reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
@johnglas wrote:
Prax: A fascinating and erudite defence of the concept of the Real Presence and – more to the architectural point – of the existence of the tabernacle. But – where do you put it and what should it look like? By the late 19th century the convention had developed in almost all churches of having the tabernacle (of which only the door was ever seen, and that only when the veil was drawn back) as an integral part of the reredos or retable of the main altar – although there were sometimes tabernacles in the ‘side’ altars (or at least one of them – the ‘altar of repose’). The contemporary trend for free-standing tabernacles has led to an unfortunate ‘dumbing down’ of the whole concept of Reservation. Tabernacles are often crude objects on even cruder pedestals and any sense of mystery has been lost (or diminished).
I have never been a fan of ‘exposition’ and its growing popularity is very unfortunate. In medieval Scotland, the sacrament was reserved in a ‘Sacrament-house’, a kind of cupboard recessed into the wall, surrounded by a richly-decorated architrave drawing attention to the numinous nature of its contents. Something like this would be preferable to the current style and practice. I like the idea of a special Sacrament Chapel, distinct from the main or principal altar, but this is suitable only in larger churches or where an appropriate chapel already exists. I do not advocate destroying original altars to achieve this!
A not unsympathetic visitor to a Catholic church recently compared a modern tabernacle to a birdcage! There was no malice intended, but it perhaps suggests that we need a contemporary architectural expression that is worthy of what it is intended to contain.I agree with you on the dumbing down of the whole iea of reservationa and of its Eucharistic implications – a sad reflection of the of the almost demised theology of the Eucharist currently informning many “liturgista” who (if we are lucky) subscribe to a form of Luthern dynamism (the Eucharist is the action) putside of which there is no Eucharist -hence the current fad of displacing the tradition Last Supper with the Event at Emmaus as the classical evangelical typos for the Eucharist.
To answer your question, shall we start here: Sacramentum Caritatis, 22 February 2007, no. 69: (the fruit of the deliberations of the last Syond of Bishops):
The location of the tabernacle“69. In considering the importance of eucharistic reservation and adoration, and reverence for the sacrament of Christ’s sacrifice, the Synod of Bishops also discussed the question of the proper placement of the tabernacle in our churches. (196) The correct positioning of the tabernacle contributes to the recognition of Christ’s real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, the place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant’s chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous. Attention to these considerations will lend dignity to the tabernacle, which must always be cared for, also from an artistic standpoint. Obviously it is necessary to follow the provisions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in this regard. (197) In any event, final judgment on these matters belongs to the Diocesan Bishop.”
To define our terms at the outset, appended is an example of a Sakramentshaus, Adam Kraft’s version in the church of St. Lorenz in Nuremberg done between 1493-1496:
On tabernacles:
The Dominican church in Limerick City;
[ATTACH]6748[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6749[/ATTACH]
I thought these little side chapels/areas were quite fine, and being out of the way and not very visible, off the South aisle, they did not spoil the rest of the (19th century) interior.Any thoughts?
On the position of the tabernacle:
And another example from the Sint-MArtinuskerk in Aalst in Belgium. This is a late example and probably dateing c.1590-1600. The tower is situated on the Gospel side of the High Altar.
The long awaited second move on Cobh Cathedral is coming up on the horizon. At last Monday’s meeting of Cobh Town Council, P. Lynch, the Town Clerk, blandly announced that the Cathedral Trustees had requested a meeting with theTC planning officials. Cathal O’Neill is back on the ball. He is devising a very interesting solution for the porches at the Cathedral’s main doors – which will more than likely involve removing much of the present wooden screens and doors. Just how is Cobh TC going to manage this one? I wonder will they be as willing and fast to grant planning permission for this project or will they simply shove it under the carpet with a declaration of exemption. Watch this space!
And here is a piece of legislation on Eucharistic reservation which is still in force:
@descamps wrote:
The long awaited second move on Cobh Cathedral is coming up on the horizon. At last Monday’s meeting of Cobh Town Council, P. Lynch, the Town Clerk, blandly announced that the Cathedral Trustees had requested a meeting with theTC planning officials. Cathal O’Neill is back on the ball. He is devising a very interesting solution for the porches at the Cathedral’s main doors – which will more than likely involve removing much of the present wooden screens and doors. Just how is Cobh TC going to manage this one? I wonder will they be as willing and fast to grant planning permission for this project or will they simply shove it under the carpet with a declaration of exemption. Watch this space!
Well, well….. round two is about to begin! I hope that the great Professor O’Neill will be a bit more coherent at the next oral hearing!!
And here we have the current general norms for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament as stipulated in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal – the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani
The Place for the Reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist
314. In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.125
The one tabernacle should be immovable, be made of solid and inviolable material that is not transparent, and be locked in such a way that the danger of profanation is prevented to the greatest extent possible.126 Moreover, it is appropriate that, before it is put into liturgical use, it be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.127
315. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.128
Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,
Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer129 and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.
316. In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ.130317. In no way should all the other things prescribed by law concerning the reservation of the Most Holy Eucharist be forgotten.131
‘…not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303)’. So much for the liturgical ‘unsuitability’ of having two altars which invariably means vandalising the ‘old’ altar in preference for a flimsy wooden structure or a misshapen lump of rock..
