reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

A short biography of James McMillan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_MacMillan_(musician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_MacMillan_(musician)

Speaking of St. Francis Xavier’s, here is a recent picture of the Gesù in Rome during the Mass for the opening of the 35 General Congregation of the Company of Jesus aka the Jesuits.

The High Altar seen here was installed in the mid 19th century replacing the one made originally for the Gesù by Giacomo della Porta -which is now in bits and pieces in Thurles Cathedral.

@Praxiteles wrote:

From this week’s Catholic herald:

Benedict XVI leads the faithful in ‘looking together at the Lord’

by Dr. Alcuin Reid

“What matters is looking together at the Lord.” These words, written eight years ago by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, explain a subtle but decisive liturgical reform being enacted through the personal example of Pope Benedict XVI.

The latest and perhaps most striking step in this reform took place on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord when, as has become customary, the Pope celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel and baptised newborn infants. As papal ceremonial goes, this is not usually a grand liturgical occasion: the Mass is in the vernacular and is largely said, not sung.

Yet it was precisely there – in perhaps as close to a parish setting as papal ceremonies often get – that the Holy Father chose to make a significant liturgical adjustment. Instead of celebrating the liturgy of the Eucharist at a temporary altar-table set up for the occasion that would have had him “facing the people” (as has often been done in recent years), at the preparation of the gifts Pope Benedict went up to the original altar of the Sistine chapel (which stands against the wall on which Michelangelo painted his Last Judgement) and celebrated “facing East” or “towards the Lord” as it were. The Pope faced in the same direction as all those present – towards the liturgical “East”, towards the cross – in continuity with popes (including Pope John Paul II) and generations of the faithful before him.

Let us be clear, this has nothing at all to do with the Pope’s decision that the more ancient rite of the Mass (in Latin) be available to those who wish it. No, this Mass was according to the modern Missal of Paul VI, in Italian. And that is why this occasion was so important. For in this silent gesture Pope Benedict stated once and for all that there is nothing at all wrong with using the older altars in our churches. For as he wrote in his preface to Fr Michael Lang’s book Turning Towards the Lord: “there is nothing in the [Second Vatican] Council text about turning altars towards the people.”

The Holy Father’s example is not an isolated one. In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “facing toward the East…was linked with the “sign of the Son of Man”, with the Cross, which announces Our Lord’s Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross.” And, recognising that in many places, altars “facing the people” have been set up (sometimes as the result of costly and unnecessary reordering) that make a return to celebrating the liturgy of the Eucharist facing East difficult. “Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior ‘East’ of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.”

This is what Pope Benedict has done: the cross is now at the centre of the papal altar in St Peter’s Basilica (which faces East in any case), as well as at the freestanding modern altar behind it that replaced the old altar of the Chair. He has even adopted this rule when celebrating outside the Vatican – as seen in his Advent Mass in the thoroughly modern chapel at the Knights of Malta hospital in Rome .

Here in England those few priests with the courage to take Cardinal Ratzinger’s words seriously and return to the use of what we call “the high altar” in their churches have been misunderstood or even ridiculed by clergy and laity. Some have been upbraided for doing so by their superiors.

This is undoubtedly due to the erroneous impression that “facing the people” is a mandatory part of the modern liturgy. Well, now the Holy Father – in his customarily humble way – has definitively shown us that it is not. Indeed, he has shown us that facing East where that is all that is possible, or indeed facing the cross – which is possible everywhere, can and ought to be very much a part of the modern liturgy, for “a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord.”

Dr Alcuin Reid is the author of The Organic Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius, 2005).

© 2008 The Catholic Herald Ltd

Great article by Dr Reid. Thanks for posting it, Prax.

The Pope, in his personal theological writings (Spirit of the Liturgy), his magisterial teaching (Summorum pontificum), and his own example (Mass at high altar of the Sistine Chapel for the Baptism of the Lord 2008, plus daily Mass in his own private chapel) consistently applies the “hermeneutic of continuity” to the teachings of the Church.

