reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

@Praxiteles wrote:

Rhabanus,

This is the effort made at re-reordering St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast.

I am not sure who the architect was but I am inclined to suspect Brian Quinnof Rooney and McConville -currently advertising themselves in the clerical directory of the diocese of Down and Connor as “liturgical consultants” – but those glossy tiles tell a tale.

Here is a rather novel ecclesiastical eccentricity: a tabernacle door equippe with spy-hole to facilitate “perpetual adoration” -though, I do know what is done when persons are present who are not intent on adoration, for the bishop of Down and Connor must surely realize that perpetual adoration is the same thing as having the Sacred Species exposed to the scoffing multitude 24/7.

The lack of proportion in the tabernacle and plinth is most striking and reminds one of the pathetic effort of re-assembling lego done by Prof. Cathal O’Neill in the Pro-Cathedral after he wrecked that building. Also, the lack of any connection between this tabernacle and an altar is telling of the theologically unacceptable disjoining of Eucharistic Adoration from the Mass.

Consider the admonition of Pius XII that the fruit of the Eucharistic Sacrifice ought never to be separated from the altar. In arrangements where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a separate chapel, the tabernacle is always to be reserved on an altar sufficiently large for Mass to be celebrated upon it. This is upheld in the new liturgical legislation in teh GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Furthermore, the architect would do well to return to a study of proportion and aesthetic. I refer kind readers to an essay by Douglis Richard Beck which discusses St Thomas Aquinas’ theory of aesthetic. St Thomas’ theory influenced (for better or worse) the Irish author James Joyce. Mr Beck’s essay is titled “A PORTRAIT OF ART AS IT SHOULD BE THE AESTHETIC THEORY OF JAMES JOYCE.”
“Examining the indebtedness of Joyce’s aesthetic theory to Aquinas, Maurice Beebe asserts that:
‘Joyce draws three main principles from two statements by Aquinas; thus, there is some overlapping. An outline of the entire theory may therefore serve as a useful point of reference for discussion of the parts:
I. Art is a stasis brought about by the formal rhythm of beauty. . . .
II. Art or beauty, divorced from good and evil, is akin to truth; therefore, if truth can best be approached through intellection, beauty or art is best approached through the three stages of apprehension. . . .
III. The three qualities of beauty which correspond to the three stages of apprehension are, in the terms of Aquinas, integritas, consonantia, and claritas. . . .’ (21-22).

A sense of proportion, please, How is it that an architect today cannot find the wherewithal to design a Sacrament Shrine in proportion to an apse or a chapel? This example seems dwarfed and isolated, lost in the vast expanse of a Neo-Gothic church demanding a much stronger, clearer, more-well-defined and well-proportioned structure.

Isolated as it is, this peek-a-boo tabernacle seems to me to reify the Eucharist rather than to establish a personal relationship between the Eucharistic Lamb of God sacrificed and slain for me and for all the Church. Recall that in the Apocalypse the Throne of the Lamb is on the Altar from which flows the River of Life streaming out through the sacraments of the New Covenant sealed in the Blood of the Lamb. That relationship is established immediately in the 1900 arrangement of St Peter’s Belfast. Note too that the Lamb is surrounded by the saints in the niches of the reredos and that saints (likely the apostles, although I cannot tell with certainty owing to the faintness of the photo) line up down the nave where the arches begin to soar from the columns.

Note the dignity of the pulpit in the 1900 photo.

Imagine P.Jones having visions. What will we have next?

An this link may well tell us where some of the material dumped out of MOnaghan Cathedral may be located:

http://www.castleleslie.com/?id=167

Clonard Monastery Belfast:

[ATTACH]3049[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3050[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3051[/ATTACH]

@Fearg wrote:

Some more shots of St Peter’s Belfast:

A superb job has been done on repairing the fabric – as can be seen if you compare with those at this link: http://www.simonknott.co.uk/northbelfastcathrc.htm

[ATTACH]3041[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3042[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3048[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3043[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3046[/ATTACH]

The rood (crucifix), now suspended with fishing wire and utterly detached from its original rood beam and its flanking statues of Our Lady and St John, seems to me to be too low. It blocks the view of the East window. I’m in favour of raising it to its original height and replacing the beam with the accompanying statues as much for liturgical and theological as for aesthetic reasons.

@Praxiteles wrote:

More guff from Paddy Jones, the Director of the Pastoral Liturgical Institute in the October number of Intercom. We will shortly have to start a guffers corner!

Perhaps Rhabanus would like to walk us over this particular one.

