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
Where was that photograph taken from? It looks like it was taken from the ground of the Palace. It is a wonder that those in charge in Cobh never thought to produce a calendar featuring the cathedral. They must be kicking themselves right now!!!!!:D
Further to posting 1176, I am enclosing the following articles just to give a flavour of current thinking among a younger generation of architects and liturgists:
Gianlorenzo!
Re posting 1177, I came across this in an article by Anthony Delarue and thought it summed up what you were saying: “So the fittings of our churches are expected to be art, reflecting Christ and His creation, not just a
furnisher’s decorations, and they are to be Christian art?that is, firmly rooted in our tradition, both
spiritual and cultural. This inherently excludes any transient fashion or the adoption of inappropriate
secular styles”.@Praxiteles wrote:
Gianlorenzo!
Re posting 1177, I came across this in an article by Anthony Delarue and thought it summed up what you were saying: “So the fittings of our churches are expected to be art, reflecting Christ and His creation, not just a
furnisher’s decorations, and they are to be Christian art?that is, firmly rooted in our tradition, both
spiritual and cultural. This inherently excludes any transient fashion or the adoption of inappropriate
secular styles”.Unfortunately this or any other argument falls on deaf ears. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Looking at the floor in Armagh Cathedral I can’t help thinking that all those miles of barley twist and acres of celtic squiggle can’t be too easy on anyone with a delicate constitiution – it’s all too fussy for a liturgical setting. Just take a look at the black and white tiles on the floor of Bordeaux Cathedral and one is struck immediately by the dignity of its restraint.
If something fancy was wanted in Armagh a mosaic should have been put in.
All those tiles, no matter how expensive, just can’t lift the mind from thinking of an elegant water closet in an upmarket hotel.G. Don’t mind the floor. Don’t you think that the present incumbant in Armagh might be ‘hiding’? This is hardly surprising as the poor congregation in Armagh have gone through three seperate re-orderings – all I am sure in the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’. At this stage they must be driven to taking pot shots at their ‘Shepherd’ – just as well he is so well out of range!!!!:rolleyes:
I visited Armagh in 2003 – the new floor in the sanctuary matches very well with the rest of the interior – the simple granite floor from the previous re-ordering did not work so well in this setting. The following photo (attempts) to show the sanctuary in context with the walls and ceilings:
[ATTACH]2772[/ATTACH]
Some excellent work has been carried out, the re-instatement of the original baptistery for instance:
[ATTACH]2771[/ATTACH]
and the re-use of the original gates from the former rood screen:
[ATTACH]2773[/ATTACH]
And for the sake of comparison:
[ATTACH]2774[/ATTACH]
Attached is a photo of the west end organ gallery of St Eugene’s Cathedral in Derry. Where there is now a grille, was once a decorative Telford organ (replaced by the current insturment in the 1950s). I cannot locate a picture of this anywhere.. if anyone can help, I’d like to hear from you.. thanks.
[ATTACH]2775[/ATTACH]
Hi Prax,
apologies but I am not able to keep up with all of the issues raised in all of your posts as quickly as you are posting them, hence I am somewhat behind. This post is regarding POW and the discussions we had about Irish Episcopal Condferences etc (round about posts 1142/1143 etc)
In summary you were contesting my point regarding the issue and status of POW. My point was that it is an authentic church document representing the mind of the Irish bishops on the architectural setting for liturgy and as such it requires consideration by any community contemplating such work. Your contention is that it is merely a private document produced by Bishop Duffy and need be given no more consideration than any other publication about church architecture.
Following on from that you contested my point that the Irish Episcopal Commission for the Liturgy (IECL) can issue documentation with the authority of the Irish Bishop’s Conference (IBC) (post 1142). My point in referring to Can 455 was that each Bishop’s Conference is to draft its own statutes and therefore can contrive to delegate to an episcopal commission if it sees fit. (I don’t actually know if that is the case here in Ireland but it is a possibility?).
As regards post 1143 I did indeed make a mistake and quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point. Indeed subsequent sections do refer specifically to issues that do require recognitio which would tend to support my interpretation. My point was, therefore, that if the bishop can regulate the construction and ordering of churches without the need for recognitio then presumably IECL and IBF can do so also. POW is issued to assist bishops carry out such regulation and would not need recognitio.
Of course POW doesn’t need recognitio anyway as it does not institute any changes. As I said in a previous post it brings together directives from various liturgical sources and presents them in one location. There is no daylight between it and the sources it quotes / refers to. To ignore it, or to treat it as a private treatise is to ignore GIRM, Eucharisticum Mysterium etc etc.
BQ
(ps I intend to follow up most of the other posts when I get time).
Dear BQ !
Let me put the point another way. If The Place of Worship were to represent what you refere to as the “mind” of the Irish Bishops Conference, then it would have to express that “mind” in a formal manner which is laid down by canon law. That procedure entails that the draft document be submitted to the plenary meeting of the bishops. That a vote be taken on it in accordance with the statutes of the conference. That at least a two thirds majority be obtained. And, in order for to have effect in every diocese, it would have ot have the recognitio of the Holy See before it could be promulgated by the Conference.
