reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

Footage of Cobh, with cathedral, on the departure of Cardinal O’Donnell for the Eucharistic Congress in Chicago 20-24 June 1926 and showing Bishop Robert Browne (who completed Cobh Cathedral), his nephew and sectetary, Fr WIlliam Browne, and his nephew, the photographer, Fr. Francis Browne, SJ.

<a href="

Where would we be without altar rails, after all.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Here is an example of Stroik’s restoration work where he has undone the unfortunate which took place during the 1980s.

http://www.stroik.com/portfolio/st-mary-church/

Two comments and a question

The detail of the panelling under the alter doesn’t seem to gel together.

• The quatrefoil in picture 16 is not well defined – although a standard design it looks too “open” for this instance – framing a panel, not a window.
• Instead of using simple arch motifs in the flanking panels the squashed quatrefoil fails to impress.

As for the reinstatement of the alter rail, this goes against current church practice.

Finally, what has this got to do with Irish catholic churches?

ONQ.

@Praxiteles wrote:

As for the reinstatement of the alter rail, this goes against current church practice.

Well, now, where did we ever get that notion from? Can we please cite any of the documents of the Second Vatican Council eliminating altar rails or indeed any of the subsequent disicplinary material eliminating altar rails?

As we’ve seen from the lax response and cover ups in the church to date, catholic church disciplinary material seems to be in short supply.

I’m sure it gets up the noses of the Holy Joes and those who feel they just HAVE to get on their knees in front of a priest, but in Ireland at least people accept communion standing up into their hands as opposed to letting the priest place the host on their tongue.

http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/altar_rails.html

I felt the loss of the alter rails myself for a while having been an ardent churchgoer in my youth and more recently, but all in all when you see the young occupying the altar in the children’s masses, its a far cry from the fear and trepidation felt by older generations, without which pedophile priests could not have plied their trade for so long, or so deeply scar this country.

At the end of the day rails are barriers – a crutch for the weak-minded who like to set themselves above their fellow man, and all too often the delusional nature of much of human existence transposes the respect shown to God by persons kneeling into the respect priests feel that is owed to them.

Requiring the reinstatement of altar rails [a physical things designed to support a pivotal moment in the mass] is history in the practice of catholicism in many Irish churches today – in all the churches I have attended in the past ten years or so.

It seems like when people misunderstand the nature of a church resting in the form of the building, as opposed to its sanctification by holy blessing, ritual and church practices.

Better the rails should go and stay gone, and the ritual move to include children in a positive, enabling way to help develop real future vocations for the church, as opposed to those of yore, when you went into the Gardaí, the Civil Service or the Priesthood if you wanted a well-paid job – a career move that seems not to have really suited some and consequentely damaged many.

ONQ.

Are there references officially requiring them?

That’s an incomplete reading of the article. You’ve left out the first option given by the text.

Altar rails are not required.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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.

So – no REAL reason for a rail at all then, except the fear and vanity of man.

Plus ça change…

ONQ.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani article 295 [edition published with the editio tertia typica of the Missale Romanum 2000] requires them or some other structure to deliniate the sanctaury from the nave of the church.

Nope.

That’s just your wishful thinking.

There is a requirement to mark off the altar from the rest of the church.

A single step would do it – don’t let them crutchies or wheelies near the Eucharist!!!

How utterly sad, any need for demarcation.

The shepherd is one with his flock.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Nope.

That’s just your wishful thinking.

There is a requirement to mark off the altar from the rest of the church.

A single step would do it – don’t let them crutchies or wheelies near the Eucharist!!!

How utterly sad, any need for demarcation.

The shepherd is one with his flock.

ONQ.

It is the sanctuary that is demarcated from the body of the church – not the altar.

Here is the text:

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.

And when it comes to elevations, you have to think of possibilities such as those common in Hungarian churches which can be 50 feet above the nave level; or the rised crypts of the romanesque. One step is what one would expect in an oratory.

For better or worse, an organisation like the catholic church is always going to be bound inextricably to it’s traditions. A lot of people might feel that the church would do well to shed the accretions of centuries and return to the simplicity of it’s beginnings, without riches or trappings. For others it is the continuity with the past two thousand years of tradition that is the key and it is the habits and practices that have attached themselves to the church in that time that give the church it’s special value and meaning.

In that context attempted reforms like Vatican 2 are on a hiding to nothing, they’re seen as either too much, or not enough.

On architectural and heritage grounds alone, the reinstatement of original altar rails and other design features removed in the post Vatican 2 drive to modernize seems like a worthy exercise, with or without a reappraisal of the liturgical considerations.

Personally, I’d have a lot less time for the likes of that American architect/zealot Denis McNamara [link to recent lecture posted by Praxiteles above]

His theory of ‘sacred architecture’, which he seems to share with the equally solvent Duncan Stroik, had so many escape hatches in it that it would probably be impossible to ever nail him down conclusively, but you just know from the deliberate obscurity of language like ”anticipated eschatology” that you’re looking at a shaman in a suit.