Praxiteles

And, as I am coming to another prototype, St Saviour’s, Dublin, I came across this most interesting link:

http://s265.photobucket.com/albums/ii223/saintsavioursdublin/churchbeforerenovation/?albumview=slideshow

http://s265.photobucket.com/albums/ii223/saintsavioursdublin/churchbeforerenovation/?albumview=slideshow

Joseph Connolly and the Guelph Basilica as planned by him:

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=306

Compare the chevet of Maynooth College Chapel with that of Guelph, Ontario.

Here we have a glimpse of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception at Guelph, Ontario

An interesting contemporary ecclesiastical architect:

http://www.andrewgoulddesign.com/

In 1975 the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society lists Drumaroad Church as a ‘Class A’ building. P. J. Rankin describes Drumaroad Church as:

“Interior: a nice bright plain building with warm coloured low pine bench-pews with trefoil-pierced backs and a nicely shaped top rail. Pine ceiling. All plain and unpretentious. Stations of the Cross in Gothic pine frames. Plain stone arcaded altar rail, white marble top with column shafts in green and red marble alternately, handsome brass gates. Altar is of plain rectangular shapes with Sienna marble insets, pleasant; simple statues and flowers on either side; all set in a shallow Tudor arch. Beautifully kept churchyard, treated like a garden, yews, and other shrubs and small trees at the end of nicely cut lawns and undulating grass: the old church hall is in one corner.”

You would be very hard put to find anything of this description after the last assault on the church’s interior.

@Fearg wrote:

Update on Drumaroad – apparently the church has been temporarily reordered along the west/east axis using the existing furnishings. However, a more appropriate altar has been sourced and the parish priest is currently working to have this installed..

Well, finally a Parish Priest who is not prepared to have the wool pulled over his head by a crowd of lunatics. Can we hope that he will also unburden himself of that hoplessly eccentric thing that caricatures a tabernacle?

@johnglas wrote:

We are always astonished – even rendered gobsmacked on occasion – by Praxiteles’ erudition, but this is an architecture site and no place for extended quotes of ecclesiastical arcana, however argued. What is the point of Ranjith’s paper from the perspective of church architecture/design? That you should retain altar rails? (Absolutely.) But if that is the point, then say so; don’t fill the site with what is in the end a snippet of very arcane discussion.

I am afraid it is not so very arcane when the liturgical iconoclasts assert without the slightest foundation that e.g. altar rails -of no matter what artistic merit – are to be ripped out of every church inetrior in the country.

If you will forgive my saying so, it seems to me that the detcahed-isolated disciplinary approach to architecture is exactly what has has landed us in the dudu with regard to church architecture in Ireland. Complete detachment from what some regard as theological arcana have resulted in the likes of Longford Cathedral, Monaghan, KIllarney, Armagh etc. and in nonsense of Drumaroad. The point of alerting interested parties in recently published material touching on church art or architecture is some small efforts to re-contextualize ecclesiastical architecture.

The problem is even more complicted when it comes to the planning departments of many of th country’s local authorities. Not only have we the crux of the the detached disciplinary approach to architecture to cope with, but, as was the case with Mr Heffernan in the Cobh Cathedral case, we have to contend with decisions being amde by persons who have not the slightest idea of anything to do with Western ecclesiastical art or architecture, their sources, the canon of articulations they have gone through, nor even a basic general knowledge of this entire area -as was admitted on paper by the gentleman assessing the case of Cobh Cathedral.

Here is an image of Cologne Cathedral taken sometime after the bombing of the city in 1942 (the beginning of the British campaign, led by Bomber Harris, of terrorizing the civilian population by bombing them). In the lower centre, you can also see the remains of the the Maria Himmelfhart Church in total ruins. The bombaing campaign also destroyed many of the romaesque churches in the city -not all of which were rebuilt after thaw, including the St. Columba which one housed van der Weyden’s famous Columba Altar (now in the Alte Pinakoteka in Munich). Fortunately, the Cathedral survived more or less intact – but losing all of the glass donated in the 19th century by William of Prussia.

Here is a short note on liturgical reform published 20 years ago but which may be helpful for the lityrgical gurus in Cloyne:

LITURGICAL RESTORATION:
IS IT TOO LATE?
(This article is reprinted from Newsletter of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, Vol.
XX, No. 5, November 1988.)
One of the most unfortunate developments in the Catholic Church since the
Second Vatican Council has been the extent to which liturgy reforms were, and
continue to be, misguidedly or defectively implemented. And while, for example, in
the business world, losses of customers and profits in the wake of certain policy
changes would have resulted in prompt investigations and reviews, even disciplining
of those responsible, we find the Catholic Church’s liturgical radicals unabashedly
demanding yet more of those very innovations which have contributed to a disastrous
shrinkage of faith and practice, especially in North America and western
Europe.
There is no doubt that the council fathers unknowingly opened a Pandora’s box
when they approved Vatican II’s decree on sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium,
despite its being a moderate, cautious enough document, reflecting the positive and
potentially fruitful thrust of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement.
Unfortunately, this document contained a number of vague, ambiguous, even
potentially contradictory passages, inviting later exploitation by a succession of post-
Vatican II liturgical radicals. No matter that the council called for the retention of
Latin, pipe organs, and Gregorian chant, the lust for change which swept the Church
and the secular world from the mid-1960’s onwards would prove irresistible.
The work of Consilium, a body of international experts charged with giving
practical expression to Sacrosanctum Concilium, merely widened the original loopholes
and institutionalized practices never dreamt of by many or most of the council
fathers, e.g., alternative Eucharistic prayers, spoken aloud in the vernacular, or a
completely revamped offertory. Yet the resultant Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI,
which seemed revolutionary to traditionalists, nevertheless was capable of infusing a
strong sense of the sacred when celebrated by a devout priest according to the mind
of the universal Church, and even more so when in Latin.
But the Church’s authorities, in that period of heady optimism, seemed unaware
of the potential pastoral risks associated with such fundamental reshaping of the
liturgy; so much depended on a set of ideal local circumstances: on innate good
taste, on restraint, on an ingrained sense of the sacred, on sound catechetical backup,
and on clear, firm, liturgical leadership right down the line from Rome through
each diocese, to parish and school. The late 1960’s was the worst of all possible times
for finding such favorable conditions.
Given our flawed human nature’s leaning towards indiscriminate novelties, the old
Mass, with all its limitations, did serve as a barrier against liturgical abuses. Unfortunately,
in opening the way for objectively necessary and desirable liturgical
changes, the Church’s reformers allowed insufficiently for human weakness; nor, of
course, could they have anticipated the western world’s imminent cultural revolution,
the impact of which would be felt in every corner of the secular world as well as
throughout the Catholic Church.
In effect, well-intentioned council fathers and members of Concilium would deliver
many of the Catholic faithful into the hands of local liturgical radicals, amateurs,
and self-appointed experts, smitten by “signs of the times,” and eager to stretch
the council’s spirit to its limits. In so doing they put at risk traditional Catholic perceptions of the Church’s structures, authority, moral teachings, sacraments and
even the very basis of the priesthood.
In the United States, church musicians and well-qualified liturgists, ready to respond
to the letter and spirit of Sacrosanctum Concilium in bringing out the fruits of
renewal while maintaining organic continuity with the past, saw themselves quickly
outflanked by devotees of hootenanny and rock Masses who sought an open-ended
succession of experiments in the name of relevance, community and active participation.
American publications, embodying these fanciful extensions of Vatican II,
would inundate parishes and schools all over the western world, ensuring the virtual
extinction of Latin and of quality church music, both artistic and sacred. Enthusiastic
acceptance of this travesty of Vatican II reform would be widely seen, even by
many otherwise orthodox Catholics, as a litmus test of one’s correct post-conciliar
thinking.
In effect, liturgy became the major instrument of a post-Vatican II evolution in the
Catholic Church, reinforcing the impact of radical changes in catechetics and seminary
formation. More than anything else after Vatican II, the endless succession of
seemingly arbitary liturgical changes fostered a relaxed, skeptical atmosphere at the
Church’s grassroots, no matter what official Vatican documents might continue to
affirm; even devout, loyal Catholics would be infected. In India, for example, the
Church would be set on the path of Hinduization in the name of inculturation;
anything became possible.
The twenty years since liturgical reform became widespread have witnessed steep
declines in Mass attendance and in a host of beliefs and practices, particularly in
North America, western Europe and Australasia. Presumably this was not the objective
of Vatican II, to weed out those spiritual weaklings who needed artificial liturgical
props to fortify their Catholicity.
Yet, at the outset, liturgical radicals and their ecclesiastical supporters had predicted
the changes in the Mass would effect larger congregations and an exciting
period of renewal throughout the Church. It was assumed that universal use of the
vernacular, having the priest face the people at an altar table, removing altar rails
and pulpits and standing for Communion to be received on the hand would pack the
churches, attract more converts and improve the quality of worship.
When the reverse actually occurred, advocates of this radical interpretation of
Vatican II made the best of the situation, blaming losses on outside, uncontrollable
forces or on poor communication with the grass roots; it was even suggested that
falling numbers at worship might be a necessary price to pay for improved quality:
today’s Catholics are said to be better educated, more mature and autonomous, and
not intimidated by old notions of authority and obedience.
No doubt, had the actual, but unwarranted, revolutionary changes been accompanied
by increases, instead of decreases in Mass attendance, those responsible would
have claimed credit, attributing this happy development to the popularity or appropriateness
of the changes. On the other hand, in the face of obvious losses, there