@johnglas wrote:
‘…not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303)’. So much for the liturgical ‘unsuitability’ of having two altars which invariably means vandalising the ‘old’ altar in preference for a flimsy wooden structure or a misshapen lump of rock..
This is precisely the mportance of KNOWING exactly what the liturgical law states and what the Church precisely REQUIRES.
As you can see, the general principles allow for a whole series of possibilities including the traditional arrangement for which there is no need or requirement to knock down or demolish anything.
This is one of the main points made by the FOSCC in relation to Cobh Cathedral. If the Planning Authorities are to RESPECT liturgical REQUIREMENTS then it not unreasonable to expect that the PA whould at least KONW what it has to respect. And, that knowledge, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, is available to anyone who wishes to read the texts of its liturgical law – the Code of Canon Law, the Praenotanda of the Liturgical Books and the the authentic interpretations issued by the Holy See through the Congregation for Divine Worshipa dn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
If the PA could just manage to bestirr itself from its usual laziness, it would not have to rely on the s**t dished up by the likes of the overeducated Cloyne HACK!
@johnglas wrote:
‘…not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303)’. So much for the liturgical ‘unsuitability’ of having two altars which invariably means vandalising the ‘old’ altar in preference for a flimsy wooden structure or a misshapen lump of rock..
And as we are at it, here are a few more precepts from the Genral Instruction tot he Roman Missal outlining current liturgical law:
295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be celebrated properly and easily seen.115
[Nothing there about demolishing altar rails]
299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.116 The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.
[Nothing there about the NECESSITY of having a Volksaltar -it is all very open]
303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.
In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is positioned so that it makes the people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to its artistic value, another fixed altar, of artistic merit and duly dedicated, should be erected and sacred rites celebrated on it alone. In order not to distract the attention of the faithful from the new altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.
[Nothing there about demolishing old altars]
Full text here:
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
and original text here:
http://www.binetti.ru/collectio/liturgia/missale_files/igmr3ed.htm
@Praxiteles wrote:
And as we are at it, here are a few more precepts from the Genral Instruction tot he Roman Missal outlining current liturgical law:
295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be celebrated properly and easily seen.115
[Nothing there about demolishing altar rails]
299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.116 The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.
[Nothing there about the NECESSITY of having a Volksaltar -it is all very open]
303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.
In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is positioned so that it makes the people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to its artistic value, another fixed altar, of artistic merit and duly dedicated, should be erected and sacred rites celebrated on it alone. In order not to distract the attention of the faithful from the new altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.
[Nothing there about demolishing old altars]
Full text here:
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
and original text here:
http://www.binetti.ru/collectio/liturgia/missale_files/igmr3ed.htm
And per completezza, as they say, here is an official interpretation of article 299 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal issued in September 2000:
http://www.adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html
This should help the likes of the overeducated Cloyne HACK realize just how much is REQUIRED in ecclesiastical law when it comes to altars!
And just to illustrate that you really can have a fairly prominent altar rail, her is the superbly beautiful Rood Screen of c. 1500 in Sankt Pantaleon in Cologne which mercifully managed to survive the awful bombing of the city during the war:
To revert to St. Colman’s Cathedral for a moment:
Things are now beginning to clarify themselves re the arrival of a large wooden unit thath was recently spirited into the Cathedral when it was though that no one was looking. It has finally been located. It has been positioned BEHIND the High Altar and is attached to the East wall of the chancel. It is roughly 8feet long with a marble top, in the middle of which is a sink -presumably with an outlet that has been sunk once again into the mosaic floor behind the altar. At either side of the sink are two further standing units arriving at a height of approximately 6 feet.
Initial inquiries with the Cobh Urban District Council and with the Conservation Officer for the County of Cork have failed to turn up a planning application or indeed a declaration permitting the introduction of this unit into the sancturay area where it now rests on the mosaic. Clearly, somethingw ill have to be done about this and the Urban District Council will have to be urged to greater vigilance.
It is amazing that a unit of this size should have to be placed behind the High Altar in Cobh -given that the Cathedral has one of the largest sacristies in Ireland. But, with the Christmas crib permanently dumped in the Pieta Chapel and the excess seating from the transepts dumped in the Lady Chapel, why not dump everything else behind the altar and the lazy lumps running the place need not ever have to go into the sacrist for anything.
but what is this item? you say it is a ‘unit’ with a sink in it? behind the altar? a sink behind the altar? how has it been ‘attached’ to the wall?
They really are just determined aren’t they, to mess around with the cathedral.
Perhaps someone should be liable for prosecution for violating planning LAWS.
@ake wrote:
but what is this item? you say it is a ‘unit’ with a sink in it? behind the altar? a sink behind the altar? how has it been ‘attached’ to the wall?
They really are just determined aren’t they, to mess around with the cathedral.
Perhaps someone should be liable for prosecution for violating planning LAWS.
Basically, it is an enormous storage press landed up against the back wall of the chancel right before the back of the High Altar. If you have ever been in the sanctuary, you will have noticed taht you can circulate right around the altar. The back wall of the chancel is covered in angels and Marian panels. Well, underneath these we have the press. I believe that a prosecution will have to be taken in this case. There is no other answer to this antinominaism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
