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
St. Raphael in Neuenheim comes a close second to Monaghan Cathedral for sheer totality of its iconoclastic devastation. You would hardly ever imagine that it managed to survive the war:
@Luzarches wrote:
Incidentally Chuck, it is an academic convention to refer to an author by their surnane when discussing or quoting them in writing. What was Rhabanus meant to have done? Refer to him as Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was when he wrote the book referred to, but is no longer? Or as Pope Benedict, which he is now but wasn’t then? Or perhaps he should write ‘the then Cardinal Ratzinger’ every time he mentions a piece of his?
Point taken.
It is important that we should distinguish between the earlier writings and the statements HH has made since he became “infallible” and “impeccable”
I find it ironic that a Pope who his admirers confidently expected would undo the work of the Second Vatican Council has managed instead to undo the work of the First.
Dear Chuck!
Leaving aside the problem of pronouns, it is perhaps more important that we concentrate on your historical perception of the Second Vatican Council. Clearly, you seem to be unaware that present Pope is one of the major influences on the Council and every document promulgated by it (including Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy) had to go thourgh him in one way or another since he was one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. He was appoined to that position in 1962 and continued in it until the final session of the Council in 1965. I, or indeed any other fair-minded person, could not possibly go along with the a-historical rant that would have him undo the work of the Council. Bishop Connie Lucey, when once challenged by a hot-headed student about the Council, explained the matter on which he was questioned and added that he should know since he had been there. I suspect that Chuck is in a similar position: just hot-headed guffing about something he knows little or nothing about: I am inclined to think that Joseph Ratzinger is likely to know a good deal more about the subject – like Connie Lucey, he was there.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Dear Chuck!
Leaving aside the problem of pronouns, it is perhaps more important that we concentrate on your historical perception of the Second Vatican Council. Clearly, you seem to be unaware that present Pope is one of the major influences on the Council and every document promulgated by it (including Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy) had to go thourgh him in one way or another since he was one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. He was appoined to that position in 1962 and continued in it until the final session of the Council in 1965. I, or indeed any other fair-minded person, could not possibly go along with the a-historical rant that would have him undo the work of the Council. Bishop Connie Lucey, when once challenged by a hot-headed student about the Council, explained the matter on which he was questioned and added that he should know since he had been there. I suspect that Chuck is in a similar position: just hot-headed guffing about something he knows little or nothing about: I am inclined to think that Joseph Ratzinger is likely to know a good deal more about the subject – like Connie Lucey, he was there.
I couldn’t agree more. Now that we are about to embark on the Tenth Crusade let us not worry to much about “the problem of pronounsâ€.
Your desire to erect mental Rood Screens seems to have contaminated your ability to debate with the laity. You seem to feel that the only persons entitled to have an opinion about the Second Vatican Council are those who sat inside that particular screen rather than those who waited outside in faith and hope.
I was aware that Joseph Ratzinger was one of the major influences on the Council and one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. Does that mean that he is incapable of undoing the work of the Council if he now finds that the laity and the pastoral clergy have taken to reform in a way never intended by the control freaks within the Vatican?
No doubt there are hot-headed seminarians who can be brought to book by a belt of an Episcopal Crosier but as I am not looking for a clerical job I do not feel similarly constrained in forming my opinions.
I do not worry that Joseph Ratzinger might know a good deal more about these subjects that I do. What worries me is what he appears to have forgotten or ignored. In his eagerness to airbrush unpleasant episodes from his own history he seems to have lost his historical bearings. If he genuinely wants to have an open dialogue with Muslims he should try to focus on the 15th century of the Islamic rather than the Christian calendar.
Chuck E R Law wrote:I couldn’t agree more. Now that we are about to embark on the Tenth Crusade let us not worry to much about “]Anyone is entitled to an opinion about the Council and its work. Indeed, many people do offer opinions on this subject. The problem arises in trying sift the wheat from the chaff; the informed from the ignorant; the sensible from the insane; the good from the guff. One criterion to assist that process is to seek the view of one who was an intelligent de visu witness. After that, we have to hear what those who have studied the subject have to say and take on board their scientific findings. It seems to me that Chuck was neither present in the Aula of St. Pete’s (which never had a Rood Screen) for the scessions of the Council nor outside among those of good faith and hope. As for Wissenshaft or even basic knowledge about the Council, I believe there is absolutely no need for me to emphasize the obvious dirth under which Chuck labours. Neither I, nor anyone else for that matter, is denying him the ability to comment on the Council. I am simply saying that he disqualifys himself from making either an informed or, indeed, a sensible comment about the Council.
That said, I do regard it as worrying that anyone would seriously advocate dismissing scientific knowledge on any subject, and its exponents, in favour of what……the mob? If this is what we are talking about, then I am afraid that we are hearing echos of Berlin in 1933 and implicit (and that is all, I hope) advocacy of a mind set calculated to create truth for itself and to eliminate anyone else who might have the scientific means of demonstrating that that truth, or reality, might be different from what is actually out there.
