Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Upcoming Fota Conference:
Benedict XVI on Beauty: Issues in the Tradition of Christian Aesthetics
St. Colman’s Society for Catholic Liturgy have announced their upcoming conference topics and speakers for 2009, to take place again at the Sheraton Hotel on Fota Island, Cork, Ireland.
The topic of the conference sounds particularly intriguing and certainly hits upon an area of significant relevance and interest: “Benedict XVI on Beauty: Issues in the Tradition of Christian Aesthetics”.
The Conference will be opened by His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney who will also deliver the principal address.
The conference will take place from July 12-13, 2009 and will be chaired by Professor D. Vincent Twomey, SVD.
Speakers and topics will include:
Ethan Anthony
The Third Revival: New Gothic and Romanesque Catholic Architecture in North AmericaDr. Helen Ratner Dietz, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
The Nuptial Meaning of Classic Church ArchitectureFr. Daniel Gallagher
The Liturgical Consequences of Thomistic AestheticsFr. Uwe Michael Lang
Louis Bouyer and Church ArchitectureDr. Joseph Murphy
The Fairest and the Formless: The Face of Christ as Criterion for Christian Beauty
Dr. Alcuin Reid
‘Noble Simplicity’ RevisitedDr. Neil J. Roy
The Galilee Chapel: A Medieval Notion Comes of AgeDr. Janet Rutherford
Eastern iconoclasm and the defence of divine beautyProfessor Duncan G. Stroik
Image of Eternity: the Church building as anagogicalFurther information is abvailable at: colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk
Thanks Apelles for that. Did you see the paint scheme in teh Pro-Cathedral in DUblin in the sme posting?
Some shots showing the progress in the the restoration of the choirs of angels and saints in St. Aloysius’ Church, Oxford.
@johnglas wrote:
My point was that, in a cathedral, there should be some indicator that it is more than a mere (!) parish church; ‘choirs’ such as that in S.Clemente or in Spanish cathedrals are now largely redundant because the Catholic church has given up any pretence that a choir (a group of singers) has any meaningful function. Equally, has the cathedral chapter or clergy of a diocese no public function at major liturgical occasions?
When Praxiteels speaks of speak of “choirs” in the present context, it should be intended that Chapter Choirs are meant, that is a body of canons attached to a Cathedral or Collegiate church whose specific duties are to sing the daily offices. As far as Praxiteles is aware, the only Catholic cathedral in the Britsh isles where that is done (and then on Sundays and only partially) is in Westminster Cathedral. However, we should not regard this as the norm. Practically all of major Spanish Cathedrals retain their chapters and these continue to dunction as they always did. The situation is also similar in Germanya dn Austria. In France, the Napoleone despoiled the good of these chapters and they have, with a few exception, never recovered since.
As for a major function at a Cathedral, Praxiteles would point to the duty of the Cathedral Chapter to assist in choro at the principal Mass celebrated on Sundays Рas used to be the case for instance even in Notre Dame in Paris or at St Andr̩ in Bordeaux. It is not foreseen by any ritual that the diocesan clergy should absent themselves from the pastoral duties merely to act as flower pots or gapers in the Cathedral.
@johnglas wrote:
prax: the illustration of S. Clemente illustrates my point perfectly – the choir (schola) is distinct from the altar area, but the cathedra-presbyterium (sic) is as I described it. Not all the occupants of the presbytery will have been directly involved in the ceremonial,
Praxiteles is at a loss to find a liturgical source to support this view which runs completely counter to the génie of the Roman Rite. You will not find it, for example, in the rubrics for the Liturgy as found in Ordines Romani I, VII, IX-X, and XV-XVII.
As Praxiteles has already mentioned the idea of clergy “gathering” around a bishop has NO liturgical significance or function at all. The only ministers to surround a bishop are those strictly required for the execution of a given rite and no more.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Johnglas!
