Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Home › Forums › Ireland › reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches › Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Praxiteles has viewed the link to the Liturgical Institute Architectural Competition for the church for 2010 and, unfortunately, does not share Apells’ enthusiasm for the this particular project.
Perhaps it is the photographic perspective, but Praxiteles could not see much of a Latin Cross formation in the church exhibited – and did see what very-much looks like a Greek Cross arrangement around a domed ovoid (which we are told wil, flood the church with natural light 24 hours of the day, provided you are not in the northern or southern hemisphere).
There is a claim to a traditional approach – and certainly it is light yeras ahead of the rubbish often if not exclusively built in a modern idiom. However, this “traditional” approach is superficial. It is one which fails to digest the classical idiom in its Christian manifestation (late antiquity, byzantine, neo-classical) and ultimately degenerates to mere decoration.
Praxiteles fears that the real problem of this lack of ingestion is the theological understanding of the Church, the sacraments and the Eucharist behind: that too, while well disposed, is unintegrated if not deficient. Indeed, there is no essential theological difference in this composition and the nonsense carried out in the North Cathedral in Cork by Hacker Hurley. Indeed, it exhibits many of the Collegeville theological and sacramental deficiencies so dear to Danny I AM a liturgist Murphy and the Cloyne HACK. So, I am afraid, this composition does not radically connect with the hermenutic of continuity.
As for the architectural disposition of the church, I have the say the front facade with its classical atrium looks suspiciously like San Clemente in Rome _with the tower transferred to the right hand side of the facade. This cannot surely be regarded as an example of the Christian basilica of the late antique period having been rebuilt following the Robert Guiscard’s sack of Rome. Again, baptisteries, as se have so often seen before, are not located on the internal central axis of late antique Chistian basilicas. Either the Baptistery will be found opposite the main entrance in a separate building, or else in separate chapels off of the Basicila -more usually than not on the North side. The suggestion that late antique Basilicas had pools inside the main doors is an absurdity of the highest order – for it would have inhibited the processions intended to enter through these doors (especially the papal processions).
When on looks at the present general instruction to the Roman Missal, it is true that it sopeaks of the Blessed Sacrament being reserved in a separate chapel. However, it would be useful to bring a bit of nous to bear on this remark. Certainly, if you are building a church of monumental proportions similar -for example Florence Cathedral, or St Peter’s – then one can certainly have a decent Blessed Sacrament Chapel which is about the size of a large parish church. This is a fitting place for reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. However, attempts to provide small scale churches with Blessed Sacrament Chapels is simply idiotic. The result, as in this case, is hardly larger than a broom closet and hardly a fitting place for the reservation of teh Blessed Sacrament. Moreover, when trying to apply giant scale undertakings to pigny sized situations we arrive at absurdity:
Moreover, tye architests involved in this project are incorrect in asserting that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is for private devotions. In case they had not noticed, there is a Rius for the cult of the Eucharist outside of the Mass – and this is an official public act of the Church. For instance, Benediction fot he Blessed Sacrament: how is that to take place at the altar we see in this project? It does not even have a step in front of it on which to kneel!