reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

@johnglas wrote:

Ohhh…! the flattened ‘onion’ domes over the lateral towers !

Perhaps Sant’Anna dei Palafrenieri

How about Sant’Agnese in Piazza Navona: those curves between the protico and the towers?

And the onion domes?

Although built a century after the Karlskirche in Vienna, the portico (abstracting from its end pillars) of the spectacular Neopolitan church of San Francesco di Paolo should provide us with a suggestion of where Fischer von Erlach got the idea for his portico for the Karlskirche.

Is it just me or has this thread become nothing more than an expression of one man’s monomania?

I was doing some research on Apse’s when i found this…http://www.usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/projects/2010/church%20for%202010.htm it shows some computer generated images of a church for 2010…the overall idea is i think is good & well thought out but maybe a missing some ceiling detail!

The Program
This church design provides a solution for a very particular set of circumstances not found in every church program. As such, the “Church for 2010” is not meant to be seen as a “best” or “model” liturgical arrangement, nor are the arrangements presented here advocated for all situations. An individual congregation may well want to make different choices concerning the arrangement of the liturgical furnishings and seating according the norms set by the ordinary of their diocese and the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
The architects of this particular church design were given a complex and difficult program, one which mirrors requests often made by design and building committees. The architects were asked to design a church which provided: seating for 1000 people with maximum proximity to the altar, a full immersion baptistery, devotional and penitential chapels, and a Blessed Sacrament chapel separated from the main body of the church. At the same time, the architects were instructed to provide a worthy and dignified building which spoke of continuity with Catholic tradition, included a rich iconographic program making the liturgical realities of the cosmic liturgy present to those in the building, gave a clear prominence to the altar, and which provided a truly fitting and prayerful place of repose for the Blessed Sacrament.

Praxiteles has viewed the link to the Liturgical Institute Architectural Competition for the church for 2010 and, unfortunately, does not share Apells’ enthusiasm for the this particular project.

Perhaps it is the photographic perspective, but Praxiteles could not see much of a Latin Cross formation in the church exhibited – and did see what very-much looks like a Greek Cross arrangement around a domed ovoid (which we are told wil, flood the church with natural light 24 hours of the day, provided you are not in the northern or southern hemisphere).

There is a claim to a traditional approach – and certainly it is light yeras ahead of the rubbish often if not exclusively built in a modern idiom. However, this “traditional” approach is superficial. It is one which fails to digest the classical idiom in its Christian manifestation (late antiquity, byzantine, neo-classical) and ultimately degenerates to mere decoration.

Praxiteles fears that the real problem of this lack of ingestion is the theological understanding of the Church, the sacraments and the Eucharist behind: that too, while well disposed, is unintegrated if not deficient. Indeed, there is no essential theological difference in this composition and the nonsense carried out in the North Cathedral in Cork by Hacker Hurley. Indeed, it exhibits many of the Collegeville theological and sacramental deficiencies so dear to Danny I AM a liturgist Murphy and the Cloyne HACK. So, I am afraid, this composition does not radically connect with the hermenutic of continuity.

As for the architectural disposition of the church, I have the say the front facade with its classical atrium looks suspiciously like San Clemente in Rome _with the tower transferred to the right hand side of the facade. This cannot surely be regarded as an example of the Christian basilica of the late antique period having been rebuilt following the Robert Guiscard’s sack of Rome. Again, baptisteries, as se have so often seen before, are not located on the internal central axis of late antique Chistian basilicas. Either the Baptistery will be found opposite the main entrance in a separate building, or else in separate chapels off of the Basicila -more usually than not on the North side. The suggestion that late antique Basilicas had pools inside the main doors is an absurdity of the highest order – for it would have inhibited the processions intended to enter through these doors (especially the papal processions).

When on looks at the present general instruction to the Roman Missal, it is true that it sopeaks of the Blessed Sacrament being reserved in a separate chapel. However, it would be useful to bring a bit of nous to bear on this remark. Certainly, if you are building a church of monumental proportions similar -for example Florence Cathedral, or St Peter’s – then one can certainly have a decent Blessed Sacrament Chapel which is about the size of a large parish church. This is a fitting place for reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. However, attempts to provide small scale churches with Blessed Sacrament Chapels is simply idiotic. The result, as in this case, is hardly larger than a broom closet and hardly a fitting place for the reservation of teh Blessed Sacrament. Moreover, when trying to apply giant scale undertakings to pigny sized situations we arrive at absurdity:

Moreover, tye architests involved in this project are incorrect in asserting that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is for private devotions. In case they had not noticed, there is a Rius for the cult of the Eucharist outside of the Mass – and this is an official public act of the Church. For instance, Benediction fot he Blessed Sacrament: how is that to take place at the altar we see in this project? It does not even have a step in front of it on which to kneel!

More later.

As an example of what Mediator Dei has to say about unreasonable excesses in the liturgical reform movement here we have a sample:

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. [9]

But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. [9]

What application might this have, for instance, in the c hurch for 2010 above?

