From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: space for worhsip
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:30:07 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

"(Gordon C. Zaft)" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:

> On Sep 26, 10:47pm, "Nancy M. Piatkowski" wrote:
> } Subject: space for worship
> } In response to Brian's objection to the Aiden Kavenaugh/Pueblo material
> } -- the documents refer to a cross in the worship space not a crucifix
> } -- the moving of the tabernacle out of the body of the church into its own
> } space is to no way negate the power of the reserved Eucharist but to separa
> } reservation from the place of action during the celebration of the Liturgy.
> } Environment and Art 78/79 describes the reasoning behind this- "active and
> } static aspects of the same reality cannot claim the same human attention at
>  the
> } same time-"  This space becomes a place for private prayer and devotion.
> } --setting the altar off-side does not put it ina a lesser space but should
> } it in a relationship with the Ambo or place for the proclamation of the Wor
> } the Word in which Christ is also present- as teacher.  New churches should
> } designed to establish a relationship between the places of Initiation (the
> } Font), the Word (the Ambo) and the Meal (Altar) and the worshipping communi
> } which by its coming together to pray makes the entire space holy. We no lon
> }-- End of excerpt from "Nancy M. Piatkowski"
>
>       I have read 'Environment and Art' and I find it an interesting
> document.  While there seems to be a good deal of thought in it, I find
> an inherent conflict reflected in it.... namely, there has been an
> attempt of late to regard the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as
> being on the same level of Christ in the proclaimed Word and in the
> community.  For one thing, this tends to downplay sacrifice as the
> key element that it is (though admittedly it's not the only element).
> Nancy's statement above reflects this.... when she equates 'Meal' with
> 'Altar'.  The altar is a place for SACRIFICE.  The Mass reflects the
> view that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is superior to the
> other ways in which he is present; for example, we genuflect when we
> enter the church.  We are genuflecting to the Eucharist, not to the Gospel!
> We kneel during the Consecration; we stand during the Gospel.
>
>       I'd appreciate other's comments on this.
>

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed, since you're making the assumption that
Nancy is equating the Word to the Eucharist.  You're also stretching things by
trying to develop a conflict between sacrifice and the meal imagery of the
Mass.  There is sufficient language in the Mass alone to support Nancy's
analogy.  Additionally, the simple act of putting a meal on the table can be a
sacrifice for many families, which strengthens the analogy.

Nancy's point is that human beings cannot focus on a wide variety of things at
the same time.  Designing a church so that people focus on the Word when it is
being read, then on the Consecration when it takes place, is practical.  It
doesn't equate the two.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU