Rhabanus

@Praxiteles wrote:

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.

I recall seeing a rather outre statue supposedly of Saint Patrick erected in a prominent spot on the Irish landscape (southern Ireland, I believe). The statue portrayed not the majestic figure of the “steadfast man” [cf. Paul Gallico] vested in full pontificals as he drove out serpents with his crozier and preached the Triune God by means of the simple shamrock, but some scruffy youth barely clothed in a brief shift or skimpy tunic. It reminded me of a pagan shaman. The controversial statuette, titled ‘Padraig’ replaced the more familiar statue of St Patrick easily recognised worldwide by the usual iconographic attributes listed above. Does that eyesore still blight the Irish countryside? Speculation at the time suggested that a countermovement would have the offending image removed. Is anyone conversant with the controversy to which I allude?

My point is that some outrageous iconography has been put forward with a view to “reclaiming” Irish history and insinuating a pagan worldview into the Irish consciousness or self-awareness.

Needless to mention, I was appalled by the ruthless iconoclasm of Drumaroad and Wayside in Jenkinstown. The shocking feature is that it was allowed IN CHURCH.

God be with the faithful anawim in Cobh!

Are the Catholic faithful in Ireland organising some civic or religious body to review cases of liturgical malfeasance or misfeasance? I thought that the Irish constitution and government was officially supportive of the Catholic Church.

@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…

As to “lurid images of martyred saints on the walls” it may interest Chucko to read the words of that AFRICAN doctor of the Church St AUGUSTINE on the heavenly birth of the martyrs (sermo 329 [PL 38:1454-1456]):

“The Church everywhere flourishes though the glorious deeds of the holy martyrs. With our own eyes we can judge the truth of our song, that the death of his saints is precious in the sight of the Lord as well, for in his name they died. … Reflecting on all this, man cries out, saying: What shall I give the Lord for all he has given me? I shall take up the cup of salvation.
What is this cup? It is the cup of suffering, bitter yet healthful: the cup which, if the physician did not first drink it, the sick man would fear to touch. Yes, it is the cup of suffering, and of it Christ is speaking when he says: Father if it is possible let this cup pass from me.
Of this cup the martyrs said: I shall take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. But are you not afraid you will weaken? No, they reply. And why? Because I shall call upon the name of the Lord. Do you think the martyrs could have been victorious, unless he was victorious in the martyrs who said: Rejoice, for I have overcome the world? The Lord directed their minds and tongues]the death of the saints is precious in the sight of the Lord[/I].”

The Church adorns her churches and sanctuaries with images of the saints, and particularly the martyrs, because they participated in a unique way in the sacrifice of Christ made present sacramentally on the altar. Another reason why the altar ought to dominate the sightline in Catholic churches.

Leave the cult cargo of your own fraught world, Chuck, and glimpse the glory of the saints in the beauty of the Chruch’s authentic worship.

@brianq wrote:

A few images of the interior of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown.

BQ

What is the canonical, liturgical, and theological justification for a ROUND altar? Why are there no altar cloths on the disk-like structure with the gold letters engraved around it?

Why is the celebrant’s chair exalted higher than both the ambo and the altar? Could there be some clericalism at work here? Why are there more stairs ascending to the ambo than to the altar? How does this make any sense when the within the sacred liturgy itself there is a progression from Word to Sacrament?

If one examines the arragement of the ambones in the church of san Clemente Rome (Irish Dominicans), the hierarchy within the liturgy of the word is glaringly obvious: OT readings are proclaimed on the lowest level, then the NT lessons from Acts and the epistles of the Apostles are read on the middle level. The highest level is reserved for the proclamation of the Gospel and, on the opposite side but equal in height to the Gospel ambo, the Exultet.

Gradation (literal and temporal) is an architectural and liturgical reflection of the respective honour accorded the individual components within the Liturgy of the Word, and, beyond this part of the Mass, the rest of the sacred liturgy.