I believe we have to make some distinctions here:
The idea of “gathering” around a bishop at a Cathedral in some form of a scaled down Nuremberg Rally is a completely modern invention that has nothing to do with liturgy – at least as understood in the Roman Rite. Large scale concelebrations with all and sundry sacttered all over the place are very unlikely to have been intended by Sacrosanctum Concilium and, from what we understand, are likely to be “cut back” in the not too distant future.
Secondly, a fundamental principle of the Roman Rite is that no one surplus to carrying out what has to be carried out at a given ceremony should be in the sanctuary. The Roman Rite, in its peculiar génie is spartan and no nonsesne in its approach so it does not envisage clerical “flower pots” hanging around the sanctuary for any purpose.
When a bishop requires assistance at a ceremony, it takes the form of a Deacon, Sub-deacon, Assistant priest, Master of Ceremonies and the lesser clerics needed to carry out specific tasks. These are the only persons envisaged as being anywhere near the bishop when pontificating. This is true whether he is celebrating or assisting at Mass or presidingat or celebrating the offices.
You mention the choir arrangements of Cathedrals. Again, this has nothing do do with gathering around a bishop. This is the arrangement developed over the centuries for the chanting of Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. These offices continue whether the bishop is present or not. When he is present, he too is subject to the discipline of the choir – albeit he presides over it. The function of the Cathedral choir is to maintain the continuity between Altar (Mass, Missal) and the Prayer fo the Breviary, not to act as some form heavy muscle gang around the bishop.
You mention the arrangements in San Clemente. Praxiteles recalls posting a diagramm of the arrangements there a very long time ago and explaining what went on and how it works: the Pope when he went in procession to the Basilica (or any basilica) was civilally escorted by armed persons as far as the door of the Basilica where these were shed; the procession made up of minor cleric to sing the Mass etc. and by 12 torch bearers (who replaced the lictores grented to the Pope by Constantine in 312) went as far as the railed off schola where they were shed; the Pope passed through the schola where the minor clerics of the procession were shed (and from where they did there singing), accompanied by the deacon, to the sanctuary where the other clerics needed for the Mass awaited him. There is no suggestion that there was a throng “gathered” waiting for him. Indeed, likely to have been waiting for him were the clerics necessary for the rites. Also, it must be borne in mind that the schola in San Clemente -or anywhere else- is not part of the sancturay. It is an ante-sanctuary – an idea continued in some of the Cathedrals of Spain or in southern France (Auche) and, ultimately, lying behind the development of Cathedral Chapter choirs whose principal business -like their San Clemente ancestors- is to sing the offices.
You mention that the cathedra was placed in the head of the apse. This is true of the ancient basilicas. Again, in so far as anyone sat next to it, we should not presume that it was more than those immediately involved in the rites being performed. That arrangement subsequently took itsel tot he bema prepared for the clergy and to the medieval arrangement of the throne usually flanked by the Deacon and Subdeacon; or in descending hierarchy as was the practice in the Sarum use.
The posting on San Clemente is no. 111 and is to be found on page 5 of this therad. Here is the transcript:
Re. post 109
It also shares the remarkable distinction of being the only major Catholic Church in Ireland to have actually been improved by internal reordering, when thee fussy later altar was removed and replaced by a simple modern table altar, which accords harmoniously with the early Christian style of the interior.Gianlorenzo wrote:“While the import of the above is not exactly clear, the idea that the modern undersized altar in Longford Cathedral “accords harmoniously” with the early Christian style of the interior is quite remarkable for its evident obliviouness to the findings of Christian archeology and the factual testimony of those Basilicas which still conserve their original spacial lay out. The result of Cathal Daly’s reordering of Longford is a modern construct derived from contemporary theories that has been brutally superimposed on a neo classical basilical context.
