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 E R Law wrote:
When I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!
Keep on reading, Chuck. It may improve your perception if not your disposition.
And don’t stop with this thread. Try Jean Corbon (Eastern [Melchite], non-Vatican writer) The Wellspring of Worship (1988, reprinted 2006)]The Wedding Feast of the Lamb[/I (2005); ]Matthew Levering (USA), Sacrifice and Community (2005); Michael McGuckian sj (Ireland) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (2005); Uwe Michael Lang (German living in England) Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer[/I (2004)].
You may find something to sweeten you up in Nichals Cabasilas (Greek, 14th cent.), The Life in Christ (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press [Orthodox]).
Come on, Chuckles, broaden your horizon and shed thecrankiness of those living in the unpleasant past (1960s-70s). And put on a happy face!
Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:
In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’s article on Iconoclasm and Liturgy which takes as its starting point the fact that “hardly a church remained unscathed in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Councilâ€. This undermines the appellants’ case that reordering had not been implemented in the rest of Europe and remains a peculiarly Irish practice.
In posting #1365 you advised that the pontiff appointed Cardinals Mayer, Medina Estevez and Arinze “to put order on the liturgical chaosâ€. As the Cobh plans were approved by Cardinal Arinze this undermines the appellants case that the proposed reordering does not represent the established liturgical policy of the Vatican.
In posting #1368 you advised that “the Catholic Church is hierarchically structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of People of God”. This undermines the FOSCC claim that the Bishop must have the consent of the parishioners before implementing the plans approved by Cardinal Arinze.
Thank you.
@Sirius wrote:
Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:
In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’s article on Iconoclasm and Liturgy which takes as its starting point the fact that “hardly a church remained unscathed in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Councilâ€. This undermines the appellants’ case that reordering had not been implemented in the rest of Europe and remains a peculiarly Irish practice.
In posting #1365 you advised that the pontiff appointed Cardinals Mayer, Medina Estevez and Arinze “to put order on the liturgical chaosâ€. As the Cobh plans were approved by Cardinal Arinze this undermines the appellants case that the proposed reordering does not represent the established liturgical policy of the Vatican.
In posting #1368 you advised that “the Catholic Church is hierarchically structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of People of God”. This undermines the FOSCC claim that the Bishop must have the consent of the parishioners before implementing the plans approved by Cardinal Arinze.
Thank you.
Welcome back Sirius (& Oswald)
As usual, we are a little weak on the detail and a little hazy on the memory.
It was unfortunate that you raise the question of Cardinal Arinze’s “apporval” of the Cobh scheme for this is probably the most embarrassing aspect of the Midleton Hearing and the one which all parties would prefer to forget about for it does no honour to the bishop of Cloyne. Praxiteles raises the matter here to correct your misunderstanding of the matter and hopes that you will not want to return to it.
You will recall thah Bishop Magee claimed in a pastoral letter read at all Masses in July 2005 that his design was submitted to the relevant Congregation [for Divine Worship] in Rome and “received its approval”. In two subsequent sentences of the same circular letter he refers twice to “a letter of approval” having been sent to him by Cardinal Arinze.
Sirius will recall that this correspondence between Bishop Magee and Cardinal Arinze was the subject of an exchange at the Oral Hearing between Mr. Shane Murphy, Barrister for the FOSCC, and the chairman of the Hearing. You will recall that Mr. Collins, for the Trustees, had cross examined Dr. Alan Kershaw on the nature of the “approval” the Bishop of Cloyne had for his project. You will recall that Mr. Murphy pointed out that it was not fair to cross examine his witness on the contents of a letter that he (Dr Kershaw) had never seen. You will recall that Mr Murphy asked the chairman to obtain from the Bishop a copy of the letter from Cardinal Arinze allegedly granting “approval” for his plan. The chairman did request the bishop to provide the letter -which was faxed from the diocesan office to the Midleton Park Hotel and admitted as evidence at the Oral Hearing.
The letter is dated 9 December 2003. The word “approval” does not appear in this letter. In fact Cardinal Arinze wrote: …the Congregation does not wish to take a position regardinag the details of the project. It also pointed out that any presentation of the project should avoid mentioning the Council which in fact did not legislate in detail on these matters and suggested that Bishop Magee refer instead to the requirements of the subsequent legislation, including in particular the current text of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. I am afraid that the so called “approval” for the project was a figment of Bishop Magee’s imagination.
