Praxiteles

And a little something from the Journal of the Institute for Sacred Architecture:

Pope Benedict XVI on Architecture
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Quotes Listed Chronologically

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1977:

“In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum—the missal of the city of Rome—was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something ‘made’, not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognise the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every ‘community’ must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life.”

“A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds—partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.”
— Excerpt from Milestones: Memoirs 1927–1977—The Regensburg Years. San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1998. Aus meinem Leben: Erinnerungen 1927–1977. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1998

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1985:

“Some years ago a poster could be seen out-side many churches of the Alpine foothills, and its message is still worth considering: it showed the mighty porch of the old minster of Frauenchiemsee with the two lion heads on the door, on guard, as it were, at the entrance to the sanctuary. In the picture the door is half-open: the lions are watchful, but they do not forbid entrance to anyone who is in harmony with the spirit of the house of God. Thus the church in the picture is both open and protected; the lion that both guards it and grants admission is that generally accepted reverence for holy things which is more valuable than bolts and bars since its protection operates from within.

Down the centuries our churches have been able to stay open, protected in this way; no one needed to worry about the precious things that were always there for all to see. Today attempts are being made, through street festivals, to make culture public, available once more to people who cannot or will not buy tickets for the theatre or concerts. Until now the most beautiful form of culture, public and available to all, was to be found in our open churches. One of the pioneers of modern art at the end of the nineteenth century wanted his pictures to hang, not in the museum, but in the railway station; he had forgotten that the Western world did not need that kind of proletarian revolution, because it had long possessed a community ‘House of Beauty’ (and at a much higher level) in the church, where art is not the privilege of the few nor an expression of the past but a living presence, a shared center of life that sustains everyone and radiates into their daily lives. Today, however, we are in danger of losing all this; it is a sign of spiritual collapse, ultimately signaling the decline from civilization into barbarism. The traveller increasingly finds himself confronted with locked doors today: the symbolic lion is no longer adequate; in its place, now, is the bolt. In recent years the robbery of works of art from our churches has become more systematic; not infrequently the thieves are people who know what they are looking for, stealing selected pieces with the help of antique collectors’ catalogues. What once was a common inheritance thus becomes a private ornament; what was sacred becomes the paraphernalia of self-aggrandizement; what was a living presence becomes the object of a dabbling with past culture.

We cannot be happy with a situation where the churches are locked in order to safeguard a common heritage. It means that we have given in to this negative trend. It means that the Church has ceased being what she once was and that we have lost that shared, sacred center of life where we are all open to each other, where God and the world of the saints are open to us. It means that the Church has capitulated to the laws of this aeon, to the principle that all things can be bought, that everything is subject to market forces, we ourselves included. On the above-mentioned poster, therefore, putting the symbol into words, we read: Help to keep our churches open as places of quiet and prayer.

In the turmoil of the Second World War, Reinhold Schneider wrote these words: ‘It is only those who pray who can stay the sword that hangs over our heads.’ This applies here in a very practical sense: only the presence of people at prayer can protect the Church from within; it alone can keep her open. For the fate of the church building symbolizes the fate of the living Church. The locked church building stands for a Church that can no longer be open from within because she can no longer confront the negative spirit of the age. To that extent it is by no means the concern of Christians only; it is a question of whether we, all of us, can succeed in living together in a genuinely human way. The truth of Cardinal Faulhaber’s dictum that the culture of the soul is the soul of culture is demonstrated here in a tangible way. Locked and plundered churches should be an alarm signal to us, sending us back to cultivate the soul before it is too late.”
— Excerpt from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Seek That Which is Above: Meditations Throughout the Year. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985. Suchen, was droben ist: Meditationen das Jahr hindurch. Freiburg in Breisgau: Verlag Herder, 1985.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 2002:

“The very selflessness of this standing before God and turning the gaze toward God was what allowed God’s light to stream down into what was happening and for it to be detected even by outsiders…For us it is sufficient to note that the Eucharist, as such, is not directly oriented toward the awakening of people’s faith in a missionary sense. It stands, rather, at the heart of faith and nourishes it; its gaze is primarily directed toward God, and it draws men into this point of view, draws them into the descent of God to us, which becomes their ascent into fellowship with God. It aims at being pleasing to God and at leading men to see this as being likewise the measure of their lives.” (pages 92–94)

“The consciousness that this is a holy place, because the Lord is coming in among us, should come over us ever anew—that consciousness by which Jacob was so shaken when he awoke from his vision, which had shown him that from the stone on which he had been sleeping, a ladder was set up on which the angels of God were passing up and down: ‘And he was afraid, and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven” ’ (Gen 28:17). Awe is a fundamental condition for celebrating the Eucharist correctly, and the very fact that God becomes so small, so humble, puts himself at our mercy, and puts himself into our hands should magnify our awe and ought not to tempt us to thoughtlessness and vainglory. If we recognize that God is there and we behave accordingly, then other people will be able to see this in us…” (p. 108)
— Excerpts from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. Weg Gemeinshaft des Glaubens: Kirche als Communio. Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag GmbH, 2002.