Were the reordering to have been conducted with the idea of reproducing or reinterpreting the prinicples underlying the spacial outlay of an early Christian Basilica, then the outcome would have been considerably different. It would have required emptying the nave of its benches]
In this system, the nave is reserved for the entry and exit of the Roman Pontiff and his attendants at least since the year 314when he was invested with the Praetorian dignity. When he arrived at the main door, his military or civil escort was shed; he processed through the nave with clergy any other administrative attendants until he reached the gate of the Solea at which point all lay attendants were shed; the lower clergy lined up in the Solea and remained there while the Pontiff, accompanied by the Proto Deacon of the Holy Roman Church and the Deacon of the Basilica accompanied him through the gate of the Sanctuary as far as the Altar where other priests or Bishops awaited him.
The laity were confined to the side isles; the matroneum (or womens’ side); and the senatorium (men’s side).
In Rome, two extant eamples of this spacial disposition illustrate the point: Santa Sabina which is partially intact [attachment 3]; but, more importantly, San Clemente which is well preserved [attachment 4].
Remarkably, the author who believes that the present interior lay out of Longford Cathedral somehow reflects that of an early Christian Basilica quite obviously has not read Richard Krautheimer’s Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae and may not have been familiar with the same author’s Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Yale University Press). C. H. Kraeling’s The Christian Building (The Excavations at Dura Europos…Final Report, VIII, 2 (Yale University Press) and T. Matthew’s writings on the disposition of the chancel in early Christian Basilicas (Revista di Archeologia Cristiana, XXXVIII [1962], pp. 73ff. would certainly dispel any notion of even a remote connection between the early Christian Basilica and the
@johnglas wrote:
prax: the historic arrangement of the choir (i.e. the sanctuary) does suggest some sort of ‘gathering’ of clergy (not just ministers) ‘around’ the bishop; in most cathedrals, a linear arrangement has developed, but in older churches (e.g. St John Lateran) the cathedra is in the apse and the canons and other clergy are arranged on either side. In some churches (e.g. S Clemente), the railed-in enclosure is even more obvious. So, some precedent.
apelles:yes, it just looks silly. I’m aware you can never judge a building purely from photographs, especially the state of the decoration.Johnglas!
I believe we have to make some distinctions here:
The idea of “gathering” around a bishop at a Cathedral in some form of a scaled down Nuremberg Rally is a completely modern invention that has nothing to do with liturgy – at least as understood in the Roman Rite. Large scale concelebrations with all and sundry sacttered all over the place are very unlikely to have been intended by Sacrosanctum Concilium and, from what we understand, are likely to be “cut back” in the not too distant future.
Secondly, a fundamental principle of the Roman Rite is that no one surplus to carrying out what has to be carried out at a given ceremony should be in the sanctuary. The Roman Rite, in its peculiar génie is spartan and no nonsesne in its approach so it does not envisage clerical “flower pots” hanging around the sanctuary for any purpose.
When a bishop requires assistance at a ceremony, it takes the form of a Deacon, Sub-deacon, Assistant priest, Master of Ceremonies and the lesser clerics needed to carry out specific tasks. These are the only persons envisaged as being anywhere near the bishop when pontificating. This is true whether he is celebrating or assisting at Mass or presidingat or celebrating the offices.
You mention the choir arrangements of Cathedrals. Again, this has nothing do do with gathering around a bishop. This is the arrangement developed over the centuries for the chanting of Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline. These offices continue whether the bishop is present or not. When he is present, he too is subject to the discipline of the choir – albeit he presides over it. The function of the Cathedral choir is to maintain the continuity between Altar (Mass, Missal) and the Prayer fo the Breviary, not to act as some form heavy muscle gang around the bishop.
