reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Chuck,
Before making a fool of yourelf with grandiose nonsense about Hoch, do please go and read Francis Moylan’s, Bishop of Cork, Correspondence with the Abbe Edgworth de Firmont on the subject of the French Revolution. Moylan is likely to know what he was talking about having been educated in Toulouse and so should Edgworth who was a fellow student of Moylan’s. If you think there is any histroical connection between a jacobite expedition to Ireland and the butcher Hoch’s arrival you are deluded beyond redemption. A copy of Moylan’s book should be available on abebooks. An interesting study of this subject was published within the last few years called “The French Disease”. I think that you may have contracted it but I am not sure whether in the great or lesser form!!!!
And Chuck,
What kind of imperialism are we dealing with that presumes to tell the frogs how to speak French? It might be better trying to teach comprehensible English, or even Irish for that matter, to the people of Belfast.
Re posting 1009:
Sirius, as usual, is lowering the tone of the discussion. Perhaps the administrator should recommend that he keep his clothes on in public at least!!
And, if he really cannot help himself, at least buy a pair of comfortable runners. Speaking of which, has anyone seen our Oswald of late?
@Kennie wrote:
As I was passing delighted through Drogheda station and musing on the many merits of Prof. O’Neill’s many architectural triumphs, I was interrupted by my recalling the amazing news that the Bishops’ Conference is taking a concerned interest in the misdoings of Bishop Magee and his HACKs. I would have thought that by now, rather than getting themselves publicly associated with all the extraordinary mess in Cobh – the dire lobbying of public officers, the procedural omissions, the guff about liturgical requirements, the very proposal to destroy such a wonderful piece of Church architecture – they would do better to ponder the tsunami yet to come. For one thing, can you dig up the mosaic floor of a protected building with pneumatic drills and while a planning hearing is actually in course without the forces of law and order coming to call? It seems inevitable that the Bishops will have discussed that question, though behind closed doors. It by a remote chance they didn’t, perhaps they might feel the need to put it on the agenda for the next moot. We don’t need to reflect on liturgical requirements there. I mean, I feel confident that it is not required by any ecclesiastical rule.
And what I say is, DON’T KNOCK PRAXITELES. Without her efforts, our lives in the last while would have been shorn of much beauty. The sort of beauty that even episcopal emissaries can’t get at with a pneumatic drill. I say this with immense serenity in the face of some ungenerous carping of late.
One of my reasons for speaking favourably of Kennie was of course his daily bravery in passing under that awful footbridge in Drogheda railway station. It looks like two unpainted bean-tins planked precariously at either side of the track. Just how much precipitation must we have to take care of them once and for all?
As a help for the Monkstown boetians, I am posting the following about J. B. Lassus and would be glad were someone to take up the question of his first neo-gothic church, St. Nicholas in Nantes:
1807-1857.
Jean-Baptiste Lassus interrompit sesArmand!
Perhaps you might be able to supply us with some photographs of Lassus’ great first work in the neo gothic idiom? If memory serves me, La Rochelle is no more than 45 minutes from Nantes and I understand that St Nicholas has been undergoing a restoration. We would all be eternally grateful!!!
The latest intelligence signalled from Cobh relates the following:
A nun over there who is a feared Gauleiterin on the Cloyne liturgical Soviet has let it be known in public quarters that the decision of An Bord P. is unacceptable and that the catheral just MUST be changed. The same lady was also good enough to communicate that poor bishop McGhee has not the money to take ABP to the High Court and has been advised to let his plan go. However, the same lady says that he is currently involved in drawing up a further set of plans and, according the Eva Braun of Cobh, the plans will be ready and presented in TWO WEEKS time. That, incidentially should coincide with the first anniversary of last year’s presentation to Cobh Town Council and it should yet again coincide with Cobh Town Council’s annual holidays for 2006. If there is any truth in this, then I expect that McCutccheon and Mulcahy, the unhappy bishop’s “advisors” must have lost all semblance of reason and reality. Moreover, should this prove true the FOSCC will once again do it duty without remorse. It might be no harm for the poor bishop to stand down his Gauleiterin, who has lately been bleating in the Irish Catholic about her arthritic knees, before she leads to his being stood down himself. There is only a certain amount of liturgical warefare that will be tolerated after which heads have to roll.
Interesting piece by Fr. Paddy Jones in today’s Irish Times. Funny he didnt’ think to say that he and Bishop Magee of Cobh were heavily involved in the drawing up of the November 2003 Guidelines for Places of Worship, which reflect their particular and much criticised ‘vision’ of liturgy. As usual there is no reference to offical authentic Vatican II documents to back up this ‘vision’.:rolleyes:
Irish Times Article:
Applying Vatican II’s vision to architecture and worship
Rite & Reason: There is disappointment in the Catholic Church at the refusal of permission to liturgically reorder St Colman’s cathedral, writes Fr Patrick Jones.
At their June general meeting, the Catholic bishops discussed the decision of An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission for the liturgical reordering of St Colman’s cathedral in Cobh. The bishops expressed their disappointment and concern at this decision.
