Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
As for ambos and their positioning, just take a look at the double ambos, one for the Gospel (left side) and the other for the epistle (right side) in St. Clemente in Rome. They have been more or less like this sine the 7th century.
The following link gives a video tour:
@Fearg wrote:
I visited Armagh in 2003 – the new floor in the sanctuary matches very well with the rest of the interior – the simple granite floor from the previous re-ordering did not work so well in this setting. The following photo (attempts) to show the sanctuary in context with the walls and ceilings:
[ATTACH]2772[/ATTACH]
Some excellent work has been carried out, the re-instatement of the original baptistery for instance:
[ATTACH]2771[/ATTACH]
and the re-use of the original gates from the former rood screen:
[ATTACH]2773[/ATTACH]
And for the sake of comparison:
[ATTACH]2774[/ATTACH]
Fearg!
Please do not get me wrong. Some good work has been done in Armagh and the dreadful McCormack mess has finally been dumped out it. However, we cannot accept that what has been recently be done is the best solution.
Certainly, it was a good idea to put the Baptismal fount where it was supposed to be – in the baptistry. But it would be a good idea to put the cover on it. See the example in Cobh or for instance the monumental one in Orvieto cathedral.
I have not seen Armagh since the recent efforts. I can imagine, however, from the photographs, that the latest installations are certainly more sympatic with the interior of the building than the horrible tranches of stone placed there by McCormack. Nevertheless, matching colours is only half the exercise. What is installed must have a didactic and symbolic end. Hence, rather than all the tiles, it would have been preferable to have installed a new mosaic – albeit a much costlier exercise – with suitable themes taken from the canon of Christian symbology and iconography.
Likewise, the levels of the various planes in the sancturay is problematic and a feature possibly less happy than the McCormack tooth. I was recently reading an essay on St. Augustine’s Commentary on the psalms of ascent (119-134) and could not help being struck by his comments on the theological importance of “ascent” as a prophetic and eschatological gesture – which all liturgical gesture must be. Likewise, his comments on “descent” will clarify why it is very inappropriate for a bishop to “descend” to the altar.
The recessed ambo is simply eccentric and impractical.
While the recent Armagh effort was better than the McCormack tooth and a good deal more respectful of such a great building, at the same time it could have been even better had a greater degree of Wissenshaft been available.
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
As regards post 1143 ….I quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point.BQ
I think that you are actually referring to no. 387. Yes, it is true that a bishop makes decisions concerning the construction and ordering of churches in the diocese which has been entrusted to his pastoral care. Yes, he does not need the recognitio of the Holy See for every little action that he has to do in his diocese – that would be absurd.
However, he does not automatically have the final say in any decision he makes concerning the construction and ordering of churches in the diocese entrusted to his pastoral care. Should any of the faithful in the diocese be unhappy about any decision the bishop makes with regard to the construction or ordering of a church, then they have the RIGHT to appeal the bishop’s decision before the competent instances of the Holy See which will decide the matter for the bishop.
Anyone with a basic modicum of canon law will confirm that for you.
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
As regards post 1143 I did indeed make a mistake and quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point. Indeed subsequent sections do refer specifically to issues that do require recognitio which would tend to support my interpretation. My point was, therefore, that if the bishop can regulate the construction and ordering of churches without the need for recognitio then presumably IECL and IBF can do so also. POW is issued to assist bishops carry out such regulation and would not need recognitio.
BQ(ps I intend to follow up most of the other posts when I get time).
Brian!
The above is a piece, relating to no. 389 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, is piece of canonical muddle and has nothing to do with the production of texts such as The Place of Worship. I reproduce the relevant chapter heading from the Institutio Generalis Romani MIssalis and the text of no. 389:
“Chapter IX
Adaptations Within the Competence of
Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences389. It is the competence of the Conferences of Bishops in the first place to prepare and
approve an edition of this Roman Missal in the authorized vernacular languages, for use in the
regions under their care, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic
See.
The Roman Missal, whether in Latin or in lawfully approved vernacular translations, is to be
published in its entirety.”Brian, I do believe taht you are out of your canonical waters!
Dear BQ !
Let me put the point another way. If The Place of Worship were to represent what you refere to as the “mind” of the Irish Bishops Conference, then it would have to express that “mind” in a formal manner which is laid down by canon law. That procedure entails that the draft document be submitted to the plenary meeting of the bishops. That a vote be taken on it in accordance with the statutes of the conference. That at least a two thirds majority be obtained. And, in order for to have effect in every diocese, it would have ot have the recognitio of the Holy See before it could be promulgated by the Conference.
To the best of my knowledge, this procedure has not happened in the thrity years since the the appearance of the first text of this document.
