Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
- GrahamH wrote:Not like you to miss out on a detail Praxiteles ]
The arms on the Custom House are those of the Kingdom of Ireland and are NOT British arms at all.
If you look at the Royal Standard, you will see that it is comprised of the three realms or kingdoms which originally were only uited in the person of the sovereign: in the first quarter is England; in the Second Scotland; in the third England and in the Fourth Ireland.
I would point out, that the present standard of the President of Ireland is that found in the fourth quartering of the Royal Standard.
The second image below is tah of the present standard of the President of Ireland.
@Rhabanus wrote:
I. ….I detect is an overintellectualization of the mysteries being celebrated (or not) in the churches proposed as recent models of the new, modern(istic) approach taken by the “cutting edge” architects stalking the Hibernian landscape.
Believe me when I say that this would be a serious over statement. “Intellect” not only does not operate but, for the most part, does not exist in the Irish Church.
@asdasd wrote:
People forget with time, in any case Roman imperialism was not extreme in Britain, at all, and non-existant in Germany. The fact is – too – we celebrate English leaders we like. Gladstone for instance has a few streets named after him – and generally in places where the main street has been changed to an Irish patriot.
( Had the house of lords not rejected his Home Rule proposals, we would almost certainly now be in the UK).
In Cork, for instance, we have Charlotte St., Coburg St., Hanover St., York St., to name but a few, while in Dublin you have Nassau St……
@Praxiteles wrote:
Church of the Assumption of Our Lady, Newry, Co. Down
Refurbished by Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville.
I post this example by way of rounding off our discussion of the distinction between sanctuary and nave as an expression of the hierarchial structuring of the Church and of the distinction to be made between the priesthood and the laity.
This church clearly had a set of altar rails which served the purpose mentioned in the General Instrucction n. 295 – distinguishing the sancturay from the nave of the church. In the present arrangement, they have been move up against the back wall of the sancturay. This, we are told, was to provide a sense of the sanctuary’s having leap-frogged over them into the nave to “embrace” the Congregation (an activity not really to be encouraged for all sorts of reasons). Presumably, the wall against which they now stand can be concomitantly read to symbolize the closing or walling up of heaven -which the sanctuary traditionally symbolizes. This is exactly what happened with the chancels of English parish churches following the publication of the Edwardine Ordinances – they were walled aoff an allowed to fall into ruin. A survey carried out in Ireland under the reign of Charles I will tell you exactly the extent to which chancels were derelict in parish churches in ireland.
I just wonder if those involved in this project realized the theological implications of what they were doing and the dogmatic import of what the state in some sections of the broschure accompanying this project. For example:
“The original altar rails were relocated at
the rear of the sanctuary giving them a
new dignity and appropriateness, and
providing a sense of the new sanctuary
having moved beyond the altar rails to
embrace the congregation. Similarly, the
frontal of the previous altar, which
began life at the rear wall, has been
relocated there again.”(The full text is available here:
http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/FileAccess.aspx?Id=147 ).I am not sure what to think of hat wavey-band effect on the sanctuary step. It looks a litle misplaced.
Rhabanus!
Do you konw of any link to a translation of Augustine’s de Musica and the de Numero? There are translations around of the references to the de numero in the de Civitate Dei but it is not very extensive. Perhaps it would also be interesting to add something about Boethius on numbers as well as Macrobius, Isidore and Thierry of Chartres.
