Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
And another example: Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome
Here the cathedra is not visible from the nave. The High Altar which is several yards in front of it is not sitting on the sancturay floor but is raised on a praedella of several steps and covered by a canopy.
In this case, again, the priest ascends to the altar.
And here is another exampòe of the application of the classical disposition of a sanctuary. This time it is Sant’Appolinare in Classe in Ravenna which was consecrated in 549. Bear in mind, that many of the prescriptions that are lay down in the current liturgical books derive from contexts such as this. After all, returning the liturgy to its pristine sources was one of the objectives of the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council.
You will notice here that although the floor of the sanctuary is already quite high, the Altar is again raised on a praedella of sevral steps which will allow for the priest’s ascending to the Altar. Unless you know this background, you cannot properly understand how liturgical law thinks and operates.
Brian!
I am posting the following photographs to illustrate the liturgical lay-out of the Lateran Basilica which still largely maintains the form given to it when built around 315 A.D..
Please notice the position of the Cathedra of the Bishop of Rome which is placed in the Apse – where it has always been. Note the arrangement of the stalls for the Lateran Chapter.
About 50 yards in fron of the Cathedra is the High Altar which is under a canopy built by Arnalfo da Cambio. Please note that the mensa of the Altar is not on the floor of the sancturay but is raised on a praedella of at least 4 or five steps.
The practical consequence of this means that when the Pope leaves the Cathedra, he descends tot he floor of the sancturay, crosses it and, on arrival at the High Altar, he ASCENDS to the Altar.
Please note also that from the nave of the Basilica the Cathedra is hardly visible and the Pope certainly not when enthroned on it.
My point about an altar being raised is made patently clear from the illustration of the altar in Bordeaux cathedral. I regret to say taht the altar in the present Armagh arrangement looks as though it has been just abaodoned there on the floor having been taken out of its wrappers. It should really have been elevated on a praedella of a few steps which would also have served the principle of the altar always being Ascended to – as we find mentioned in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum article n. 178.
I wonder could anyone take a photograph of the altar presently in Armagh and do one of those computer images of how it would look had it been raised on a praedella of say three steps?
Re posting 1225:
Brian wrote: “Prax, my statement is accurate as GIRM applies even more so to a Cathedra since the sedes derives it meaning from the Cathedra”.
You have already pointed out that the law referring to the Cathedra is to be found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum articles 42 and 47.
The Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, or GRIM as you call it, is not relevant to the case in point and cannot be extended to it. Sedes is not Cathedra. These are two different things and have different significations.
You are simply all over the place!
In posting n. 1218 brian wrote:
“Prax,
The Ceremonial of Bishops (CB) is the law on this point. #47 states that ‘….the chair should have enough steps leading up to it for the bishop to be clearly visible to the faithful’. That is why the Cathedra is physically higher than the altar. Nothing is said about a specific number of steps. The Cathedra is sited where it is because GIRM310 states: ‘Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’…. Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar.
… It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.”
I could not deal with this until now as I was awaiting a mitered friend to lend me his Caeremoniale Episcoporum – which he kindly did last night.
In relation to article 47, it should be noted that this article begins by referring you to article 42 which gives us a definition of a cathedral, the place wherein a Cathedra is ubiquated. Cathedra (which is perhaps not quite accurately translated by the English word “chair”). No definition of a sedes is given in reference to a cathedra.
Please note that in the absence of a prescription concerning the relationship between the height of the altar and the height of the cathedra, the provisions of canon 2 (which you youeself quote) become operative and you are referred to the already existant norms which O’Connell mentions in his book. Thus, on this specific point, they continue to have force and they were not observed in the last re-ordering of the cathedral in Armagh. No one has the right to presume otherwise.
Brian!
I think that it has been more than satisfactorilly proven that you are not a canonist. If you are taking advice from a “cnonicst” I would advise finding a more competent one<:
Canon 2 states three prinicple things:
1. Only some norms for the celebration of the liturgy have been received into the present (1983) code in contrast to the preceeding (1917) code. These are usually the more important principles which you can look up for yur self in a sopare moment.