have been denials of any links between those losses and misapplied reforms, let alone
admissions of error of judgment, merely demands that the on-going liturgical revolution
be brought to every corner of the Church.
Distinctions between justifiably creative liturgy and flagrant abuses have been
long since obscured in the minds of many priests, religious and liturgy groups.
Vatican documents designed to curb excesses and abuses fail persistently to reach
their targets or are simply overruled in the name of pluralism, inculturation or
collegiality. The present situation reminds one of the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice
as liturgical new brooms, unimpeded by church authority, sweep their way
RESTORATION relentlessly through thousands of churches, chapels and all manner of unlikely Mass sites.
Has the Magisterium, or those acting in its name, been intent these past twenty
years on fostering a more “horizontal” (man-centered), less “vertical” (God-centered)
emphasis in liturgy? Or has this fundamental consideration been thought through at
all save by the Church’s middle-management elites intent on using liturgy to radicalize
the Church? If renewal required a certain fine-tuning of the creative balance
between the vertical and horizontal, would not a long succession of horizontallybiased
changes or innovations merely effect a worse imbalance in the opposite
direction? Few diocesan authorities seem seriously to have addressed this question.
There have been many such changes in the liturgy, all of them pointing in the same
direction. The Mass, in effect, was to evolve into a people-centered, day-to-dayrelevant,
casual, secularized and egalitarian activity. This was the clear message in
most parishes, schools, colleges and religious houses; this was to be the on-going
practical implementation of Vatican Us liturgical renewal, whatever the original
intentions of the council fathers and Consilium, or the present intentions of the
Magisterium. We now have a runaway liturgy so that no matter what Pope John Paul
II might say about abuses and disobedience, there is little serious response at diocesan
and parish levels.
The damaging blend of official loopholes, exceptions and alternatives, all exploited
to the hilt at local levels, and the rash of experiments and abuses, has been
without parallel in the Church’s history. Never before have there been so many
liturgical changes, licit or otherwise, changes which seemed oriented towards Protestantism
and secularism. Coincidentally, at no other time in her history would the
Church experience such widespread, steep declines in Mass attendance, beliefs and
practices, not as the result of war, persecutions, schism, or natural disaster, but in the
wake of internal policies, aimed at reform and renewal.
What kinds of signals were conveyed by new liturgies to ordinary Catholics in the
pews, enjoying growing affluence, struggling with temptations and confronting
mounting pressures from a permissive cultural milieu? Moreover, in experiencing
what seemed to be arbitrary, albeit at times welcome, changes, how equipped were
these Catholics to discern between the officially licit and the locally illicit innovations?
What would be the side-effects among ordinary Catholics of tampering with this
ancient, flawed, but still widely supported and functioning liturgical organism? We
might recall the truism: lex orandi, lex credendi (as we worship so do we believe and
practice our faith). For Catholics, liturgy, belief and practice represented a seamless
garment of faith; to tamper with one part could lead to an unravelling of the whole.
If the Mass were now to be perceived, locally at least, as a community gathering,
even a picnic, the Eucharist as simply bread and the priest a master of ceremonies to
be judged according to his personality or wit, what of changed Catholic perceptions
of the supernatural, of sin, guilt, repentance, or priesthood, of Mass obligation or of
the Sacrament of Penance? Who needed to be shriven for a picnic?
The unintended fall-out from Vatican II’s liturgical reform, as it was widely implemented,
would include a massive decline in reverence at worship, widespread disappearance
of individual confessions and a cavalier disregard of the Church’s moral
teachings. In newly evolving liturgical contexts, everything connected with the faith
seemed open to change or negotiation and the credibility of church authority steadily
eroded, even without the insidious influence of society’s pluralist, permissive
values. Fewer now felt awkward about receiving Communion, despite irregular
attendance at Mass or use of contraceptives, and non-use of the Sacrament of Penance.
At the Church’s grass roots, many Catholics were helped to make their own accommodations with the secular world; they could be both in and of the world and
still regard themselves as Catholics in good standing. The new liturgy, as it was
implemented, has become a major vehicle for secularization of Catholic spiritual and
moral life. In the context of liturgical change it was no wonder that so many Catholics
were angered or disappointed at Humanae Vitae. If the Latin Mass of all time
could be so radically altered, why not the Church’s moral teachings? With changes in
the Mass arriving at regular intervals almost anything could be anticipated in the
future; why wait?
Modern approaches to catechetics, the formation of seminarians, courses in socalled
Catholic colleges and the thrusts of school retreats, parish missions and renewal
programs have merely reinforced what the poorly implemented new liturgy
has effected on a wide scale in the United States and elsewhere.
There is no doubt that Vatican II’s liturgy reforms contained the potential for true
renewal of the Mass and sacraments. From time to time, one encounters tantalizing
glimpses of what could and should have been established all over the Church in such
parishes as Saint Agnes in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and in a sprinkling of other
parishes and cathedrals around the country. Sadly, the potential of Sacrosanctum
Concilium remains mostly unrealized, this Vatican II decree having been effectively
hijacked by those who, deliberately or otherwise, have been building a secularized,
Protestantized, neo-modernist new church.
Much of the present crisis in the Church can be attributed to the poor state of
liturgy. Recovery will depend on the awareness, courage, energy and will of more
bishops who come to appreciate that their major diocesan priority must be a widespread
restoration of sound liturgy along with the necessary support of sound catechesis
of the Mass, sacraments and priesthood in schools, colleges and seminaries.
Failing this, no amount of renewal programs will save the Church from continuing
spiritual erosion.
MICHAEL GILCHRIST
RESTORATION
10