Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
By some miracle of grace, I think it did. Surprisingly it did not strike me the last day I was in town but I will check later in the week
kite wrote:🙁 Apologies for going off topic but the loss of Roches Stores started me thinking what was lost to Cork over the years, and what replaced same.
My top five would be]You forgot one of the great emporia and craft centres of Cork: William Egan and Sons, Jewellers and Gldsmiths, Patrick’s Street. The custom made display cases all disappeared when it closed. Recently, I thought I noticed three if not four of them in the foyer of Christie’s Hotel in Blarney. A rag shop now occupies the site.
I will add to this:
James Mangan, Watchmaker, 3 Patrick’s St.. All that remained of this business up to lately was the large pillar clock that stood outside of the shop. I am not sure if it survived the last attack on the street scape by the Corporation.
F. Guy’s Photographic studies, book printers and stationers, used to be at 70 Patrick’s St.. Surely everyone in the city and county at one time had their photos taken by this company.
Perry’s ironmongers at 89 Patrick’s Street.
Cox’s piano emporium at 112 Patrick’s St.
Cash and Co. still extant but trading under Brown Thomas.
Here is another interesting development in Virginia, USA
It looks as though we have hit on something interesting and worthwhile here. A conference on church building being promoted by the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein:
Here are the programme details:
If anybody had a moment to spare they might like to take a trip to the windy city!
Here is the link toCardinal Francis George’s Liturgical Institute at Mundelein:
http://www.vocations.org/liturgicalinstitute/liturgicalinstitute.htm
Brian!
Thanks very much for that clarification. But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?
Yes, Denny Reidy, the parish priest of Carrogtwohill, obviously got hold of one of those DIY public relations manuals to paper over any public opposition to his great plan to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral. However, the manual did not count on a phenomenon like the FOSCC and sidelining it was not the answer.
The following link gives an interesting account of the operations of the so called liturgical consultants in the U.S.A.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20592I am posting some comments from Stephen Schloeder’s book Architecture in Communion published in San Francisco by Ignatius Press in 1998. Schloeder is a good representative of the contemporary ascendent current of thought in the United States on liturgy and art. While I do not quite share everything Shloeder says, especially in translating principles into practical architecture, I do recognise a freshness in his approach deriving from a critical mind at work on an hegemony that has been far too compaisant and far too much of a monopoly for far too long.
Here is the text of the famous Built of Living Stones, the American version of The Place of Worship. It is important to note that this document is described as “guidelines”. This means that it has no juridical standing or authority – just like The Place of Worship.
It looks as though this document gave rise to the “liturgical consultant” industry by mentioning the species.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/livingstones.shtml#chapterone
The link below connects to a list of (mainly) American “liturgical consultants”. Most seem to have gone through the pro-forma mill at the Catholic Union in Chicago. Reading the various approaches to “liturgical consultancy” is interesting and very enlightening – some of it goes some way to explain the liturgical turmoil experienced in some parts of the USA. It is also interesting to note just how much of a manual for this group is the book Built of Living Stones the US counterpart of The place of worship. Even more interesting is the almost universal absence of any reference to the Instituto Generalis Romani Missalis, Sacrosanctum Consilium and other normative texts. Again we have the recurrence of the notion of “People of God”. I am not certain that it is always used in the same sense as when found in its theological context in Lumen Gentium and I am almost certain that it is used without reference to the theological debate surrounding the idea in 1970s which did much to qualify and nuance it. But, see for yourself:
This must be read to be believed. Again, the product of a jejune appreciation of Western and Christian culture:
It appears that the source for the diploma in liturgical consultancy is the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. This will require a little further investigation.
Luzarches!
You might like to try this link to something called an association of liturgical consultants. It seems to be an American association working out of Chicago. There are some interesting things but most of what is available her displays the usual banality deriving from an absence of the cultural baggage needed to address liturgical questions.
Praxiteles has just discovered what appears to be the latest fashion in liturgical “reorderings”: that of placing the altar on a plane lower than its surroundings and in some instances dominated by higher planes carrying such items as chairs or even cathedras.
It has long been a principle of Catholic liturgical space arranging to place the altar on the highest plane and everything else on a descending gradation of planes. For example, in a cathedral, the praedella of the altar will have three steps; the Cathedra placfe on an area two steps high; and a celebrants sedilia placed on one step etc.
In the illustration below, we seem to have the complete inversion (or subversion ?) of this simple principle. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate the name of the church involved but will set about doing so.
The Studios of Potente Inc. are responsible for the work.
On Catholicism and the modern aesthetic the following might be of interest.
