Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Gianlorenzo!
Please do not think that because no official Decree was issued bu the Bishop of CLoyne in setting up the HACK and in deceding to re-order Cobh Cathedral thta you cannot make a recourse to the Holy See. This is a common and well known ruse. It is well known to canonical system. Believe you me that over the centuries several effective antidotes have been developed to cure this problem. A number of juridical preliminaries will quickly solve this problem and open the way, pretty speedily, for the FOSCC to plead before the Roman courts.
In response to the argument put up by the Applicant’s legal team, the FOSCC did play the liturgical card and to excellenyt effect.
The Trustees tried to claim a role for the Bishop of Cloyne that would have made him appear not unlike the Maharaja of Maharafelt. The claim was advanced that he was was above and beyond the law.
A liturgical position was advanced, without a shred of support, that was presented as an OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church when it simply was not. Dr. Reid very quickly disposed of that pèarticular piece of mendaciousness.
Re posting # 978
At this point, I have to say that I no longer am able to follow Oswald’s line of thought. He is beginning to sound as ridiculous as Des Heffernan under cross-examination at the Oral Hearing in Midleton. Could we have a little more clarity?
Oswald wrote:Dr. Kershaw pointed out that “]That there are juridical and administrative recourse systems to the Holy See available to Christ’s faithful is simply a matter of fact. Indeed, the FOSCC may well take an action against the HACK before the competent Dicastery of the Holy See. I would encourage them to do so.
Simply because a range of options is available to someone does not mean that they are automatically obliged to use only one option.
I would also point out that the FOSCC could take a civil action in the Irish High Court to have the bishop of Cloyne apply the norms of Canon Law to the set up, structure, and functioning of the HACK. The precedent is there for this in the famous O’Rourke/McGrath before the Irish Supreme Court which was provided by the bishops themselves. So far, they have not chosen to do that.
@Oswald wrote:
I have read through the FOSCC submission and I agree that the evidence given by Dr. Reid was impressive. However, the implication of Dr. Kershaw’s evidence was that Dr. Reid had come to the wrong forum. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments appears to be the appropriate body to review the Cloyne HCAC’s statement on the liturgical requirements. The Inspector noted that under Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, “a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any developmentâ€. FOSCC should not have expected the Appeals Board to intervene in the internal affairs of a religious denomination.
Oswald:
The sentence beginning “The inspector noted….” seems somehow unceoonected with the preceding sentence and the following sentence. That is my trouble with this posting. Is it part of some other text that was cancelled and this sentence inadvertently left behind?
Oswald is correct in saying that an authoritative judgement on the liturgical document submitted to the Cloyne HACK can only be given by the Holy See, which in this cse, operates through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. (see the posting I put up quoting from Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Did the HACK ever think of sending it to Rome before proposing and accepting it unaninously? I do not think so.
I am not sure what your point about a permission is. Are not permissions given to carry out minor repairs without having to resort to planning applications? Indeed, some of the “authorities” in Cloyne were trying to persuade the p.a. for years that they were only carrying out mminor works tot he Cathedral in implementing the O’Neill scheme.
I cannot see how the FOSCC can be involved in this.
The WIlton Diptych, St John the Baptist (1395)
Jan van Eyck, The Ghent Altarpiece, St. John the Baptist /1425)
Rogier van der Weyden, The Birth and naming of St. John the Baptist (1455)
Rogier van der Weyden, The Decollation of St. John the Baptist (1455)
El Greco, St. John the Baptist (1600)
Fra Angelico. The naming of ST. John the Baptist, 1434
The Preaching of St. John the Baptist by Bachiacca (1530)
If a future Bishop of Kerry ever wanted to redstore KIllarney and An Taisce object to it, then that Bishop of Kerry should blame the infamous Bishop of Kerry who wrecked it in the first place. It has been observed that one who will damage a church will also damage the Church. It was certainly true in the case of Killarney. BUt, I think it better we do not get any further into that.
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?
Sirius is still not getting the point:
1. The FOSCC did everything possible to resolve the Cobh crisis in an in-house manner. The Trustees would have nothing to do with FOSCC.
2. By making a planning application, the Trustees dragged the liturgical question into the civil instances. The outcome, as they knew or should have known was inevitable. Do not blame the FOSCC for this. Blame the TRUSTEES. Indeed, the Trustees based their legal argument almost entirely on the liturgical question at the Oral Hearing. FOSCC tried to avoid mentioning that subject as much as possible.
3. The Bishop of Cloyne may not yet be out of the woods as regards a contentious case being brought against him by any member of the faithful in the diocese of Cloyne – and he has given sufficient canonical grounds under several headings to have such launched against him. The Roman tribunals can be pretty mean places when they start listening to how ecclesiastical (and civil) authority was abused in efforts to suppress Christ’s little ones. They could quite easily hand down a sentence that would make An Bord Pleanala look like a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
4. The are no such things as “diocesan liturgical requirements”. A bishop may decide in relation to liturgical matters in his diocese. But, he should remember, that every decision he makes is open to appeal to the justice tribunals of the Holy See. As far as the Catholic liturgy is concerned, there is only one head of the Roman Rite and that is the Bishop of Rome who is the highest authoirty on the matter and his decisions are final and without appeal.
The absurdity of the assertion of the Cloyne HACK that it decided what was liturgy in Cloyne should be clear. It is a position that I can imagine would warm the heart of any Inquisitor. It was not without reason that I refer to this body as semi-zwinglian.
5. I do not know what your problem about the civil authorities is. It is the norm in practically every european country that government conservation offices look after historic churches.
