A ROW has erupted among the ranks of Bendigo’s catholic community over plans to change the inside of the Sacred Heart Cathedral.
The proposal includes moving the altar and Bishop’s chair from the sanctuary to just in front of the pews, and removing the alter rails.
The plan has angered church traditionalists who argue the sanctuary is a holy place and moving the altar would diminish the importance of the priest.
They also claim the cathedral, the last Early Gothic cathedral built in the world, remains almost untouched from the time it was built and should be preserved.
Those pushing for the change claim moving the altar would allow for greater inclusion.
The idea was first mooted about nine months ago and reappeared in September, last year.
The Bendigo Weekly believes a special liturgical committee has been asked to investigate how and what could be done.
Andrew Huntley is a traditionalist catholic in Bendigo who passionately believes the church should stay as it is.
“This should concern all Bendigonians,” he said.
“The Bishop should be the very person to protect tradition.
“He is thinking of playing around with something that is far too important.”
Mr Huntley said it was vital the cathedral was preserved as it was bequeathed to the current generation.
“We have got to keep the faith with those who built it,” he said.
“None of these proposed changes have been mandated by the Second Vatican Council. This also hasn’t come from the laity.
“If the Bishop isn’t stopped he will go ahead with it and only then will Bendigo realise what it has lost.
“This couldn’t be more important for Bendigo.”
Sacred Heart Presbytery administrator Monsignor John Duffus said the altar move was simply an idea.
“It is a discussion. We want to bring the altar closer to the pews. The Bishop’s chair is also a long, long way from them,” he said.
“Nothing has been planned or done. It has only been talked about.” Monsignor Duffus criticised Mr Huntley for speaking out about the issue.
“He is premature in jumping in. No decision has been made,” he said.
Dear Sir,
I am very disturbed about the "idea" to alter the magnificent "Sacred Heart Cathedral" in Bendigo. It is an edifice that all Australians can be justifiably proud of. One would have hoped by now that the Catholic clergy of the twenty first century had gotten over their infantile post Vatican II mania for the destruction of traditional houses of worship.
Dear Sir,
This a case of Bishop Grech rearranging the proverbial deck-chairs on the Titanic? Of all the urgent priorities the Bendigo diocese faces, the bishop has opted for distraction rather than to face-up to the crisis of Catholic identity that looms.
Having been to Europe in the past few years, I can see that it is the churches with the beautiful preserved traditional interiors that remain the object of interest throughout time. The interior artwork and layout of the preserved churches are testimonies to a precious heritage and are all expressions of love and the language of the sacred. Those who destroy this heritage are nothing but philistines who cannot understand people's need for their religious art, culture and history to be preserved.
I hope the people of Bendigo enlist the support of the appropriate conservation societies. It is one thing to pain and repair an interior - but another the destroy a precious liturgical, religious and historic legacy.
Why not use the money to house the homeless? That would be a better Catholic thing to do than destroy the fragile and precious links the ordinary people have with their past.
Dear Sir,
The Cathedral belongs to the people of Bendigo & we are very proud of it. Visitors of all persuasions visit it constantly. It is one of the first'places of note' we take out of town visitors to & they are so impressed & have never seen better. It is not for a Bishop to make changes as he is not a local.
Why would the bishop, at this point in time, insist on implementing the discredited policies of a failed liturgical agenda? 40 years of this sort of thing is enough.
It would appear that the pope agrees.
Comment #6
(Posted by Suzanne Russell)
Congratulations to the Bendigo Weekly for bringing this important issue to public notice. Let no one be fooled, when a Bishop’s “Liturgical Committee” initiates “discussion” about proposed changes to a Catholic church, beware! Such “discussion” is invariably code for “this is what we want and this is what we intend to do”. In my experience, no amount of logical argument, backed by statements from the competent authorities in Rome, will convince bishops or priests to desist from a destructive, architectural “idea”. The three weapons the laity have to use against prelate and priest vandals, are bad press, bad press, bad press – without let up! In 1997, Mr Robert Staas (NSW Heritage Council adviser on church properties), speaking on the widespread destruction of Australia’s Catholic architectural heritage, concluded that the Catholic Church generally has an “unfortunately philistine attitude” towards its heritage properties (SMH 12/7/97). (Mr Staas’ moderate language is charitable).
We have only a few beautiful cathedrals in this country. Bendigo is certainly one on that list. What need is there now, at this crucial stage of recent Church history, to descend back into a 60'S mentality when clearly the current Pope (for which we should all thank Our Lord for and pray) has signalled a completely different order.
To ask a 60's question, are we, and our bishops truly listening to the voice of The Holy Spirit,as was so earnestly encouraged in my generation?
Brent Egan
Stanmore, NSW
The Bendigo Eeekly are to be congratulated in bringing this disturbing news to a wider audience. We, with our children, many years ago visited this magnificent Cathedral, built by the pioneers of your city. We can still recall, after some 30 years, the feeling of belonging to our past in that most beautiful cathedral. To do any alteration would be an act of vandalism. It is a pity someone cannot find some aboriginal artefacts within the footprint of the Cathedral!
Comment #9
(Posted by Angela Robinson)
I would think that the commuity's high valuation placed on beautiful heritage architecture would be enough to put a stop to these kinds of plans. There are enough modern versions around. From a Catholic standpoint, many Catholics both young and old would like to see such Churches preserved and many would like to see a altar rails preserved and a return to a more dignified and contemplative approach to recieving Communion ( on our knees and unhurried). As for the claim that moving the altar down would make everyting more "inclusive"- this is evidence of the continuing dominance of clericalist mindsets that fail to even acknowledge the existance let alone value of lay sprituality and practice. According to them the only "involvement is clerical and psuedo-clerical activities-and how out of touch they are- with Vatican 2 and with all the lay movements and the meaning of the "New Evangelisation". Maybe the shortage of
priests will be made to bear good fruit by the Holy Spirit-perhaps by focusing the attention of our remaining clerics on the basics of their vocation -saying Mass and administering the sacraments- and serving the laity.
Comment #10
(Posted by Lucy O'Connell)
Who would meddle with such a beautiful house of God? Do we want to attract fewer people to our churches, and eliminate what little history and heritage we possess? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
The Cathedral of any city is the prime place in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated. All Catholics participate or are "included" in this Sacrifice if they share, in their hearts and minds, the Celebrant's intention to do what the Church has always done, namely make a Holy, living Sacrifice that is pleasing to Almighty God, The Faithful don't need to be any physically closer to the Altar than already is the case. I am a person with a disabilty whose life has required many a sacrifice, and I am quite capable of offering these, at Mass, in unity with Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, no matter how close to the Altar I'm sitting. So who needs this "inclusive" stuff? I agree with Andrew Huntley the Bendigonians can be justly pround of this beautfiful building which is part of their heritage.
I am a new Zealandand who was lucky enough to visit your Cathedral last year and was so amazed at how beautiful it is. Please do not alter it. You are so lucky to have it but you are only the caretaker of this Cathedral. It must be kept as it is for future generations.
I know a lady in the town I live in who wrote to the Bishop about this subject recently, she got a reply from the Bishop saying that there were no plans to do any alterations….clearly the Bishop was either misinformed of the current push that still rages on, or he hasn’t got word out to Mons Duffus.
