reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

The link takes you to a set of pictures of Leeds Cathedral and to some of the works carried out there.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paullew/sets/72157603655443127/

St. Joseph’s Church, Liscarroll, Co. Cork

Well, Cork County Council is due to make a decision this week on the planning application that has been lodged by the Parish Priest to wreck the interior of this church. As usual, Danny Murphy, the liturgical guru of the Cloyne HACK, provided some of the most interesting “liturgical” justifications for this barbarism in another paper he submitted just before Christmas to the Planning Authority.

It looks as though this poor man has discovered something about liturgical movement and its anti-clockwise direction in the Latin Church. Unfortunately, as is always the case with a modicum of learning, he does not appear to have understood much about the anti-clokwise direction of Western liturgical movement – given some of the howlers he came up with on positioning the Stations of the Cross that the HACK want to put into this church.

Basically, poor old Danny had the idiotic idea of erecting the stations of the Cross in an anti-clockwise direction from the door of the church!! If Danny had been half educated, he should have known that the anti clockwise direction of liturgical movement is anti-clockwise from the ALTAR -not the back of the church or any where else in the church.

Neither did he notice that while “liturgical” movement is anti-clockwise in direction, non-liturgical movement is not anti-clockwise and can be clockwise. Danny should have realized that the Stations of the Cross, not being a liturgical practice but being a DEVOTIONAL practice, usually move in a clockwise direction. Hence, looking from the ALTAR, the first station will be on the left and progress around the church to the right.

Clearly, he has not carefully read the relevant section of the Directory on Liturgy and Popular Devotions. Indeed, he may well not have read a single word of the document for all we know and the evidence points in that direction.

Reading the latest piece of guff from him, the reader cannot easily escape the impression that the writer has confused liturgy for a very eccentric and, dare one say, daft bit of personal codology.

Perhaps Rhabanus might like to comment further.

@Praxiteles wrote:

St. Joseph’s Church, Liscarroll, Co. Cork

Well, Cork County Council is due to make a decision this week on the planning application that has been lodged by the Parish Priest to wreck the interior of this church. As usual, Danny Murphy, the liturgical guru of the Cloyne HACK, provided some of the most interesting “liturgical” justifications for this barbarism in another paper he submitted just before Christmas to the Planning Authority.

It looks as though this poor man has discovered something about liturgical movement and its anti-clockwise direction in the Latin Church. Unfortunately, as is always the case with a modicum of learning, he does not appear to have understood much about the anti-clokwise direction of Western liturgical movement – given some of the howlers he came up with on positioning the Stations of the Cross that the HACK want to put into this church.

Basically, poor old Danny had the idiotic idea of erecting the stations of the Cross in an anti-clockwise direction from the door of the church!! If Danny had been half educated, he should have known that the anti clockwise direction of liturgical movement is anti-clockwise from the ALTAR -not the back of the church or any where else in the church.

Neither did he notice that while “liturgical” movement is anti-clockwise in direction, non-liturgical movement is not anti-clockwise and can be clockwise. Danny should have realized that the Stations of the Cross, not being a liturgical practice but being a DEVOTIONAL practice, usually move in a clockwise direction. Hence, looking from the ALTAR, the first station will be on the left and progress around the church to the right.

Clearly, he has not carefully read the relevant section of the Directory on Liturgy and Popular Devotions. Indeed, he may well not have read a single word of the document for all we know and the evidence points in that direction.

Reading the latest piece of guff from him, the reader cannot easily escape the impression that the writer has confused liturgy for a very eccentric and, dare one say, daft bit of personal codology.

Perhaps Rhabanus might like to comment further.

Here goes:

The Christian liturgy adopts the classic Roman method of marching counter-clockwise in procession. Pagan Romans returning from battle purified themselves ritually by marching into the Forum on the Via Sacra in a counterclockwise direction. This movement was chosen in order to purify the troops from contact with blood in battle. The procession, which involved a display of the spoils of victory, including even captives, would lead to one of the great temples in the forum.

The Christian Church in Rome adopted the same practice, advancing to the right of the principal celebrant and proceeding in a counter-clockwise direction around the perimeter of the space or along a circular or rectangular path that wound up at the point of departure. This obtained in the Candlemas Day processions on the Esquiline Hill into the Basilica of St Mary Major, which replaced the pagan temple dedicated to Juno in Childbirth. It was there that a Christian procession would wend its way around the Esquiline and into the Basilica of St Mary Major on the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, also known as Hypapante, the “Encounter” between Christ and Simeon, representative of the all the just.

Processions into and around the stational churches of Rome follow the same pattern.

The procession of the Stations of the Cross follows this method as well. The celebrant, with various attendants bearing cross and candles, leaves the sacristy and proceeds to the foot of the altar in the sanctuary. After the opening prayers, the celebrant turns toward the gate of the sanctuary, proceeds through it into the nave and then turns to his right (Gospel side of the church). The first station (Pilate condemns Jesus to death) is placed in the side aisle. After the first station, the procession advances down the nave or side aisle toward the entrance of the church or chapel. Once the seventh station is prayed (Jesus falls the second time), the procession moves to the other side of the nave and carries on with the eighth station (Jesus comforts the daughters of Jerusalem). The procession now moves from the entrance of the church toward the sanctuary along the side aisle (Epistle side) or remaining in the middle aisle but facing each station for reflection and prayer.