As an example of St. Augustine’s theory of numbers and their significance, I am posting an extract from his tract on the exegesis of Scripture written in 397, the de Doctrina Christiana exegeting the number 10:
“25. Ignorance of numbers, too, prevents us from understanding things that are set down in Scripture in a figurative and mystical way. A candid mind, if I may so speak, cannot but be anxious, for example, to ascertain what is meant by the fact that Moses and Elijah, and our Lord Himself, all fasted for forty days.(7) And except by knowledge of and reflection upon the number, the difficulty of explaining the figure involved in this action cannot be got over. For the number contains ten four times, indicating the knowledge of all things, and that knowledge interwoven with time. For both the diurnal and the annual revolutions are accomplished in periods numbering four each; the diurnal in the hours of the morning, the noontide, the evening, and the night; the annual in the spring, summer, autumn, and winter months. Now while we live in time, we must abstain and fast from all joy in time, for the sake of that eternity in which we wish to live; although by the passage of time we are taught this very lesson of despising time and seeking eternity. Further, the number ten signifies the knowledge of the Creator and the creature, for there is a trinity in the Creator; and the number seven indicates the creature, because of the life and the body. For the life consists of three parts, whence also God is to be loved with the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind; and it is very clear that in the body there are four elements of which it is made up. In this number ten, therefore, when it is placed before us in connection with time, that is, when it is taken four times we are admonished to live unstained by, and not partaking of, any delight in time, that is, to fast for forty days. Of this we are admonished by the law personified in Moses by prophecy personified in Elijah, and by our Lord Himself, who, as if receiving the witness both of the law and the prophets, appeared on the mount between the other two, while His three disciples looked on in amazement. Next, we have to inquire in the same way, how out of the number forty springs the number fifty, which in our religion has no ordinary sacredness attached to it on account of the Pentecost, and how this number taken thrice on account of the three divisions of time, before the law, under the law, and under grace, or perhaps on account of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Trinity itself being added over and above, has reference to the mystery of the most Holy Church, and reaches to the number of the one hundred and fifty-three fishes which were taken after the resurrection of our Lord, when the nets were cast out on the right-hand side of the boat.(1) And in the same way, many other numbers and combinations of numbers are used in the sacred writings, to convey instruction under a figurative guise, and ignorance of numbers often shuts out the reader from this instruction.”
As an example of the influence and variety of Augustine’s analythic theoy of numbers try this articel on its use in the Book of Kells:
http://www.sca.org.au/scribe/articles/building_on_belief.htm
As an indication of the use of altar rails, I am posting a picture of the Cathedral of St. Andrew in Bordeaux. Firstly, it is noticeable that the floor of the sancturay is ony three steps above the nave. As we have seen before, the altar is raised on a predella within the sancturay. The threone is on the Gospel (left) side on a predella lower tahtn that of the altar. The sedilia for the priest is on the right hand (epistle) side. The epistle is read at the ambo. The Gospel is read from another portable ambo at the other side of the sanctuary – you can see the podium for it. All of the ironwork is 18th. century and very typical of Bordeaux.
It should also be noticed that the predella of the High Altar is raised 9 steps above the floor of the nave: 3 steps at the altar rail; 2 steps dividing the plane of the sanctuary itself; and the Altar raised on a predella of 4 steps, reflecting the tradition that the total number of steps be an uneven number: 1:3:5:7 or 9. All of these numbers have symbolic significance, ususlly relating to perfection. St. Augustine has a commentary on the symboic nature of numbers in which he outlines their significance. In the case of Bordeaux; 9 probably reflects 3×3 where 3 represents the perfection of God that we have in the Trinity. Its multiplication by 3 indicates the fulness or superabundance of perfection accomplished in the Sacrifice of Christ on the Altar.
Church of the Assumption of Our Lady, Newry, Co. Down
Refurbished by Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville.
I post this example by way of rounding off our discussion of the distinction between sanctuary and nave as an expression of the hierarchial structuring of the Church and of the distinction to be made between the priesthood and the laity.
This church clearly had a set of altar rails which served the purpose mentioned in the General Instrucction n. 295 – distinguishing the sancturay from the nave of the church. In the present arrangement, they have been move up against the back wall of the sancturay. This, we are told, was to provide a sense of the sanctuary’s having leap-frogged over them into the nave to “embrace” the Congregation (an activity not really to be encouraged for all sorts of reasons). Presumably, the wall against which they now stand can be concomitantly read to symbolize the closing or walling up of heaven -which the sanctuary traditionally symbolizes. This is exactly what happened with the chancels of English parish churches following the publication of the Edwardine Ordinances – they were walled aoff an allowed to fall into ruin. A survey carried out in Ireland under the reign of Charles I will tell you exactly the extent to which chancels were derelict in parish churches in ireland.