Pope Benedict XVI, 27 May 2006:

“…An edifice built on the rock is not the same as a building removed from the forces of nature, which are inscribed in the mystery of man. To have built on rock means being able to count on the knowledge that at difficult times there is a reliable force upon which you can trust.

My friends, allow me to ask again: What does it mean to build on the rock?

It means to build wisely. It is not without reason that Jesus compares those who hear His words and put them into practice to a wise man who has built his house on the rock. It is foolish, in fact, to build on sand when you can do so on rock and therefore have a house that is capable of withstanding every storm. It is foolish to build a house on ground that does not offer the guarantee of support during the most difficult times.”
— Excerpt from Address to Young People, 27 May 2006, Blonie Park, Krakow, Poland. http://www.zenit.org

Pope Benedict XVI, 1 June 2006:

“In every age Christians have sought to give expression to faith’s vision of the beauty and order of God’s creation, the nobility of our vocation as men and women made in His image and likeness, and the promise of a cosmos redeemed and transfigured by the grace of Christ. The artistic treasures which surround us are not simply impressive monuments of a distant past. Rather, for the hundreds of thousands of visitors who contemplate them year after year, they stand as a perennial witness to the Church’s unchanging faith in the Triune God who, in the memorable phrase of St. Augustine, is Himself ‘Beauty ever ancient, ever new.’ May your support of the Vatican Museums, bear abundant spiritual fruits in your own lives and advance the Church’s mission of bringing all people to the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ, ‘the image of the invisible God,’ in Whose Eternal Spirit all creation is reconciled, restored and renewed.”
— Pastoral visit to Our Lady Star of Evangelization Parish of Rome, Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI, 10 December 2006

Pope Benedict XVI, 10 December 2006:

“The solemn liturgy for the dedication of a church is a moment of intense and common spiritual joy for all God’s people who live in the area.

…the parish is a beacon that radiates the light of the faith and thus responds to the deepest and truest desires of the human heart, giving meaning and hope to the lives of individuals and families.

…a church—a building in which God and man desire to meet: a house that unites us, in which we are attracted to God, and being with God unites us with one another.

The church building exists so that God’s Word may be listened to, explained and understood by us; it exists so that God’s Word may be active among us as a force that creates justice and love. It exists in particular so that in it the celebration in which God wants humanity to participate may begin, not only at the end of time but already today. It exists so that the knowledge of justice and goodness may be awakened within us, and there is no other source for knowing and strengthening this knowledge of justice and goodness other than the Word of God. It exists so that we may learn to live the joy of the Lord who is our strength.

Just as in their love man and woman become ‘one flesh’, so Christ and humanity gathered in the Church become through Christ’s love ‘one spirit’ (cf. I Cor 6: 17; Eph 5: 29ff.). The candles we light on the walls of the church in the places where anointings will take place are reminiscent precisely of the Apostles: their faith is the true light that illumines the Church and at the same time, the foundation that supports the Church.

This is the deepest purpose of this sacred building’s existence: the church exists so that in it we may encounter Christ, Son of the living God. God has a Face. God has a Name. In Christ, God was made flesh and gave himself to us in the mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist.

The Church is the place of our encounter with the Son of the living God and thus becomes the place for the encounter among ourselves. This is the joy that God gives us: that he made himself one of us, that we can touch him and that he dwells among us.

Mary tells us why church buildings exist: they exist so that room may be made within us for the Word of God; so that within us and through us the Word may also be made flesh today.”
— Excerpt from Special Message to the Patrons gathered in Rome for the 500th Anniversary of the Vatican Museums, 1 June 2006

Pope Benedict XVI, 12 December 2006:

“John’s Gospel expresses thus the mystery of the Incarnation: ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’; literally, ‘he made his dwelling among us’ (John 1:14). Does not the building of a church amid the houses of a village or neighborhood of a city evoke perhaps this great gift and mystery?

The church-building is a concrete sign of the Church-community, made up of the ‘living stones,’ which are the believers, an image so loved by the apostles. St. Peter (2:4–5) and St. Paul (Ephesians 2:20–22), highlight how the ‘cornerstone’ of this spiritual temple is Christ and that, united to him and very compact, we are also called to participate in the building of this living temple.