After the fourteenth station (Jesus is laid in the Sepulchre) the procession leaves the Epistle side and enters the sanctuary by the gate; then prayers are recited at the foot of the Altar before the tabernacle.

The novel contrivance of a fifteenth station (The Resurrection) is an innovation encouraged by church suppliers ($$$) and nouveaux liturgistes (???), but is quite redundant, considering the tradition of concluding the procession and prayer at the foot of the altar, before the Blessed Sacrament – the Risen Lord Himself! DUHH!!

“Ya! That makes a whole lot of sense.” Glad you agree! It makes eminent sense if one possesses even a modicum of liturgical instinct (not to mention common sense), and are capable of distinguishing right from left, east from west, and your knee (?) from your elbow!

@Rhabanus wrote:

Here goes:

The Christian liturgy adopts the classic Roman method of marching counter-clockwise in procession. Pagan Romans returning from battle purified themselves ritually by marching into the Forum on the Via Sacra in a counterclockwise direction. This movement was chosen in order to purify the troops from contact with blood in battle. The procession, which involved a display of the spoils of victory, including even captives, would lead to one of the great temples in the forum.

The Christian Church in Rome adopted the same practice, advancing to the right of the principal celebrant and proceeding in a counter-clockwise direction around the perimeter of the space or along a circular or rectangular path that wound up at the point of departure. This obtained in the Candlemas Day processions on the Esquiline Hill into the Basilica of St Mary Major, which replaced the pagan temple dedicated to Juno in Childbirth. It was there that a Christian procession would wend its way around the Esquiline and into the Basilica of St Mary Major on the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, also known as Hypapante, the “Encounter” between Christ and Simeon, representative of the all the just.

Processions into and around the stational churches of Rome follow the same pattern.

The procession of the Stations of the Cross follows this method as well. The celebrant, with various attendants bearing cross and candles, leaves the sacristy and proceeds to the foot of the altar in the sanctuary. After the opening prayers, the celebrant turns toward the gate of the sanctuary, proceeds through it into the nave and then turns to his right (Gospel side of the church). The first station (Pilate condemns Jesus to death) is placed in the side aisle. After the first station, the procession advances down the nave or side aisle toward the entrance of the church or chapel. Once the seventh station is prayed (Jesus falls the second time), the procession moves to the other side of the nave and carries on with the eighth station (Jesus comforts the daughters of Jerusalem). The procession now moves from the entrance of the church toward the sanctuary along the side aisle (Epistle side) or remaining in the middle aisle but facing each station for reflection and prayer.

After the fourteenth station (Jesus is laid in the Sepulchre) the procession leaves the Epistle side and enters the sanctuary by the gate; then prayers are recited at the foot of the Altar before the tabernacle.

The novel contrivance of a fifteenth station (The Resurrection) is an innovation encouraged by church suppliers ($$$) and nouveaux liturgistes (???), but is quite redundant, considering the tradition of concluding the procession and prayer at the foot of the altar, before the Blessed Sacrament – the Risen Lord Himself! DUHH!!

“Ya! That makes a whole lot of sense.” Glad you agree! It makes eminent sense if one possesses even a modicum of liturgical instinct (not to mention common sense), and are capable of distinguishing right from left, east from west, and your knee (?) from your elbow!

Well as a matter of fact, our brave Danny is in fact proposing a fifteenth station of the Cross.

Could you perhaps recommend a book or two (in English of course) should our Danny want to learn something about liturgy and liturgical movement?

@Praxiteles wrote:

Well as a matter of fact, our brave Danny is in fact proposing a fifteenth station of the Cross.

Could you perhaps recommend a book or two (in English of course) should our Danny want to learn something about liturgy and liturgical movement?

Rhabanus recommends: Widdershins For Dummies; Everything You Wanted to Know About Catholic Processions But Were Afraid To Ask; Stop The World; I Want To Get Off; Rock Around The Clock. Then there are the more prosaic titles: Edmond Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus (Venice, 1788), III, 177; IV, 45 sq., 280 sq.; Giuseppe CATALANI, Commentarius in Rituale Romanum (Rome, 1750) – although Rhabanus always uses the third corrected edition from the 1850s – much more reliable; GRETSER, De processionibus in Opera omnia, V (Ratisbon, 1735), v; SANDERUS, Auctarium de ritu processionum (Ypres, 1640); EVEILLON, De processionibus ecclesiasticis (Paris, 1641); QUARTO, De processionibus ecclesiasticis (Naples, 1649); WORDSWORTH, Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1901); Ceremonial of the Church (Philadelphia, 1894).
For more current sources, one might try John Baldovin’s Urban Stational Liturgy. The bibliogrpahy in Baldovin’s book is very useful.