From this letter of 9 December 2003, it emerged that a previous correspondence has transpired between the Bishop and Cardinal Arinze in October 2003. The letter from the Cardinal dated 9 December 2003 was in fact a reply to a letter sent to the Cardinal by Bishop Magee on 12 October 2003. That letter was also requisioned by the Oral Hearing, faxed from the diocesan office and admitted as evidence and is on public record. In this letter, Bishop Magee says that he was in a position “to present the fnal design project”. He then writes the Cardinal: I would be grateful to receive from Your Eminence a word of encouragement so that I can convey it to all those many people who have worked on this project now for many years. Having asked Cardinal Arinze for a word of encouragement for those who worked on the project, that is precisely what Bishop Magee got as the letter of 9 December 2003 concluded: The Congregation wishes to congratulate Your Excellency once more on the zeal shown by many in the drafting of this project . Please note, that there is no mention of “approval” and certainly nothing of the kind to be conveyed to the population of the diocese.
From the above, Sirius, you should be able to see that it is better for the Bishop’s sake to leave this unfortunate matter drop.
With friends like Sirius (& Oswald) …..
Copies of all of the relevant documentation are available in the book published by the FOSCC Conserving Cobh Cathedral: The Case Stated. There should not be any difficulty in obtaining a copy as there appears to be thousands of them flying around Cobh. For convenience, however, I have scanned and will now post the pages containing the documentation referred to above:
Scan 1: The introduction from the FOSCC book, p.5, n.2 is the relevant section
Scan 2: Bishop Magee’s letter of 12 October 2003
Scan 3: Photocopy of Cardinal Arinze’s reply of 9 December 2003
Scan 4: Transcription of Cardinal Arinze’s letter and a copy of the Pastoral Letter of July 2005Sirius wrote:Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’]
Sirius, you astound me. Following your comments:1.The FOSCC case stated that in many of the churches in Europe re-ordering had not been implimented. If you must know Ireland is following in the footsteps of Americe and to some extent England, ie the English speaking world in this.
2. Do you really want to bring this up??? Cardinal Arinze approved nothing. Take a look at the book produced by FOSCC and you will see that Bishop Magee wrote to Cardinal Arinze in OCT. 2003 asking for a ‘word of encouragement’ to the many people who had worked on the project. This in fact he received from Cardinal Arinze – a word of encouragement for the workers on the project and not an ‘approval of the plans’ as was suggested in his letter read out at all Masses in July 2005.
Incidently since that time I have learned that nobody in the hierachy in Cloyne Diocese actually saw the letter from Cardinal Arinze and all believed that it was an approval when in fact it was nothing of the kind.3. Read again and again the FOSCC position. They have never questioned the Bishop’s authority when it comes to true and authentic Church teaching. The re-ordering of the Cobh Catheral never came into that sphere. FOSCC did ask the pasishioners what they felt in the matter as otherwise they would have been sidelined as cranks – a ploy which is still being tried. In the end they did not gather large numbers of people to support their view at the Oral Hearing in Midleton, they invited experts on Liturgy and an advocate from the Roman Rota to present their case.
On a final point. It was Bishop John who, first day, came to the people with this project. You cannot now blame them if they considered that an invitation to express their opinion. The thing is that the opinion of the people did not conform to what was already planned and therefore they have been sidelined ever since. You connot blame FOSCC either for the initial position or the subsequent reaction.
On a personal note I have to say that recently a number of contributors have come on to this site and all they seemed interested in is firing darts at FOSCC. Can you not talk to the point. I have to say that you are so way off base that I wonder if you are, maybe, a member of the Trustees or the HCAC.
If not, please talk to the point.@Chuck E R Law wrote:
When I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!
Perhaps Chuck would be good enough to explain the liturgical theology underlying some of the “renovations” that he advocates. He might likewise reflect on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of the buildings that he so admires. This would make a positive and interesting contribution to the discussion.
Any texts to adduce? References to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, for example? A favourite theologian or qualified liturgist? I’. merely asking.
This is the chance for Chuck to let his glory shine!
Perhaps a learned consideration on the Church as the People of God arrayed hierarchically to reflect the divine ordering of the ecclesial structure. Or maybe a sacramental treatise on the ordering of Christian sacraments in the construction and arrangement of Catholic churches.
Wisdom! Be attentive!!