A Feeble Attempt at Damage Control

Paddy Jones (“The Liturgy Corner,” Intercom, October 2006) may prattle away as much as he likes about the notion of “active” participation in the sacred liturgy. He ought to be told, however, that the word used by Pope St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council was actuosa, translated as “real” or “actual.” Latin, after all, is a precise language and has a term that means “active.” The Latin equivalent for the English adjective ‘active’ is activus, -a, -um, as in vita activa (‘the active life’) as opposed to vita contemplativa (‘the contemplative life’). What Pius X and Vatican II were encouraging was something more subtle and profound than simply particpation that is “active” or an“activity.” An appropriate translation of actuosa here would be ‘involved.’ Paddy Jones, though, would do much better to consult Joseph Ratzinger, Report on the Faith (with Vittorio Messori, San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 1981), pp. 34-35 for an authoritative treatment of th ereal meaning of participatio actuosa.

The sacred Liturgy is essentially a form of prayer, indeed the Church’s official, public prayer. Both Pius X and Vatican II strove to involve the lay faithful more deeply in the mysteries being celebrated by the Church in that priestly office of Jesus Christ which we call the sacred Liturgy. In practical terms, they urged a remote preparation for participation in the sacred Liturgy by the frequent reception of the sacrament of Penance and the avoidance of sin, both mortal and venial, in order to enhance the fruitfulness of participation in Mass and the reception of Holy Communion.

Prayer manuals like Bishop Richard Challoner’s Garden of the Soul and, in later generations, The Key of Heaven tutored the faithful in the ways of prayer, so that their participation in the Mass and the sacraments would be more fruitful. Dom Gaspar Lefebvre’s pastoral explanation of the contents of the Mass and the liturgical year in the St Andrew’s Daily Missal enhanced the liturgical participation of countless Catholics. An ongoing conversion of heart was fostered by such spiritual exercises and pious devotions as the novena of the Nine First Fridays, and after 1917 the Five First Saturdays, membership in sodalities and fraternal organizations like The Holy Name Society, the Children of Mary, the Divine Childhood Association, The St Vincent de Paul Society, the Rosary Guild, etc, etc, etc.

As the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy aptly put it, “… the liturgy itself inspires those who have eaten their fill of the ‘easter sacraments’ to become ‘united in holiness and mutual love’. It prays that, ‘as they live their lives they may hold fast to what they have perceived through faith’. The renewal of the Lord’s covenant with human beings in the eucharist really does have the effect of drawing believers into the overwhelming love of Christ, and fires them with it. From the liturgy, then, especially from the eucharist, grace comes flowing to us as if from a fountain] 10). This is much broader a vision than simply “active” participation understood in functional terms such as making a reponse or singing an acclamation, however worthy these may be in themselves.

Saint Pius X (pope 1903-14) and Vatican II (1963-65) certainly urged the faithful to learn to pray the Eucharistic Liturgy by reciting (saying or singing) those parts of the Mass which pertained to them. Consider, for instance, the effort that went into the 28th International Eucharistic Congress of 1926, held at Soldiers’ Field in Chicago, Illinois, USA, when, for the Solemn Pontifical High Mass celebrated by His Eminence John Cardinal Bonzano, a choir composed of 60,000 parochial school children chanted Gregorian Mass VIII (Missa de Angelis or Mass of the Angels). “Involved”? I should say they were. How many school children today, whether in Dublin, New York, or Chicago, have even heard of “The Mass of the Angels,” much less know how to sing Mass VIII.

I hope that Paddy Jones and his ecclesiastical superiors have not utterly shed their training in Latin, for it would do them credit to read, with comprehension and suitable reflection, section 11 of Sacrosanctum concilium: Ut haec tamen plena efficacitas habeatur, necessarium est ut fideles cum recti animi dispositionibus ad sacram liturgiam accedant, mentem suam voci accommodent, et supernae gratiae cooperentur, ne eam in vacuum recipient. Ideo sacris pastoribus advigilandum est ut in actione liturgica non solum observentur leges ad validam et licitam celebrationem, sed ut fideles scienter, actuose et fructuose eandem participent.

Section 12 of Sacrosanctum concilium reminds all that the spiritual life does not stop with the liturgy, but must penetrate one’s entire life: ‘However, the spiritual life has more to it than sharing in the liturgy. Christians, though called to prayer together, must nevertheless also go to their own room and pray to their Father in secret. Indeed, according to Paul’s teaching, they must pray without ceasing. Again we are taught, also by Paul, always to carry round the dying of Jesus in our bodies, so that the life of Jesus also can be manifested in our mortal flesh. It is on this account that, during the sacrifice of the mass, we pray the Lord, “to receive the offering of the spiritual victim”, and then raise our very selves” to their perfection in becoming “an eternal gift” for himself.’