2. Liturgical norms other than those in n.1 are established in, what is in effect, partyicular law. Indeed, the growth of particular law is one of the features of the 1983 code as it organised teh sacred canons.
3. The Canon makes explicit what I have been trying get across to you: anything not contrary to the general norms contained in teh Code remains in force and is binding.
I think that you will find that what is stated above is more than relevant to what I have been trying to get across to you earlier.
I include the text of the canon together with a translation to aid communication:
This is the text of Canon 2;
Can. 2 – Codex plerumque non definit ritus, qui in actionibus liturgicis celebrandis sunt servandi; quare leges liturgicae hucusque vigentes vim suam retinent, nisi earum aliqua Codicis canonibus sit contraria.
And this is the translation of Canon 2:
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.@brianq wrote:
Prax,
. Again, Caeremoniale Episcoporum makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
BQWhile I am pleased that this discussion seems to have resussitated the idea that liturgy is conducted in accordance with the norm of law, established by ecclesiastical authority, it appears that we are going to have dust off the concept a bit before we begin to realize how it functions.
In the quotation above, the following is claimed. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted by McConnell’s (sic) book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I am afraid that this assumption is not at all reasonable. The law presumes that those provisions mentioned in O’Connell’s book which cover areas not explicitely dealt with in the most recent legislation are, subject to certain conditions already mentioned, still in force, do have binding authority and must be complied with. Remember that the law operates on an hermeneutic of continuity and not one of discontinuity. In O’Connell’s book, only those provisions of law cited by him that have been aborgated have been superceded. Again, a little subtlty of mind please.
Thus, assuming that no other provision has been made elsewhere on the subject of the proportion of heights to be observed betewwn planes bearing High Altars and those bearing Cathedras, we have to take it that the lacuna legis is supplemented by the existing legislation quoted by O’Connell. Strictly speaking, the same is true of what he says about colours – pending the creation of another Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church in Armagh, the Cathedra should be covered in green. Otherwise, it could be read as an aspiration!!
@brianq wrote:
Prax,
The Cathedra is sited where it is because GIRM310 states: ‘Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’.
BQ
Brian!
This statement, to beging with, is not accurate. Article 310 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, aka the GIRM, talks of a “sedes” and not of a “Cathedra”. I am sure that I do not have to spell out the difference between them.
Secondly, if you look at the text of 310 carefully, you will see that it simply says “locus eius magnus congruus est versus populum in vertice presbyterii, NISI aedis structura vel ALIA adiuncta id impediant”. You will notice that the text here is not prescreptive ordering that the “sedes” be facing the people or in the “vertice presbyterii”. Rather it is indicative and merely expresses a suggestion in law qualified by further considerations (NISI) to make it clear that we are not dealing with a prescriptive act.
Thirdly, the reason for the statement that the “sedes” could face the pople in the “vertice presbyterii” is to be found in the context of the architectural development of the Roman Rite, namely the Roman Basilica. But, as the Church does not canonize any architectural style, it does not canonize this arrangement either. As an example of what we are talking about we can look at the arrangement in the Lateran Basilica. In this case, the “Cathedra” is placed on steps in the “vertice presbyterii”. The High Altar is placed opposite. The Pope descends from the Cathedra to the floor of the sanctuary and ASCENDS to the High Altar – unlike in Armagh where the Archbishp merely DESCENDS to the Altar.
Fourthly, if we are going to speak of Cathedras, in the arrangement of the Lateran Basilica the Pope is not visible from the nave when seated on the Cathedra. Surely, if the Roman Pontiff is not visible from the nave when seated on his Cathdra, there is less reason for lesser mortals to be made more visible when seated on theirs.
“310. Sedes sacerdotis celebrantis debet munus eius praesidendi coetui atque orationem dirigendi significare. Proinde locus eius magis congruus est versus ad populum in vertice presbyterii, nisi aedis structura vel alia adiuncta id impediant, ex. gr. si propter nimiam distantiam communicatio inter sacerdotem et coetum congregatum difficilis evadat, aut si tabernaculum locum habeat in media parte retro altare. Omnis autem species throni vitetur. [119] Convenit ut sedes benedicatur, antequam usui liturgico destinetur, iuxta ritum in Rituali Romano descriptum. [120]”.
