Chuck E R Law
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Praxiteles wrote:
Well, well, if it is not Chuck, welcome back.
Unfortunately, you missed the point about the magic square. It is just a clever way of symbolizing the number 33 on the Passion Facade – a reference to the dominical age, just in case you did not get it. Basically, it is a device to cause mental bells to ring!
I got the point… but it wasnt worth getting. Basely, Gaudi is the vice to cause demented bullshit to reign (in Spain).
@Praxiteles wrote:
A note on the magic square featuring on the Passion Facade of the Sagrada Familia. The Square is organized to have a Magic Constant of 33 -the age of Our Lord:
Liturgical Disneyland
@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…
When I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!
@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.
@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.
@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.
@Rhabanus wrote:
What makes Ratzinger such an insightful liturgist is his mastery of ecclesiology…………
Ratzinger reminds us that the Church in her earliest period used to be known as the corpus verum Christi………..
Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy) reminds readers that the Pantocrator which dominated the apse of Byzantine and Romaneque churches represented the ascended Lord………
Ratzinger cautions against the solipsism that is the fruit of the congregation turning inwards upon itself rather than oriented towards Christ.
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.
@Praxiteles wrote:
What about the “piece” bit?
There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.The common or garden meanings of piece are indeed ‘coin’ and ‘room’. But would you insist on translating piece de resistance as ‘the currency of liberated France’ or ‘a room that an estate agent would find difficult to let’?
Piece can mean ‘bit’ or even ‘piece’. For example when your absinthe friend, Armand, wakes up he will probably exclaim “Je suis en pieces!”
or as my friend Bertie says ‘Jaysus, I’m in bits’But what I had in mind when looking at Armand’s curiously tilted photographs was piece in the sense of an amateur theatrical performance.
Incidentally when I read your postings the phrase “c’est forgé de pieces” somehow comes to mind.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Is “La Rochellais” a correct French description for an inhabitant of La Rochelle?
I had the impression that The Three Masons (Praxiteles, Sangallo and Gianlorenzo) had modelled themselves on The Three Musketeers at the Siege of La Rochelle, i.e. relying on extravagant (s)wordplay to escape from impossible situations.
@Praxiteles wrote:
I am quite amazed that CERL is so intimately conversant with the planning law of the Free State.
The poverty of imagination of the Free State bureaucracy is reflected in the fact that the 1963 Planning and Development Act is in most respects a direct cog of the British Town and County Planning Act, 1947. One significant difference is that the Paddies did not trust their fellow Paddies enough to allow Councillors to make decisions on planning applications.
Praxiteles wrote:ArmanddThank you so much for those superb pictures of St. Nicholas. They were worth waiting for. I particularly liked the ones showing the massing of the east end]
I sometimes wonder whether Praxiteles, who claims to be a sculptor, has all his/her marbles. The photographs presented by Armand, which brought Praxiteles to an architectural orgasm, were to any rational person une piece de merde. The only thing these photos show is that the poor demented La Rochellais was on his ear. He seemed to be incapable of holding the camera in the vertical position presumably because of a lifelong addiction to absinthe.
@enmareKeith wrote:
Kenmare is a Heritage Town recently voted as one of the best 10 towns to live in worldwide.
Planning in the Town is highly restricted due to it’s Heritage Status.
Residents are up in arms about a huge proposed development which would drastically alter the size and feel of the town for the next 7 years.
Details are on http://www.virtualkenmare.com
My question is why is a property developer permitted to drastically alter the whole feel of a town and build hundreds of houses none of which fit in architecturally with the Heritage Town ?
There are many objections being lodged against the development – but if planning is permitted – where do we appeal to afterwards ?Residents were shown a presentation of the plans but these seem to have concealed some facts – like the huge amount of new retail and office space being applied for ( over 48 thousand square feet of office and retail premises and an additional 36 thousand square foot supermarket) The supermarket was mentioned but not the size of it.
I was refused permission to photograph the plans at the presentation.
Now we have seen the actual plans it would seem that they are trying to make a mini city out of Kenmare. In the opinion of residents this will kill the tourist industry locally (our only major industry) and will greatly increase the problems of traffic,water supply,sewerage and council expenses.
Considering that Kenmare currently has many empty properties and offices, residents wonder why this development is taking place at all.
Any useful comments would be appreciated.
KeithGiven the size of the town it is quite likely that there is a Plan for Kenmare which will include zoning objectives for the areas within the town boundary.
If you look up the site in question you will see what it is zoned for and at what density. If you multiply the site area by the density you will find out how many units the Plan allows. Then you should have another look at the planning application and you may find that that the proposal is more or less what the Plan intended.
Then you should pause and reflect: are you going to become a recreational objector and spend the next year attending meetings of well-heeled nimbys and collecting thousands of euro to employ a top planning consultant from Dublin only to find at the end of the process that An Bord Pleanala will grant permission on the basis that the proposal is in accordance with the Plan?
I know you will probably have great fun, make new friends, and generally feel like you are a member of the community. It is probably too late to stop now as your posting already shows signs of “third party paranoia” and it sounds like you are well on the way to your first conspiracy theory. However if you were too busy to get involved in the review of the Town Plan you would be better off giving up the planning campaign and spending the time fleecing tourists like any respectable Kenmare resident.
Incidentally the Council was right not to allow you to photograph the plans. It is not a devious plot but simply because the drawings are copyright to the architect. Why didn’t you buy a copy of the plans like any normal person?
@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?
@MacLeinin wrote:
Dear Chuck,
whatever you problem might be with Praxiteles, Gianlorenzo and Sangallo, you can hardley accuse them of antipathy to Catholicism.
I still do not know what you object to in this discussion.
Can you just tell us?I object to a liturgical campaign against one particular bishop being presented as a general concern about architectural heritage.
Some of my best friends are masons.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Regarding Gianloremzo’s posting of Fr. Jones’ article from to-day’s IT, I would like to make a few comments:
It has already been pointed out on this thread just how relative that role is and just how subordinate the bishop is to the Roman Pontiff in matters of liturgy. Should the silen bishop of Cloyne wish to devise another mad scheme for the interior of Cobh Cathedral, enough people are now aware of the action they can take against him the Roman law courts which are likely to put manners if not sense on him.
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
@Armandd wrote:
Bonjour Chuck
Explique moi cette drole de situqtion. Je n’en comprends plus rien
My suspicions are confirmed! Would a genuine resident of La Rochelle say “bonjour” at 9.23pm (see post #1012) Obviously you are an agent provocateur!
@Armandd wrote:
Bonjour
I was reading the informations about the cathedral of St Colman in Cobh. Is he permitted to the bishops in Irelande to make some directions to the agents of the generalities for the urbanization? En France we have the legalities of separations. The bishops are never asked for informations.
Salut Armand!
Malheureusement, de nos jours en Irlande le primary role of the Irish bishops is to preserve English architectural heritage. Once they have achieved that, the bishops are permitted to look after the liturgical needs of their congregations, in consultation with the Pugin Society and their Irish franchisees. Quel dommage that Amiral Hoche, Wolfe Tone (and the brave troupes de marines from Brest and La Rochelle) came so close but did not succeed in 1796!@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
I am deeply shocked that a person with your knowledge and experience is not even aware of the existence of Gerry Adams. Here in Belfast he is idolised as a statesman of intentional importance. I warned Gerry that the day he signed the Good Friday agreement he would begin to slide into political obscurity. I never thought that it could happen so soon!
