Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I merely supplied you with the original texts for your contemplation. Nothing more nothing less. It is, I suppose, important that you hear the Gospel preached in the original rather than in a filtered version.
@Sirius wrote:
Let us pray that Bishop Adrian of Cobh and the Elders of FOSCC will reflect on todays Gospel (Mark 7):
‘It was of you hypocrites that Isaiah so rightly prophesied in this passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless, the doctrines they teach are only human (planning) regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human(architectural) traditions.’
I think Sirius taht you are labouring with a somewhat quirky English translation of the Church’s official text of the Bible – the Nova Vulgata. The following is the text in the official Latin
6 At ille respondens, dixit eis : Bene prophetavit Isaias de vobis hypocritis, sicut scriptum est :
Populus hic labiis me honorat,
cor autem eorum longe est a me :
7 in vanum autem me colunt,
docentes doctrinas, et præcepta hominum.
8 Relinquentes enim mandatum Dei, tenetis traditionem hominum,In asserting what he asserted, Sirius gives us a beautiful example of a Lutheran approach to the Sacred text. Reflecting on that, Praxiteles is remineded of St. Augustine’s famous line on a simimilar topic which we can paraphrase as ; “I could not care twopence about your interpreattions of the Bible, the only thing that interests me is what the Church says”.
@Sirius wrote:
Let us pray that Bishop Adrian of Cobh and the Elders of FOSCC will reflect on todays Gospel (Mark 7):
‘It was of you hypocrites that Isaiah so rightly prophesied in this passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless, the doctrines they teach are only human (planning) regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human(architectural) traditions.’
And hear ye the comfortable words as written in the Gospel of St. Luke:
4 1 Jesus autem plenus Spiritu Sancto regressus est a Jordane : et agebatur a Spiritu in desertum 2 diebus quadraginta, et tentabatur a diabolo. Et nihil manducavit in diebus illis : et consummatis illis esuriit. 3 Dixit autem illi diabolus : Si Filius Dei es, dic lapidi huic ut panis fiat. 4 Et respondit ad illum Jesus : Scriptum est : Quia non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei. 5 Et duxit illum diabolus in montem excelsum, et ostendit illi omnia regna orbis terræ in momento temporis, 6 et ait illi : Tibi dabo potestatem hanc universam, et gloriam illorum : quia mihi tradita sunt, et cui volo do illa. 7 Tu ergo si adoraveris coram me, erunt tua omnia. 8 Et respondens Jesus, dixit illi : Scriptum est : Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. 9 Et duxit illum in Jerusalem, et statuit eum super pinnam templi, et dixit illi : Si Filius Dei es, mitte te hinc deorsum. 10 Scriptum est enim quod angelis suis mandavit de te, ut conservent te : 11 et quia in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem tuum. 12 Et respondens Jesus, ait illi : Dictum est : Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum. 13 Et consummata omni tentatione, diabolus recessit ab illo, usque ad tempus.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Is that the waiting room for the main church?
I do not think so. There are not any coat hangers to be seen. But, perhaps Brian will talk us through this little one!!
To my mind, Luzarches has hit the nail on the head (cf. Eamonn Duffy’s book The Stripping of the Altars and the Edwardine Ordinals of November 1547).
Back to the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis !
If we accept that the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis is the source for normative presecription on the subject of arranging liturgical space, as they call it, and specifically for the disposition of the sacntuary, then how do we explain this?:
@brianq wrote:
Hi all
back to ‘the Place of Worship’. It has been stated previously in this forum that Fr Paddy Jones is its author. This is not the case. Fr Jones was not the author. It was drafted by an advisory committee of which Fr Jones was not a member.
BQ
ps Gian, I have read your last post and agree with Prax it raises good points for discussion which I’ll certainly do when I get time.
Brian!
I have the very document (third edition 1994) here to hand. The names of the Committee are to be found on page 4. Joe Duffy, the artistcally inclined bishop of Clogher is forst on the list. Number 5 on the list is: Revd Patrick Jones (and no academic qualification is indicated). There can be little doubt that is our one and only LYTUPGOS, Paddy Jones. Just in case you do not believe me I will scan the page and post it.
Just done it. Here is the evidence:
Originally Posted by Praxiteles
But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax, no.
BQ
Ah, yes. Now I understand.
It was the Catholic Theological Union LIturgy faculty that Cardinal George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, was not happy with and when it refused to reform itself and bring it self into the mainstrem (i.e. abandon the whachy), he set up his own Liturgy Faculty at the University of St. Mary in Mundelein in direct opposition to it. Nothing like determined action and it looks as though Francis George is about to put order on the house in Chicago. Sooner or later, the Catholic Theological Union liturgy faculty will come to heel
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
that is indeed a valid interpretation – though it would be pushing it to make the leap to saying that it is liturgical law that the altar must be ascended to – which I think you are inferring? liturgical law clearly permits other solutions (though I make use of the option of elevating the altar in most of my designs).