I just wonder if those involved in this project realized the theological implications of what they were doing and the dogmatic import of what the state in some sections of the broschure accompanying this project. For example:
“The original altar rails were relocated at
the rear of the sanctuary giving them a
new dignity and appropriateness, and
providing a sense of the new sanctuary
having moved beyond the altar rails to
embrace the congregation. Similarly, the
frontal of the previous altar, which
began life at the rear wall, has been
relocated there again.”(The full text is available here:
http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/FileAccess.aspx?Id=147 ).@A-ha wrote:
Youghal in Co. Cork is a very “Anglo” town. Sir Walter Raleigh was mayor of the town in 1588 and Queen Elizabeth I visited his house which still stands today. I went to Youghal a few days back because they are having a historical week type thing. The town was chartered and given a mace like all towns and cities in Ireland, which of course, had the emblem of the United Kingdom and the seal of the monarch at the time. You’ll propably find that all of the old towns like Youghal, Kinsale and many other places all have their own maces, which were given to them by the King or Queen of the time. Ireland will never escape it’s British past, we were part of the United Kingdom for over 500 years…… it won’t all dissappear overnight. Oh and Oliver Cromwell left Ireland for the last time from Youghal Harbour…. hehehe, and people say school is a waste of time!
A-ha!
Here are a few examples of those Cork maces.
The UCC mace made by WIlliam Egan, Patrick’s Street (1910)
The Castlemartyr mace with the arms of James II, c.1685
The mace of the Cork Trade Guilds, by Robert Gobel of Cork 1696
The armorials of Chales I and of the town from the mace of Youghal (1630)@GrahamH wrote:
Hmmm interesting – never noticed them before either, just assuming them to be the marble baubles usually featured.
The crowns seem to be mutlitonal too – though that could just be the dirt 🙂Archiseek: “modelled on the London head office of Crown Life” – if that says anything…
One of the magnificent heraldic sculptures of the Custom House:
But is this not a representation of the arms of the Kingdom of Ireland? A scaled down version still appears on Irish coinage!
Just as a matter of interest, how does this arrangement work for the ceremonies of Benediction? If the monstrance is placed on the altar along the axis, then all you can see is the profile of the monstrance. If turned around, and I would not recommend that, then you end up with half the Congregation looking at the back of the monstrance.
Come to think of it, the lack of a step or predella in Armagh means that you have to kneel on the floor for benediction – which is an uncomfortable and awkward thing.
Here is an interesting letter from today’s olim Cork Examiner:
22 September 2006
Airport well below best international standards
CORK airport marketing manager Kevin Cullinane (Irish Examiner letters, September 18) says their aim is to deliver a “quality travel experience†to best international standards.
Is he serious?
He tells us the new airport terminal is three times bigger than the old one. So what? The old one had a viewing area — the new one does not. But it does have overpriced bars and cafés — and passengers still get wet boarding flights.
Mr Cullinane says passengers have benefited. How?
There is no parallel taxiway and landing aids have not been improved. Cork must be the only airport in the world that employs a diverter — are we not diverting enough already?
Cork Airport Authority will have to improve its performance. Hardly a week goes by when we don’t hear of an airline pulling out or reducing services.
The board should stop admiring their new building and start talking to the airlines while we still have them.
There’s a lot to do if Cork is to come anywhere near the best in Ireland, never mind the world.
Francis O’Mahony
Callas
Berrings
Co CorkClick here for irishexaminer.com stories before this date
What I have to say above is perhaps better conveyed by a single sentence taken from J. Ratzinger’s discussion of sacred art (Die Bilderfrage) in his Geist der Liturgie, translated as The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, San Francisco): Aus der isolierten Subjektivitaet kann keine Sakrale Kunst kommen (op.cit p. 115).
Luzarches!