Rhabanus is on manoevers, so is not handy to a library just at the moment. He may have new items to report tomorrow.

In the meantime, start Danny out on a processional pilgrimage to Croagh Padraig. As long as he keeps going counterclockwise, he’ll be right as rain.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Well as a matter of fact, our brave Danny is in fact proposing a fifteenth station of the Cross.

Could you perhaps recommend a book or two (in English of course) should our Danny want to learn something about liturgy and liturgical movement?

Rhabanus recommends: Widdershins For Dummies; Everything You Wanted to Know About Catholic Processions But Were Afraid To Ask; Stop The World; I Want To Get Off; Rock Around The Clock. Then there are the more prosaic titles: Edmond Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus (Venice, 1788), III, 177; IV, 45 sq., 280 sq.; Giuseppe CATALANI, Commentarius in Rituale Romanum (Rome, 1750) – although Rhabanus always uses the third corrected edition from the 1850s – much more reliable; GRETSER, De processionibus in Opera omnia, V (Ratisbon, 1735), v; SANDERUS, Auctarium de ritu processionum (Ypres, 1640); EVEILLON, De processionibus ecclesiasticis (Paris, 1641); QUARTO, De processionibus ecclesiasticis (Naples, 1649); WORDSWORTH, Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1901); Ceremonial of the Church (Philadelphia, 1894).
For more current sources, one might try John Baldovin’s Urban Stational Liturgy. The bibliogrpahy in Baldovin’s book is very useful.

Rhabanus is on manoevers, so is not handy to a library just at the moment. He may have new items to report tomorrow.

In the meantime, start Danny out on a processional pilgrimage to Croagh Padraig. As long as he keeps going counterclockwise, he’ll be right as rain.

St. Nicholas, Churchtown, Co. Cork (1839)

@Praxiteles wrote:

Well as a matter of fact, our brave Danny is in fact proposing a fifteenth station of the Cross.

Could you perhaps recommend a book or two (in English of course) should our Danny want to learn something about liturgy and liturgical movement?

There once was a time when the Stations of the Cross had to be erected canonically by the local bishop. I presume that this stipulation would have provided some desirable (or, rather, needed) supervision, and guaranteed a certain standardisation from church to church and from chapel to chapel. In other words, it likely aimed to prevent the Stations from being erected backwards or out of the proper sequence. Lately, however, innovations have crept into the Stations – a sure-fire way of dampening the flames of devotion, particularly in those who have embraced the devotion and incorporated it into their spiritual routine. The introduction of novelties serves often to disorient and confuse the faithful. Is this the aim of the exercise?

Some have their favourite set of mediations on the Stations. Cardinal Newman”s are particularly good. Newman composed two sets – a longer and a shorter version, depending on whether they were being prayed publicly with a congregation, as on Lenten weekdays, or privately by individuals or small groups. The latter are somewhat more intimate or personal.

The Servant of God Pope John Paul II asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to compose a series of meditations and to lead the Stations of the Cross at the Colisseum on Good Friday 2005, shortly before the Pontiff returned to the Father’s House.

A new trend in some churches in North America involves embedding the Stations of the Cross not on the walls of the church (far too conventional and helpful to the faithful) but IN THE FLOOR! Explain that one!

Architects and artists, no less than parish priests ought to take cognizance of the fact that the Stations of the Cross actually comprise not the images that adorn each individual station, but rather the wooden cross that marks each one. An engraving of a Roman numeral in the floor does not suffice for an authentic set of Stations of the Cross. DO NOT BE FOOLED by innovations that cost plenty of $$$ and then leave you in the lurch because they lack due materials and arrangement.

Who comes up with these novelties, anyway? We certainly know who pays for them! Caveat emptor!

@Praxiteles wrote:

Well, what a surprise.

Our little Danny Murphy has a long ramble in his submission to Cork County Council explaining why he thinks it woould be so nice to have at least two of the Stations of the Cross embedded in the floor of Liscarroll church. Both of these “Stations” are without figure and consist of nothing but Roman numerals – which Danny is incapable of reading beyond III.

A north American invention!! This is what he was “learning” on his six months course in Chicago that converted him into a “liturgist”.

Nice to have things in context.

Pity. Ireland led the pack back in the nineteenth century. How sad to see the spiritual descendants of those great saints and scholars and pioneers now chasing after the hare and the hounds.

I suppose the advantage of simply incising Roman numerals in the floor is that one can replace the traditional stations/meditations with one’s own imaginative choices. Just consult the other lemmings – they’ll be sure to know.

Rhabanus is dismayed that The Liturgist D Murphy actually permits the traditional figures to appear at all. Rather generous of him. But since Summorum pontificum, there’s a new wind blowing through the Church; and some of these hard-bitten liturgistas have had to loosen up a bit. Would that they had begun to lighten up as well. Too dour for anyone’s good.

Cobh Cathedral

From this morning’s Sunday Business Post

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=29557-qqqx=1.asp

(even Archiseek gets a mention)