Those ecclesiastics still stuck in the grip of the ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ ought to step aside in favour of those better equipped to implement the hermeneutic of continuity. The costs to the people in the pews would be considerably reduced, and they would stand a better chance of finding peace rather than discord and uproar in the liturgical worship of God.

Is St Colman’s Cathedral still standing? What about the drainage problem raised earlier on the thread? Anything fallen from the ceiling lately? When is the plywood altar going to be retired in favour of the high altar? That would solve the problem of insufficient room in the sanctuary for the throngs of candidates awaiting ordination. And everyone’s attention then would be drawn to the altar and the actio liturgica.

Do the bells at St Colman’s work? Are they used often? Or do they merely toll the Angelus and mark funerals?

The latest from Cobh has it that more masonry has been falling from the South aisle. Still nothing is happening.

@Praxiteles wrote:

The latest from Cobh has it that more masonry has been falling from the South aisle. Still nothing is happening.

Quoting from your link :http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/cobh-…dral/#comments

“St. Colman’s Society for Catholic Liturgy is pleased to announce that the Most Reverend John Magee, Bishop of Cloyne, will celebrate Holy Mass according to the extraordinary form in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork, on Easter Tuesday, 25 March 2008. All are welcome. Further details will shortly be available”.

They should add the line, “Hard hats and steel toe capped boots, will be available for a small cover charge at the entrance, contact the usher located by peeling/rusty doors on your arrival”

Perhaps Michael O’Brien could give us an update on St Senan’s.

@Rhabanus wrote:

Why all the recent hostility toward the Stations of the Cross? Folks ought to review the Vatican’s Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (Vatican City, 2001). This is easily accessible online. Just go to the Vatican website and download it, then print it out. Or just google it. There is no excuse for being bamboozled by soi-disant liturgists and other charlatans.

Fortify yourselves and read the actual documents, then invite the liturgistas to explain the texts!

Hostility towards the Stations of the Cross -that is a good question. I suspect taht some of the answers to the question will be found lurking around the corridors of the Chicago Theological Insttitute. It is more than a bit ironic that the usual figurative depictions of the Stations should be displaced by figure 1-15 in Roman numerals -when those advocating these gimmicks will be able to figure out -with a little help – I, II and III but will be totally lost when it comes to IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and in outer space as far as IX is concerned, battered by X, XI, XII, XII dumbfounded by XIV and just flat oput with XV!!

@Praxiteles wrote:

Here is an irony!

The picture below shows the sanctuary of the Sathedral of ST. Vitus in Prague- Nothing striking there you might say EXCEPT that it appears on the official website of the diocese of Cloyne ( http://www.cloynediocese.ie/ ). AVid readers may recall that during the attempt to wreck the sanctuary of Cobh Cathedral, thse hired (at enormous expense) to “massage” the planning process made reference to teh CAthedral of Prague -necessitating the FOSCC to contact the Dean if the Chapter of Prague Cathedral to ascertain what had been done to the sanctuary there -and low and behold, the truth turned out to be that what had been done there was much the same as what had been done in Cobh except for the prominent stone slab on top.

Now, we have have a picture of the Volksaltar in Prague being presented on the wbpage of teh Diocese of Cloyne. Could it be ……..

This thoought is further fuelled by a report going around in Cobh that a delivery was lately noticed of a rather large timber unit topped by a granite slab….. The unit was indeed very large and the granite slab very big. It was seen being secreted away out of public sight but, we wonder will it turn up in a planning application that will have to be made to repair the South wall of the Cathedrl after the pre-Christm,as collapse of masonary from the upper ranged of the nave due to water saturation, in turn caused by a new leaking roof (which was not there when the original slates pulverised)..

Let us just see what happens….

