reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
Praxiteles.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
October 21, 2005 at 10:30 am #708442
GregF
ParticipantI dunno if this has been discussed before on a different thread but I saw on the Irish Times this morning that Kevin Myers raises the issue of the proposed renovations of St Colmans Cathedral in Cobh. I had heard this before and couldn’t believe it. This is a fine Victorian Gothic cathedral designed by Pugin. Surely any tampering with the orignal features would be an act of vandalism and must not go ahead. As I said before, the councils, clergy etc… here in Ireland can’t seem to leave well alone regarding important public buildings, statues etc…..All Corkonians should be up in arms and stop any proposed tampering that should alter the cathedral in any way, especially as it was probably the poor local Cork Catholics that provided the funds to build the cathedral in the first place.
(Bishop McGee of Cloyne is the culprit. Get writing your protest letters rebel Corkonians!)
-
October 21, 2005 at 12:42 pm #767215
Anonymous
InactiveApparently there were 210 objections and the list of Appelants included
Department of the Environment
Irish Georgian Society
An Taisce
Friends of St Colmans (largely made up of the parish council of St Colmans)
He was trying to get internal parish support for this for almost ten years and despite everyone elses opinion he is hell bent of leaving his what would appear extremely destructive mark on what is already an excellent interior.
-
October 21, 2005 at 1:47 pm #767216
emf
ParticipantI wandered into St. Colman’s when I was in Cobh last year and I was very emotionally moved by the peace and tranquility there.
No doubt in some way it related to the scale and grandeur of the building itself. I’m not sure if this re-ordering is a good idea. It definitely shouldn’t be carried out on the whim of one person. I know I definitely wouldn’t be affected the same way going into one of the modern creations.It might be good to sound out opinion on the re-ordering of Carlow Cathedral a few years ago. I was in the church many times before it was carried out but moved away before it was completed.
-
October 21, 2005 at 1:52 pm #767217
ctesiphon
ParticipantThere are special DEHLG guidelines for churches that are protected structures, such is the sensitivity of the area. Ultimately, liturgical requirements take precedence over conservation requirements. But interestingly, when Ratzinger was a Cardinal he wrote a piece (don’t know the chapter and verse, sorry) saying that there was no liturgical rationale to remove altar railings or other features, which is the reason usually cited by those trying to change things.
And didn’t Jesus himself say ‘wherever two or three are gathered in my name’ or words to that effect? Christianity began in caves and back rooms, so the setting is surely incidental to the practice. Why can’t the Bishop understand this?
Though not a believer, I have been to mass in the Cathedral on the basis that a building comes alive when serving its purpose, and it was a fine sight indeed. -
October 21, 2005 at 2:15 pm #767218
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThey did something similar at Monaghan and ruined it. And the bishop is still a little sensitive about criticism.5 or 6 years back I said something negative here, and the next thing I get a letter from a dioscesan flunkey asked me to desist.
-
October 21, 2005 at 3:16 pm #767219
lexington
ParticipantYou’d think of all people who should value the integrity and splendour of such a magnificant structure, it would be the Bishop of Cloyne and Cobh, but no. I’m very much supportive of the opposition on this front – the proposed changes are not necessary requirements. It’s a very diappointing scenario. In Ireland, and certainly in Cork, it is perhaps on of the most tranquil and architecturally inspiring structures of a religious nature – especially inside. Along with St. Peter’s & Paul’s near Paul Street and St. Fin Barre’s – it is among my favourite interior designs.
-
October 21, 2005 at 5:54 pm #767220
GrahamH
ParticipantFrom the vague plans I’ve seen, the expansive altar interventions look like the flooring scheme of an 80s television chatshow – is it intended to cap it off with a salmon pink carpet?
While it is easy to view the structure as a purely architectural entity, at the end of the day it is a working religious building and as such its use is as equally important as its fabric. Saying that, surely the proposed alterations are not necessary, or at least not on that scale?
Whereas previous Vatican reforms were logical in altering the clearly skewed relationship between the celebrant and the congregation, the notion of ‘bringing the people closer’ in Cobh Cathedral – which by definition is going to have people somewhere in the building detached from the proceedings – seems to be founded in a vague symbolisim rather than practical concerns.
It would be a great shame to see the interior so radically altered – especially having survived so long as it has intact.
You’d think we’d be able to issue a sigh of relief by now having got through the 70s – clearly not. -
October 21, 2005 at 7:04 pm #767221
ctesiphon
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
From the vague plans I’ve seen, the expansive altar interventions look like the flooring scheme of an 80s television chatshow – is it intended to cap it off with a salmon pink carpet?
With Anna and Blathnaid from The Afternoon Show giving out communion? Or Thelma and Derek?
Good point about the difference between this and the post-Vatican II changes too.
-
October 21, 2005 at 11:37 pm #767222
PTB
ParticipantAs a member of the dioses of cloyne I must say that most people are fairly tired of sending off parish funds to fund the restoration. The work that was done from 1992 until 2002/2003 were the first four of five phases of restoration. This last phase is not so much restoration as an alteration. As well as the other objectors mentioned by Thomond Park are the Pugin society in London who are very angry at the proposed work, which is considered by some as Pugins finest work.
-
October 23, 2005 at 2:52 am #767223
Anonymous
Inactive@PTB wrote:
This last phase is not so much restoration as an alteration.
That is an extremely mild description
-
October 24, 2005 at 11:21 pm #767224
anto
Participantdidn’t eamonn casey “ruin” the cathedral in Killarney in a similar drive?
-
October 25, 2005 at 12:42 am #767225
J. Seerski
ParticipantI think the problem is ideological – there is a body of opinion in the church that says that a church is not a museum but a living building that should be changed as they please according to their liturgical requirements. Though Im puzzeled as to why churches on mainland Europe and even in Britain retain pre-vatican two layout without much difficulty. It seems over here the churches are gutted just to prove a point.
Was in Iona Church (St Columba’s – a fine celtic revival church) on Sunday and I was amazed how it retained its pulpit and much of its altar railing was untouched. It seems this place was luckily overlooked when churches elsewhere were gutted.
-
October 25, 2005 at 5:26 am #767226
Anonymous
InactiveThose are good points you make;
In essence the choice is not whether one wrecks masterpieces such as St Colmans but rather what one does with newly built places of worship. Surely if the parishioners of Cobh want a post V2 church atmosphere they can select another RC church on Great Island.
-
October 26, 2005 at 8:09 pm #767227
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to Bishop Ryan of Kildare and Leighlin (12 June 1996) was published in the Carlow Nationalist on 10 January 1997 – having been requisitioned by the High Court. The full text is available on the internet at; htpp://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/cot1998p10_544.html. The tragedy is that what has happend in churches throughout Ireland was liturgically needless.
An interesting summary on liturgical requirement is available on the news section of the webpage of the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral (http://www.foscc.com) prepared for An Bord Pleanala by Arthur Cox.
As is clear from the case of Cobh Cathedral, Diocesan Historic Church Committees are a complete farce. In this case, the Historic Church Committe of the diocese of Cloyne, mostly made up of unqualified persons, did not even bother to conduct a heritage impact study of the proposed changes on the interior of the building.
-
October 26, 2005 at 11:26 pm #767228
ctesiphon
ParticipantThanks for that info Praxiteles (great name, btw!). The FOSCC site is a goldmine.
One minor correction, though, to the URL you posted.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/oct1998p10_544.html
This should work. 🙂 -
October 26, 2005 at 11:32 pm #767229
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat came of the appeal to the Supreme Court do you know Praxiteles?
-
October 26, 2005 at 11:35 pm #767230
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs far as I can make out from the webpage (http://www.foscc.com) the matter is still pending with An Bord Pleanala.
-
October 27, 2005 at 12:05 am #767231
GrahamH
ParticipantSorry, I mean Carlow Cathedral – do you know what the Supreme Court ruling was from what seems to be 1998?
-
October 27, 2005 at 12:28 am #767232
Praxiteles
ParticipantI do not, I am afraid.
-
October 27, 2005 at 2:38 pm #767233
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHow can the great Prof O’Neill have gotten himself involved in such a foolish enterprise
View his plans on http://www.foscc.com -
October 27, 2005 at 2:39 pm #767234
Praxiteles
ParticipantThat is indeed a million dollar question.
-
October 27, 2005 at 8:40 pm #767235
MacLeinin
ParticipantYou would think that after his disastrous fiddling with the pro-cathedral, he would have learnt his lesson.
I am told one local wag in Cobh referred to his current plans for the interior as an ‘ice rinque’ -
October 27, 2005 at 8:53 pm #767236
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThe Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral are made up of a group of concerned Cobh parishioners, none of whom are on the parish council. To clarify information posted by Thomond Park
-
October 28, 2005 at 9:05 pm #767237
Praxiteles
ParticipantDoes anyone have any biographical or professional information re Thomas Aloysius Coleman (1865-1952), who was George Ashlin’s partner while working on the completion of St. Colman’s Cathedral?
-
October 29, 2005 at 12:16 am #767238
ctesiphon
ParticipantA former colleague of mine wrote a History of Art thesis in Trinity in 1999 or so, either M.Litt or M.Phil, on Ashlin. I’m sure it would have some info you require. I’ll send you her email by private message.
Also, the office of Ashlin and Coleman still exists, though without family connections to Ashlin or Coleman, I believe. They might be able to help re old drawings, company archives etc. A quick google gives two addresses: 36 Pembroke Road, D.4, or 1 Grant’s Row, off Lwr Mount St, D.2, and an email (possibly out of date) of info@ashlincoleman.com -
October 31, 2005 at 1:48 pm #767239
MacLeinin
ParticipantIs that it? Is the whole of Ireland ‘comfortably numb’ ? Does writing here constitute action? Do we just let the Bishop and O’Neill get away with this? We can’t blame the politicians for this one. You all seem to know what you are talking about so tell me what can one do about this sort of thing?
-
November 5, 2005 at 2:12 pm #767240
descamps
ParticipantI was in Cork last week and went out to see the cathedral in Cobh. It is truly spectacular and it is a small miracle that it has survived for so long without the kind of ravages practiced on Killarney by Eamonn Casey or on Monaghan by Joe Duffy. Looking over the plans for this fine little gem, I cannot help but think that John Magee and Tom Cavanagh (aka Mr. Tidy towns of Ireland) have more money than sense – or good taste.
-
November 7, 2005 at 4:53 pm #767241
Praxiteles
ParticipantPerhaps the comments on architectural theory contained in the following link could be brought to bear on the Cobh Cathedral business: http://www.profil.at/?/articles/0544/560/125321.shtml
-
November 7, 2005 at 6:32 pm #767242
Praxiteles
ParticipantFurther interesting comments are available on the subject of liturgy and architecture at http://www.kreuz.net/article.2121.html . Unfortunately, the English and French translations are very inadequate.
-
November 7, 2005 at 7:46 pm #767243
Peter Parler
ParticipantHas Bishop Magee no fear of God? Could they not get Pope Benedict to scribble him a quick note to let him know they’ll soon be putting everything back the way it was before the liturgical vandals were let loose?
-
November 8, 2005 at 1:02 am #767244
Gianlorenzo
Participant“When men have come to the edge of a precipice, it is the lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards, and only the pessimist who continues to believe in progress.”
“It is of the new things that men tire – of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. It is the old things that startle and intoxicate. It is the old things that are young.”
Do pessimists fear God?
-
November 9, 2005 at 6:54 pm #767245
Peter Parler
ParticipantThe article referred to by Praxiteles in #28 is absolutely relevant to poor Cobh. The Lady Church in Dresden was destoyed free of charge in 1945 and in its ruined state remained a monument to the barbarity of war and the atheistic convictions of Communism until its resurrection began in 1990, a symbol of generosity, reconciliation and a new freedom. Surely at this time of episcopal shame the Bishop of Cloyne could offer a similar generosity, reconciliation and renewal of freedom to the Friends of Saint Colman’s and all who care for our religious and architectural heritage, at minimal pain to himself or the coffers of his Diocese. Isn’t there something in the Gospel against Christians forcing one another to appeal to civil tribunals for justice? Isn’t pride a terrible, terrible thing? Haven’t we all better things to be doing?
-
November 9, 2005 at 11:11 pm #767246
Praxiteles
ParticipantSomeone has pointed out to me that in 1999, the Cobh Cathedral restoration Committee received a grant of some £8,937 from the Heritage Council to finance a conservation study of St. Colman’s Cathedral.
The Conservation study was completed in early 2001 by Carrig of Dublin. This fine and original study was very competently carried out by Jesse Castle Metlitski and Richard Oram.
Along with synthesizing a vast amount of archival material, much of which was examined for the first time, the study produced an important photographic archive of Cobh Cathedral.
The authors of the study concluded: “The wealth of information and sources pertaining to the design and construction of St. Colman’s can provide a unique insight into the whole process of the construction of such a building as this cathedral while providing a remarkable record. The importance of this material can not be overstated. This, together with the definitive record which is the cathedral itself, must be preserved and safeguarded for future generations”.
The authors also note: “The design is very finely tuned and any interventions which might contradict the delicate interplay of parts have the potential to compromise the architectural quality of the building. When St Colman’s was build it was already one of the finst expressions of the Gothic Revival style in Ireland. This eminence has been held to the present day”.
The proposals for the reordering of the Cathedral’s interior pay not the slightest heed to such remarks and have been elaborated as though the Metlitski/Oram conservation report never happened.
-
November 9, 2005 at 11:31 pm #767247
johannas
ParticipantDoes anyone have any information about Ludwig Oppenheimer’s career?
-
November 11, 2005 at 12:11 am #767248
MacLeinin
ParticipantInformation on Ludwig Oppenheimer is difficult to come by. What I know is that, in addition to St. Colman’s Cathedral, he is credited with the magnificent mosaics in the National Museum of Ireland –Archaeology and History. The floors are decorated with scenes from classical mythology and allegory, and are worth a visit to the museum in themselves. He is also credited with the wonderful mosaic floor of the Honan Chapel, University College, Cork. Biographical details for Oppenheimer, I have found, is very difficult to come by, perhaps other visitor this site may be able to help.
-
November 11, 2005 at 12:40 am #767249
ctesiphon
ParticipantThere was a lavishly illustrated monograph published not so long ago on the Honan Chapel (maybe by Cork University Press?). It might have some leads.
-
November 11, 2005 at 1:03 am #767250
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis must have been Virginia Teehan and Elizabeth Wincott-Heckett’s The Honan Chapel: A Golden Vision published by Cork University Press in 2004. Chapter 5 of same, by Jane Hawkes, has a long excursus on the symbolism of the magnificent mosaic floor which is by Ludwig Oppenheimer. He is also responsible for the stations of the cross in opus sectile. Oppenheimer’s work in the Honan Chapel was never publicized for it was the only work carried out there by a non Irish company. It has been suggested that he was commissioned to execute the mosaic floor and the stations of the cross through the influence of the Cork architect Thomas Newhenam Deane or of W. A. Scott who had worked on the Dublin Museum. As in Cobh Cathedral, Oppenheimer’s mosaic work was complemented in the Honan Chapel by the brass and iron work of J&G McGloughlin of Dublin.
-
November 11, 2005 at 3:39 am #767251
MacLeinin
ParticipantInformation on Ludwig Oppenheimer is difficult to come by. What I know is that, in addition to St. Colman’s Cathedral, he is credited with the magnificent mosaics in the National Museum of Ireland –Archaeology and History. The floors are decorated with scenes from classical mythology and allegory, and are worth a visit to the museum in themselves. He is also credited with the wonderful mosaic floor of the Honan Chapel, University College, Cork.
Biographical details for Oppenheimer, is very difficult to come by, perhaps other visitor this site may be able to help. -
November 12, 2005 at 2:48 am #767252
Praxiteles
ParticipantLudwig Oppenheimer may well be responsible for the very elaborate moasic work on the floor and walls of the chancel of the church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Charleville, Co. Cork. This work is about a decade later than Cobh Cathedral (Walter Doolin exhibited designs for the church at RHA in 1898) but the similarities are unmistakable (e.g. the floors of the Sacred Heart and Lady Chapels in Cobh and Charleville). Unfortunately, the floor in the main chancel space in Charleville has been buried under several tons of concrete to make an emplacment for a hidiously unsympathetic re-ordering. It is possible that Oppenheimer’ may have had the commission in Charleville through the patronage of Bishop Robert Browne who was a native of Charleville and, in contrast with the present encumbent in Cobh, a very generous benefactor both of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh ,and of the new parish church in Charleville.
-
November 12, 2005 at 3:24 am #767253
GrahamH
ParticipantAnother case of mosaics being covered over is in a modest but significant Ralph Byrne church c1920 in the North East, where the usual finance commitee of the parish elite saw fit to cover over the highly attractive grape vine mosaics of the altar floor with ‘a nice bit of carpet’ in the late 90s.
A large timber step was also partially built on top to regularise the step line and was also covered in carpet, which not only completely altered the nature of the altar design, but no doubt damaged the mosaics beneath too by its attachment to them, as with the carpet grippers drilled or glued onto the marble edging.
You see this type of practice a lot in small to middle-sized churches which is a great shame. -
November 12, 2005 at 3:51 am #767254
Neo Goth
ParticipantI guess most people on this thread have visited the brilliant website by the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral at http://www.foscc.com my compliments to the friends for trying to stop this latest outbreak of architectural vandalism.
Neo-Goths of the world unite and strike back!
-
November 12, 2005 at 8:55 am #767255
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn Cobh Cathedral, for years the great central motif of the moasic in the chancel was covered by a green carpet ivo-stuck to the floor. In the first phase of the Cathedral restoration it was removed. Because it had been glued to the floor, and at a time when there was still some bit of respect for Oppenheimer’s work, it was taken up by steeping it in large quantities of petrol to avoid tearing up the tesserae of the mosaic. At that time, a phoney appreciation of the central chancel mosaic was used to justify removing the altar rails – all quietly forgotten, however, since Cathal O’Neill proposed digging out the entire floor, mosaic and all.
-
November 12, 2005 at 12:41 pm #767256
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantOppenheimer is also credited with the design of the Clonard Redemptorist Church, Falls Rd., Belfast.
This church, also known as the Church of the Holy Redeemer, occupies a dramatic site on one wing of a three-sided courtyard. It is linked by a tower to the red brick and sandstone monastery extension. There is a large rose window in the west façade.
Clonard was designed in early French Gothic style by Ludwig Oppenheimer and built in 1897 by the Naughton brothers of Randalstown. It is home to the Redemptorists, who were founded in Italy in 1732 and contains mosaics from Gabriel Loire of Chartres. The Monastery was the scene of the first contacts that started the Northern Ireland peace process in the early 1990s.
http://www.gotobelfast.com/index. -
November 12, 2005 at 4:45 pm #767257
Praxiteles
ParticipantAfter a little digging, it appears that Ludwig Oppenheimer worked on several major projects in Ireland:The Dublin Museum (1890); Cobh Cathedral (1892); Sts Augustine and John, Thomas Street, Dublin (c.1899); Newry Cathedral (1904-1909); Redemptorist Church, Limerick (1927); Sts. Peter and Paul, Clonmel (??); St. Mary’s, Nenagh (1910); the Honan Chapel, UCC,Cork (c.1915); Clonakilty; Fermoy; Midleton; Kilmallock. Interestingly, George Ashlin was involved in all of the above mentioned projects (except the Honan Chapel and Dublin Museum) and seems consistently to have retained Ludwig Oppenheimer to carry out mosaic work.
-
November 12, 2005 at 5:26 pm #767258
Neo Goth
ParticipantSo the proposed changes necessitate the destruction of the mosaic floor of the cathedral but what will be put there in its place? Does the architect favour the bathroom tile model of the cathedral in Killarney?
-
November 12, 2005 at 5:43 pm #767259
Praxiteles
ParticipantA pastiche job is proposed incorporating salvage from the present central mosaic and some matching glories imported from the Domus Dei people who similarly obliged -albeit much less radically- in Newry (1992). Apart from that, no specifics have been outlined by Cathal O’Neill for the replacement.
-
November 12, 2005 at 6:24 pm #767260
MacLeinin
ParticipantI thought that the Parish Church in Nenagh was by Walter Doolin, not Ashlin.
-
November 12, 2005 at 6:33 pm #767261
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, you are correct. The parish church in Nenagh is by Walter Doolin. Ashlin was the assessor for the competition and chose Doolin’s submission. Walter Doolin had also been George Ashlin’s pupil. Jermey WIlliams in his Companion Guide to Architecture in Ireland 1837-1921 describes Doolin’s as a conservative architecture derived from Ashlin. The interiors of his churches “come as a welcome relief due to his determination to create a multi-coloured paradise out of the chancels, relying not only on frescoes, and stained glass but also on mosaics, and wrought iron grilles, painted and decorated”. G. Ashling completed Nenagh in 1910. You might also note that Walter Doolin is also the architect for the parish church in Charleville which explains Oppenheimer’s mosaic work there.
-
November 12, 2005 at 6:39 pm #767262
MacLeinin
ParticipantThanks for that.
Can anyone confirm that the mosaic work in Charleville – that can still be seen – is by Oppenheimer. -
November 12, 2005 at 6:48 pm #767263
Gianlorenzo
Participant:confused: At present the Sedelia has been removed from right hand Sanctuary screen and is now free standing in Sanctuary and a dining chair put in its place.
Can anyone explain who this can happen since the building was listed as a protected structure and is the subject of a Covenant with the Heritage Council
-
November 12, 2005 at 7:16 pm #767264
Peter Parler
ParticipantThanks for the photo, Gianlorenzo. I’d have assumed you were joking about the dining chair!
-
November 12, 2005 at 7:43 pm #767265
Praxiteles
ParticipantThey cannot surely have been so ignorant as to attach that awful piece of metal to the back of one of the sedilia!!
Does the genius who perpretrated this bit of hooliganism not realize that this sedilia is based on the classical faldisterium which was taken by the pro-Consuls on their missions outside of Rome as a symbol of their authority and jurisdiction? Does he not know that the pro-Consuls sat on it to give judgement and that its assumption into Christian usage is just one example of what is now described as “inculturation”?
-
November 12, 2005 at 7:45 pm #767266
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantCan anyone tell me how I post a photograph directly onto the tread? I am having terrible trouble with attachments.
-
November 12, 2005 at 9:39 pm #767267
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSorry Praxiteles for the incorrect spelling of sedilia on the picture caption!!!
-
November 12, 2005 at 10:33 pm #767268
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantI am still having trouble with attachments. The byte space is too limited. Help
-
November 12, 2005 at 10:40 pm #767269
Neo Goth
ParticipantI suppose hooligans always have a few iron bars to spare … I suppose this is a form of regressive inculturation.