To the best of my knowledge, this procedure has not happened in the thrity years since the the appearance of the first text of this document.
Concerning the question of the plenary of a conference DELEGATING authority to a commission to issue a document in the name of the Conference, I think you will need to look at a response given on this very subject by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the mid 1990s (I shall chase down the text). The answer of the Congregation for the Doctrine was negative: i.e. a Conference cannot DELEGATE a commission to prepare and issue a text. The reason for this was simple: neither a whole Conference nor any of its commissions is entrusted with the government of a diocese. This is reserved to a diocesan bishop.
Unless and until such time as the process outlined above has been followed, then, I am afraid, The Place of Worship is no more than the musings of whoever signed it. This is not a contention. It is a canonical fact.
You mention canon 455 again and the requirement that Conferences draw up their own statutes. In fact it is canon 451 that establishes that requirement and not 455 (I attach the link below). But, having done so, they have to submit them to the Holy See shich grants both “confirmatio” and “recognitio” to them. Without these, and just like POW, statutes would have no force of law. Given taht the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that Conferences cannot delegate to commissions, then I take it that no Conference would propose such a move in their statutes; and if they did, it would be removed by the Holy See before “confirmatio” and “recognitio” would be granted. Just rust over to Ara Coeli and I am sure that the Archbishop of Armagh will be only too glad to bear out what I have alread said on a number of occasions.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTM@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
As regards post 1143 I did indeed make a mistake and quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point. Indeed subsequent sections do refer specifically to issues that do require recognitio which would tend to support my interpretation. My point was, therefore, that if the bishop can regulate the construction and ordering of churches without the need for recognitio then presumably IECL and IBF can do so also. POW is issued to assist bishops carry out such regulation and would not need recognitio.
BQ(ps I intend to follow up most of the other posts when I get time).
Brian!
The above is a piece, relating to no. 389 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, is piece of canonical muddle and has nothing to do with the production of texts such as The Place of Worship. I reproduce the relevant chapter heading from the Institutio Generalis Romani MIssalis and the text of no. 389:
“Chapter IX
Adaptations Within the Competence of
Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences389. It is the competence of the Conferences of Bishops in the first place to prepare and
approve an edition of this Roman Missal in the authorized vernacular languages, for use in the
regions under their care, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic
See.
The Roman Missal, whether in Latin or in lawfully approved vernacular translations, is to be
published in its entirety.”Brian, I do believe taht you are out of your canonical waters!
@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
As regards post 1143 ….I quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point.BQ
I think that you are actually referring to no. 387. Yes, it is true that a bishop makes decisions concerning the construction and ordering of churches in the diocese which has been entrusted to his pastoral care. Yes, he does not need the recognitio of the Holy See for every little action that he has to do in his diocese – that would be absurd.
However, he does not automatically have the final say in any decision he makes concerning the construction and ordering of churches in the diocese entrusted to his pastoral care. Should any of the faithful in the diocese be unhappy about any decision the bishop makes with regard to the construction or ordering of a church, then they have the RIGHT to appeal the bishop’s decision before the competent instances of the Holy See which will decide the matter for the bishop.
Anyone with a basic modicum of canon law will confirm that for you.
@Fearg wrote:
I visited Armagh in 2003 – the new floor in the sanctuary matches very well with the rest of the interior – the simple granite floor from the previous re-ordering did not work so well in this setting. The following photo (attempts) to show the sanctuary in context with the walls and ceilings:
[ATTACH]2772[/ATTACH]
Some excellent work has been carried out, the re-instatement of the original baptistery for instance:
[ATTACH]2771[/ATTACH]
and the re-use of the original gates from the former rood screen:
[ATTACH]2773[/ATTACH]
And for the sake of comparison:
[ATTACH]2774[/ATTACH]
Fearg!
Please do not get me wrong. Some good work has been done in Armagh and the dreadful McCormack mess has finally been dumped out it. However, we cannot accept that what has been recently be done is the best solution.
Certainly, it was a good idea to put the Baptismal fount where it was supposed to be – in the baptistry. But it would be a good idea to put the cover on it. See the example in Cobh or for instance the monumental one in Orvieto cathedral.
I have not seen Armagh since the recent efforts. I can imagine, however, from the photographs, that the latest installations are certainly more sympatic with the interior of the building than the horrible tranches of stone placed there by McCormack. Nevertheless, matching colours is only half the exercise. What is installed must have a didactic and symbolic end. Hence, rather than all the tiles, it would have been preferable to have installed a new mosaic – albeit a much costlier exercise – with suitable themes taken from the canon of Christian symbology and iconography.
Likewise, the levels of the various planes in the sancturay is problematic and a feature possibly less happy than the McCormack tooth. I was recently reading an essay on St. Augustine’s Commentary on the psalms of ascent (119-134) and could not help being struck by his comments on the theological importance of “ascent” as a prophetic and eschatological gesture – which all liturgical gesture must be. Likewise, his comments on “descent” will clarify why it is very inappropriate for a bishop to “descend” to the altar.