At the final stage in major restoration work, a planning application was submitted to the local authority to have a more extensive and open sanctuary, with new altar, ambo and chair and, being a cathedral, the bishop’s chair or cathedra. The proposed altar would replace the temporary plywood altar but the old high altar with its tabernacle, reredos, screens and old cathedra would be untouched.
All through the project, great care was taken to respect the architectural heritage of the building. The application was considered by the planning officer to be the best he reviewed.
The documentation included the liturgical rationale behind the design. The diocesan Historic Churches Advisory Committee had been involved and the architectural heritage guidelines, prepared by the Department of the Environment and accepted by the churches, was adhered to by the diocese and the planning authority. Planning permission was given. It was appealed and an oral hearing was conducted by An Bord Pleanála.
The board’s inspector, who conducted the hearing, recommended approval, but the board itself decided against it. Many are disappointed. Many are not, including those who campaigned against the planning application and those who campaigned against any change in the sanctuary layout. Their objections are based on liturgy and/or heritage.
The design was a contemporary plan to express the liturgy of the second Vatican Council, which is characterized by “full, conscious and active participation”. Wishing to have our liturgy as it was before the council or wanting it revised according to a “reform of the reform” agenda may be strongly held opinions.
It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterized by a strong element of disagreement, some of which oppose the charter of reform given in the council.
But given the vision of Vatican II and applying it to matters of architecture and the environment for worship, the overriding weight must be given to a design plan that is thoroughly documented in accordance with liturgical guidelines.
It must be endorsed by those charged in a diocese to offer advice on liturgy, architecture and heritage and which is certified as meeting liturgical requirements by the bishop who is “the chief steward of the mysteries of God” and has to act as “moderator, promoter and guardian” of the liturgical life of the diocese. Where this overriding weight is not given, it is a matter of grave concern.
For a church listed in the Record of Protected Structures, the law calls on planning authorities to “respect liturgical requirements” regarding declarations and planning applications. A commentary by department officials at the time of the drafting of the Planning and Development Act 2002, stated that “respect” carried a note of “heavy obligation”, stronger than the usual “due regard”.
This Act made provision for guidelines for use by local authorities. The pertinent guidelines, architectural heritage protection, have a chapter given to churches, which was accepted by the four main Christian churches in November 2003.
The chapter replaced a draft first published in a consultation document in March 2000 but unfortunately republished in December 2001 in a draft manual of guidelines for planning authorities at a time when the Department of the Environment was consulting the churches.
The churches strongly advised that the treatment of places of public worship should be omitted until there was agreement.
Stating that “the overriding remit of the statutory authority is to protect the special character of the protected structure” could be interpreted in a way to prevent working to a solution which gives a balance between liturgical requirements and heritage concerns. The November 2003 guidelines achieved this and remain the best way forward for all concerned: churches, planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála.
The sanctuary of St Colman’s cathedral – like all the other cathedral sanctuaries in Ireland – was built for a very different way of worship. Keeping it unchanged would fail to respect the demands of a changed way of worship. It is a matter of judgment whether a particular design plan respects these demands and the protection of our heritage. The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate.
Making temporary adjustments in the 1960s is also inadequate. Leaving in place the historic elements but creating a larger space is often the solution. A contemporary sanctuary can be built in a historic building and, far from taking from its character, enriches it. It also keeps the building as a place of worship.
The best way of maintaining a historic church is to maintain it as a church, as a place for today’s worshippers, a place of living worship. This must be our common concern.
Fr Patrick Jones is director of the National Centre for Liturgy at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth
Regarding Gianloremzo’s posting of Fr. Jones’ article from to-day’s IT, I would like to make a few comments:
1. Fr. Jones refers again to that oft quoted little phrase that the bishop is the chieft stewart of the mysteries of God in his diocese. At the oral hearing and throughout the planning process, an interpretation of this claim was put forward that would have the Bishop of Cloyne look like the Maharaja of Maharafelt, answeable to no one, either in civil or ecclesiastical law. It seems more than strange that he has not said one single word about Cobh Cathedral since 2 June. What business is Cobh Cathedral to the Irish Bishops Conference and why is Bishop McGhee so willing to allow this body trespass over what he claimed to be his private domain? Or, are they fronting for him in an attempt to pressurise ABP?
2. Sending Fr. Paddy Jones, who is nice man, out to do a man,s work is not very convincing. Fr. Jones is the head of a PASTORAL institute for liturgy which concentrates on the finer details of flower arranging and voice pitch. It is not an ACADEMIC institute. Although based in Maynooth, it should be forgotten that this Institute was originally based in Portrarlington before moving to Carlow College and hewnce to Maynooth College where it is a tenant occupying one of the many empty rooms in that establishment.
The Institute, after I do know how many decades, has yet to produce a solid work of academic liturgical research. It certainly comes nowhere near the Liturgical institute of Trier or even of the Catholic Institute in Paris to say nothing of the Santa Croce in Rome.
In the Cospectus Liturgicus, I have failed to find an indication that Fr. Jones has a Doctorate in Canon Law, Theology, Sacred Scripture, Liturgy or even Architecture.