Thirdly, it seem to me highly improbable that some one who spent five years of his life or more working on a project of such importance as an Oecumenical Council would be likely to turn around and dismantle it. That said, however, Chuck needs to distinguisg what the council dcuments say from the various -and often contradictory – interpretations given to those documents. A clear example of this was in the field of liturgy. What the Council wanted and the principles it set out to achieve that were hijacked by every liturgical charlatan trapsing the streets. There is no doubt that the present Pontiff has for a long time been sorting that situation out: but he was not alone. In 1989, the last Pope effectively signalled that die Schone liturgische Zeiten waren leider ausgelaufen and that the time had come to put order on things. If you do not believe me, then simply read Vigesimus quintus annus. That led to the appointment of a number of interesting Prefects of the Congregation for the Sacraments among them Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer and the revered Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez (who was also a member of the central docrtinal commission of the Council from 1962) and Cardinal Francis Arinze. The work of putting order on the chaos outlined by John Paul II continues and is likely to gain momentum.
I find it risable that Chuch should espouse the virtue of historicity in view of previous postings and contemptible that he should seek to sully the charcated of one who lived under the experience of the kind of political system which Chuch seems to promote. If you read what the man has written the one thing you will be struck by is his consistency from beginning to end. A little book will be published on this subject by Ignatius Press next Spring and I will be happy to furnish a copy – if it will at all, help.
Finally, I am not sure that Chuck is not one of those persons who make a living gripping onto the coat-tails of Holy Mother Church. In view of some of his opinions, not only in relation to the Pontiff but also to the institution in itself, does it ever occur to him that he might not be a wee little bit hypocritical?
Well, here it is ! The famous baptismal font Dieter referred to yesterday. Dumped out in a “re-ordering”, it found shelter in the local Heimatmuseum until it had to be put back into the parish church before someone came to visit.
Read all about it here: http://www.marktl.de/en/papst_taufbecken.php
Chuck,
“…the laity and the pastoral clergy have taken to reform in a way never intended by the control freaks within the Vatican.”
Every Catholic is bound by tradition. Popes are not fabricators of the faith, still less the laity. I’m interested to know which the reforms are that those crazy ‘control freaks’ at the Vatican are trying to rein in? I pressume we’re not talking about the ‘We Are Church’ agenda?
Do you feel threatened by the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’? Or is it the Church that was supposedly founded in 1965 that you feel under attack?
You can tell us! We’re all Easter People, after all…
Hallelujia!!!
The ecclesiological problem underlying poor old Chuck’s outbursts, like those of another contributor to this thread, is that he does not seem to realize that the Catholic Church is hierarchially structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of “People of God”. If dear Churck ever takes the time to open the documents of the Second Vatican Council he will fail to find even the slighest suggestion that the charism to rule the Church is given to the hierarchy by the people. What he will find repeated again and again is that this charism is given by God in the Sacrament of Orders. You see, Rhebanus was correct when he fingered the ecclesiological problem and Luzarches has rightly pointed out why that fingering was so sore with Chuck.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re: Posting # 1350
Well, I think the penny has finally dropped. Sorry for the delay….getting older! Do not tell me that the sun or moon is not calculated to enter the round aperture on a particluar day of the year.
That church is very eccentric with much character; I hope it is not considered tired and in need of a makeover.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Hallelujia!!!
The ecclesiological problem underlying poor old Chuck’s outbursts, like those of another contributor to this thread, is that he does not seem to realize that the Catholic Church is hierarchially structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of “People of God”. If dear Churck ever takes the time to open the documents of the Second Vatican Council he will fail to find even the slighest suggestion that the charism to rule the Church is given to the hierarchy by the people. What he will find repeated again and again is that this charism is given by God in the Sacrament of Orders. You see, Rhebanus was correct when he fingered the ecclesiological problem and Luzarches has rightly pointed out why that fingering was so sore with Chuck.
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
Praxiteles has only insisted on observance of the norms established by lawful ecclesiastical authority. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing personal in that… and publicly to impute the contrary will expose you to a libel action, dear Chuck, to whose challenge Praxiteles is gladly willing to rise! Qui aures audiendi habet, audiat, quia nil molitur inepte Praxiteles
Returning to the subject of the design of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown, Co. Louth, I forgot to include this image of the interior about which it would be useful to have the cmments of Rhabanus
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
“…damage…inflict[ed] on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.”
As opposed to the damage and division created by those who would force a reordering through in the teeth of impassioned and principled opposition across whole dioceses? Oh, I forgot, that’s just a small number of reactionary crypto-Lefebvrists. How silly of me.
