time).
Hi Prax,
BOLS & POW etc
Your consistent offering of the ‘straw man’ argument that BOLS / POW are not legally binding is becoming irritating now. I know you hate to admit it but we are actually in agreement regarding this point. I have never heard of anyone stating that and I have never stated it in this forum or during the course of my work. Maybe you could let me know when, where and by whom it was said?
however, you can’t seriously believe that POW need only be given the same consideration as any other private document such as you or I might author for instance. It has been published by bishops for heaven sake, and, I might add, wihout demurring from any other irish bishop – or any bishop for that matter. POW deserves our full attention because it pulls together the legislation on spatial requirements and represents the mind of the irish bishops. It has been produced to assist the bishop in his diocese in the discharge of his obligations as all documentation produced by the bishops’ conference is.
BQ
@Praxiteles wrote:
Praxiteles has just discovered what appears to be the latest fashion in liturgical “reorderings”: that of placing the altar on a plane lower than its surroundings and in some instances dominated by higher planes carrying such items as chairs or even cathedras.
Prax, if I’m reading you’re post correctly you’re insinuating that the church featured in the image you posted is a Catholic one and therefore an example of current thinking in liturgical reordering in the Catholic Church. Well, I can allay your fears and rehabilitate the principle of reordering in your mind at the same time by confirming that the church is in fact a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran church in Fond du Lac, Wisonsin.
BQ
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).hi Prax
@Praxiteles wrote:
Dear Brian!!
Once again we are not paying attention to the detail of the text. The English text you quote says that its is “DESIRABLE” to set up such commissions. The Latin word is “EXPEDIT”. This has no connotation of OBLIGATION. It is merely a pious wish.
ok maybe I’m missing something here. as regards the quoted text you are indeed correct, the word ‘desirable’ is indeed used to refer to the setting up of an episcopal liturgical commission. (The fact that the episcopal liturgical commission has been set up presumably means that the Irish Bishops’ conference thought it was ‘desirable’). However, our discussion was about the obligation or otherwise on the Irish Episcopal Conference to issue guidelines was it not?
BQ
Hi Prax
apologies for the sloppy typing. My sentence should have read ‘….episcopal liturgical commission – consisting of bishops…’ etc.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Then we have another august bodz: The Irish Commission for Liturgy. This has a verz interesting line up.The only person on this committee worth listening to when it comes to a liturgical matter is the Reverend Patrick McGolderick, Professor emeritus of Sacred Liturgy, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth.
I am afraid, Brian, that zou are incorrect in sazing that the Episcopal Commission has the full authoritz of the Episcopal Commission to make DIRECTIVES on the liturgy. An Episcopal Conference can make precious little in the waz of DIRECTIVES about the liturgz. That is the business of the Holy See and of the Diocesan Bishop in his diocese. The Conference has no authority in this area. Even if it had, it could not delegate that authoritz to a sub commission.
Two points here -( neither of which are relevant to our discussion about POW as it (POW) is not a directive and I never said it was) an episcopal conference can make directives on the liturgy, admittedly in limited circumstances – can455 & GIRM 390. Also, and I can’t confirm if it is actually the case, but the Episcopal Conference can delegate to an episcopal commission by virtue of Can 451.
BQ
Hi Prax
@Praxiteles wrote:
BBQ writes>
The Irish Episcopal Conference is obliged to issue guidelines on the building and renovation of church buildings and it fell to the Liturgy Commission to expeite this.
The Irish Episcopal Conference has no such obligation. Were it to have had such, perhaps BQ would like to produce the document obliging it to issue such guidelines.
Sacrosanctum Concilium para 44: It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Am I to take it that you are arguing that the bishop of Cloyne had no option but to implement an idiotic sheme at Cobh Cathedral that represented the mind of the Irish Bishops?
No.
BQ
Hi prax,
What’s your point?
BQ
@Praxiteles wrote:
The following would appear to be most recent list of members of the famous Art and Architecture Committee>
Dr Jacinta Prunty is chairpeson and Reverend Patrick Jones is secretary.