You mention the arrangements in San Clemente. Praxiteles recalls posting a diagramm of the arrangements there a very long time ago and explaining what went on and how it works: the Pope when he went in procession to the Basilica (or any basilica) was civilally escorted by armed persons as far as the door of the Basilica where these were shed; the procession made up of minor cleric to sing the Mass etc. and by 12 torch bearers (who replaced the lictores grented to the Pope by Constantine in 312) went as far as the railed off schola where they were shed; the Pope passed through the schola where the minor clerics of the procession were shed (and from where they did there singing), accompanied by the deacon, to the sanctuary where the other clerics needed for the Mass awaited him. There is no suggestion that there was a throng “gathered” waiting for him. Indeed, likely to have been waiting for him were the clerics necessary for the rites. Also, it must be borne in mind that the schola in San Clemente -or anywhere else- is not part of the sancturay. It is an ante-sanctuary – an idea continued in some of the Cathedrals of Spain or in southern France (Auche) and, ultimately, lying behind the development of Cathedral Chapter choirs whose principal business -like their San Clemente ancestors- is to sing the offices.
You mention that the cathedra was placed in the head of the apse. This is true of the ancient basilicas. Again, in so far as anyone sat next to it, we should not presume that it was more than those immediately involved in the rites being performed. That arrangement subsequently took itsel tot he bema prepared for the clergy and to the medieval arrangement of the throne usually flanked by the Deacon and Subdeacon; or in descending hierarchy as was the practice in the Sarum use.
“the diocesan clergy gathering ’round’ the bishop on special liturgical occasions”
I cannot imagine any liturgical sense in “gathering” around anyone – let alone a bishop!
Liturgy is surely a forum for worship rather than a Spielplatz for a scaled down version of the Nurember rallies.
László Dobszay
[…] was born in Szeged in 1935. He studied history and literature at the Lóránd Eötvös University in Budapest and music at the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music, with János Viski for composition, Iván Engel for piano, Zoltán Kodály for folk music and Bence Szabolcsi for music history. For a decade from 1956 he was principally occupied with pedagogical activities, writing papers, composing music and compiling materials as part of a wide-ranging reform of the Hungarian music teaching system.In 1966 he was invited by Kodály and Benjamin Rajeczky to join the Folk Music Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (which in 1974 was integrated into the newly formed Institute for Musicology). As well as undertaking field collections in North-East Hungary and Transylvania he worked on the classification of melody (from which was to emanate a new systematic catalogue of the entire corpus of Hungarian folksong, made in collaboration with Janka Szendrei) and comparative studies in the history of folksong on the one hand and that of written European melodic traditions on the other. At the same time László Dobszay was making equally fundamental contributions to liturgical chant studies, surveying sources and repertories and classifying their contents on a systematic melodic basis, with the result that when the call came to compile a new history of Hungarian music, the chapters on chant could be written with unique authority. Some of the research material compiled at this time as well as subsequently has been published in the series Corpus Antiphonalium Officii Ecclesiarum Centralis Europae (CAO-ECE). […]
In 1970 László Dobszay was appointed teacher at the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music, and in the same year he, Benjamin Rajeczky and Janka Szendrei founded the Schola Hungarica. He gained his doctorate in 1975 with a dissertation on melodies of the “lament style†in Hungarian music. In 1976 he was appointed head of the Early Music Department of the Institute for Musicology. He was a member of the Committee for the post-conciliar reform of Catholic church music in Hungary. In 1990 he became head of the Folk Music Department of the Institute, and in the same year head of the newly founded Church Music Department at the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music.
[…] The […] conferences on chant held in Hungary since 1984 […] constitute meetings of the research group “Cantus Planusâ€, working under the aegis of the International Musicological Society. Their success, indeed the fact that they take place at all, is due almost entirely to László Dobszay and his Hungarian colleagues. For many of us, they have been the occasion for some of our finest experiences at scholarly conventions. […]
László Dobszay has made outstanding contributions not only to chant studies, and not only to musicology, but also to music teaching, to music in present-day Christian worship, and to the performance of music. […] For example, as well as completing authoritative studies of the history and style of Latin chant, he has introduced chant into textbooks for school music right down to the primary level, he has adapted a very extensive corpus of chant for church worship in the vernacular, and with the Schola Hungarica has established new standards in the informed selection and performance of chant. […] Another example of the mutually beneficial interaction of complementary branches of music in László Dobszay’s work is the way in which experience gained in folk music research has been utilized in his chant studies, most recently in the forthcoming systematic edition of the complete office antiphon repertory from Hungarian sources. His musicological studies also encompass the music of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, he is an authority on Bartók’s music, and he has had responsibility for the monumental series Musicalia Danubiana.
