Praxiteles

@onq wrote:

Intellectual superiority comes in many forms, but none so riddled with hubris as the one that fails to see the necessity for irreverence in dealing with hidebound religion, or doubt to test faith.

Far too many people the world over believe in the visual bullshit presented in Catholic Churches.

Most of this represents pivotal moments in time, iconic episodes, caricatures of the person or event being portrayed – and impossible idealised portrayal of smelly humans, who are after all, only the current meeting place where the fallen angel meets the rising ape.

Its almost enough to make you go Muslim.

But to listen to the endless quotes here which are nothing more than some humans’ views about how to conduct or regulate a strand of human behaviour being presented as if they are God’s word – saddo, saddo, saddo.

ONQ.

I do not think that Mircea Eliade would quite go along with this and the Muslims might think twice about letting in the chaotic. I think that you will probably find that Islam is much more detailed and demanding in the observance of its religious code.

@pandaz7 wrote:

Gunter

I entirely agree with your view that a church should be a numinous place but your comments on OMQ’s views are harsh.

At last, there is a recognition that churches and church ceremonies do not have to slavishly follow this deluge of rules and regulations which inundate this thread almost on a daily basis. I started reading this because I thought that the refurbishment of Irish Catholic churches had become acts of distruction but it has gone to the realms of the ridiculous. Why must we be hidebound by what was done in Italy in the 15th century? Commentators on this thread devote far too much energy into getting the buildings into their architectural straitjacket, something which has no foundation in Jesus’ teaching. In particular, the vitriolic comments about modern architects/designer (however ingorant they may be of all the rules and traditions of liturgy) about are entirely uncalled for.

Thinking again, perhaps it might be a bad idea to listen to the following address given by Cardinal Justin Francis Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia, to the recent conference held in the Catholic University of America in Washington:

http://live.cua.edu/ACADEMICS/ARCH/architectureconference2010.cfm

Some early pictures of the interior of Sts Peter and Paul’s in Cork City.

In the second image, note that seven lamps hang at the entrance to the sanctuary – a direct reference to teh Book of Revelation and to the throne of God.

This one from about 1864:

This one is possibly a little earlier as the ladders are still against the wall in the south transept:

Any building may be a place of worship once it is properly consecrated and you can have open air masses to suit the times and the conditions.

Again, this statement is not quite true.

The Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis:288. Ad Eucharistiam celebrandam, populus Dei plerumque in ecclesiam congregatur vel, ea deficiente aut insufficiente, in alium locum honestum qui tamen sit tanto mysterio dignus. Ecclesiae igitur, aliave loca, ad sacram actionem exsequendam et ad fidelium actuosam participationem obtinendam apta sint. Aedes sacrae insuper et res ad cultum divinum pertinentes vere sint dignae, pulchrae, atque rerum supernarum signa et symbola. [108]

English translation:

288. For the celebration of the Eucharist, the people of God normally are gathered together in a church or, if there is no church or if it is too small, then in another respectable place that is nonetheless worthy of so great a mystery. Churches, therefore, and other places should be suitable for carrying out the sacred action and for ensuring the active participation of the faithful. Sacred buildings and requisites for divine worship should, moreover, be truly worthy and beautiful and be signs and symbols of heavenly realities.

Only churches are consecrated for worship and not “any building”. Also, in the absence or insufficience of a church, another building may be used provided that it is respectable and suitable.

And, here Redemptionis sacramentum 108-109

1. The Place for the Celebration of Holy Mass

[108.] “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place.”[197] The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.

[109.] It is never lawful for a Priest to celebrate in a temple or sacred place of any non-Christian religion.

And the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 932 §1. The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place.

And here one of the early post conciliar disciplinary documents: Liturgiae instaurationes no. 9 of 1970.

9. The Eucharist is celebrated as a rule in a place of worship.[34] Apart from cases of real need, as adjudged by the Ordinary for his jurisdiction, celebration outside a church is not permitted. When the Ordinary does allow this, there must be care that a worthy place is chosen and that the Mass is celebrated on a suitable table. If at all possible, the celebration should not take place in a dining room or on a dining-room table.

On architectural and heritage grounds alone, the reinstatement of original altar rails and other design features removed in the post Vatican 2 drive to modernize seems like a worthy exercise, with or without a reappraisal of the liturgical considerations.

Could not agree more. Just look at the catalogue of devastation in Ireland among which the most ignorant efforts have been:

1. the detruction of Killarney Cathedral;
2. the destruction of Monaghan Cathedral;
3. the destruction of Longford Cathedral (i.e. before the recent fire);
4. the dectruction of Tornarelli’s High Altar in the Dublin Pro-Cathedral;
5. the decimation of Giacomo della Porta’s High Altar in Thurles Cathedral – which would have brought the police around in anywhere else but Ireland.
6. the attempted destruction of Cobh Cathedral to “plans” by Professor Cathal O’Neill.

This list could continue.

@onq wrote:

Nope.

That’s just your wishful thinking.

There is a requirement to mark off the altar from the rest of the church.

A single step would do it – don’t let them crutchies or wheelies near the Eucharist!!!

How utterly sad, any need for demarcation.

The shepherd is one with his flock.

ONQ.

It is the sanctuary that is demarcated from the body of the church – not the altar.

Here is the text:

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.

And when it comes to elevations, you have to think of possibilities such as those common in Hungarian churches which can be 50 feet above the nave level; or the rised crypts of the romanesque. One step is what one would expect in an oratory.

Another example of Duncan Stroik’s work:

All Saints, Covington, Kentucky, USA.

The composition exhibits several Venitian references:

http://www.stroik.com/portfolio/all-saints-church/

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani article 295 [edition published with the editio tertia typica of the Missale Romanum 2000] requires them or some other structure to deliniate the sanctaury from the nave of the church.

As for the reinstatement of the alter rail, this goes against current church practice.

Well, now, where did we ever get that notion from? Can we please cite any of the documents of the Second Vatican Council eliminating altar rails or indeed any of the subsequent disicplinary material eliminating altar rails?

Here is an example of Stroik’s restoration work where he has undone the unfortunate which took place during the 1980s.

http://www.stroik.com/portfolio/st-mary-church/