Other members are: Mr. Kevin Clancy, Mr Tom Glendon, Mr. Eamon J. Hedderman, Reverend Hugh Kennedy, BrÃd NÃ Rinn , Mr Paul O’Daly, Mr Brian Quinn, Mr George Walsh, Mr Alexander M. White.In relation to Cobh Cathedral, we know what P. Jones thinks following his recent article in the Irish Times / in which he omitted to mention that he had been at the Midleton Oral Hearing and appeared as a witness for the Trustees of the Cathedral.
WE also know what Alex White thinks.
Eamonn Hedderman-s views and advice to the bishops over a long period can be guessed at.
Sr. Prunty wsas also involved in the Cobh Cathedral debacle. Why her advice should ever have been sought is a mystery. We understand that she is a historian specializing in 19th. century barrack building in Ireland.
It is understood that Fr. Hugh Kennedy has close connections with the bishop of Cloyne / both are chaplains to the Order of Malta.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Brian
Could you ever explain to us what you you mean by saying that Place of Worship is an authentic Church document?Yes, the ‘Place of Worship’ is a valid Church document as it is issued by the Irish Episcopal Liturgy Commission on behalf of the Irish Episcopal Conference. The Irish Episcopal Conference is obliged to issue guidelines on the building and renovation of church buildings and it fell to the Liturgy Commission to expeite this. As such it represents the mind of the Irish Bishops.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Clearly, you cannot here be speaking of a document having canonical effect and authority. In this sense, it has no bearing whatsoever on church architecture.
yes and no. Yes in that it is canonical in as far as it quotes GIRM, the Rite of Dedication of an Altar, Eucharisticum Mysterium and so on. It is not canonical of itself. It certainly has a bearing on church architecture because it is issued by a ‘competent authority’ as defined in Sancrosanctum Concilium as it is obliged to do by GIRM, and it represents the mind of the Irish bishops and can not be ignored.
@Praxiteles wrote:
It has already been pointed out on this thread, I think, that as the Art and Architecture Committee is an ADVISORY committeeto the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference, all it can do is advise the body that was appointed to advise. Clearly neither the Committee nor the Commission has any authority to LEGISLATE for the Bishops Conference.
Again yes and no. Yes in that I agree with everything you say about the advisory committee on art & architecture. It is advisory and all it can do is advise (the liturgical commission). No in that the Liturgical Commission is an episcopal commission – consisting of bishops. It has the full authority of the Irish Episcopal Conference to make directives regarding liturgy.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Indeed, it is doubtful that the Art and Architecture Committee should even have published the document Place of Worship.
It didn’t, the irish Episcopal Liturgy Commission published it. The Art & Architecture Committee advised the Liturgy Commission regarding its content.
@Praxiteles wrote:
I am am sure that you are expert in the rules laid out in the planning laws and how they are drawn up and how they are applied. In the Catholic Church, there are rules governing how the liturgy is celebrated and what is needed for its celebration. These rulese are laid down by ecclesiastical authority / and, I am afraid, that the Art and Architecture Committe is no such authority.
I am probably more expert in the spatial requirements of liturgy than secular planning law. Indeed the art & architecture committee is not permitted to issue authorative directives in the sense you describe.
BQ
@Praxiteles wrote:
I am afraid that I have failed to notice any member registered under @Brian QUinn@ in the members- list.
yes I’ve noticed that too. Brianq is listed but I’ve no idea why brian quinn isn’t. I can log in using brian quinn but I can’t post using that alias as the account seems to be in a suspended limbo.
BQ
@sangallo wrote:
Brian, my apologies if I misunderstood your meaning.
Hi Sang, I’m sorry to be pedantic here but there was nothing to misunderstand. I simply did not say that. You read all these things in my post which were simply just not there. (There’s no need to apologise).
@sangallo wrote:
My concern about the expression “special ministry” is this: nowadays the term is applied very easily not only to priests, deacons and the instituted ministries of acolye and lector, but also to musicians, flower-arrangers, ushers and so on. Like the question of applying “People of God” to the Church, one can certainly apply “special ministry” to priests, but one has to complete it in order to account for what is specific to the priesthood.