And this is where the example of the holy pastors of the Church comes in. How are the faith of the Church and the reality of the Liturgy to take root in the hearts and souls of the faithful, when they witness the clergy (higher and lower) denigrate and destroy the very houses of worship that were designed by internationally renowned (and historically acclaimed) archtiects like the Pugins, George Aslin, and James Joseph MacCarthy, and erected by their (the lay faithful’s) ancestors at great, even overwhelming expense met by personal sacrifice? [Consider, for example, the cathedrals of Killarney, Monaghan, Armagh, Belfast and devastation wrought upon the Neo-Gothic interiors.] “You will find,” Paddy Jones jauntily declares, “a renewed emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word.” This “renewed emphasis” on the Liturgy of the Word coincided most ironically with the removal of every magnificent pulpit from the cathedrals of Ireland. Has an explanation of this irony ever been tendered? Are the people in the pews taught to make the correct responses in Latin to the parts of the Mass that pertain to them, as stipulated by the Sacred Congregation for Divine worship under Pope Paul VI in its Letter to Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of Plain Chant Voluntati obsequens? Some words simply remain unspoken (or unsung).

Paddy Jones exclaims: “In brief, we reordered our churches!” With what preparation of the faithful? To what degree of consulting them on the planning and execution of such reordering? And with what results? Was the wreckovation of churches the length and breadth of Ireland a “grassroots” movement? Are there more Catholics (or others) attending Masses in Ireland in 2006 than in 1966? Surely there are relaiable statistics, available from the Irish government if not from the chancery offices of the Irish Church, which provide the answer to this question. Perhaps Paddy Jones would care to trot them out for our perusal and further discussion. That would make for a most interesting “Liturgy Corner.”

He then rationalizes: “We learned by doing what was required by whom or what?? to translate the vision into reality.” What did ‘we’ learn, anyway? It seems that some dioceses made several not-very-deft attempts to reorder their churches with varying degrees of success (or not). “It is a task not fully achieved yet.” How many more churches have to be sacrificed to the wrecking ball before the experiment is declared “unsuccessful”? Is this a veiled threat against St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh – the last intact Pugin church in all Ireland? I am fully aware that St Colman’s is not the work of Augustus Welby Pugin (1812-52) but that of his son Edward Pugin and George Ashlin (1837-1921). In Irish Churches and Monasteries: An Historical and Architectural Guide (Cork: The Collins Press, 1997), Séan D. O’Reilly points out, “Their finest achievement in church building was Cobh Cathedral, County Cork, begun in 1868 but not completed until the second decade of this century” (pp. 170-171). Is the renovation of St Colman’s the “task not fully achieved yet?”

Several more questions naturally arise: How carefully have the clergy of Ireland read the documents of Vatican II (and for that matter the writings of Pope St Pius X, particularly Tra le sollecitudini with its clarion call for the revival of Gregorian chant in the life of the sacred Liturgy)? Have the clergy also read the FIVE later instructions on the correct application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium? Did, or does, each bishop in the cathedrals mentioned earlier regard it as his prerogative to bulldoze the sanctuary and reappoint it according to his personal taste with little or no sensitivity for the harm done to the integrity of the sacred architecture itself and the effect that all of this might have on the lay faithful who are constantly being dunned to pay for wreckovation after senseless wreckovation? Is it reasonably to be expected that each bishop, upon episcopal ordination, will proceed to alter his predecessor’s sanctuary according to his own “inspired” designs? And, more concretely, how “actively” were the lay faithful consulted on the inauguration of the abominable whale’s-tooth-tabernacle in Armagh? Or the peek-a-boo tabernacle in once-glorious St Peter’s, Belfast? How about those tapestries in Monaghan? Does Paddy Jones think, even for a heartbeat, that the average, common-sensed lay person with two eyes and a functioning brain in his head, would have opted to destroy the priceless nineteenth-century retables and pulpits of the great cathedrals of Ireland and replace them with either hideous monstrosities that hinder any devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, or overdone palanquins retro-fitted from Eucharistic canopies to exaggerate the importance of bishops?