You have actually anticipated my next point: that the general principles outlined in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal are to be understood in the context of the architetcural, artistic and rubrical tradition of Church. That tradition affords wide scope for artistic imagination in applying these principles (which in themselves are not new) in a contemporary context that is at the same time visibly in continuity with a antecedent theological tradition. An application of the principles of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal should not end in a Melchisadeck-type form without father or mother, antecedent or descendent. That point has been sufficiently expounded by writers such as Stephen Schloeder and Martin Mosebach, Peter Elliott and Klaus Gamber etc.,
Again, you are perfectly correct in seeing the application of the principles fo the General Instruction to the Roman Missal within this context as another aspect of the general hermeneutic of continuity. The Second Vatican Council does not represent a radical rupture with the Church’s history up to 1965. It has to be seen as an essential element of the continuum that is the Church’s history.
Likewise, with regard to the present Roman Missal, it would be well for some of the people contribuiting to this thread to read the early articles of the Instruction to the Roman Missal which makes it patently explicit that the
present Roman Missal is not a new production but a revision of the Roman MIssal published by St, Pope Pius V in 1570. In saying as much, I have implied consequences for the theological undestanding of the Mass, the priesthood and the purpose of worship.Given the above, I would point out that Drumaroad does not represent a form found within the Catholic tradition. Rhabanus was correct in detecting a certain Calvinism in its approach. Indeed, I would point to the Edwardine Ordinances of 1547 as the source for this disposition of a church interior. We should bear in mind that these ordinances were enforced throughout England specifically to destroy the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice and, more specifically, a sacramental re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. These ordinances required the abandonment of the sanctuary, the destruction of the altar (oftentimes the table-stone of the altar was saved in English parish churches by conceling it in the walls or by inverting it and insetting it in the floor of the sancturay), and the setting up of a table in the nave surrounded by benches. That such was also enforced at least in certain parts of Ireland is to be seen from the scars on St. Mary’s Collegiate Church in Youghal, Co. Cork. If anyone wshes to pursue the point, then he could not do better than read Eamonn Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars.
A similar arrangement grew up among the Calvinists in Hungry whre they obtained possession of the parish churches: the altars were demolished, the sanctuary abandoned, a pulpit raised against the north wall of the nave surrounded by benches, underneath which was placed a small square shaped altar. I presume that none of these intentions informed the re-organisation of the churches we are considering.
I have already pointed out on several occasions on this thread that the arrangement in Drumaroad has nothing to do with an antiphonal arrangement. Such is something proper to a monastic or collegiate church or canonry where there is a canonically instituted group of CLERICS to discharge the daily offices of the Roman Breviary. I have also pointd out that where a proper antiphonal arrangement exists, it consists of choir stalls which face each other usually in the sanctuary between the rail and the High Altar; or sometmes behind the High Altar in what is called a retro-choir. Where this arrangement exists or existed, it was unheard of to have an altar between the choirstalls. Drumaroad, I am afraid is an all together differnt bird and, in Catholic terms, an all together inadequate one. To pass Drumaroad off as an antiphonal arrangement of liturgical space, to my mind, represents one of the worst tendencies in some quarters over the past twenty years: the patronising clericalisation of the laity with its implicit suggestion that the lay state is somehow imperfect or inadequate. That, I tend to think, is a trend diametrically opposed to one of the great themes of the Second Vatican Council, namely, the vocation of the laity to holiness. It is ironic that the clericalising trend should invoke the Council to justify its lunacy.
@brianq wrote:
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
Thanks Brian for this postitive contribution which we will discuss – as time permits. To begin, I am posting, once again, the text of the General instruction article 295. I think, however, that this article has to be seen in the context of 294, so I have included that text as well. I am posting the original Latin (which is the binding text) and an English translation to facilitate communication:
Latin text:
294. Populus Dei, qui ad Missam congregatur, cohaerentem et hierarchicam habet ordinationem, quae diversis ministeriis diversaque actione pro singulis celebrationis partibus exprimitur. Generalis itaque dispositio aedis sacrae ea sit oportet quae coetus congregati imaginem quodammodo prae se ferat, atque congruam omnium ordinationem permittat necnon rectam muneris exsecutionem uniuscuiusque foveat.
