Manila Cathedral: Mary Statue at the Center?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CivisRomanusSum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JurisPrudens said:
But they are altars, nevertheless. Before Vatican II, the Holy Masses were served on them.
Click to expand...
They are not the main altar which is the point of the OP, if I am not mistaken.

(I have been to churches all over the U.S. and in Europe and am familiar with statues in churches and cathedrals)
 
There is nothing wrong with the design; would that all Catholic churches be as such.

It is customary, especially in Baroque and Romanesque churches to have the mystery or saint to which the church is dedicated to have a central, prominent place in the main sanctuary. The Manila Cathedral is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, which is why the Immaculate Conception is front and centre.

Back in the day, when Masses were ad orientem, the altar would have its own crucifix. Today in the age of Masses facing the people, the crucifix is near the altar as required by the GIRM.

It’s out of line to call this “too much” or improper.
 
porthos11 said:
There is nothing wrong with the design; would that all Catholic churches be as such.

It is customary, especially in Baroque and Romanesque churches to have the mystery or saint to which the church is dedicated to have a central, prominent place in the main sanctuary. The Manila Cathedral is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, which is why the Immaculate Conception is front and centre.

Back in the day, when Masses were ad orientem, the altar would have its own crucifix. Today in the age of Masses facing the people, the crucifix is near the altar as required by the GIRM.

It’s out of line to call this “too much” or improper.
Click to expand...
It seems it was built in 1958 so that would make sense.

People can have concerns and questions - there’s usually a good answer!
 
lax16 said:
I am not ruled by what others think (I assume that is what you are telling me). I have a St. Francis statue in my front and back yards and many religious symbols and pictures on my kitchen sink that is visible from three neighbors and everyone that walks on the walking path by my home.

That is my home.

Governed by Protestant sensibilities? Again, I assume you are saying that I am.
Click to expand...
I can only go by what you write. 🤷
My primary goal is to bring Jesus to others in the hope that they will find His One True Church. It is my opinion that finding common ground is the best way to do this.
Click to expand...
Peace. 🙂
Click to expand...
Finding common ground or ecumenism does not mean lowering our standards/beliefs to accommodate non-Catholics. It means building relationships on what we have in common and then bringing others up to the fullness of the faith. Your approach come too close to indifferentism for my tastes. Protestants who have bug-a-boos about Mary will not thank you for apologizing for statues of Mary in our churches, rather they’ll think you are showing signs that you are ready to abandon your “odd” Catholic beliefs in favor of their water-down version of Christianity. We can be inviting and kind without having to compromise our beliefs and practices.
 
JurisPrudens said:
But they are altars, nevertheless. Before Vatican II, the Holy Masses were served on them.
Click to expand...
Yes, And when mass was served on them a crucifix was placed on them per the rubrics of the TLM. Usually a small crucifix the same size as the candle sticks also placed on the altar.

The rubrics are now different for the placement of the crucifix on or near the altar.
 
Della said:
I hadn’t notice that at first glance. Thanks for pointing it out. 🙂 **It shows that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit **and conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and since the cathedral is dedicated to Mary, it shows that by the power of the Holy Spirit she was conceived without the stain of original sin. We have to take into account the whole of the Gospel not merely the parts that we find acceptable. Denying Mary’s role in salvation history comes dangerously close to denying the Incarnation. Shoving Mary into a corner with the idea that she deserves no more honor than any other mother or neglecting her altogether sends the wrong message. God became man. Grace builds on nature it doesn’t negate nature. We are fallen creatures not “totally depraved,” as some would have it. Truth is important, even in iconography, and the cathedral’s depiction is good iconography.
Click to expand...
(my boldiing)
Right. Similarly, the National Shrine has a huge (7’2") statue of Mary atop the baldachin altar but a beautiful mosaic of the Triumphant Christ dwarfs Mary.
 
To the OP and others, there are many churches that are packed with symbolism right to the acanthus leaves festooning the pillars holding up the roof. If we are lucky the church has a guidebook or tours (or virtual tours) that can explain what each color, flower, etc. mean each statue, mosaic, stained glass window or painting or icon.

From the National Shrine again from here:
UPPER CHURCH
Statue of Mary Immaculate—Standing atop the Baldachin over the main altar, this 7’2” tall statue of Mary is larger than life, yet it is dwarfed by Christ in Majesty. Its position atop the Baldachin before Christ in Majesty symbolically and significantly represents “To Jesus,
through Mary.”
Click to expand...
Isn’t that beautiful? The Basilica is called a Hymn in Stone. Ideally every Catholic church would have these timeless symbols everywhere, inside and outside, as bits of the catechism. As 1ke said we are not iconclasts and instead of being disturbed by the symbolism we should be curious and discover the meaning and then be inspired and edified by the richness of this aspect of the Church.
 
Della said:
I can only go by what you write. 🤷
Click to expand...
It is your interpretation of what I write that is incorrect. I have never said I am ruled by others thoughts about Catholics worshipping Mary. But, I am understanding of their concerns.
Finding common ground or ecumenism does not mean lowering our standards/beliefs to accommodate non-Catholics. It means building relationships on what we have in common and then bringing others up to the fullness of the faith. Your approach come too close to indifferentism for my tastes. Protestants who have bug-a-boos about Mary will not thank you for apologizing for statues of Mary in our churches, rather they’ll think you are showing signs that you are ready to abandon your “odd” Catholic beliefs in favor of their water-down version of Christianity. We can be inviting and kind without having to compromise our beliefs and practices.
Click to expand...
You read all of that into my posts?