-
November 12, 2005 at 10:49 pm #767270
MacLeinin
ParticipantNeo Goth. Given the etymology of the discription ‘Gothic’ I do believe that it is His Lordship Bishop Magee who should bear that tag rather than your good self
-
November 12, 2005 at 11:20 pm #767271
Neo Goth
ParticipantWe’ve been trying to disavow the Vandals for centuries who’ve been giving us a bad name. It’s easy to spot them though, they usually go around with iron bars and sometimes they try to disguise and hide their iron bars in the most unusal of places.
-
November 12, 2005 at 11:48 pm #767272
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantMore Pictures.
A is the current Sanctuary floor which is to be dug up.
B is the lower chancel floor and altar rails which are to be dug up and stored!!!!
C is a view of the Chancel Arch from the southwest.The vandals are truly among us.
-
November 13, 2005 at 12:28 am #767273
descamps
ParticipantA recent picture of the chancel in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh.
-
November 13, 2005 at 1:44 am #767274
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantOne passing shot before I retire. Attached is an example of the quality of ‘replacement/restoration’ work that has been carried out in St. Colmans with the help of over €170,000 (£ equivalent) of Heritage Council grants plus the hundreds of thousands donated by the people of Cobh and the Diocese of Cloyne for the restoration project. 🙁
-
November 13, 2005 at 2:25 am #767275
Praxiteles
Participant“…Gothic adventurers crowded so earerly to the standard of Radagaisus, that, by some historians, he has been styled the King of the Goths…Alaric was a Christian and a soldier, the leader of a disciplined army; who understood the laws of war, who respected the sanctity of treaties; and who had familiarly conversed with the subjects of the empire in the same camps and the same churches. The savage Radagaisus was a stranger to the manners, the religion and even the language of the civilised nations of the South. The fierceness of his temper was exasperated by cruel superstition; and it was universally believed that he had bound himself by a solemn vow to reduce the City into a heap of stones and ashes, and to sacrifice the most illustruous Roman senators on the altars of those gods who were appeased by human blood….Comitantur euntem Pallor, et atra Fames; et saucia lividus ora Luctus; et inferno stridentes agmine morbi”. (Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31).
-
November 13, 2005 at 3:20 am #767276
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo complete the newly acquired picture gallery, I thought you might like to have the enclosed picturesque photographic study of the South elevation of the exterior of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
-
November 13, 2005 at 1:14 pm #767277
Peter Parler
Participant(#52) Much as one might regret the hooliganism perpetrated on that sedilia, Praxiteles, no one who has tried sitting on one for any length of time could possibly begrudge an aging Pro-Consul the back support. Some of them, as you know, are nowadays quite spineless.
-
November 13, 2005 at 7:25 pm #767278
MacLeinin
ParticipantCould there be hope for Killarney at last!!! Did you all see the article below in the Sunday Indo. today?
Magnificent artifacts to return to Gothic Cathedral
JEROME REILLY
MAGNIFICENT artefacts removed from Pugin’s Gothic masterpiece, St Mary’s Cathedral in Killarney could be re-installed, if a historian and antiques expert has his way.
The cathedral was finally completed in the Twenties following some 80 years of construction work.
But in the early Seventies, under the direction of Bishop Eamon Casey, the cathedral was remodelled to take account of changes in the liturgy demanded by Vatican II.
That included the removal of a dozen brass chandeliers and a number of magnificent brass candelabra which then fell into private ownership.
Those artefacts were recently purchased by local historian and antiques dealer Maurice O’Keeffe who was very much aware of their historic provenance.
“I have restored one of them and they are magnificent. I would be more than willing to let the church have them for exactly the same amount I paid for them so they could be re-installed,” he said.
The cathedral was designed by Augustus Welby Pugin and is renowned for its Gothic proportions.
Work commenced in 1842 but stopped between 1848 and 1853 because of the famine, when the building was used as a hospital.
The Californian Redwood tree in the grounds was planted after the famine in memory of the children buried underneath. Pugin died insane in Ramsgate in 1885. -
November 13, 2005 at 9:08 pm #767279
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, just as civilization is sowing the first seeds of a serious “restoration” work in Killarney, the pall of Bishop Magee’s medieval darkness still hangs over Cobh cathedral. The Bishop of Kerry may not realize just how luck he is still to be able to locate the original fittings of Killarney cathedral. Have we come full circle?
-
November 13, 2005 at 9:17 pm #767280
Praxiteles
ParticipantFor the purposes of contrast…… While much can be commented on, the floor is particularly noteworthy – especially after 35 years of wear and tear. The only remaining portion of the original floor is to be found in the Lady Chapel. Its destruction was staved off by the efforts of the redoubtable Beatrice Grovner who stood on her patronal rights as heiress to the Earls of Kenmare who are buried in the crypt underneath. The architect for the Killarney project was Dan Kennedy.
-
November 13, 2005 at 9:38 pm #767281
Praxiteles
ParticipantPerhaps Paul Clerkin might be able to provide a picture of St. Macartan’s before Joe Duffy was let loose on the building. I am told that a confessional in bee-hut form was subsequently introduced. While most would regard this as eccentric, not the good bishop who was eloquent about the early Irish penitentials and the monastic cells on Skellig Michael…… The architect in this case was Gerald MacCann, if memory serves me correctly.
-
November 13, 2005 at 10:03 pm #767282
MacLeinin
ParticipantO’Neill’s proposals for Cobh Cathedral look more and more like re-heated soup. -see attachment.
There is a very obvious lack of imagination in both clerical and architectural circles in Ireland.
😮 Just where do these clapped out prototypes come from? -
November 13, 2005 at 10:44 pm #767283
Neo Goth
ParticipantThe sanctuary furnishings in the cathedral in Monaghan look like a bathroom set. Does the ambo have hot and cold taps? Will the new liturgical furnishings for the cathedral in Cobh be the same? There doesn’t seem to be any details given about these.
-
November 14, 2005 at 2:02 am #767284
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantTwo more views of the O’Neill’s foolishness courtesy of http://www.foscc.com :p
-
November 14, 2005 at 2:17 am #767285
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe photomontage could pass for Monaghan had the high altar there not been demolished. All that seem to have been done in this “adaptation” was to knock off the hard edges of Monaghan and supply soft curves and semicircles.
-
November 14, 2005 at 3:32 am #767286
Neo Goth
Participant -
November 14, 2005 at 4:33 am #767287
Neo Goth
ParticipantWill what happened to the cathedral in Monaghan be the fate of St. Colman’s?
The following is the ‘rationale’ from the official website of Clogher diocese for the iconoclastic ‘refurbishment’.
A radical rearrangement and refurbishing of the Cathedral was begun in 1982 to meet
the requirements of the revised Liturgy.The people of Monaghan were told a big lie… people of Cobh beware this lie is long past its tell by date!
The pic below is the architect’s view of the ‘refurbished’ sanctuary of St. Colman’s
-
November 14, 2005 at 6:17 pm #767288
Praxiteles
ParticipantA shocked collegue thought that the “remodelled” sanctuary in Monaghan looked for all the world like a childrens playground!!
-
November 14, 2005 at 6:55 pm #767289
MacLeinin
ParticipantIT IS a playground – for wayward ‘children’.
-
November 15, 2005 at 3:35 pm #767290
Peter Parler
Participant52 / Praxiteles, I am still thinking about those Proconsuls. Did you know that it was the Dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla) who decreed in 80 B.C. that the Provinces were to be governed by ex-Consuls? It was a way of getting them out of Rome once they had outlived their usefulness. Apparently they were appointed for a maximum of five years – but of course few of them survived that long. It was never meant that they should! See http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul
-
November 15, 2005 at 6:29 pm #767291
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Jerome Reilly’s article reproduced in no. 65: it should be noted that A.W.N. Pugin died, at the age of 40, on 14 September 1852 as a result, not of insanity, but probably of the effects of mercury poisoning cf. Rosemary Hill, Augustus Welby Northmoe Pugin: A Biographical Sketch, in A.W.N. Pugin:Master of Gothic Revival,Yale University Press, New Haven and London 1995.
-
November 15, 2005 at 9:34 pm #767292
Praxiteles
ParticipantFor the picture gallery: a view of the west elevation of St. Colman’s Cathedral Cobh.
-
November 15, 2005 at 9:53 pm #767293
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother view of the interior of St. Mary’s Cathedral, Killarney from c. 1899.
-
November 16, 2005 at 12:26 am #767294
GrahamH
ParticipantA magnificent ‘strong’ building: very imposing and located on a fine site – indeed one of the best aspects of the building is its environment.
-
November 16, 2005 at 7:44 am #767295
Neo Goth
ParticipantAcross the harbour from Cobh Cathedral the North Cathedral in Cork was vandalised by the liturrgical refurbishers,,,
Unfortunately this is another classical example of the after being worse than the before..BEFORE
AFTER
-
November 16, 2005 at 3:53 pm #767296
Praxiteles
ParticipantAfter Killarney, Armagh must be one of the most questionable attempts at “reordering”. The building was begun in 1840 to designs by Thomas Duff of Newry but suspended because of the famine. It was resumed to plans by JJ McCarthy and the interior completed by G.C. Ashlin. Circa 1980, Ashlin’s original sanctuary was all but destroyed by an already liturgically dated effort by Liam McCormack. Casulties of the iconoclasm include Cesare Aureli high altars, Beakey’s pulpit, the roodscreen, M. Dorey’s choir stalls, and the 1875 Telford organ.
-
November 16, 2005 at 4:15 pm #767297
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother example for the list of “reorderings” that should not have happened is the Cathedral of the Assumption in Tuam, Co. Galway. Begun in 1837 by Archbishop John McHale to ambitious plans by the little known Dominic Madden, it was regarded as one of the finest examples of early Gothic revival in Ireland. The fine window behind the (demolished) high altar is by Michael O’Connor (1860). An iconoclastic outburst in 1979 saw the destruction the original baldichino, transcept altars, pulpit and altar rails. A further effort was made in 1991 under the direction of Ray Carroll which saw the demolition of the high altar, and the implantation of a misplaced faux roodscreen which succeeded in obscuring the lower part of O’Connor’s window. The great Lion of the West lies beneath all this, his crypt in-filled with the rubble of his own creation. One commentator described the overall present effect as reminicent of a set for a re-run of Snow White and the seven dwarfs.
-
November 16, 2005 at 10:46 pm #767298
Praxiteles
ParticipantDominic Madden’s Cathedral of St. Peter and St Paul in Ennis is another example of liturgical adaptation gone wrong. Begun in 1828 and completed by 1842, the decoration of the interior was assigned to JJ McCarthy who is responsible for the internal pillars, with traceried spandrels, and galleries. The building was re-decorated in a renovation begun in 1894 under the direction of Joshua Clarke, father of Harry Clarke. The fresco of the Assumption, which stood behind and above JJ McCarthy’s (demolished) high altar, is by Nagle and Potts. Ennis Cathedral was one of the first in the country to undergo “reordering” according to a perceived need to bring it into conformity with the liturgical requirements of the Second Vatican Council. The guiding light in this was Michael Harty, dean of Maynooth College and subsequently Bishop of Killaloe. Although not an academic nor a trained liturgist , and more at home in teaching rubrics, Michael Harty acquired a reputation in church architecture circles for boldly going where no one went before and exercised a main morte on the design /execution of many Irish churches from the seventies on – his first being the ruination of St Mary’s Chapel in Maynooth College. Andy Devane was the architect for the Ennis “reordering”, backed up by the subtle aestesia of Enda King. The new altar and ambo were done in the erratic natural boulder style highly reminiscent of the de Bello Gallico‘s descriptions of druidic ritual. As in many of the Irish Cathedral “reorderings”, the noteworthy dissapearance of the Chapter Choir stalls is significant.
-
November 16, 2005 at 11:26 pm #767299
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe red rosette in the outré class of the Irish cathedrals’ reordering stakes must surely go to St. Peter’s Cathedral in Belfast. Designed by Jeremiah Ryan McAuley, the foundation stone was laid in 1860. The building opened for public worship in 1866. The present refurbishment was undertaken by the late Cardinal Cahal Daly in 1982 and concentrated to a peculiar degree of obsession on the doctrinaire insertion of the Cathedra in basilical fashion behind a miniscule altar. All major components were executed in Cardinal Daly’s preferred wooden types resulting in a precarious dependence on aesthetically poised flower arrangements to relieve a brooding monotony. Again, the Cathedral Chapter has been unseated and Choir Stalls are nowhere to be seen. “Further refurbishment is planned so that St. Peter’s Cathedral will be an adornment in the regeneration currently taking place in inner Belfast”. Nobody seems to want to own up for all of this.
-
November 16, 2005 at 11:28 pm #767300
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHas some discreet cloning taken place in architectural circles in Ireland. From what I have seen so far it is all a variation on the same theme. Not only that, it is a theme that is pursued regardless of the setting. Maybe we should have a poll as to which is the most insensitive re-ordering to date. Any takers?
-
November 16, 2005 at 11:37 pm #767301
MacLeinin
ParticipantDoes anybody know which architect is responsible for the re-ordering of St.Peters in Belfast? Was it perhaps Ray Carroll?
-
November 17, 2005 at 12:28 am #767302
MacLeinin
ParticipantMy vote on the worst re-ordering to date goes to Tuam. 😮
-
November 17, 2005 at 1:16 am #767303
Gianlorenzo
Participant😎
Thought that this comment was worth sharing. One only hopes that this state of affairs can be maintained.TAKING STOCK OF OUR ECCLESIASTICAL HERITAGE
The Heritage Council 1998John Maiben Gilmartin.
Ecclesiastical Works of ArtHowever, the positive and the good must not be disregarded. Mention should be made of initiatives of high merit, such as the maintenance of Cobh Cathedral both externally and internally. This building has an outstanding interior which almost alone of Irish nineteenth century cathedrals survives intact. The beneficent authorities at Cobh have also seen that their fine collection of textiles has been superbly restored and conserved.
-
November 17, 2005 at 1:26 am #767304
the bull
ParticipantKillarney, Monaghan, Armagh, Tuam,Ennis,Belfast,………….. My God how do they get away with it.
This must not happen in Cobh
-
November 17, 2005 at 1:32 am #767305
the bull
ParticipantRE no 89 I agree my vote goes to Tuam for the worst re-ordering to date. With Ennis as a close runner up.
Killarney is in a category all of its own -
November 17, 2005 at 1:35 am #767306
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantRe.#91 They have been getting away with it because the only ones to object are their own parishioners and in the stratospheric world of architects and clerics they do not count. Fortunately in Cobh there is a very organised and informed opposition who hopefully will prevail.They have a wonderful website -www.foscc.com
-
November 17, 2005 at 1:50 am #767307
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother boring application of the hackneyed pastiche formula – St. Eugene’s Cathedral in Derry. Begun in 1851 to designs by an unknown and eventually to plans of JJ McCarthy, St. Eugene’s was consecrated in 1873. The spire designed by G.C. Ashlin, added in 1899, was completed in 1903. The glass is by Mayer of Munich. Liam McCormack of Armagh Cathedral fame also struck in Derry in 1975.
-
November 17, 2005 at 2:06 am #767308
MacLeinin
ParticipantDerry (#94) looks positively dangerous. Has anyone fallen off yet?
-
November 17, 2005 at 5:05 pm #767309
Praxiteles
ParticipantLongford Cathedral was widely regarded as Ireland’s finest example of a neo-Classical cathedral. The original architect was John Benjamine Keane with subsequent contributions from John Bourke (campanile of 1860) and the near ubiquitous G.C. Ashlin who is responsible for the impeccably proportioned portico (1883-1913) commissioned by Bishop Bartholomew Woodlock of Catholic University fame. The internal plaster work is Italian as were the (demolished) lateral altars. It was opened for public worship in 1856. In the 1970s a major re-styling of the sanctuary was undertaken by Bishop Cathal Daly who employed the services of Wilfred Cantwell and Ray Carroll. J. Bourke’s elaborate high altar altar and choir stalls were demolished and replaced by an austere arrangement focused on a disproportionately scaled altar. The results, which have not drawn the kind of universal criticism reserved for Armagh and Killarney, nevertheless leave the interior of the building without a natural focus. The insertion of tapesteries between the columns of the central apse was an attempt to fill the void and would be used again to solve a similar problem in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin. The absence of choir stalls is to be noted as is the relative obscurity of the Cathedra – the very raison d’etre for the building.
-
November 17, 2005 at 5:11 pm #767310
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Praxiteles wrote:
After Killarney, Armagh must be one of the most questionable attempts at “reordering”. The building was begun in 1840 to designs by Thomas Duff of Newry but suspended because of the famine. It was resumed to plans by JJ McCarthy and the interior completed by G.C. Ashlin. Circa 1980, Ashlin’s original sanctuary was all but destroyed by an already liturgically dated effort by Liam McCormack. Casulties of the iconoclasm include Cesare Aureli high altars, Beakey’s pulpit, the roodscreen, M. Dorey’s choir stalls, and the 1875 Telford organ.
More on the interior of Armagh
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/armagh/armagh/st_patricks_interior.html -
November 17, 2005 at 5:14 pm #767311
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterand no one has mentioned St John’s in Limerick yet
-
November 17, 2005 at 5:32 pm #767312
johannas
ParticipantOr what about Wexford, does anyone know if this Cathedral of Pugin design has been laid bare to the vandals?
-
November 17, 2005 at 5:45 pm #767313
Mosaic1
ParticipantDear thread contributors,
I am ‘Mosaic1’ and I am new to your discussions, which are very interesting to me. You have been discussing the work of Ludwig Oppenheimer Ltd. in relation to Cobh & elsewhere and Iyou might like to know that there are 2 additional churches that may contain their work – St. Fintan’s, in Taghmon, Co. Wexford, and St. Mary’s, in Listowel, Co. Kerry.
With scholars and mosaic enthusiasts in Ireland and the U.K., I have been researching the firm for some time now, prompted initially by the apparent, and puzzling, absence of information on them and their work. We now know a good deal more about the firm and the people and are hoping to have a seminar and to publish a book on them and their works. The firm was founded in 1865 in Manchester and operated until 1965. It’s mosaics are known in Ireland, England, France and 1 in the U.S. Bizarrely for a Manchester based firm, most of their presently known work is in Ireland, so much remains to be learnt about their work in Britain.
If anybody has any information or knows of any possible sources of such, I’d be very grateful to hear from them.
Kind regards, and many thanks in advance for your help,
‘Mosaic1’
-
November 17, 2005 at 5:58 pm #767314
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe n. 98: I am glad you raised the case of Limerick which has undergone a very recent restoration and “make over” of the interior, especially of the sancturay. The original architect here was Philip Charles Hardwick who had been retained by the Earl of Dunraven to build Adare Manor. It was constructed 1856 – 1861 and consecrated in 1894. From a distance, the spire (280 feet) makes a very memorable impression on the flatness of the Limerick plain. The Cathedral interior is a fine example of the effective use of light and is one of its principal features – nowadays not so clearly evident because of over-illumination. The high altar, throne, and pulpit were made by the Belgian firm of Phyffers. Although re-arranged by J.J. O’Callaghan in 1894, they survived into the 1980s when, unfortunately, the throne was removed and resited in the vacuum left by the altar mensa which had been moved “nearer to the people”. The tabarnacle in the reredos was abandoned and its door replaced by the heraldic achievement of the then Bishop. In placing the throne in the site intended for the mensa of the altar, little account was taken of the surprising (if not incongrous) effect of seeing the successor of St. Munchin seated on a throne at either side of which was clearly emblasoned a strophe of the Trishagion. A rood beam survived with its figures into the 1980. In the latest round, the choir stalls seem to have survived.
-
November 17, 2005 at 7:45 pm #767315
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Cathedral, Kilkenny, designed by WIlliam Deane Butler, was begun in 1843 and completed in 1857. Its neo-Gothic style is heavily Norman in inspiration and can be easily compared with St. Jean de Malte in Aix-en-Provence, St-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume in Provence or indeed with many of the pure creations of the Norman displacement in central and southern Italy – such as the abbatial church at Fossanova in Latium, Sant’Eligio in Naples, and San Lorenzo Maggiore in Naples. The decoration of the interior of Kilkenny’s St. Mary’s is by Earley and Powell and was brought to completion in 1865. This firm was responsible for the ceiling painting of the chancel, the glass, the high altar fittings and lightings. The mosaic work is by Bourke of London and the chancel murals by Westlake. In the 1970s, the socially minded Bishop Birch instigated, in the diocese of Ossory, an iconoclasm worthy of the emperor Leo III, a martial pesant from the mountains of Isouria whose hatred of images was largely inspired by an incomparable ignorance of both sacred and profane letters. Kilkenny cathedral, fortunately, escaped the worst ravages and retains its (albeit redundant) High Altar which was purchased in Italy. The altar rails (alas no more) and the altar of the Sacred Heart were the work of James Pearce. A diminuitive and out of scale altar was placad under the crossing and a new cathedra -redolent of Star trek – installed. The contour of this impianto is remarkably similar to the one now proposed for Cobh cathedral. Perhaps the greatest thing that can be said for this “reordering” is that it can (and will) eventually be removed leaving the building more or less as concieved by none too mean an architect.
So far, nobody wishes to claim responsibility for the effort.
-
November 17, 2005 at 9:32 pm #767316
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Assumption of Our Lady in Thurles, Co. Tipperary, boasts of being Ireland’s only 19th century cathedral to have been built in the neo-romanesque style. Building commenced in 1865 to plans by JJ McCarthy who relied very heavily on North Italian or Lombard prototypes, modelling the facade on that of the Cathedral in Pisa, and, succeeding to some extent in conveying the spacial sense of the Cathedral complex in Pisa with his free standing baptistery and tower. The Cathedral was consecrated by Archbishop Croke on 22 June 1879. Archbishop Croke replaced JJ McCarthy with George C. Ashlin as architect for the remaining works which included the decoration of the interior on which no expense was spared. The ceiling, designed by Ashlin, was executed by Earley and Powell. The same company are also responsible for the galss and some of the sculpture work, the more important elements of which were executed by Pietro Lazzarini, Benzoni and Joseph O’Reilly. Mayer of Munich also supplied glass as well as Wailes of Newcastle. The most important item, however, in the Cathedral is the Ciborium of the Altar by Giacomo della Porta (1537-1602). This had originally been commissioned for the Gesù in Rome in 1582 by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. The same Giacomo della Porta built the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica 1588/1590 and finished the lantern in 1603. The altar from the Gesù was acquired by Archbishop Leahy while in the City for the First Vatican Council in 1869/1870. Reordering work began here in 1979. The altar rails have given way in the face of a projection into the nave. Unbelievably, the High Altar has been dismantled and its mensa separated from the della Porta ciborium which is now relegated to an undescript plinth. The original stencilled work disappeared in 1973. As with Longford and the Pro Cathedral, the removal of the High Altar leaves the building without a focus, the present dimension and location of the Ciborium not being to the scale of the building. The temptation to hang banners in the apse has not been resisted.
