Thursday, November 30, 2006

Controversy and the Cathedral

This is something I've known about for sometime and I saw the plans when I visited Sydney last in September. But I refrained (I don't know why!) from posting anything on this to avoid conflict and possible controversy. But The New Liturgical Movement and then CathNews have let the cat out of the bag so I'll make a couple of comments.

But first some tracking. I saw the post on TNLM on Tuesday evening - Liturgical Thunder from Down Under - and made a simple comment. I refrained from posting that night fearing that someone might mention it on my trip to Sydney and I will be seeing the Cardinal there. Anyway, I got a great shock when I saw this story on CathNews of all places. Man that service has improved! It's reached a whole new level. I'm impressed that the editors read TNLM and possibly other great blogs. This was followed by a mass of comments at TMNL original posts and a second post.A venerable priest noted to me today that the ghastly Pelican Ambo (above) is a play on Pell's name. Below is the proposed new altar design.Maybe ACSA should launch a campaign to stop it...???

3 comments:

Perp├ętua said...

At least it has steps...?

I don't know. I don't know why it would be introduced now. I take it that the current free standing altar is moveable?

The impression is very similar to St Patrick's Cathedral.

The explicit reference to the tomb of Christ is attractive and good liturgical theology - but it is a shame that such a permanent structure will inhibit the free use of one that has been kissed far many more times.

My point: It seems that the high altar will be rendered defunct for any liturgical use. I don't support that. Particularly at this time.

Only Moniker said...

I had a look at TNLM blog. Just wondering would you know anything about these statues on either side of the altar... Our Lord and Mary Magdalene... this is what I read and I can't help thinking that it's rather untasteful given certain recent scandals... (*Da Vinci Code et al*) Not sure what to thing really but it will most probably be quite ugly and therefore be out of place

daniel hill said...

the magdalene et. al is primarily distatseful because it makes no effort to maintain the beauty of the (neo) Gothic form of the Cathedral. This should be the primary argument. That it is in line with the whims of a recent fad will not get any argument against it taken seriously.