reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
A mosaic portrait of Pope John VII (705-707) from the Chapel of the Mother of God in Old St. Peter’s shown here holding the chapel of which he is donor.
Anyone have information on this spectacular altar in New Ross? It’s in the church near the St.Mary’s COI not in St.Kieran’s. With bad stained glass, the lighting is poor and aggravated by hideous blaring orangey tungsten spotlights, so correcting the white balance made these slightly dim
[ATTACH]4199[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4200[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4201[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4202[/ATTACH]Praxiteles wrote:No need to screech. Here are the main points:1. The parish of St Rochus resumed using the High Altar for Mass beginning on the First SUnday of Advent 2006.
2. This gave rise to “concerns”. The Vicars of the various deaneries in the Archdiocese of Vienna wrote to the Archbishop looking for “clarification”. The letter just happened to be leaked to the press.
3. When raised during an interview with Cardinal Shoenborn, Archbishop of Vienna, the Cardinal stated the following points:
a. It is what happens on the altar that is decisive and not the direction in which the priest faces when saying Mass]
Your otherwise excellent summary of the main points did not include an interesting comment made by Christoph Schönborn. He noted that, while orientation to the east is the prototype of church architecture, St. Peter in Rome is, for practical reasons, “occidented†to the west. Hence the Pope celebrates mass facing towards the door which lies to the east and consequently also facing the congregation. It would appear therefore that the bitter dispute in Cobh is about geography rather than liturgy and it is only relevant to the churches which similarly face due east.
Dieter wrote:Your otherwise excellent summary of the main points did not include an interesting comment made by Christoph Schö]I omitted this point to avoid complicating the issue of orientation. In fact, the liturgy in St. Peter’s for a very long time had certain peculiarities deriving from its building history. For example, at the collect (which is now called the ‘opening prayer’ in English or the “Tagesgebet” in German), the Deacon announced Conversi ad Dominum. At this point, the congregation in St. Peter’s turned around and faced the door, with their backs to the Altar and to the Pope. So the liturgy in St. Peter’s has always been and “oriented” or east facing liturgy.
I think the Most Eminent Graf von Schoenborn confused matters a little in his choice of terms. “Ostierung” of a church means the Altar is in the east end of the church and that the church is “oriented” or built so that Mass is said facing East.
I am not sure what exactly was meant by “Occidented”. I take it to mean that the Altar is situated in the West end of the basilica which is (more or less true at present and more clearly ture in old St Peters). That however, does not mean that the Basilica is not “oriented” toward the east. It is in fact oriented to the east for the Pope stands at the west side of the High Altar and faces east.
It is accidental that the congregation in front of him happen to be facing west and towards him. However, as I said, for all the important parts of the Mass the rubric of the Basilica was “conversi ad Dominum” or “turned towards the Lord” i.e. turned toward the doors which are at the east end.
The “practical reasons” explaining the pecularitites of the location of the High Altar in St. Peter’s and the consequent rubrical pecularities derive from the practical necessity of locating the High Altar immediately over the tomb of St. Peter. When Constantine build old St. Peter’s in 325 the tomb was located on the slope of the Vatican Hill. In order to build the basilica, the slope had to be sliced and a very considerable wedge of it taken away to allow for the High Altar to be located over the tomb. However, if the nave of the old basilica were to have been build behind the High Altar, as you would expect, that would have necessitated a further excavation into the Vatican Hill. The amount of space that would have been required for the nave and for the forecourt of the basilica would have meant an excavation into the side of the hill to a point almost reaching half of the entire hill – which was not practical. Instead, Constantine caused a platform to be built to the East of the High Altar and used the material excavated from the hill to fill it in. It wa on this platform that he built the nave and the forecourts of the Basilica. The result was that while the High Altar was in the West end of the church, it was used in the “oriented” manner (that is with the Pope facing the doors in the east end) and with the peculiar rubrics of having the entire congregation face the doors (the east) for the important parts of the Mass – the same practice as you have in any orientated (or east facing) church.
The Cobh problem is not really about geography at all. Ultimately, it is a challenge to what is officially permitted by the liturgical laws of the Catholic church thrown down by a private interpretation of what liturgy should be that lacks all official approval. As the law stands, Mass can be said facing any way. The Cathedral in Cobh is oriented east/ west and the High Altar erected so that Mass is said facing east. Since the 1970s another altar (a Volksaltar) has been placed in the sanctuary at which Mass is said facing west. This arrangement is in conformity with the present liturgical law. Were the wreckage to have happened, Mass would still be said facing west but the surroundings would have been devastated and the implanted scheme would have given expressions to certain theological positions widely at variance with orthodox Catholic doctrine.
