Gianlorenzo
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Oswald wrote:
There was nothing to stop FOSCC playing their liturgical card. However, as they also had the option of the ecclesiastical courts, the Inspector could invoke Subsection 34 (13) in order to keep out of the liturgical dispute.
Stephen Dodd, in his commentary on the 2000 Planning Act, says that Subsection 34 (13):
“reflects the fact that planning permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights to carry out the development assertable against all persons. Other permissions or rights may need to be obtained before the development can occur”.There is plenty of case law on this point, e.g. Convery v Dublin City Council and Houlihan v An Bord Pleanala.
One final point. FOSCC is not about attacking the bishop or the Church. They will take no action against them if it is not necessary. Just because options are available does not mean they have to be used. FOSCC was elected by the people of Cobh to represent them regarding the proposed re-ordering of the Cathedral and that they did in the only way open to them at the time.
As no official Decrees were issued regarding the HCAC or the proposed re-ordering they could not take recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship. The other option of going to the High Court, while still available, would be very expensive and would bring the bishop and the diocese of Cloyne into disrepute – not something FOSCC desires.
The Trustee brought this into the civil forum by applying for planning permission without any effort to engage with the people of the parish or the diocese. FOSCC merely reacted.Given FOSCC’s stated position they had no choice about playing the liturgical card as the whole emphasis of the Guidelines is that ‘Liturgical Requirement’ should be respected. FOSCC has no problem with that position if and only if what was proposed was actually required by the liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. In the case of St. Colman’s cathedral this was not the case. That being so the plans proposed were unnecessarily intrusive and destructive of the fabric of the building. That is FOSCC’s position.
Again they had no choice other than to challenge the HCAC’s document on Liturgy. The interesting thing is that the Trustees, at the oral hearing, made absolutely no effort to engage on this point and no effort was made to cross examine Dr. Reid or put forward a counter argument.@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
On the one hand, it was made to seem suspicious, at the least, that FOSCC did not distance itself from a particular view, while for others it is asserted that there is no necessity for them to distance themselves from the same particular view!!
This makes abslutely no sense or reason. Logicallly, both goose and gander must use the same sauce.
Or are we dealing with someone who thinks that FOSCC must establish its credentials while the others need not?
Prax. Gerry Adams must be one of those conservative/conservation zealots referred to earlier.
@Sirius wrote:
You don’t have to distance yourself from somebody who is attacking you.
I am beginning to think you sound like Gerry Adams
Sticks and stones etc. etc.
Please keep to the point. FOCSS has made its position perfectly clear. There is no hidden ‘Tridentine’ agenda. Talk to the point and stop throwing mud at people it won’t stick to.
Once again I ask you to be specific and tell me what are the particular liturgical requirements you keep referring to in the abstract. Give me concrete examples and please quote from the relevant Vatican II documents.Sirius wrote:The FOSCC legal team made no attempt to distance themselves from the following arguments which were made by Ms Sherwin in support of their appeal:
The Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar experiment has been a total disaster.
The rotten fruits of Vatican II are everywhere to be witnessed both in the Church and in civil society.
Vatican II is responsible for the catastrophic condition of the Catholic Church today.
“Everywhere you look there is heresy and moral decay]The FOSCC legal team made no effort to distance themselves from Miss Sherwin, but then again the Trustees legal team made no effort and neither did the legal team representing the local authority.
I happen to know that FOSCC decided to completely ignore Miss Sherwin and her ilk, as, to acknowledge them, would have given them a credence they did they did not deserve. FOSCC had no control over how some of the audience reacted. To tar them with this particular brush because of their silence is a little disengenuous to say the least.
Do you not realise that our late Pope John Paul II based his entire papacy on Vatican II and he was supported in this by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Maybe you should take the time to read what these eminent men had to say on liturgy – you might learn something. FOSCC enlisted an eminent liturgist Dr Alcuin Reid and an eminent canon lawyer Dr Alan Kershaw, to put their point across. Have you read what they had to say? FOSCC has never deviated from the Vatican line, albeit pre or post Vatican II.
If you could put your prejudices on hold for a short time and read the entire FOSCC submission to the oral hearing you might learn something. Do not judge them on what they did not say, judge them on what they said.@Praxiteles wrote:
Luzarches.
You might be interested in the link below to an interview with Archbishop Ranjith published in yesterday’s Le Figaro in Paris:
Prax. Is there an English translation? We are not all as erudite as you are.
