Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 30 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #770829

    [We await with baited breath to see how this one will play itself out!!![/QUOTE]

    I hope you mean bated – or has a trap been set for poor little Robin?

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768595

    Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:

    In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’s article on Iconoclasm and Liturgy which takes as its starting point the fact that “hardly a church remained unscathed in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council”. This undermines the appellants’ case that reordering had not been implemented in the rest of Europe and remains a peculiarly Irish practice.

    In posting #1365 you advised that the pontiff appointed Cardinals Mayer, Medina Estevez and Arinze “to put order on the liturgical chaos”. As the Cobh plans were approved by Cardinal Arinze this undermines the appellants case that the proposed reordering does not represent the established liturgical policy of the Vatican.

    In posting #1368 you advised that “the Catholic Church is hierarchically structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of People of God”. This undermines the FOSCC claim that the Bishop must have the consent of the parishioners before implementing the plans approved by Cardinal Arinze.

    Thank you.

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768485

    Surely the original text of Mark’s Gospel was written in Greek. The various Latin vulgates were later translations.

    Are you saying that you do not accept the authority of the English text of Mark’s Gospel which was read to the parishioners of Cobh at mass today?

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768483

    What happens when you apply your Catholic filter to hypocrisy? Does it somehow become righteousness?

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768480

    @Praxiteles wrote:

    I merely supplied you with the original texts for your contemplation. Nothing more nothing less. It is, I suppose, important that you hear the Gospel preached in the original rather than in a filtered version.

    Even in the latin (not the original) text, the missile of truth is still heading remorselessly for your afterburner. It is time to eject!

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768478

    Praxiteles resorts to Latin in the same way that a jet fighter spreads radar chaff to evade a SAM missile.

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768471

    Let us pray that Bishop Adrian of Cobh and the Elders of FOSCC will reflect on todays Gospel (Mark 7):

    ‘It was of you hypocrites that Isaiah so rightly prophesied in this passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless, the doctrines they teach are only human (planning) regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human(architectural) traditions.’

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #768328

    @Praxiteles wrote:

    The following would appear to be most recent list of members of the famous Art and Architecture Committee>

    Dr Jacinta Prunty is chairpeson and Reverend Patrick Jones is secretary.
    Other members are: Mr. Kevin Clancy, Mr Tom Glendon, Mr. Eamon J. Hedderman, Reverend Hugh Kennedy, Bríd Ní Rinn , Mr Paul O’Daly, Mr Brian Quinn, Mr George Walsh, Mr Alexander M. White.

    In relation to Cobh Cathedral, we know what P. Jones thinks following his recent article in the Irish Times / in which he omitted to mention that he had been at the Midleton Oral Hearing and appeared as a witness for the Trustees of the Cathedral.

    WE also know what Alex White thinks.

    Eamonn Hedderman-s views and advice to the bishops over a long period can be guessed at.

    Sr. Prunty wsas also involved in the Cobh Cathedral debacle. Why her advice should ever have been sought is a mystery. We understand that she is a historian specializing in 19th. century barrack building in Ireland.

    It is understood that Fr. Hugh Kennedy has close connections with the bishop of Cloyne / both are chaplains to the Order of Malta.

    How could this be!

    They are all out of step with the real Bishop of Cloyne +Adrian O Donovan!

    in reply to: The work of E. W. Pugin #765658

    @Gianlorenzo wrote:

    There you said it – once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community. That says it all. What was proposed in Cobh was not in accordance with the rules of the community, ie the Universal Catholic Church.
    What constitutes a ‘religious community’. Can it be possible that you think that a bishop – any bishop – along with a few of his clerical friends constitutes a religious community? Where does that leave the other 90% of people in Cobh in your reckoning?

    I agree that the crux is the right of each religious denomination to manage its own affairs and decide on its liturgical policy. But how should that decision be made in relation to Cobh Cathedral? Should matters of faith and morals be decided by plebiscite? If so, should the electorate be confined to the Catholic parishioners of Cobh or should it be a decision of the laity of the entire diocese? Would you include in the poll the a la carte Catholics who might only attend the Cathedral for family weddings, baptisms and funerals? I think it would be simpler to leave it to the Bishop who, I expect, will make the right decision in consultation with the Roman curia.

    in reply to: The work of E. W. Pugin #765651

    @publicrealm wrote:

    I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points – but I am intrigued by the above quote.

    Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure’?

    For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

    He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example – I would not share his ‘belief ‘but is his belief not akin to the ‘liturgical preference’ above?

    (and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)

    The difference is that freedom of worship is enshrined in the Constitution as is the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

    in reply to: The work of E. W. Pugin #765646

    @Gianlorenzo wrote:

    Sirius, you have failed repeatedly to explain to us the liturgical requirements for the re-ordering of churches that you appear to support and you have also failed to correct my assumptions regarding Monkstown I can therefore take it that Pugin and Ashlin’s little gem is Monkstown is due for complete interior destruction albeit that the exterior will be restored.