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius and Chuck ER etc.,
You are shadow boxing.
The appellants won the case.
Yes, indeed. A fact that Sirius seems reluctant to acknowledge. Is he pitting himself against the authority of the State?
Sirius wrote:Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’]
Sirius!
Do not forget that Martin Mosebach is talking primarily of the German situation – one that saw the systematic bombing of practically every urban centre in Germany during the last war. This, not surprisingly, brought the concomitant destruction of many churches throughout the country and the development of the so-called Notkirche (or emergency church) idea developed by persons such as R. Schwarz in the immediate aftermath of the war with its shortags ofbuilding materials. These, of course, were not intended as “temporary” and have continued. This was one of the major sources for the vandalism that swept certain parts of the US in the 70 and 80s and, as a result of little conference in Belfast and Dublin in the early 60s, began the rot in Ireland – where there was no tabula rasa because there had been no war – but with the likes of Monaghan, Killarney, Armagh and Longford one could be forgiven for thinking that most of Ireland had been just as heavily bombed as Dresden during WWII..
@Rhabanus wrote:
To begin with, the outlay is a disaster. No focal point. This is definitely not apt for Catholic worship of any kind. I cannot begin to count the number of contraventions of the IGMR (GIRM). The architect would do well to consult Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 2000), pp.62-91, which deals quite clearly with the disposition and rationale of the architecture of the Christian church.
Ratzinger enunciates the generally accepted principle that the Christian church combines the chief elements of synagogal worship, with its concentration on the divine Word exemplified by the Torah (cf the Christian ambo where the Gospel is proclaimed as the fulfilment and explanation of the Law and the Prophets), and the Temple cult with its focus on the altar (cf. the Christian altar of sacrifice) and the Ark of the Covenant (cf. the tabernacle).
The chapel under consideration offers a hodge-podge of ideological statements each screaming for attention and ultimately distracting and disorienting the worshipper. Too much visual noise and not enough harmonisation.
The architect and Brian Q would do well to consult the design of the papal chapel in Avignon and Rome (Sixtine) for the kind of harmonisation of features that enhances Christian worship.
Incidentally, the tawdry banners displayed grimly on the walls of the depicted chapel, are sorely lacking in taste and pleasing effect. Ornamentation ought to exemplify a certain quality of excellence and would do well to communicate something of the grandeur and majesty of the paschal mystery.
Take a closer look at this postmodern farrago.
Let’s consider a pinball game. There is a proximity of elements: altar, font, black totem, chair, other black totem on plynth BUT NO true RELATIONSIP among the disparate parts. Upon entrance, the visitor, like the pinball, runs into these items but not in a guaranteed order in the hope of arriving at the bumper that will award the highest score. Presumably the other chairs are filled with observers (unless they have gone home to drink). Of course it takes imagination and effort to design with meaning and with due respect to and understanding of the person entering the church.Aside from the utter disregard for the hierarchical arrangement worthy of the house of God, the disposition of all the elements in this building shows disrespect also toward the intelligence and spirituality of the visiting Christian. The Christian, though pilgrim, is lost precisely at the point where he expects to find the end of his journey.
Is this mini-putt or a shell game?
How is the pilgrim to connect with the sacrifice of Christ? How is the Christian worshipper here to relate to his pastor, his bishop, his Lord, and his brothers and sisters in Christ without the hierarchical arrangement of the People of God? Finally, why should the pilgrim even bother coming here if this building does not represent within itself the hierarchical arrangement of the People of God as instituted and directed by Christ the Guardian of the Flock and High Priest?
Chuck and fellow scoffers fail to confront this deficiency head-on. We are waiting for them to answer these challenges and to share a theological and liturgical perspective with us.
Rhabanus!
If I could distract your momentarily from Dr. Jekyll and direct your attention to Mr. Hyde.
Looking around casually on the net this evening, I encountered this extraordinary description of the Church of Our Lady of the Wayside at Jenkinstown, Co. Louth written by its architect, Mr. Brian Quinn. Can I ask you what we are to make of it? Is it to be taken seriously or are dealing with just another guff merchant? The statement saying “…only recently..the Spirit has revealed the prsence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly iteslf” was enough to give me certain a certain frissonnement or the collagirfeen as they call it in Cork:
“CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
The construction of a new church is always more than placing one brick on top of another, it is an act of faith. The building itself becomes a physical manifestation of a parish’s vision of faith and as such is an exciting, if somewhat grave, responsibility for the building team.When designing the new Church of Our Lady of the Wayside, we were mindful of the fact that a parish vision of faith is forged by locality within the context of the Universal Church. The vision given to us by the Universal Church, through the Second Vatican Council, is of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.
