Looking for source requiring visibility of cathedra
  • tandrews
    Posts: 157
    The New Ulm cathedral has taken to moving the cathedra to a much less prominent location, hidden behind a pillar, visible to only half of the congregation. In its former place, visible to all, is the presider's chair. If I am not mistaken the cathedra is supposed to be visible to all the faithful. Is there a quote from canon law I can cite to air my grievance to the powers-that-be?
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    TAndrews,

    Save your breath. The raison d'etre of the Cathedral (qua Cathedral, anyway) is the presence of the cathedra, the chair from which the bishop of the diocese teaches, governs and sanctifies. If the powers that be in New Ulm don't see this.... you're not going to persuade them by quoting authoritative documents. Among the few valid reasons to downgrade the cathedra would be that the tabernacle is already nearly impossible to find and the confessional(s) have been renamed "reconciliation rooms"... for then the bishop would be suffering the same fate as his master, and confusion would already reign.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw tandrews ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    Denis R. McNamara , Associate Professor and Executive Director of the Center for Beauty and Culture at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kan
    Who Sits Where (and Why)
    The Church gives broad principles rather than specific instructions about the design of a cathedra or priest’s chair, allowing the logic of use and design of each to grow from the nature of the thing itself. Logically, since each diocese has only one bishop, there is one cathedra in a cathedral and indeed in each diocese. Again, logically, only the diocesan bishop (or as the documents say “a bishop he permits to use it”) would sit in a cathedra, so a priest who celebrates Mass in a cathedral would sit in a different chair, leaving the cathedra unoccupied. But like the seat of Moses, the “empty” chair remains a symbol of the continuing ministry of the apostles precisely in its emptiness. The Ceremonial of Bishops notes that it should be a “chair that stands alone and is permanently installed” (par. 47) which may be raised up some steps in order to be seen, giving it the prominence of the office of bishop and reinforcing the permanence of Christ’s authority residing in the successors of the apostles.
    Thanked by 4tandrews M. Jackson Osborn ServiamScores CHGiffen
  • Caleferink
    Posts: 429
    I've been to the New Ulm cathedral. I think the new bishop there is simply restoring the cathedra to its more traditional place off the Gospel side of the high altar. Many a cathedra is positioned like that and beats the alternative of putting it where the tabernacle should be/once resided. My guess is that it will be raised up a couple of steps. I'm sure it will still be prominent, even if less visible from certain areas within the nave. The chair for a priest-celebrant who is not the bishop (I hate that other "p" word) would traditionally be on the epistle side, opposite the cathedra, but maybe the cathedral is "filling the space" for now.

    In short, I'm not sure you have a real gripe outside of personal preference.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    Well, "traditional" is relative. The placement of the cathedra at the head of the apse is old traditional, with the principal tabernacle of a cathedral traditionally reserved in its own chapel. But Tridentine practice evolved to what many would likely now think is traditional.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Caleferink,

    I've not been to New Ulm, and I haven't seen pictures, and I don't know the bishop or his track record/reputation. You may be correct that a kind of restoration is taking place. On the other hand, it is also possible that (just as happened in these US of A decades ago) the bishop or someone in his office is trying to make the cathedra more obscure to allow more space for "personal discernment" and "supremacy of conscience". It's also possible that a re-arrangement on a larger scale is in the works, and this is a temporary placement. One would have to read the justifications of the people doing the moving.

    So, it will be interesting to see.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    While Liam is correct if we look at the ancient Roman churches, the architecture should also be taken into account. If you have a Gothic Church, it is best placed on the Gospel side. so the high Altar can be in the Gothic style. If you do not have an apse it would also be better in the more recent position.

    In many places the seat/armchair behind the plain altar, looks rather unedifying.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Since people are quoting both the Ceremonial of Bishops, seeking authoritative documents, and bringing up the old displaced tabernacle debate, it should be noted that the same Ceremonial says:

    49. [In the Cathedral Church] it is recommended that the tabernacle, in accordance with a very ancient tradition in cathedral churches, should be located in a chapel separate from the main body of the church.
    Thanked by 2Liam CHGiffen
Add a Comment