The English translation reads:
The Chair for the Priest Celebrant and Other Seats
310. The chair of the priest celebrant must signify his office of presiding over the gathering and
of directing the prayer. Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the
head of the sanctuary, unless the design of the building or other circumstances impede this: for
example, if the great distance would interfere with communication between the priest and the
gathered assembly, or if the tabernacle is in the center behind the altar. Any appearance of a
throne, however, is to be avoided.119 It is appropriate that, before being put into liturgical use, the
chair be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.120Brian!
That was a valiant effort but I am afraid your normae generales are not quite up to scratch when it comes to dealing with the sacred canons of the Code of Canon Law and you will find that a close and accurate study of Book I of the same text will make clear that the law is a good deal more subtle than you make it out to be. For example, where prior dispositions exist and these have not been abrogated and are not contrary to subsequent norms and no new explicit provision has been made, then they retain their force. Hence, note carefully the arrangement of the sancturay in the Cathedral of St. Andr
Re postings 1197 and 1209 on the guff published by Fr. Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute in his article of the September 2006 number of Intercom.
In the above mentioned article, our gentle scribe penned the following:
The sancturay of St. Colman’s Cathedral – like all the other cathedral sanctuaries in Ireland – was built for a very different way of worship. Keeping it unchanged would fail to respect the demands of a changed way of worship. The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate…
This is quite a statement and redolent of the discontinuity historiography once fashionable among writers such as Theodore Kreuser (1894-1984) of Bonn, Josef Jungmann (1889-1975) of Innsbruck and the notorious Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982), who was eventually sent to a Mesopotamian exile by Paul VI. In case Fr. Paddy Jones might not have noticed, things have changed in relation to this way of viewing the liturgy. What I am wondering about is how Fr. Paddy Jones’ comments above can be squared with those contained in the attachment below:
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting 1197:
Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute mentions the follwoing in his article in the September 2006 number of Intercom:
“It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterised by a strong element of disagreement, and some of which oppose the charter of reform given by Vatican II”.
In relation to this comment some other points must be made.
1. While it is true to say that a spectrum of theological opinion has given rise to a concomitant spectrum of liturgical positions, it has to be borne in mind that none of these positions adopted by liturgists necessarily represents the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church with regard to liturgy and what is required for its celebration. In effect, the spectrum of opinions mentioned by P. Jones must be classified as PRIVATE opinions.
2. The OFFICIAL position of the Church with regard to liturgy, and what is required for its celebration, is contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, the Praenotanda of the liturgical books, the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, the authentic interpretation of liturgical law given by the Holy See and the various Instructions issued for the implementation of the above mentioend corpus of liturgical law (e.g.the most recent being Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Liturgiam Authenticam, and Redemptionis Sacramentum). This, and only this, constitutes the OFFICIAL position of the Church and what is required for the celebration of the liturgy. Nothing more than what is contained in this corpus can be demanded of anyone. It is very surprising that Fr. Paddy Jones makes not even the slighest mention of this fact in his article.
3. It certainly is a move in the right direction for Fr. Jones to recognise that a range of liturgical opinion exists. The usefulmness of the various positions expressed with that range can be tested in reference to what is expressed by teh Church’s OFFICIAL position on liturgy and by reference to a long theological tradition. This exercise will quickly enough sort out what is genuinely helpful both at an academic and pastoral level.
However, our learned author is NOT engaged in any META-LITURGICAL exercise – if we can call it that – which seeks critically to examine the spectrum of private liturgical opinions expressed by any number of theologians so as to extract the positive elements that can be found in all (or nearly all) of these positions and integrate them into a new and higher liturgical synthesis. Our author does not mention that he is the promotor of a single position within the broader spectrum of liturgical opinion.
He is of course entitled to do so. But he may not represent his own view as the ONLY possible position that can be taken on the Liturgy and he may certainly not represent his view as that of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council nor as that of the Official position adopted by the Church.
