Gianlorenzo

@Chuck E R Law wrote:

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.

Impossible situations??????????????????:confused:

@Sirius wrote:

I agree that the crux is the right of each religious denomination to manage its own affairs and decide on its liturgical policy. But how should that decision be made in relation to Cobh Cathedral? Should matters of faith and morals be decided by plebiscite? If so, should the electorate be confined to the Catholic parishioners of Cobh or should it be a decision of the laity of the entire diocese? Would you include in the poll the a la carte Catholics who might only attend the Cathedral for family weddings, baptisms and funerals? I think it would be simpler to leave it to the Bishop who, I expect, will make the right decision in consultation with the Roman curia.

In the first place this is not a question of Faith or Morals. If it were those who make up FOSCC and the vast majority of the parishioners in Cobh wouldn’t have opposed their Bishop.
A short history of what happened in Cobh.

1992 Restoration project set up – Cobh Parish has to date contributed €1.3 million to this project – on third of the total – this was the percentage Cobh Parish contriuted to the building of the Cathedral. The population of Cobh is c. 1/13 of the population of the Diocese, therefore the people of Cobh have per head contributed vastly more that those in the other parishes of the Diocese, naturally as this is their parish church. c.18,000 people in the Diocese outside Cobh signed the petition against the changes to the Cathedral.

1998 re-rodering was first announced to the people, even though some tried to say that this had been included in the original Restoration Project as presented to the people – it was not. The basic plan of extending the sanctuary, removing the altar rails (less radical than the eventual plan) and intrucing new cathedra, chair, altar and ambo. The people objected. Everyone agreed that a new altar should be put in place of the present temporary altar, but the rest was unnecessary as people saw it. This is still the situation.

Numerous promises were made to come back to the people with the eventual final plan, this did not happen. On 18th July 2005 plans were submitted to Cobh Town Council for planning permission. That same evening saw the first of the “consultations” with the people, in other words the people were faced with a fait accompli.
At no time since 1992 have any of those behind the project attempted to explain to people “WHY”.
If you go into Cobh today and talk to people about their Cathedral, that is the one question that will come up again and again – Why? No effort was made in Midleton to answer this question.

Finally and most importantly this is not a case of ‘disobedience’ to the lawful authority of the Church. At no time have people been instructed to stop opposing the changes. And there has been no consultation with the Roman Curia on this matter, other than by the people themselves. Had the document ‘Liturgical Requirement’ which accompanied the planning application, been submitted and approved by Rome then FOSCC and the people of Cobh would have found it very difficult to oppose further.

@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, 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.

Interesting piece by Fr. Paddy Jones in today’s Irish Times. Funny he didnt’ think to say that he and Bishop Magee of Cobh were heavily involved in the drawing up of the November 2003 Guidelines for Places of Worship, which reflect their particular and much criticised ‘vision’ of liturgy. As usual there is no reference to offical authentic Vatican II documents to back up this ‘vision’.:rolleyes:

Irish Times Article:

Applying Vatican II’s vision to architecture and worship

Rite & Reason: There is disappointment in the Catholic Church at the refusal of permission to liturgically reorder St Colman’s cathedral, writes Fr Patrick Jones.

At their June general meeting, the Catholic bishops discussed the decision of An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission for the liturgical reordering of St Colman’s cathedral in Cobh. The bishops expressed their disappointment and concern at this decision.

At the final stage in major restoration work, a planning application was submitted to the local authority to have a more extensive and open sanctuary, with new altar, ambo and chair and, being a cathedral, the bishop’s chair or cathedra. The proposed altar would replace the temporary plywood altar but the old high altar with its tabernacle, reredos, screens and old cathedra would be untouched.

All through the project, great care was taken to respect the architectural heritage of the building. The application was considered by the planning officer to be the best he reviewed.

The documentation included the liturgical rationale behind the design. The diocesan Historic Churches Advisory Committee had been involved and the architectural heritage guidelines, prepared by the Department of the Environment and accepted by the churches, was adhered to by the diocese and the planning authority. Planning permission was given. It was appealed and an oral hearing was conducted by An Bord Pleanála.

The board’s inspector, who conducted the hearing, recommended approval, but the board itself decided against it. Many are disappointed. Many are not, including those who campaigned against the planning application and those who campaigned against any change in the sanctuary layout. Their objections are based on liturgy and/or heritage.

The design was a contemporary plan to express the liturgy of the second Vatican Council, which is characterized by “full, conscious and active participation”. Wishing to have our liturgy as it was before the council or wanting it revised according to a “reform of the reform” agenda may be strongly held opinions.

It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterized by a strong element of disagreement, some of which oppose the charter of reform given in the council.

But given the vision of Vatican II and applying it to matters of architecture and the environment for worship, the overriding weight must be given to a design plan that is thoroughly documented in accordance with liturgical guidelines.

It must be endorsed by those charged in a diocese to offer advice on liturgy, architecture and heritage and which is certified as meeting liturgical requirements by the bishop who is “the chief steward of the mysteries of God” and has to act as “moderator, promoter and guardian” of the liturgical life of the diocese. Where this overriding weight is not given, it is a matter of grave concern.

For a church listed in the Record of Protected Structures, the law calls on planning authorities to “respect liturgical requirements” regarding declarations and planning applications. A commentary by department officials at the time of the drafting of the Planning and Development Act 2002, stated that “respect” carried a note of “heavy obligation”, stronger than the usual “due regard”.

This Act made provision for guidelines for use by local authorities. The pertinent guidelines, architectural heritage protection, have a chapter given to churches, which was accepted by the four main Christian churches in November 2003.

The chapter replaced a draft first published in a consultation document in March 2000 but unfortunately republished in December 2001 in a draft manual of guidelines for planning authorities at a time when the Department of the Environment was consulting the churches.

The churches strongly advised that the treatment of places of public worship should be omitted until there was agreement.

Stating that “the overriding remit of the statutory authority is to protect the special character of the protected structure” could be interpreted in a way to prevent working to a solution which gives a balance between liturgical requirements and heritage concerns. The November 2003 guidelines achieved this and remain the best way forward for all concerned: churches, planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála.

The sanctuary of St Colman’s cathedral – like all the other cathedral sanctuaries in Ireland – was built for a very different way of worship. Keeping it unchanged would fail to respect the demands of a changed way of worship. It is a matter of judgment whether a particular design plan respects these demands and the protection of our heritage. The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate.

Making temporary adjustments in the 1960s is also inadequate. Leaving in place the historic elements but creating a larger space is often the solution. A contemporary sanctuary can be built in a historic building and, far from taking from its character, enriches it. It also keeps the building as a place of worship.

The best way of maintaining a historic church is to maintain it as a church, as a place for today’s worshippers, a place of living worship. This must be our common concern.

Fr Patrick Jones is director of the National Centre for Liturgy at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth

@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.

The famous Organ

@Chuck E R Law wrote:

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!

Say again!!!

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.

@Sirius wrote:

Having sifted through your postings on the Cobh appeal I am struck by the recurring images of waste disposal. Earlier we were encouraged to “bin” the Inspector’s report and now we are asked to “dump” the Guidelines. Your attitude to waste management seems to be as Victorian as your liturgical views. Why don’t you try recycling these documents?

Sirius, do you object to everything Victorian or it is just architecture and liturgy?
Re. 963. you still haven’t defined your terms.
What precisely is ‘Victorian liturgy’ and what are the ‘liturgical requirement’ that you presume for Cobh Cathedral?