Of course, if the the Guardians of Faith and Morals in Ireland were a bit brighter, they might be able to see that if the civil authorities claim rights over ecclesiastical buildings in Ireland, then they must surely also have DUTIES in relation to them as well. If they thought about it, as they did in France after 1905, the penny might begin to drop that money for the upkeep of historical churches can now be wrung from the Irish government.
Re post # 954:
Sirius
1. The FOSCC legal team were hired to represent the FOSCC position to An Bord Pleanala. They were not hired to represent the lady to whom you refer.
2. Let us use a little logic, shall we? The fact that the FOSCC legal team did not say anything about the remarks to which you refer does not allow you to insinuate that they supported such views. If you do intend this then, you are affording us with a rather nice example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. [The kind of argument that we get when someone says “the light is on, therefore they must be at home”. If the light is on, all you can say is taht the light is on].
3. You should also note that the legal team hired by the Trustees did not distance themselves either from the views which you mentioned. Are we to make anything of that?
4. The legal team hired by the Urban District Council did not distance themselves either from the same views. Is anything to be inferred from that?
5. I am beginning to think that you are not quite up to this discussion!
I am now going to make a digressio from the labours of the day and post some things related to St. John the Baptist since to-day is the feast of his Nativity, and is placed in the Christian Calendar after the summer solstice reflecting the line in ST. John’s Gospel: He must increase and I must decrease.
Pierro della Francesca (1449)
St. John The Baptist on the West portal of Cobh Cathedral
Bartolomé Esteban Murillo’s famous treatment of the young St. John the Baptist (1670)
The Cathedral of St. John’s in New Foundland
Th Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Savannah, Georgia
and as is today
@Sirius wrote:
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.
Now Sirius, regarding the FOSCC’s role in the Cobh debacle, there are some points that you would need to correct.
!. The FOSCC never set out to embarrass the Bishop of Cloyne – despite the dirty tricks practised on them by his agents. If it becomes necessary, documented examples of this can be provided.
2. The FOSCC directed its campaign against the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral.
3. While recourse was made to the civil authorities in this matter, that came about because of the belligerent and uncompromising attitude taken by the Trustees, and by Fr. Denis Reidy, the Parish Priest of Carrigtwohill who is, in many respects, the agent provocateur in this entire affair and the one whose warped sense of political judgement ulltimately drove the bus into the wall. While the FOSCC tried every possible means of settling their concerns in house, the Trustees and their agents made no effort whatsoever to go any way to meet them. What alternative had they but to use the civil instances available to them?
4. If there was a moot point in law concerning the application of the guidelines, which Sirius mentions, then the INTELLIGENT thing to have done was to ensure that they were NOT tested. Thereby, the status quo – for whatever it was worth – would have been maintained. Initiating a planning application, as the Trustees did, when such doubt existed was foolhardy. You cannot blame the FOSCC for the outcome of the Trustees’ folly.
5. Also, it is disingenous to suggest that the Trustees entered into this with their legal eyes closed. There was already available to the Trustees a vein of legal counsel -at least since the Edenderry case, that made it specifically clear to the Irish Bishops and to the Bishop of Cloyne in particular, that were the law tested it would be likely to end as in fact it did in the ABP’s decision. Furthermore, the same basic position was available to the Heritage Council in a legal opinion sought by them in relation to another matter. I am sure that they would make copies of it available to you on request. So where is the big surprise? If the Trustees of St Colman’s Cathedral were that concerned about encroaching secularism why did they take the reckless decision to seek planning permission when they knew (or should have known) what the likely outcome would be?
6. I understand that the official contempt exhibited to the FOSCC by the Bishop of Cloyne and his office is so petty that he will not even refer to them by their official name in his correspondence with them.
Just as a matter of curiosity re Alex White: could Sirius supply us with some exmples of the work of this architect? The only examples for which I could find references were holiday homes in West Cork (possibly at Inchidoney) and a fish and chip shop in Cork.
Luzarches.
You might be interested in the link below to an interview with Archbishop Ranjith published in yesterday’s Le Figaro in Paris:
Sirius:
You comments about the FOSCC being “conservative” Tridentines is as wide of the mark as claiming that Praxiteles made remarks about a certain person on another thread.
If you read the position outlined by FOSCC at the ordal hearing, you will see that their liturgical stance is dead centre of the road in what is prescribed OFFICIALLY by the Catholic Church. I include the link to bring you up to speed:
http://www.foscc.com/downloads/oh/5.Terry%20Pender%20.pdf
The so called liturgical experiìtise wheeled out by the Trustees of Cobh Cathedral and by the Cloyne HACK in all of this debacle was a junior cleric of absolutely no Wissenshaft of any kind. The only knowledge he has of the Christian liturgy was gleaned during a six-month sabbatical course spent in the United States of America. I doubt that he has ever heard of, let alone read, Mario Righetti’s Manuale della Storia Liturgica, nor Ildefonso Schuster’s Liber Sacramentorum, nor Bartolomeus Gavantus ‘Thausurus Sacrorum Rituum to cite but a few of the classical commentators. As for his having access to Migne’s Patrologia Latina or to his Patrologia Greca throw you hat at it for he cannot tell the difference between Greek and Latin as is quite obvious from the riseable text he produced for the Cloyne HACK. Who in their right minds would want to take medical advice from a doctor who had never studied medicine nor read a medical textbook?
Just read the earlier parts of this thread and see for your self the extent of the wreckage that has been worked on the fairly slim architectural inventory that we have in Ireland. From it one thing emerges: the Catholic bishops simply cannot or else are not able to ensure the conservation of thsoe monuments of historical and architectural interest in their charge. As you know, natur abhors a vacuum. If someone else fills it in this case, what more can be said.