I wonder if the Bishop has full control over his Priests who call the faithful 'out of order'? I don't know what is more out of order... the clearly modernistic ideal of 'integration of the people' as some like to call it, or defending the rights of a Catholic Church and the very principles it was built upon.
I think as soon as Mons Duffus retires so can this emotionally charged protestant modernistic ideal.
An ideal no doubt thought up from those who have lost all sense of grace and wish to damage the Holy of Holies to gratify the very emptiness that clearly needs filling.
People who wish such things clearly have no respect of the Vatican II documents where it is no where stated that Churches, more to the point Altars, have to be moved, torn down, changed or a miserable table put in it’s place.
It is a said fact indeed that the most beautiful Cathedral in Australia is without a High Altar…how about one of those instead?
The only one out of order here is Monsignor Duffus and those other modernists who are intent on removing what grain of sacred the post Vatican 11 Church has left us with. Leave OUR cathedral alone.
Sacred Heart Cathedral Bendigo is both a Catholic treasure and an Australian national treasure. I recall as a one-time visitor, the profound impact on me of its light-filled interior. It has great beauty and integrity. Buildings of this stature need to be conserved and cherished, not renovated and 'improved'.
Comment #16
(Posted by Ewa Grajewska)
I can only echo the many profound objections to the alterations apparently proposed for the Sacred heart Cathedral. Its architectural features are part of the heritage of the Catholic Church in Australia and as such should not be rearranged to suit the philosophical preferences of a few zealots. The money could be much better spent on a myriad worthwhile causes.
Sacred Heart Bendigo Cathedral is one of the last truly beautiful Catholic churches in Australia. Its structure, inside and out, inspire awe and draw one's heart to help understand the majesty of God. Altering something so beutiful would be like dethroning God and asking him to sit on a stool. God deserves more than that!
It would be a great shame if any changes were made to the sanctuary of Bendigo cathedral, which I have visited twice and which I plan on visiting again this year.
Any changes made on the pretense of 'inclusion' do not stand on practical grounds and cannot be justified according to principles of Catholic liturgy and architecture.
As an immigrant to Australia, I find it quite strange that so many Australian Catholics (and surprisingly, usually the older generations rather than the younger) seem bent on destroying so much of Australia's own heritage.
In an historical country town like Bendigo, which should take pride in preserving its heritage, moves to renovate such a wonderful cathedral are most unfortunate and seem entirely out of place. Renovations are bound to be an unpopular and will be an imprudent way to allocate funds.
Bendigo cathedral is one of the finest neo-Gothic cathedrals in the world, faithfully following the original principles of Gothic architecture, resulting in unsurpassed beauty. Were it to be reformed as suggested – no matter how “tastefully” – such changes would clash with the design and destroy its integrity. In Gothic churches, the only place the altar should be is in the sanctuary; outside is nonsense. Surely the building’s supervisors have more sense than this? Please leave well alone, and don’t wreck Bendigo’s finest building!
Comment #22
(Posted by Name Withheld)
"Those pushing for the change claim moving the altar would allow for greater inclusion".
It would not. It would merely allow the exclusion of those who have a Catholic understanding of divine worship.
When one goes to a concert there is a obvious designated area (stage)for the performers to be on so that they can be heard, command appropriate attention and do their job without distraction.
A church is a holy place that has always had and SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE obvious designated area (altar)for the priest to be on so that he can be heard, command appropriate attention and do his priestly job without distraction.
Since the "Inclusion"of the Congrigation started many years ago,I have seen the steady decline of the congrigations Australia wide ,maybe the money would be better spent establishing WHY?
Bad idea, Msgr Duffus, leave it alone! And how authoritarian to criticise someone for speaking out about his own cathedral! If you want to bring the priests closer to the people - that's the wrong way to start!
Comment #26
(Posted by John Corrigan)
As a young Catholic, I can only commend Bishop Grech on his efforts at reinvigorating what should always be a youthful Church. I can't imagine he will agree to the mooted changes. They're certainly not wanted by my generation, nor are they wanted by our grandparents' generation!!
If you want to see how empty and desecrated a Cathedral looks without its traditional High Altar, go to Auckland's St Patrick's Cathedral, which has lovely accoustics but the heart ripped out of it.
Some years ago Monsignor Arahill had the High Altar smashed up in the merry spirit of Vatican Two and broke the hearts of many Catholics. "Inclusion" is not the aim -that is just Marxist newspeak- it is to render a Cathedral less venerable to traditional Catholics and to marginalise them. No doubt Mons Duffus is pained by the success of the Christ the King pilgrimages and wants to hurt the faithful for it. Monsignor, I am out of order too like Catherine of Siena like Francis of Assisi like Athanasius I dare to be out of order and expose your agenda. Leave the lovely Bendigo Cathedral alone and spend the money instead on the many Bendigonians thrown out of manufacturing work by dry economics in the last twenty years.
Comment #28
(Posted by Tom)
What benefit could this change possibly bring? Hundreds of Catholic churches across the country have been recovated in the name of "inclusion" and with what result? Falling rates of practice! Being more "inclusive" only seems to result in excluding more people.
The people have not asked for this change, why waste their money on it? Why desecrate the offerings of Bendigonians past, the current sanctuary, altar and cathedra, just to make a few daggy, out of touch priests feel better? One day these sort of priests will have to work out the difference between the baby and bath water!
The only people who push these agendas are out of touch priests and middle aged women who wish to be priests, and are just as out of touch! All of them with a not so hidden agenda to change the Catholic Church's teachings on anything and everything that challenges them to change the way they live.
Its often said, if it aint broke, don't fix it! Sacred Heart Cathedral certainly isn't broken, so don't even try to 'fix' it!
Comment #29
(Posted by Tom)
I might also add the wisdom of the Anglican poet, and once Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, John Donne (just to be inclusive and ecumenical), "He who marries the spirit of the age will quickly find himself a widower."
Comment #30
(Posted by an unknown user)
Unfortunately for John, see above, the Bishop himself has always felt his Cathedra is too far away from 'the people' so don't be too surprised if these proposals are coming from the top, as unwanted as they may be at the bottom.
After reading this report about proposed changes to the Cathedral, I am most dissapointed at the way in which a group of Bendigo Catholic choose to voice their opinion in the public domain without first checking some salient details. There has been no decision made regading the placement of any of the sacred furnishings of the Cathedral. As the Diocesian Liturgist I can say with certainty that there is no "special liturgical committee" assigned to look at perminant changes the the Cathedral interior. The report is spurious and appears to be a personal attack upon the Bishop of the Diocese who has not personally come to any decision regarding the placement of the santuary area or its furnishings. To say that this issue "couldn't be more important for Bendigo" diminishes the truly important issues of our area and its people. I support Monignor Duffus in his comments that no decision has been made.
Quote: “He is premature in jumping in. No decision has been made,” he said.
If negative comments were received after a decision was made, would this make it more appropriate? Obviously now is the time to down this idea, which is inconsistent with Catholic tradition, particularly at a time when the Pope is planning to restore more traditional style worship. (universal latin-mass indult).
It is a sad time when we see the modernist lobby getting away with so much in the Diocese of Sandhurst, while the bishop is distracted with stopping 'aesthetic' changes to his church. Sacred Heart Cathedral is an inspiration, both inside and out, to all people who truly love the Catholic faith, because it is one of the few churches left in Australia in which one can truly feel the presence of God.
'Greater inclusion'? Next, we'll be seeing people of other faiths receiving communion in the name of 'tolerance and diversity'.