It is difficult to ascertain the architect responsible for the current interior of Thurles Cathedral.
-
November 17, 2005 at 11:53 pm #767317
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Patrick and St. Colman, Newry, Co. Down is a composit building in a neo Gothic idiom developed in three main phases bewteen 1825, when it was begun to plans by Thomas Duff, extended between 1888 and 1891, futher extended between 1904 and 1909, and finally completed in 1925. The only part that can be reasonably described as Victorian are the transepts (1891); high Altar, pulpit and belfry (by Ashlin). The decorative scheme was drawn up by Thomas Hevey and executed by G.C. Ashlin who alsoextended the nave and chancel in 1904. The sanctuary was re-ordered in 1990 by extending the dais into the nave, and placing the mensa of the original altar under the crossing. The pulpit appears to have survived but not the altar rails. The reredos of the altar was needlessly divided into three section for reasons not easily or immediately fathomed. The present tri-partite re-constructed reredos is slightly reminiscent of the revolving stage scenes of an 18th century petit theatre. The most remarkable implant of the reordering must be the throne in a neo Gothic idiom. Curiously, it is probably the largest throne created in any re-ordering in Ireland -for what is one of the smallest dioceses in the country. Among the conoscenti, it is often deferred to as a “model” for what could be done in Cobh Cathedral – a building far outstripping Newry in its superiority of conception, execution and stylistic unity. Again, this cathedral is bereft of Choir Stalls.
-
November 18, 2005 at 2:12 am #767318
GrahamH
ParticipantThanks for all the pictures Praxiteles – partiicularly Longford, what a gem of a building. Those columns are magnificent!
How disturbing to see all of these reorderings in black and white – whatever about the removal of architecturally significant features, but to then install bathroom showrooms as liturgical and architectural focal points of these splendid buildings is nothing short of criminal.Another by Duff, and whilst not (quite :)) a cathedral, and not as opulent as others featured, St. Patrick’s in Dundalk has had the most horrendous rubbish thrown up in the sanctuary. I don’t remember what was here before the ‘changes’, but in its place has been put what can only be described as an altar table from Homebase fronted by an 8×4 sheet of MDF with laser cut gothick arches, bright verdigris paint and backlit with a florescent tube:
Luckily the worst of it is concealed here beneath the altar cloth. It beggars belief when you see it up close – looks like a cartoon plonked into the ‘real world’.
Also the throne looks like it was a nicked from a 1980s country house hotel, whilst the timber lecturn with ‘feature panel’ is equally inappropriate in an exclusively marble environment.
On the upside, I believe St. Patrick’s also has mosaics by Oppenheimer, just not sure which particular ones.
I dread to think what was there before the timber-n-carpet conference stage was introduced 🙁 -
November 18, 2005 at 2:57 am #767319
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Brendan in Loughrea, Co. Galway was begun in 1897 to plans drawn up by William Byrne and completed by 1902. In size, it is quite modest and, exteriorally, not much different from many churches then being buit in Ireland. Byrne was commissioned to bulit a church in the neo Gothic idiom, having a nave, absidal chancel, lean-to isles, a shallow transcept and a spire. The interior, however, is another matter. By some strange providence, the interior became a veritable icon of the Celtic revival movementin terms of sculpure, above all glass, metal work and wood work. This gem was the product of a partnership of interest in the Celtic Revival shared by Fr. Jeremiah O’Donovan, who was given charge of the Loughrea cathedral project, and by Edward Martyn (benefactor of the Palestrina Choir in the Pro-Cathedral). John Hughes was commissioned to do the sculpture for the interior -including the bronze relief of Christ on the reredos of the High Altar and a marble statue of Our Lady. Michael Shortall was commissioned to execute a statue of St. Brendan and the corbels. He is also responsible for the scenes from the life of St. Brendan on the capitals of the pillars. Designed by Jack B. Yates and his wife Mary, the ladies of the Dun Emer guild embroidered twenty four banners of Irish saints. The same studio provided Mass vestments etc.. The stained glass is by An Tur Glaoine (opened in 1903) under the direction of Alfred Childe and Sarah Purser. Over the next forty years A. Childe, S. Purser and Michael Healy executed all of the glass. Michael Healy’s Ascension (1936) and Last Judgement (1937-1940) are amongst the Cathedral’s greatest treasures. Fortunately, the liturgical Boeotians have not yet managed to exact their vengence on this little gem. The High Altar, communion rails, and pulpit are all still in tact – though the inferior quality of the modern liturgical furnishings inserted into the original organic whole is patently obvious.
-
November 18, 2005 at 3:29 am #767320
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantAnother view of St. John’s in Limerick. The more I look at the sanctuary floor the more I am reminded of something from a Harry Potter movie. 😮
-
November 18, 2005 at 3:39 am #767321
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantFor Praxiteles re #84 Tuam Cathedral. Here is a shot of the original sanctuary showing baldachino 🙂
and one of the side altars. -
November 18, 2005 at 4:34 am #767322
Gianlorenzo
Participant“……… St. Mel’s Cathedral, begun to the design of Joseph Keane in 1840. While the portico lacks the sophistication of Keane’s great Dominican Pope’s Quay Church in Cork, the interior, by contrast, is now regarded as noblest of all Irish Classical church interiors. It is designed in the style of an early Christian basilica, with noble Grecian Ionic columns and a curved apse. It also shares the remarkable distinction of being the only major Catholic Church in Ireland to have actually been improved by internal reordering, when the fussy later altar was removed and replaced by a simple modem table altar, which accords harmoniously with the early Christian style of the interior. The tower and portico give a striking approach to the town from Dublin.”
(An Taisce)Is this true? I have been unable to find any photographs of St. Mel’s so am unable to judge. Does anyone have before and after shot so we can decide.
-
November 18, 2005 at 6:06 pm #767323
johannas
ParticipantWell Graham, at least St. Patrick’s in Dudalk still retains the beautiful italian altar rails and brass gates insitu and though the homebase altar is quite disturbing, the sanctuary hasn’t quite been turned into a disney ice rink!!!
-
November 18, 2005 at 7:47 pm #767324
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe. post 109
It also shares the remarkable distinction of being the only major Catholic Church in Ireland to have actually been improved by internal reordering, when thee fussy later altar was removed and replaced by a simple modern table altar, which accords harmoniously with the early Christian style of the interior.
Gianlorenzo wrote:“While the import of the above is not exactly clear, the idea that the modern undersized altar in Longford Cathedral “accords harmoniously” with the early Christian style of the interior is quite remarkable for its evident obliviouness to the findings of Christian archeology and the factual testimony of those Basilicas which still conserve their original spacial lay out. The result of Cathal Daly’s reordering of Longford is a modern construct derived from contemporary theories that has been brutally superimposed on a neo classical basilical context.
Were the reordering to have been conducted with the idea of reproducing or reinterpreting the prinicples underlying the spacial outlay of an early Christian Basilica, then the outcome would have been considerably different. It would have required emptying the nave of its benches]Solea[/I] extending one third of its length and marked off by barriers; a transverse barrier to mark off the Sanctuary; and the construction of a Ciborium or Baldachino over an altar on a raised dais. [See attachment 1 and 2]
In this system, the nave is reserved for the entry and exit of the Roman Pontiff and his attendants at least since the year 314when he was invested with the Praetorian dignity. When he arrived at the main door, his military or civil escort was shed; he processed through the nave with clergy any other administrative attendants until he reached the gate of the Solea at which point all lay attendants were shed; the lower clergy lined up in the Solea and remained there while the Pontiff, accompanied by the Proto Deacon of the Holy Roman Church and the Deacon of the Basilica accompanied him through the gate of the Sanctuary as far as the Altar where other priests or Bishops awaited him.
The laity were confined to the side isles; the matroneum (or womens’ side); and the senatorium (men’s side).
In Rome, two extant eamples of this spacial disposition illustrate the point: Santa Sabina which is partially intact [attachment 3]; but, more importantly, San Clemente which is well preserved [attachment 4].
Remarkably, the author who believes that the present interior lay out of Longford Cathedral somehow reflects that of an early Christian Basilica quite obviously has not read Richard Krautheimer’s Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae and may not have been familiar with the same author’s Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Yale University Press). C. H. Kraeling’s The Christian Building (The Excavations at Dura Europos…Final Report, VIII, 2 (Yale University Press) and T. Matthew’s writings on the disposition of the chancel in early Christian Basilicas (Revista di Archeologia Cristiana, XXXVIII [1962], pp. 73ff. would certainly dispel any notion of even a remote connection between the early Christian Basilica and the current pastiche in Longford Cathedral.
-
November 18, 2005 at 8:16 pm #767325
MacLeinin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
What came of the appeal to the Supreme Court do you know Praxiteles?
I noticed that no one has attempted to answer your question. To the best of my knowledge the Friends of Carlow Cathedral lost their case in the Supreme Court – legend has it that one man lost his home as a result. I have tried following this story up on the web but there is nothing obviously available.
-
November 18, 2005 at 8:54 pm #767326
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSpeaking of Carlow, there was a story in the Carlow People today about some of the stained glass window being smashed.
“Smashed Cathedral windows will cost thousands to repair
A number of stained glass windows in Carlow Cathedral were broken last week in an attack which is expected to cost thousands of euro to repair.
The damage was done when a man threw a bin at a number of windows in the Cathedral last Wednesday night.
The motive for the attack is not known but Carlow Gardai apprehended a man at the scene.
This is the second attack on a church in Carlow in recent times as just over a month ago vandals threw kerbing through a number of windows in St. Mary’s Church of Ireland in Rathvilly.Assessors have now examined the damage to the Cathedral although according to administrator Fr. Ger Aherne they have not yet completed their examination.
‘We don’t know how much it will cost to repair them, there were three or four panels broken,’ he said. ‘The windows are quite old and we expect the cost will be substantial.” Carlow People 18/11/05The vandals have struck inside and out.!!!! 🙁
-
November 18, 2005 at 9:44 pm #767327
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantInterior of Carlow. Does anyone have a view of the sanctuary before the changes?
-
November 18, 2005 at 10:04 pm #767328
Praxiteles
Participantre #107
Looking at the floor in Limerick, there might be a vague suggestion of the Campidoglio in Rome – but I would not swear to it!
-
November 18, 2005 at 10:14 pm #767329
MacLeinin
Participant🙂
Well done Praxiteles, I think you are correct. Is there some significance to the disign?
-
November 18, 2005 at 10:42 pm #767330
Praxiteles
Participanten suivant la guerre….this time, we have the Cathedral of St.Eunan’s in Letterkenny, Co. Donegal, which, mercifully, has been subjected to a minimalist approach to “reordering”. It was the last of the major Gothic Revival cathedrals to have been built in Ireland. Begun to plans drawn by WIlliam Hague in 1891, it was completed in 1901 by his his partner T. F. McNamara. Here architecture “stained glass, sculpture, frescoes and mosaics are orchestrated into a triumphant unison”. The external sculpture is by Purdy and Millard of Belfast. The mosaic tiling of the choir is by Willicroft of Henley. The Pearse Brothers’ The High Altar, throne, pulpit (depicting the Donegal Masters), and communion rail all remain in situ. The glass is by Mayer of Munich and by Michael Healy whose work is to be seen in his windows of 1910-1912. The clerestory windows were designed by Harry Clarke. Great creidt is due the enlightened former Bishop of Raphoe, Dr. Seamus Hegarty, for this sensible approach to “reordering” and for his concern to preserve the integrity of the building.
-
November 18, 2005 at 10:55 pm #767331
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Annunciation and St. Nathy, Ballaghadereen, Co. Roscommon is another example of a minimalist approach to “reordering” that has succeeded in conserving much of the original fabric and fittings of the building. Designed by Hadfield and Goldie, the foundation stone was laid in 1855 and completed in 1860. In the Early English idiom, a plan for a fan-vaulted ceiling had to be abandoned because of lack of funds. The external tower and spire are by W.H. Byrne. The glass was supplied by Earley, Mayer and An Tur Glaoine (the windows depicting St. John and St. Anne by Beatric Elvery). There are (and were) no choir stalls.
-
November 18, 2005 at 11:11 pm #767332
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity in Waterford is the oldest Catholic Cathedral in Ireland. Begun to plans drawn up by John Roberts in 1793, the cathedral was completed c. 1800. The present sanctuary was installed in 1830; the apse and High Altar in 1854; and the Baldachino, supported by five corinthinan columns, in 1881. The pulpit, Choir stalls, and throne, designed by Goldie of London and carved by Buisine of Lille, were installed in 1883. The glass is mainly by Mayer of Munich – except for the chandeliers which are a gift of Waterford Glass Ltd.. A fairly minimalist reordering took place in 1977 during which the Choir Stalls were moved from their original position flanking the High Altar to a new position against the abse walls. The altar rails seem to have been removed and a moveable altar inserted.
-
November 18, 2005 at 11:42 pm #767333
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of Our Lady Assumed in to Heaven and St. Nicholas, Galway, was the last Cathedral to be have been built in Ireland. Its patron was the formidable Bishop Michael John Browne and architect was John J. Robinson of Dublin. The builders were John Sisk. The foundation was laid in 1957 and the building was finished by 1965. The style, much criticized by the politically correct establishment, is certainly different from much of what was being built in Ireland at the time and reflects all sorts of eclectic elements borrowed from tpyes such as St. Peter’s in Rome, Seville, and Tuscany. The interior gives the impression of not having been completed and still lacks Choir Stalls, pulpit and perhaps even a proportionate High Altar in the apse. Those furnishings and fittings already in the building by 1965 have survived without any reordering.
-
November 19, 2005 at 1:14 am #767334
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother of the neo-classical Cathedrals, this time the Cathedral of St. Patrick and St. Phelim in Cavan town. Built to plans by W. H. Byrne of Dublin, it was begun in 1938 and completed in 1942. The tympanum of the portico contains figures of Christ, St. Patrick and St. Phelim by George Smith. The columns in the interior, the pulpit and statutes were supplied by Dinelli of Pietrasanta in Italy. The stations of the cross and the mural of the Resurreection are by George Collie. The High Altar is of green Connemara and red Midleton marble. The altar rails are in white Carrara marble. All of the original fittings and features are still in situ and reordering here has been minimalistic. Some of the glass was provided by the studios of Harry Clarke. In 1994 the Abbey Stained Glass company installed a set of eight stained glass windows made by Harry Clarke originally for the Sacred heart Convent in Leesons Street, Dublin between 1919 and 1934. Thee set depicts ST. Patrick and two princesses; St. Anne and the Blessed Virgin; St. Francis Xavier; St. Charles Borromeo; the Sacred heart and St. MArgaret Mary; St. Michael the Archangel; and the Apparition of Our Lady to St. Bernard. There do not appear to have been Choir Stalls.
-
November 19, 2005 at 1:21 am #767335
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of Crist the King, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath, was built to plans drawn up by R.A. Byrne and WIlliam H. Byrne of Dublin. Work began in 1932 and the building was opened for public worship in 1936 and consecrated in 1939. Reordering here has been minimalistic with all of the main original fittings still in situ.
-
November 19, 2005 at 3:37 pm #767336
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Patrick, Skibbereen, Co. Cork, is the Cathedral church of the the diocese of Ross. It was buit between 1825/1826 and 1830 by the Rev. Michael Collins, subsequently Bishop of Cloyne and Ross. The Cathedral was built in a neo-classical style, and while modest in scale, is not without interest. The architect for Skibbereen was Michael Augustine O’Riordan, a remarkable man by any standards. Educated in the neo-classical style, he worked extensively in Cork City and County. Some of his churches include the North Chapel in Cork i.e. the Cathedral of St. Mary and St. Anne (1808), Blackrock Village (1818), Doneraile (1827), Millstreet (1836), Bantry (1837), Kinsale (1838), and Dunmanway (1841). In 1826, at the age of 42, he made profession as a Patrician Brother. Along with continuing building churches, convents and schools throughout Cork, he spent his time teaching in the schools for poor run by the brothers. Skibbereen Cathedral, fortunately, survived the rush to “reordering” and the worst phases of its consequent iconoclasm – partly due the sensitivity arising from the recent status of the diocese of Ross. It was only in very recent time that a fairly minimialist approach to reordering took place which saw the preservation of the High Altar but the loss of a portion of the fine altar rails and their gates in the face of the forward thrust into the nave all too familiar in Irish “reorderings”. The refurbishment and renovation of elements of the Cathedral in Skibbereen are by Wain Moorehead of Cork. The same refurbishment could usefully have removed the amplifiers adhering to the capitals of the columns at the chancel arch. Choir Stalls never appear to have been installed in Skibbereen.
-
November 19, 2005 at 3:59 pm #767337
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Muredach’s Cathedral in Ballina, Co. Mayo was begun in 1828 and externally completed in 1831. The patron was John McHale, the young bishop of Killala. The architect was Dominic Madden who is also responsible for the cathedrals in Tuam and Ennis. Lack of funds and the famine inevitably induced changes to the original design. The spire was added in 1853 by John Benson. The project was finally completed in 1892. The ribbed ceiling, by Arthur Canning, is based on Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome , the original painted decoration, however, has vanished. The glass is by Mayer of Munich. Of the High Altar, commissioned in Rome by Sir Kenelem Digby, only the mensa survives.
-
November 19, 2005 at 6:52 pm #767338
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Sligo, has been dubbed by some as Ireland’s least loved Cathedral. It was built in a Germanic Romanesque style, quasi officially, and overwhelmingly, described as “Normano-Romano-Byzantine”. The Cathedral was built by Bishop Lawrence Gilloly to plans drawn up by George Goldie. WIth a seating capacity of 4,000, it has the largest capacity of any Cathedral in Ireland. The foundation stone was laid in 1868. The Cathedral opened for public worship in 1874 and was consecrated in 1897. The glass was supplied by Lobin of Tours. The High Altar is surmounted by a baldachino supported by columns of Aberdeen granite and was designed by Goldie. Benzoni is responsible for the large alabaster statue of Our Lady in the Lady Chapel. The Cathedral has undergone two major reorderings since it was built; one in 1970 which was minimalistic leaving all the main features in situ; and another more recently which saw a grille implanted in Goldie’s Baldachino which has the effect of obscuring the central focus of the building. Several prissy devices have been used to solicit a minimal attention for the new altar which has been placed in the main plain of the sanctuary. The fine altar rails have long disappeared and no Choir Stalls are to be seen.
-
November 19, 2005 at 9:44 pm #767339
Gianlorenzo
Participant#124 Found these nice photos of stained glass in Ballina. 🙂
-
November 19, 2005 at 11:44 pm #767340
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Aidan’s Cathedral, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford was built to plans drawn by Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-1852). It was one of a series of commissions obtained through the patronage of the Countess of John, sixteenth Earl of Shrewsbury, whose uncle, John Hyacinth Talbot was patron of the re-building of Enniscorthy church. Writing from Alton Towers to Talbot at Ballytrench on 14 May 1843, Pugin presented his plan for the a new church in Enniscorthy which would be build and “perfectly done by degrees …and make a glorious church”. He suggested “pulling down the farthest compartment of the present church and moving the altars….so that the whole of the present nave would serve for the church while this was being done” (Belcher, Collected Letters vol.II, p.52). With the completion of the chancel, and trancepts by 1846 and the nave build over the existing church, the original church was demolished in 1848. A central spire was finished in 1850 but subsequently rebuilt by JJ MCCarthy. While the building of St. Aidan’s opened new opportunities for Pugin, they were not however realised. Writing of Enniscorthy in 1850 he says. “There seems to be little or no appreciation of ecclesiastical architecture amongst the clergy. The cathedral I built at Enniscorthy is completely ruined. The bishop has blocked up the choir, and stuck an altar under the tower!!…it could hardly have been treated worse had it fallen into the hands of the Hottentots….It is quite useless to attempt to build true churches , for the clergy have not the least idea of using them properly. There is no rood screen as intended by Pugin. The High Altar was added by Pearce and Sharp to the designs of JJ McCarthy in 1857. The east window is probably by Hardmans of Bermingham to the designs of Pugin. Later glass is by Lobin of Tours and Mayer. A first modern reordering took place in the 1970s when a large granite altar was place under the corssing. This was replaced in 1996 in a more sensitive restoration of the building which saw a return of the original stenciling work. The 1996 Enniscorthy reordering was important for it signalled a change in reordering that exhibited a greater sensibility ot the integrity of the original contexts into which new elements were introduced. A similar approach would subsequently be taken to the more irretrievable situation of Armagh Cathedral. Several of the original fittings were returned to Enniscorthy and its original ceramic tiles restored but the installation of a victorian tantulus to serve as an ambury was, with hindsight, perhaps a little too iconic and its classical allusion all too poignant. The centrally sited sedilia gives the impression of nothing more than a modern carver. There are no choir stalls. Sheridan Tierney were architects for the 1996 restoration.
-
November 20, 2005 at 12:08 am #767341
johannas
ParticipantDoes anyone know where one can obtain any published works on Ludwig Oppenheimer or of his firm. Thanks.
-
November 20, 2005 at 12:19 am #767342
johannas
ParticipantHas anybody seen or mentioned Holy Trinity in Cork City
what a disaster. Fortunately St. Peter’s and Paul’s in Cork City seems to have escaped all vandalism so far! Has anybody pictures of Holy Trinity in Cork City before the vandals got in? -
November 20, 2005 at 7:11 pm #767343
descamps
ParticipantAll you theorists should take a good look at the http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/pubs/saj/books/index.php
-
November 20, 2005 at 7:46 pm #767344
Anonymous
InactiveThe trip through Irish Cathedrals, courtesy of Praxiteles and co., has been absolutely fascinating. There is no doubt that Cobh (prior to wreckage) stands head and shoulders above the others in terms of architectural excellence and attention to detail. Monaghan leaves one wondering when the diving board is going to be installed. All credit is due to Archbishop Brady for removing the dinosaur tooth in Armagh – he has gone some way towards recuperating the situation. Killarney externally is a beautiful building, reminding one of Salisbury, but alas the Isaurian (Eye-sore-ian?) dynasty, beloved of Praxiteles, has done untold damage within.
Nobody seems to have dealt with Dublin as yet, but I think it is most pertinent to the Cobh situation, as the Great Professor O’Neill is also involved here. How is it that an architect who generally builds railway stations, public offices and the likes, and claims to be inspired by classical models, could have been chosen for a Neo-Gothic building, for which, I gather, he has little sympathy? Poor Turnarelli – his high altar in Dublin’s Pro-Cathedral has been atomised, echoing a similar approach to Della Porta’s altar in Thurles.