@Luzarches wrote:
I know that Prax isn’t too much of a fan of Schwarz. He is right to point to the problem of the ‘legibility’ of liturgical symbolism and Schwarz could be accused of fabricating arbitrary categories
Perhaps we could now return to the question of the legibility of liturgical symbolism in modern architecture. We have laready pointed out the difficulties that we encounter with Schwarz whose lirurgical symbolism is clearly incommunicable because, in effect, it amounts to a private esoteric language accessible only to the initoiated. On the other hand, if we look at the work of Plecnik, we have a range of accessible liturgical symbols that is clearly connected with the symbolic and architectural canon of Western civilisation and that is a re-working of that canon. An example of that is the design of the church of St. Francis the main body of which is located at a slightly lower level and surrounded by a colonade on four sides. Surely, here we have a reference to the impluvium of a Roman domestic villa which archeologists such as Krautheimer have shown probably lay at the very origin of the first Christian churches: the impluvium was roofed and served as the body for the house church. The idea seem to be very much much part of Plecnik’s back-to-origins concerns which are also to be seen in his designs for ecclesiastical plate.
I merely throw out the idea to see if anybody is interested in it.
Re posting 1119 and the following quotation from it: “the Liturgical Commission is an episcopal commission – consisting of bishops(.) [and] (It) has the full authority of the Irish Episcopal Conference to make directives regarding liturgy”.
I am sorry to appear to harp on the subject of the authority of a liturgical commission of an Episcopal Conference but I think that it is important to distinguish clearly the specific competence of a Liturgical Commission. It certainly does not have “the full authority” of an Episcopal Conference “to make directives regarding the liturgy”. Directives about the liturgy, where they can be made by a Conference, are made only by the full assembly of the Conference on a two thirds majority. Such diorectives are then submitted to the Holy See before publication to obtain recognitio which permits their rception into the law of the Church.
I am attaching the text of the motu proprio Apostolos Suos of 21 May 1998 which explicitates why the “full authority” of an Episcopal Conference cannot be be Delegated or passed on to one of its subordinate organisms or commissions. I am also adding a link to this posting which will give you the full text of the English translation of Apostolos Suos. Dr. Alan Kershaw’s evidence at the Midleton Oral Hearing was perfectly accurate – as you would expect from an advocate of the Roman Rota.
“20. In the Episcopal Conference the Bishops jointly exercise the episcopal ministry for the good of the faithful of the territory of the Conference; but, for that exercise to be legitimate and binding on the individual Bishops, there is needed the intervention of the supreme authority of the Church which, through universal law or particular mandates, entrusts determined questions to the deliberation of the Episcopal Conference. Bishops, whether individually or united in Conference, cannot autonomously limit their own sacred power in favour of the Episcopal Conference, and even less can they do so in favour of one of its parts, whether the permanent council or a commission or the president. This logic is quite explicit in the canonical norm concerning the exercise of the legislative power of the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference: “The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines itâ€.(77) In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consentâ€.(78)”.
The full text of the English language can be found here:
iBrian
Here is the text of the GRIM 2000. It is not pertinent to the question of the canonical status of the POW. This text indicates those places in the Institutio Generalis of the Roman Missal where Episcopal Conferences are asked to decide specific questions which are specified in the text of the article. Even those decisions have to be referred to the Holy See before they can have its approval and obtain the force of law.390. Conferentiarum Episcoporum est aptationes definire, et actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis, in ipsum Missale introducere, quae in hac Institutione generali et in Ordine Missae indicantur, uti sunt:
fidelium gestus et corporis habitus (cf. supra, nn. 24, 43);
gestus venerationis erga altare et Evangeliarium (cf. supra, n. 274);
textus cantuum ad introitum, ad praeparationem donorum et ad communionem (cf. supra, nn. 48, 74, 87);
lectiones e Sacra Scriptura peculiaribus in adiunctis desumendae (cf. supra, n. 362);
forma pro pace tradenda (cf. supra, n. 82);
modus sacrae communionis recipiendae (cf. supra, nn. 160-161, 284);
materia altaris et sacrae supellectilis, praesertim sacrorum vasorum, necnon materia, forma et color vestium liturgicarum (cf. supra, nn. 301, 329, 332, 342, 345-346, 349).
Directoria vero aut Instructiones pastorales, quas Conferentiae Episcoporum utiles iudicaverint, praevia Apostolicae Sedis recognitione, in Missale Romanum, loco opportuno, induci poteruntBrian!
I am glad that you mention canon 455 for that is the canon that outlining the procedure to be followed were the Conference to promulgate POW as binding on the dioceses within its jurisdiction and clearly it has not. One can only speculate whay the Conference seems to lack the will to do so.
Re: GRIM 390: are you referring to the 1969 text or to the 2000 text?