The recessed ambo is simply eccentric and impractical.
While the recent Armagh effort was better than the McCormack tooth and a good deal more respectful of such a great building, at the same time it could have been even better had a greater degree of Wissenshaft been available.
Hi Prax,
Since my photos were taken, the Armagh font cover (in oak) has been reinstated also. As for ambos – I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that works well, they always seem like an afterthought. In the case of Armagh, it is a shame the original pulpit could not have been restored in some form.[ATTACH]2783[/ATTACH]
As for ambos and their positioning, just take a look at the double ambos, one for the Gospel (left side) and the other for the epistle (right side) in St. Clemente in Rome. They have been more or less like this sine the 7th century.
The following link gives a video tour:
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re. post 109
.The spacial outlay of an early Christian Basilica… a Solea extending one third of its length and marked off by barriers]Ciborium[/I] or Baldachino over an altar on a raised dais. [See attachment 1 and 2]
In this system, the nave is reserved for the entry and exit of the Roman Pontiff and his attendants at least since the year 314when he was invested with the Praetorian dignity. When he arrived at the main door, his military or civil escort was shed; he processed through the nave with clergy any other administrative attendants until he reached the gate of the Solea at which point all lay attendants were shed; the lower clergy lined up in the Solea and remained there while the Pontiff, accompanied by the Proto Deacon of the Holy Roman Church and the Deacon of the Basilica accompanied him through the gate of the Sanctuary as far as the Altar where other priests or Bishops awaited him.
The laity were confined to the side isles; the matroneum (or womens’ side); and the senatorium (men’s side).
In Rome, two extant eamples of this spacial disposition illustrate the point: Santa Sabina which is partially intact [attachment 3]; but, more importantly, San Clemente which is well preserved [attachment 4].
Remarkably, the author who believes that the present interior lay out of Longford Cathedral somehow reflects that of an early Christian Basilica quite obviously has not read Richard Krautheimer’s Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae and may not have been familiar with the same author’s Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Yale University Press). C. H. Kraeling’s The Christian Building (The Excavations at Dura Europos…Final Report, VIII, 2 (Yale University Press) and T. Matthew’s writings on the disposition of the chancel in early Christian Basilicas (Revista di Archeologia Cristiana, XXXVIII [1962], pp. 73ff. would certainly dispel any notion of even a remote connection between the early Christian Basilica and the current pastiche in Longford Cathedral.
On the spatial disposition and the placing of the ambo of the early Christian basilica see the above.
more pictures of the interior of Armagh
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/armagh/armagh/st_patricks_interior.html@Praxiteles wrote:
Just take a look at this mouthful of guff:
Once again Fr. Jones neglects to declare his involvement in the writing of the infamous Guidelines for Places of Worship and his involvement in the APB oral hearing into the planning decision re. Cobh Cathedral.
He is a past master of the arbitrary uncorroberated statement such as – “The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate”.
Says who?
We know Paddy, and his pals in the Maynooth liturgical clique, think so, but when are they going to realise that the vast majority of the worshippers they so glibly refer to, do not.Re posting 1197:
Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute mentions the follwoing in his article in the September 2006 number of Intercom:
“It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterised by a strong element disagreement, and some of which oppose the charter of reform given by Vatican II”.
What, might I ask, does he mean by this? Surely, he cannot be suggesting that it is a matter of grave concern [to himself presumably] that more than one theoretical position can be taken by a bona fide academic on an open liturgical point? If he does, then we are are facing the end of any form of liturgical science and research and we are staring at the advent of an academic totalitarianism that would even cause Enver Hoxha to blush. If our learned author is indeed postulating a monolithic liturgical establishment in which only what he has to say is to be taken as a genuine representation and interpretation of the liturgical renewal initiated by the Second Vatican Council, then we could possibly have serendipitously happened upon an embarrassing explanation for the fact that in its 40 years of existence the Institute for Pastoral Liturgy in Ireland has NOT yet produced a single liturgical textbook of any enduring significance.
Our over learned author must surely realize that even within the matrix of the liturgical principles outlined by Sacrosanctum Concilium and the subsequent post conciliar normative documents, there exists plenty of scope for adacemic research and for that healthy critical spirit needed in any academic enterprise?
Our author also mentions that some strong elements of disagreement in liturgical matters opposes “the charter of reform given by Vatican II”. Again it is not clear what, if anything, is intended by such a statement. The only people who publicly and explicitly reject Sacrosanctum Concilium are the Lefevrians – of whom there are not too many in Ireland and none was involved in the campaign conducted by the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral. Although he does not mention it, Fr. Jones should be aware that covert opposition to Sacrosanctum Concilium is to be found in a variety of places determined to hijack the Conciliar renewal of the liturgy and some of these would be at the polar opposite of the Lefevrian position. For example, a book has recently been published in Germany which makes reference to a liturgical institute which banned from its library shelves those books written by the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lest what he has to say about the renewal of the liturgy have an influence on its students. What are we to make of all that and those?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
