reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

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.

Could not agree more. Just look at the catalogue of devastation in Ireland among which the most ignorant efforts have been:

1. the detruction of Killarney Cathedral;
2. the destruction of Monaghan Cathedral;
3. the destruction of Longford Cathedral (i.e. before the recent fire);
4. the dectruction of Tornarelli’s High Altar in the Dublin Pro-Cathedral;
5. the decimation of Giacomo della Porta’s High Altar in Thurles Cathedral – which would have brought the police around in anywhere else but Ireland.
6. the attempted destruction of Cobh Cathedral to “plans” by Professor Cathal O’Neill.

This list could continue.

@gunter wrote:

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.

Agreed.

The concept of the church “as a building” is not shared by many men of the cloth who see the church essentially as a congregation and a minister, or in its wider context of a world religion.

Any building may be a place of worship once it is properly consecrated and you can have open air masses to suit the times and the conditions.

While there is an undoubted argument that the expression of thought in church architecture creates a typology which has many unique characteristics, so does a theatre or a cinema where the essential function is the same – the crowd facing in one direction to receive the sights, words and music.

ONQ.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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.

Could not agree more. Just look at the catalogue of devastation in Ireland among which the most ignorant efforts have been:

1. the detruction of Killarney Cathedral;
2. the destruction of Monaghan Cathedral;
3. the destruction of Longford Cathedral (i.e. before the recent fire);
4. the dectruction of Tornarelli’s High Altar in the Dublin Pro-Cathedral;
5. the decimation of Giacomo della Porta’s High Altar in Thurles Cathedral – which would have brought the police around in anywhere else but Ireland.
6. the attempted destruction of Cobh Cathedral to “plans” by Professor Cathal O’Neill.

This list could continue.

I’m sure it could, if you were bothered to stay on topic.

ONQ.

Any building may be a place of worship once it is properly consecrated and you can have open air masses to suit the times and the conditions.

Again, this statement is not quite true.

The Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis:288. Ad Eucharistiam celebrandam, populus Dei plerumque in ecclesiam congregatur vel, ea deficiente aut insufficiente, in alium locum honestum qui tamen sit tanto mysterio dignus. Ecclesiae igitur, aliave loca, ad sacram actionem exsequendam et ad fidelium actuosam participationem obtinendam apta sint. Aedes sacrae insuper et res ad cultum divinum pertinentes vere sint dignae, pulchrae, atque rerum supernarum signa et symbola. [108]

English translation:

288. For the celebration of the Eucharist, the people of God normally are gathered together in a church or, if there is no church or if it is too small, then in another respectable place that is nonetheless worthy of so great a mystery. Churches, therefore, and other places should be suitable for carrying out the sacred action and for ensuring the active participation of the faithful. Sacred buildings and requisites for divine worship should, moreover, be truly worthy and beautiful and be signs and symbols of heavenly realities.

Only churches are consecrated for worship and not “any building”. Also, in the absence or insufficience of a church, another building may be used provided that it is respectable and suitable.

And, here Redemptionis sacramentum 108-109

1. The Place for the Celebration of Holy Mass

[108.] “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place.”[197] The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.

[109.] It is never lawful for a Priest to celebrate in a temple or sacred place of any non-Christian religion.

And the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 932 §1. The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place.

And here one of the early post conciliar disciplinary documents: Liturgiae instaurationes no. 9 of 1970.

9. The Eucharist is celebrated as a rule in a place of worship.[34] Apart from cases of real need, as adjudged by the Ordinary for his jurisdiction, celebration outside a church is not permitted. When the Ordinary does allow this, there must be care that a worthy place is chosen and that the Mass is celebrated on a suitable table. If at all possible, the celebration should not take place in a dining room or on a dining-room table.

onq: I just became so frustrated reading your responses to Praxiteles (which never seemed to rise above the literalist reposte of the girls’ upper Fourth) that I have to respond in turn.

As gunter says, there is an unanswerable case for the replacement of removed altar rails in historic (i.e. pre-Vat II) churches. Whether a contemporary church should or should not have a rail is a matter of liturgical taste, but that the sanctuary should be separate and distinct is not an issue. True, you don’t need a church for worship, but 1700 years of tradition cannot be lightly set aside. (All the churches of the Reformation still required some places of assembly, which oddly enough over the years have come to look very like churches – sort of odd, that.)
The ultimate in separation between the nave (earth) and sanctuary (heaven) is the iconostasis of the Orthodox tradition – perhaps they could all be demolished and burnt in the interests of suppressing ‘vanity’. As for equating special clothes (vestments?) and ‘setting oneself apart’ (as one having a special function) with paganism, well that is pat on the head time.

The problem with many contemporary and reordered churches is that they are simply not numinous enough, they are not ‘set apart’, they are not ‘special’. I have strong reservations about the architectural form of Stroik, but I have none about his intentions.

Gunter

I entirely agree with your view that a church should be a numinous place but your comments on OMQ’s views are harsh.

At last, there is a recognition that churches and church ceremonies do not have to slavishly follow this deluge of rules and regulations which inundate this thread almost on a daily basis. I started reading this because I thought that the refurbishment of Irish Catholic churches had become acts of distruction but it has gone to the realms of the ridiculous. Why must we be hidebound by what was done in Italy in the 15th century? Commentators on this thread devote far too much energy into getting the buildings into their architectural straitjacket, something which has no foundation in Jesus’ teaching. In particular, the vitriolic comments about modern architects/designer (however ingorant they may be of all the rules and traditions of liturgy) about are entirely uncalled for.

@pandaz7 wrote:

Gunter

I entirely agree with your view that a church should be a numinous place but your comments on OMQ’s views are harsh.

At last, there is a recognition that churches and church ceremonies do not have to slavishly follow this deluge of rules and regulations which inundate this thread almost on a daily basis. I started reading this because I thought that the refurbishment of Irish Catholic churches had become acts of distruction but it has gone to the realms of the ridiculous. Why must we be hidebound by what was done in Italy in the 15th century? Commentators on this thread devote far too much energy into getting the buildings into their architectural straitjacket, something which has no foundation in Jesus’ teaching. In particular, the vitriolic comments about modern architects/designer (however ingorant they may be of all the rules and traditions of liturgy) about are entirely uncalled for.

Thinking again, perhaps it might be a bad idea to listen to the following address given by Cardinal Justin Francis Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia, to the recent conference held in the Catholic University of America in Washington:

http://live.cua.edu/ACADEMICS/ARCH/architectureconference2010.cfm

Ouch!

@Praxiteles wrote:

That is nonsense and a failure to read the text of the Institutio in its historical context.

Always someone who thinks belief and how we practice our faith should be bound by rules and codes of practice.

What a hidebound piece moral one-upmanship your views represent.

ONQ.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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.

Fine – I accept its the Sanctuary – a single step still achieve the demarcation – a line in a carpet would do it, there is no point in making some ridiculous reference to Hungarian Churches.

ONQ.