Comment #34
(Posted by Tom)
Denise, you betray yourself. No decision has been made, you say, as to the placement of the altar and other sacred liturgical appointments, which seems to suggest that a decision has been made to move them, even if you don't know where! The first question should be "is it necessary to move them at all?" And the answer to that is certainly NO!! Why ask the faithful to pay for something they don't want? Your services, perhaps, are another example.
Why a member of the laity is in charge of liturgy in the diocese one has to wonder? All the liturgical books are quite clear enough for any priest with half a brain to read and follow. In fact the Second Vatican Council, in its infinite wisdom declared in the document on the liturgy (have you ever read it?) Sacrosanctum Concillium (apologies if my spelling is incorrect) that no priest should alter, add, delete or vary in any way the texts of the sacred liturgy as laid down by the church. In fact priests even promise not to screw with them at their ordination "do you promise to celebrate the sacred mysteries AS THEY ARE HANDED DOWN BY THE CHURCH?"
So why not put some effort into getting priests to celebrate these sacred mysteries properly, in a sacred way, and worry less about the "inclusiveness" or otherwise of the Cathedral's sanctuary. The only possible change for the better that could be made is to bring our Lord and his tabernacle into the centre of the sanctuary (that may be asking too much, however).
Rather than go trashing what precious little remains of their liturgical heritage, the intellectual giants of the hierarchy would better spend their time asking why so many of their churches lie empty.
Continue with the iconoclast and man-centric novelties of the last four decades and, ironically, the great cathedrals will eventually be restored by the caretakers of the museums they will become...
Comment #36
(Posted by Louis)
I will chain myself to the Altar rails, as would many who have commented on this issue, before any changes are made.
A friend in Bendigo rang and told me about the article in the Bendigo Weekly, suspecting rightly that I would want to add my voice to any protest about changing the altar and altar rails in the Cathedral.
So far, 36 people have taken the time to write in protest at the changes - but there are no "people" who having read about the proposal see enough merit to write and applaud it. Surely that speaks for itself. Now that the Weekly has publicised the issue and virtually held a poll - surely Bishop Joe will realize how the majority of his people feel and abandon the idea.
Having survived the ravages of Vatican II's destruction of SO many of my religion's churches over the course of my very brief 46 years, I think Mr. Huntley has good reason to be upset or "out of order" as the bishop quaintly describes him.
Brent Anthony Egan
Stanmore NSW
Having visited the Cathedral as a tourist I was most impressed by its structure and magnificence. Any modification would detract from its structure as a prayerful and fitting place of worship. I pray the integrity of the building, according to its original purpose and design is respected. It is a great example of skillful architecture and should be preserved as such.
Comment #40
(Posted by Simon Greener)
Given the existing track record of the Catholic clergy, bishops and their liturgical wreckavators will always do what they want regardless as to what we laity think: we are used to the hypocracy of their illiberal "listening" processes.
If the altar is moved for reasons of "greater inclusion" (New Church speak for a 1960s time-warped view of the meaning of liturgy) or the Bishop’s chair moved because "[it] is also a long, long way from them" (ehh, sorry Mons, the Liturgy is not about him!), we younger Catholics will one day have our day and we will change it all back!
Pope John Paul II apologised for almost everything but the PAIN, SUFFERING and HURT post-Vatican II bishops and their liturgical "experts" caused my parents' and grandparents' generation when they destroyed the beautiful liturgy, vestments, church plate and altars they paid for (not the clergy) because they (the people) "loved the beauty of God's House".
If any bishop or priest in Oz wants to alter his Cathedral or church, IMHO he should start with an apology for what was done by those before him in the name of the Vatican Council. Once this is done, closure might just be effected for a lot of hurt people. Only then might we start to trust them. But, looking at the comments to this article, they have a long way to go before those of us faithful that are left will do so.
Last year I saw your beautiful cathedral. I have seen quite a few churches/cathedrals here and in Europe. Yours rates up with the best in all respects. I was stunned by the wonderful light inside. Please don't change anything. Too many church buildings have been diminished over the last forty years.
People of Bendigo, you have so many beautiful old buldings please keep looking after them and keep changes to only those that are necessary.
I am dismayed that any plans have even been mooted to destroy the authentic style of this cathedral. The proposed changes would cause anachronisms which would only disturb the true ambience and make people uncomfortable -- the opposite of the ostensible reasons for change. The word for this kind of thing is WRECKOVATION. Surely the heritage people will forbid it, even if the bishop has not enough nous to do so.
Comment #43
(Posted by Brad Thomas)
I really can't understand why John Forster (Comment #33) would bring up 'people of other faiths receiving the Blessed Sacrament' in the context of this discussion. Comments of this sort do nothing for inter-religious dialogue!
I would like to thank the Bendigo weekly for this opportunity.
I would like to ask a simple question of Bishop Joe Grech,
" What is wrong with the Bendigo Catholic Cathedral as it is? "
In passed times if someone was to wreck a church like what is planned, they would have been revolutionaries and definitely not Catholic.
The bishop must remember it is God's House, not his. Those Catholics that financed the building of this church and many others would be turning in their graves. This type of change happened in Benalla, after the fire in 1989. Before the fire and the team ministry, there were over 1200 people attending sunday mass. Within twelve months after the team ministry were appointed the figure had dropped to around 700. May 16 1993 the figure had dropped to 543, and the figure has steadily dropped ever since. The Benalla church has been recently changed again,at great expence; and for what? The Mass attendance has not increased, but is gradually decreasing. How long will it take the Bishops and priests to realise, it is Gods house, they are His servants! God would want a place of honour and respect as He deserves.
For those that wish to dishonour or disrespect God and His house; A mill stone will be waiting for you!!!
God bless those that have the faith, hold firm and stay strong, may we all meet in Heaven,
Jacob Slee
I've seen the Cathedral - its awesome and I really oppose the proposed change.
BTW, a prize for clerical arrogance to Monsignor Duffus. So the simple laity shouldn't expreess views while the clergy are considering what to do. Gee, we know the laity won't count for anything once the decision is actually taken and the tender advertised.
I visited the Bendigo Cathedral four years ago while on holiday in Australia, and again last year, and was bowled over by it.
"I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house, and the place where thy glory dwelleth."
I am bowled over in rather a different sense at this report of the proposed vandalism.
I am a reporter for a newspaper in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. A few weeks ago the old cathedral in nearby Baltimore was re-opened after a renovation project lasting three years that cost millions of dollars - and which restored the cathedral to its original condition when built early in the 19th century.
While everyone is entitled to express an opinion on any possible changes to the Cathedral, I am very disturbed by those people who have used this topic to make personal comments in regard to our Bishop and Monsignor Duffus. Monsignor is responsible for the very prayerful and dignified liturgies that are conducted week in and week out at the Cathedral. He is the one who can be seen with a mop and bucket cleaning up when a storm has allowed water to seep into the Cathedral. He has also often been seen wandering around the grounds in the early morning with a garbage bag cleaning up the mess left by Saturday night revellers. It is his parish congregation which holds regular working bees to keep the Cathedral in its beautiful condition. He is a man of prayer who cares greatly for the Cathedral and his congregation. My understanding is that all we are talking about here is a discussion of possibilities. I believe that comments should be in relation to the ideas under discussion and not uncharitable comments in regard to God's people.