Concerning the question of the plenary of a conference DELEGATING authority to a commission to issue a document in the name of the Conference, I think you will need to look at a response given on this very subject by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the mid 1990s (I shall chase down the text). The answer of the Congregation for the Doctrine was negative: i.e. a Conference cannot DELEGATE a commission to prepare and issue a text. The reason for this was simple: neither a whole Conference nor any of its commissions is entrusted with the government of a diocese. This is reserved to a diocesan bishop.
Unless and until such time as the process outlined above has been followed, then, I am afraid, The Place of Worship is no more than the musings of whoever signed it. This is not a contention. It is a canonical fact.
You mention canon 455 again and the requirement that Conferences draw up their own statutes. In fact it is canon 451 that establishes that requirement and not 455 (I attach the link below). But, having done so, they have to submit them to the Holy See shich grants both “confirmatio” and “recognitio” to them. Without these, and just like POW, statutes would have no force of law. Given taht the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that Conferences cannot delegate to commissions, then I take it that no Conference would propose such a move in their statutes; and if they did, it would be removed by the Holy See before “confirmatio” and “recognitio” would be granted. Just rust over to Ara Coeli and I am sure that the Archbishop of Armagh will be only too glad to bear out what I have alread said on a number of occasions.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTMGianlorenzo!
Re posting 1177, I came across this in an article by Anthony Delarue and thought it summed up what you were saying: “So the fittings of our churches are expected to be art, reflecting Christ and His creation, not just a
furnisher’s decorations, and they are to be Christian art?that is, firmly rooted in our tradition, both
spiritual and cultural. This inherently excludes any transient fashion or the adoption of inappropriate
secular styles”.Further to posting 1176, I am enclosing the following articles just to give a flavour of current thinking among a younger generation of architects and liturgists:
The latest from the FOSCC.
Recent News and Events of the F.O.S.C.C
August 2006
FOSCC 2007 Calendar Now Available !!!
FOSCC has produced a beautiful 2007 Calendar with 12 stunning photographs of
St. Colman’s Cathedral, taken by well known Cork press photographer
Mr. Des Barry.The calendar retails for €5 and is a bargain at the price.
Copies are available from any member of the FOSCC committee or order one online via email from terrypender@foscc.com
I should not worry too much about them. For most, their “careers” are slowly but surely coming to a close and will be over and done with very soon.
Here is a little something that Brian Quinn might be interested in.
It outlines the principles of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council by someone who was there at all its sessions and who exercised a very serious influence on the proceedings of the Council since he was a member of its doctrinal commission.
To illustrate my point about the rules governing the height at which a Cathedra may be erected and its relation to the height of the High Altar, I am enclosing a photograph of the sanctuary of the Cathedral of St. André in Bordeaux. You will notice that the Cathedra is raised on a dias on three steps while the High Altar is raised on four higher steps. Also, the red colour indicates that the present Archbishop of Bordeaux is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. The aquiline ambo is placed at the altar rail which is of fine 18th century wrought iron for which Bordeaux is famous.
On the question of the erection of the Cathedra in Armagh Cathedral, someone has pointed out to me the relevant text containing the rules on the height of a Cathedra and its relation to the height of the High Altar and the stalls of canons: not surprisingly, it was in J. O’Connell’s Church Building and Furnishing: The Church’s Way. As pointed out out, the Cathedra “is to be on a platform approached by three steps – so that it is higher than the canons’ stalls in the chancel, but not higher than the footpace of the High Altar”. Conveniently, he also gives the references for this rule which is found in the Cottectanea Sacrae Congregationis Rituum nn. 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). While other rules mentoned by O’COnnell have been explicitly abolished, the one concerning the height of the Cathedra in relation to the High Altar has not been explicitely abrogated.
I may seem churlish, but I also have to point out that the colour of the cloth on the cathedra (not to mention the other chairs) is wrong. The colour “red” is reserved for a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. “Green” is reserved for all other archbishops and bishops. This oversight is also remarkable when you notice the heraldic achievement inset in the floor before the Cathedra which correctly displays a “green” galero.
In contrast, if you look at the outlay of the sancturay in Cobh Cathedral, you will notice that all of the rules have been meticuously observed.
Of course, I accept that all of these are very fine points – but knowing them separates the men from the boys!!
@brianq wrote:
Prax, if I’m reading you’re post correctly you’re insinuating that the church featured in the image you posted is a Catholic one and therefore an example of current thinking in liturgical reordering in the Catholic Church. Well, I can allay your fears and rehabilitate the principle of reordering in your mind at the same time by confirming that the church is in fact a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran church in Fond du Lac, Wisonsin.
BQ
Brian!
Reassurance is sometimes worse than perplexity. If the church displayed earlier on is a Lutheran one in Westconsin, what are we to make of the recent re-reordering in Armagh that leaves the Altar -the central point of a church and of the liturgy – on a plane several steps below that on which stands the cathedra and the choir-stalls? Indeed, looking at it again, the cathedra is in fact two planes higher than the altar plane. Also, the siting of the ambo on a plane higher than the altar and behind it is also a bit unusual. Please do not get me wrong on this – I am prepared to admit that the re-rereordering is light years ahead of the tooth but perhaps not yet at a state of perfection!