Of course the Liturgy of the Word precedes and prepares the congregation for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It leads TO the Eucharist. The Eucharistic Prayer and Holy Communion constitute the apex of the assembly’s central act of worship. Hence the climactic role of the Eucharist is indicated by further gradation, the Altar being elevated high above the celebrant’s chair, the lecterns or ambones, etc. The altar’s position either in the apse or in the actual crossing (in a cruciform building) proclaims the importance of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice itself.

How is it that this language has been lost, or, worse, discarded in Ireland? Having witnessed the destruction of many beautiful churches in North America and the erection of new strange, bizarre, and downright UGLY monstrosities on that very continent, how could the Church in Ireland fall under the spell of such tomfoolery and waste huge sums on emulating junk?

What does a tabernacle stuck into a wall without reference to the altar say in theological or liturgical terms?

What does a round altar suggest?

What might an oval-shaped “sanctuary” mean?

@Praxiteles wrote:

I am not sure what to think of hat wavey-band effect on the sanctuary step. It looks a litle misplaced.

Given the ridiculous proximity of the baptismal font (see on Epistle side) to the main altar, it would be an altogether short “procession” to the altar (as mandated in the Ordo Baptismi parvulorum). I suppose, though, if you followed the wavey lines where the altar rail used to be, one could do “The Wibbley-Wobbley Walk” all along the front of the sanctuary and back to the Altar from behind. Quite the momba-line led by the priest, the parents, babe-in-arms, and godparents, Mrs Magillacuddy, the parish snoop, George Formby the British entertainer, the irrepressible Carmen Miranda, and the whole baptismal party.

Misplaced? Not with the St Vitus liturgical dancers mincing their way along the front of that sanctuary – not to mention the three dancing dogs arrayed in party-hats strutting along at the offertory.

@Praxiteles wrote:

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]http://www.sca.org.au/scribe/articles/building_on_belief.htm[/url]

Right, Praxiteles, it is this Augustinian understanding of the sacred significance of numbers that found expression in countless churches throughout not only Eurpoe, but indeed the entire world wherever the Christian Gospel was preached. It is unmistakable in Romanesque churches but particularly so in Gothic churches – especially in Cistercian churches where restraint in iconography accentuated the theological implications of sacred geometry. Very trinitarian and utterly transcendent. These qualities were valued and displayed to advantage in the Neogothic revival shlin aslo of St Colman’s Cobh). The Gothic image has long been identified closely with the Catholic Church for obvious reasons. Film director and producer Rouben Mamoulian, for example, underscores this relationship between Catholicism and Gothic architecture in his 1929 classic Applause, but it is clear in scores of other works of art and literature (eg Victor Hugo, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Readers ought to consult Augustine’s small dialogues recorded from discussions at his retreat in Cassiciacum, De numero and De musica. Brian, you would do well to give them a fair perusal. Always go directly to the master himself.

I am afraid but round altars do not find a place in the orthodox Christian life of worship, whereas pagan and Gnostic traditions do favour round altars. In fact the circle is not the customary way that Christians have gathered before the Altar of the Lord. Even the earliest extant depictions of the Lat Supper show Christ and the Apostles assembled at a convex table with Christ at the viewers left. The concave side of the table provided access to the servants who brought food & drink and removed dishes. See, for example the mosaic of the Last Supper in S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, executed around 520. This shows Christ leading the Last Supper at the extreme end of the table with the Apostles arranged in succession behind Him. The Passover, after all, was a formal, ritual meal, not a picnic with random arrangement calculated to facilitate chit chat and incidental badinage.

The relentless placing of round altars in new churches (eg Wayside, Drumaroad) prompts me to wonder not just about the anti-hierarchical spirit behind it but also raises questions about ultimate inspiration. Praxiteles made the astute connection between the design (and even colour) of Wayside and the pagan (Druidic) temple mound. Before I saw the photo of the pagan mound temple I had thought that the inspiration was a Buddha in the lotus position. The interior is completely out of sync with the long history of Christian worship, whereas it is rather more in keeping with Gnostic and pagan fixation on the circle. It certainly figures grandly in feminist ideologies and praxes. Connections with Wicca?

I eschew round altars and round worship spaces as they give me the creeps. Too closely allied with pagan and gnostic systems of worship, belief, and ideology. Even the Constantinian covering of the Holy
Sepulchre, was octagonal rather than strictly spherical, and it contained an oblong Tomb within an aedicule.