Therefore, though it is God who takes the initiative of coming to dwell in the midst of men, and he is always the main architect of this plan, it is also true that he does not will to carry it out without our active cooperation. Therefore, to prepare for Christmas means to commit oneself to build ‘God’s dwelling with men.’ No one is excluded; every one can and must contribute so that this house of communion will be more spacious and beautiful.”
— Excerpt from midday Angelus, 12 December 2006, Vatican City. http://www.zenit.org

Pope Benedict XVI, 19 December 2006:

“The Vatican Museums provide an ‘extraordinary opportunity for evangelization,’ Benedict XVI said on the occasion of the institution’s 500th anniversary.”

“The Church has always supported and promoted the world of art, considering its language as a privileged vehicle of human and spiritual progress.”
— Excerpt from address at Vatican Museums, 19 December 2006, Vatican City. http://www.zenit.org

Pope Benedict XVI, 22 February 2007:

38. “In the course of the Synod, there was frequent insistence on the need to avoid any antithesis between the ars celebrandi the art of proper celebration, and the full, active and fruitful participation of all the faithful. The primary way to foster participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself.”

40. “The ars celebrandi should foster a sense of the sacred and the use of outward signs which help to cultivate this sense, such as, for example, the harmony of the rite, the liturgical vestments, the furnishings and the sacred space.”

41. “The profound connection between beauty and the liturgy should make us attentive to every work of art placed at the service of the celebration. (122) Certainly an important element of sacred art is church architecture, (123) which should highlight the unity of the furnishings of the sanctuary, such as the altar, the crucifix, the tabernacle, the ambo and the celebrant’s chair. Here it is important to remember that the purpose of sacred architecture is to offer the Church a fitting space for the celebration of the mysteries of faith, especially the Eucharist. (124) The very nature of a Christian church is defined by the liturgy, which is an assembly of the faithful (ecclesia) who are the living stones of the Church (cf. 1 Pet 2:5).

This same principle holds true for sacred art in general, especially painting and sculpture, where religious iconography should be directed to sacramental mystagogy. A solid knowledge of the history of sacred art can be advantageous for those responsible for commissioning artists and architects to create works of art for the liturgy. Consequently it is essential that the education of seminarians and priests include the study of art history, with special reference to sacred buildings and the corresponding liturgical norms. Everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty. Special respect and care must also be given to the vestments, the furnishings and the sacred vessels, so that by their harmonious and orderly arrangement they will foster awe for the mystery of God, manifest the unity of the faith and strengthen devotion (125).”

69. “In considering the importance of eucharisitic reservation and adoration, and reverence for the sacrament of Christ’s sacrifice, the Synod of Bishops also discussed the question of the proper placement of the tabernacle in our churches. (196) The correct positioning of the tabernacle contributes to the recognition of Christ’s real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, the place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant’s chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous. Attention to these considerations will lend dignity to the tabernacle, which must always be cared for, also from an artistic standpoint…(197)”
— Excerpt from Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis by Pope Benedict XVI, 22 February 2007

Pope Benedict XVI, 11 March 2007:

“…art is a treasure of inexhaustible and incredible catecheses. It is also our duty to know and understand it properly, not in the way that it is sometimes done by art historians, who interpret it only formally in terms of artistic technique.

Rather, we must enter into the content and make the content that inspired this great art live anew. It truly seems to me to be a duty—also in the formation of future priests—to know these treasures and be able to transform all that is present in them and that speaks to us today into a living catechesis.

I would say that the Gospel variously lived is still today an inspiring force that gives and will give us art.”
— Excerpt from Pope’s Meeting With Roman Clergy (Part 3), 11 March 2007, Vatican City. http://www.zenit.org

Pope Benedict XVI, 16 April 2007:

“I am convinced that music—and here I am thinking in particular of the great Mozart and this evening, of course, of the marvelous music by Gabrieli and the majestic ‘New World’ by Dvorák—really is the universal language of beauty which can bring together all people of good will on earth and get them to lift their gaze on high and open themselves to the Absolute Good and Beauty whose ultimate source is God himself.

