brianq

I imagine they were destroyed when the floor of the nave collapsed into the crypt. It looked pretty bad when I saw it.

misguided!

Hi all

back again for another stint of fun and frolics – to help this forum get back to some sort of fidelity to the mind of the Holy Roman and Apostolic Catholic Church as expressed in Vat2 and subsequent documents etc.

Regarding below:
Just take a look at this guff:

“As liturgical consultants, we help you form your new worship environment into a central element in your ministry and pastoral planning. We do this in two ways – by designing the worship interior and its elements, and by facilitating an interactive process that discerns the worship needs of the community prior to a commitment to construction”.

And this, which makes absolutely clear that any mess created in the process is truly YOURS and no one else’s:

BQ: no – and i’m at a loss to see how you came to that conclusion from my statement. A ‘mess’ can be due to many factors.

“The role of a liturgical consultant is to facilitate a process that ensures your new worship environment not only accommodates your spatial needs, but resonates with your tradition and aspirations. Such a process involves as many from the parish as possible and is adapted to, and inspired by, your community. This guided consultation is an opportunity to reflect on your Christian commitment and how your worship space reflects and nourishes that commitment. Just as each community is unique, so is the guided process and so is the result”.

What happens when the parish just does not want what ever is concocted by the “decision-making” committee?[/QUOTE]

BQ: that’s an easy one, it’s highly likely it won’t proceed or will be substantially amended. The parish decide whether to proceed or not. I have been involved in a process where it was decided not to proceed – a fact I refer to on the website by the way which somehow you didn’t mention.

BQ

A few images of the interior of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown.

BQ

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

Hi Prax,

What I meant was that Ashlin’s work was considered as the completion of the cathedral.

BQ

@MacLeinin wrote:

The first was by Ashlin c. 1904, second the infamous McCormack (dinosaur tooth) job and the third is yours, I believe.

mac,

Ashlin’s work was the conclusion of the original construction process. There have only been two reorderings.

BQ

Hi Prax,

never too proud to admit when I’m mistaken – indeed Fr Jones was on the committee who prepared the draft text of POW for approval by the Irish Episcopal Commission for the Liturgy. (It was very late when I posted that).

So …… at best he was a co-author, one fourteenth to be exact! There is no way however that one can say that POW is his.

BQ

@Praxiteles wrote:

But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?

Hi Prax, no.

BQ

@Praxiteles wrote:

1. Praxiteles contends nothing. Praxiteles merely states.

2. Praxiteles has consulted the major authority on the Caeremoinale Episcoporum the good Braziliam Ioachim Nabuco and his authoritative work Ius Pontificalium: Introductio in Caeremoniale Episcoporum. I am using the edition published by Desclée in 1956.

3. Your mention the previous version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. This is problematic because there were more than one version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The follwoing is the main line of versions and does not include local parallel lines:

The Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by decree of Pope Clement VIII on 14 July 1600.
A revised version was published by Pope Innocent X by decree of 30 July 1650.
A further revision was made by Pope Benedict XIII by decree of 17 July 1727.
Another revision was by Benedict XIV and published by decree of 25 March 1752.
A revised typical edition was published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and published by Marietti of Turin.

4. Praxiteles has taken wise counsel from an acknowledged expert in this field and is advised that “because a new edition do not repeat all of the rubrics of a previous edition it cannot be automatically presumed that the contrary is the case”. That is substantially what has been argued up to now.

5. Nabuco, following the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ennuntiates that the throne is made of wood or sometimes of marble or another material. The principle to be followed for its adornment is: “color vestium throni sequitur colorem festivi vel temporis” (the colours of the adornments of the throne follow those of the [liturgical] feast or that of [ordinary] time) when used in a liturgical context.

That means, that when a bishop presides at the throne, the colours of the throne will be: green in ordinary time, white on Solemnities, red on the feasts of martyrs, purple for Lent etc.

When a Cardinal presides at the throne during a liturgical ceremony, the throne will be vested in his prelatial colours.

WIth the exception of Cardinal, basically the colours of the throne follow those of the Altar as a general rule.

Outside of the liturgical celebrations, the throne of a bishop or archbishop is to be covered in green – which is what I have adverted to about Armagh in its resent state (afterall, nobody has seen the present Archbishop going around in scarlet).

6. Again, the problem with the quotation above derives from an inadequate understanding of canonical jurisprudence and an application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity when one of continuity should have been applied.

hi Prax,

you can wriggle and you can squirm. You can quote all of the supereceded law you like but you’re just going to have to take it on the chin. Which bit of ‘The present volume …… takes the place of the previous ceremonial which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’ do you not get?

BQ