Dieter!
I have been trying to locate a cross section of the Mons Vaticanus to illustrate what I had to say above but it is proving difficult. For starters, however, here is a ground plan showing three things: at the bottom, the outline of the Circus of Nero; b. the groundplan of Conatantine’s basilica begun in 325; c. the groundplan of the present basilica.
As you can see, the High Altar is in exactky in the same place as that of the Constantinian basilica. In the new basilica, however, there is a much greater area of the church behind the High Altar.
Dieter!
The map here shows the gradients on the Mons Vaticanus behind St. Peter’s Basilica. As you can see, it is quite steep in some parts. This is basically the shape given to the Mons Vaticanus after the excavations of Constantine. The steep gradients indicate where the hill was “sliced” so that the Basilica could be fitted in to an exact spot dictated by the location of the tomb of St. Peter.
The satellite picture shows this phenomenon.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Dieter!
The map here shows the gradients on the Mons Vaticanus behind St. Peter’s Basilica. As you can see, it is quite steep in some parts. This is basically the shape given to the Mons Vaticanus after the excavations of Constantine. The steep gradients indicate where the hill was “sliced” so that the Basilica could be fitted in to an exact spot dictated by the location of the tomb of St. Peter.
The satellite picture shows this phenomenon.
The same arrangement obtains in Rome’s Cathedral of the Most Holy Saviour (nicknamed St John Lateran because of it proximity to the chief baptistery of Rome – Constantine acquired the Lateran property through marriage). The apse is located in the west end of the building but the altar is oriented, that is, facing eastward. Hence the pope would celebrate the sacred mysteries at the high altar facing east, and the people too would have turned to face in the same direction. Constantine built the cathedral far from the centre of the City with its many pagan tmples, shrines, and other public monuments. In fact the area around the Lateran basilica was not much inhabited until the last part of the nineteenth century. The facade of the basilica greets visitors approaching from the Porta Maggiore. Its north transept faces the via Merulana, renowned since at least the year 700 (Ordo Romanus I) as the route of the elaborate papal procession on Easter morning and more recently as the route of the papal procession on Corpus Christi. The basilica was constructed to flank the earlier palazzo which Constantine donated to the pope. Perhaps this accounts for the arrangement of a western apse.
Saint Mary Major (S Maria Maggiore) is situated on a north-south axis. As the first church in Rome dedicated in honour of Mary Mother of God, (celebrating the title formally affirmed at the Council of Ephesus), it replaced a temple of Juno (Hera) where expectant mothers would pray for a safe delivery.
The fourth major basilica, St Paul’s, rebuilt in the 1820s after a fire, has its apse in the east end of the basilica over the tomb of St Paul. The Apostle’s coffin or supulchral urn has recently been excavated, although not opened.
The church of St Lawrence-outside-the-walls, near the famous cemetery Campo Verano, originally had its facade and narthex next to the ancient cemetery. The church was enlaged, or rather reconstructed, by Pope Pelagius, who built a basilica on the east end of the apse thereby reversing the direction or axis of the church. It seems a similar situation arose on the via Nomentana for the martyrial basilica of St Agnes.
It looks as though a serious efforts is underway to finish Anton Gaudi Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.
Here is the works report to the end of 2005: http://www.sagradafamilia.org/eng/arquitect/informeobres_05maig.pdf
Here is the website of theSagrada Familia: http://www.sagradafamilia.org/
Dieter!
The image below is the best I can manage so far on the the subject of the construction of the Constantinian Basilica on the Mons Vaticanus.
The image shows the line of the hill, the Roman graveyard with the tomb of St. Peter, the floor of the Constantinian Basilica; and the floor of the present Basilica.