Mediator Dei on the subject of rt and architecture:

What We have said about music, applies to the other fine arts, especially to architecture, sculpture and painting. Recent works of art which lend themselves to the materials of modern composition, should not be universally despised and rejected through prejudice. Modern art should be given free scope in the due and reverent service of the church and the sacred rites, provided that they preserve a correct balance between styles tending neither to extreme realism nor to excessive “symbolism,” and that the needs of the Christian community are taken into consideration rather than the particular taste or talent of the individual artist. Thus modern art will be able to join its voice to that wonderful choir of praise to which have contributed, in honor of the Catholic faith, the greatest artists throughout the centuries. Nevertheless, in keeping with the duty of Our office, We cannot help deploring and condemning those works of art, recently introduced by some, which seem to be a distortion and perversion of true art and which at times openly shock Christian taste, modesty and devotion, and shamefully offend the true religious sense. These must be entirely excluded and banished from our churches, like “anything else that is not in keeping with the sanctity of the place.”[178]

196. Keeping in mind, Venerable Brethren, pontifical norms and decrees, take great care to enlighten and direct the minds and hearts of the artists to whom is given the task today of restoring or rebuilding the many churches which have been ruined or completely destroyed by war. Let them be capable and willing to draw their inspiration from religion to express what is suitable and more in keeping with the requirements of worship. Thus the human arts will shine forth with a wondrous heavenly splendor, and contribute greatly to human civilization, to the salvation of souls and the glory of God. The fine arts are really in conformity with religion when “as noblest handmaids they are at the service of divine worship.”[179]197. But there is something else of even greater importance, Venerable Brethren, which We commend to your apostolic zeal, in a very special manner. Whatever pertains to the external worship has assuredly its importance; however, the most pressing duty of Christians is to live the liturgical life, and increase and cherish its supernatural spirit.

Again, Mediator Dei on the subject of lay participation in the Eucharist. The Cloyne HACK could well read this:

91. But there is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice.

92. In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word “offer.” The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.

93. Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him.

And on the cult of the Eucharist:

130. The Sacred Councils teach that it is the Church’s tradition right from the beginning, to worship “with the same adoration the Word Incarnate as well as His own flesh,”[123] and St. Augustine asserts that, “No one eats that flesh, without first adoring it,” while he adds that “not only do we not commit a sin by adoring it, but that we do sin by not adoring it.”[124]

131. It is on this doctrinal basis that the cult of adoring the Eucharist was founded and gradually developed as something distinct from the sacrifice of the Mass. The reservation of the sacred species for the sick and those in danger of death introduced the praiseworthy custom of adoring the blessed Sacrament which is reserved in our churches. This practice of adoration, in fact, is based on strong and solid reasons. For the Eucharist is at once a sacrifice and a sacrament; but it differs from the other sacraments in this that it not only produces grace, but contains in a permanent manner the Author of grace Himself. When, therefore, the Church bids us adore Christ hidden behind the eucharistic veils and pray to Him for spiritual and temporal favors, of which we ever stand in need, she manifests living faith in her divine Spouse who is present beneath these veils, she professes her gratitude to Him and she enjoys the intimacy of His friendship.

132. Now, the Church in the course of centuries has introduced various forms of this worship which are ever increasing in beauty and helpfulness: as, for example, visits of devotion to the tabernacles, even every day; benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; solemn processions, especially at the time of Eucharistic Congress, which pass through cities and villages; and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament publicly exposed. Sometimes these public acts of adoration are of short duration. Sometimes they last for one, several and even for forty hours. In certain places they continue in turn in different churches throughout the year, while elsewhere adoration is perpetual day and night, under the care of religious communities, and the faithful quite often take part in them.

133. These exercises of piety have brought a wonderful increase in faith and supernatural life to the Church militant upon earth and they are reechoed to a certain extent by the Church triumphant in heaven which sings continually a hymn of praise to God and to the Lamb “who was slain.”[125] Wherefore, the Church not merely approves these pious practices, which in the course of centuries have spread everywhere throughout the world, but makes them her own, as it were, and by her authority commends them.[126] They spring from the inspiration of the liturgy and if they are performed with due propriety and with faith and piety, as the liturgical rules of the Church require, they are undoubtedly of the very greatest assistance in living the life of the liturgy.

134. Nor is it to be admitted that by this Eucharistic cult men falsely confound the historical Christ, as they say, who once lived on earth, with the Christ who is present in the august Sacrament of the altar, and who reigns glorious and triumphant in heaven and bestows supernatural favors. On the contrary, it can be claimed that by this devotion the faithful bear witness to and solemnly avow the faith of the Church that the Word of God is identical with the Son of the Virgin Mary, who suffered on the cross, who is present in a hidden manner in the Eucharist and who reigns upon His heavenly throne. Thus, St. John Chrysostom states: “When you see It [the Body of Christ] exposed, say to yourself: Thanks to this body, I am no longer dust and ashes, I am no more a captive but a freeman: hence I hope to obtain heaven and the good things that are there in store for me, eternal life, the heritage of the angels, companionship with Christ; death has not destroyed this body which was pierced by nails and scourged, . . . this is that body which was once covered with blood, pierced by a lance, from which issued saving fountains upon the world, one of blood and the other of water. . . This body He gave to us to keep and eat, as a mark of His intense love.”[127]

135. That practice in a special manner is to be highly praised according to which many exercises of piety, customary among the faithful, and with benediction of the blessed sacrament. For excellent and of great benefit is that custom which makes the priest raise aloft the Bread of Angels before congregations with heads bowed down in adoration, and forming with It the sign of the cross implores the heavenly Father to deign to look upon His Son who for love of us was nailed to the cross, and for His sake and through Him who willed to be our Redeemer and our brother, be pleased to shower down heavenly favors upon those whom the immaculate blood of the Lamb has redeemed.[128]

136. Strive then, Venerable Brethren, with your customary devoted care so the churches, which the faith and piety of Christian peoples have built in the course of centuries for the purpose of singing a perpetual hymn of glory to God almighty and of providing a worthy abode for our Redeemer concealed beneath the eucharistic species, may be entirely at the disposal of greater numbers of the faithful who, called to the feet of their Savior, hearken to His most consoling invitation, “Come to Me all you who labor and are heavily burdened, and I will refresh you.”[129] Let your churches be the house of God where all who enter to implore blessings rejoice in obtaining whatever they ask[130] and find there heavenly consolation.