In looking back over my life, I thank God for placing music beside me, as it were, as a traveling companion that has offered me comfort and joy. I also thank the people who from the very first years of my childhood brought me close to this source of inspiration and serenity.”
— Excerpt from Concert for Holy Father’s 80th Birthday, 16 April 2007, Vatican City. http://www.zenit.org

Pope Benedict XVI, 2007:

“In the Judaism of Jesus’ own time, we meet the concept of divine lordship in the context of the Temple ritual at Jerusalem and in the synagogue liturgy…The recitation of this prayer was understood as the act of taking on one’s shoulders the yoke of God’s sovereign lordship. This prayer is not just a matter of words: the one who prays it accepts God’s lordship, which consequently through the act of praying, enters into the world…We see, then, that the divine lordship, God’s dominion over the world and over history, transcends the moment, indeed transcends and reaches beyond the whole of history. Its inner dynamism carries history beyond itself. And yet it is at the same time something belonging absolutely to the present. It is present in the liturgy, in Temple and synagogue, as an anticipation of the next world; it is present as a life-shaping power through the believer’s prayer and being: by bearing God’s yoke, the believer already receives a share in the world to come.”
— Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Doubleday, 2007. (chapter 3 pages 56–7) Jesus von Nazareth. Milan: RCS Libri S.p.A., 2007.

Pope Benedict XVI, 24 July 2007:

“All the Saints also always come with God. It is important—Sacred Scripture tell us from the very outset—that God never comes by himself but comes accompanied and surrounded by the Angels and Saints. In the great stained glass window in St Peter’s which portrays the Holy Spirit, what I like so much is the fact that God is surrounded by a throng of Angels and living beings who are an expression, an emanation, so to speak, of God’s love. And with God, with Christ, with the man who is God and with God who is man, Our Lady arrives. This is very important. God, the Lord, has a Mother and in his Mother we truly recognize God’s motherly goodness. Our Lady, Mother of God, is the Help of Christians, she is our permanent comfort, our great help. I see this too in the dialogue with the Bishops of the world, of Africa and lately also of Latin America; I see that love for Our Lady is the driving force of catholicity. In Our Lady we recognize all God’s tenderness, so, fostering and living out Our Lady’s, Mary’s, joyful love is a very great gift of catholicity. Then there are the Saints. Every place has its own Saint. This is good because in this way we see the range of colours of God’s one light and of his love which comes close to us. It means discovering the Saints in their beauty, in their drawing close to me in the Word, so that in a specific Saint I may find expressed precisely for me the inexhaustible Word of God, and then all the aspects of parochial life, even the human ones. We must not always be in the clouds, in the loftiest clouds of Mystery. We must have our feet firmly planted on the ground and together live the joy of being a great family: the great little family of the parish; the great family of the diocese, the great family of the universal Church. In Rome I can see all this, I can see how people from every part of the world who do not know one another are actually acquainted because they all belong to the family of God. They are close to one another because they all possess the love of the Lord, the love of Our Lady, the love of the Saints, Apostolic Succession and the Successor of Peter and the Bishops. I would say that this joy of catholicity with its many different hues is also the joy of beauty. We have here the beauty of a beautiful organ; the beauty of a very beautiful church, the beauty that has developed in the Church. I think this is a marvellous testimony of God’s presence and of the truth of God. Truth is expressed in beauty, and we must be grateful for this beauty and seek to do our utmost to ensure that it is ever present, that it develops and continues to grow. In this way, I believe that God will be very concretely in our midst.”
— Excerpt from Question and Answer Session with Pope Benedict, 24 July 2007, Belluno-Feltre and Treviso, Italy. http://www.zenit.org

Pope Benedict XVI, 2 September 2007:

“Before ending our assembly, let us leave the ‘agora’, the square, for a moment and in spirit enter the Holy House. There is a reciprocal link between the square and the house.

The square is large, open, it is the place for meeting others, for dialogue, for confrontation.

The house, on the other hand, is the place for recollection and for inner silence, where the Word may be received in depth.

To bring God to the square, one first needs to have interiorized him in the house, like Mary at the Annunciation.

And vice versa, the house is open to the square. This is also suggested by the fact that the Holy House of Loreto has three walls, not four: it is an open House, open to the world, to life, even to this Agora of Italian youth.”

“Therefore, the parish, the living cell of the Church, must also really be a place of inspiration, life and solidarity which helps people build together centres in the periphery. And I must say here, there is often talk about the Church in the suburbs and in the centre, which would be Rome, but in fact in the Church there are no suburbs because where Christ is, the whole centre is there.

Wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, wherever the Tabernacle stands, there is Christ; hence, there is the centre and we must do all we can to ensure that these living centres are effective, present and truly a force that counters this marginalization.

The living Church, the Church of the little communities, the parish Church, the movements, must form as many centres in the outskirts and thus help to overcome the difficulties that the leading politics obviously cannot manage to resolve, and at the same time, we must also think that despite the great focuses of power, contemporary society itself is in need of solidarity, of a sense of lawfulness, of the initiative and creativity of all.