The presence of Christ in the presider and consecrated species has been understood for a long time. It is only recently that the Spirit has revealed the presence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly itself. The response in church architecture has seen a moving away from passively watching the action at one end of the building to gathering around the table of the Word and table of the Eucharist. In order to represent this theology architecturally an oval plan was employed for Our Lady of the Wayside in which the assembly are arranged on either side of a central ‘sanctuary’. This enables all to be proximate to the shifting centres of liturgical action yet maintaining a meaningful distance between them. A sense of gathering is further emphasised by the curved form of the seating. That fact that fellow parishioners are seen face to face bears witness to Christ in each of us and in the assembly gathered for worship.
Elements prompted by the ‘local’ church are Mourne granite for the external walls and the form of the external cross inspired by those adorning the chapel in nearby Bellurgan which this church replaces. In addition, the theme of water, life-giving and cleansing, is particularly apposite due to the close proximity of Dundalk Bay. This theme is taken up by the boat-like form of the building, in the design of the stained-glass windows and the tabernacle.
Brian Quinn, RIBA, RIAI.
November 1994″
And here is another bit of blank firing, and I cannot find anyone to own it:
CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
Random ReflectionsI don’t want to become too excited yet, just in case things don’t work out for us. But I am gradually becoming more hopeful that the outcome will be a completely new church. Then, I ask, what would I like to see rising on the rather circumscribed site?
I see a building, with beauty, a simple beauty, with space for 350 people seated. I’m not even sure that the seating will be in rows or solid benches. Maybe an alternative? My principal criterion will be a building where people feel participants, not spectators; where they are drawn into the action by the location of the altar. Notice I don’t say ‘sanctuary’. Perhaps the whole church is the sanctuary? Somewhere in it will be the focal point, for the proclaiming of the Word of God. Somewhere in it will be the president’s chair. Somewhere in it will be the tabernacle for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. The altar will be the dominant element. The tabernacle will be secondary to the altar, but yet will draw the attention of the person entering to the presence of the Lord in the reserved sacrament.
There will be a baptistry, maybe slightly below floor level, recalling going down into the grave with the Lord, dying with Him and coming up to new life. It might even be a natural flowing stream of water or a fountain.
The church will be adequately heated for comfort and sufficiently endowed with natural light so as not to need artificial lighting except on darker days.
There will be one confessional room, welcoming and comfortable. There will be space earmarked for a choir within the general space of the people. And wouldn’t it be marvellous to have a small pipe organ – maybe in later years?
As well as a sacristy (from which the celebrant would walk to the altar through the area where people are gathered), it would be desirable to have a reasonable-sized room with independent heating where 20 members of the Vincent de Paul Society could meet, or where the people could count the weekly envelopes. Maybe this could double as a sacristy for the acolytes.
The outside appearance or design – my dream would be something semi-circular or elliptical, not square or rectangular or triangular. Why? – the gentler, flowing lines of the circle or semi-circle seem to me to harmonise better with the horizon or landscape of the rolling Cooley hills. Something in me recoils from an angular building in this setting.
I would have a longing to see this new church have a special ‘feature’ to distinguish it. Maybe it’s a large window or glass panel through which the hills on the horizon could be visible. Country people can find God in the mountains, in nature.
Maybe it’s connected with the story of the blessing of the old church. It was, as you know, built against the wishes of the archbishop and priests of the parish. So the people who built it with their own hands and money had to get a strange priest, a ‘religious’ priest, to come and bless it. He was not permitted to go into the church, so he blessed it from a boat in the bay!
Another stray thought. I have seen some new churches with a lovely spacious assembly area or narthex. So attractive that it encourages many to remain there during mass instead of coming in to join the real assembly. THey can see what is going on and have no desire to hear or listen! Maybe they have good reason! But whatever we do, we will have to encourage them to join.
I don’t forsee any statues in the sanctuary area, but I do think we should have an area or place of devotion to Our Lady, the church is St. Mary’s church. Something not too obtrusive but will foster devotion to Mary, Mother of the Church”.