I believe that the Bendigo Cathedral should be preserved unaltered. It would be a great pity to make any change to accomodate ,what could turn out to be , short term Liturgical ideas of the few.In a shot time people could be seaching for the parts of their church in order to put it bach the way it was. I believe that this has already happened in U.S.A. Inclusiveness is a state of mind, not a state of the furniture.As regular visitors to the Cathedral, this family would be saddened to see any changes.
Mary Richards
R>M.B.1274
Blampied
3364
Firstly, I need to express my disappointment in both the unresearched article and the tone of many of the comments. Personal attacks are totally out of place. Christians trying to point score off each other are not acting in a Christ like way. The article gives no background to what was a small niggling matter until blown out of all proportion in an ill-considered article and a mischievious on line poll when people are being polled without being given a clear choice or range of options with a calm and rational explanatin of these.
Secondly, to go to the article, the issues was raised by a member of the laity, namely myself. However, the issue raised was the possibility of removing the Altar Rails. From this we have a Mr. Andrew Huntley, quite unknown to any regular worshippers at the Cathedral blowing it into a whole scale renovation of the building!
The proposal to remove the (rather un-gothic and ugly) Altar rails was to open up the sanctary area and lead to a more inclusive participation. The liturgy is not the preserve of one person, the priest but the ritual worship of the total community with Christ present in four visible ways: in the community, in the priest, in the Word (hence the importance of the Ambo) and in the Bread and Wine (Body & Blood)on the Atar. Each is regarded with equal importance and reverence, with the Altar rails present we, the people are made to look an unequal partner.
At a Parish meeting, some 9 months ago the idea of removing the altar rails was mentioned to the Parish. It had already been discussed and approved by the Parish Liturgy Advisory Group. At that well represented meeting only two parishioners had objections. These were to do with security during the day time. Not a problem in churches and other cathedrals without altar rails. Originally they were there to keep the sheep off the sanctuary!!!
At the next Parish Meeting we had a group of parishioners and pople who use the cathedral stack the meeting and attack the proposal in a most unchristian like manner. This happenned again at asubsequent meeting. This group of ultra conservatives are trying to take over a well run parish which has a strong mission outreach to the poor and needy and take it back to pre Vatican II days. Something, I might add which is totally out of step with the Pope and the Church as a whole. In the past after Councils of the Church there was often a split from the Church of these ultra conservatives and the mainstream Church went of with its mission of bringing Christ to the world. Unfortunately after Vatican II this did not happen so they exist within the Church as a cancerous sore trying to destroy the work of the Church from within under the guise of being "good" people, making life hell for the rest. You have only to look at some of the intemperate comments posted to see this.
S8nce I came to Bendigo, over 26 years ago, there has been constant talk and speculation as to when we would re order the interior. It has always and still is only talk. If you understand what Monsignor Duffus, the Cathedral Administrator said you will understand that why it is inappropriate for this discussion is that there has been no group formed of clergy or lay people to look at the issue. If and when that happens it will be a group like the Diocesan Liturgical Commission (which employs a fine Diocesan Liturgist so unjustly villified in comment 34 by someone without the guts to give his surname!) and the Council of Priests. A committee, when formed, would then take expert advice form theologians, liturgists and ecclessial designers to draw uo proposals for consideration. The Bishop, Joseph Grech, is the final arbiter in this matter. Our Bishop is a very sensible person with a great respect for the building and the ideas of all his faithful. he deserves more respect than has been accored by some of these intemperate writers. Indeen in Vatican II and subsequent documents each Diocesan bishop is regared as the Vicar of Christ in his Diocese. So if he is Christ for us and we as community are Christ for each other I think we should be showing more respect and reverence to each other.
Thirdly, it is incorrect to say that the Cathedral reflects the heritage bequeathed to us. In the form we have it now, and it is a fantastic structure, it does not represent the original internal lay out. The current Altar area is quite different. Liturgically it has problems of poor sight lines. Something obvious to any educator who has taken a class there for Mass and been given seats near the back---they can't see the Altar let alone the Bishop sitting on his throme, the cathedra. So we need to be informed properly before we shoot off at the hip and display our ignorance in public.
Lastly, the poll percentages of the votes mean nothing as no clear alternative were given or outlined. No one would want to change a fine building for no reason. I come with a background of music, liturgy, theology and respect for the past to this. I come well informed about the Cathedral having worshipped and worked there for the past 26 years, indeed in the Centenary of the Nave year, 2001 I researched and wrote thr tour guide notes. I have been a past presiden of the Bendigo Branch of the National Trust of Victoria so I have reverence and respect for our heritage. I also chair the Diocesan Liturgical Commission (through the right of my Baptism! I also chair the Parish Liturgy Advisory Group and the Sacred Heart Cathedral Parish meetings. If i had had known how divisive the issues of Altar rails would become I probably would have not bothered as the good of the parish community comes first, however, if it is to be a battle between the ultra conservatives and the ordinary believers maybe it is time to have the fight. However, what woulf Christ do?
Can I commend you to read Comment 47 by Judy Browne, Monsignor Duffus is a great priest, most attentive to his people and one who listens. Denigrating him simply discredts any opinion of the acusers in the eyses of those who know him and that is mosy of Bendigo. I was also disapointed to see a memebr of the group who come and use the Cathedral once a year, the Christ the King pilgrimage. This lot of conservative catholics are so out of date that they still celebrate according to the 1962 calendar and being present at one of the old Latin masses is to wach a group of males, dressed in rather well embroidered "frocks" with habits and biretas play actining out the sacred liturgy. Liturgy is more than rubrics.
I hope in future that when the Bendigo Weekly decides to publish a controversial article it will take time to research it properely and give the reader someting meaningful to vote between. All that has happened has been quite mischievious.
Comment #50
(Posted by Tom)
Perhaps John Hogan could do some research of his own. You will find that Holy Mother Church does not teach us that there are 4 EQUAL presences of Christ in the liturgy but that the actual, real and substantial presence of Christ under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine, that is, his actual body and blood, soul and divinity is the greatest presence, since it is... the real presence!
If he researched a little harder he will also find that the altar rail was not a fence to keep sheep out but in fact a development from the rood (cross) screens you will still find in many of the ancient cathedrals and Churches of Europe.
Your assertion that conservatives "stacked" the meeting just further prooves the point that when people like yourself have set an agenda you won't let anyone, even the parishioners get in the way. Why did they all turn up? Well probably because they heard of the idiocy of the plans you had pushed through at the previous meeting.
To label them as "ultra-conservatives" is also unfair, though they are trying to "conserve" the faith past down to us by the apostles and the heritage of the diocese of Sandhurtst. Not heritage you say? Perhaps not to the National Trust, but who paid for those rails? Do you know? Did they offer that money in memory of a loved one who had died? Yet you would happily offend (and exclude) them to make yourself feel more included.
As to security you will find that other Cathedrals without rails do have major problems. St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne for instance has to keep rope barriers and signs warning of "No Public Access" around its main altar and yet tourists regularly ignore them and step over, however, they don't climb over the more permanent looking altar rails which mark off the chapels in the ambulatory.
And, as to the position of the Holy Father on such an issue, he has spoken and written at various times in his long ministry as a priest, a theologian, a liturgist, a bishop, head of CDF and many other roles of the value of some of the more traditional practices of the Church, the use of altar rails to clearly mark out the sanctuary and the value of celebrating to the liturgical east, that is with the priest standing at the head of the flock on the same side of the altar offering on their behalf the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, refer to "The Spirit of the Liturgy", Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press.