4. Given that there is a spectrum of opinion with regard to liturgy, it is perhaps naive of our zealous author to have overlooked the certain fact that the general outlines of a theological consensus are gradually emerging and assuming an increasing dominance within liturgical debate. There can be doubt that one of the main players over the past thirty years in the development of that consensus has been Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. His ideas have been taken up and expanded by an ever increasing number of younger theologians. Our widely-read author seems either unaware of this movement or has chosen to ignore it and to cosset himself in the frail certitudes of another generation. Praxiteles is unaware of anything published by Fr. Paddy Jones in which he gives unqualified support to the present Pope’s liturgical agenda.
5. Let us be clear about one thing! The so called “re-ordering” of the interior of Cobh Cathedral is not the punctum stantis aut cadentis (as Luther said when referring to another matter) of the renewal of the liturgy instituted by the Second Vatican Council and given effect in the legislative enactments of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. That process will continue and is likely to evolve in the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.
The so-called “re-ordering” of the interior of Cobh is, in reality, the Irish punctum stantis aut cadentis for a certain outlook that has arrogated to itself an almost total hegemony in the area of liturgy over the past thirty years. That same hegemony has been so complete that it has mistakenly assumed that the positions it holds are the only possible ones that can be held. But, more seriously, it has portrayed a private theoloogical position as an OFFICIAL position adopted by the Catholic Church. Perhaps our liberal minded author’s “disappointment” at the outcome of the Cobh saga may, at least in part, derive from a vague reliazation that things are no longer as they were?
Just hold on a very little while for the English translation of Professor Twomey’s book is scheduled for the Spring publication list of Ignatius Press, Sam Francisco.
Well, I would not want to give away the book’s plot. You will have to read it for your self. But one thing I can say, he did not rule out Paddy Jones liturgical hedge-school!!!
Yes! the one and only.
The only Irish doctoral student to have studied under Ratzinger when Professor of Dogmatics at Regensburg.
We can safely assume that the liturgical institute he is referring to is NOT in Germany………..
Re posting 1197:
Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute mentions the follwoing in his article in the September 2006 number of Intercom:
“It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterised by a strong element disagreement, and some of which oppose the charter of reform given by Vatican II”.
What, might I ask, does he mean by this? Surely, he cannot be suggesting that it is a matter of grave concern [to himself presumably] that more than one theoretical position can be taken by a bona fide academic on an open liturgical point? If he does, then we are are facing the end of any form of liturgical science and research and we are staring at the advent of an academic totalitarianism that would even cause Enver Hoxha to blush. If our learned author is indeed postulating a monolithic liturgical establishment in which only what he has to say is to be taken as a genuine representation and interpretation of the liturgical renewal initiated by the Second Vatican Council, then we could possibly have serendipitously happened upon an embarrassing explanation for the fact that in its 40 years of existence the Institute for Pastoral Liturgy in Ireland has NOT yet produced a single liturgical textbook of any enduring significance.
Our over learned author must surely realize that even within the matrix of the liturgical principles outlined by Sacrosanctum Concilium and the subsequent post conciliar normative documents, there exists plenty of scope for adacemic research and for that healthy critical spirit needed in any academic enterprise?
Our author also mentions that some strong elements of disagreement in liturgical matters opposes “the charter of reform given by Vatican II”. Again it is not clear what, if anything, is intended by such a statement. The only people who publicly and explicitly reject Sacrosanctum Concilium are the Lefevrians – of whom there are not too many in Ireland and none was involved in the campaign conducted by the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral. Although he does not mention it, Fr. Jones should be aware that covert opposition to Sacrosanctum Concilium is to be found in a variety of places determined to hijack the Conciliar renewal of the liturgy and some of these would be at the polar opposite of the Lefevrian position. For example, a book has recently been published in Germany which makes reference to a liturgical institute which banned from its library shelves those books written by the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lest what he has to say about the renewal of the liturgy have an influence on its students. What are we to make of all that and those?
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re. post 109
.The spacial outlay of an early Christian Basilica… a Solea extending one third of its length and marked off by barriers]Ciborium[/I] or Baldachino over an altar on a raised dais. [See attachment 1 and 2]
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 current pastiche in Longford Cathedral.
On the spatial disposition and the placing of the ambo of the early Christian basilica see the above.