It seems that the lay faithful and clergy connected with St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh recognise the value of their ecclesiastical heritage and are “actively” “involved” in preserving it from the wiles of architects and prelates alike. They seem fully, actively, and consciously aware that involvement in the sacred Liturgy has nothing to do with chancel-prancing and doing a bit of liturgical soft-shoe or “dance” whenever one feels the humour coming on. They seem intent on keeping their church, their house of worship, intact so that it may glorify God in its artistic integrity, and serve subsequent generations of “pray-ers” as a venue of liturgical and devotional service of God. An Bord Pleanala has concurred with them.

It would behoove Paddy Jones, then, to take as his next text for commentary John Paul II’s last encyclical letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, or the Instruction Redemptionis sacramentum of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. If he should feel particularly “plucky and adventury”, he might even deign to comment on Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy [trans. John Saward (Ignatius, 2000)]. An excellent section on “The Body and the Liturgy” has this to say: “We are realizing more and more clearly that silence is part of the liturgy. We respond, by singing and praying, to God who addresses us, but on the greater mystery, surpassing all words, summons us to silence. It must, of course, be a silence with content, not just the absence of speech and action. We should expect the liturgy to give us a positive stillness that will restore us. Such stillness will not be just a pause, in which a thousand thoughts and desires assaults us, but a time of recollection, giving us an inward peace, allowing us to draw breath and rediscover the one thing necessary, which we have forgotten. … For silence to be fruitful … it must be an integral part of the liturgical event” [p. 209].

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, exhorts the faithful – and celebrants – to observe a period of silence after Communion: “This, in all truth, is the moment for an interior conversation with the Lord who has given himself to us, for that essential ‘communicating’, that entry into the process of communication, without which the external reception of the Sacrament becomes mere ritual. … whenever possible, this silence after Communion should be used, and the faithful should be given some guidance for interior prayer” [p. 210]. Perhaps with more fervent interior prayer on the part of people, priests, and prelates, there would be less inclination to propose new schemes of “reordering” churches, and more real “reordering” of one’s spiritual life. It would certainly go a considerable way to creating more peace in the Church.

Abandon the sources of controversy, and there will be no controversy. A sober reconsideration of the perils of resorting to the sledge hammer in a bid to make over a Victorian sanctuary as the solution to declining church attendance and general ecclesial malaise seems the easiest way forestall further unrest and unpleasantness. Perhaps it is best to leave it to another, less restless generation to sort out the arrangement of the liturgy in the light of a more authoritative reading of Vatican II.

In the meanwhile, every effort should be made to learn about the Gothic ideal in art and architecture. It may well be the key to authentic Church renewal in Paddy Jones’ own bailliwick. I leave the final word to Augustus Welby Pugin: “All I have to implore you is to study the subject of ecclesiastical architecture with true Catholic feeling. Do not consider the restoration of ancient art as a mere matter of taste, but remember that it is most closely connected with the revival of the faith itself.”

Attached is a book review from the Antiphon, vol 10. no. 1 [2006] containing a review of Thomas Koick’s book A Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return published by Ignatius Press in 2003. It gives a good idea of current mainstream liturgical debate and interest within the Cathoic Church. I am afraid that all is not as monolithically einverstanden as P. Jones would have us believe.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

That is not Monaghan

The crucifix hanging in St Peter’s Belfast, portrayed in 3046 was taken from the rood beam in the church under question. I thought that it was the same church (ie St Peter’s Belfast). No?

@Rhabanus wrote:

Praxiteles,

Is it not the case that the crucifix on this roodbeam is the same (now repainted) as that now hanging in the chancel of St Peter’s Belfast? [See attachment 3046. Are you trying to find the accompanying statues? Is it the same church (St Peter’s Belfast) or do you think that there has been a “transfer of church goods”?

No. The photograph with the Rood Beam had been given to me as a photograph of Monaghan Cathedral before the wreckage. I had my doubts about it and P. Clerkin -quite expert in Monaghan matters – gave a definitive assurance that it is not Monaghan. So we have to resume our search for a photograph of the interior of Managhan before the wreckage – if you are in the way of consulting sources in North America it might prove more successful that efforts throughout the British isles.

I do not know where the Crucifix in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Belfast came from as I believe that it did not originally have a Rood Beam.

@Fearg wrote:

I’m fairly sure the crucifix in St Peter’s is brand new and was commisioned as part of the recent renovation project.

It’s a dead ringer for the other one in the Praxiteles’ photo. Note the finials at each end of the vertical and horizontal arms.

I do in fact have access to some recent books on Irish churches and cathedrals, so will do some more routling about in search of the mysterious rood.