Australia is privileged to have such a Cathedral in it's possesion. It is an inspiring triumph of Catholic worship which we have no right to deface. We have a duty to preserve that which was handed down to us, so that those who follow will in the same manner be brought closer to God.
"This lot of conservative catholics are so out of date that they still celebrate according to the 1962 calendar and being present at one of the old Latin masses is to wach a group of males, dressed in rather well embroidered "frocks" with habits and biretas play actining out the sacred liturgy. Liturgy is more than rubrics."
I am not a member of the abovementioned group.
Nevertheless, what a lot of emotive, sentimental rot John Hogan's comment is!
Hey Man, get out of that 60's and early 70's time warp - people of my generation are sick of ridiculous, ageing flower children.
The Hon John Hogan isn't very ecumenical now is he!!!
My my… If he wants to truly get personal so be it…
*…ahem…*
How dare you insult the history of the Church with your pathetic, neo-con, education system, communistic, modernistic, protestant, feminazi, 1970’s uni education styled words.
The Church was founded upon the very things you insult. Without it we would have nothing….not even an organ.
I find it interesting that the 3 people who have commented in favour of 'the Bishop' or 'the Mons' or the very political stance of 'discussions' are employed by the diocese...I'm sorry, but we Catholics have just had about enough of the tripe they dish out to us on Sundays and the vile things you accept as education for our children.
So what if some of us like the Missal of 1962 ( a Mass that his Lordship Bishop Grech has granted us approval of in Sandhurst), we like it more than the Marty Haugen and David Hass music they pierce our ears with every Sunday or the pathetic attempt of getting ‘youth’ involved in the ‘liturgies of the word’ or that piece of rag they call the sandpaper or whatever it is, ...no wonder the pews are empty.
The Protestant’s of the 16th century called they want their ideas back.
Comment #54
(Posted by Michele B.)
John Hogan, I fail to see how the Sacrament of Unity, also known as the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, wherein He is in us, and we in Him, is not 'inclusive'. Hello? We get to partake of the Divinity of Christ, His very Self, and are joined to all Catholics through all ages in that one transcendent moment of perfection and you're worried about 'inclusiveness'? You think you can improve on that unity and 'inclusiveness' by removing the very symbol of the Sacredness of the place where the Most Holy Sacrifice is made present? I think not.
I also think it is important to point out that whilst Sacred Heart Cathedral is obviously a link to the past and the proud heritage of Bendigo parishioners, it is also the heritage of any member of the faithful, and we should all be willing to defend it, being One Church, with One Faith, passed down by the Apostles, instituted by Christ, with Him as Her Head.
You have a beautiful Cathedral. Anyone who has seen the St Steven cathedral in Brisbane would be horrified. That hideous thing hanging above the hideous table. Apparently it's Jesus, apparently it's an alter, bloody hell, apparently it's a CATHOLIC Cathedral. The Stations of the Cross have been totally reinvented, something wrong the old ones? The figures look like alien creatures, absolutely disgraceful. It used to be a beatiful place of worship. I was working in the city for a year a few years back and decided to go there for half an hours peace and quiet and offer a Rosary. Thet say there is merit in fighting through distraction, but this was heartbrake, I couldn't take it. I just started going to the park. At least it hasn't been destroyed by a modernist Arch Bishop who doesn't seem to care. If your ever in Brisbane, don't go there. As for this wreckovation of your Cathedral, don't go ther either.
Sorry about the spelling mistakes. Anger and nerves.
Comment #57
(Posted by David D)
Mr Hogan,
Altar rails form part of an until recently unbroken Catholic tradition of 'veiling' what is sacred. They are the vestige of the rude screen and the iconostasis. I've no idea where the 'sheep fence' idea came from. Removing the rails for the sake of a spurious inclusiveness, represents a rejection of an universal tradition (in both East and West) the depth of which seems not to be simply passed over and unaddressed in this debate. I suggest a reading of chapter 10, 'Revelation through Veiling' of Martin Mosebach's 'The Heresy of Formlessness' put out by Ignatius Press. It's a real eye-opener.
I wish to comment further Mr. Hogan's post which seems to need clarification.
"Personal attacks are totally out of place."
So practice what you preach Mr. Hogan. You have had a couple of nice swipes at folk in your comments.
"a small niggling matter until blown.."
THIS IS NO SMALL NIGGLING MATTER MR. HOGAN
"the issues was raised by a member of the laity, namely myself. However, the issue raised was the possibility of removing the Altar Rails. From this we have a Mr. Andrew Huntley, quite unknown to any regular worshippers at the Cathedral blowing it into a whole scale renovation of the building!"
Well I have never met you and I don't recall you ever meeting me, Mr. Hogan so does that mean I have no say in the future of my cathedral?...and who, with all due respect, are you to suggest such atrocities?
"with the Altar rails present we, the people are made to look an unequal partner."
I am unequal to the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That is why I genuflect and pay homage.
"Not a problem in churches and other cathedrals without altar rails. Originally they were there to keep the sheep off the sanctuary!!!"
Why would you ever let sheep into the Cathedral in the first place ?
I do hope you didn't stage one of those modernist 'plays' to try to help explain to children the parable of The Good Shepherd in the cathedral!
"At the next Parish Meeting we had a group of parishioners and pople who use the cathedral stack the meeting"
Since when is hearing about an issue being concerned and attending a meeting 'stacking' ?
"This group of ultra conservatives are trying to take over a well run parish ..."
Now I'm really insulted if you 'tag' those who want to retain the sacredness of the cathedral as conservatives. Surely, Mr. Hogan you know the difference between a traditionalist and a conservative.
a Traditionalist seeks to preserve Catholic tradition , a conservative is a modernist in slow motion.
" Unfortunately after Vatican II this did not happen "
I will let Pope Paul VI speak here (on the 9th. anniversary of his pontificate)-
"We believed that after the [Second Vatican] Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God"
" S8nce I came to Bendigo, over 26 years ago, there has been constant talk and speculation as to when we would re order the interior. "
Who is "we"
"If and when that happens it will be a group like the Diocesan Liturgical Commission (which employs a fine Diocesan Liturgist ..."
In whose opinion?
"... it is incorrect to say that the Cathedral reflects the heritage bequeathed to us. In the form we have it now, and it is a fantastic structure, it does not represent the original internal lay out."
Two wrongs NEVER make a right Mr. Hogan...but a wrong decision restored with a right decision can begin to mend the strife. Let's restore the Cathedral to it's original form.
" I come with a background of music, liturgy, theology and respect for the past to this. I come well informed about the Cathedral having worshipped and worked there for the past 26 years, indeed in the Centenary of the Nave year, 2001 I researched and wrote thr tour guide notes. I have been a past presiden of the Bendigo Branch of the National Trust of Victoria so I have reverence and respect for our heritage. I also chair the Diocesan Liturgical Commission (through the right of my Baptism! I also chair the Parish Liturgy Advisory Group and the Sacred Heart Cathedral Parish meetings"
THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO WRECK OUR CATHEDRAL.
"If i had had known how divisive the issues of Altar rails would become I probably would have not bothered as the good of the parish community comes first,"
Good, so now that you do know do you plan to back off?