You are officially the first person to ever accuse me of lowering my standards and beliefs or that I am showing signs of abandoning my faith.

I have a few things to say to you but will do it in a pm.

Okay, then. Have a good day, Della!
 
lax16 said:
It is your interpretation of what I write that is incorrect. I have never said I am ruled by others thoughts about Catholics worshipping Mary. But, I am understanding of their concerns.

You read all of that into my posts?

You are officially the first person to ever accuse me of lowering my standards and beliefs or that I am showing signs of abandoning my faith.

I have a few things to say to you but will do it in a pm.

Okay, then. Have a good day, Della!
Click to expand...
I never accused you of anything. I wrote in general terms. I will not be answering any PMs. Thank for the discussion.
 
I’ve been to one church (in a very rural area and much smaller than Manila cathedral) which has a statue St Patrick above the altar - between statues of Our Lady and the Sacred Heart but higher up than both of them! Like Manila Cathedral though, it too was built well before the (current) GIRM, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and just about every other major document on the liturgy (including the 1917 Code of Canon Law) were even thought of, let alone written. Also, given the isolated nature of the area - which would have been even greater when the church was built - I somehow doubt that the builders had much in the way of liturgical documents to guide their decision-making!

While it’s easy to pick fault with such churches, it also even easier to be bind to the dedication and faith of the ordinary folk without whom these churches would never have been built. Granted, there are aspects which, ideally at least, probably shouldn’t be the way that they are, but to focus solely on how things should be is to ignore the great beauty (both visible and hidden) which is expressed in how things already are!
 
Adonia said:
At least in this picture she is holding the baby Jesus.
Click to expand...
And if she weren’t? What then? G. K. Chesterton had a very witty reply to the idea that we need to separate Mother from Child:
When I was a boy a more Puritan generation objected to a statue upon my [Anglican] parish church representing the Virgin and Child. After much controversy, they compromised by taking away the Child. One would think that this was even more corrupted with Mariolatry, unless the mother was counted less dangerous when deprived of a sort of weapon. But the practical difficulty is also a parable. You cannot chip away the statue of a mother from all round that of a newborn child. You cannot suspend the new-born child in mid-air; indeed you cannot really have a statue of a newborn child at all. Similarly, you cannot suspend the idea of a newborn child in the void or think of him without thinking of his mother. You cannot visit the child without visiting the mother, you cannot in common human life approach the child except through the mother.”
Click to expand...
Statues represent very specific things. No one statue can represent the whole Church teaching about anything, let alone the Communion of Saints. To try to meet everyone’s sensibilities with every statue is impossible.

As a former, even rabidly anti-Catholic, Protestant I can tell you that the Church could have removed every statue in every church across the world and it still wouldn’t have moved me to think of the Church as truly Christian. Most Protestants aren’t that decidedly against the Church, of course, but still, they aren’t going to suddenly embrace Catholicism if the Church bows to one of their demands–that we no longer honor the saints as we do. The kind that would demand we remove our statues are the same kind that would move on to the next objection and demand the Church change that too. It’s pointless to try to turn Catholic churches into Protestant one in the hopes of not offending or of gaining adherents. It simply doesn’t work that way. I think many Catholics are overly influenced by their Protestant families/friends/coworkers, etc. and even the culture to be more like them. But we are to be counter-cultural not denude ourselves of our Catholic identity and teachings to please the world and what it thinks.
 
InThePew said:
I’ve been to one church (in a very rural area and much smaller than Manila cathedral) which has a statue St Patrick above the altar - between statues of Our Lady and the Sacred Heart but higher up than both of them!
Click to expand...
How lovely.
InThePew said:
Like Manila Cathedral though, it too was built well before the (current) GIRM, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and just about every other major document on the liturgy (including the 1917 Code of Canon Law) were even thought of, let alone written.
Click to expand...
None of which prohibit the decoration of the church in the manner you describe. Not in the least.
InThePew said:
Also, given the isolated nature of the area - which would have been even greater when the church was built - I somehow doubt that the builders had much in the way of liturgical documents to guide their decision-making!
Click to expand...
Oh, they knew. Apparently much better than a bunch of 21st century internet forum posters do.
InThePew said:
Granted, there are aspects which, ideally at least, probably shouldn’t be the way that they are,
Click to expand...
Not at all. These churches and thousands more are built upon ancient and solid Church tradition. NOTHING wrong with any of them.
InThePew said:
but to focus solely on how things should be is to ignore the great beauty (both visible and hidden) which is expressed in how things already are!
Click to expand...
They are as they “should be”.
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
Hello!

I’ve attached a picture of the altar in the Manila Cathedral, Philippines. The Cathedral is a minor basilica dedicated to the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
Absolutely beautiful. What better to have in such a position than a statue of the tabernacle of the Lord.
 
CivisRomanusSum said:
I found this paragraph from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“125. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.”

Don’t you think that the “relative position” of the statue of the Blessed Mother in this case doesn’t reflect “right order” and may “create confusion” or “foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy?”
Click to expand...
As you noted, the church is in the Philippines. that may be indicative of a cultural difference from Europe and North America. The citation is correct, but generally within the Church rules, there is flexibility for cultural differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top