    I support the right of all religious denominations to reorder their places of worship in accordance with their own beliefs. I believe it is a matter for each denomination to decide when to revise their liturgy and, once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community, they should be entitled to practice that revised liturgy within their places of worship. If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.

    In the case of Cobh Cathedral, An Bord Pleanála accepted that the proposed reordering was based on liturgical requirements. However the Board decided that the proposed design was not the only way of meeting those liturgical requirements and that, as there appeared to be other options, the design submitted by the Trustees was probably not the best way of meeting those requirements. By framing the decision in this way the Board was effectively inviting the Trustees to submit a further application incorporating appropriate revisions to the design. I believe that anyone with experience of the planning process would support this interpretation of the “reasons and considerations” attached to the Board’s decision.

    As I am not a member of that community I do not see why Gianlorenzo should expect me to justify the liturgical requirements of the Catholic parish of Monkstown. Would he expect me to explain the liturgical requirements of the mosque in Clonskeagh?

    I am satisfied that Fr. Cotter has permission in accordance with the Planning Acts and Regulations. His architect set out in detail the extent of the reordering and the reasons therefore. These documents were available to the public. At a time when 24,000 were supposedly outraged about the reordering of Cobh Cathedral, not a single voice was raised against what appears to me to be a similar proposal for Monkstown parish church. I find that puzzling and the only explanation I can offer is that, while they are only a couple of miles apart, these two places of worship are located in different dioceses.

    in reply to: Cork Transport #779064

    @arch-i-tech-ur wrote:

    I have to do a project named place making
    Actually its a project to bring human activities to a dead space.
    The provided site is a religious monument which is now acting as a traffic island cause a road run round the site.
    The first problem of the project was to provide a way to pedestrian whic I solved by changing some traffic routes and provinding a pedestrian path to connect the site.
    Now the second problem I am facing is how to provide a reason to the people to visit the site.
    The site is religiously important to some group of people so its now being a target to only those people for others its dead.
    Since the site is on the major part of the city and monumental zone, its should be able to attract the rest of the people.
    I just dont want to create a market space since its very near to a popular commercial zone.
    Can any one suggest how I can attract people to my site.
    Something innovative!

    Have you considered faking a miracle along the lines of the famous moving statue which put Ballinspittle on the map

    in reply to: The work of E. W. Pugin #765640

    @Gianlorenzo wrote:

    Does anyone know exactly what is planned for Monkstown parish church. Sirius mentioned permission to re-order the church, but failed to answer my question as to what exactly was permitted.

    For the education of Gianlorenzo:

    The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
    The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
    The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
    The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
    The removal of two confessional boxes
    The relocation of the baptismal font
    The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
    The erection of tapestries
    The blocking up of an existing door ope

    The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
    The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

    There was no submission from An Taisce
    There were no submissions from the general public
    There was no request for further information
    The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

    Here endeth the lesson


    @Thomond Park wrote:

    But how else would you define local need other than actually working the holding?

    A lot of families living in rural areas are no longer directly involved in agriculture.


    @sw101 wrote:

    i’ve looked into half a doze sites around cork. people are looking for 150-200k for 3 to 4 acres of unzoned and unzoneable land which they advertise as having A3 zoning. the planner i spoke to said she gets requests for opinions on these sites all the time, and when i check the palnning history there’s almost invariably a refusal or three.

    problem i have is that it’s so easy to check all this out before handing over a penny. leaping and looking should only happen together in the right order.

    A3 is an agricultural zone and not a low density residential one. While there appears to be provision for local housing need, that is something of a mirage. The way the policy is currently being applied is reminiscent of Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22”. You have to be living locally and be homeless at the same time.

    The policy is deceptively simple. If you live outside the A3 zone you don’t qualify. If you already live within the A3 zone, but own you own house, you do not have a housing need. If your house is unfit or unsuitable for your requirements, you are disqualified for faking a housing need by not looking after your own house. In soccer terms that is the equivalent of “diving”.

    Your best chance of planning permission is if you are still living with your parents within the A3 zone. You may be required to sterilise the remainder of the family holding so that your younger siblings cannot follow your precedent. Alternatively you may be required to sterilise your parents, if they are still in a child bearing cohort (as defined by the CSO) to avoid creating a precedent for siblings who have not yet been conceived.

    Perhaps it would be better to stay within the jurisdiction of Cork City Council where the planners are humane beings and the rules of the game are administered by a referee of international standard, Ronnie McDowell, God bless him.


    @Kennie wrote:

    As I was passing delighted through Drogheda station and musing on the many merits of Prof. O’Neill’s many architectural triumphs, I was interrupted by my recalling the amazing news that the Bishops’ Conference is taking a concerned interest in the misdoings of Bishop Magee and his HACKs. I would have thought that by now, rather than getting themselves publicly associated with all the extraordinary mess in Cobh – the dire lobbying of public officers, the procedural omissions, the guff about liturgical requirements, the very proposal to destroy such a wonderful piece of Church architecture – they would do better to ponder the tsunami yet to come. For one thing, can you dig up the mosaic floor of a protected building with pneumatic drills and while a planning hearing is actually in course without the forces of law and order coming to call? It seems inevitable that the Bishops will have discussed that question, though behind closed doors. It by a remote chance they didn’t, perhaps they might feel the need to put it on the agenda for the next moot. We don’t need to reflect on liturgical requirements there. I mean, I feel confident that it is not required by any ecclesiastical rule.