"Can I commend you to read Comment 47 by Judy Browne",
I did. I thought Judy Browne's comments about Monsignor Duffus were pathetic. Surely she could find something better to say about a holy man of the cloth than that. Is this what the holy priesthood has been reduced to? What about his ability to forgive sins and to turn a lowly piece of bread into the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
"I was also disapointed to see a memebr of the group who come and use the Cathedral once a year,"
Those of us on the outskirts of the diocese who do not get to the cathedral very often are therefore not worthy of comment either?
"to wach a group of males, dressed in rather well embroidered "frocks" with habits and biretas play actining"
How dare you insult the Holy Priesthood. His Lordship Bishop Grech would be highly offended by this remark.
Mr. Hogan, I think you may be slightly "out of order"
Comment #59
(Posted by Wise)
I think that this issue has total become out of hand. Too many bods are becoming emotive about it and making personal attacks.
It seems to me from my research into the Bendigo Cathedral, that it was never finished off.
Having been to an ordination recently, I noted that the priests were on all angles of facing the altar. There is not room on the sanctuary for even the bishop to be seen from the pews. When the bishop preached, no body in the pews could see him as he was hidden behind the eagle.
The changes I would make:
I would move the altar slightly forward. It seems that the article indicated the altar beginning where the pews are. This is some what too far.
I would also move the cathedra off to the right side of the altar bringing him forward similar to the St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne.
I would also move the tabernacle to the back wall of the sanctuary to make it visible from the nave.
You would be able to keep the altar rails and preserve them. It would prove to be a better setup for public worship. Sacred Heart is no place for shortage of space.
I am sure that Bishop Grech in his wisdom and experience will endeavour to make the best choice for the People of God who he has been entrusted to care for.
God Bless you all!
Comment #60
(Posted by Greg Briscoe-Hough)
I visited this noble Cathedral some years ago as part of my Sacristan liasion tour to Victoria. Like the Mons, I too have had the privilage of mopping floors and picking up garbage.
Talking about garbage, the outdated ideas of those employed by the diocese and their double speak is so typical as to be a lightning rod. Congrats on the local press for doing the job of the clergy - edification of the faithful.
Regarding the comments of Monsignor Duffus. He may well be a great priest, but, if reported correctly, he threw the first stone and showed very little pastoral tact. Almost as good as another Mons in Sydney, when I objected about a tourist facility in the crypt of St Mary's in Sydney saying "you are no longer part of the cathedral family..."
As for the validity of Mr Hogans rambling pontifications lets look at two quotes from succesive paragraphs:
a) At a Parish meeting, some 9 months ago the idea of removing the altar rails was mentioned to the Parish. It had already been discussed and approved by the Parish Liturgy Advisory Group. At that well represented meeting only two parishioners had objections.
b) If you understand what Monsignor Duffus, the Cathedral Administrator said you will understand that why it is inappropriate for this discussion is that there has been no group formed of clergy or lay people to look at the issue.
One or the other is true.
The furphy regarding Mr Hogans baby, the Diocesan Liturgical Committee - this is something the Bishop can canonically completely by-pass & ignore, just as Cardinal Pell has in Sydney, and this means that the bishop is the sole arbiter in matters liturgical in his Cathedral. We pary he will heed the need of his flock and not alienate those that pay Mr Hogans wage.
My final comment on Mr Hogan's learned 'magnum opus' is a classic example of both little thought & answering your own question:
"Lastly, the poll percentages of the votes mean nothing as no clear alternative were given or outlined. No one would want to change a fine building for no reason."
A clearer 'do nothing' alternative never hath there been. Here endeth the lesson. Dea Gratias.
G J Briscoe-Hough
Convenor, Australian Faith & Heritage Society
Drear Sir
What an amazing Cathedral the Sacred Heart in Bendigo is, and its not the alter that needs moving, nor the interior that needs changing, I believe its the clergy that need to move, this does not add to church tradition but just alters it, which just makes it unauthentic. We do not look to our clergy for interior decorative advice and nor should they encourage changing church interiors, and where is the laws to stop and protect great historical structures such as this cathedral from vandals not just ouside but within the church.
Marcel Mike
Having briefly visited the Cathedral some time ago, my husband and I were very impressed with the grandeur of this Cathedral and would be very saddened if any changes were made. With most modern churches, the sense of the sacred has been lost but with buildings of the calibre of this great Cathedral there is or should be a greater sacredness which is very conducive to true prayer and worship of our God. St Stephen's Cathedral in Brisbane has lost its sense of the sacred since the extensive alterations/additions some time ago and I was literally moved to tears seeing what I consider an excuse for a Tabernacle where Our Divine Lord is present. We pray that this will not happen to Bendigo Cathedral.
"to wach a group of males, dressed in rather well embroidered "frocks" with habits and biretas play acting."
I would like to say, that as a young Man growing up in Australia, tradition has been an anchor for my faith.
I'm sure many of you would agree that there is no comparison between how well one can pray and enter into the mystery of Calvary at a traditional Latin Mass as opposed to a Novus Ordo Mass.
I mention this as a response to the above remarks of John Hogan, which are so highly offensive and seem devoid of charity and discretion.
I would ask you Mr Hogan; at the moment of consecration, do you see the Word descend from heaven into the hosts with the eyes of your body?
Or do you see with the eyes of your body Our Divine Lord present on the altar?
Why then do you say: "Liturgically it has problems of poor sight lines."
Have you visited the many churches throughout europe that still have choir stalls/ altar rails and a traditional layout?
Millions of Catholics throughout history have worshipped and prayed in such churches - countless Saints of the western church have been formed in the context of the traditional Latin Mass.
There is no limit to what could be said in order to expound the innumerable benefits, strengths and glories of the traditional latin Mass, all that needs be said to show how poor - by comparison - the Novus Ordo Mass is in sanctifying the faithful and effecting in the souls of the faithful that which Christ desires; all that needs to be said or pointed out is the tragic decline in attendance to mass by Catholics - but especially by the Catholic youth.
I have attended Traditional masses in many places, and I have always observed this same trend - the vastly higher numbers of youth - compared with novus ordo masses.
In France, children are saying to their parents "I want to to go to that new mass" - speaking of the Latin Mass. I personally know many people who have converted to Catholicism through attending the traditional mass... I also know and have heard of many young people who have come to a Novus Ordo Mass thorough friends or acqaintances, and who have not taken a liking to it, and have not returned.
St Paul said "stand firm, and hold fast to all the traditions that i taught you"
I have seen and heard of countless examples - in Europe and America - of the same thing: where tradition is held to steadfastly, the Church flourishes. Where tradition is abandoned, the church declines.
To Mr Hogan and those with similar views I would say:
You are a dying breed and part of a great failed experiment. All over the world traditional communities (also communities of monks and nuns) are flourishing, while communities of people who think like you are dying out, and there are no youth to replace you...
Much of the confusion about liturgy in the Church in recent decades stems from a defective understanding of its (the liturgy's) purposes.
One often hears - even from priests, who should know better - that the purpose of the liturgy is to (yes let me use the accursed phrase) 'celebrate community.'
Leave aside the question of how grown men can talk like that & keep a straight face.
The fact is that the statement is totally false. The purpose of the Mass is not to celebrate community. That is rotten blasphemy and rank heresy. In no sense whatever is the purpose of the Mass to 'celebrate community'.
As Vatican II says in its document on the Sacred Liturgy, the purpose of the Mass is 'the worship of the Divine Majesty'. We go to Mass to worship God.