Who gave permission to erect these round altars in modernist churches built with Catholic resources and under Catholic auspices? This bears close scrutiny.

Those seeking to be avant-garde and ultrachic would do well to consult the earliest models of Christian houses of worship. They can start with the domus Ecclesiae at Dura Europas (circa AD 240). A Roman garrison town on the Euphrates, the place was destroyed by the Sassanians in 256 and never was rebuilt. The excavations done in the early twentieth century reveal an oriented rectangular altar in the assembly hall. Its shape resembles the rectangular baptismal tank in the baptistery.

More later.

@Chuck E R Law wrote:

When I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!

Perhaps Chuck would be good enough to explain the liturgical theology underlying some of the “renovations” that he advocates. He might likewise reflect on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of the buildings that he so admires. This would make a positive and interesting contribution to the discussion.

Any texts to adduce? References to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, for example? A favourite theologian or qualified liturgist? I’. merely asking.

This is the chance for Chuck to let his glory shine!

Perhaps a learned consideration on the Church as the People of God arrayed hierarchically to reflect the divine ordering of the ecclesial structure. Or maybe a sacramental treatise on the ordering of Christian sacraments in the construction and arrangement of Catholic churches.

Wisdom! Be attentive!!

@Chuck E R Law wrote:

A most impressive debut by Rhuburanus, with him iconography becomes pornography.

Perhaps you would care to clarify this remark? It really ought to be “unpacked” so that th ereadership can grasp your precise meaning.

In the meantime, you would do well to consult Lumen gentium further. In Chapter I “The Mystery of the Church,” section 6, you will find a nice variety of pastoral, agrarian, vegetative, architectural, familial, and spousal images employed throughout Sacred Scripture to describe the Church: sheepfold, gateway, cultivated field, tillage of God, vineyard, building of God, house of God, household of God in the Spirit, holy temple, Holy City, New Jerusalem, “that Jerusalem which is above,” “our mother,” spotless spouse of the spotless lamb, body of Christ.

You might consider this passage, too:

“The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). In them he prays and bears witness to their adoptive sonship (cf. Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15-16 and 26). Guiding the Church in the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of ministry, he bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22). By the power of the Gospel he permits the Church to keep the freshness of youth. Constantly he renews her and leads her to perfect union with her Spouse. For the Spirit and the Bride both say to Jesus, the Lord: “Come!” (cf. Apoc. 22:17)

I hope that this does not approach pornography in your narrow, prudish estimation. After all, it comes right from Sacred Scripture, rather than from the ravings of the monkish mind.

But you have touched, obliquely I suppose, on an interesting anthropological point. The Church is described in Scripture and Tradition as the spotless spouse of the spotless Lamb. Jesus the Lamb of God takes His Bride the Church unto Himself. This is clear in the canticle of Apoc. 20:6b-7, especially v. 7: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made hgerself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure.”

If this seems even remotely pornographic to you, Chuck, then you may wish to reconsider further participation in this thread. After all, I should have thought someone possessed of your intellect and imagination would wish to bring more to this discussion than compromised Latin orthography, poor English grammar, and ill-conditioned ad hominem remarks. Leave the guttersnipe prudery at home and consider making a worthy contribution.

Cheers,

RHABANUS

@Chuck E R Law wrote:

You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.

Chuck, it’s time you opened a book. Please turn to chapter 3 of The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 10-29 and READ about the hierarchical nature of the Church. Hierarchy is not a bad thing, Chuck. It orders the mystical Body of Christ both in heaven and on earth. Have you difficulty comprehending this mystery of the faith? Keep on reading, Chuck:

“This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican Council [NB: the hermeneutic of continuity], teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors the bishops namely, should be the sheperds in his Church uintil th eend of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lastin and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith an dof communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.” [LG 18]