It is interesting that the Great Professor does not mention either the Pro-Cathedral or Cobh Cathedral among his “achievements”, accomplished or planned, on his website. Why the uncharacteristic reticence? After all, he seems very proud of the refurbishment of Drogheda railway station and the chaplaincy building in UCD with its rather strange spiritual space, suggestive of an encounter between the Buddha and the Goban Saor! -
November 20, 2005 at 8:20 pm #767345
Gianlorenzo
Participant@descamps wrote:
All you theorists should take a good look at the http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/pubs/saj/books/index.php
Thanks dechamps. Great articles on this site. 🙂
-
November 20, 2005 at 9:21 pm #767346
Anonymous
InactiveRecently I had occasion to visit the website of the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral. I would recommend it to the visitors to this thread. The mounting of the planned reordering on their site leaves little to the imagination, although I do wonder how the Archdeacon and the other prebenderies, resplendent in cremosin and rabbit fur, are going to be able to chaunt the canticles and antiphons in stalls which the Great Professor O’Neill proposes to reduce to little more than a set of antiphonal chicken perches hovering precipitously over the abyss. This is another example of the functional knock-on effects of his proposals on the building.
I wonder at the abandonment of the traditional liturgical symbolism of life’s journey from baptism at one entrance, progressing through the other sacraments, culminating in the Eucharist at the altar, to exit via the mortuary chapel. Is it not strange that the planned reordering of Cobh does not take into account the importance of symbol, rightly emphasised by any liturgist with a modicum of Wissenschaft? -
November 20, 2005 at 10:16 pm #767347
MacLeinin
ParticipantAnother very interesting aspect of the Cobh Cathedral project is that no one seems to know how much it is all going to cost. From what the local parishioners were told at a meeting to display the plans, it would appear that the application for planning permission was sought without any idea of how much it would cost. Is this usual practice in these circumstances?
-
November 20, 2005 at 10:22 pm #767348
Gianlorenzo
Participant@sangallo wrote:
…. the chaplaincy building in UCD with its rather strange spiritual space, suggestive of an encounter between the Buddha and the Goban Saor!
Here are a couple of photos of said building. 😮
-
November 20, 2005 at 10:24 pm #767349
Praxiteles
ParticipantHave you one of the “spiritual” space?
-
November 20, 2005 at 10:34 pm #767350
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Have you one of the “spiritual” space?
This is all I could find – it is called the Contemplation Room. Not sure if that qualifies as ‘spiritual’ space!!!!!
-
November 20, 2005 at 10:40 pm #767351
Anonymous
InactiveAlways happy to oblige. Here are two more.
-
November 20, 2005 at 10:44 pm #767352
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Gianlorenzo and Sangallo for the pics.
I am illuminated and purified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
November 20, 2005 at 11:46 pm #767353
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantCan anybody tell me how can a ‘space’ be spiritual???
-
November 20, 2005 at 11:49 pm #767354
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am sure the Great Professor knows all about vis locativa and will be more than happy to explain – on application.
-
November 21, 2005 at 1:04 am #767355
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Assumption, Carlow, was begun in 1826 to plans drawn for the patriot Bishop James Doyle (aka JKL) by Joseph Lynch, eventually replaced by Thomas Cobden. The Cathedral is more a large parish church done in the neo-Gothic idiom, allegedly influenced by the Town Hall in Bruges. The building cost the considerable sum of £9,000 and was opened for public worship in 1833 but not consecrated until 1933. It has a simple interior approached through a columned gallery, the shallow transepts divided from the nave by narrow clustered columns. “The result was the clearest view of the high altar in any Irish cathedral”. The magnificent (demolished) wooden pulpit was designed by M.J.C. Buckley and carved in Bruges in 1898. Its canopy survives as shelter for the (liturgically) misplaced baspismal font. The glass is by Mayer of Munich. The (vanished) Choir Stalls were by Cobden. The Cathedral contains a fine statue of JKL by John Hogan. In 1997, following a High Court case and an arbritration process and in the face of widespread public opposition -remarkably unheeded in the age of the laity- a brutal reordering of the interior was mitigated to some degree. The High Altar survived but relegated to redundant remoteness in favour of a disproportioned altar raised on the inevitable projection into the nave. Prissy trellis work chairs replaced the Choir Stalls along both walls of the chancel. It is not clear what purpose these can possibly serve. The Throne has, yet again, been moved forward and parked against a column – at the liturgically incorrect side of the chancel and altar. A grand piano has strayed into the formula. Although a relief from the hackneyed use of the same formula, it has gone unnoticed that pianos are liturgically excluded from Catholic churches since Pius X’s motu proprio Inter sollicitudines of 1903. With the reordering of the interior in Carlow, it may not have been noticed by the architects that the great dramatic gesture of Hogan’s JKL has acquired an altogether new significance – an example of transignification – for he now gestures at their work. Perhaps Eirn’s dejection is more contextual than may have been realized.
-
November 21, 2005 at 2:11 am #767356
Gianlorenzo
Participant#127
Some stained glass from Enniscorthy.
-
November 21, 2005 at 2:54 am #767357
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantLest we forget what started all this.
A few more shots of St. Colmans from the foscc site.
-
November 21, 2005 at 12:54 pm #767358
Mosaic1
Participant@johannas wrote:
Does anyone know where one can obtain any published works on Ludwig Oppenheimer or of his firm. Thanks.
Dear Johannas,
So far, we (the group researching the firm of Oppenheimer) have been unable to identify any published work on the firm. The only material seems to be the reference already mentioned earlier in this thread. We have identified 2 company catalogues, unpublished in art-historical terms, which will be published in due course with a narrative on the company, the people, the little surviving archival material as well as an inventory of their known works. Because this is a collective effort, you’ll appreciate that I cannot post this material yet.
Any information that contributors can offer about Oppenheimer Ltd. and their works would be very gratefully received.
Kind regards,
‘Mosaic1’
-
November 21, 2005 at 4:34 pm #767359
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantOppenheimer mosaics from Honan Chapel. 🙂
-
November 21, 2005 at 9:59 pm #767360
MacLeinin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
“There seems to be little or no appreciation of ecclesiastical architecture amongst the clergy. The cathedral I built at Enniscorthy is completely ruined. The bishop has blocked up the choir, and stuck an altar under the tower!!…it could hardly have been treated worse had it fallen into the hands of the Hottentots….It is quite useless to attempt to build true churches , for the clergy have not the least idea of using them properly. A.W.N. Pugin
I wonder what Pugin would have to say about our current crop of ecclisiastical Hottentots 😉
-
November 21, 2005 at 11:45 pm #767361
Peter Parler
ParticipantRe #147: “Hottentot” was apparently a Boer dialect word for “stutterer”. The Oxford Dictionary of South African English nowadays condemns it as offensive. Interestingly enough, though, the Khoikhoi – their own name for themselves, meaning the “people-people” – were moon-worshippers. Their merry moon dance would have graced perfectly the new interior of Carlow Cathedral (#142), grand piano and all – but they too, alas, have been the victims of a ruthless “modernity”…. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi
-
November 21, 2005 at 11:46 pm #767362
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Pro-Cathedral Church of the Conception of the Virgin Mary was built on the site of Lord Annsley’s town house at Marlborough Street and Elephant Lane, which had been acquired by Archbishop Thomas Troy in 1803 for £5,100. The building commenced in 1814 and was completed in November 1825. Plans for a church in the revivalist Greek Doric style, submitted by an architect who signed himself “P”, won the commission. It is accepted that the architect was George Papworth (1781-1855). Born in London, he moved to Ireland in 1806, and won commissions for Grattan Bridge, King’s (Heuston) Bridge (1828), Camolin Park, Wexford (1815), the Dublin Library in D’Olier Street (1818-1820) and Sir Patrick Dunn’s Hospital and was eventually Professor of Architecture in the Royal Hibernian Academy. The Pro-Cathedral contains monuments to Cardinal Paul Cullen and his immediate predecessor Archbishop Daniel Murray by Thomas Farrell. The apse is decorated by an alto-relief of the Ascension by John Smyth. Thomas Kirk (1781-1845) supplied a monument for the Reverend Thomas Clarke: two figures of Religion and Charity bewteen an urn which was his first exhibited work at the Society of Artists (as Piety and Chastity) in 1813. A relief of the Good Shepherd and a monument to William and Anne Byly are also attributed to Kirk. The organ is by the Dublin organbuilder John White. Its present architectural case was build by WIlliam Hill c. 1900. The great artistic treasure of the Pro-Cathedral, however, was the High Altar by Peter Turnerelli (1774-1839). Born in Belfast, Turnerelli had been deeply influenced by Canova (who much admired Turnerelli’s bust of Grattan (1812). From 1798-1803 drawing master to the princesses of George III, he was appointed Sculptor in ordinary in 1801. While his busts of George III, Washington and Wellington (1815), Louis XVIII (1816), Henry Grattan (1812 and Daniel O’Connell (1829) are well known, his master piece was the High Altar of the Pro-Cathedral with its splendidly proportioned mensa, reredos and ciborium. In 1886, rather incongrously, three stained-glass windows were installed behind the High Altar. Archbishop Dermot Ryan introduced a reordering to the Pro-Cathedral in the late 1970s. The architect for the re-ordering was Professor Cathal O’Neill . In an act beggering civilized belief, he demolished Turnerelli’s High Altar and reredos. The praedella of the altar mensa was salvaged and re-used to form a new altar erected on a lower plain in a hum drum extended sanctuary covered with carpet. The neo-classical altar rails were removed. The canopied and dignified neo-classical Throne was dismantled. The pulpit was reduced to the redundancy of a side aisle and a few surviving vestiges of the High Altar scattered about the interior. The Ciborium of Turnerelli’s High Altar was conserved and placed on a squat disproportioned plinth on a lower plain. The result has been the complete loss of the graceful, proportioned, symetrically articulated dimensions of the Apse and of the building itself which now lacks a central focus and suffers from the same focal void as Longford and Thurles. It seem strange that nobody seems to have realized that the High Altar was custom built to a location it occupied for 150 years. Attempts to relieve the focal void by drapery have not been convincing. It is suggested that at the time of the reordering, the significance of the High Altar and its provenance may not have been known to the architect responsible for its demolition. In Irish circumstances, the destruction of such a major work of art may possibly have cultural significance not too dissimilar to the bombing of Monte Cassino or the feuerblitzing of the Frauenkirche in Dresden.
-
November 22, 2005 at 1:27 am #767363
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is without doubt the loss of the High Altar that so destroyed the interior of the Pro-Cathedral.
You have the great line of Doric columns marching into the distance, building up the tension and heightening expectation, then they powerfully sweep around at the western end, terminating the vista by enclosing…….well…….nothing.
It’s such a let down.The mind boggles how such drastic alterations could be carried out at any time, even the 1970s, and that they be permitted by so many people, not least the church’s own congregation. Was there any disquiet at the time Praxiteles do you know?
The altar rails look magnificent too – so befitting of a classically inspired church 🙁One niggly thing that’s always annoyed me about the Pro is the little circles with gold crosses painted on them half-way up every column. They look finicky and inappropriate, an unnecessary detail so typical of Catholic churches – features that are for the most part appealing in a strange way – but here they detract from the power and drama of the columns, especially around the sanctuary.
It is the bold architecture of the Pro-Cathedral that makes it what it is – there is no need for applied decoration. -
November 22, 2005 at 1:58 am #767364
johannas
Participant🙂 ‘Mosaic1’ , thank you for the information, I look forward with anticipation to the publication of the materials mentioned. Thanks 😉
-
November 22, 2005 at 2:48 am #767365
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantStained glass window by Mayer of Munich in Monaghan Cathedral.
And as we cannot enjoy his masterpiece I give you this lovely piece by Peter Turnerelli – Robert Burns Mausoleum. -
November 22, 2005 at 3:17 am #767366
MacLeinin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The mind boggles how such drastic alterations could be carried out at any time, even the 1970s, and that they be permitted by so many people, not least the church’s own congregation. Was there any disquiet at the time.
I don’t know about Dublin, but there was great opposition in Carlow as there is now in Cobh, but should the appeals to ABP fail, Bishop Magee and O’Neill et al. will forge ahead irregardless.
I believe if you were to investigate you would find that the congregation of the pro-cathedral were presented with a fait accompli. Also in the 1970’s people tended to trust their priests and bishops and would never have contemplated going against them on any issue. This situation has changed and nowadays it is usually the more committed catholics who object to the destruction of their churches/cathedrals. The vast majority are generally too apathetic to bother. Unfortunately many clerics are still living in the past and tend to think that any opposition to their plans is tantamount to perfidy. 🙁 -
November 22, 2005 at 2:06 pm #767367
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantFranz Mayer & Co. of Munich who are responsible for stained glass in at least nine of Irelands Cathedral churches (Derry, Thurles, Letterkenny, Ballaghadereen, Waterford, Ballina, Enniscorthy, Carlow, Cobh) is an interesting firm. I found the snippet below on the site for St. Joseph’s Cathedral, Dunedin, New Zealand.
“Franz Mayer and Co., Munich. This firm has been working in stained glass from 1848 to the present day. According to Konrad Mayer (fourth generation), Franz Mayer had a school for crippled children. When their schooling finished about the age of fifteen, there were not job opportunities for these children. Franz Mayer founded his Art Studios to provide work for these handicapped children. It is said that at times as many as a hundred young people worked on church furnishings in his studios.
Regarding the windows in St. Joseph’s Cathedral, Dunedin, New Zealand the Franz Mayer and Co. firm state that the stained glass in the fourteen windows is genuine mouth-blown antic glass produced in Bavaria. The colouring of the glass is made by different metal oxides. After the artist has drawn his subject it is transferred on to pieces of glass to match the drawing in detail and colour. There can be as many as four to five hundred pieces in each window. The glass is put into a furnace and the colours thoroughly burnt in. This process results in the colour not deteriorating, and they grow more mellow and beautiful with the lapse of time.”See attached some examples of their work.
-
November 22, 2005 at 3:14 pm #767368
Praxiteles
ParticipantFranz Mayer is still flourishing in Munich and has branched out to more than glass. All information is available under http://www.mayersche-hofkunst.de .
-
November 22, 2005 at 7:01 pm #767369
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe enclosed photograph shows the Chancel of Cobh Cathedral without the temporary altar placed there in the 1970s.
-
November 22, 2005 at 7:18 pm #767370
Praxiteles
ParticipantSouth Transept WIndows of St Colman’s Cathedral installed in 1899 by John Hardman of Birmingham with “water themes” appropriate to the window’s overlooking the sea:
1. Namaan washing in the Jordan
2. Elisha dividing the Jordan
3. The ark carried through the Jordan
4. The creation of water
5. The passage through the red sea
6. Noah’s sacrifice after the flood
7. David pouring out the cup of water to the Lord. -
November 22, 2005 at 7:30 pm #767371
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHardman of Birmingham windows from Cobh Cathedral.
South Transept – (slightly clearer version)- description provided above by Praxiteles – he just beat me to it. :p
Detail of centre of south Rose window – Mary Star of the Sea.
Detail of window in Blessed Thaddeus Chapel – Death of St. Finbarre at Cloyne -
November 22, 2005 at 10:58 pm #767372
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantJust seen a direct link to this thread from the foscc site in their news section.
-
November 22, 2005 at 11:30 pm #767373
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantFor Mosaic 1.
Mosaic from Cobh Cathedral that may be lost plus some detail shots.
The harp symbol in the second attachment signafies that St. Colman was a Bard to the King of Munster.
The third attachment show detail of the mosaic in front of Our Lady’s Chapel.
The final attachment show a section of the sanctuary mosaic which it is proposed will be lifted up to allow the dropping of the level of the floor and then relayed. 😮 -
November 22, 2005 at 11:42 pm #767374
Praxiteles
ParticipantA view of the West Portal of Cobh Cathedral taken in 1903 before the completion of the statuary.
The ornate wrought iron hinges are by Fagan’s of Dublin.
C. W. Harrison and Sons, Dublin are responsible for the tympanum of the West Portal showing the Christ Pantocrator, surrounded by the Four Evangelists, St. Colman, St. Ita, Blessed Thaddeus McCarhy and Bishop Boetius Mc Egan above a range of twelve Apostles.
-
November 23, 2005 at 12:44 am #767375
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome general statistics from the foregoing regarding Ireland’s Catholic Cathedrals:
There are 27 Irish Cathedrals of which 19 are in the neo-Gothic Style; 6 are in the neo-Classical Style; 1 is in the neo-Romanesque; and 1 can be classified as other.
The Neo-Gothic Cathedrals are:
Killarney, Cobh, Monaghan, Armagh, Tuam, Letterkenny, Enniscorthy, Kilkenny, Sligo, Ballina, Derry, Loughrea, Limerick, Ennis, Cork, Carlow, Newry, Ballaghadereen, Belfast.
The Neo-Classical Cathedrals are:
Waterford, the Pro-Cathedral, Dublin, Longford, Skibbereen, Cavan, Mullingar.
There is one Cathedral in the Neo-Romanesque: Thurles.
One other Cathedral has been classified as other: Galway.
-
November 23, 2005 at 12:48 am #767376
anto
Participantis athlone not a cathedral?
what is the architecture of the church of ireland cathedral? chistchurch and St. Patrick’s eetc? largely victorian now since restoration?
-
November 23, 2005 at 1:04 am #767377
Gianlorenzo
Participant
Athlone Cathedral ? -
November 23, 2005 at 1:17 am #767378
Praxiteles
ParticipantIf I recall correctly, the town of Athlone is divided between the dioceses of Elphin on the western bank of the Shannon; and Ardagh and Clonmacnoise on the eastern bank. The cathedral for the former is in Sligo and that of the latter in Longford.
Concerning the Cathedral churches of the Church of Ireland, in general, these are the pre-reformation Cathedrals whose replacement after Catholic emancipation in 1829 gave rise to the spate of building of Catholic Cathedrals. However, as you mention in the case of Dublin, not all of the original Cathedral buildings retained their original outlines for a variety of resons (war, abandonment, refurbishing, the rise of the neo-classical and of the neo-gothic, changes of diocesan boundaries) but survivors might be seen in St. Canice’s in Kilkenny, St. Mary’s in Limerick or St. Flannan’s in Killaloe. Perhaps the worst victim was the Cathedral on the rock of Cashel which had its roof stripped off in the 18th century when a small replacement in the classical style was built in the town of Cashel. In stark contrast to the Catholic Cathedrals of Ireland, these buildings (at least since the 16th century) have not been subjected to the kind of liturgical vandalism that has seen the ruination of all of the neo-Gothic Catholic Cathedrals,except one (Cobh), the only neo-Romanesque in the country (Thurles) and two of the finest of the neo-classical ones (Dublin and Longford).
I hope to post some more statistics on the subject shortly.
-
November 23, 2005 at 1:26 am #767379
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe photograph in 164, I think, shows Sts. Peter and Paul’s parish church in the Elphin part of Athlone.
-
November 23, 2005 at 1:32 am #767380
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantFinally worked out how to do this, so watch out. Lots of pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂
The magnificent pulpit by Beakey of Dublin.
-
November 23, 2005 at 1:35 am #767381
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSorry guys, looks like I got it wrong again. 🙁 😡
This is what I was hoping to put on the page.
The magnificent pulpit by Beakey of Dublin.Or maybe not????
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:00 am #767382
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe attachment contains a scan of G.C. Ashlin’s original drawings (1894) for the Pulpit in Cobh Cathedral.
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:15 am #767383
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis attachment contains a scan of G. C. Ashlin’s drawing for the Baptismal Font. The cover was not executed as planned.
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:31 am #767384
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantNave looking to Chancel arch and Sanctuary. 🙂
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:40 am #767385
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantUnusual angle.
Aerial VIew
-
November 23, 2005 at 12:08 pm #767386
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Concerning the Cathedral churches of the Church of Ireland, in general, these are the pre-reformation Cathedrals whose replacement after Catholic emancipation in 1829 gave rise to the spate of building of Catholic Cathedrals. However, as you mention in the case of Dublin, not all of the original Cathedral buildings retained their original outlines for a variety of resons (war, abandonment, refurbishing, the rise of the neo-classical and of the neo-gothic, changes of diocesan boundaries) but survivors might be seen in St. Canice’s in Kilkenny, St. Mary’s in Limerick or St. Flannan’s in Killaloe. Perhaps the worst victim was the Cathedral on the rock of Cashel which had its roof stripped off in the 18th century when a small replacement in the classical style was built in the town of Cashel.
St. Canice’s Kilkenny
St. Mary’s Limerick
St. Flannan’s Killaloe
-
November 23, 2005 at 12:11 pm #767387
Mosaic1
ParticipantDear G.
Many thanks for those images, which are very helpful.
regards,
M1
-
November 23, 2005 at 12:13 pm #767388
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantRock of Cashel.
-
November 23, 2005 at 12:22 pm #767389
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantCathedral of St. John the Baptist and St. Patrick’s Rock, Cashel
-
November 23, 2005 at 1:06 pm #767390
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantOld engraving of Rock of Cashel
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:02 pm #767391
anto
ParticipantThat’s not St. Mary’s Cathedral in Limerick but Mary’s RC Chrurch. They’re quite close to each other.
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:23 pm #767392
Gianlorenzo
Participant
Sorry Anto, my mistake.
Is this the right one? -
November 23, 2005 at 2:46 pm #767393
jimg
ParticipantThat looks more like it but it’s hard to tell from the angle. Here’s an older picture of it:
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:54 pm #767394
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting # 177:
The engraver of this print of the Rock of Cashel is probably Bartlett and was done about 1840. It has been tinctured to heighten the romantic atmosphere.
-
November 23, 2005 at 2:57 pm #767395
anto
Participant -
November 23, 2005 at 3:11 pm #767396
Praxiteles
ParticipantWilliam Henry Bartlett’s (1809-1854) series of prints appeared in The Scenery and Antiquities of Ireland . I have scanned a few of his steel engravings of the lupi in fabula!
The view of Cobh was engraved almost twenty years before the building of the Cathedral.
-
November 23, 2005 at 3:27 pm #767397
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
One niggly thing that’s always annoyed me about the Pro is the little circles with gold crosses painted on them half-way up every column. They look finicky and inappropriate, an unnecessary detail so typical of Catholic churches – features that are for the most part appealing in a strange way – but here they detract from the power and drama of the columns, especially around the sanctuary.
It is the bold architecture of the Pro-Cathedral that makes it what it is – there is no need for applied decoration.Found this print of the Pro Cathedral interior from the Lawrence collection. The little circles with gold crosses don’t appear in this.
Neither are they apparent in Sir John Lavery’s painting of the Funeral of General Michael Collins, August 1922.