If you want to 'celebrate community,' go to a school athletic match (in America, I would have written 'a Friday night high school football game') or a parish picnic or a wedding reception. If you insist on using the silly phrase, you can call those things a celebration of community.
But not the Mass. We go to Mass to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, to participate in the heavenly liturgy, where the angels and saints unceasingly fall down before the throne of God singing HOLY HOLY HOLY.
The bond between men, of every age and race and condition, that this common worship creates is far deeper than the proponents of liturgical experimentation can imagine.
Pope Benedict XVI, when still Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote the following lines in his book 'The Spirit of the Liturgy':
"Kneeling does not come from any culture -- it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God. The central importance of kneeling in the Bible can be seen in a very concrete way. The word proskynein [to kneel before] alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly Liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own Liturgy....
After considering several Biblical passages, Cardinal Ratzinger continues: "I have lingered over these texts, because they bring to light something important. In the two passages that we looked at most closely, the spiritual and bodily meanings of proskynein are really inseparable. The bodily gesture itself is the bearer of the spiritual meaning, which is precisely that of worship. Without the worship, the bodily gesture would be meaningless, while the spiritual act must of its very nature, because of the psychosomatic unity of man, express itself in the bodily gesture.
"The two aspects are united in the one word, because in a very profound way they belong together. When kneeling becomes merely external, a merely physical act, it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, when someone tries to take worship back into the purely spiritual realm and refuses to give it embodied form, the act of worship evaporates, for what is purely spiritual is inappropriate to the nature of man. Worship is one of those fundamental acts that affect the whole man. That is why bending the knee before the presence of the living God is something we cannot abandon....
"There is a story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show Himself to a certain monk. The devil looked black and ugly, with frighteningly thin limbs, but most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.
"...The expression used by Saint Luke to describe the kneeling of Christians (theis ta gonata) is unknown in classical Greek. We are dealing here with a specifically Christian word. With that remark, our reflections turn full circle to where they began. It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture -- insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before Whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that, in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ Himself."
I'm surprised that the cathedral has escaped "wreckovation" so far. Many other beautiful churches throughout the world were permanently damaged very early in the post Vatican II period of Liturgical "Renewal". Now the pendulum seems to be swinging back to the traditional. We know how the Pope feels about these things. The timing of this is wrong; It looks like somebody wants to deflower the cathedral before it becomes illegal. Shame on somebody!
My husand and I visited this beautiful Cathedral a number of years ago and were amazed at its beauty and grandeur. It is truly a gem of the City of Bendigo and I implore the members of the local Council and heritage authorities to step in and put a halt to these most unnecessary and damaging planned alterations.
I congratulate Andrew Huntly and the Bendigo Weekly for bringing this issue to the public notice. The protection of the heritage significance of this wonderful Cathedral is too important to be left to the current Administrator - this Cathedral belongs to the people - I hope and pray that the Bishop takes heed, it is obvious that it is not the people pursuing these changes.
The Cathedral needs no alterations - I implore the people of Bendigo to stand up and protect this magnificent gem they have in their midst.
Why must everything that we hold dear & cherish ,be destroyed in the name of progress--have often been a visitor to your area & firmly believe the Cathedral--as is--isone iof your City's major attractions--leave it ALONE__PLEASE>
Comment #70
(Posted by an unknown user)
This is truly appalling--get a grip all you ultra modernists & leave us "arch conservatives" ALONE--& also, the Cathedral.
The Bendigo Cathedral is a holy and historic place, There is a reason why the alter was placed in the sanctuary, it is a holy place, and the preperation of body and blood of Christ deserves to occur in such a holy place. Why changes years of tradition. i reguarly attend the cathedral and I see no issue with where the alter is. it is in prime viewing at the front and back of the church. why spend money which will make the celebration of Christ seem less significant? Doesn't he deserve all the reverance and significance we can give?
Comment #72
(Posted by Carmel)
YOur cathederal is one of the most beautiful churches in Australia. Why destroy it.
There is an apt saying for here, "if it aint broke don't fix it" Once you have made so called modernisations, you have destroyed the fabric of your heritage listed church. You can witness such destruction at Benalla and Moroonpoona where the little red brick church has been "modernised". vandalised is closer to the truth
I live in Canberra where all the churches are modern and reflect their time of creation in the mid to late 20th Century. Many were built on tight budgets and will never have the grandeur of stained glass windows and the lovely old church ornaments, a lot of us would kill for a cathedral of your ones age and beauty.
Comment #73
(Posted by Dominique Morton)
The Bendigo Cathedral is not only beautiful as it is, but also is a piece of history which should be left alone. My husband went to that cathedral through his school years, and it holds a very dear and special place in our hearts.
Comment #74
(Posted by Stephen - Canberra)
With sincere prayers that Sandhurst Diocese will not meddle with alterations to a superb cathedral. Surely the Diocese should have learned a lesson from the debacle of Benalla church.
Comment #75
(Posted by Megan Wilson)
Monsignor John Duffus criticises the person who spoke out about the rumoured renovations to the Cathedral.
Monsignor says the person is "out of order" because "no decision has been made" and the changes have "only been talked about".
To take this to its logical conclusion, Monsignor is saying people should sit quietly, be uninformed and certainly not make any public comment while Bishop Grech and his select advisors make a decision. Then, when the Bishop announces what is going to happen, it will be "in order" for people to discuss it, ie you can only question and debate after the event.
I am sure Monsignor Duffus is a good and devoted priest, but to make those sorts of comments suggests he is completely out of touch with reality and has no concept of accountability to the Catholic people of the diocese of Sandhurst.
Comment #76
(Posted by Tim Hayes)
Thanks, Bendigo Weekly, for bringing this issue to attention and allowing this forum for debate.
Three key points:
1. As I understand it, the Cathedral in its current form complies with all liturgical directions, requirements and rules.
2. The bishop, as the leader of the diocese, is the trustee of its cathedral and its financial resources. They are not his own for him to do with as he pleases.
3. The bishop has a duty to use the limited financial resources of the diocese as best they can be deployed.
Therefore, if you have a building which meets its purposes (such as the Cathedral), it is a scandal (and surely a sin) if money and limited resources is pouted into making unnecessary changes and causing unnecessary anger and division.
This is especially the case when the limited financial resources of the diocese could be better used: many rural families are doing it tough because of the drought; charities are overstretched; Catholic schools have numerous needs for resources.
Please God the bishop will be a faithful steward of the resources given him and use them where the need is greatest. I defy anyone to present a credible argument that the greatest need in this diocese at this moment is removing the altar rails and moving the altar furniture in the Cathedral.
I strongly believe that we owe a duty of care to future generations to keep intact what is a prime example of an early gothic cathedral archetiecture in it's entirity. A piecemeal approach that follows the dictates of personal taste by the current occupant may be acceptable in a residence but is not so in a heritage building of public office. Following the fashion of the day will leave us with an ecclectic result that reflects all the worst excesses of fashion at the time through the ages. It is beautiful and wholistic in it's style at the present. Leave it alone.
Has Denise Braddon(comment#31) worked out that the only way The Cathoic Church listens to it's intelligent faithful is by resorting to the secular press? In my 46 years, which has seen a lot of destruction and quite frankly, self-indulgence of many cashed up, but tasteless clerics, sitting back and letting "Father" make decisions has been a recipe for disaster!