What part of this do you not understand, Chuck? Vatican II teaches and declares not only the primacy of the Petrine see but also the infallibility of the pope. So far in this pontificate I have noticed that Benedict XVI, far from renouncing the claims to primacy and infallibility, frequently styles himself the Bishop of Rome – with all that this authority implies (review the quotation above). Innocent III, by the way, regarded his authority as deriving precisely from his marriage (cf. bishop’s ring) to the Ecclesia Romana. Fr Leonard Boyle op (a native of Ireland who emigrated to Canada, became a Canadian citizen, conducted an eminent scholarly career at the Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies at Toronto, and in 1984 was appointed Vatican Librarian) gave a learned disquisition on this very topic in Rome back in 1985 – the year of the Extraordinary Synod which asserted the fundamental coherence between the doctrinal and the pastoral authority of the Church. Had you been in the audience, Chuck, the iconographical references to the Roman Church (in the Lateran basilica and elsewhere) could hardly have escaped you. Innocent III, like Benedict XVI, was well acquainted with the Pauline images of the Church as Sponsa Christi (Eph 5:23-32) as well as Corpus Christi (1 Cor 12-30). One does not have to wear the tiara or the mitre, much less the mortarboard, to comprehend the Pauline ecclesiology at work in Christian theology, literature, and iconography.

By the way, Chuck, it may interest you to know that, whereas theological and liturgical Gallicanism introduces ecclesiological divisions and empties churches, ultramontanism unites the Body and fills churches. Do the math, Chuck; do the math!

Chuck ought to check his Butler’s or Baltimore catcehism again. No pope is regarded as “impeccable” even in the most ultramontane circles. On the other hand, orthodox Catholicism upholds the infallibility of the pope.

By the way, the spelling in R-H-A-B-A-N-U-S. The suggestion that I may be ‘rhuberanus’ is just a bit too personal. Let’s keep it above the belt, eh Chuck?

The fissure emanating from the rib down through the fabric to just above the head of the saintly bishop suggests to me that the stencilling and painting were done directly onto the plaster or stonework. Amazing!
Note the delicate coloration of the painting, the subdued hues, the elegance of design and mastery of execution. This is excellence indeed! Thanks for the splendid detail, Fearg.

Do you have access to details of the actual iconographic programme of the triumphal arch? I would hazard a guess that there is a progression in unfolding mysteries as the pilgrim faithful move from the west door toward the east. Has a book recording these murals been published locally? Nationally? Do be sure to secure that patrimony for generations yet to come.

The decoration of these magnificent houses of worship reflects not only a profound understanding of liturgical theology, but also – and this is critical – clarity of ecclesiology. What makes Ratzinger such an insightful liturgist is his mastery of ecclesiology.

The iconographic programmes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries so far displayed on this thread, through the kindness and industry of Fearg, communicate as much ecclesiology as they do liturgical theology. Consider, for example, the cruciformity of the buildings themselves. They reflect the Pauline theology of the Church as the Body of Christ and likewise the theological understanding of Christ as High Priest and sole Mediator of the New Covenant as elaborated in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The faithful gather in the Church as Ark (Noah’s) and Barque of St Peter. They usually stand atop promontories – the site of the union between Heaven and earth, between God and man, effected by Christ’s once-for-all Sacrifice. Ratzinger reminds us that the Church in her earliest period used to be known as the corpus verum Christi – the real Body of Christ – nourished by the mystic Food of the Eucharist (corpus mysticum) but that these two terms, owing to the eucharistic controversies of the 9th and 11th centuries, came to be reversed in their application: the corpus verum referring now to the eucharistic Body of the Lord and the corpus mysticum to His ecclesial body.

The awesome examples of Armagh and Cobh resonate this theology of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ the High Priest, Minister of the Holies at the right hand of the Father.