I know that this is easier said than done, but I see here people who are working to increase the number of centres in the peripheries, to increase hope, and thus it seems to me that we should take up the initiative. The Church must be present precisely in the suburbs; Christ must be present, the centre of the world must be present.

We have seen and we see today in the Gospel that for God there are no peripheries. In the vast context of the Roman Empire, the Holy Land was situated on the fringe; Nazareth was on the margins, an unknown town. Yet that very situation was, de facto, to become the centre that changed the world!”
— Excerpt from Pastoral Visit of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Loreto, 2 September 2007, Plain of Montoroso

Pope Benedict XVI, 9 September 2007:

“…Your primary service to this world must therefore be your prayer and the celebration of the divine Office. The interior disposition of each priest, and of each consecrated person, must be that of ‘putting nothing before the divine Office’. The beauty of this inner attitude will find expression in the beauty of the liturgy, so that wherever we join in singing, praising, exalting and worshipping God, a little bit of heaven will become present on earth. Truly it would not be presumptuous to say that, in a liturgy completely centred on God, we can see, in its rituals and chant, an image of eternity. Otherwise, how could our forefathers, hundreds of years ago, have built a sacred edifice as solemn as this? Here the architecture itself draws all our senses upwards, towards ‘what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined: what God has prepared for those who love him’ (1 Cor 2:9). In all our efforts on behalf of the liturgy, the determining factor must always be our looking to God. We stand before God’he speaks to us and we speak to him. Whenever in our thinking we are only concerned about making the liturgy attractive, interesting and beautiful, the battle is already lost. Either it is Opus Dei, with God as its specific subject, or it is not. In the light of this, I ask you to celebrate the sacred liturgy with your gaze fixed on God within the communion of saints, the living Church of every time and place, so that it will truly be an expression of the sublime beauty of the God who has called men and women to be his friends!…”

— Excerpt from Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI, 9 September 2007, Heiligenkreuz Abbey, Austria

Ad on Rood Screens:

Rood Screen at St Birinus
by Br Lawrence Lew, O.P.

As the prolific architectural historian and church-crawler G. H. Cook wrote, “In every church the chancel was separated from the nave by a rood screen, so named from the Rood, the figure of Christ crucified that was placed high above the screen.” As the principal image of the Crucified One in the church, Symondson & Bucknall note that it formed the “visual centrepiece of every medieval parish church”.

Eamon Duffy explains that the medieval English church used veils and screens to mark “boundaries between the people’s part of the church and the holy of holies”. The delineation of hierarchical space, an expression of “the separation of things celestial from things terrestrial”, to quote Durandus, is ancient, and of course, it is utilised in the Temple of Solomon.

This has been carried over into our Christian churches, but rather than to serve as a wall or a barrier, the Rood screen expresses the reconciliation of heaven and earth through the Cross, for it is by his Cross that Christ has “entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12). So, the priest, acting in persona Christi, enters the Holy Place, the sanctuary, to offer the blood of Christ, shed once and for all on Calvary.

The Rood screen is thus a sacramental, i.e. a visual reminder of what happens in the Holy Mass; it points to the mystery of the Cross and Christ’s saving death on Calvary through which we have access to God. As the author of the epistle to the Hebrews puts it, “Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (9:24). That, of course, is what happens during the Sacred Liturgy. Therefore, Sacrosanctum Concilium teaches that “in the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle” (para. 8).

With this in mind, Duffy writes concerning the Rood screen that “the screen itself was both a barrier and no barrier. It was not a wall but rather a set of windows, a frame for the liturgical drama, solid only to waist-height, pierced by a door wide enough for ministers and choir to pass through and which the laity themselves might penetrate on certain occasions… This penetration was a two-way process: if the laity sometimes passed through the screen to the mystery, the mystery sometimes moved out to meet them.” So it is, that God became man and died for our salvation so that man might have communion with God and share in his divine life.

This beautiful theology of the Cross and the Mass is well-expressed by the Rood screen, and it is a pleasure to see its revival in a small Catholic church in Oxfordshire. It is most unusual to have churches install Rood screens these days but the parish priest and people of St Birinus, Dorchester-on-Thames (near Oxford) have embarked on this labour of love and it is now, after several years, virtually complete.

Incidentally, this parish now celebrates both forms of the Roman rite, and times are available online.