Fideles atque schola cantorum locum obtinebunt, qui ipsorum actuosam participationem faciliorem reddat. [114]
Sacerdos celebrans, diaconus et alii ministri locum capient in presbyterio. Ibidem parentur sedes concelebrantium]
An English Translation
[there are basically two approved translations, one published by the American Bishops, the other by the English bishops. The one you refer to is merely a reproduction oft he English approved text which was subsequently approved for Ireland. I am quoting the American text simply because it is available on the net.]
294. The People of God, gathered for Mass, has a coherent and hierarchical structure, which
finds its expression in the variety of ministries and the variety of actions according to the
different parts of the celebration. The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in
some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of
all the participants, as well as facilitating each in the proper carrying out of his function.
The faithful and the choir should have a place that facilitates their active participation.114
The priest celebrant, the deacon, and the other ministers have places in the sanctuary. Seats for
concelebrants should also be prepared there. If, however, their number is great, seats should be
arranged in another part of the church, but near the altar.
All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of
ministries, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of
the unity of the entire holy people. Indeed, the character and beauty of the place and all its
furnishings should foster devotion and show forth the holiness of the mysteries celebrated there.295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed,
and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably
be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a
particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist
to be celebrated properly and easily seen.I would begin by saying that theologically there is no tension bewteen hierarchy and unity in the Church. Hieracrhy ensures, guarantees and expresses unity. Consequently, in the building of a church, which should in some way reflect the reality of the Church (which is a heavenly entity, an earthly entity and a purgatorial entity), there should be no tension between “hierarchy” and “unity”.
In the case of Drumaroad, I am inclined to think that the distinction between the sancturay (presbyterium) and the rest of the church has not been sufficiently emphasized. Indeed, one would be forgiven for thinking that the underlying organizing principle was a flat democracy that certainly does not convey anything of the differene not only in function but also in essence between the ordained and the non-ordained very specifically re-iterated by Lumen Gentium 10 and explained in Redemptionis Sacramentum 36 and 37; and agin in Ecclesiae de Mysterio, theological principles, n.1. I include a link to the full text of this very important statement of dogmatic prinicples: http://www.adoremus.org/Instruction-lay-ministry.html#anchor23456
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
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…
Not too many craws were thumped and not too many forelocks were tugged among those worshipping in the acres of victorian mosaics in Cobh Cathedral. Beads were heard to rattle though during the Midleton Oral Hearing. You see, Chuck, the argument just does not follow….!
At this stage, Chuck, you have lost your sense of humour! Too bad, for it was quit entertaining. The loss may be due to too much Feurbach and to taking our friend Karl Marx just a little too seriously – opium of the people and all that. Pity….
P.S. careful on the split infinitives!!!
And here is another bit of blank firing, and I cannot find anyone to own it:
CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
Random ReflectionsI don’t want to become too excited yet, just in case things don’t work out for us. But I am gradually becoming more hopeful that the outcome will be a completely new church. Then, I ask, what would I like to see rising on the rather circumscribed site?
I see a building, with beauty, a simple beauty, with space for 350 people seated. I’m not even sure that the seating will be in rows or solid benches. Maybe an alternative? My principal criterion will be a building where people feel participants, not spectators; where they are drawn into the action by the location of the altar. Notice I don’t say ‘sanctuary’. Perhaps the whole church is the sanctuary? Somewhere in it will be the focal point, for the proclaiming of the Word of God. Somewhere in it will be the president’s chair. Somewhere in it will be the tabernacle for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. The altar will be the dominant element. The tabernacle will be secondary to the altar, but yet will draw the attention of the person entering to the presence of the Lord in the reserved sacrament.
There will be a baptistry, maybe slightly below floor level, recalling going down into the grave with the Lord, dying with Him and coming up to new life. It might even be a natural flowing stream of water or a fountain.
The church will be adequately heated for comfort and sufficiently endowed with natural light so as not to need artificial lighting except on darker days.