Also attached ‘Lying-in-State of Daniel O’Connell in St. Mary’s Metropotian Chapel, Marlborough Street (Illustrated London News 1847) -
November 23, 2005 at 4:21 pm #767398
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting #103
Further to comments on the unfortunate re-ordering of Thurles Metropolitan Cathedral carried out in 1979, I enclose a photograph of the High Altar of St. Francis Xavier’s church in Gardnier St., Dublin which was built in Rome in 1838 to designs drawn up by Fr. Bartholomew Esmond, S.J.. The Altar incorporates several very rare marbles including an antique porphyry from Nero’s Domus Aurea (originally in the Basilica of St. Paul and salvaged from the fire of 1823), yellow jasper, malachite, and lapis lazuli. On completion, it was dimantled and shipped to Dublin and re-erected in Gardnier St. c. 1842. The altar of the Gesù , mother house of the Jeuits in Rome, may have served as a model for the Gardnier St. Altar. It affords some idea of what Giacomo della Porta’s altar would have looked like in Thurles before it was torn to bits.
(cf. Irish Arts Review, vol. 14, 1998, Maureen Ryan, Roman Opulence in a Dublin Church , pp.33-39)
-
November 23, 2005 at 7:22 pm #767399
Praxiteles
ParticipantFinally, I have located some photographs of the original interior of the Pro-Cathedral with Peter Turnerelli’s High Altar as intended by the artist. I think the occasion in question was the consecration of Archbishop McQuaid in 1942.
Closer inspection of the photograph will explain why the Ciborium, in its current form, looks wrong. It is wrong because it is an ungainly malformation. Professor O’Neill, in his devastating reordering, capped the original Ciborium with the canopy used for the crucifix (which, as can be seen from the photograph, was above the Ciborium). Clearly, had the Ciborium been retained in tact, the problem of the focal void would have been greater. In a brutal attempt to disguise this problem, even the Ciborium of Turnerelli’s Altar had to be jack-hammered.
The Ciborium had its own smaller domed finial (as is clear in the photograph). What now sits in the sanctuary of the Pro-Cathedral is merely an assemblage of bits and pieces.
-
November 23, 2005 at 10:12 pm #767400
Boyler
ParticipantDoes anyone know if the frescos in Cashel are going to be restored?
-
November 23, 2005 at 10:40 pm #767401
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This attachment contains a scan of G. C. Ashlin’s drawing for the Baptismal Font. The cover was not executed as planned.
Ashlin’s Design.
Baptismal Font.
Base by Luigi Tomasi of Carrera and the brass cover by Mr. Kane, brass-worker, Dublin.
-
November 23, 2005 at 10:46 pm #767402
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear Boyler,
It appears that a further round of restoration work was carried out in Thurles in 2003 but no mention was made of frescos. The following may be of interest:
http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/Pressrel/architectsreportthurlescathedral.html
-
November 23, 2005 at 10:59 pm #767403
Praxiteles
ParticipantA fuller picture of the 2003 restoration work is available here:
http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/Pressrel/3b-october-2003.html
-
November 23, 2005 at 11:06 pm #767404
Praxiteles
ParticipantDoes anybody know who the architects for the 1979 reordering of Thurles Cathedral were?
-
November 23, 2005 at 11:33 pm #767405
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantImages of Thurles Cathedral of the Assumption.
-
November 23, 2005 at 11:36 pm #767406
Boyler
ParticipantThanks Praxiteles, but I was wondering about the medieval frescos as seen in the pictures of the Rock of Cashel. It doesn’t seem like the centuries have been good to them. sorry for not making myself clear 😮
-
November 24, 2005 at 12:05 am #767407
Praxiteles
ParticipantEnclosed is a photograph of the Ciborium of the High Altar in Thurles, designed and executed by Giacomo della Porta in 1584 for the Gesù in Rome. The Altar was commissioned by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, nephew of Pope Paul III. Della Porta was the dominant architect in Rome for the last quarter of the 16th century and worked on all the major commissions in the City, most notably the building of the dome of St. Peter’s between 1588 and 1590. He completed the project in 1602 by adding the lantern. He was a highly practical architect and influenced by Michelangelo’s mannerism and Vignola’s classicism.
The Ciborium is made up of a variety of antique marbles that includes giallo antico, roso antico and africano.
The mensa of the altar is of white carrara marble inlaid with malachite, lapis lazuli, rosso agate and other semi-precious materials. It has an arcaded praedella of 16 columns of which 6 are in yellow Siena, 6 in griotte, and 4 in vert campan. All columns have bases and capitals in bronze.
As with the reordering in the Pro-Cathedral, the Ciborium was removed from the High Altar and placed on a disproportioned plinth while the Altar mena was moved forward into the chancel. The sum total of the effect was to create a focal void in the sanctuary.
It is worth wondering whether Cashel followed the Pro-Cathedral or vice versa. Certainly, the designs for the reordering are remarkably similar. The idea of trying to improve on Turnerelli is, however, surpassed in Cashel with the absurd prospect of someone trying to “improve” on one of the great master of European civilization.
-
November 24, 2005 at 12:08 am #767408
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI think this is most of the Irish ones that I have photos of….
Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/christchurch_place/christch.htmSt Patrick’s Cathedral. Dublin
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/patrick_street/stpats.htmSt Macartans Monaghan
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/monaghan/monaghan/stmacartans.htmlSt Canices Kilkenny
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/kilkenny/kilkenny/stcanices_cathedral.htmlSt Marys Kilkenny
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/kilkenny/kilkenny/stmarys_cathedral.htmlSt Mary’s Church of Ireland Cathedral, Limerick
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/limerick/limerick/st_marys_cathedral.htmlSt John’s Cathedral, Limerick
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/limerick/limerick/st_johns_cathedral.htmlSt Patricks, Armagh C fo I
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/armagh/armagh/cofi_cathedral.htmlSt Patricks, Armagh RC
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/armagh/armagh/st_patricks.htmlSt. Finn Barre’s Cathedral, Cork
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/cork/cork/st_finn_barres.htmlSt Anne’s, Belfast
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/antrim/belfast/19thc/stanns.html -
November 24, 2005 at 12:17 am #767409
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear Boyler,
Not to worry. You may be interested in an article on the frescos in Cormac’s Chapel published in The Irish Arts Review Yearbook, vol 18 [2002], pp. 25-29 by Roger Stalley. A fragmentary inscription ite et interrogate diligenter de puero, ironically quoting Herod’s words to the Wise Men, seems to suggest that the frescos depicted the nativity cycle and especially the Three Kings – a theme appropriate to Royal cashel.
I have no idea of what the official guardians of Irish heritage intend to do with the Chapel and its frescos. The last time I visited Cashel, I was subjected to the ahistorical twaddle of an official guide who knew next to nothing of the place.
-
November 24, 2005 at 12:21 am #767410
Praxiteles
ParticipantMy God! Thurles is far worse than I thought.
The inscription over the chancel arch is certainly an erratic and ironic survival at this point.
-
November 24, 2005 at 12:50 am #767411
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantBeen looking at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. I love it and I notice that the power that be in the Cathedral feel no need to re-order to introduce inappropriate additions.
I am a sucker for the flags. 😉
Nice angle -
November 24, 2005 at 12:55 am #767412
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe foregoing pictures of Thurles Cathedral show only too well the vairous petit obsessions that the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Episcopal Conference has gone through over the past twenty years.
In the mid 1990s, the great discovery was the ambry. Hence, we have the Holy Oils now hawked about in several Cathedrals thoughout Ireland in a wide ranging series of eccentric compositions.
Enniscorthy chose to locate them high up on a bracket in the wall of the North transept. Most inappropriately, they are housed in a Victorian Tantulus.
Cashel seems to have gone for another spirited theme: the guarded liquids.
Surprisingly, none of the liturgists seems to have been aware that the Holy Oils are to be veiled in cloths of three different colours.
I would suggest that a visit to the Armenian Catholicos at Ekmiadzin in Armenia would teach the Archbishop of Cashel a thing or two on the proper reservation of the Holy Oils.
-
November 24, 2005 at 1:18 am #767413
MacLeinin
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
I think this is most of the Irish ones that I have photos of….
Great photos – I particularly like the doors, though I am not sure what is going on in St. Anne’s Belfast, is that glass inside the doors?
St. Canice’s Kilkenny
St. Mary’s Limerick
St. John’s Limerick
St. Patrick’s Armagh Church of Ireland
St. Patrick’s Catholic Cathedral, Armagh
St.Finn Barre’s Cork.
St. Anne’s Belfast -
November 24, 2005 at 3:06 am #767414
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI always photograph the doorways – especially in older churches and cathedrals, the doorways are often incredibly impressive.
-
November 24, 2005 at 8:44 am #767415
Praxiteles
ParticipantHave you got one of Cobh Cathedral with the doors closed and of Fagan’s wrought iron hinges in all their glory?
-
November 24, 2005 at 12:17 pm #767416
MacLeinin
ParticipantThis is the best I can do for the moment.
Baptistry Door. I have put is as an attachment also, as it appears to be very slow appearing on the page.
Main doors
-
November 24, 2005 at 2:58 pm #767417
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo digress for a moment, encosed is an image of the drawings for the completion of the spire of Cobh Cathedral signed in 1911 by Bishop Robert Browne and the builder, John Maguire. On the right hand side the measurements are included: from the section above the windows to the base of the spire is 72 feet; and from the base of the spire to the base of the cross is 128 feet. To solve the question of the highest spire in Ireland requires merely the hight of the initial base of the spire tower and the hight of the Cross. Any takers?
-
November 24, 2005 at 3:18 pm #767418
Praxiteles
ParticipantA small treat for viewers on to-day’s Feast of St. Colman of Cloyne (c.530 -604)
The great West Window of Cobh Cathedral whose subject is the Vision of the Throne of God taken from the Apocalypse of St. John (4:1-11). The subject is Our Lord seated in glory, sourrounded by the elders, clad in white teguments and crowns of gold. Around the throne are the the four living creatures (symbolic of the found evangelists): the lion, the ox, the man, and the soaring eagle. As they cry out Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty Who was, Who is, and Who is to come , they cast down their crowns before the throne and pay homage to Christ. The inner circle depicts the twelve Apostles. The outer circle depicts the saints in glory.
-
November 24, 2005 at 3:49 pm #767419
Praxiteles
ParticipantRemarkably, this is the only image I can find of the West Portal of Cobh Cathedral showing Fagan’s wrought iron work to full effect.
The three figures in the porch are by George Smyth and were installed in 1912-1917.
-
November 24, 2005 at 8:42 pm #767420
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe message 192.
If the the 2003 renovations in Thurles Cathedral involved the installation of what appears to be a copper-pan baptistry in the side aise of the Cathedral, does anyone know what has happened to the free standing Baptistry which is based on Pisa? This is the only example of a free standing external Baptistry in an Irish Cathedral. Is it too much to hope that it is now a potatoe store or trinket shop?
-
November 25, 2005 at 1:36 am #767421
MacLeinin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Does anybody know who the architects for the 1979 reordering of Thurles Cathedral were?
Is it not Prof. O’Neill who is responsible for Thurles? ]http://www.cashel-emly.ie/gallery/galleries/Cathedral%20of%20the%20Assumption/cathedral5.jpg[/IMG]
The green hued bottled aumbry is perhaps too suggestive of Biddy Early!!!! :rolleyes:
-
November 25, 2005 at 1:46 am #767422
Praxiteles
ParticipantPerhaps “three cascades of perlucid yellow……”
(pace Samuel Beckett, Murphy )
-
November 25, 2005 at 2:01 am #767423
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantMore for Mosaic 1.
Some details of the Oppenheimer Mosaic’s in St. Colman’s.
1. Medallion on Predella in front of Pieta Chapel.
2, Detail of floor in Blessed Thaddeus Chapel
3. Detail of floor in Our Lady’s Chapel
4. Detail of floor in Sacred Heart Chapel
5. Detail of mosaic in Sacred Heart shrine. -
November 25, 2005 at 2:02 am #767424
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantOne final pic for Mosaic 1
Medallion on Predella in front of Sacred Heart Chapel
-
November 26, 2005 at 4:52 pm #767425
MacLeinin
ParticipantOnly came across this last night. Story in last Sunday’s Times concerning yet another ‘renovation’ to St. Mary’s Pro Cathedral. Maybe someone should suggest that they put in a hydraulic lift under the Cathedra eliminating in future the need for further readjustment. :rolleyes: 😀 :rolleyes:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1880124,00.html
-
November 26, 2005 at 5:20 pm #767426
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe hydraulic lift under the Pro Cathedral throne, I think that would be a wonderful idea and a very cost effective means of dealing with the declining or rising stature of the Dublin Archbishops. Looking at the fine job Cathal O’Neill did with the foot-bridge over the Dublin – Belfast railway line at Drogheda railway station with its dignified, symetrical and elegantly proportioned steel-cased lifts, I cannot think of a better person than himself to deal with this unexpected side-effect of his ruination of the sanctuary in the Pro-Cathedral.
Somebody, however, should tell the administrator of the Pro Cathedral that canopies, if not original or of artistic value, are not allowed by the post Vatican II liturgical rules. Even if a canopy were allowed, the colour should be an “ecclesiastical” colour (that is either red or green) and not some piece of raggady tribal totemism. After all, the Archdiocese of Dublin also includes the diocese of Glandalough – that is, large areas of Wicklow, Kildare, Carlow, Laois and even Wexford. The positioning of the Dublin colours overhead the present Archbishop does not seem to demonstrate much of the kind of diplomatic souplesse normally associated with major practioners of that particular art, such as the Cardinal D’Ossat, but perhaps gives the impression of a not too unconscious retreat to the Danborg and Dublin’s foreign ecclesiastical roots.
-
November 26, 2005 at 6:33 pm #767427
Peter Parler
ParticipantThanks, Colman (#212), for that Sunday Times reference. It is consoling to note the interest of the foreign press in our predicament. And it is important not to miss the good news about the Dublin Pro-Cathedral: “The renovations yielded a surprise when workers came across the original sanctuary lamp of the cathedral, which has now been restored to its former glory.” That is clearly a luminous sign. But can anyone explain to us the ongoing significance of “The Pro”? Does it mean that they are still hoping to re-possess Saint Patrick’s Cathedral? And should we be grateful to Almighty God that they haven’t, as yet?
-
November 26, 2005 at 7:03 pm #767428
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe the former sanctuary lamp serendipidously happend on in the choristers’ gallery in the Pro- Cathedral in Dublin, I just happened to notice that in the photographs posted in # 149 there is no trace of a hanging sanctuary lamp. Since most of the sanctuary seem to be under the cupola, it is difficult see whence it could be hung – if not from the lantern of the cupola. The Lawrence collection photograph in #184 (taken last decade of the 19th century) does not show a hanging sanctuary lamp. Curiously, the 1847 print from the London Illustrated News showing the obsequies of Daniel O’Connell in the Pro-Cathedral does depict a hanging sanctuary lamp. Is it possible, if the depiction is accurate, that this was removed sometime between 1847 and 1890? In the event that it was this is an interseting discovery. But, having restored it, what are they going to do with it?
-
November 26, 2005 at 9:33 pm #767429
Praxiteles
ParticipantI add a picture of the magnificent Sanctuary Lamp of the Honan Chapel in Cork. It was commissioned by the Rev. Sir John O’Connell, to the glory of God, in memory of the Honan benefactors. It was designed by William Alphonsus Scott, first Professor of Architecture in the NUI, and executed by Edmond Johnson of Dublin.
The Sanctuary Lamp weighed 28 lbs. in sterling and consisted of a bowl of open-work interlace decoration embellished with blue enamel studs. It was suspended on chains.
Despite the dedicatory inscription which did not envisage the lamp being moved anywhere, it disappeared during the unfortunate (but reversable) 1980s re-ordering of the Honan Chapel. There is no liturgical justification for its removal. When placed in the Chapel in 1916, it was so placed in accordance with liturgical norm which found its way into the first Code of Canon Law published in 1917. The text of the 1917 canon on sanctuary lamps was transcribed practically verbatim into the 1983 Code of Canon Law which currently governs the positioning of sanctuary lamps. The assertion that the liturgical reform of Vatican II required the removal of the Sanctuary Lamp from the Honan Chapel is not only misleading but is positively mendacious.
The real reason for this bit of vandalism, I suspect, is to be found in an article by Gearoid O Suilleabhan entitled The re-ordering of the Honan Chapel in Verginia Teehan and Elizabeth Wincott-Heckett’s otherwise excellent monograph on the Collegiate Chapel The Honan Chapel: A golden vision , published in 2004 by Cork University Press. G. O Suilleabhan, aided by Richard Hurley and Vincent Ryan, reproduces a scanty potted version of the history of the Latin Rite for the past 2000 years. What is not mentioned, however, is that the historography employed in this potted history is that patronized by Odo Cassell and, the more notorious, Annibale Bugnini. This particular school posits a three fold division of the history of the liturgy: a primitive period: the golden age reached under Gregory the Great (d. 604); and a period of decline and degradation from the 7th century. In this school, the reform of the liturgy is seen in terms of an almost archeological restoration of the liturgy as celebrated at the time of Gregory the Great and a total jettisoning of any thing or practice to have arisen after that period. G. O Suilleabhan fails to tell us that this school of liturgical historiography was never completely accepted and has been even more eclipsed – if not indeed discredited- in liturgical research, especially over the past twent years. Alternative historical approaches, such as that advocated by Dom Alquin Reid, OSB, emphasise the continuity and organic development of the liturgy over a long period of time. That organic development sees the gradual emergence of new things and the demise of old things but excludes the kind of brutal caesura imposed on many Cathedrals and churches throughout the English speaking world in the name of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.
I understand that plans are afoot to restore J.G. Mac Gloughlin’s grille to the west door of the Collegiate Chapel. Could it be too much to hope that such an important element in the decorative scheme of the Honan Chapel as the Sanctuary Lamp could not also be restored to its proper position.
I also include a picture of the High Altar of the chapel and would draw your attenton to the red altar light which is sitting on the mensa of the altar. It is surprising that the liturgists responsible for the removal of the Sanctuary Lamp (which should contain the light) did not seem to know that liturgical norms specifically prohibit placing anything of the like on an altar.
-
November 26, 2005 at 11:17 pm #767430
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta in Pisa (1063-1350) prototype for the Cathedral of the Assumption, Thurles.
-
November 26, 2005 at 11:42 pm #767431
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe external Baptistry in Pisa
-
November 26, 2005 at 11:55 pm #767432
MacLeinin
ParticipantGreat photos Praxiteles 😀
-
November 26, 2005 at 11:57 pm #767433
MacLeinin
Participant@Peter Parler wrote:
Thanks, Colman (#212), for that Sunday Times reference. It is consoling to note the interest of the foreign press in our predicament. And it is important not to miss the good news about the Dublin Pro-Cathedral: “The renovations yielded a surprise when workers came across the original sanctuary lamp of the cathedral, which has now been restored to its former glory.” That is clearly a luminous sign. But can anyone explain to us the ongoing significance of “The Pro”? Does it mean that they are still hoping to re-possess Saint Patrick’s Cathedral? And should we be grateful to Almighty God that they haven’t, as yet?
Absolutely!! 😉
-
November 27, 2005 at 12:01 am #767434
Gianlorenzo
Participant@GregF wrote:
I dunno if this has been discussed before on a different thread but I saw on the Irish Times this morning that Kevin Myers raises the issue of the proposed renovations of St Colmans Cathedral in Cobh. I had heard this before and couldn’t believe it. This is a fine Victorian Gothic cathedral designed by Pugin. Surely any tampering with the orignal features would be an act of vandalism and must not go ahead. As I said before, the councils, clergy etc… here in Ireland can’t seem to leave well alone regarding important public buildings, statues etc…..All Corkonians should be up in arms and stop any proposed tampering that should alter the cathedral in any way, especially as it was probably the poor local Cork Catholics that provided the funds to build the cathedral in the first place.
(Bishop McGee of Cloyne is the culprit. Get writing your protest letters rebel Corkonians!)
News on the grapevine is that Bishop Magee is receiving a lot of letters, well done Gregf 😀
-
November 27, 2005 at 12:06 am #767435
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantMore for Mosaic 1, courtesy of http://www.foscc.com
Detail of Mosaic in Good Counsel shrine.
Detail of Mosaic in Sacred Heart shrine.
Medallion in front of Pieta Chapel
Medallion in front of Sacred Heart Chapel
[img]http://www.foscc.com/images/slideshow/Medallion%20in%20front%20of%20Sacred%20Heart%[/img] -
November 27, 2005 at 12:11 am #767436
Praxiteles
ParticipantAre these mosaics by Oppenheimer?
-
November 27, 2005 at 12:17 am #767437
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantYes, that is why I address them to Mosaic 1 who has a special interest in Oppenheimer.
As the last didn’t upload I will try again.Medallion in front of Sacred Heart Chapel
-
November 27, 2005 at 12:27 am #767438
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks, Gianlorenzo. Sorry for having confused matters.
-
November 27, 2005 at 3:38 am #767439
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Baptistry of Thurles Cathedral: Some more examples of external baptistries:
Florence: http://www.mega.it/eng/egui/monu/bc.htm
Interior of the Florentine Baptistry: http://firenze.arounder.com/florence_baptistry/fullscreen.html
The Porta del Paradiso: http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/g/ghiberti/paradiso/
-
November 27, 2005 at 4:11 am #767440
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother example of the prototype for Thurles Cathedral is Cremona with its typical romanesque complex of Cathedral, external baptistry and campanile:
http://www.italiamedievale.org/sito_acim/concorso_2004/concorso_2004_cremona.html
Aother prototype for Thurles is the Cathedral of Monza :
-
November 27, 2005 at 5:03 am #767441
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPraxiteles, these are wonderful 🙂 🙂
by Lorenzo GHIBERTI
-
November 27, 2005 at 9:41 pm #767442
fgordon
ParticipantI have followed with great interest the development of this theme for the past few weeks. Returning to the original question – Cobh Cathedral – what I can’t understand is this: why the insistence on pushing this proposal through on the part of the Diocese? I can understand that a Bishop might feel he has the right to alter his altar (!), but when it becomes as contentious and widely opposed as this attempt in Cobh seems to be, mightn’t it be better not to insist on a right and choose the gentlemanly, not to mention pastoral, route of listening to one’s people?
Now a suggestion for Bishop Magee – for whom I have great respect – it would be useful for him to read the remarks on this page to see that his legacy will be forever blighted if he pushes ahead with this programme. We see that even after many years, E. Casey is remembered (despite his other follies) above all as having initiated the rather vulgar (sorry, but it’s the most apt word) re-decoration of St Mary’s; J. Duffy, otherwise a conspicuously invisibile (not always a bad thing) member of the hierarchy, even in his own diocese, is known nationally only as the man who presided over a disappointingly crass re-ordering of Monaghan. I could go on. [As an aside – has anyone a picture of Monaghan’s interior in its original state; I have never seen such an image.]
