reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

Regarding the development of the idea of People of God, Is Brian referring to the official teaching of the Church or the opinions of individual theologians?
It should be pointed out that the category of People of God taken on its own is insufficient to describe the reality of the Church. The People of God is not an amorphous mass but a community which is hierarchically organised: see chapters II, III and IV of the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Not only the aspect of the Christian community called by God to worship but also the hierarchical reality of the Church must be reflected in the architecture of a church building, if the church building is to be an image of the reality of the Church itself.
Also it is insufficient to describe the priest simply in terms of “special ministry” – the Catholic understanding goes deeper. The priest is not simply delegated by the community to exercise a special function within it, but receives his power to act “in persona Christi” from Christ himself through the sacrament of holy orders, which involves a change at the deeper level of his being. Only on the basis of what the priest is can we understand what he does.

Am I to suppose that Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville of Belfast is the same Brian Quinn who is a member of the Art and Architecture Committee of the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference; and the same BQ who posted some rather colourful material on this thread under another alias some time ago?

If so, then it is nice to know whom we are dealing with and shall be able to spedite things much mor snappily when dealing with him.

I would mention that BQ should be careful about making theological statements as he obviously knows next to nothing about professional theology which is a good deal more complex – as Sangallo has made clear to him.

I find it peculiar that someone who claims to be seriously engaged in modern church design should not have read Rudolf Schwarz -if not in the original at least in a French translation!

Here is our Belfast friend’s web page.

http://www.rmc.dnet.co.uk/rmctitle.html

This link to Rooney and McConville’s webpage makes for interesting reading:

http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/

Hi sang

I understand and agree with all of what you said – except I never said that the priest was delegated by the community to exercise a special function.

BQ

@sangallo wrote:

Regarding the development of the idea of People of God, Is Brian referring to the official teaching of the Church or the opinions of individual theologians?
It should be pointed out that the category of People of God taken on its own is insufficient to describe the reality of the Church. The People of God is not an amorphous mass but a community which is hierarchically organised: see chapters II, III and IV of the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Not only the aspect of the Christian community called by God to worship but also the hierarchical reality of the Church must be reflected in the architecture of a church building, if the church building is to be an image of the reality of the Church itself.
Also it is insufficient to describe the priest simply in terms of “special ministry” – the Catholic understanding goes deeper. The priest is not simply delegated by the community to exercise a special function within it, but receives his power to act “in persona Christi” from Christ himself through the sacrament of holy orders, which involves a change at the deeper level of his being. Only on the basis of what the priest is can we understand what he does.

@brianq wrote:

Hi sang

I understand and agree with all of what you said – except I never said that the priest was delegated by the community to exercise a special function.

BQ

Brian, my apologies if I misunderstood your meaning. My concern about the expression “special ministry” is this: nowadays the term is applied very easily not only to priests, deacons and the instituted ministries of acolye and lector, but also to musicians, flower-arrangers, ushers and so on. Like the question of applying “People of God” to the Church, one can certainly apply “special ministry” to priests, but one has to complete it in order to account for what is specific to the priesthood.
On the question of the Church, I would agree with the idea that the church building should reflect our understanding of the Church as Vatican II presents it, especially in Lumen Gentium. In addition to what I said earlier, it could be added that the Church is on a pilgrim journey and that it embraces the community of the saints in heaven. Traditionally, the sanctuary is seen as heaven, the place where God dwells, and by setting it apart as a place of special beauty, something of the notion of heaven is communicated. Similarly statues of the Virgin Mary, the angels and saints, give some idea of the communion of saints in heaven with whom we are in constant contact (they intercede for and protect us).
All of this no doubt represents a particular challenge to the church architect who wants to make of the church building an image or icon of the overall understanding of the Church.
What do you think?

Brian

Could you ever explain to us what you you mean by saying that Place of Worship is an authentic Church document?

Clearly, you cannot here be speaking of a document having canonical effect and authority. In this sense, it has no bearing whatsoever on church architecture. It has already been pointed out on this thread, I think, that as the Art and Architecture Committee is an ADVISORY committeeto the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference, all it can do is advise the body that was appointed to advise. Clearly neither the Committee nor the Commission has any authority to LEGISLATE for the Bishops Conference. Indeed, it is doubtful that the Art and Architecture Committee should even have published the document Place of Worship.

I am am sure that you are expert in the rules laid out in the planning laws and how they are drawn up and how they are applied. In the Catholic Church, there are rules governing how the liturgy is celebrated and what is needed for its celebration. These rulese are laid down by ecclesiastical authority / and, I am afraid, that the Art and Architecture Committe is no such authority.

@Praxiteles wrote:

The following would appear to be most recent list of members of the famous Art and Architecture Committee>

Dr Jacinta Prunty is chairpeson and Reverend Patrick Jones is secretary.
Other members are: Mr. Kevin Clancy, Mr Tom Glendon, Mr. Eamon J. Hedderman, Reverend Hugh Kennedy, Bríd Ní Rinn , Mr Paul O’Daly, Mr Brian Quinn, Mr George Walsh, Mr Alexander M. White.

In relation to Cobh Cathedral, we know what P. Jones thinks following his recent article in the Irish Times / in which he omitted to mention that he had been at the Midleton Oral Hearing and appeared as a witness for the Trustees of the Cathedral.

WE also know what Alex White thinks.

Eamonn Hedderman-s views and advice to the bishops over a long period can be guessed at.

