The work of E. W. Pugin

Here’s another E.W. Pugin building. ‘The Towers’ or as now ‘Meanwood Towers’ in Meanwood, Leeds, West Yorks. I’d be interested to hear if any one has any more information on the site, especially if anjyone has any plans or drawings.

Regards

L.A.

[ATTACH]2439[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]2440[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]2441[/ATTACH]

The famous Organ

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

Does anyone know exactly what is planned for Monkstown parish church. Sirius mentioned permission to re-order the church, but failed to answer my question as to what exactly was permitted.

For the education of Gianlorenzo:

The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door ope

The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

Here endeth the lesson

I have not jet seen Monkston, but the description provided for Ganlorenzo is sufficient to allows us to form the opinion that another disaster has been brought about by a group of people who know nothing about the liturgy and consiedrably less about the Irish neo-gothic movement. Clearly, the oeuvre of Pugin is currentlly in the hands of hay-barn builders whose mentors rise to nothing more than chip-shops. Just how and why has Ireland become so culturally (and religiously) detached? The likes of those involved in Monkstown show all the sympthoms of the post-colonial trauma that we usually associate with the farthest reaches of the Limpopo. 50 years ago, D Guinness started to try to do something to conserve the remnant of a certain aspect of 18th century Ireland. To-day, the Monsktown paddies are busily dismantling precisely what gave (and gives) them the only form of social identity available to such a reprehensible class. Keep A. White at the other side of the Lee, please.

@Sirius wrote:

For the education of Gianlorenzo:

The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door ope

The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

Here endeth the lesson

Thank you so much for the ‘lesson’.

Would I be safe in assuming that the above re-ordering of the Sanctuary and Nave in Monkstown was presented to the parishioners and planning authorities as “liturgically required”?
If so, then I am not surprised that the people did not object as, in the main, this particular lie has been convincing congregations all over the English speaking world for some time. And make no mistake, it is a lie. I would have much greater respect for the wreckers if they just once spoke the truth,and admitted that these changes are something they desire and that they are not ‘required’, as such by the Universay Catholic Church.

What is very interesting is what was not approved. I wonder how the removal of the altar and statue in the Lady Chapel could be justified liturgically and why would anyone want to do it? Would they then perhaps have changed the name from St. Mary and the Sacred Heart to simply Sacred Heart?

The answer, of course, is Iconoclasm.

An Iconoclast is:
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

The above perfectly describes those involved in much of the destruction to Irish churches in the last 20-30 years.
Their ideas are hopelessly out-dated, but unfortunately those who hold to them are currently in positions of power within the church and they are still able to destroy our heritage and convince people like Alex White et al. that what they are doing is necessary for Catholic liturgy.

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

Sirius, you have failed repeatedly to explain to us the liturgical requirements for the re-ordering of churches that you appear to support and you have also failed to correct my assumptions regarding Monkstown I can therefore take it that Pugin and Ashlin’s little gem is Monkstown is due for complete interior destruction albeit that the exterior will be restored.

I support the right of all religious denominations to reorder their places of worship in accordance with their own beliefs. I believe it is a matter for each denomination to decide when to revise their liturgy and, once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community, they should be entitled to practice that revised liturgy within their places of worship. If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.

In the case of Cobh Cathedral, An Bord Pleanála accepted that the proposed reordering was based on liturgical requirements. However the Board decided that the proposed design was not the only way of meeting those liturgical requirements and that, as there appeared to be other options, the design submitted by the Trustees was probably not the best way of meeting those requirements. By framing the decision in this way the Board was effectively inviting the Trustees to submit a further application incorporating appropriate revisions to the design. I believe that anyone with experience of the planning process would support this interpretation of the “reasons and considerations” attached to the Board’s decision.

As I am not a member of that community I do not see why Gianlorenzo should expect me to justify the liturgical requirements of the Catholic parish of Monkstown. Would he expect me to explain the liturgical requirements of the mosque in Clonskeagh?

I am satisfied that Fr. Cotter has permission in accordance with the Planning Acts and Regulations. His architect set out in detail the extent of the reordering and the reasons therefore. These documents were available to the public. At a time when 24,000 were supposedly outraged about the reordering of Cobh Cathedral, not a single voice was raised against what appears to me to be a similar proposal for Monkstown parish church. I find that puzzling and the only explanation I can offer is that, while they are only a couple of miles apart, these two places of worship are located in different dioceses.

@Sirius wrote:

If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.

I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points – but I am intrigued by the above quote.

Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure’?

For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example – I would not share his ‘belief ‘but is his belief not akin to the ‘liturgical preference’ above?

(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)

@publicrealm wrote:

I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points – but I am intrigued by the above quote.

Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure’?

For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example – I would not share his ‘belief ‘but is his belief not akin to the ‘liturgical preference’ above?

(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)

This is the point that was made by FOSCC and An Taisce at the Oral Hearing in Midleton.
If you take the stance that Church authorities can arbitrarily decide what is liturgically require. without reference to the norms of their own denomination, and that this must be ‘respected’ irregardless of any other criteria, then the Act itself becomes redundant in the area of the protection of significant ecclesiatical structures.

@Sirius wrote:

I support the right of all religious denominations to reorder their places of worship in accordance with their own beliefs. I believe it is a matter for each denomination to decide when to revise their liturgy and, once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community, they should be entitled to practice that revised liturgy within their places of worship. If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.

There you said it – once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community. That says it all. What was proposed in Cobh was not in accordance with the rules of the community, ie the Universal Catholic Church.
What constitutes a ‘religious community’. Can it be possible that you think that a bishop – any bishop – along with a few of his clerical friends constitutes a religious community? Where does that leave the other 90% of people in Cobh in your reckoning?

@Praxiteles wrote:

Sirius:

Keep in mind taht in the irish constitution the right to religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to organise their own affairs are not ABSOLUTE rights but CONDITIONAL rights subject to the demands of public order. It might not be such a good idea in the present climate to want to tease out the implications of that.

So far the only public order issue would appear to be the threat to assassinate the bishop which was reported by THE_Chris in post #847. Is there more?