I’m sure the Bishop of Cloyne would not want to provide for himself a legacy of equal, if minor, infamy?…
:confused: -
November 27, 2005 at 11:55 pm #767443
descamps
ParticipantThe problem with the Bishop of Cloyne, despite having spent nearly thirty years in Rome, is that he knows relatively little about art or architecture and is dependent on advisers who know even less. The project for the sanctuary of Cobh Cathedral is primarily the brain (!) child of one Denis Reidy, the Parish Priest of Carrigtwohill. He believes that he is reproducing in Cobh a solution that was adopted in the much vaster Cathedral of Milan and expects to have the plaudits of the plebs for this before he shuffels off his eccelsiastical coil in a few years time. When the Cobh project was first mooted, an advisory committee was formed basically of a few nuns and few of he more pliable members of the parish. What they knew about the building or its importance is debatable but they recommended a plan put before them by the good Reidy and catagorically excluded a number of less radical alternatives. When the ridiculousness of this was exposed in the letters page of the Irish Independent (23 December 1999) the project was temporarily shelved. A new advisory committee was formed, this time of several prominent artists, and charged with the task of advising Bishop Magee on what to do. Several of the artists, however, disagreed with the ethos of the advisory committee and resigned (among them Imogen Stuart and Ken Thompson). Eventually, a recommendation was made to Bishop Magee not so surprisingly recommending something very like the previous project. An art advisory committee unanimously accepted the proposal as did the Historic Churches Advisory Committe of the diocese of Cloyne. In their courtly rush to faun, neither of these bodies thought of asking to have a heritage impact study conducted on the impact of the proposed plan on the historic interior of the building. Another committee was formed to choose an architect to execute the plan and, not at all surprisingly, the architect chosen was Professor Cathal O’Neill. His appointment was recommended by the art and architecture committee of the diocese and by yet another body, the Cathedral Restoration Committee. With such a quiverfull of committees and experts, the poor advice-needy Bishop had no option but to go along with the Milan solution of D. Reidy. In all of this, no notice was taken of the common plebs of Cobh who would only be called upon to pay for the exercise.
-
November 28, 2005 at 12:18 pm #767444
Anonymous
InactiveThe Italian inspiration for Thurles is most interesting, particularly the connection with Pisa. Cobh, as is well known, is inspired by the tight and compact models provided by French Gothic cathedrals, as distinct from the more relaxed and rambling English Gothic style, seen for example in Lincoln.
An intriguing connection can be established between Cobh and Chartres – the tympanum over the west door in Cobh seems to have been inspired by that of the Royal Portal in Chartres (Christ and four evangelists), while the tympana of Reims and Notre-Dame de Paris are completely different. 😎
Does anyone have information as to whether the planners of Cobh were deliberately imitating the Chartres model? Admittedly Cobh is more complex with the addition of Irish saints.
In any case, those responsible for the construction of Cobh had an extraordinary knowledge of both Italian and French prototypes, as is emerging from the discussions on this thread. -
November 28, 2005 at 4:40 pm #767445
Praxiteles
ParticipantFrom the images of the Cathedral of Norte Dame de Chartres in the inclosed link, I think that it is more than clear that it is an important prototype for the building of Cobh Cathedral. The tympanum of the Royal Portal was clearly an influential ptototype for the West Portal in Cobh, but then so was the roof line of Chartres which is clearly evident in the drawing of the south elevation. Detach the apse ambulatory from the Chartres prototype and the line becomes even more clearly similar to Cobh. Note also the shallow and narrow south transept both in Chratres and in Cobh.
Chartres – South elevation
Cobh – South elevation
-
November 28, 2005 at 4:48 pm #767446
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo facilitate comparison of the south elevation of Chartres with that of Cobh, enclosed is a copy of E.W. Pugin and G. C. Ashlin’s contract drawing of 1869 for the south elevation of Cobh.
The last three upper windows of the sanctuary in Cobh seem to be directly modelled on their Chartres counterparts, while the lower three windows of the sanctuary seem to have been modelled on the wndows of the Chartres ambulatory.
The clerestory windows in the nave in Cobh Cathedral seem to have been drawn directly from the windows in the south aisle of Chartres.
-
November 28, 2005 at 5:46 pm #767447
Praxiteles
ParticipantFor the tower on the north corner of the west facade in Cobh, the south tower on the west facade of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Amiens must surely have been the prototype?
-
November 28, 2005 at 6:40 pm #767448
Praxiteles
ParticipantRheims Cathedral is also a prototype for Cobh especially in matters relating to the internal decoration and to external detail e.g. the figure of Our Lady in the porch of the West Portal in Rheims.
-
November 28, 2005 at 6:49 pm #767449
Anonymous
InactiveAnother undoubted inspiration for interior details in Cobh is the use of pierced quatrefoil by Lorenzo Ghiberti in the panels of the North Door in the Florence Baptistery. I attach an example.
One wonders what inspiration lies behind the O’Neill plan – perhaps a bathroom showroom or a projected Olympic pool? 😀 -
November 28, 2005 at 7:25 pm #767450
Praxiteles
ParticipantCorrect Sangallo. There are thirty such panels in the spandrels of the nave in Cobh Cathedral all framed in cornices of pierced quadrafoils directly inspired by Ghiberti’s doors in the Baptistry of Florence.
In Cobh, the nave panels depict the early and more recent history of the Church in Ireland.
The O’Neill project does appear to have quite as distinct an artistic pedigree. But, after the Turnerelli event in the Pro Cathedral, I am sure that Professor O’Neill would not shrink from improving on Ghiberti too.
-
November 28, 2005 at 8:05 pm #767451
Anonymous
InactiveRegarding influences on Prof. O’Neill, one should note that in the 1950s he studied in Chicago under Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, known for his connections with the Bauhaus movement and for developing what has been called a “monumental ‘skin and bone’ architecture” (i.e. glass and steel boxes). 😮
Other Irish architects who sat at the feet of the same master were Peter Doyle and Robin Walker.
Two interesting links for information on Mies van der Rohe:http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe.html
http://www.designboom.com/portrait/mies/bg.html
As a suitable waltz for the reception following the wedding of Gothic Revival and Bauhaus, I would suggest the danse macabre.
However, one shudders to think what the offspring will look like! – :rolleyes: -
November 29, 2005 at 2:24 am #767452
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother prototype for St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh is the Cathedral of St. Pierre in Saintes where we find the combination of the white caen stone of the walls off set by a timber vaulting.
Saintes Cathedral:
The Cobh variant on the theme:
-
November 29, 2005 at 8:55 am #767453
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Altar of the Mortuary Chapel, Cobh Cathedral by Pearse and Son, Dublin (1901-1902)
-
November 29, 2005 at 10:52 am #767454
Anonymous
InactiveMies van der Rohe may be considered a direct influence on Prof. O’Neill’s architectural outlook. He in turn is influenced by the father of the Bauhaus movement, Walter Gropius. Such an architectural progeny is indeed cause for disquiet. 😮
For examples of Gropius’ work see the following link:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/gropius.html
An interesting critique on Bauhaus architecture from a religious point of view is E. Michael Jones, Living Machines: Bauhaus Architecture as Sexual Ideology, published by Ignatius Press. For details, see the Amazon website at this link:
-
November 29, 2005 at 11:56 am #767455
Anonymous
InactiveDuncan Stroik, Chair of the Architecture School of Notre Dame University, has an interesting critique of the approach of the Modernist school (of which Gropius and Mies van der Rohe are two important representatives) to Church architecture. In “The Roots of Modernist Church Architecture” he outlines the guiding principles behind the work of the school. Although many churches are still built to the designs of architects of this school, such as a recent church by Richard Meier at Tor Tre Teste in the suburbs of Rome and the concrete box that passes for a cathedral in Los Angeles, the modernist style is now becoming somewhat passé, as more recent church architects (though, alas, not yet in Ireland) pay more attention to liturgical sign, symbol and typology, and pay more heed to the great church buildings of the past for inspiration. Is it too much to hope for that more recent thinking in this area will eventually come to influence Irish church architects?
Here is the link to Stroik’s article: http://www.adoremus.org/1097-Stroik.html
For Meier’s church in Rome:
-
November 29, 2005 at 1:12 pm #767456
Anonymous
InactiveMore delights from the modern school: Los Angeles Cathedral and Mario Botta’s Evry Cathedral, France. 😉
-
November 29, 2005 at 2:03 pm #767457
Anonymous
InactiveAfter our little trip abroad, perhaps it’s time to take a look at some of the home-grown variety. A particularly eloquent example is the “Eucharistic room” in Carlow’s Institute of Pastoral Liturgy, designed by the architect Richard Hurley and theologically justified by the notorious Sean Swayne.
The architect tells us that that “The uncompromising character of the all-white space is softened by the intimacy of the assembly. The space comes alive during the celebration. The complete flexibility of the timber furnishings, designed by the architects, respond to similar flexibility required by the liturgical celebrations from time to time. “
Sounds like musical chairs! -
November 29, 2005 at 2:13 pm #767458
Anonymous
InactiveMoving quickly northwards, we come to Pugin’s St Mary’s Chapel in Maynooth College, enhanced by Richard Hurley, following a rather eccentric reordering in 1967.
For the present reordering, which owes little to the principles of pointed architecture, Hurley was aided and abetted by Benedict Tutty (tabernacle) and others.
He tells us that “This ensemble, designed by the architect, creates an explosion of colour on the west wall, and presents a strong and prayerful focus, outside of the Eucharistic area.”“Explosion” is indeed the operative word here! 😀
For description, follow the link http://www.rha.ie/maynooth.html
For photograph of the “explosion” see the attached photo.
-
November 29, 2005 at 3:26 pm #767459
Praxiteles
ParticipantQiuite clearly, Richard Hurley has not read the Institutio Genralis Romani Missalis as his arrangement in St. Mary’s Chapel, Maynooth, does not conform to the requirements laid down for the celebration of the Eucharist – not least being the demarkation of an area that is specifically a “presbyterium”. Even in churches where there has been an antiphonal arrangement for the celebartion of the Liturgy of the Hours, such always antecedes the presbyterium, as is the case in an abbatial church where the offices are daily sung, or indeed in JJ McCarthy’s great masterpiece which is the College Chapel in Maynooth. It is very difficult to see where R. Hurley is taking his cue from but one thing is certain – it is not from the established norms governing Catholic worship.
Maynooth College Chapel, from the presbyterium:
-
November 29, 2005 at 3:36 pm #767460
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe grace and elegance of Hurley’s efforts in St. Mary’s oratory in Maynooth can easily be understood from the thought and art-historical acumen invested in the furnishings:r
http://www.fitzgeraldsofkells.com/images/samples/p_maynooth2_small.jpg
-
November 29, 2005 at 4:05 pm #767461
Praxiteles
ParticipantI would regard it as highly foolish of R. Hurley to have attempted anything like an antiphonal church arrangement in Maynooth of all places where he simply begs uncomplimentary contrast with JJ McCarthy’s great Choir Chapel disposed in a true antiphonal fashion and architecturally articulating all of the main spaces to be included in a Catholic church -with the exception of the nave, which the circumstances of Maynooth College did not require. When one looks at the faux antiphonal pastiche and at the poor quality conception of the the furnishings of St. Mary’s Oratory, one begins to realize that one is facing a true example of a misbegotten and malformed Bauhaus offspring (their unremembering hearts and heads, base born products of base beds ). The “explosion” of colour surrounding the tabernacle, for example, dwarfs into sham insignificance when one beholds the exquisite kaleidescope of colours of the glass in the lancet windows above and at either side of Kim En Joong’s magnum horrendum, especially when seen in the declining light of a summer’s afternoon. Clearly, neither the form or content of the tabernacle surround has any Christian significance whatsoever and could pass equally well, indeed better, in the departure lounge of a suburban bus depot. Was the provision of panelling along the northand south walls of the chapel a conscious effort to emulate the panelling in the College Chapel? If so, I am afraid that all it serves to illustrate is the sad decline in Irish architecture and craftsmanship over the past century for it is but a shodow of JJ McCarthy and the magnificent wood carving of the Monan Brothers from Dundalk to say nothing of the almost total intellectual demise of the Catholic Church in Ireland – even in those sciences which one would consider essential for the adequate execution of its mission. Truly, St. Mary’s Oratory is a symbol but not, I am afraid, of what is officially propagandized.
-
November 29, 2005 at 6:16 pm #767462
Peter Parler
ParticipantWe remember how difficult it was years ago to get a seat in the College Chapel at Maynooth for Sunday Mass or Evening Devotions. Could it be true, as we have heard, that Saint Mary’s Oratory now adequately accommodates the worshipping remnant and the College Chapel is used only for concerts and conferrings and the like? This too is symbolic perhaps.
-
November 29, 2005 at 6:29 pm #767463
Praxiteles
ParticipantThere is no “perhaps” about it !!
-
November 29, 2005 at 8:04 pm #767464
MacLeinin
Participant@sangallo wrote:
After our little trip abroad, perhaps it’s time to take a look at some of the home-grown variety. A particularly eloquent example is the “Eucharistic room” in Carlow’s Institute of Pastoral Liturgy, designed by the architect Richard Hurley and theologically justified by the notorious Sean Swayne.
The architect tells us that that “The uncompromising character of the all-white space is softened by the intimacy of the assembly. The space comes alive during the celebration. The complete flexibility of the timber furnishings, designed by the architects, respond to similar flexibility required by the liturgical celebrations from time to time. “
Sounds like musical chairs!Have you ever seen such a miserably uncomfortable group? 🙁 ” The space comes alive..” :rolleyes: 😡
-
November 29, 2005 at 10:45 pm #767465
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis space does not conform to the liturgical norms of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis and is consequently unsitable for the celebration of the Mass. Indeed, it is no more than room which has no specifically religious, let alone Christian or Catholic , articulation. It is a prime example of what sacred architecture is not and at total variance with the tradition of Christian architecture accumulated since the Edict of Milam of 312. Its only interesting architectural features are the sash windows.
-
November 30, 2005 at 1:01 am #767466
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn his preface to Richard Hurley’s book Irish Architecture in the age of Vatican II (Dominican Publications,2001), Arthur Gibney traces the roots of ecclesiastical architecture in Ireland during the last half of the 20th. century to a number of sources. Among them, he mentions a symposium on church design organized by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland held in 1955 and to the establishment of the Church Exhibition Committe in 1956. This committee organized two important exhibitions: Eglises de France Reconstruites and Modern Churches in Germany, respectively held in 1957 and 1962. Not surprisingly, both France and Germany had seen much rebuilding work after the war. Two further sources for modern church architecture in Ireland identified by Gibney are the Irish Episcopal Commission for Liturgy and the National Advisory Commitee on Sacred Art and Architecture. Among the first members of the latter were: J.G. McGarry, Professor of Homoletics in Maynooth, Austin Flannery, OP, and prominent architects such as Wilfrid Cantwell, Andrew Devane, Liam McCormack and Richard Hurley -examples of whose reordering work have already been seen above. In the same preface, Gibney writes: “…Richard Hurley has been closely involved with the promotion of avant-guard ideas on church design since the 1960s and has an established reputaton as a lecturer and writer on sacred art and architecture”. Gibney further writes: “His [Richard Hurley’s] work in older monumental churches in the 1990s reveals a sensitivity to historic spaces which has been sadly lacking in the modern liturgical interventions of the past”. As an exemplification of this last assertion, Gibney suggests that “the refurbishment of the Honan Chapel in U.C.C. complements its architectural qualities”. Again he claims: “The complex task of refurbishment of Cork Cathedral (of St. Mary and St. Anne) in 1995 combines a sensitive re-ordering of liturgical functions with a dramatic recovery of the spacial and architectural language of an important monument”.
Behind the modernist movement in Ireland lay the figures of French and German architects such as Auguste Perret, Otto Bartning, Rudlf Schwartz and Dominikus Boehm. Investigation of these may well throw light on the devastation practised on Ireland’s non too extensive heritag of ecclesiastical buildings and explain why much of the work carried out on Irish churches in the past forth years could easily leave the impression that during the Second World War Ireland was as heavily bombed as Dresden. -
November 30, 2005 at 1:43 am #767467
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs an example of the work of the Lutheran architect Otto Bartning, a close collaborator of Gropius, I enclose images of Bartning’s work in Dresden-Loebtau and links for further biographical and professional information:
Before:
After:
Interior:
Further information on Otto Bartning:
http://www.das-neue-dresden.de/friedenskirche_otto-bartning_1949.html
http://www.ev-gescher.de/ueberuns/022ae3961a079ea18/022ae3961b114510b/
-
November 30, 2005 at 2:19 am #767468
Praxiteles
ParticipantWIth regard to Rudolf Schwarz (1897-1961), the following entry in the Kirchenlexikon is interesting for what it has to say about Schwarz’s ideas about the transition from Crowd to People to People of God and the joining of Community and Altar; the relationship of architecture and liturgy; and the articulation of ecclesiastical architecture:
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s1/schwarz_r.shtml
An example of his work: the Corpus Christi Church in Aachen:
The Corpus Christi interior:
-
November 30, 2005 at 2:28 am #767469
Praxiteles
ParticipantI think that posting # 251 should be seen in conjunction with posting # 255 (interior view of Corpus Christi, Aachen). We begin to see influences and prototypes behind all those spartan white walls.
-
November 30, 2005 at 8:51 am #767470
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother example of Rudolf Sacrwrz’s work: Heilige Familie built in 1960:
Dueren, St. Anna
Essen, St. Antonius
Frankfurt, St Michael
Linz, St Teresia
-
November 30, 2005 at 8:58 am #767471
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome examples of the work of Dominikus Boehm, who is seen as a large influence on the Irish modernist movement:
Dettingen, St. Peter und Paul (1922)
Mainz, Christkoenigkirche (1926)
Interior
-
November 30, 2005 at 9:55 am #767472
Anonymous
Inactive@Praxiteles wrote:
Gibney further writes: “His [Richard Hurley’s] work in older monumental churches in the 1990s reveals a sensitivity to historic spaces which has been sadly lacking in the modern liturgical interventions of the past”. As an exemplification of this last assertion, Gibney suggests that “the refurbishment of the Honan Chapel in U.C.C. complements its architectural qualities”. Again he claims: “The complex task of refurbishment of Cork Cathedral (of St. Mary and St. Anne) in 1995 combines a sensitive re-ordering of liturgical functions with a dramatic recovery of the spacial and architectural language of an important monument”.
Regarding Cork Cathedral, one can see the sensitivity of the reordering in the combination of a Gothic Revival style throne for the bishop with something akin to a stage set for “Madame Butterfly” or “The Mikado”. One only awaits the entry of the geisha girls from behind the wooden screens!
The claims of Gibney re Hurley remind one of similar claims about enhancing Pugin in Killarney! :rolleyes:
-
November 30, 2005 at 1:04 pm #767473
Anonymous
InactiveLiam McCormick (1916-1996) is regarded by many as the father of modern Irish Church architecture. He is perhaps best known for having designed St Aengus’s Church in Burt, Co. Donegal. His stated influences are Le Corbusier, Gropius and Alvar Aalto.
For info on Burt Church, see:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/donegal/burt/st_aengus.html
For a brief biographical sketch, see:
-
November 30, 2005 at 1:59 pm #767474
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
WIth regard to Rudolf Schwarz (1897-1961), the following entry in the Kirchenlexikon is interesting for what it has to say about Schwarz’s ideas about the transition from Crowd to People to People of God and the joining of Community and Altar]http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s1/schwarz_r.shtml[/url]
An example of his work: the Corpus Christi Church in Aachen:
The Corpus Christi interior:
There is no doubt about it – we are living in the ‘Ugly Age’. 😮 :confused:
-
November 30, 2005 at 7:43 pm #767475
Praxiteles
ParticipantInfluenced by Dominikus Boehm (1880-1955), Rudolf Schwarz (1897-1961) and Emil Steffann (1899-1968), Church architecture in Germany was marked by a radical simplification of form and of space while in post-was Grmany saw the dominance of stark spatial areas characterised by naked materials. Not only Le Corbusier (1857-1965) worked in this tradition but also, in a certain sense, Mario Botta who built the only Cathedral of the period.
In the German post war period, building material was made available in the form of surplus army stock, including huts, which seem to have had a peculiar infuence on post war Church design.
Emil Steffann, Sankt Bonifatius, Luebeck 1952.
ibid. interior
-
November 30, 2005 at 8:06 pm #767476
Anonymous
InactivePerhaps visitors might like to know why the diocese of Cloyne chose Prof. O’Neill for the reordering of the sanctuary. View the following link for the official explanation:
http://www.cloyne.irl.com/catharchitect.htm
Makes for interesting reading in the light of the foregoing discussion on this thread!
-
November 30, 2005 at 9:19 pm #767477
Praxiteles
ParticipantSo, O’Neill was chosen simply because he “did” the Pro-Cathedral. If true, it speaks volumes for the glitteratti lined up to make the big decision.
-
November 30, 2005 at 11:39 pm #767478
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: posting 251: Carlow College, Eucharist Room
Richard Hurley describes the creation of the Eucharist Room in his book Irish Church Architecture in the era of Vatican II as follows: “The nerve centre of the institute [for Pastoral Liturgy] comprised a plan of four spaces – gathering area, the Eucharist Room, the Blessed Sacrament Chapel and the Vesting Room. The gathering room was of great importance in the scheme of things. It would provide a place of welcome, a place of assembly before and after the liturgy and also a place to enjoy the hospitality of the institute. The Eucharist Room is entered directly off the gathering area along a narrow “mall” partially two storeys high and containing an open-string staircase. The Eucharist Room is spacious and light -filled; it was the great room of the house….the layout of the room is orientated towards an informal antiphonal gathering surrounding a central area focused on the altar. This was a development of the idea of the family gathering around the table. WIthin this group the chief celebrant sat at one end of the axis with the altar and the ambo placed at the other side of the altar, on axis facing up the room. The surrounding stools provide an informal seating arrangement for the assembly. Everything in the room is a shade of white – wall, floor, ceiling, light fittings and carpet…The ambience of the room was intended to provide fertile soil for the growth of spiritual freedom. The limitations of the materials used also contained the inner intention, that to radiate the Spirit of Freedom. There was no “sanctuary” in the Eucharist Room in Carlow, only an expression of ritual space and the integration of everyone who participate in it”.
-
December 1, 2005 at 12:46 am #767479
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:Re: posting 251: Carlow College, Eucharist RoomRichard Hurley describes the creation of the Eucharist Room in his book Irish Church Architecture in the era of Vatican II as follows: “The nerve centre of the institute [for Pastoral Liturgy] comprised a plan of four spaces – gathering area, the Eucharist Room, the Blessed Sacrament Chapel and the Vesting Room. The gathering room was of great importance in the scheme of things. It would provide a place of welcome, a place of assembly before and after the liturgy and also a place to enjoy the hospitality of the institute. The Eucharist Room is entered directly off the gathering area along a narrow “mall” partially two storeys high and containing an open-string staircase. The Eucharist Room is spacious and light -filled]
What a growth of spiritual freedom!!!!!
