reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

These are from flickr;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pandas/464153752/in/set-72157594489673798/

[ATTACH]6332[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]6333[/ATTACH]

Fortunately, it should be easy enough to remove all the pub junk if and when the time comes. Then the problem is trying to replace the missing furniture to complete the restoration.

Praxiteles was speaking to avery interesting person over the past few days on the subject of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum – a document which looks increasing set to destine the rising and falling of many in Israel.

While Praxiteles had already seen -and pointed out – that with the explicit authorisation of a two forms of the Roman Rite, many of our churches in Ireland will have to be de-reordered to accomodate the usus antiquior. The interesting, and informed person, agreed with this.

However, this person then went on to point out the time bomb ticking away in the middle of Summorum Pontificum and it is expressed in a mere brace of carefully chosen paroles. the two words are nunquam abrogatum. Insignificant, you might say but what these say is that “the rite of the Mass prescribed for use up to the publication of the Missale Roanum of 1969 was never abrogated. The upshot of that being that the liturgical disposition of churches required (and indeed ordered in law) for the celebration of the Mass in the older rite, likewise, has never been abrogated. And, of course, the consequence of that is that all the wreckage that has gone on is completely unauthorized AND moreover is completely unlawful, AND contrary to the prescriptions of liturgical law.

When all you concerned persons out there will be writing to the Planning Authorities about liturgical requirements, remember those two all important little words nunquam abrogatum !!

As a subsidium for the incredulous, here is the relevant text:

“Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus “Quattuor abhinc annos” et “Ecclesia Dei” pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur”:

Mount Argus which I’ve mentioned abouve is another one of those amazing buildings which I’ve been fortunate enough to grouw up with on my doorstep, and I’m no stranger to the place. There is far far too much to say on it in one posting. If people are really intrested in it I can start a new thread on it. It has a fascinating history, and anybody who has a chance I would highly recommend a visit to the church and the fantastic exehibition which is on display around the back of the sanctuary (you’ll see it when you go in). The monastary / college is also an amazing building. It contains some amazing examples of original 1850’s woodwork in both the choir room, and the library. I haven’t got photo’s of these right now but i will get some some fine day. For now ill just throw up a few general pictures of the church.

Interior now…..

Interior then….

Church and monastary looking from the north east

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

#3523
“The repacement of the big tabernacle with a smaller version was a bitter miscalculation. Who turned these charlatans loose on an unsuspecting Ireland?”

The thinking goes something like this. God must diminish, that Man may be elevated !!!!

This of course is the answer to ake’s earlier question [#3524] as to how anyone came up with the notion to remove altar rails. One reason contends that the rail functions as a barricade, separating the laity, worshiping in the nave, from the clergy leading the liturgical prayer in the sanctuary. One can easily point to to the bema in early basilicae like S. Sabina, Rome. One teacher of liturgy in America refers to it as an early-Christian and medieval method of “crowd control.”

A second reason involves the actual function of communion rails – to provide for the reception of Holy Communion. As the Church’s doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist developed over time in response to various errors concerning the mode of Christ’s presence, and as genuine Eucharistic piety sought clearer and more reverent ways of expressing genuine faith in Christ’s real, substantial, supernatural presence under the Sacred Species, the faithful received the Sacrament on the tongue as they knelt in adoration. This kneeling posture assumed by the communicants, as the priest and deacon went from person to person along the communion rail, facilitated the process of distributing Communion and reduced the risk of dropping the Sacred Host.

Once ecclesiastical authorities agreed to allow the faithful to be communicated whilst standing, much began to change. Reception of Holy Communion now is a brisk, business-like affair with lines of moving individuals advancing toward the priest or deacon (or in many places the ubiquitous “exrtraordinary minister of the Eucharist”) often reaching, if not snatching, at the Host and stalking off either out the nearest door or back to the pew. Chewing gum, soiled palms (including telephone numbers scrawled in ink), tongue piercings, strange postures, and ambiguous hand gestures now feature with increasing regularity in the reception of Holy Communion in North America. Most priests whom I know have either hound Hosts in pews or in the floor, or have had perishioners find them and bring them to the sacristy.

Rhabanus notes that the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum 93 directs that the Communion patens are to be reintroduced in places where their use had been discontinued: “The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.”
Moreover, RS 92 instructs:
[[/INDENT]Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.179

One wonders whether the “extraordinary form of the Mass of the Roman Rite” safequarded officially by the motu proprio Summorum pontificum will become as ubiquitous throughout the Church as “extraordinary ministers” of the Holy Eucharist.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Actually, they are not extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. They are extraordinary miniters of Holy Communion (cf. Eccelsiae de Mysterio of 17 August 1997).

Point taken. Nevertheless, despite legislation which circumscribes their role and function, they are ubiquitous. They have gone by so many different names and titles, that it is difficult for Rhabanus to keep up with all of them. They used to call themselves, and were called in local parlance (until Rome’s clarification) “Eucharistic Ministers.” Others, less charitably, call them “Eucharistic monsters.” In many parts, they are still called “Eucharistic Ministers” since they do just about everything except the words of the Eucharistic Prayer.

One of them recently told Rhabanus that he likewise blessed throats on St Blase’s Day (3 Feb). I wonder does he also perform ordinations of deacons and priests, or might he restrict himself to the veiling of nuns and the blessing of abbots and abbesses?

All Saints, Templetown, Wexford parish church; a small rural counterpart to the Wexford town churches.

[ATTACH]6344[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6345[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]6346[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6347[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]6348[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6349[/ATTACH]

I personally prefer garden grottoes outside.

Thanks;here’s the south chapel window. I’ll put up one of the great window soon.

[ATTACH]6358[/ATTACH]

It’s a great pity the main altar railing is gone here. from the looks of it it may have extended the sanctuary one bay into the nave, like the rowe street church in Wexford which works beautifully

btw Here’s of a shot of the exterior which is also superb.
http://www.ferns.ie/parish.shtml?Id=Templetown

Some shots of St. Alphonsus Barntown, Co. Wexford built by A.W.N. Pugin 1843/1848

1. SHows the interior in c. 1870 (note the stencil work on the arches).

2. AN aerial shot of BArntown in c. 1960 (note the recessed arch of the facade -feature repeated by E.W. Pugin in Dadizele, Barton, Cobh and by G.C Ashlin in Mallow. It appears to be based on prototypes at Amiens Cathedral and at Peterborough).

@Antipodes wrote:

There are 34 images of the exterior and interior of St Alphonsus’, Barntown, at:

http://www.puginfoundation.org/barntown_gallery/

Thanks for that. Anything on Bree or Tagoath?

@Antipodes wrote:

Yes, Praxiteles, you will find 12 images of Bree and 24 images of Tagoat at:

http://www.puginfoundation.org/bree_gallery/

http://www.puginfoundation.org/tagoat_gallery/

Glad to see that Tagoat is still largely intcat -and in no small way due to the efforts of the PP Fr. Matthew Glynn, a longtime student and expert in all matters Pugin.