Praxiteles says it all, folks! The Irish prelates and priests of the second half of the nineteenth century exuded qualities of leadership that exercised a deep and long-ranging influence on the Church universal from its centre in Rome (and pronouncedly at the First Vatican Council!) to the humblest village missions in densest Africa. This unmistakable influence was crucial, and clearly evident, in the formation and direction of local and regional churches in North America and Australia. The Irish Church of that period was marked by an elan and an eclat that resonated around the world. These distinctive qualities resonate from the magnificent cathedrals and churches that sprang from the ultramontane movement that characterised the Catholicism of Ireland when it really led the rest of the Church.
What a contrast with the pathetic, vascillating world of petit-bourgeois and lower-middle class timeservers that now occupy the seats of those noble, great-souled, educated leaders of the past. Not only had those Cullens taste and a sense of proportion, but, far more important, they had the Faith in both its integrity and entirety, and they knew the instrinsic power, majesty, and beauty of the Sacred Liturgy. They recognised in it the Church arrayed in hierarchic order. Those great men were hierarchs – sacred leaders whose authority came not from the state or the media or the prinicipalities of this world, but from Almighty God. They knew that at the end of each day – and finally at the end of their lives – they had to give an account of their stewardship of the Lord’s vineyard. They laboured long and hard to produce the results that survived them by hundreds of years. They provided venues worthy of a liturgy which mirrored that of the cosmic liturgy offered to God and to the Lamb by the saints and angels.
A church confident in its direction and leadership has abundant seminarians to fill its seminaries. It likewise serves the liturgical needs of so many that new churches must be built to house the vast numbers of the faithful who throng to the Sacred Liturgy. The Holy See is torn between its choices of highly-qualified personnel to anoint and ordain bishops for such a church. Is this the picture of Ireland today? Think again, people!
Take a good look at Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown, Co. Louth. Eschewing any likeness to cruciformity, it resembles a monstrous, mechanical Buddha plunked down in the lotus position. Note the centre of the piece, to which the viewer’s gaze is drawn: is it a navel – or something far more sinister? I wonder they didn’t name it St Molloch or Blessed Elvis the Pelvis. I can hear the wits in Cloyne now: “Twenty-first century vespasian for twentieth-century nostalgics.” I love the two miniature lamp-posts for twenty-first-century canines: Take dead aim, Bowser, but beware electrocution!
Sorry, kind readers, it doesn’t do much for me. And I daresay it scarcely inspires anyone else to worship either. Indeed, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has pointed out, the Eastern desire to void the mind (the aim of the lotus position and the direction of Buddhist meditaion) is the very antithesis of Western Christian prayer. Serious Catholics, devout worshippers, rely on iconography to direct our attention beyond ourselves (and our navel lint) to the higher realities to which we are called. Remember: God calls us to worship Him, not to void our minds in a dubious quest for ‘nirvana.’ What is the abomination in Jenkinstown saying? Anything remotely connected with Christ or worship of the triune God? Any visitor to Paris or to a North American park or garden might conclude that it is a post-modern loo with separate entrances for men and women. [Fi-fi and Bowser use respective mini-poles.] I suppose that the drains over the windows accommodate any overflow. Heavens to Murgatroyd!
It would be most fascinating to learn how this building came to be: who nominated (or appointed) the building committee, who authorised the proceedings, and how it passed the scrutiny of the diocesan committee on sacred architecture. Even more interesting would be the relationship of the local bishop to the building firms.
The photos of Armagh are exceedingly beautiful, except for the references to the gallery (now remedied, I understand) and the portable altar trundled out for the daily Mass now. The iconographic programmes illustrate the glorious foundation of the Christian Faith in Ireland under the leadership of St Patrick and St Brigid. The priesthood, religious life, and vigorius family life all thrive when the Faith is embraced willingly and openly, Check recent statistics, gentle reader, and then CONNECT THE DOTS! And finally PRAY that leaders may be found to continue or revive the legacy of Irelands former saints and scholars.
Chuck ought to check his Butler’s or Baltimore catcehism again. No pope is regarded as “impeccable” even in the most ultramontane circles. On the other hand, orthodox Catholicism upholds the infallibility of the pope.
By the way, the spelling in R-H-A-B-A-N-U-S. The suggestion that I may be ‘rhuberanus’ is just a bit too personal. Let’s keep it above the belt, eh Chuck?
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
On mature reflection I may have been a little hasty in praising Rubheranus. Having read through his postings again I find that beneath the extravagant prose lies an ultramontanist toady.
His idol, who he refers to as “Ratzinger”, has shown that he is not immune to solipsism himself.