What a ratiation of the Spirit of Freedom!!!!! -
December 1, 2005 at 8:49 am #767480
Praxiteles
ParticipantI do like those coyishly suggestive old-fashioned milking stools. I understand that a peculiar Galway version of the milking stool was used in the presbyterium of the Honan Chapel – the last very degenerate outcrop of the once vibrant Celtic Revival.
-
December 1, 2005 at 10:41 am #767481
Anonymous
InactiveContinuing in the milking stool vein, I would be inclined to suggest that the sugan chair idiom would be a more authentic rendition of Celticism!
I would have suggested something along those lines for the presidential chair in the Carlow room, but, it would seem from the photo attachment kindly provided by Gianlorenzo, that there is absolutely no distinction between president and assembly. Whatever else it is, this hardly reflects a Catholic understanding of the liturgy! It is more suggestive of a community celebrating nothing other than itself, after a fashion so rightly criticised by the then Card. Joseph Ratzinger in his seminal work The Spirit of the Liturgy. -
December 1, 2005 at 12:57 pm #767482
Anonymous
Inactive@Praxiteles wrote:
I do like those coyishly suggestive old-fashioned milking stools. I understand that a peculiar Galway version of the milking stool was used in the presbyterium of the Honan Chapel – the last very degenerate outcrop of the once vibrant Celtic Revival.
I don’t know about the use of the milking stool in the Honan Chapel, as in the attached photos, it seems to have been hidden out of sight, along with the Silk of the Kine. Of course, the rather oddly-shaped presidential chair could easily take its place in the cow-byre. In any case, there is an unmistakeable druidic air about the new arrangement!
-
December 1, 2005 at 5:36 pm #767483
Praxiteles
ParticipantReferences to Galway milking stools as sources of inspiration for modern neo-Celtic Revival handiwork are serioulsy explained in Virginia Teehan and Eilzabeth Wincott-Heckett’s monograph [img]The%20Honan%20Chapel:%20A%20golden%20Vision[/img]. We are told: ” A number of items of furnture by the Dublin sculptor (sic) Imogen Stuart were added following Vatican II. Designed and made in 1986-1987, these include a massive oak altar carved in relief with the Four Evangelists, now placed in the middle of the moasic floor in front of the sanctuary; ….an oak president’s chair adapted from the three-legged cottage chair of Connemara with a high back terminating in a celtic cross. [a number of items] were supplied to cater for the popularity of the chapel as a wedding venue. A bride’s chair and kneeler and a groom’s chair and kneeler, the symobolism of their design being explained on labels under the seats”.
If this is the best or only inspiration that neo-Celtic Revival can come up with, would someone please mercifully put it out of its misery.
The thing of beauty in the flesh:
Why such should be necessary is incomprehensible when one notices a perfectly adequate sedilia, designed to accomodate the usage of the Roman Rite, on the south wall of the sanctuary. It even has cushions to encourage the faint hearted!
-
December 1, 2005 at 6:21 pm #767484
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Richard Hurley’s “job” on St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth, one can say that the standard milking-stool-inspired tuffets have mercifully been replaced by a more conventional chair redolent of influences ranging from provincial English regency dining chair to the more domestic kitchen chair. As for the “president’s” chair and its accompanying stools, it is not clear to me where the inspiration for this amalgam comes from – though I think I saw something reminiscent of it in an animated version of Walt Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. It is very interesting to note in this picture that none of the chairs has a kneeler to accomodate anyone who might wish to kneel down. It was perhaps to this phenomenon that Kieron Wood was referring to in an article published on 4 November 2005 in the Sunday Business Post. Apparently, unlawful disciplinary measures are taken against those in the Maynooth Menge who refuse to be socialized into Volk by resorting to such anti-social and psychotic behaviour as kneeling down. Clearly, it is no accident that the chapel is designed and laid out in a fashiion that is contrary to the current (post Vatican II) liturgical norms for the celebration of the Mass and disturbing because of some of the underlying concepts of liturgy as socialization whose sinister origins are to be found in German writers of the inter-war period – which should immediately counsel caution. How far is it from Volksgeist to corporate or aggragate or communal liturgy – none of which concepts makes even a fleeting appearance in Vatican II’s Sacroscantum Concilium ?
The reason for the enormous organ case in St. Mary’s Oratory, a relatively small space, is beyond me. ALso, placing the organ against the east wall obscures one of the more charming archictectural elements of the original chapel – namely, an enormous, simple, plain wall pierced only once by a tiny squat doorway.
Attachment 1 is a view of the Chapel as originally dcorated.
Attachment 2 is a view of the Chapel following the 1966 reordering (note the size of the organ) -
December 1, 2005 at 7:05 pm #767485
Praxiteles
ParticipantInteresting echoes between Richard Hurley’s Library at Glenstal Abbey and Rudolf Schwarz’s Fronleichnam Church in Aachen – just illustrates the flexible functionality of modern Bauhaus products.
-
December 1, 2005 at 10:30 pm #767486
MacLeinin
Participant
“Architecture has the capability to define through formal language that we come to identify the activities that occur within by the form of the architecture. The activities and the forms become interdependent. To the extent that the architecture incorporates these forms and linguistic elements we feel at home and comfortable. Conversely, to the extent that these elements are missing we may feel less at home, less comfortable. Our sense of well-being is affected by the architecture. The result of a sense of negative affect—or lack of well-being—may be a tendency not to return to the space, i.e. a loss of interest.”
Neo-gothic Architecture Today by Ethan Anthony in Sacred Architecture Journal Vol.5 2001.It seems to me, as one of the ‘plebs’ mentioned by Praxiteles in a previous post, that the above pictured churches were built by an architect for an architect. They certainly were not built with the ordinary churchgoer in mind, and as for God, well forget it, He doesn’t even get a look in. While the fall off from the Church cannot be put finally at the feet of architects or their misguided liturgical advisors, they must take some responsibility in the alienation of the people. From what I have seen, they are building for Man, while the people enter their buildings looking for God, and finding only Man, leave in confusion.
-
December 2, 2005 at 12:50 am #767487
Peter Parler
ParticipantPlease. No more Rudolf Schwarz. The pictures are just too, too distressing. Anyway, such supposedly “functional” buildings tend to be badly built and it is easy to predict that they will be abandoned or demolished well before mid-century. It could, though, be worthwhile preserving a few of them, in the German fashion, as a warning to future generations.
-
December 2, 2005 at 12:59 am #767488
Praxiteles
ParticipantJawohl !!!!!!!!
-
December 2, 2005 at 2:15 am #767489
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Peter Parler wrote:
Please. No more Rudolf Schwarz. The pictures are just too, too distressing. Anyway, such supposedly “functional” buildings tend to be badly built and it is easy to predict that they will be abandoned or demolished well before mid-century. It could, though, be worthwhile preserving a few of them, in the German fashion, as a warning to future generations.
That is probably their only function. They are out of date now and their future can only be as ‘historical oddities’. Even the furniture is dated and passe. When will the apologists for Moderism and even post-Modernism realise that they are locked into their own time and, unlike what went before, beit Classical, Romanesque,or Gothic/Neo-Gothic, they have no future. Their appeal is to the ‘now ‘and that in itself is self- defeating in that there is no ‘now’. A look at other threads on this site will show how quickly things become outmoded and unfashionable. And that, in the end,is what the re-ordering of St. Colman’s is all about – it is a fashion trend that Bishop Magee, in his abysmal ignorance, feels he has to follow.
Regarding the ‘warning to future generations’, why is it that Ireland is always 10 years behind everywhere else. In the US and UK they are beginning to re-order the previous re-ordering, but here we are, prepared to destroy one of the truly worthy heritage structures in our land in the name of an our-dated and spurious ideology. -
December 2, 2005 at 2:28 am #767490
Gianlorenzo
Participant
Tabernacle in old L.A. Cathedral
New Tabernacle!!!
-
December 2, 2005 at 1:46 pm #767491
Anonymous
InactiveLooking once again at the reordered St Mary’s chapel in Maynooth, there is another distinctly odd feature about the arrangement. Behind the presidential chair, on which the wizard Gandalf would feel quite at home, there appears to be a semi-circle of chairs positioned facing towards the tabernacle. I am inclined to think that this may have something to do with the decadent stage of Celtic revival characteristic also of the Honan Chapel (the druidic altar and Connemara milking stool) and the Carlow Euch-room (also furnished with milking stools). In this case, the designer seems to have in mind the cosy fireside chat, perhaps with claypipes and tay! A seanchai would not go amiss either.:D
-
December 2, 2005 at 5:06 pm #767492
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am compiling a list of the liturgical errors and omissions in the design and layout of St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth and would be glad to have comments from others before posting the list – just to ensure that I have them ALL..
-
December 2, 2005 at 5:35 pm #767493
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, to-day, folks, it is a pre-Christmas trip to Santa in Lappland taking in a few views of the work of Alvar Aalto -a major influence, we are told, on Richard Hurley and Liam McCormack. Well, we can understand Aalto’s interest in white given that there is a lot of snow in Finland and Sweden. Indeed, one could even forgive him for feeling the need to introduce snow inspired colour into Finnish and Swedish interiors, but what is Richard Hurley up to in Ireland with all the whiteness. After all, we have not had anything like a blizzard for twenty years. I believe, however, that further exploration of this theme will shed some white light on the creations in the Euch. Room in Carlow and in St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth.
Heilig-geist Kirken, Wolfsburg
Another splendid example of “ecclesiastical” architecture
Kirche des Flachenkreuz in Seinaejoki (Schneeland)
interior
As for the enoblement of the stool:
see the Library, Viipuri (1929), Meeting RoomThe Chruch of the Three Crosses,Vouksenniska, Imatra, Finland
-
December 2, 2005 at 9:32 pm #767494
fgordon
ParticipantWow, this thread just gets better (or worse) – now it’s ghastly, deathly-pale German Church interiors! No wonder Catholicism is gasping for air in that country! How did Benedict survive unscathed?
It is interesting that with the eclipse of European culture, comes the de-sacralization of architecture and the consequent alienation of the language. Reading Richard Hurley’s apologia for his various soulless productions, one hears a vocabulary that is wholly alien to anyone with an inkling of what the Sacred Liturgy means in the Catholic economy. So we hear the inane patter of the sociologist and the barely disguised superciliousness of the behaviourist. The people are to be control-processed in a non-threatening “gathering placeâ€, before entering the tame and void “Eucharist room†(I ask you!), through a “mallâ€. How appropriate – “mallsâ€, the new Cathedrals of modern Europe. The family setting – where’s the fireplace and the scrabble board? – emphasises the Eucharist as meal, we are told. And what emphasises its more fundamental aspect – that of sacrifice, or, if you insist, sacrificial meal?
In any case, Liturgy detached from its theological and historical, its symbolic and cultic fundaments becomes a floating free-for-all, the play thing of ideologues, charlatans and the semi-educated; unaware even of their own ignorance of that which they pretend to be masters and teachers. All “kudos†to those trying to save Cobh from the dying gasps of this iconoclastic hiccup in the Church’s history. Like all iconoclasm, it will eventually be overcome by the return of common sense, that is, the return to the sacred.
-
December 3, 2005 at 12:15 am #767495
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn relation to the Euch. Room in Carlow with its extensive use of stools, I think we may have to resort to Alvar Aalto’s domestic furniture of the 1930s to discover a prototype. If correct, then we shall have to abandon the artistic apotheosis of the Galway milking stools – though, of course, we cannot exclude the possibility of some indigenous trace elements of the Galway milking stool insinuating themselves into an otherwise anonymous composition.
Cleraly, the Viipuri library conference room, built in 1929, cannot be positively excluded as a prototype for the socalled antiphonal approach to the Euch. Room in Carlow and for its more elaborate version in St. Mary’s Oratory.
Stools chair by Alvar Aalto (1930-1931)
Elegant domestic modern stools and chairs designed by Alvar Aalto
-
December 3, 2005 at 1:01 am #767496
Peter Parler
ParticipantRe #279 St Mary’s Oratory at Maynooth. The big organ looks as if it is the principal object of worship…. And they have overlooked those old stained-glass windows. They seem so sadly out of place….
-
December 3, 2005 at 1:16 am #767497
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am compiling a list of the liturgical errors and omissions in the design and layout of St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth and would be glad to have comments from others before posting the list – just to ensure that I have them ALL..
Isn’t Patrick Pye’s tapestry between the lancet windows hung a little too high? Nice tapestry shame about the place.:p
Re. liturgical errors and omissions, one that is immediately evident – there are no Stations of the Cross.
-
December 3, 2005 at 8:56 am #767498
Praxiteles
ParticipantAn interesting Aalto prototype
Parish Church, Riola (Italy)
The new church was one of the first in which the ‘reformed’ Roman Catholic liturgy would be given expression in architectural terms; the aim was to provide a close relationship between altar, choir and organ, as well as the baptistery. The shape of the church itself is an asymmetrical basilica with asymmetrical vaulting through which light, directed especially towards the altar, enters the building. Galleries were dispensed with, but the choir area was extended to compensate for their absence. The front wall of the church can be opened so that the forecourt serves as an extension to it.”
— Karl Fleig. Alvar Aalto. p171.
Details
The Riola Parish Center was designed in 1966.
The main body of the church was completed in 1978, without the campanile.
— Malcolm Quantrill. Alvar Aalto: A Critical Study. p204; Karl Fleig. Alvar Aalto. p171.
-
December 3, 2005 at 10:05 am #767499
Anonymous
InactiveRiola could very easily double for a gymnasium or a community centre – a few climbing ropes up the side and swings for the trapeze artists, and it would be just perfect! 😀
I agree with Gianlorenzo about the Patrick Pye tapestry of the Transfiguration (cf. #284) -here we are dealing with a great modern Irish artist, with a strong spiritual content in his art. Unfortunately, the surroundings are not ideal to bring that out – it might as well hang in a soulless modern museum.
The Maynooth website givs the following info about St Mary’s chapel:“St. Mary’s Oratory, in the Pugin buildings, had been allotted to the senior students in the1850s, over the protests of Nicholas Callan, who claimed that he had been promised the large hall as a laboratory. The plain space was slightly embellished after it had been gutted in the fire of 1 November 1878, but it remained utilitarian despite the insertion of two genuinely distinguished stained-glass windows in 1939. They survived an unfortunate refurbishing in the name of liturgical renewal, and remain a chief glory in a total and happier reordering carried out to mark the new millennium. This renewal was made possible with a generous grant from the St. Joseph’s Young Priests Society. The Oratory is adorned with works of art by Patrick Pye (Transfiguration), Imogen Stuart (Madonna and Child), Ken Thompson (St. Joseph, Altar, Ambo, Chair), Kim en Joong, O.P. (non-figurative) and Benedict Tutty, O.S.B. (Tabernacle and Cross).”
Incidentally, the same website mentions the vandalism carried out by the erstwhile President, Mgr Miceal Ledwith, in the little St Mary’s Square, originally designed by Pugin:
“Finally, there is the bicentenary garden, located in St. Mary’s Square, designed to symbolise man’s spiritual journey towards God. It really should be taken slowly and reflectively. A detailed leaflet is available.”
When one sees the said square in its present sad condition, one is not surprised to find that the one responsible for same is now working for a New Age community in California, devoted to a 35,000 year old warrior called Ramtha! What would Pugin have said?
-
December 3, 2005 at 11:27 am #767500
Peter Parler
Participant@sangallo wrote:
Incidentally, the same website mentions the vandalism carried out by the erstwhile President, Mgr Miceal Ledwith, in the little St Mary’s Square, originally designed by Pugin:
“Finally, there is the bicentenary garden, located in St. Mary’s Square, designed to symbolise man’s spiritual journey towards God. It really should be taken slowly and reflectively. A detailed leaflet is available.”
When one sees the said square in its present sad condition, one is not surprised to find that the one responsible for same is now working for a New Age community in California, devoted to a 35,000 year old warrior called Ramtha! What would Pugin have said?
We can easily imagine what Pugin might feel to see the present state of St Mary’s Square at Maynooth. What we are waiting for is some word of explanation and apology from the present Trustees of the College for that questionable appointment and all its weird consequences – which include the vandalization of the Lady Chapel and the installation, contiguous to St Mary’s Square, of a vulgar American bronze: Notre-Dame a la mousse au chocolat.
-
December 3, 2005 at 12:16 pm #767501
Anonymous
InactiveCongratulations to the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral for the simply stunning photos of the cathedral recently added to their website! Follow the link http://www.foscc.com/Gallery.html
What a spectacular building! Unfortunately, it seems that some of the mosaic is rather worn and damaged, with some amateurish repair work done. Surely Pugin and Ashlin deserve better!
Incidentally, it would be nice to have some more photos of the scenes from Irish church history in the capitals and over the arches of the cathedral interior. The are a bit high up for the naked eye to view comfortably.
Does anyone know if there is a similar series elsewhere in Ireland?
-
December 3, 2005 at 3:54 pm #767502
Praxiteles
ParticipantMaynooth College Bi-Centenary Gardens
St. Mary’s Square, Maynooth – lower quad in the photograph (Before)
Ibid. loc. After
The Bi-Centenary Gardens were commissioned to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of Maynooth College in 1995. The Garden with its lake and fountains are based on the biblical theme ‘from origins to destiny’ and reflects the salvation of humankind in Genesis chapters two and three. All plants in the garden have been mentioned in the Bible.
While described oficially as above, there can be little doubting that the Bi-Centerary Gardens in St. Mary’s Square in Maynooth have little or nothing to do with Christianity or even Judaism as concepts like “destiny” and “origins”, and especially the “salvation of humankind” are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. It is time to take a good hard look at the BI-Centenary Gardens and see it for what it is: a modern composition brutally imposed on an historical context without the slightest respect for the architectural integrity of St. Mary’s Square. The bit about Biblical plants is sheer hocus pocus as it is highly unlikely that anything grown in the Middle East would survive a winter in the mainly northern facing square. Micheal Ledwith realized in the great outdoors a level of vandalism only surpassed indoors in the contiguous St. Mary’s Oratory.
-
December 3, 2005 at 4:32 pm #767503
descamps
ParticipantReply 286 tells us that Ken Thompson is responsible for the Altar, ambo and president’s chair in St. Mary’s Oratory, Maynooth. Those of use who know him well realize that he has a quirky sense of humour. Are they sure in Maynooth that he is not in some way taking the mick with that awful chairback so evidently modelled on a mitre? Wood is not is his best medium. He is stupendous in stone. The Paschal chamber stick in the Honan Chapel was not KT at his best.
-
December 4, 2005 at 1:40 am #767504
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Marry’s Square (nocturne)
I came across the following in a google search. It certainly captures the mood of St. Mary’s Square with accuracy:
I stayed at the College in Maynooth – the grounds and the loding was lovely.
Considering the College used to be a Catholic Seminary, the very pagan rock garden with it’s standing stones seemed out of place.
I caught the reflection of one of the college buildings in the pool of the Rock Garden.I think it best that we do not pursue anything further about the standing stones.
-
December 4, 2005 at 7:55 pm #767505
Anonymous
InactiveThe St Mary’s Square arrangement, now that we see some good photos of it (#289), does look like a cross between the deserted graveyard
-
December 4, 2005 at 9:11 pm #767506
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo leave Maynooth modernity, and indeed modernity, for a while and return to St. Colman’s Cathedral and its glorious tympanum, I thought it might be interesting to explore its iconographic prototypes in Romanesque France and therefore post a picture of the magnificent tympanum of the Abbatiale de St. Pierre at Moissac constructed between 1120-1135.
-
December 5, 2005 at 2:08 am #767507
Praxiteles
ParticipantIf Moissac draws so many visitors these days, it is because of its tympanum and its cloister. The latter with its many famous capitals is rightly considered the most beautiful one left in the world. In the tympanum of the south portal, the sculpture of Moissac is truly monumental. It is placed above the level of the eye and is so large as to dominate the entire entrance. It is a gigantic semicircular relief, over 15 feet in diameter, framed by a slightly pointed archivolt in three orders. Its great mass is supported by a magnificently ornate lintel, a sculptured trumeau, or pillar, representing Paul and a bearded prophet, and two doorposts on which are carved the figures of Peter and the prophet Isaias. The portal is sheltered by a salient barrel-vaulted porch, decorated on its lower walls with reliefs representing incidents of the Infancy of Christ, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Punishment of Avarice and Unchastity. In its grouping and concentration of sculptures, the porch is comparable in enterprise to an arch of triumph. The tympanum itself is a remarkable work of engineering and architecture, for 28 blocks of stone were brought together to form its surface.
The meal of the rich man, Dives (at right),
as dying Lazarus is cared for by the dogs (left).St. Peter on the left side of the entry door
under the Tympanum. -
December 5, 2005 at 2:17 am #767508
Praxiteles
ParticipantArles-sur-Tech, Abbatiale Sainte-Marie-de-Vallespir
Tympanum c. 1046
-
December 5, 2005 at 2:50 am #767509
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe graceful portal and tympanum of St Trophime at Arles dating from the mid twelfth century:
-
December 5, 2005 at 2:22 pm #767510
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore Moissac:
-
December 5, 2005 at 7:00 pm #767511
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother exxample, the architrave of the portal of the Church of St. Genis-des-Fontaines, erected in 1019/1020:
-
December 5, 2005 at 8:04 pm #767512
Thor
ParticipantMust say all you guys and gals out there have shocked me with your documentation and reflexions. The foreign stuff is terrible. That Schwarz man. But how did they ever go for thus stuff in Ireland and worst of all in the Catholic Church here? If I can bring the discussion back to Cobh. What a MESS. It seems to me that there a number of formal problems. I mean, who says the cathedral has to be messed up? Where does an idea like that come from? Is it the bishop? Some flunkey lurking behind the throne? And who ever got it into their head to choose an archirect who seems to have a career most accurately exemplified by Drogheda railway station, which is just a banal remake without the teeniest hint of GRACE. He seems also to have the odd technological byre to his name. Otherwise? So how does a bishop get a project going with someone with credentials like that? I mean!! What a miserable, sad contrast with the glorious past. The all-in-one design that has been Cobh Cathedral till now replaced by this stuff! Is this serious? Surely even a bishop has some superior under the seventh heaven. I mean, is there no one who checks this stuff out? In this day and age? All I can say is, poor ould Church if this sort of stuff goes through. And there must be a law against it. Aren’t there learned judges in the land? Aren’t we paying through the nose for GOVERMENT? You seem to have some brains, Praxiteles. What’s the score, old son? 😮 Speak!
-
December 5, 2005 at 8:54 pm #767513
Praxiteles
ParticipantCannot say who the eminence grise in Cobh might be. But, there is an earlier posting, from Descamps, I think, explaining some of the uglies behind the scene. At present, I am on tympana but will return to this later on.