3. Fr. Jones sounds something like the French Bourbons who learned nothing and forgot nothing. Although he has spoken this morning of a “vision” of Vatican II liturgy and liturgical practice, he nowhere mentions even the flimsiest reference to a source for this “vision”.
He also ASSUMES that what he is at is what the Council intended. This is patent nonsense. Fr. Jones has for some time been pushing a certain kind of church architectire that is cleraly a PRIVATE opinion of his own. A clear example of its daftness is St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth. Fr. Jones is quite entitled to pursue this opinion but I do not believe that he should try to fob it off on the general public as “the liturgy of Vatican II”.
4. If Fr. Jones had some idea of the Canon Law of the Liturgy, he might be in a better position to state what the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is when it comes to liturgiucal requirements. For example, had he read the Enchiridion Liturgicum, he might have come across Cardinal Lercaro’s letter stating that the use of the High ALtar, even not facing the people, is in accord with active participation in the Mass. That position was also confirmed by Cardinal Medina as recently as 2002 cin an official interpretation published in Communicationes. This list could continue but I wonder if there is much use as I fear it might not be managing to penetrate.
At the Oral Hearing and throughout the planning process, the FOSCC argued their grounds in direct reference to the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church on the liturgy as published in the Code of canon Law, the Institutio Missalis Romani, and the Praenotanda of the liturgical books as well as their interpretation given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. These are the sources that define OFFICIAL Catholic liturgical requirements. As were shown they are not in conflict with the civil requirements of the law nor with the decision of ABP. Can Fr. Jones be accurate in saying that the Catholic bishops are disappointed that a decision was made by ABP that makes full allowence for the OFFICIAL requirements of Catholic liturgy? Can he seriously suggest that the Irish bishops Conference has an agenda which is at variance with the OFFICIAL position of the CAtholic Church? If he is, then someone would want to contact headquarters.
5. Fr Jones states; “The sancturay designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate. That is a fair mouthful from a know-nothing and a generalisation so sweeping as to be risable. Just what sanctuary is he talking about? Does it apply to a 4th century sanctuary or to an 18th century sanctuary?
6. Back to the bishop being the stewart of the mysteries in his diocese: It has already been pointed out on this thread just how relative that role is and just how subordinate the bishop is to the Roman Pontiff in matters of liturgy. Should the silen bishop of Cloyne wish to devise another mad scheme for the interior of Cobh Cathedral, enough people are now aware of the action they can take against him the Roman law courts which are likely to put manners if not sense on him.
Bonjour Praxiteles!
I arrive with some photos in a very short delay of time. The church is very beautiful.
Jean-Baptiste LASSUS
The restoration of the Sainte Chapelle, Paris
http://www.paris.org/Monuments/Sainte.Chapelle/
http://www.parisdigest.com/monument/sainte-chapelle-interior.htm
@Praxiteles wrote:
Regarding Gianloremzo’s posting of Fr. Jones’ article from to-day’s IT, I would like to make a few comments:
It has already been pointed out on this thread just how relative that role is and just how subordinate the bishop is to the Roman Pontiff in matters of liturgy. Should the silen bishop of Cloyne wish to devise another mad scheme for the interior of Cobh Cathedral, enough people are now aware of the action they can take against him the Roman law courts which are likely to put manners if not sense on him.
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
People who don’t want their religious heritage destroyed by someone who is far from the top of his organisation
Senor Po
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
Have you nothing constructive to add to this thread?
Praxiteles is an ordinary joe-soap with a minimum of education just interested in ensuring tht one of the most important buildings in the country is not wrecked.
Praxiteles cannot speak for the others.
Now, perhaps, Churck, you might tell us who you are and what you are up to when not trying to improve the standard of spoken English (and/oor Irish) in Belfast.
Jean Baptiste LASSUS (1807-1857)
Some further resources on this important architect for the neo-gothic revival:
http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/fr/biographies/lassus_jp_antoine.html
http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/fr/biographies/lassus_jp_antoine.html
http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/fr/biographies/lassus_jp_antoine.html@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
Dear Chuck,
Are you not aware that Masonry is frowned upon by the Catholic Church and whatever you problem might be with Praxiteles, Gianlorenzo and Sangallo, you can hardley accuse them of antipathy to Catholicism. On the other hand you come and go firing darts, but I still do not know what you object to in this discussion. Can you leave off posturing for a while and just tell us?
@MacLeinin wrote:
Dear Chuck,
whatever you problem might be with Praxiteles, Gianlorenzo and Sangallo, you can hardley accuse them of antipathy to Catholicism.
I still do not know what you object to in this discussion.
Can you just tell us?I object to a liturgical campaign against one particular bishop being presented as a general concern about architectural heritage.
Some of my best friends are masons.
This is where you seem to miss the entire point it is the works that are the issue and not the bishop however it would appear that if the proponent of the works refuses to accept the views of the majority of his parishioners, the majority of the people in Cobh, the National Trust, a leading architectural heritage organisation and the statutory planning appeals bord then it is reasonable to consider that in fact he is wasting copious amounts of funds.
How much has been spent to date on
Architects fees
Planners Fees
Solicitors fees
Barristers Fees
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
