In December 2008, the former Director of the Regional Conservation in Saxony, Professor Dr Dr hc Heinrich Magirius in a Opinion on important national heritage and functional issues of the interior design expressed the following:
'The owner, the Free State of Saxony, and the designing architect Erick van Egeraat designed the interior of the 'Paulinum' on the site of the University Church St Paul which was destroyed in 1968 as 'memorial architecture'. The long, three-aisle nave and the hint of an arch bearing area are meant to be reminiscent of the late Gothic style of the church. The future use is to be based on this tradition: The space will serve as a worship space, as a concert hall and as a university auditorium. Last but not least the more than 50 epitaphs, pictures and sculptures, which were salvaged in 1968 under difficult conditions and which are currently being restored at great expense, will be exhibited in the form of a museum. This includes not least the Baroque pulpit, created by Valentin Schwarzenberger in 1738. (...) In the context of the proposed memorial architecture, it would be wrong to separate the choir as a worship space and 'museum' from the nave as the 'Great Hall' and 'concert room' through a glass partition. It would rather important to create a space which can be experienced in its entirety as it was historically determined. The photos from the time before 1968 show that the pulpit has a crucial role as a link between the choir and the nave. It is inconceivable for the pulpit to be placed anywhere other than where it was intended to be historically. It seems completely incomprehensible today that the historic pulpit should not be placed in the building. (...) Finally, as a conservator I want to argue strongly once again that the epitaphs should be affixed on the walls. Most of them are huge stone-carvings which need the rear walls with the choir screens in place like they used to in the University Church. The idea of the architect to have the extant monuments as if they were free-floating in space, is contrary to any understanding of their appropriate aesthetic role and impact. If the architect had intended to create a building free from any reminder of the historical givenness, one could perhaps imagine such a play with novel aesthetic effects, but not as part of a building which is specifically intended to remind through use as a church of the former University Church St Paul.'