BQ
Brian!
Praxiteles is not interpreting anything. Praxiteles is quoting article 178 of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum which says that he “ascends” to the Altar. Clearly, the text is explicit and that is law. The altar MUST be ascended to. How, might I ask, can that be done without steps?
If liturgical law permits other solutions, could you cite a few numbers of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum?
@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
you can wriggle and you can squirm. You can quote all of the supereceded law you like but you’re just going to have to take it on the chin. Which bit of ‘The present volume …… takes the place of the previous ceremonial which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’ do you not get?
BQ
Sorry Brian!
But, you will just have to do a course in the Sacred Canons and learn how they work.
@brianq wrote:
Prax, On this specific point your beloved Canon law is not germain. This is a liturgical law item – see Can#2
BQ
This statement is problematic. If liturgical law is not part of Canon Law, what is it? Surely you are not contending that it is civil law or that it has its source of authority is other than an ecclesiastical one?
Indeed, Canon Law should be beloved. It is all that stands between us and ecclesial chaos and liturgical Wildwuchs. As in civil society, a Rechtsgesellschaft is all that separates us from the jungle.
@Luzarches wrote:
Hello Brian,
I’m interested in how much imput you yourself had in the design of the altar itself (It seems de riguer to farm out the most exciting part of the reordering to an artist.That was the plan for Cobh anyway…). How were the dimensions and shape determined? I’m sorry I haven’t yet caught up with you on my rather elliptical broadside against some, but not all, of the work on your website. I have to say that, in spite of primitive examples of square and even partially circular altar mensae I just cannot be doing with a square altar and especially in a Gothic church. In a large neo-Gothic church the altar should be a third of the total width of the main vessel, both for aesthetic reasons and so that the people, not all of them sitting in the extra special active participation zone near the sanctuary, can clearly see it. (IMHO)
Even if it is not intended, having four equal sides implies a fear of hierarchy and a dogmatic preference for equality over a nuanced expression of liturgical difference. Perhaps an equality of function between the ordained clergy and the laity? Even the primitive and Romanesque altars that were of this shape had one privileged side that was indicated perhaps with a higher level of richness or some other iconographical indicator.
The smallness of the altar, an alter Christus, becomes, I would imagine, even more noticable when a mass is being concelebrated. The altar, the objective ‘trunk’ is partially hidden in a thicket of branches of the vested clergy. Surely such a spectacle is more clericalist than of old. Then all approached the literally high altar with trepidation, a certain right-minded fear of the Lord?
I think Luzarches has raised several interesting points in this posting.
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
You contend that it is current liturgical law that the altar in a cathedral should be raised on steps and should be higher than the cathedra which should also be raised on steps. This is not the case. It is not the case because that was a law contained in the previous version of the Ceremonial of Bishops. The current CB states in section 2 of the preface: ‘The present volume ………takes the place of the previous ceremonial, which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’. I take that to mean that if it is not found in the current CB then it is not liturgical law. (The CB I am quoting from is published by The Liturgical Press and dated 1989).
BQ
1. Praxiteles contends nothing. Praxiteles merely states.
2. Praxiteles has consulted the major authority on the Caeremoinale Episcoporum the good Braziliam Ioachim Nabuco and his authoritative work Ius Pontificalium: Introductio in Caeremoniale Episcoporum. I am using the edition published by Desclé]the previous version[/I] of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. This is problematic because there were more than one version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The follwoing is the main line of versions and does not include local parallel lines:
The Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by decree of Pope Clement VIII on 14 July 1600.
A revised version was published by Pope Innocent X by decree of 30 July 1650.
A further revision was made by Pope Benedict XIII by decree of 17 July 1727.
Another revision was by Benedict XIV and published by decree of 25 March 1752.
A revised typical edition was published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and published by Marietti of Turin.4. Praxiteles has taken wise counsel from an acknowledged expert in this field and is advised that “because a new edition do not repeat all of the rubrics of a previous edition it cannot be automatically presumed that the contrary is the case”. That is substantially what has been argued up to now.
5. Nabuco, following the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ennuntiates that the throne is made of wood or sometimes of marble or another material. The principle to be followed for its adornment is: “color vestium throni sequitur colorem festivi vel temporis” (the colours of the adornments of the throne follow those of the [liturgical] feast or that of [ordinary] time) when used in a liturgical context.
That means, that when a bishop presides at the throne, the colours of the throne will be: green in ordinary time, white on Solemnities, red on the feasts of martyrs, purple for Lent etc.
When a Cardinal presides at the throne during a liturgical ceremony, the throne will be vested in his prelatial colours.
WIth the exception of Cardinal, basically the colours of the throne follow those of the Altar as a general rule.
Outside of the liturgical celebrations, the throne of a bishop or archbishop is to be covered in green – which is what I have adverted to about Armagh in its resent state (afterall, nobody has seen the present Archbishop going around in scarlet).
6. Again, the problem with the quotation above derives from an inadequate understanding of canonical jurisprudence and an application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity when one of continuity should have been applied.
Hear we are Brian, bright and early and ready for another day!
Concerning posting 1173:
I attached a scan of O’Connell’s book which contains the two references to the Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. For convenience I will give them again: SCR 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). This was in the context of indicating that a throne was not to placed on a plane higher than a main Altar.
However, our good friend O’COnnell also has a chapter in his book entitled: The Altar Steps. Here he makes it quite specific that an altar had to be raised on at leastthree steps to comply with the rubris of the Mass – especially when celebrated in solemn form with the assistance of a Deacon and Subdeacon. He points out that the number has varied over time; three is common; and five not unusually found in Cathedrals so as to ensure that the Altar is higher than the Cathedra.He gives a furtehr reference: the Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation of Rites 1265 (4) which seems to discourage anything more than five steps – though in Hungry the practice of having an extremely hight elevation for the Altar was characteristic feature of the country.
Concerning the rubric of the Mass, Praxiteles would point out that the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum maintains the usage of “ascending” to the Altar (cf. n. 178) thereby presuppoing that steps do in fact exist tobe ascended.
@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
Regarding the steps (I want to post a comment regarding colour in a later post) see the attachment you posted in #1173 (page 91 from McConnell’s book). The exact reference is in a footnote. Presumably he refers to the Ceremonial current when McConnell’s book was published in 1955.
Yes.
BQ
Brian!
The book we are talking about was published by J.B. O’Connell and not McConnell.
Yes, the reference is in a footnote and the reference is to two decisions given by the Congregation for Rites and published in the Collectanea S.C. Rituum. As I have not the book to hand at the moment I cannot supply the respective entry numbers – but I shall do so in the morning.
Secondly, you may also be interested to consult Pietro de Gasparri on the subject. the relevent locus is his De Eucharistia, vol I, p. 220, where he further cites another desicion of the S.C. Rituum and gives the reference -missed by O’COnnell: 2 Jun 1882 (n. 5874). Gasparri published this work when teaching in Paris in 1897 through Delhomme et Briguet.
Dear Brian!
What edition of the Caeremoniale was the last before the one you quote and at what point does it refer to colour and steps?
I think you need to take a course in the Sacred Canons. I really cannot provide the same over the internet.
As a matter of interest, does the translation of the Caeremoniale you quote have a decree of approval?
@brianq wrote:
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.
BQ
Yes, it is true that this is the only option mentioned in the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis. Yet, the same text makes absolutely clear that other solutions are acceptable taking into account (among other things) the architectural style of a given church.
As the posts I put up earlier show, the rubric of the Roman Missal evolved within the architectural context of the Roman Basilica – examples of which I have made available. The qualification placed on the Basilical arrangement derives from a realization that the history of Christon art and architecture has also used other solutions – for example, in the Gothic and neo gothic, as well as in the classical revival of the renaissance and in the Baroque, where the Cathedra is placed on the gospel side of the Altar , near the praedella.
In exercising an option, as you say, a prudential judgement must be made bearing in mind all sorts of factors. In the case of Armagh, one very large consideration would be whether or not it would be intelligent to insert into a neo gothic interior -albeit already wrecked – an arrangement that evolved from and was intended for a Roman Basilica. Alternatively, a closer aquaintance with the historical, cultural and architectural background of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, and perhaps a greater degree of intellectual subtlty, would have recommended a modern adaptation of the gothic and and neo-gothic solution for the Cathedra and Altar in Armagh. Had I had the doing of it, then I think I should have been more inclined in this direction.
@brianq wrote:
Prax,
. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’…. . Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so….. McConnell’s book is a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
BQOn the question of the construction of an altar and the ened to have it raised on a predella, let me quote paragraph no. 61 of Peter Elliott’s important work Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, second revised edition, 2005, at page 62, commenting on the GIRM says:
The steps around the altar should be planned carefully so that all the people can participate visually and so that the ceremonies can be carried out conveniently. The Missal assumes that can be celebrated either facing the people or facing the altar. A new main altar should be built to make it possible to celebrate Mass either way. therefore there should ample space on the footpace or “predella” on both sides of a freestanding altar for the celbrant to stand and genuflect and also so that he may conveniently walk around the altar when he insenses it. The footpace is usually covered with fine quality carpet
A further problem with the present arrangement of the altar in Armagh is the proportion employed between the rather large sanctuary floor on which the the altar is sitting, and the dimensions of the altar itself. It appears to be rather small for its rather expansive setting. That problem could be partially remedied by raising it on a smaller sized predella.
@brianq wrote:
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
I am inclined to agree with Gianlorenzo, tile was not the best medium. Mosaic was called for.