Your concerns about ‘special ministry’ are probably very real but they are not what I was talking about. If you want to talk about them I am more than happy to do so but I think we are wandering into pure theology which is not relevant to this forum? As regards the ‘People of God’, it is a common and well understood liturgical and theological term which is much wider than I suspect you define. Forgive me for straying into theology for a moment but the People of God is not restricted to the ‘congregation’ as a gathering of human beings. People of God encompasses all aspects of ‘being’ and includes the priest and laiety – and has no meaning without Christ as the ‘head’. It also includes all that we are called to be and do as followers of Christ. It means we are a dynamic people relating to each other as well as our creator. It also means we can’t just relate to our creator, we must also relate to each other.
@sangallo wrote:
On the question of the Church, I would agree with the idea that the church building should reflect our understanding of the Church as Vatican II presents it, especially in Lumen Gentium. In addition to what I said earlier, it could be added that the Church is on a pilgrim journey and that it embraces the community of the saints in heaven. Traditionally, the sanctuary is seen as heaven, the place where God dwells, and by setting it apart as a place of special beauty, something of the notion of heaven is communicated. Similarly statues of the Virgin Mary, the angels and saints, give some idea of the communion of saints in heaven with whom we are in constant contact (they intercede for and protect us).
yes, yes and thrice I say yes, but don’t forget the primary notion is of a people called to worship, called to be united in the Eucharist, the sacrament of unity. The idea of the sanctuary as heaven is subserviant to the idea of unity, yes a hierarchical community but first and foremost a united community, united with their maker and united with each other.
@sangallo wrote:
All of this no doubt represents a particular challenge to the church architect who wants to make of the church building an image or icon of the overall understanding of the Church.
What do you think?Indeed it does. A response I have made to the challenge is St. Colmcille’c Church in Holywood just outside Belfast which is a circular church that I designed for the parish there. One aspect of it was that in the circular arrangement, the altar was of course in the centro of the circle. The congregation is arranged around three quarters of the circle – from 2 o’clock round to 10 o’clock if you like. The remainder of the circle is completed by a platform containing the ambo and chair for the priest. This platform also has a work of art depicting the communion of saints the idea being that the communion of saints completes the circle and the worshipping congregation etc. The church is featured here: http://www.rooney-mcconville.com
BQ
Hi prax,
Praxiteles wrote:Am I to suppose that Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville of Belfast is the same Brian Quinn who is a member of the Art and Architecture Committee of the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference]I am as regards R&McC and the Art & Architecture advisory committee – which has fr Paddy Jones as its secretary and also has Eamon Heddermann as a member. The Art & architecture committee prepared the text of ‘The Place of Worship’ – though before I was a member.
I’m puzzled about your last comment regarding posting under a different alias. I am registered under ‘brian quinn’ as well as my current alias ‘brianq’. The reason for having two is I registered under ‘brian quinn’ a long time ago and when I returned to these fora nearly a year had elapsed and I couldn’t remember my login details so I had to create a new alias. I haven’t contributed to this discussion before though under any alias? Maybe you could clarify what you mean? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility and I’ve forgotten – I can harldy remember what I did yesterday.
BQ
Hi sang
I understand and agree with all of what you said – except I never said that the priest was delegated by the community to exercise a special function.
BQ
@sangallo wrote:
Regarding the development of the idea of People of God, Is Brian referring to the official teaching of the Church or the opinions of individual theologians?
It should be pointed out that the category of People of God taken on its own is insufficient to describe the reality of the Church. The People of God is not an amorphous mass but a community which is hierarchically organised: see chapters II, III and IV of the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Not only the aspect of the Christian community called by God to worship but also the hierarchical reality of the Church must be reflected in the architecture of a church building, if the church building is to be an image of the reality of the Church itself.
Also it is insufficient to describe the priest simply in terms of “special ministry” – the Catholic understanding goes deeper. The priest is not simply delegated by the community to exercise a special function within it, but receives his power to act “in persona Christi” from Christ himself through the sacrament of holy orders, which involves a change at the deeper level of his being. Only on the basis of what the priest is can we understand what he does.