    And what I say is, DON’T KNOCK PRAXITELES. Without her efforts, our lives in the last while would have been shorn of much beauty. The sort of beauty that even episcopal emissaries can’t get at with a pneumatic drill. I say this with immense serenity in the face of some ungenerous carping of late.

    Oh, Oh, I think we have a streaker on the pitch!


    @Thomond Park wrote:

    Serius there was a very good article in the Irish Property Valuer in December 2004 entitled ‘Faith Hope and Charity’ it analysed how builders had placed faith in a number of unzoned lands in the hope that the development plan would revise the zoning and how various local authorities apportioned re-zoning charity.

    As the transactions were purely commercial in nature I for one had no issue with either the practice or the article as all parties knew the risks and theoretically could take the losses if the re-zoning failed to materialise.

    However it has been evidenced in previous threads on this subject that many auctioneers are wilfully mis-selling ‘development potential’ when it is patently obvious that no planning would ever be forthcoming.

    The government need to pass legislation to stamp out this practice and I think that regulations need to be passed making it manditory that a buyers planning history information pack should be attached to all land transactions under 5 acres setting out all previous planning applications within 1 kilometere over the past 5 years.

    We have inherited an adversarial legal and planning system based on British common law. Many continental countries have a more rational system based on the Napoleonic Code. Property transactions are overseen by an independent Notary who has the responsibility to ensure that the planning and legal status of the site is clearly established and understood by both sides.


    @beolight wrote:

    just wondering whether anyone else has come across this very sharp practiseand whether or not they have had any similiar experiences

    recently 3 or 4 sites in the meath area have been advertised as potential one off housing sites, essentially agricultural land withroad frontage but heres the crux the auctioneer refuses to sell subject to planning but still insists that the value of these fields are in the region of 100k per acre rather than going rate for agri land 15/20k so the farmer is essentially in a win win situation

    every one of these sites that i have done quick searches on in planning office have turned out to be complete non runners with a litany of previous failed applications/sterlisation agreements/poor sightlines etc etc but yet i drive by them a few weeks later and i see sale agreed on the signs

    the latest one that has prompted this post is one stating that the site has excellent roadfrontage onto the N2, now a lot of people may not be aware of recent guidelines issued in relation to developments on national primary routes but i am sure that the auctioneer is well aware of this but when i rang enquiring about the site i was simply told that if your from the area you willget planning, as an aside i then asked the auctioneeer whether the site had any previous planning history and he tells me no

    a few phone calls later i find out who owns the site a quick internet search on meath countycouncil reveals 3 previous applications all rejected over a period of 10 years another phone call to the planner for the area and i find out that an bord pleanala had turned down the second application

    but what about the poor person who doesnt do their homework and goes ahead with these purchases??

    We live in a market economy. These auctioneers are not just selling land they are selling HOPE. If the price of land is 20k per acre and the price of hope is 80k, then the site really is worth 100k per acre. This practice is entirely honourable and professional as it is specifically targeted at hopeless people.


    @Praxiteles wrote:

    P.S. Oswald:

    If you are presenting a case to An BP, it should be presented in accordance with the terms of the LAW. That is the only thing that matters. Dump everything else, including the guidelines.

    Having sifted through your postings on the Cobh appeal I am struck by the recurring images of waste disposal. Earlier we were encouraged to “bin” the Inspector’s report and now we are asked to “dump” the Guidelines. Your attitude to waste management seems to be as Victorian as your liturgical views. Why don’t you try recycling these documents?


    @Gianlorenzo wrote:

    The appeal decision has advanced the protection of our ecclesiastical architectural heritage and hopefully what remains of a great period in Irish architecture as well as Irish Catholicism will not (sic) [did you mean “now”?] be preserved and appreciated for what it is.

    Should church architecture be preserved in a way that physically restricts liturgical change? In this particular case the decision happens to suit the liturgical conservatives. But what if a future Bishop of Kerry wanted to reorder St. Mary’s Cathedral and An Taisce insisted that the present layout of the sanctuary be preserved as one of the finest examples of late 20th century iconoclasm?
    The appeal decision is a Pyrrhic victory. If you hand over control of the sanctuary to the secular authorities will you ever be able to take it back? The liturgical debate should be resolved within the church and should never be brought into the planning process.
    FOSCC should support the Bishop’s right under the planning code to reorder the sanctuary in accordance the diocesan liturgical requirements. At the same time they should seek to influence those requirements by using the internal church procedures outlined by Dr. Kershaw.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 30 total)

Latest News