What seems to be woefully lacking in recent “renovation” packages like the example furnished by St John the Baptist in Drumaroad is any appreciation of the mystery of the Ascension. Jean Corbon, author of The Wellspring of Worship (as well as the section on prayer in The Cathechism of the Catholic Church) bemoans this unhappy lacuna in the mindset of many:

“It is highly regrettable that the majority of the faithful pay so little heed to the ascension of the Lord. Their lack of appreciation of it is closely connected with their lack of appreciation of the mystery of the liturgy. A superficial reading of the end of the Synoptic Gospels and the first chapter of Acts can give the impression that Christ simply departed. In the minds of readers not submissive to the Spirit a page has been turned; they need now to think of Jesus as in the past and to speak of what “he said” and what “he did.” They have carefully sealed up the tomb again and filled up the fountain with sand some churches in North America suffer from this problem literally when the local liturgical ideologue visits in Lent, dumps out the holy water from the stoops and fills them with sand!— my aside (Rhabanus); they continue to “look among the dead for someone who is alive” and they return to their narrow lives in which some things have to do with morality and others with cult, as in the case of the upright men and women of the old covenant. But in fact the ascension is a decisive turning point. It does indeed mark the end of something that is not simply to be cast aside: the end of a relationship to Jesus that is still wholly external. Above all, however, it marks the beginning of an entirely new relationship of faith and of a new time: the liturgy of the last times.” The Wellspring of Worship, tr. Matthew J. O’Connell (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press and Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), p. 36.

Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy) reminds readers that the Pantocrator which dominated the apse of Byzantine and Romanesque churches represented the ascended Lord who would return from Heaven in His glory to judge the quick and the dead. Corbon points out that the eastern churches would adorn the interior of their domes with the image of the ascended Lord who will return in glory – the rising Sun of justice.

This liturgy of the last times is something intuited if not explicitly stated by the artists and patrons of the majestic cathedrals and noble churches of Ireland. Examine the marble used in Armagh and Cobh – where did that marble come from? So pure and so clean! Note the excellence of both material and design.

Consider, too, the presence of so many saints around the altar – that great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews and to which the liturgy in the Apocalypse frequently alludes. These are the great witnesses who washed their robes clean in the Blood of the Lamb. Their statues are rightly carved with exquisite craftsmanship out of carefully selected stone or wood. Their attributes, clearly distinguishable to convey meaning, remind us of their martyrdom or, in the case of confessors, doctors, pastors, and virgins, various other contributions to the life of the Church by their life and by their holy death. They remind us likewise of their continued intercession for us. They, the Church Triumphant, call us, the Church Militant (coheris with them of Heaven), to joing the cosmic liturgy and to pray for the Church Suffering that we might all meet happily in Heaven – before the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Does one have to be a nineteenth-centruy Catholic to understand this perennial truth? Those who erected the monuments of faith that are the glory of the Church in Ireland had no doubt in their minds about the reality of the Communion of Saints. Vatican II underscored the importance of KOINONIA not only within the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but within the whole Church – in Heaven, on earth, and in Purgatory. How is any of this reflected in St John the Baptist in Drumaroad or its other contemporary packages?

Like Praxiteles, I would be interested to discover the meaning of the dark figures directly across from the chair (in front of the [side] door), and on what was likely the eastern wall at Drumaroad. What are they? Have they a purpose? A meaning? Were they covered up for Lent? What gives?

My point is that liturgical design reflects ecclesiology as much as it reflects an understanding of the liturgy itself. Between the models of nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century cathedrals/churches like Armagh and Cobh, and the latest wreckovations foisted upon congregations in the twenty-first century, as at Drumaroad and proposals elsewhere, a movement is clearly traceable from a Church confident in its identity as the Mystical Body of Christ arrayed hierarchically in mirror-image of the hierarchically-arrayed Church at liturgical prayer in the New Jerusalem (Heaven) to a group arranged only randomly, without regard to hierarchy (whether earthly or heavenly) and without much perceptible purpose or direction. Look carefully at the model of St J-B, Drumaroad. Defeatism, confusion and dysfunction, hollowness, sterility are all perceptible in the scattered lawn ornaments utterly out of proportion (and sync) with the vestigial architecture of the building’s outer shell.

In The Spirit of the Liturgy and elsewhere, Ratzinger cautions against the solipsism that is the fruit of the congregation turning inwards upon itself rather than oriented towards Christ. This, he insists, is essential to any worshipping community. The object of worship is unmistakable in the design and iconographic programmes of Armagh and Cobh. I fear that it is evident, too, in the postmodern example afforded above.

Any more details from Armagh, Fearg?