References:
Cook, The English Mediaeval Parish Church (London: Phoenix House, 1955 – 2nd ed.)
Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2005 – 2nd ed.)
Symondson & Bucknall, Sir Ninian Comper (Reading: Spire Books, 2006)

And sme ore interesting material from the same webpage:

Hoyos Preface to New Edition of Ceremonies of Roman Rite: Juridical Rights of Catholic Faithful to Usus Antiquior must be Respected; Train Seminarians
by Shawn Tribe

The following is a press release just in, pertaining to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos comments upon the forthcoming release of a new edition of The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described edited by Dr. Alcuin Reid.

In addition, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has included a preface to this new edition, which is also found below.

NLM comments follow.

LONDON: 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008

VATICAN CARDINAL COMMENDS NEW BOOK ON OLDER RITES

Parish priests and bishops “must accept” the requests of Catholics who ask for the older (Latin) form of the Mass, a senior Vatican official has said. This is “the express will” of the Pope, “legally established,” which “must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries [bishops] alike,” he insisted. Hoyos continued, stating that “all seminaries” should provide training in the old form of the Mass “as a matter of course.”

Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos ―the man charged with implementing Pope Benedict’s liberalisation of the Latin Mass and other rites as celebrated before the Second Vatican Council―made these remarks in a preface to the forthcoming edition of The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, the standard English manual on how to celebrate the older rites, released yesterday.

Hoyos commended the book―the fifteenth edition since it was first published by the English priest Dr Adrian Fortescue in 1917―edited by the London based “distinguished liturgical scholar” Dr Alcuin Reid as “a reliable tool for the preparation and celebration of the liturgical rites” that Pope Benedict has authoritatively decreed may now freely be used. The volume is due for publication by Continuum/Burns & Oates by the end of 2008.

Alcuin Reid, speaking from London, said: “The honour that the Cardinal has accorded this book underlines the importance of the older forms of the Mass and sacraments in Pope Benedict’s overall renewal of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church.” He continued, “We’re at a critical moment in the history of the liturgy, and taking away restrictions on the celebration of the older rites enables them to contribute to, and even re-inform the quality of, Catholic worship worldwide.”

Continuum’s London Publishing Director, Robin Baird-Smith, added: “We’re delighted that this title has returned to the Burns and Oates imprint, and to be publishing such an important volume at this time.”

Title: Adrian Fortescue, J.B. O’Connell & Alcuin Reid, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described

UK & Europe: Book Link

USA: Book Link
From the new edition of the Ceremonies, here is Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ preface:

It is a pleasure for me to present this fifteenth edition of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, the first edition to appear since the Motu Proprio of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, dated 7th July 2007, definitively clarified that the rites according to the liturgical books in use in 1962 were never abrogated and that they truly constitute a treasure that belongs to the entire Catholic Church and should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful. It is now clear that Catholics have a juridical right to the more ancient liturgical rites, and that parish priests and bishops must accept the petitions and the requests of the faithful who ask for it. This is the express will of the Supreme Pontiff, legally established in Summorum Pontificum in a manner that must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries alike. [NLM Emphasis]

The Holy Father is pleased at the generous response of many priests to his initiative in learning once again the rites and ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the other sacraments according to the usus antiquior so that they may serve those people who desire them. I encourage priests to do so in a spirit of pastoral generosity and love for the liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite. Seminarians, as part of their formation in the liturgy of the Church, should also become familiar with this usage of the Roman Rite not only in order to serve the People of God who request this form of Catholic worship but also in order to have a deeper appreciation of the background of the liturgical books presently in force. Hence it follows that all seminaries should provide such training as a matter of course. [NLM Emphasis]

This book, a classic guide to the celebration of the Church’s ancient Gregorian Rite in the English-speaking world, will serve priests and seminarians of the twenty-first century – just as it served so many priests of the twentieth – in their pastoral mission, which now necessarily includes familiarity with and openness to the use of the older form of the sacred liturgy. I happily commend it to the clergy, seminarians and laity as a reliable tool for the preparation and celebration of the liturgical rites authoritatively granted by the Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum.

I congratulate the distinguished liturgical scholar, Dr. Alcuin Reid, for his care and precision in ensuring that this revised edition conforms to the latest authoritative decisions with regard to these liturgical rites. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” The Gregorian Rite is today a living liturgical rite which will continue its progress without losing any of its riches handed on in tradition. For as the Holy Father continued, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” May this book assist the Church of today and of tomorrow in realising Pope Benedict’s vision.

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President
Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
25 September 2008

There are a couple of interesting angles worth highlighting here.

The Legal/Juridical Angle, or the Angle of Obligation

One is the juridical angle. The Cardinal is making clear that, juridically, Catholics have a right to this particular expression of their liturgical inheritance and that pastors, ordinaries and superiors need to heed those rights as a form of obligation. This comes out in expressions as follows:

“…definitively clarified that the rites according to the liturgical books in use in 1962 were never abrogated.”