Interesting about the statues!! I wonder what that might indicate as far as the Communion of Saints is concerned? Are they nolonger part of the Church? Did the Spirit also reveal this lately?
In case you think I am having you on, here is the link:
http://www.rmc.dnet.co.uk/jenklit.html
[
@Rhabanus wrote:
why should the pilgrim even bother coming here if this building does not represent within itself the hierarchical arrangement of the People of God as instituted and directed by Christ the Guardian of the Flock and High Priest?
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
At this stage, Chuck, you have lost your sense of humour! Too bad, for it was quit entertaining. The loss may be due to too much Feurbach and to taking our friend Karl Marx just a little too seriously – opium of the people and all that. Pity….
P.S. careful on the split infinitives!!!
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
Chuck,
In your sarcasm you have seemed to confuse Catholicism with the most joyless strand of puritanism. You seem to have an almost manichean disdain for the material order and, more importantly, beauty itself. You would have us worship in plain boxes lest we fall into the dire error of being distracted by some ornament or image. That’s against a commandment anyway, you suppose?
You have signally failed to answer the constructive criticisms here on the basis of any theology. Are you sure you’re not a bishop, because you seem to be working from a position of pure complacency?
Anyway, Chuck. What have you got against Christian martyrdom? Not relevant today, eh? I’m sure the Christians in Iraq and the Holy Land would agree with you there…
As for those forelock tugging peasants you mentioned, devoutly telling their beads. Do you think that God was deaf to their prayers? Their knowledge of God would have been so much more superior if they’d lived to sing ‘Shine Jesus Shine’, of course.
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
Not too many craws were thumped and not too many forelocks were tugged among those worshipping in the acres of victorian mosaics in Cobh Cathedral. Beads were heard to rattle though during the Midleton Oral Hearing. You see, Chuck, the argument just does not follow….!
Drumaroad & Jenkinstown
Sorry, I’ve been away a bit hence haven’t had a chance to talk about these churches. I’ve only been able to check in now and again.
As regards planning these two churches take as their starting point GIRM 294 (I’m using the version produced by the Irish Bishops’ Conference published by Irish Liturgical Publications 2005 with the Imprimatur of the archbishop of Armagh). This is a lengthy paragraph which deals with the relationship of the hierarchical structure of the People of God with that of the unity of the PoG. The particular interest is where it says ‘ All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people’. So there is a balance to be struck between expressing hierarchy and unity. Drumaroad and Jenkinstown tussle with this aspiration pushing it quite far to see how far you can go. There is no doubt that they are both favouring unity, Drumaroad more so than Jenkinstown, but they also express hierarchy. The altar is in the central space and is the main element of that space, the space to which the community are focused. In Drumaroad the ambo is at one end of the central space so that there is no one behind the celebrant proclaiming the Word. At the other end of the central space is the baptismal font and about two thirds of the way down amongst the pews but separate due to the space around it and different material is the presider’s chair. It’s placed here in an attempt to express the celebrant’s role as presider and also the reality that he is part of the PoG. In Jenkinstown there is a slight difference in that the central space has the presider’s chair at one end of the central axis, the ambo in front of it, then the altar. The baptismal font is where the presider’s chair is in Drumaroad, i.e. amongst the pews. Beyond the altar and terminating the central axis in Jenkinstown is the tabernacle (behind the circular window in the image of the exterior posted by Prax). The image of the interior posted by Prax is looking towards the altar from a position beside the ambo with the tabernacle beyond in the distance.
The issue of differentiating the sanctuary from the body of the church as required by GIRM 295 is explored by the use of space rather than relying on physical barriers. This is an option where GIRM says ‘….either by its (the sanctuary) being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation’. The sanctuary is the central space where the liturgical furniture stands. When one leaves the pews to approach the altar it is clear you have left one ‘zone’ and entered another.
As a bit of background, I enthusiastically inherited Drumaroad layout from Ray Carroll who was initially involved as the liturgical artist. Unfortunately he died at an early stage in the project and I took on this theme of exploring the possibilities of expressing hierarchy v unity. Fergus Costelloe was subsequently appointed and he ended up doing the liturgical furniture. The furniture for Jenkinstown was designed and made by Ken Thompson.