And just further to illustrate how dated Heddermann’s approach is, Praxiteles would point to another critique of what happened to Catholic liturgy when the soviets got work on it – and that was before the demotics, the crazed, and the simply witless followed on the train- by the Hungarian liturgist Laszlo Dobszay who has maintained a relentless intellectual devastation of the post conciliar pseuds over the past number of years.
Has a planning application been made to the relevant Planning authority in this case?
Heddermann is indeed a ture ideologue when it comes to the demoticlly domesticated interiors of churches and is is probably even farther behind the times than our old frien Richard “Wrecker” Hurley. Just looking at this “solution” immediately calls to mind the nonsense proposed for Cobh Cathedral by the great Prof. O’Neill. Little or no imagination has been expended on this plan.
Two marginal glosses on iconoclasm from the Chudlov Psalter of c. 850.
Typically, the iconoclast council is connected to the “concilium impiorum” of council of the impious of Psalm 1; and the blotting out of the image of Christ associated with the giving of vinegar to Christ on the Cross.
On iconoclasm:
Council of Hieria
The iconoclast Council of Hieria was a Christian council which viewed itself as ecumenical, but was later rejected by the (still united) Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. It was summoned by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V in 754 in the palace of Hieria opposite Constantinople. The council supported the iconoclast position of the emperors of this period.
338 bishops attended. No patriarchs or representatives of the five patriarchs were present: Constantinople was vacant while Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were controlled by Saracens.
It styled itself as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, though its opponents described it as the Mock Synod of Constantiople or the Headless Council. Its rulings were overturned almost entirely by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, which supported the veneration of icons.
Legitimacy of the Council
After the later triumph of the Iconodules, this council became known as a robber council, i.e. as uncanonical. Edward J. Martin writes,[1] “On the ecumenical character of the Council there are graver doubts. Its president was Theodosius, archbishop of Ephesus, son of the Emperor Apsimar. He was supported by Sisinnius, bishop of Perga, also known as Pastillas, and by Basil of Antioch in Pisidia, styled Tricaccabus. Not a single Patriarch was present. The see of Constantinople was vacant. Whether the Pope and the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were invited or not is unknown. They were not present either in person or by deputy. The Council of Nicaea considered this was a serious flaw in the legitimacy of the Council. ‘It had not the co-operation of the Roman Pope of the period nor of his clergy, either by representative or by encyclical letter, as the law of Councils requires.’ The Life of Stephen borrows this objection from the Acts and embroiders it to suit the spirit of the age of Theodore. It had not the approval of the Pope of Rome, although there is a canon that no ecclesiastical measures may be passed without the Pope.’ The absence of the other Patriarchs is then noticed.”[2] This is a Roman argument: the Eastern Churches do not see the approval of the Pope as obligatory for ecumenical councils, and the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did not receive invitations to the subsequent second Council of Nicaea either.
From the second iconoclastic period 814-842, Leo V, again with the image of Christ removed and reference only to the cross.
From the forst iconoclsatic period 726-730, a solidus of Leo III, the Isaurian, from which the image of Christ has been removed.
Michael VIII Palaeologus (1261-1282)Hyperpyron. Magnesia mint, circa 1261. The Virgin enthroned facing, holding the nimbate head of the infant Christ; throne back decorated with saltires & pellets / Michael standing facing, being presented by St. Michael, who stands behind him, to Christ enthroned left holding scroll.
Isaac II Angelus AV Hyperpyron. The Virgin enthroned; MHP QV to left & right / ICAAKIOC DE, Isaac & Archangel Michael standing, Isaac holding cruciform scepter & being crowned by hand of God, both holding sheathed sword between them; O between their heads, X M by Michael.