@Sirius wrote:
3. The conservative Tridentines in FOSCC believe that they have turned back the liturgical clock.
FOSCC were so focused on embarrassing their own hierarchy that they still do not realise the extent to which the appeal decision has advanced the cause of Secularism. Ian Lumley must find it amusing to hear the turkeys welcome Christmas.
Sirius, seriously!! Do you personally know the members of FOSCC? If so, please enlighten us as to how you can say they are “Tridentines”? If you do not, how can you say they are “Tridentines”?
Also if you know anything of this whole affaire you will know that FOSCC merely reacted to what was coming from the Trustees of St. Colman’s. Do you really think that people should just sit back and accept whatever is thrown at them? This is not an issue of disobedience to a bishop. In fact that was one of his great errors. If Bishop Magee had ordered the member of FOSCC to stop, they would have felt duty bound to do so, as they firmly believe in the concept of obedience to ones bishop and Church. This was primarily an issue of architectureal conservation and the only reason that liturgy became an issue was that this was the excuse given to Cobh Town Council to justify the proposed changes to this very important historic building.
The appeal decision has advanced the protection of our ecclesiastical architectural heritage and hopefully what remains of a great period in Irish architecture as well as Irish Catholicism will not be preserved and appreciated for what it is.
Finally regarding ’embarrassing their own hierarchy’, if the said hierarchy had been open and honest in all their dealings they could not have been embarrassed.Thomond Park wrote:Well done to all concerned you have been part of one of the biggest conservation results in a number of years]Sirius, does your ‘conservative/conservation zealots’ tag also refer to those on this thread who welcome the An Bord Pleanala decision?
Sirius, are you really saying that virually the entire population of Cobh are conservative and/or conservation zealots?
You should float your idea of a new Cathedral to Bishop Magee, he might be interested. I think he might have a problem finding the money, but maybe all the non-conservative/conservation zealots around could start a fund to help him. Best of Luck. I love the idea as it would keep our beloved catherdral safe from the wreckers.
Please go for it..Prax. You must really write a book on all this. It is fantastic. Could such magnificence be constructed today??
@Sirius wrote:
Permission was granted by Cork County Council two years ago to restore and reorder the church. If you wish to check it out, the file reference is 04/1991. There was no fuss and no appeal to An Bord Pleanala. Monkstown people are gentle folk who respect their clergy. They also hold Alexander White in high regard and are not impressed by Praxiteles pathetic attempt to smear someone who is a great architect and a perfect gentleman.
I congratulate you on being elected to speak for the whole of Monkstown. What I said about Alex White is based on his involvement with the disaster which is the North Cathedral – re-ordered and what was proposed for Cobh Cathedral. I have met Alex White and found him a perfect gentleman. What I said was not a personal ‘smear’, but a comment on his involvement in ecclesiastical architecture and liturgy. It was he after all who proposed the adoption by the Cloyne HCAC of the discredited document “Liturgical Requirements for St. Colman’s Cathedral. Context and Text” written by the pseudo liturgist Fr. Danny Murphy.
Can we then presume from what you say that the Sanctuary in Monkstown Church will be torn apart and altar rails removed etc. If so St. Colman’s in Cobh will become even more unique in that it will be conserved in its original form. There are not many Pugin/Ashlin churches left, unfortunately. Future generations in Ireland will have no idea what a true Gothic church should look like.
You mention planning permission – what did it grant persmission for?
PS You should not malign poor Praxiteles, I happen to know the lady personally and she is a dear.
Oswald.
You still have not told me what the liturgical requirements are? And how can the diocesan authorities have won an argument they never took part in? The Bord has gone along with the status quo regarding liturgical requirement as presented in the Guidelines. These were put together by a mish mash of people who seem to have no idea of true Liturgy. It is interesting that Bishop Magee was involved in that process and that the Guidlines are uncanningly similar to the plans for Cobh. Coincidence!!!!!! I think not. BIshop Magee met with the then minister Cullen on a number of occasions and the infamous Guidelines are the result.Forget the people’s reaction in Midleton. Look at the FOSCC site and you will see that Ms Sherwin and her ilk are completely ignored. Dr. Reid was the liturgical representative for FOSCC and that it where they stand. You might learn alot from reading his submission. You might also try reading Dr. Kershaw’s contribution which is very interesting on Canon Law and the Cobh diocesan authorities total lack of compliance with same.