Sorry, Chuck, but the author Joseph Ratzinger is no idol, but an informed authority on the subject of liturgy. Now, as pope, he exercises more than a scholarly authority, but I consider it appropriate to quote him in the context of scholarly exposition as Joseph Ratzinger. If you have managed to come up with a more appropriate way of citing him, do let me know, lest I distract you any further.
Fond regards,
RHABANUS (check spelling, there, Chuck!)
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
Chuck, it’s time you opened a book. Please turn to chapter 3 of The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 10-29 and READ about the hierarchical nature of the Church. Hierarchy is not a bad thing, Chuck. It orders the mystical Body of Christ both in heaven and on earth. Have you difficulty comprehending this mystery of the faith? Keep on reading, Chuck:
“This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican Council [NB: the hermeneutic of continuity], teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors the bishops namely, should be the sheperds in his Church uintil th eend of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lastin and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith an dof communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.” [LG 18]
What part of this do you not understand, Chuck? Vatican II teaches and declares not only the primacy of the Petrine see but also the infallibility of the pope. So far in this pontificate I have noticed that Benedict XVI, far from renouncing the claims to primacy and infallibility, frequently styles himself the Bishop of Rome – with all that this authority implies (review the quotation above). Innocent III, by the way, regarded his authority as deriving precisely from his marriage (cf. bishop’s ring) to the Ecclesia Romana. Fr Leonard Boyle op (a native of Ireland who emigrated to Canada, became a Canadian citizen, conducted an eminent scholarly career at the Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies at Toronto, and in 1984 was appointed Vatican Librarian) gave a learned disquisition on this very topic in Rome back in 1985 – the year of the Extraordinary Synod which asserted the fundamental coherence between the doctrinal and the pastoral authority of the Church. Had you been in the audience, Chuck, the iconographical references to the Roman Church (in the Lateran basilica and elsewhere) could hardly have escaped you. Innocent III, like Benedict XVI, was well acquainted with the Pauline images of the Church as Sponsa Christi (Eph 5:23-32) as well as Corpus Christi (1 Cor 12-30). One does not have to wear the tiara or the mitre, much less the mortarboard, to comprehend the Pauline ecclesiology at work in Christian theology, literature, and iconography.
By the way, Chuck, it may interest you to know that, whereas theological and liturgical Gallicanism introduces ecclesiological divisions and empties churches, ultramontanism unites the Body and fills churches. Do the math, Chuck; do the math!
By the way, Praxiteles, thanks for the interior shot of Wayside in Jenkinstown shown earlier in this thread. The centrality of the font betrays the whole plan. The font, known as the “womb” of Mother Church, is displayed at the centre of the building. Martin Luther, defying Catholic tradition and rejecting Catholic parlance, militated agains calling the Eucharist the “Blessed” Sacrament and insisted on calling baptism by that epithet, Too bad he missed the point that baptsim is merely the doorway to, not the apex of, the sacramental system.
More of the usual jiggery-pokery in this modern farrago.
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
A most impressive debut by Rhuburanus, with him iconography becomes pornography.
Perhaps you would care to clarify this remark? It really ought to be “unpacked” so that th ereadership can grasp your precise meaning.
In the meantime, you would do well to consult Lumen gentium further. In Chapter I “The Mystery of the Church,” section 6, you will find a nice variety of pastoral, agrarian, vegetative, architectural, familial, and spousal images employed throughout Sacred Scripture to describe the Church: sheepfold, gateway, cultivated field, tillage of God, vineyard, building of God, house of God, household of God in the Spirit, holy temple, Holy City, New Jerusalem, “that Jerusalem which is above,” “our mother,” spotless spouse of the spotless lamb, body of Christ.
You might consider this passage, too:
“The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). In them he prays and bears witness to their adoptive sonship (cf. Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15-16 and 26). Guiding the Church in the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of ministry, he bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22). By the power of the Gospel he permits the Church to keep the freshness of youth. Constantly he renews her and leads her to perfect union with her Spouse. For the Spirit and the Bride both say to Jesus, the Lord: “Come!” (cf. Apoc. 22:17)
I hope that this does not approach pornography in your narrow, prudish estimation. After all, it comes right from Sacred Scripture, rather than from the ravings of the monkish mind.
But you have touched, obliquely I suppose, on an interesting anthropological point. The Church is described in Scripture and Tradition as the spotless spouse of the spotless Lamb. Jesus the Lamb of God takes His Bride the Church unto Himself. This is clear in the canticle of Apoc. 20:6b-7, especially v. 7: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made hgerself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure.”
If this seems even remotely pornographic to you, Chuck, then you may wish to reconsider further participation in this thread. After all, I should have thought someone possessed of your intellect and imagination would wish to bring more to this discussion than compromised Latin orthography, poor English grammar, and ill-conditioned ad hominem remarks. Leave the guttersnipe prudery at home and consider making a worthy contribution.
Cheers,
RHABANUS
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