@brianq wrote:
Prax, if I’m reading you’re post correctly you’re insinuating that the church featured in the image you posted is a Catholic one and therefore an example of current thinking in liturgical reordering in the Catholic Church. Well, I can allay your fears and rehabilitate the principle of reordering in your mind at the same time by confirming that the church is in fact a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran church in Fond du Lac, Wisonsin.
BQ
Brian!
Reassurance is sometimes worse than perplexity. If the church displayed earlier on is a Lutheran one in Westconsin, what are we to make of the recent re-reordering in Armagh that leaves the Altar -the central point of a church and of the liturgy – on a plane several steps below that on which stands the cathedra and the choir-stalls? Indeed, looking at it again, the cathedra is in fact two planes higher than the altar plane. Also, the siting of the ambo on a plane higher than the altar and behind it is also a bit unusual. Please do not get me wrong on this – I am prepared to admit that the re-rereordering is light years ahead of the tooth but perhaps not yet at a state of perfection!
Describing The Place of Worship as a Directory is also problematic – but we sahll return to that at another time.
It seems strange that POW, which has been around in three editions since 1966, has never had the anomoly of its canonical status sorted out by the Irish Episcopal Conference. Are we to infer from this a lack of political will to do so or simply a lack of interest in authentic liturgy?
I am not sure who was responsible for the first manifestation of POW. The second edition (1972) was the responsibility of Cathal Daly when Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise. The third (1993) edition is closely associated with Joe Duffy, Bishop of Clogher. Given the phenomenal gutting done by both of these gentlemen respectively on Longford and Monaghan cathedrals, you will understand my hesitation to underwrite anything associated with them that might be seen in the slightest way to legitimate their acts of cultural vandalism. Just look at St Macartan’s in Monaghan and at St. Mel’s in Longford!!
Yes! I am perfectly happy to confirm that we are in agreement that POW has no legal force and therefore cannot bind anyone.
This position, however, has consequences. Canonically, POW is not a “public” document of the Church. Consequently, it can only be a private document and, in canonical terms, the opinions expressed in it are only imputable to the person or persons expressing them – from what I can see the only person who signed it was Joe Duffy, the Bishop of Clogher. That is all I am saying.
For an example of an augmentative use of POW see footnote 38 of the document in the attached link. When referring to POW the use of the term “requirement” is not appropriate and should not be used. Remember the principle ubi lex non distinguit
http://www.foscc.com/downloads/other/Liturgical%20Requirements2.pdf
It looks as though the Cobh Cathedral saga was followed with close interest as far away as St. Paul, Minnesota by the redboutable Catholic newspaper The Wanderer. The edition of 22 June 2006 features a front page picture of the cathedral; and this their article published on p. 3 [vol. 139, n.25]:
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax
may I provide some clarification regarding Built of Living Stones’?
… B[uilt] O[f]L[iving] S[tones] succeeded E[nvironment] and A[rt] in C[atholic] W[orship]. Over the years EACW aroused much antipathy as it was considered fairly radical. I understand that it was often presented during church building renovation projects as ‘authorative’ when in fact it had the same status as the Place of Worship (POW). Also similarly to POW it was issued by the American bishop’s equivalent of our Irish Episcopal Commission on the Liturgy and not he American bishops’ conference (though validly so as the American episcopal liturgy commission were empowered to do so by the conference). As a result of rising resistance to EACW, not least of which by the some of the bishops themselves, and the fact that EACW was not voted upon by the conference, it was decided by the conference to have a new document drawn up (BOLS) and voted upon. It is ironic (for you Prax) that you consider it suspect as the main reason it came into existence was as a result of conservative lobby pressure. Many LCs consider it to be retrograde step.
BQ
(yes as you might have guessed I am a LC and i attended the CTU course).Praxiteles would like to clarify a few small point concerning the above:
1. The term “empowered” is not a canonical term. As we have already said it cannot mean “delegate”. It could mean “authorise” in the sense of authorising the commission to prepare a draft for the plenum of the Conference. If it did, the draft should not have been published. POW is in a similar canonical limbo.
2. Built of Living Stones, hereinafter BALS, describes itself as “guidelines”. This is not a canonical category and hence the doucment, regradless of who published it, lacks the force of law and remains merely at the level of suggestion.
Although BOLS was voted on by the plenum of the United States Bishops Conference, it was not submitted to the Holy See for approval and reception into the legal corpus of the Catholic Church.
In this sense, EACW, BOLS and POW are all on the same canonical plane: they are private publications expressing private ideas.
3. I came across the following canonical commentary on BOLS which rather better explicitates my point :
The Legal Status of “Built of Living Stones”
Question:
What is the legal status of “]
Kyte!
The following link will take you to a collection of directories for Patrick’s Street running from c. 1800-1980.