“Catholics have a juridical right to the more ancient liturgical rites…”

“…legally established in Summorum Pontificum in a manner that must be respected by ecclesiastical superiors and local ordinaries alike.”

“…should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful”

This really intends to set out the legal rights and obligations that surround this matter — though I think it must also be noted that this doesn’t negate the need for the faithful to also be reasonable and sensible in their approach to these questions.

However, there is another important angle that the Cardinal is highlighting and this angle moves us beyond what we must merely do out of obligation, or because of “rights” and “duties”, and into a deeper scope.

The Conversion of our Liturgical Heart and Mind Angle

This other angle is not about rights, duties or obligations, but really relates to a much deeper, more constructive and positive approach to the usus antiquior: namely, an appeal for the genuine pastoral care for the faithful on the one hand, and, even more importantly, an appeal for the cultivation of an inherent appreciation and valuing of our liturgical inheritance and tradition.

“The Holy Father is pleased at the generous response of many priests … in learning once again the rites and ceremonies…”

“I encourage priests to do so in a spirit of pastoral generosity and love for the liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite.”

“Seminarians, as part of their formation in the liturgy of the Church, should also become familiar with this usage of the Roman Rite not only in order to serve the People of God who request this form of Catholic worship but also in order to have a deeper appreciation of the background of the liturgical books presently in force.”

In these cases then, we are speaking about a deeper response to the ancient Roman liturgy which goes beyond the surface response to law, and is inherently a type of conversion of heart and mind.

This, of course, would have a positive effect not only as regards the usus antiquior but also as regards our approach to the modern Roman liturgy and the reform of the reform.

Some interesting material from the webpage of the New Liturgical Movement:

Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Hermeneutic of Liturgical Continuity at Work
by Gregor Kollmorgen

One of the key elements of Pope Benedict’s pontificate is the hermeneutic of continuity, which he introduced in his famous allocution to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005. With this approach, the Holy Father intends to counter the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” which has been widespread in the years after the Council with such desastrous consequences. Summorum Pontificum, beside its other pruposes, is an important application of this hermeneutic of continuity in the crucial area of the liturgy. Not only does it affirm that “in the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.” (Accompanying Letter) and give practical meaning to it. It also envisages that “the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching”.

One possible immediate application of this aim of Summorum Pontificum, which has been proposed here on the NLM before – not without contestation -, is that the rubrics and general principles of the Older Form of the Roman Rite could instruct the Newer Form where the latter’s rubric are either silent or ambiguous. In this context, it is encouraging to see what Fr Edward McNamara LC, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university, answers in the latest column of his widely read liturgical Q&A series for Zenit to a question whether it is licit to raise the Host with only one hand at the elevation. Here is the interesting part:

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal does not give a detailed description of this rite. Nor do the liturgical norms and rubrics surrounding the consecration in the missal explicitly determine that the priest takes the host in both hands.

(…)

If we were to limit ourselves to a minimalist interpretation of the rubrics, we would have to say that there is no strict legal requirement to hold the host in both hands.

However, the liturgical norms of the ordinary rite, even though they no longer describe each gesture in detail, tend to presume continuity in long-standing practice. Thus there is every reason to assume that when saying simply that the priest “takes the bread,” the legislator presumes that he will do so with both hands as is obligatory in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

This is very heartening indeed. It also would suggest that the interpretative principle of the hermeneutic of continuity, one of the fundamental concepts of Pope Benedict’s Magisterium, has made obsolete the (rather erratic) (in)famous responsum of the Congregation of Divine Worship of 1978, which said that “when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed”, as representing the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”.

@tomahawk wrote:

I dont know are you purposely spelling my name incorrectly you have gone from tomahak to tonahak, but that is a different matter. To be fair and honest about it the parish contributions have not collapsed as you allege but in line with every parish and diocese in the country mass attendances have decreased this in fact is more a social and lifestyle issuue than any form of protest. I would agree with you there is anecdotal evidence that some members of the congregation not only will not contribute but will also refuse to pass the basket, there are hundreds in the same congregation who do contribute generously, in fact there is a member of the FOSCC who assists with the collection at 8am mass on Sundays. The sum collected each week is published in the parish newsletter.

Praxiteles is glad that some of the matters raised can be corroborated by Tolohak, especiall that FOSCC is not all bad if they collect. But, the main question remains. Subscriptions as a vote?