“Should planners be allowed to dictate to a religious denomination that only Victorian liturgy may be celebrated in a Victorian church?” – Oswald.
Have you been to Mass in Cobh Cathedral ?
Where do you get the idea that “Victorian Liturgy” is celebrated in Cobh ?
How many times does it have to be said that the changes proposed for St. Colman’s are not liturgically required. At the oral hearing in Midleton this was stated ad nauseum by the FOSCC. When the Applicants had an opportunity to explain to the Bord just how these proposals were required for the Liturgy they singularly failed to take that opportunity. In fact the Trustees and their agents have been very careful not to say they were liturgicaly required in any public forum, other than the one document submitted to Cobh Town Council.Even Richard Hurley writing on behalf of the Arts Council says that the changes are not required but desireable. This is precisely the point that FOSCC has been making from the beginning.
Maybe Oswald can enlighten us as to how these proposals are required and by whom ?
@Praxiteles wrote:
Yes, indeed. This is a far cry from the O’Neill hack-approach. The paint work looks very well but I am not convinced by that shaggy red carpet spilling around all over the place. The altar mensa would also look better where it was and should never have been moved. Where, however, are the altar rails?
The rails are there. If you go through the pictures and in the one of the nave facing west to the rose window you can see them in the foreground. There is no gate however, but maybe that will be put back as it doesn’t look quite finished yet.
@Oswald wrote:
Although Praxiteles insisted during the appeal that we should read the tendentious documents produced by FOSCC, we are now advised to “bin” the objective Inspector’s Report “in its totality” without reading his assessment or considering the implications of the Board’s decision for the conservation of protected structures which are used as places of worship. One important difference between the Inspector and the Board appears to be that the Inspector took account of Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection and the Board did not. Even if we concentrate on the Board’s Order, as Praxiteles advises, we find that the Board accepted that reordering is justified to meet liturgical requirements but decided it could not support the particular design solution proposed. The question to be addressed – by anyone pursuing a genuine interest in architecture and conservation, rather than a vendetta against Bishop Magee – is how the design should now be amended to meet the liturgical requirements while retaining more of the existing fabric of the cathedral.
Oswald. GET A LIFE !!!!
There is no vendetta against Bishop Magee and, even if there were, he is a big boy and can defend himself.
If you are concerned with Liturgy- read up on it. You may be surprised to learn that what was proposed for Cobh Cathedral is nowhere mention in relevant Vatican document.
Regarding the infamous Guidelines on Architectural Heritage protection read what Noel O’Driscoll of An Taisce has to say.
Finally – Grow Up. Coming to the discussion at this stage and getting personal is childish to say the least. Try coming with constructive and original points.@sangallo wrote:
Architect Francis Roberts has done a beautiful restoration job at E. W. Pugin’s church of St Mary in Barrow on Furness:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frarchitects/sets/72057594099490552/
E.W. Pugin and Ashlin’s lovely church in Monkstown Co. Cork is currently undergoing restoration. It is a community project with many of the experts giving their time and expertise free. Thankfully to date there is no mention of any re-ordering, but there is one worrying aspect in that Alex White is involved. He was involved in the disastrous Cork Cathedral project and was also involved as a committee member in the Cobh debacle.
@LeoWong wrote:
Let us hope that the Bishop accepts this gracefully and reconciles with his parishioners.
And so say all of us.
PS. The_Chris should know that it was not the FOSCC who were planning to chain themselves to the altar, it was the daily Mass goers who suggested such.
@THE_Chris wrote:
Let the FOSCC chaining to the alter rails begin 😎
So basicially, its been granted, with the one (major) clause that the permanent altar and cathedra must be dealt with seperatly. Am I reading that right?
Basically it has not been granted. The Inspector went for upholding the planning permission with conditions. Then it went to the Bord who voted 6 to 2 to refuse planning permission.
The_Chris seems to be indulging in wishful thinking and denigrating the FOSCC is a weak and pathetic ploy. His/her original contribution talked about entrenched positions. Well The_Chris seems firmly entrenched and like ,his friend Bishop Magee , is also unwilling to listen to the people of Cobh or even the civil planning authorites. Attack the argument not the people putting them forward.
In Cobh today there was much real joy, but no triumphalism, as those who love their Church realise that while they may have gone some way to saving their beloved Cathedral the rift between the people and the clergy now needs to be healed.