How ugly! What a stark contrast to the beauty of the high altar and reredos. The ersatz flames on the burlap frontal and the off-centre calalillies are altogether over the top. And why are the candles plunked down on the mensa of the new altar? This is not encouraged in any of the Vatican II documents. Note on the high altar, the candles stand not on the mensa but on the ledges behind the mensa, i.e. on th ereredos, where they belong.

If Cobh is looking for a model of good taste, why not consult the Sistine Chapel in its newly uncluttered style?

Perhaps the bishop is building a mausoleum for his final resting place, hence the timber and the granite slab. One should always plan ahead.

Here is a short note on liturgical reform published 20 years ago but which may be helpful for the lityrgical gurus in Cloyne:

LITURGICAL RESTORATION:
IS IT TOO LATE?
(This article is reprinted from Newsletter of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, Vol.
XX, No. 5, November 1988.)
One of the most unfortunate developments in the Catholic Church since the
Second Vatican Council has been the extent to which liturgy reforms were, and
continue to be, misguidedly or defectively implemented. And while, for example, in
the business world, losses of customers and profits in the wake of certain policy
changes would have resulted in prompt investigations and reviews, even disciplining
of those responsible, we find the Catholic Church’s liturgical radicals unabashedly
demanding yet more of those very innovations which have contributed to a disastrous
shrinkage of faith and practice, especially in North America and western
Europe.
There is no doubt that the council fathers unknowingly opened a Pandora’s box
when they approved Vatican II’s decree on sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium,
despite its being a moderate, cautious enough document, reflecting the positive and
potentially fruitful thrust of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement.
Unfortunately, this document contained a number of vague, ambiguous, even
potentially contradictory passages, inviting later exploitation by a succession of post-
Vatican II liturgical radicals. No matter that the council called for the retention of
Latin, pipe organs, and Gregorian chant, the lust for change which swept the Church
and the secular world from the mid-1960’s onwards would prove irresistible.
The work of Consilium, a body of international experts charged with giving
practical expression to Sacrosanctum Concilium, merely widened the original loopholes
and institutionalized practices never dreamt of by many or most of the council
fathers, e.g., alternative Eucharistic prayers, spoken aloud in the vernacular, or a
completely revamped offertory. Yet the resultant Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI,
which seemed revolutionary to traditionalists, nevertheless was capable of infusing a
strong sense of the sacred when celebrated by a devout priest according to the mind
of the universal Church, and even more so when in Latin.
But the Church’s authorities, in that period of heady optimism, seemed unaware
of the potential pastoral risks associated with such fundamental reshaping of the
liturgy; so much depended on a set of ideal local circumstances: on innate good
taste, on restraint, on an ingrained sense of the sacred, on sound catechetical backup,
and on clear, firm, liturgical leadership right down the line from Rome through
each diocese, to parish and school. The late 1960’s was the worst of all possible times
for finding such favorable conditions.
Given our flawed human nature’s leaning towards indiscriminate novelties, the old
Mass, with all its limitations, did serve as a barrier against liturgical abuses. Unfortunately,
in opening the way for objectively necessary and desirable liturgical
changes, the Church’s reformers allowed insufficiently for human weakness; nor, of
course, could they have anticipated the western world’s imminent cultural revolution,
the impact of which would be felt in every corner of the secular world as well as
throughout the Catholic Church.
In effect, well-intentioned council fathers and members of Concilium would deliver
many of the Catholic faithful into the hands of local liturgical radicals, amateurs,
and self-appointed experts, smitten by “signs of the times,” and eager to stretch
the council’s spirit to its limits. In so doing they put at risk traditional Catholic perceptions of the Church’s structures, authority, moral teachings, sacraments and
even the very basis of the priesthood.
In the United States, church musicians and well-qualified liturgists, ready to respond
to the letter and spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium in bringing out the fruits of
renewal while maintaining organic continuity with the past, saw themselves quickly
