reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

Well how long til we hear about the appeals?

The single sanctuary lamp hanging in front of the altar looks much better than the current arrangement with multiple cross-sconces. Too much clutter now.

@ake wrote:

Well how long til we hear about the appeals?

An Bord Pleanala is due to give a decision in the case by 16 June 2008.

And here is an interesting link from the American neo-classsical school – The new Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe at La Crosse, Wisconsin, in the United States.

The acrhitect is Duncan Stroik:

http://www.stroik.com/portfolio/guadalupe.php

Here we have a general view of the nave of the Guadalupe Shrine at La Crosse.

Interesting to note the relationship between the image of Our LAdy of Guadalupe on the chancel wass and the baldachino. As you see, the image has been positioned on the wall so as to be framed by the baldachino, which in turn takes into account the altar that has yet to be erected underneath it. When all will be finished, the baldachino, altar and patronal image will all form a coherent and proportioned unit.

The view at the moment of the image on the chancel wall, seen through the baldachino, gives the impression of being placed too high on the wall. We are all too familiar with this sight AFTER the proportionately placed altar has been demolished or otherwise wreked. It certaainly is a rarity to see a similar sight BEFORE the altar is erected.

@Praxiteles wrote:

And here is an item for which Mr. Duncan Stroik deserves absolute full marks – a decent sized sacristy. Most of the horrorw taht we have seen on this thread are usually equipped with shoe-box sized sacristies in which the proverbial cat could not be swung. The over educated people who design such closets forget -or perhaps never knew -that sacristies are places which have multiple functions -and not simpley that of vesting.

The sacristy here reminds Praxiteles of the main sacristy of Santa MAggiore with a hint also of the Sacristy of San Lorenzo in the Escorial.

Rhabanus confesses that his favourite sacristy is Borromini’s masterpiece in the Chiesa Nuova, Rome.

Duncan Stroik has done wonders across the USA. He understands both architecture and the sacred liturgy, as is clear from his superb designs. Naturally he and his school are capable of the near-miraculous. Challenges arise when the patrons’ funds are limited.

Take a look at Matthew Enquist’s proposed design for the church/chapel of Ave Maria University, near Venice Florida. Then just look at what the patrons eventually decided to erect. Would that Matthew Enquist’s magnificent plan had been adopted.

This must be one of the worst examples of a modern church yet seen on this thread. It is so awful it even manages to outstrip anything Richard Hurley could come up with:

The Holy Spirit, Rochester, Minnasota

http://www.holyspiritrochester.org/worshipspace.html

And here is some of the guff from the parish web page:

Big empty church with insignificant-looking table in the center. Why? Let the web page tell you: “The worship area…is intended to continue the sense of informality…The sanctuary for our worship space is in the center, with the assembly gathered around the altar…so everyone can be close to one another.” So, an informal room where people can be close to each other… and not the altar, not the Lord, but each other. Sounds like a living room so far.

Now, funnay about all that bein-closer-together bit. I think we might have heard a good deal about that in relation to a 21st century sancturay for Cobh cathedral.

One of the great myths of modern church architecture:

6. The fan shape, in which everyone can see the assembly and be close to the altar, is the most appropriate form for expressing the full, active and conscious participation of the body of Christ.

This myth comes out of the extreme view that the assembly is the primary symbol of the church. While the fan shape is a wonderful shape for theater, for lectures, even for representative government – it is not an appropriate shape for the liturgy. Ironically, the reason often stated for using the fan shape is to encourage participation, yet the semicircular shape is derived from a room for entertainment. The fan shape does not derive from the writings of the Second Vatican Council, it derives from the Greek or Roman theater. Up until recently, it was never used as a model for Catholic churches. In fact, the first theater churches were 19th century Protestant auditoriums designed so as to focus on the preacher.

Weel, I must say they are not the worst and do have several good qualities: e.g. the use of the octogan on the lantern and altar steps which exhibits some connection with Christian liturgical tradition. HOwever, Praxiteles thinks you do hit the nail fairly square on the head withe the question:

“Now, of course, what relation these buildings have to Catholic liturgy is another question. Yet, merely as pieces of architecture, with the very basic function of a gathering place with a speaker’s central area, they are decent pieces of work. As temples to modern secular spirituality they are pretty ideal, as Roman Catholic churches, well…. “

Starnge even that concatination “secular” and “spiritual”. Terms that would normally be regarded as mutually exclusive or even contradictory. Something of the orer of “a black white”.

Clearly, one of the majorproblems of post conciliar Catholic ecclesiastical architecture is the need to disengage from the exclusive identification of “post-conciliar” with “modern”. The Catholic tradition has never espused any particular architectural style and use all styles compatible with its core tenets. As far as Praxciteles can see, there is no necessary commection between “post conciliar” and “modern” -which means that “modern architecture” has to be relativised by other architetcural styles that are compatible with “post-conciliar”. Indeed, it may even be necessary toexamine some of the philosophical principles underlying modern architecture to see if they are compatible with Christian core tenets. That may in turn may require either a modified version of “modern architecture” or else its discarding as a means for making an adequate theological statement.

Idiots! How can a church less than 200 years old need renovation to conform to current liturgical requirements, if you can then perform a liturgy 1000 years old or whatever in the same damn building! Surely we now need to de-reorganise all the churches for the requirements of the High Mass. And then un-de-reorganise them each week for the vernacular mass…

Who will rid us of these troublesome priests?