There will be one confessional room, welcoming and comfortable. There will be space earmarked for a choir within the general space of the people. And wouldn’t it be marvellous to have a small pipe organ – maybe in later years?
As well as a sacristy (from which the celebrant would walk to the altar through the area where people are gathered), it would be desirable to have a reasonable-sized room with independent heating where 20 members of the Vincent de Paul Society could meet, or where the people could count the weekly envelopes. Maybe this could double as a sacristy for the acolytes.
The outside appearance or design – my dream would be something semi-circular or elliptical, not square or rectangular or triangular. Why? – the gentler, flowing lines of the circle or semi-circle seem to me to harmonise better with the horizon or landscape of the rolling Cooley hills. Something in me recoils from an angular building in this setting.
I would have a longing to see this new church have a special ‘feature’ to distinguish it. Maybe it’s a large window or glass panel through which the hills on the horizon could be visible. Country people can find God in the mountains, in nature.
Maybe it’s connected with the story of the blessing of the old church. It was, as you know, built against the wishes of the archbishop and priests of the parish. So the people who built it with their own hands and money had to get a strange priest, a ‘religious’ priest, to come and bless it. He was not permitted to go into the church, so he blessed it from a boat in the bay!
Another stray thought. I have seen some new churches with a lovely spacious assembly area or narthex. So attractive that it encourages many to remain there during mass instead of coming in to join the real assembly. THey can see what is going on and have no desire to hear or listen! Maybe they have good reason! But whatever we do, we will have to encourage them to join.
I don’t forsee any statues in the sanctuary area, but I do think we should have an area or place of devotion to Our Lady, the church is St. Mary’s church. Something not too obtrusive but will foster devotion to Mary, Mother of the Church”.
Interesting about the statues!! I wonder what that might indicate as far as the Communion of Saints is concerned? Are they nolonger part of the Church? Did the Spirit also reveal this lately?
In case you think I am having you on, here is the link:
http://www.rmc.dnet.co.uk/jenklit.html
[
Rhabanus!
If I could distract your momentarily from Dr. Jekyll and direct your attention to Mr. Hyde.
Looking around casually on the net this evening, I encountered this extraordinary description of the Church of Our Lady of the Wayside at Jenkinstown, Co. Louth written by its architect, Mr. Brian Quinn. Can I ask you what we are to make of it? Is it to be taken seriously or are dealing with just another guff merchant? The statement saying “…only recently..the Spirit has revealed the prsence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly iteslf” was enough to give me certain a certain frissonnement or the collagirfeen as they call it in Cork:
“CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
The construction of a new church is always more than placing one brick on top of another, it is an act of faith. The building itself becomes a physical manifestation of a parish’s vision of faith and as such is an exciting, if somewhat grave, responsibility for the building team.When designing the new Church of Our Lady of the Wayside, we were mindful of the fact that a parish vision of faith is forged by locality within the context of the Universal Church. The vision given to us by the Universal Church, through the Second Vatican Council, is of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.
The presence of Christ in the presider and consecrated species has been understood for a long time. It is only recently that the Spirit has revealed the presence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly itself. The response in church architecture has seen a moving away from passively watching the action at one end of the building to gathering around the table of the Word and table of the Eucharist. In order to represent this theology architecturally an oval plan was employed for Our Lady of the Wayside in which the assembly are arranged on either side of a central ‘sanctuary’. This enables all to be proximate to the shifting centres of liturgical action yet maintaining a meaningful distance between them. A sense of gathering is further emphasised by the curved form of the seating. That fact that fellow parishioners are seen face to face bears witness to Christ in each of us and in the assembly gathered for worship.
Elements prompted by the ‘local’ church are Mourne granite for the external walls and the form of the external cross inspired by those adorning the chapel in nearby Bellurgan which this church replaces. In addition, the theme of water, life-giving and cleansing, is particularly apposite due to the close proximity of Dundalk Bay. This theme is taken up by the boat-like form of the building, in the design of the stained-glass windows and the tabernacle.
Brian Quinn, RIBA, RIAI.
November 1994″