outflanked by devotees of hootenanny and rock Masses who sought an open-ended
succession of experiments in the name of relevance, community and active participation.
American publications, embodying these fanciful extensions of Vatican II,
would inundate parishes and schools all over the western world, ensuring the virtual
extinction of Latin and of quality church music, both artistic and sacred. Enthusiastic
acceptance of this travesty of Vatican II reform would be widely seen, even by
many otherwise orthodox Catholics, as a litmus test of one’s correct post-conciliar
thinking.
In effect, liturgy became the major instrument of a post-Vatican II evolution in the
Catholic Church, reinforcing the impact of radical changes in catechetics and seminary
formation. More than anything else after Vatican II, the endless succession of
seemingly arbitary liturgical changes fostered a relaxed, skeptical atmosphere at the
Church’s grassroots, no matter what official Vatican documents might continue to
affirm; even devout, loyal Catholics would be infected. In India, for example, the
Church would be set on the path of Hinduization in the name of inculturation;
anything became possible.
The twenty years since liturgical reform became widespread have witnessed steep
declines in Mass attendance and in a host of beliefs and practices, particularly in
North America, western Europe and Australasia. Presumably this was not the objective
of Vatican II, to weed out those spiritual weaklings who needed artificial liturgical
props to fortify their Catholicity.
Yet, at the outset, liturgical radicals and their ecclesiastical supporters had predicted
the changes in the Mass would effect larger congregations and an exciting
period of renewal throughout the Church. It was assumed that universal use of the
vernacular, having the priest face the people at an altar table, removing altar rails
and pulpits and standing for Communion to be received on the hand would pack the
churches, attract more converts and improve the quality of worship.
When the reverse actually occurred, advocates of this radical interpretation of
Vatican II made the best of the situation, blaming losses on outside, uncontrollable
forces or on poor communication with the grass roots; it was even suggested that
falling numbers at worship might be a necessary price to pay for improved quality:
today’s Catholics are said to be better educated, more mature and autonomous, and
not intimidated by old notions of authority and obedience.
No doubt, had the actual, but unwarranted, revolutionary changes been accompanied
by increases, instead of decreases in Mass attendance, those responsible would
have claimed credit, attributing this happy development to the popularity or appropriateness
of the changes. On the other hand, in the face of obvious losses, there
have been denials of any links between those losses and misapplied reforms, let alone
admissions of error of judgment, merely demands that the on-going liturgical revolution
be brought to every corner of the Church.
Distinctions between justifiably creative liturgy and flagrant abuses have been
long since obscured in the minds of many priests, religious and liturgy groups.
Vatican documents designed to curb excesses and abuses fail persistently to reach
their targets or are simply overruled in the name of pluralism, inculturation or
collegiality. The present situation reminds one of the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice
as liturgical new brooms, unimpeded by church authority, sweep their way
RESTORATION relentlessly through thousands of churches, chapels and all manner of unlikely Mass sites.
Has the Magisterium, or those acting in its name, been intent these past twenty
years on fostering a more “horizontal” (man-centered), less “vertical” (God-centered)
emphasis in liturgy? Or has this fundamental consideration been thought through at
all save by the Church’s middle-management elites intent on using liturgy to radicalize
the Church? If renewal required a certain fine-tuning of the creative balance
between the vertical and horizontal, would not a long succession of horizontallybiased
changes or innovations merely effect a worse imbalance in the opposite
direction? Few diocesan authorities seem seriously to have addressed this question.
There have been many such changes in the liturgy, all of them pointing in the same
direction. The Mass, in effect, was to evolve into a people-centered, day-to-dayrelevant,
casual, secularized and egalitarian activity. This was the clear message in
most parishes, schools, colleges and religious houses; this was to be the on-going
practical implementation of Vatican Us liturgical renewal, whatever the original
intentions of the council fathers and Consilium, or the present intentions of the
Magisterium. We now have a runaway liturgy so that no matter what Pope John Paul