With the benefit of hindsight I would do a few things differently (though I think that for most of my work). Whilst I think the ‘sanctuary’ in Drumaroad is differentiated whether it is sufficiently so I have constantly differing opinions myself. I think now I would have changed the floor covering in the centre to reinforce the difference. As regards the artwork, for me the jury is still out regarding Fergus’ work. His specialism is taking bog oak and forming it into liturgical furniture and I must admit i’m ambivalent towards the result. Fergus is clear about what he wants to achieve but I think myself that there is a question to be answered about how his work supports the weight of the mystery.
I have been trying to post more information and images on my website (can someone tel me how to post them here?) but there are a few technical hitches at the moment.BQ
Armagh
Space in the sanctuary – it was part of my brief to provide at least the same amount of space as there had been in the Liam McCormick layout (although Liam’s partner Joe tracey had a big hand in it as well I believe). In fact I had a slightly different proposal whereby due to the configuration of the steps from the main floor level up to the altar level followed a gentle curve in towards the altar reducing slightly the floor area in the immediate vicinity of the altar but this was changed to straight steps at the request of the client. Obviously plenty of space is required in a cathedral sanctuary in order to accommodate all of the ceremonies and whilst the LMcC layout has been criticised negatively it did clear away a lot of the furniture that had existed before thus creating that space. The pre1981 sanctuary wa so cluttered it restricted and impaired an appropriate celebration of liturgy where processions can take place, prostrations and so on (I’ll post an image of it on my website soon). So the requirement in that respect was a given.
Some time ago Luz I think asked about the design of the altar itself and whether I had anything to do with it. Well I designed it. Its shape was arrived at by looking at where it was going to be placed and its liturgical significance. It is in the architectural centre of the interior – at the intersection of trancept and nave. This intersection is defined by the four over-sized columns at each corner that are turned through 45 degrees. The corners of the altar you will see respond to this geometry setting up a relationship which helps root the altar to its location. Because of the scale of the interior the altar had to be the quite large size that it is. In order for the celebrant to be able to reach most of the mensa I decided to curve the sides inwards so that the altar is physically somewhat smaller (and more managable) than it appears. These curved sides also have the effect of elegantly resolving the 45 degree geometry. The altar is symmetrical so that it has no front sides or back expressing the idea of gathering around it, Christ in our midst, even if that is not physically possible in this instance. The figures are there because I always like to have the touch of a human hand so that the altar is not exclusively produced on a factory turntable but has been worked by human hands as well. Christ is the central figure on each side. He is surrounded by the apostles on three sides and on the fourth facing the nave are malachy, brigid, Patrick and Oliver plunkett. The figures were sculpted by gabriel gilmore to my design. They are deliberatly ‘distorted’ so that they are obviously still human figures but do not project an ideal physique – to be as inclusive as possible. The distortion is suggestive of those on high crosses. I wanted the viewer to be conscious of the lives of those depicted and what they meant rather than being distracted with their physicality eg the arms are too long and not right, or they were all physically perfect (whatever that means).
BQ
@brianq wrote:
Drumaroad & Jenkinstown
Sorry, I’ve been away a bit hence haven’t had a chance to talk about these churches. I’ve only been able to check in now and again.
As regards planning these two churches take as their starting point GIRM 294 (I’m using the version produced by the Irish Bishops’ Conference published by Irish Liturgical Publications 2005 with the Imprimatur of the archbishop of Armagh). This is a lengthy paragraph which deals with the relationship of the hierarchical structure of the People of God with that of the unity of the PoG. The particular interest is where it says ‘ All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people’. So there is a balance to be struck between expressing hierarchy and unity. Drumaroad and Jenkinstown tussle with this aspiration pushing it quite far to see how far you can go. There is no doubt that they are both favouring unity, Drumaroad more so than Jenkinstown, but they also express hierarchy. The altar is in the central space and is the main element of that space, the space to which the community are focused. In Drumaroad the ambo is at one end of the central space so that there is no one behind the celebrant proclaiming the Word. At the other end of the central space is the baptismal font and about two thirds of the way down amongst the pews but separate due to the space around it and different material is the presider’s chair. It’s placed here in an attempt to express the celebrant’s role as presider and also the reality that he is part of the PoG. In Jenkinstown there is a slight difference in that the central space has the presider’s chair at one end of the central axis, the ambo in front of it, then the altar. The baptismal font is where the presider’s chair is in Drumaroad, i.e. amongst the pews. Beyond the altar and terminating the central axis in Jenkinstown is the tabernacle (behind the circular window in the image of the exterior posted by Prax). The image of the interior posted by Prax is looking towards the altar from a position beside the ambo with the tabernacle beyond in the distance.