Brent Egan
Personally, I think Mr. Hogan (despite being a "senior member of the cast" so to speak) should stay with his probably very generous superannuation package, as well as money squirrelled away in numerous tea caddies and leave the decisions of the next generation to people with better taste.
For those who worship at this magnificent Catholic Cathedral don't be fooled by the liturgical double
speak There is absolutely no mandatary reason for any changes in any Catholic Church in the entire world. Could this destruction be called vandalism?
Just remember what the Team did to a beautiful Catholic Church at Benalla with the total support of the Diocese liturgical office.
Just put the tabernacle back in the centre of the sanctuary. It is for more important than a view of the Bishop seated on his chair.
Another variation I have seen is for the pipers to proceed the offertory procession and then remain at the edge of the sanctuary to greet the elevation with a swirl of the pipes.
Bendigo Cathedral is one of the finest neo-Gothic Cathedrals in this part of the world,faithfully following the origional principles of Gothic architecture resulting in unsurpassed beauty.In all churches Gothic or otherwise the only place for the tabernacle is in the centre of the sanctuary.
The symbols of the church, representing common beliefs and traditions are being eroded. This leads to a loss of the sense of history and continuity of the church. To a great extent stable community depends on the sense of a shared past. This trend indicates a desire to blot out much of the church's history.
Upon entering a Catholic church before Mass or at any other time, you have the feeling that you have left the world behind you and you find yourself in the physical presence of our Divine Lord dwelling in the tabernacle in the centre of the sanctuary. The HOLY OF HOLIES. We instinctively kneel and adore Him for He is listening to us and comforting us with His love and mercy.
People of Bendigo protect your Cathedral, it is a rare gift from your catholic past.
Comment #81
(Posted by A Pilgrim)
John Hogan wrote:
"This lot of conservative catholics are so out of date that they still celebrate according to the 1962 calendar and being present at one of the old Latin masses is to wach a group of males, dressed in rather well embroidered 'frocks' with habits and biretas play actining out the sacred liturgy. Liturgy is more than rubrics".
Having twice taken part in the Christus Rex Pilgrimage from Ballarat to Bendigo, I take exception to John Hogan's comments, especially those given above.
John Hogan considers "the old Latin masses [sic]" opportunities to "watch"; he might profit more from them if he took them as opportunities to pray.
He seems to think, curiously, that woman do not assist at such Masses or, if they do, that the embroidery on their frocks is not good enough to attract his attention. Perhaps, on the whole, that is a good thing. Again, I was not aware that good embroidery was viewed negatively by contemporary liturgical activists, but this revelation does explain much about the vesture that one sees in many Catholic sanctuaries these days.
As for habits: this is also a telling comment, but why a habit should in principle be incompatible with the Roman Liturgy, even in its revised form, is not evident to me. Religious beware: you may be turned away at the church door!
Birettas: see above. I know of more than one priest who offers the holy Sacrifice according to the Missal of Paul VI, and uses a biretta. Shocking, isn't it?
In contrast to the previous trifles, to call the celebration of Mass in its traditional form play-acting is a downright insult, and if taken to its logical conclusions would, in my opinion, lead to heresy.
"Liturgy is more than rubrics": true, but the non-observance of rubrics makes less of a liturgy, and if serious can even result in no liturgy. It has been said that the cowl does not make the monk: but not for nothing is his dismissal called unfrocking.
Comment #82
(Posted by Lyle Dunne)
Gee, I don't know about you folk, but it looks to me like a consensus is emerging.
A couple of points not covered by others:
- I attend Mass in a Church without altar rails. It's difficult for the elderly and disabled to receive communion kneeling. On the other hand, altar rails offer no impediment to standing.
- the Altar rails in Bendigo are the LEAST visually intrusive of any I've ever seen. Besides, "lines of sight" misses the point: it's not a concert, not a visual spectacle.
- As far as "inclusive participation" is concerned, it seems to me that we've had a 40-year trial of the theory underlying this. There seems to have been an idea that if we made Churches, church music, religious language, clerical and religious dress etc less distinctive, and if we downplayed what was special and unique about the role of the priest, with special ministers, more words for the congregation (often joining in the doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer), lay readers, eucharistic processions, signs of peace etc - we'd get much greater lay involvement in the Church, and perhaps more vocations as well.
Can anyone seriously doubt that the effect has been the opposite?
This is utterley ridiculous that Church beauracrats with not enough time on their hands would want to alterate a beautiful and highly significant piece of history. I can't believe the Catholic Church would want to spend money trying hard to impress its aging congregations who want to be try hard modernists. I have no idea about theology but I do know history and I do know marketing and management. What about spending the money on promoting the Church to a younger generation?
Despite Mr. Hogan's ideas that the only people who are interested in preserving good taste are people that like getting dressed up, use incense, wear birettas etc, I take offense at these remarks. They kind of imply that only ghetto-like homosexuals are interested in these things.
Thomas Craughwell put it much more elequently than me in his article however. One of the important things he did say however was that Benedict XVI has no intention of reverting to the Missal of 1962.
He is, however, in the spirit of kindness and choice that Vatican II delivered to my generation of Catholics that, by-and-large, no longer attend Mass, offering "choice". That quality that the liberals so ardently strived to achieve at their own level, be it in the personality of a "showpony" priest equipped with his own Canon of the Mass and Creed, or theme for a "clown Mass".
The intelligent members of The Church that still believe and attend Mass will, I'm sure, opt for some of the more aesthetic elements of our Catholic tradition that the 1968 generation of priests were so eager to jettison. Who knows, they might like incense, beautiful music and vestments? They might actually like to be made aware of what treasures that they have in store already.
Then they won't have to be stereotyped as reactionaries, right-winged, homosexual or any other of the ghettos that they could inadvertendly fall into. No, I think Benedict is just proposing choice. Surely, the Modernists can't argue with that,can they?
Comment #85
(Posted by Monika Kulla)
This Church should stay as it is.
We need sacred places to look sacred and the keep distinguish between the priest and laity.
And Holy commuinion shoud be taken kneel on the rail
and take Holy communion on tongue only from priest.
No way! How dare these fly-by-nighters trash yet another sacred Catholic church.If they want to be part of the Protestant Reformation, let them go join the Pentecostals. I for one am sick to death of members of our sleek, lazy, over-indulged church buerocracy destroying that which is not theirs to touch, having been built on the hard-earned money of our poor Catholic predecessors. How dared this lame-brained monsigneur tell Andrew Huntley to be quiet! We live in a democracy, and I would have thought our new-fashioned Vatican II church would have encouraged such discussion on the issue. How dared he try to impose the Inquisition on Mr Huntley or anyone else for that matter. Go out and get a real job, Monsigneur, like those poor missionary priests working so hard for the salvation of souls and the relief of human suffering in third world countries. Leave our Cathedral and us alone!
It would be nothing short of criminal to make the changes being discussed to such a magnificent example of modern day Gothic architecture. There are plenty examples of contemporary catholic churches around the country, so why change a building that was clearly never intended to be or look contemporary?
Leave well alone, and let the people (both local and visitor alike) who attend mass in this wonderful building continue to enjoy it as it is.
inclusiveness is important, the need to connect with congegations has never been more evident people need to be closer to the spirit of community and the sourcwe of their spiritual strength. etherial ceremony no longer has any meaning and symbolism does not connect them to God