II might say about abuses and disobedience, there is little serious response at diocesan
and parish levels.
The damaging blend of official loopholes, exceptions and alternatives, all exploited
to the hilt at local levels, and the rash of experiments and abuses, has been
without parallel in the Church’s history. Never before have there been so many
liturgical changes, licit or otherwise, changes which seemed oriented towards Protestantism
and secularism. Coincidentally, at no other time in her history would the
Church experience such widespread, steep declines in Mass attendance, beliefs and
practices, not as the result of war, persecutions, schism, or natural disaster, but in the
wake of internal policies, aimed at reform and renewal.
What kinds of signals were conveyed by new liturgies to ordinary Catholics in the
pews, enjoying growing affluence, struggling with temptations and confronting
mounting pressures from a permissive cultural milieu? Moreover, in experiencing
what seemed to be arbitrary, albeit at times welcome, changes, how equipped were
these Catholics to discern between the officially licit and the locally illicit innovations?
What would be the side-effects among ordinary Catholics of tampering with this
ancient, flawed, but still widely supported and functioning liturgical organism? We
might recall the truism: lex orandi, lex credendi (as we worship so do we believe and
practice our faith). For Catholics, liturgy, belief and practice represented a seamless
garment of faith; to tamper with one part could lead to an unravelling of the whole.
If the Mass were now to be perceived, locally at least, as a community gathering,
even a picnic, the Eucharist as simply bread and the priest a master of ceremonies to
be judged according to his personality or wit, what of changed Catholic perceptions
of the supernatural, of sin, guilt, repentance, or priesthood, of Mass obligation or of
the Sacrament of Penance? Who needed to be shriven for a picnic?
The unintended fall-out from Vatican II’s liturgical reform, as it was widely implemented,
would include a massive decline in reverence at worship, widespread disappearance
of individual confessions and a cavalier disregard of the Church’s moral
teachings. In newly evolving liturgical contexts, everything connected with the faith
seemed open to change or negotiation and the credibility of church authority steadily
eroded, even without the insidious influence of society’s pluralist, permissive
values. Fewer now felt awkward about receiving Communion, despite irregular
attendance at Mass or use of contraceptives, and non-use of the Sacrament of Penance.
At the Church’s grass roots, many Catholics were helped to make their own accommodations with the secular world; they could be both in and of the world and
still regard themselves as Catholics in good standing. The new liturgy, as it was
implemented, has become a major vehicle for secularization of Catholic spiritual and
moral life. In the context of liturgical change it was no wonder that so many Catholics
were angered or disappointed at Humanae Vitae. If the Latin Mass of all time
could be so radically altered, why not the Church’s moral teachings? With changes in
the Mass arriving at regular intervals almost anything could be anticipated in the
future; why wait?
Modern approaches to catechetics, the formation of seminarians, courses in socalled
Catholic colleges and the thrusts of school retreats, parish missions and renewal
programs have merely reinforced what the poorly implemented new liturgy
has effected on a wide scale in the United States and elsewhere.
There is no doubt that Vatican II’s liturgy reforms contained the potential for true
renewal of the Mass and sacraments. From time to time, one encounters tantalizing
glimpses of what could and should have been established all over the Church in such
parishes as Saint Agnes in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and in a sprinkling of other
parishes and cathedrals around the country. Sadly, the potential of Sacrosanctum
Concilium remains mostly unrealized, this Vatican II decree having been effectively
hijacked by those who, deliberately or otherwise, have been building a secularized,
Protestantized, neo-modernist new church.
Much of the present crisis in the Church can be attributed to the poor state of
liturgy. Recovery will depend on the awareness, courage, energy and will of more
bishops who come to appreciate that their major diocesan priority must be a widespread
restoration of sound liturgy along with the necessary support of sound catechesis
of the Mass, sacraments and priesthood in schools, colleges and seminaries.
Failing this, no amount of renewal programs will save the Church from continuing
spiritual erosion.
MICHAEL GILCHRIST
RESTORATION
10

Ake!

Any photographs of the interior?