Cork County Council spokesman on the Ballincollig Conference:

“The objective of this conference is to analyse the issues arising in attempting to balance changing liturgical requirements and the fulfilment of statutory obligations to conserve the integrity of places of worship,” the spokesman said.

Now,I just wonder how that particular piece works out in terms of the removal (without planning permission or a dclaration of exemption) of the gates from the Altar Rail in the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Kanturk during the encumbancy of the Alwahabi, who is now going to co-chair a meeting on inherent sensitivites in issues involving liturgical requirements in places of public worship.?

@tomahawk wrote:

Not wanting to nitpick Prax. but Cllr. John Mulvihill is not Chairman of Cobh Urban District Counci there no longer is any such body but Cobh Town Council, he is Mayor of Cobh and as such one of his functions is to chair council meetings. The Cathedral in Cobh is not Cobh Cathedral but St. Colmans Cathedral. I have asked you twice already and I think you are purposely being evasive coupled with this and having read your posts over the last number of years if I didnt know better I would say you were a priest of the Diocese of Cloyne working outside the diocese.

I take it the provisions of Section 31 (2) (c) of the Local Government Act (2001) apply to the Great Island where, I think, tthe term “Cathaoirleach” (Chairman or Chairperson if you like) was established to denominate the person to preside at the unit of local government established under Sevtion 11(4)(b)(ii) of the same Act.

I take it you that the people in Cobh decided that the title might not have been patriotic or fancy enough and made a resolution under Shedule 8, no. 1, b to adopt the more patriotic title of “Mayor” (abandoing the preferred choice of the Local Government Act Section 31) and now go around styling themselves as Mayor of Cobh Town (not “Mayor of Cobh”, as you suggest) as per Local Government Act (2001) Shedule 8, no. 2 (b).

However, Praxiteles wonders would a FOSCC dominated olim Urban District Counciul in Cobh make a resolution under the Local Government Act (2001Shedule 8, n. 3 and revert to the preferred Section 31 denomination of “Cathairleach” or Chairman?

There is a bit of logical lepping along the line there I’d say!

@tomahawk wrote:

I think you hide your light under a bushell and are much more politically astute than you admit to
The friends putting forward candidates would give a true measure of the support they really have. I know I have asked you previously but were you actually present at the oral hearing in Midleton or did you read the transcripts of what Fr. Jones had to say.

How could Praxiteles have missed such an important event as the Midleton Oral Hearing! While it was a pleasure to read Fr. Jones’ text -which was disributed on the day- it was an even greater pleasure to hear him stutter his way through Mr. Murphy’s cross-examination. He was so helpful!

@tomahawk wrote:

Prax is it necessary to engage in infantile name calling of those you disagree with. i am curious as to why you published Cllr. Harringtons photograph, was it to intimadate him with the local elections coming up in June 2009 and infer that his electorate would turn against him if he is seen to be in “cahoots” with the Diocese.Theres a good idea ,why dont the friends put up a number of candidates in that election and see what support they really have, although they have support on one or two local authotities already.

It is a well known fact that there is not a political bone in Praxiteles’ body – indeed, poor old Praxiteles knows nothing of political ways which is probably a very good thing.

Praxiteles had not realized that there were local elections coming up so soon and, mulling over it, your suggestion to politicise the FOSCC is indeed a very, very, very interesting suggestion. I wonder how the political balance of the various planning authorities in Cork would shift were the FOSCC to run credible candidates in the next elections – or even campaign against certain sitting members who are prepared to accomodate the wrecking of Cobh Cathedral. For instance, what would happen were the FOSCC to direct some political attention to a certain sitting counsellor who in an unprecedented move expelled two of its members from a public meeting of Cobh Urban District Council? Well, this opens up endless prospects. Thanks so vey much for such a wonderful positive and constructive suggestion. Hopefully, the FOSCC are reading and will give the suggestion all due consideration.

Consellor Harrington’s photo was included by Praxiteles here merely to put a face to a name. Nothing else.

@tomahawk wrote:

I seem to remember a similliar comment from one of the friends -I LOVE MY BISHOP and then he proceeded to castigate him

It might not be a good idea to pursue this line given the whole problem about a solemn promise that remains unfulfilled – and a commentary in D. O’Callaghan’s book Putting Hand to Plough
(p.166): “Imagine the consequences of holding the requested (recte solemnly promised) public meeting to sort everything out. The bishop would have been happy enough to report bak to the community on how matters were progressing but what a shambles a public meeting would turn out to be in the atmosphere then prevailing”.

Is this an attempt to justify possible deception? And, “in the atmosphere then prevailing”, why bother to make a solemn promise at all?

However, we might not want to explore that too much.