A propos Etsuro Sotoo
http://es.catholic.net/escritoresactuales/643/760/articulo.php?id=27135
http://es.catholic.net/comunicadorescatolicos/730/2288/articulo.php?id=24760
http://www.tracce.it/det_Articoli.asp?Sezione=ottobre+2005&ID=20051028
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/getaways/042596/dest25_top.html
http://www.traces-cl.com/2006E/10/asoncomi.html
http://www.gaudiallgaudi.com/AA012El%20cons.htm
http://www.catholic-life.co.uk/features/sagrada_familia.html
The Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, showing some of Etsuro Sotoo’s work crowning the pinnacles of the south facade:
Some more views of the Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, begun on 18 March 1883. By the latest account the fisrt Mass will be celebrated in the nes church sometime in 2008-
pics of Christchurch Waterford, St.Michan’s, Rotunda Hospital (mostly chapel) and some of Waterford RC Cathedral
http://www.flickr.com/photos/95516907@N00/
St.Ann’s, Dublin, Georgian woodwork
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59301202@N00/sets/72157594527636954/Anglican churches have suffered nearly as badly as Catholic churches in the 20th and 19th cs it seems to me.
A little snippet from A.G. Lough’s The Influence fo John Mason Neal:
It is also clear that Neal would have opposed the present demand for a central altar, which has come about through the modern Liturgical Movement. The Reverend Peter Hammons in a recent book, Liturgy and Architecture (1960) , emphasises that a church building must be a symbolic structure. “It must be informed from the outset by a theological understanding of its purpose”. Neal would have entirely agreed with this. But what precisely is a church meant to symbolize? Here Neal would have diffeded from Mr. Hammond. A church is meant to symbolize not simply the Church on earth, but the whole Churchin this life and in the life to come. In a medieval church tha chancel with its Rood Screen adorned with paintings of the saints, symbolized heaven and the final destiny of the People fo God. The chancel was the most vital and important part of the building. But the modern ecclesiologist would sweep all thi away, and have aplain building with a central altar and no apparent mystery or reminder of the world to come. Such a church would appear to symbolize only the CVhurch on earth, and leave out of account the great unseen Church in paradise and in Heaven. It would seem that the world to-day. with its material outlook, above all needs to be reminded that this world is not the end and purpose of all existence but only a preparation for what is to come…..The traditional plan of a medieval church was a symbol of this great truth” . So much for a 21 century sanctuary for a 21 century liturgy!!
I presume that this is a reference to John Mason Neale, the renowned hymnographer and founder of the Cambridge Camden Society, which now glories under the name The Ecclesiology Society.
Here is the entry for him in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mason_Neale
The part about JMN being mauled at a funeral shows just what the iconoclasts would like to do today to lovers of the sacred liturgy. I myself was once stabbed in the hand by an iconoclast at a fondu party in Rome back in the early-Eighties. Luckily I survived to relate the tale. Nevertheless, it was a lesson well learned.
Re the photograph of JMN included in the entry: the expression suggests my own reaction to some of those shots of la sagrada familia, Spain.
@Praxiteles wrote:
A little snippet from A.G. Lough’s The Influence fo John Mason Neal:
It is also clear that Neal would have opposed the present demand for a central altar, which has come about through the modern Liturgical Movement. The Reverend Peter Hammons in a recent book, Liturgy and Architecture (1960) , emphasises that a church building must be a symbolic structure. “It must be informed from the outset by a theological understanding of its purpose”. Neal would have entirely agreed with this. But what precisely is a church meant to symbolize? Here Neal would have diffeded from Mr. Hammond. A church is meant to symbolize not simply the Church on earth, but the whole Churchin this life and in the life to come. In a medieval church tha chancel with its Rood Screen adorned with paintings of the saints, symbolized heaven and the final destiny of the People fo God. The chancel was the most vital and important part of the building. But the modern ecclesiologist would sweep all thi away, and have aplain building with a central altar and no apparent mystery or reminder of the world to come. Such a church would appear to symbolize only the CVhurch on earth, and leave out of account the great unseen Church in paradise and in Heaven. It would seem that the world to-day. with its material outlook, above all needs to be reminded that this world is not the end and purpose of all existence but only a preparation for what is to come…..The traditional plan of a medieval church was a symbol of this great truth” . So much for a 21 century sanctuary for a 21 century liturgy!!
@ake wrote:
I was in the Sagrada Familia a couple of years ago. I don’t know if I like or hate it.
If nothing else, at least it shows a contemporary artist working from within the tradition of faith. Sotoo in this respect is advancing the cause of sacred architecture and demonstrating that the building of a cathedral in the great medieval tradition can and ought to be carried out today with state-of-the-art technology and fresh insights.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