The issue of differentiating the sanctuary from the body of the church as required by GIRM 295 is explored by the use of space rather than relying on physical barriers. This is an option where GIRM says ‘….either by its (the sanctuary) being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation’. The sanctuary is the central space where the liturgical furniture stands. When one leaves the pews to approach the altar it is clear you have left one ‘zone’ and entered another.
As a bit of background, I enthusiastically inherited Drumaroad layout from Ray Carroll who was initially involved as the liturgical artist. Unfortunately he died at an early stage in the project and I took on this theme of exploring the possibilities of expressing hierarchy v unity. Fergus Costelloe was subsequently appointed and he ended up doing the liturgical furniture. The furniture for Jenkinstown was designed and made by Ken Thompson.
With the benefit of hindsight I would do a few things differently (though I think that for most of my work). Whilst I think the ‘sanctuary’ in Drumaroad is differentiated whether it is sufficiently so I have constantly differing opinions myself. I think now I would have changed the floor covering in the centre to reinforce the difference. As regards the artwork, for me the jury is still out regarding Fergus’ work. His specialism is taking bog oak and forming it into liturgical furniture and I must admit i’m ambivalent towards the result. Fergus is clear about what he wants to achieve but I think myself that there is a question to be answered about how his work supports the weight of the mystery.
I have been trying to post more information and images on my website (can someone tel me how to post them here?) but there are a few technical hitches at the moment.BQ
Thanks Brian for this postitive contribution which we will discuss – as time permits. To begin, I am posting, once again, the text of the General instruction article 295. I think, however, that this article has to be seen in the context of 294, so I have included that text as well. I am posting the original Latin (which is the binding text) and an English translation to facilitate communication:
Latin text:
294. Populus Dei, qui ad Missam congregatur, cohaerentem et hierarchicam habet ordinationem, quae diversis ministeriis diversaque actione pro singulis celebrationis partibus exprimitur. Generalis itaque dispositio aedis sacrae ea sit oportet quae coetus congregati imaginem quodammodo prae se ferat, atque congruam omnium ordinationem permittat necnon rectam muneris exsecutionem uniuscuiusque foveat.
Fideles atque schola cantorum locum obtinebunt, qui ipsorum actuosam participationem faciliorem reddat. [114]
Sacerdos celebrans, diaconus et alii ministri locum capient in presbyterio. Ibidem parentur sedes concelebrantium]
An English Translation
[there are basically two approved translations, one published by the American Bishops, the other by the English bishops. The one you refer to is merely a reproduction oft he English approved text which was subsequently approved for Ireland. I am quoting the American text simply because it is available on the net.]
294. The People of God, gathered for Mass, has a coherent and hierarchical structure, which
finds its expression in the variety of ministries and the variety of actions according to the
different parts of the celebration. The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in
some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of
all the participants, as well as facilitating each in the proper carrying out of his function.
The faithful and the choir should have a place that facilitates their active participation.114
The priest celebrant, the deacon, and the other ministers have places in the sanctuary. Seats for
concelebrants should also be prepared there. If, however, their number is great, seats should be
arranged in another part of the church, but near the altar.
All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of
ministries, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of
the unity of the entire holy people. Indeed, the character and beauty of the place and all its
furnishings should foster devotion and show forth the holiness of the mysteries celebrated there.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.I would begin by saying that theologically there is no tension bewteen hierarchy and unity in the Church. Hieracrhy ensures, guarantees and expresses unity. Consequently, in the building of a church, which should in some way reflect the reality of the Church (which is a heavenly entity, an earthly entity and a purgatorial entity), there should be no tension between “hierarchy” and “unity”.
In the case of Drumaroad, I am inclined to think that the distinction between the sancturay (presbyterium) and the rest of the church has not been sufficiently emphasized. Indeed, one would be forgiven for thinking that the underlying organizing principle was a flat democracy that certainly does not convey anything of the differene not only in function but also in essence between the ordained and the non-ordained very specifically re-iterated by Lumen Gentium 10 and explained in Redemptionis Sacramentum 36 and 37; and agin in Ecclesiae de Mysterio, theological principles, n.1. I include a link to the full text of this very important statement of dogmatic prinicples: http://www.adoremus.org/Instruction-lay-ministry.html#anchor23456
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