Sr. Prunty wsas also involved in the Cobh Cathedral debacle. Why her advice should ever have been sought is a mystery. We understand that she is a historian specializing in 19th. century barrack building in Ireland.

It is understood that Fr. Hugh Kennedy has close connections with the bishop of Cloyne / both are chaplains to the Order of Malta.

How could this be!

They are all out of step with the real Bishop of Cloyne +Adrian O Donovan!

@sangallo wrote:

Brian, my apologies if I misunderstood your meaning.

Hi Sang, I’m sorry to be pedantic here but there was nothing to misunderstand. I simply did not say that. You read all these things in my post which were simply just not there. (There’s no need to apologise).

@sangallo wrote:

My concern about the expression “special ministry” is this: nowadays the term is applied very easily not only to priests, deacons and the instituted ministries of acolye and lector, but also to musicians, flower-arrangers, ushers and so on. Like the question of applying “People of God” to the Church, one can certainly apply “special ministry” to priests, but one has to complete it in order to account for what is specific to the priesthood.

Your concerns about ‘special ministry’ are probably very real but they are not what I was talking about. If you want to talk about them I am more than happy to do so but I think we are wandering into pure theology which is not relevant to this forum? As regards the ‘People of God’, it is a common and well understood liturgical and theological term which is much wider than I suspect you define. Forgive me for straying into theology for a moment but the People of God is not restricted to the ‘congregation’ as a gathering of human beings. People of God encompasses all aspects of ‘being’ and includes the priest and laiety – and has no meaning without Christ as the ‘head’. It also includes all that we are called to be and do as followers of Christ. It means we are a dynamic people relating to each other as well as our creator. It also means we can’t just relate to our creator, we must also relate to each other.

@sangallo wrote:

On the question of the Church, I would agree with the idea that the church building should reflect our understanding of the Church as Vatican II presents it, especially in Lumen Gentium. In addition to what I said earlier, it could be added that the Church is on a pilgrim journey and that it embraces the community of the saints in heaven. Traditionally, the sanctuary is seen as heaven, the place where God dwells, and by setting it apart as a place of special beauty, something of the notion of heaven is communicated. Similarly statues of the Virgin Mary, the angels and saints, give some idea of the communion of saints in heaven with whom we are in constant contact (they intercede for and protect us).

yes, yes and thrice I say yes, but don’t forget the primary notion is of a people called to worship, called to be united in the Eucharist, the sacrament of unity. The idea of the sanctuary as heaven is subserviant to the idea of unity, yes a hierarchical community but first and foremost a united community, united with their maker and united with each other.

@sangallo wrote:

All of this no doubt represents a particular challenge to the church architect who wants to make of the church building an image or icon of the overall understanding of the Church.
What do you think?

Indeed it does. A response I have made to the challenge is St. Colmcille’c Church in Holywood just outside Belfast which is a circular church that I designed for the parish there. One aspect of it was that in the circular arrangement, the altar was of course in the centro of the circle. The congregation is arranged around three quarters of the circle – from 2 o’clock round to 10 o’clock if you like. The remainder of the circle is completed by a platform containing the ambo and chair for the priest. This platform also has a work of art depicting the communion of saints the idea being that the communion of saints completes the circle and the worshipping congregation etc. The church is featured here: http://www.rooney-mcconville.com

BQ

@Praxiteles wrote:

Brian
Could you ever explain to us what you you mean by saying that Place of Worship is an authentic Church document?

Yes, the ‘Place of Worship’ is a valid Church document as it is issued by the Irish Episcopal Liturgy Commission on behalf of the Irish Episcopal Conference. The Irish Episcopal Conference is obliged to issue guidelines on the building and renovation of church buildings and it fell to the Liturgy Commission to expeite this. As such it represents the mind of the Irish Bishops.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Clearly, you cannot here be speaking of a document having canonical effect and authority. In this sense, it has no bearing whatsoever on church architecture.

yes and no. Yes in that it is canonical in as far as it quotes GIRM, the Rite of Dedication of an Altar, Eucharisticum Mysterium and so on. It is not canonical of itself. It certainly has a bearing on church architecture because it is issued by a ‘competent authority’ as defined in Sancrosanctum Concilium as it is obliged to do by GIRM, and it represents the mind of the Irish bishops and can not be ignored.

@Praxiteles wrote:

It has already been pointed out on this thread, I think, that as the Art and Architecture Committee is an ADVISORY committeeto the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference, all it can do is advise the body that was appointed to advise. Clearly neither the Committee nor the Commission has any authority to LEGISLATE for the Bishops Conference.

Again yes and no. Yes in that I agree with everything you say about the advisory committee on art & architecture. It is advisory and all it can do is advise (the liturgical commission). No in that the Liturgical Commission is an episcopal commission – consisting of bishops. It has the full authority of the Irish Episcopal Conference to make directives regarding liturgy.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Indeed, it is doubtful that the Art and Architecture Committee should even have published the document Place of Worship.

It didn’t, the irish Episcopal Liturgy Commission published it. The Art & Architecture Committee advised the Liturgy Commission regarding its content.

@Praxiteles wrote:

I am am sure that you are expert in the rules laid out in the planning laws and how they are drawn up and how they are applied. In the Catholic Church, there are rules governing how the liturgy is celebrated and what is needed for its celebration. These rulese are laid down by ecclesiastical authority / and, I am afraid, that the Art and Architecture Committe is no such authority.

I am probably more expert in the spatial requirements of liturgy than secular planning law. Indeed the art & architecture committee is not permitted to issue authorative directives in the sense you describe.

BQ