-
December 5, 2005 at 9:00 pm #767514
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Mi
-
December 5, 2005 at 10:17 pm #767515
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe western Portail of the Prieuré de Saint Fortunat, Charlieu, built about 1090 is the first example in Burgundy of a tympanum depicting the artistic type of Christ seated in glory, surrounded by an aureole supported by two angels.
This form of depicting Christ antecedes tympana depicting the Last Judgment and is historically associated with the Cluniac reform (see attached image at the end).
The priory, although founded around 875, became dependant on the abbey of Cluny around 930 and was assigned the rank of priory in 1040. In the mid eleventh century, a new priory church was built by the Abbot, St. Odilion.
The Northern Portal dates from the mid twelfth century, but repeats and elsborates the earlier, simpler type. At a time of political crisis centred on the question of investiture, pitting the Papacy and the Empire against each other, the message of the reformist portal was perfectly clear: This is the throne of the true Lord, the heavenly Lord.
[Images from [url]http://en.structurae.de][/url]
The northern tympanum here depicts Christ seated in glory, blessing and holding the Book of the Gospels, and surrounded by an aureole supported by two angels, and circumscribed by the tetramorphic representations of the four Evangelists
The architrave depicts the twelve Aposles enthroned in glory.
The tympanum of the window depicts the biblical type of sacrifice: the Last Supper prefigured in the sacrifice of the Temple.
-
December 5, 2005 at 10:58 pm #767516
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe link below shows the Cluniac prototype for the tympanum depicting Christ enthroned in Glory, in the Priory of Charlieu dating from 1099:
The image below shows C.W. Harrison’s variation of it on the Wstern tympanum in Cobh, executed in 1898:
-
December 6, 2005 at 1:57 am #767517
GrahamH
ParticipantBeautiful images posted.
Can I ask are the various people’s objections to the striking modernist churches featured their (apparent?) lack of conformity with strict liturgical requirements, or the fact they’re not frilly gothic wedding cakes?
-
December 6, 2005 at 2:03 am #767518
anto
ParticipantIs that an “apparent” dislike of Gothic Graham?
-
December 6, 2005 at 2:24 am #767519
GrahamH
Participant🙂 Quite the opposite in fact – just that many of the ‘alternative’ churches featured are fine pieces of architecture.
Hence is it the dislike of the modern that is putting people here off, or is it these buildings’ ”apparent’ (in that I do not know) disregard for liturgical convention? -
December 6, 2005 at 2:30 am #767520
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe problem with some of the modern schools is not so much that they do not give us nice gothic frills or that they are not liturgically correct, but because they are unable to articulate realities which for them, by definition, do not exist, or are too inhumane to be able to empathise with man or his condition. Rudolf Schwarz, while producing technically perfect peices, exhibits nothing of the “humanitas” of the portal of Charlieu and, as such, cannot be considered as a congruent mise-en-scene for the liturgical “commemoration” of Christ’s greatest act of “humanitas”.
-
December 6, 2005 at 2:42 am #767521
GrahamH
ParticipantIs that not up to the individual to decide?
The much derided breeze block Firhouse church in south Dublin is much loved by its parishioners. -
December 6, 2005 at 2:44 am #767522
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following pictures show a number of portals with red doors. This is a clue to the ancient use of church portals throughout western Europe and provides the wider context in which portals such as Moissac, Charlieu, and those of the great Cathedrals should be seen. While the portal obviously provides access and egress from the church, its more important social function was that of a locus for the administration of both ecclesiastical and civil justice. Basically, these great portals were the courts of justice and were designated as such by the painiting of their doors in red. The colour was especially connected with royal justice. Also, the portals of the churches served as places in which oaths were administered, contracts perfected and all sorts of other legal acts, such as the swearing of fealty, took place. Marriage was formally contracted in the portico of the church before the bride and groom were lead into the church. Weights and measures were publicly promulgated and exhibited in the church porticos. This function had an influence on the plastic decoration of the portals and on the choice of theme to be depicted. Usually, the dominant tympan will depict Christ in his Divine Majesty, source of all justice. The Last Judgment is a later theme focusing on the rewads of good and evil. In the porico itself, it was not unusual to find figures such as Solomon, the Old Testament exemplification of Justice or St. John the Baptist. In the north Italian Romanesque, as at Piacenza, lions are characteristically found supporting the columns of the portico. Here again is a reference to Solomon -whose throne was held up by lions. Indeed, in many medieval contracts and legal documents it is not infrequent to find that such were done “ad portas”, “ante portam”, “in gallilea”, “in atrio”. In northern Italy the expression “inter duos leones” frequently occurs. As at Moissac, the prophet Isaiah features in medieval church porticos alluding to his prophacy of the eschatological kingdom of peace, justice and righteousness. In the case of Cobh, the tympan is directly influenced by the Royal Portal at Chartres while the figures in the portico depict St. John the Baptist, another precursor of the eschatological kingdom of peace and justice but the iconographic composition fails somewhat by the introduction of the figure of St. Joseph, unless he is seen as the biblical faithful stewart placed over the household. In conservation terms, even elements such as the colours of paint on doors can have an important significance. Unfortunately, at Moissac the door colour has vanished since the time of the French Revolution and has not been recovered.
The Abbatiale de St. Gilles-du-Gard dating from the second quarter of the twelfth century which, after almost a thousand years conservs its tradition of painting the abbey doors red :
Paroissiale de St Armel in Ploermel, Brittany, depicting the the triumph of virtue over vice.
Chapelle de Notre Dame de Kernascléden, Brittany: portail:
Le Faouet, Brittany, Chapelle de St. Fiacre (an Irish man) west portail:
Le Faouet, Brittany, Chapelle de Sainte Barbre, west portail:
Le Guerno, Brittany, Paroissiale de Notre Dame:
The Portico of the Cathedral of Piacenza, built last half of the twelfth cenntury and in the first half of the thirteenth, supported by the pair of lions so characteristic of the Lombard Romanesque:
-
December 6, 2005 at 2:53 am #767523
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe. #308: in what amounts to an ecclesial statement, the answer to that question must be no.
-
December 6, 2005 at 6:48 am #767524
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSt Macartan’s Cathedral, Monaghan
Arguably McCarthy’s masterwork….Ruined, the only trace of original stonework is a small stretch of railing at the old baptistry. The bishop rode roughshod over the people, and indeed a few years ago, I received an email from his secretary about a throw-away comment on the predesscor of these boards. I think Bishop Joseph Duffy is a tad touchy about it, and he has written several small booklets on the re-ordering to get his view across. None of these booklets have “before” pictiures – I have but I need to scan them first. As a kid I was entranced by the mass of victorian ironwork dividing the four side altars from the high altar, the massive ornate canopy over the Cathedra and the fabulous pulpit a third the way down the nave. All gone. Even the wooden confessionals which were ten-a-penny victorian were sadly removed. There was also some fabulous cast iron radiator covers to the rear of the church. Everything ruined.
By bringing the altar out into the crossing, they actually reduced the capacity of the church considerably – I must scan a plan and show the old versus the new.
The reordering completely detracts from the verticiality of the space and the forest of columns in the area of the crossing. It does not draw the eye to the fabulous hammerbeam roof nor to the apse when standing at the western entrances. It is non-descript. And it seems that since I was last there, they have added to the carpet collection in the apse. Originally it was one, which was acceptable because it attracted the eye to the end, now it looks like a rural hotel lobby. Are tapestrys the new stained glass?
The only thing they did right, was restore the organ, a magnificently overbearing and pompous instrument
-
December 6, 2005 at 1:25 pm #767525
fgordon
ParticipantRe. above comments of P. Clerkin on Monaghan Cathedral. I remember my first visit to that noble building – from outside it has a French look, I would have thought. Indeed, its external appearence greatly impressed me – not heavy, not brooding as some gothic buidlings can be. This structure has a lightness of composition.
On entering the building I was (as it has been) gutted. What a hatchet job! I can imagine the Lord Bishop of Clogher is touchy on the issue. He realises now that his only enduring legacy to the diocese is a tasteless attack on its central gem. And he must realise that any pretentions he had to a favourable commentary in the history books (he is himself an historian, I think) for his “imaginative and senitive adaption of the Cathedral to the demands of the post-conciliar Liturgy”, as the jargon goes, is in tatters on both counts. First, it ain’t imaginative and it certainly ain’t sensitive; and second, the whole “demands of the post-Conciliar Liturgy” line is utter bunkum – and demonstrably so, if one has ever read Sacrosanctum concilium and later documents. [Bishop Magee take note].
Now, one must say immediately – partly too in response to G. Hickey’s earlier observations – that a thing does not have to be gothic to be beautiful. Indeed the quality of some of the individual pieces in Monaghan Cathedral is evident to see. But the idea that these utterly incongruous elements, alien to the setting and in some cases to the economy of Christian worship, can simply be hurled into an already very carefully and beautifully elaborated unity of art and archetecture is folly. Not to mention the necessary destruction of the already present – and vastly more appropriate, vastly more beautiful – elements, the condescending contempt for the wishes of the people (who are paying for it all, by the way), the irresponsible squandering of a precious spiritual and cultural heritage etc. This is the power of a mania; and the reckless iconoclasm that convulsed Ireland in those years can only be regarded as a mania. Was it Chesterton who said a mania is irresistable when it holds force and inexplicable afterwards?
Now -PHOTOS, PHOTOS – let’s have them P. Clerkin! From that first moment I entered Monaghan Cathedral I have wanted to see images of it in its pristine condition. But “Sensitive Joe” seems to have purged every evidence of the former charms of the buidling he bullied into his own image and likeness. Get scanning at once!
-
December 6, 2005 at 3:24 pm #767526
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterEverytime I see the altar area, now I think of a 1980s Eurovision stage – just remove the altar and lecture and you have a perfect place for bad euro-pop…
-
December 6, 2005 at 4:10 pm #767527
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, it is just too too awful. Duffy has pretentions to sophistication and flaunts a puddle deep knowledge of European, especially French, culture. His influence on the Art and Architecture Committee of the Irish Episcopal Conference over the years has been baleful and motivated by a totally uncritical acceptance of the modern without any reflection on the philosophical difficulties underlying its theory. Unfortunately, much of the iconoclasm that has gone on in the Catholic Church for the past twenty five years fetch from Duffy its first head and spring. He is a true scion of the Isaurian dynasty. I am not at all surprised that you should have been contacted by the mind police in the Clogher diocesan offices. The Cloyne counterparts are currently busily trying to stifle any opposition to O’Neill’s proposed vandalism in Cobh and make no apologies for gagging anyone who might have a valid point to make.
-
December 6, 2005 at 6:10 pm #767528
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe #311 is this the original colour scheme for the organ pipes or is a recent innovation?
-
December 6, 2005 at 6:46 pm #767529
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterCan one of the Cobh contingent contact me – I’d like to run a piece in the news section – using their pictures and text. pclerkin@irish-architecture.com
-
December 6, 2005 at 8:39 pm #767530
fgordon
ParticipantLooking anew at the external picture of Monaghan Cathedral (in #311 above) – the only beautiful aspect that remains – it is unmistakably McCarthy, isn’t it? Indeed take away the two side aisles and one has almost a carbon copy of Maynooth College Chapel, the inside of which was mercifully spared the ignominious stripping that Monaghan was forced to endured.
In earlier mentions of Ledwith’s tinkering with St Mary’s Square, no-one mentioned his belated and deeply regrettable conversion of the Lady Chapel. If I am not mistaken, during his tenure the altar (of very fine marble) was detached from its surroundings and ludicrously propped up on a cheap dais in the middle of that exquisite little chapel, destroying in one sweep the simple harmony of the piece and obscuring the mosaic floor with cheap carpet. To add insult to injury the remaining space was filled with unspeakably vulgar pews, thus losing that quite delicate illusion of space and replacing it with claustrophobic fussiness. Ruined.
I quite agree with P. Clerkin – the recent addition of two or three further tapestries behind the altar in Monaghan is a retrograde step. It is probably to compensate for the coldness of the new sanctuary – no doubt sponsored by Roadstone. Or perhaps the Lord Bishop just felt a little isolated up there on his horse-shoe throne (fine if you’re in San Clemente in Rome, but just silly in Monaghan) and hoped the walls might compensate for the lack of colour elsewhere. The old sanctuary, I’m sure, would have provided the “warmth†so lacking in the cold adaptation. We await those pictures…
BTW, returning to the principal theme – will Cobh end up with some of the lamentable characteristics of Monaghan if this ill-judged project goes ahead? Yes!
-
December 7, 2005 at 2:02 am #767531
Fearg
ParticipantHere is an interior photo of St Eugene’s Cathedral Derry in the early 1970s, when a tempoary altar was in use. This was replaced in 1975, by Liam McCormack’s reordering, the huge canopy over the pulpit was removed at that stage. The “permanent” work shown in a previous post, was carried out in 1989, when the remainder of the pulpit went and the reredoses were needlessly mutilated.[ATTACH]1236[/ATTACH]
-
December 7, 2005 at 2:25 am #767532
Praxiteles
ParticipantContinuing on the iconographic sources for the tympanum of the West Portal in Cobh, I am posting a couple of examples of the Last Judgement which was the usual alternative to the raffigurations of Christ’s Divine Majesty:
At. 1. Conques-en-Rouergue, Abbey of Saint Foy, West Portal, Last Judgment, c.1175
At. 2. Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, Abbey of St. Pierre, South Portal, Last Judgment, c. 1130-40
At. 3. Autun, Cathedral of St Lazarus, West Portal, Last Judgment, 1130-1145
-
December 7, 2005 at 2:38 am #767533
Praxiteles
ParticipantA final portal, this time the tympan of the Abbey of St. Mary Magdelan at Vézelay depicting Penntecost and the Mission of the Church, executed 1125-1130.
-
December 7, 2005 at 3:47 am #767534
MacLeinin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
🙂 Quite the opposite in fact – just that many of the ‘alternative’ churches featured are fine pieces of architecture.
Hence is it the dislike of the modern that is putting people here off, or is it these buildings’ ”apparent’ (in that I do not know) disregard for liturgical convention?Many of the ‘alternative’ (interesting choice of word here!) churches featured, may be as you say fine pieces of architecture, but to my eye they are sterile and cold, hardly what one expects of a church and certainly not the message which the churches would have us believe they wish to send out.
-
December 7, 2005 at 4:26 pm #767535
Praxiteles
ParticipantA group of figures, in the arcade of the attic of the South Transept of Cobh Cathedral, facing seaward, depicts the Immaculate Conception and is based on the iconography of the subject developed by Bartolomeo Esteban Murillo (1617-1682) and the school of Seville. To understand the iconographic history of this group, one must look tot he prototypes of the Sevuille tradition, especially Giorgio Vasari and his sources.
Giorgio Vasari’s iconographic type of the Immaculate Conception was painted for the Florentine banker Bindo Altoviti in 1540. The upper part was heavily influenced by Raphael’s frescos in the Vatican Loggie while the lower part is strongly evocative of Micahelangelo’s monumental figures in the Sixtine Chapel. A panel copy of the original, also by Vasari, is in the Uffizi in Florence. This is one of the earliest depictions of the topic, if not inded the prototype for all subsequent representations of the theme. Vasari had much difficulty in arriving at a visual image of the subject and tells us in Le Vite : “avutone Messer Bindo et io il parere di molti comuni amici, uomini literati, la feci finalmente in questa maniera: figurato l’albero del peccato originale nel mezzo della tavola, alle radici di esso come primi trasgressori del commandamento di Dio feci ignudi Adamo et Eva, e Aron, Iousè, Davit, e gli altri Re successivamente secondo i tempi, tutti dico legati per ambedue le braccia, eccetto Samuel e S. Giovanni Battista i quali sono legati per un solo braccio, per esere santificati nel ventre. Al tronco dell’albero feci avvolto con la coda l’antico serpente, il quale, avendo dal mezzo in su forma umana, ha le mani legate di dietro; sopra il capo gli ha un piede, calcandogli la corna, la gloriosa Vergine, che l’altro tiene sopra una luna, essendo vestita di sole e coronata di dodici stelle. La qual Vergine, dico, è sostenuta in aria dentro a uno splendore da molti Angeletti nudi, illuminati dai raggi che vengono da lei, i quali raggi parimenti, passando fra le foglie dell’albero, rendono leume ai legati e pare che vadano loro scioliendo i legami con la virtu e la grazia che hanno da colei donde procedono. In cielo poi, cioè nel più alto della tavola sono due putti che tengono in mani alcune carte, nelle quali sono scritte queste parole:Quos Evae culpa damnavit, Mariae gratia solvit. Insomma, io non ave a fino allora fatto opera, per quello che mi ricorda, né con più studio, né con più amore e fatica di quasta, ma tuttavia, se bene satisfeci a altri per aventura, non satisfeci già a me stesso, come che io sappia il tempo, lo studio, e l’opera ch’io misi particolarmente negl ‘ignudi, le teste e finalmente in ogni cosa”. While the result of Vasari’s efforts is a masterpiece in the mannierist style, and one of his finest religious compositions, at the same time, he was unsatisified with it. But, he had established the basic elements of this iconographic type of the triumph of good over evil, accomplished in the figure of Our Lady depicted in accordance with the apocalyptic woman of the book of Revelation. These elemnts would become synonomous with the depiction of the subject but would be transformed by the school of Seville.
(2) Michaelangelo’s expulsion from Eden in the Sixtine Chapel, painted in 1509-1510, illustrates the temptation of Adam and Eve and the arrival of sin int the world; and the expulsion from the primaeval paradise of Eden. Vasare borrowed the central image of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and uses it in his composition to depict the omnipresence of evil in the world, indicated by the chaining of all of the sons of Adam to that same tree. The Adam lifeless from sin, is depicted by Vasari in the foreground in a fashion reminiscent of Michaelangelo’s creation of Adam.
-
December 7, 2005 at 7:18 pm #767536
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe dominant influence on iconography in the 17th entury Seville school was Francisco Pacheo (1564.-1654), the father in law of Velasquez. In 1649, he published a definitive treatise on painting, El Arte de la Pintura. His comments on the painting on the Immaculate Conception are the direct source of the sculpted group in the arcade of the attic of the South Transept of Cobh Cathedral. The following are his comments on the painting of the subject: “Some say that (the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady) should be painted with the image of the Christ Child in her arms because she appears thus on some old images that have been found. The opinion is probably based ( as the learned Jesuit Father Alonso de Flores has pointed out) on the fact that Our Lady enjoyed freedom from Original Sin from the very first moment, since she was the Mother of God, even though she had not yet concieved Jesus Christ. Hence from this moment (as the saints know) she was the Mother of God, nor did she ever cease to be. But without taking issue with those who paint the Child in her arms, we side with the majority who paint her without the Child.
This painting, as scholars know, is derived from the mysterious woman whom St.John saw in the sky wiith all her attributes [Revelations XII,1-4]. Therefore, the version I follow is the one that is closest to the holy revelation of the Evangelist and approved by the Catholic Church on the authority of the sacred and holy interpreters. In Revelation she is not only found without the Child in her arms, but even before she ever bore him….We paint her with the Child only in those scenes that occur afer she conceived…
In this loveliest of mysteries Our Lady should be painted as a beautiful young girl, twelve or thirteen years old, in the flower of her youth. She should have pretty but serious eyes with perfect features and rosy cheeks, and the most beautiful long golden locks. In short, she should be as beautiful as a painter’s brush can make her. There are two kinds of human beauty, beauty of the body and beauty of the soul, and the Virgin had both of them in the extreme because her body was a miracolous creation. She resembled her Son, the model of all perfection, more than any other human being. ,,and thus she is praised by her Spouse: tota pulchra es amica mea, a text that is always written in this painting.
She should be painted wearing a white tunic and a blue mantle…She is surrounded by the sun, an oval sun of white and ochre, which sweetly blends into the sky. Rays of light emanate from her head, around which is a ring of twelve stars. An imperial crown adrons her head without, however, hiding the stars. Undr her feet is the moon. Although it is a solid globe, I take the liberty of making it transparent so that the landscape shows through. The upper part is darkened to form a crescent moon with the points turned downward. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I was the first to impart greater majesty to these attributes, and others have followed me.
Especially with the moon I have followed the learned opinion of Father Luis del Alcazar, famous son of Seville, who says: ‘Painters usually show the crescent moon upside down at the feet of this woman. But as is obvious to learned mathematicians, if the moon and sun face each other, both points of the moon have to point downward. Thus the woman will stand on a convex instead of a concave surface…’. This is necessary so that the moon, receiving its light from the sun, will illuminate the woman standing on it….
In the upper part of the painting one usually puts God the Father or the Holy Spirit or both, together with the already mentioned words of her Spouse. The earthly attributes are placed suitably in the landscape; the heavenly attributes can be placed, as you wish, among the clouds. Seraphim or angels can also hold some of the attributes. It slipped my mind completely to mention the dragon, our common enemy, whose head the Virgin broke when she triumphed over original sin. In fact I always forget him, because the truth is that I never willingly paint him, and omit him whenever I can in order not to embarrass my picture with his presence. But painters are free to improve on everything I have said”.
Given what has been laid bare about Irish church architecture in this thread over the past while, I am a astounded by the fact the one of Bartolome Esteban Murillo’s major patrons was an Irish man, from Dublin: Fra Francisco Gough y Fletcher Morgan Cabeza de Vaca! Murillo was one of the greatest devotional painters of all times, especially in his later years when he produced ingratiating compositions that inspire gentle, pious feelings. His pictures are unendumbered by recondite allegorical allusions or references. They are easily accessible and comprehended. ,
Bartolome Esteban Murillo’s versions of 1678, 1665, 1645, del Prado,.
-
December 7, 2005 at 8:09 pm #767537
Gianlorenzo
Participant🙂 Where are the Cork lads? I was enjoying their amusing, if slightly inaccurate, pub gossip:D
-
December 7, 2005 at 8:25 pm #767538
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThat was one lad, who thought he was clever…. he has been removed.
I don’t appreciate someone using alteregos to post comments of a personal nature about someone, when they are unnessecary, and then posting again to tell off himself. He was posting as four people.
It doesn’t help the dicussion, merely discredits it.
-
December 7, 2005 at 8:55 pm #767539
BTH
Participant@Neo Goth wrote:
North Cathedral in Cork
BEFORE
AFTER
@Praxiteles wrote:
Would I be right in saying that Richard Hurley was the architect for both of these particular “reorderings”? It’s just that he is currently undertaking the renovations of the Augustine Church in Galway City Centre and his scheme, according to a recently published illustration, consists of the japanese – style screen as seen in Cork obscuring the (thankfully retained) high altar and exactly the same wooden altar, seat, pulpit and seating arrangement as in Maynooth… Very disturbing considering that many of the congregation will be housed in the aisles with views into the Nave obstructed by columns…
Very sad to see the same mistakes being made over and over again in churches around the country.
-
December 7, 2005 at 9:26 pm #767540
BTH
ParticipantSome pictures of the “Augi” as it is known in Galway –
It was obviously quite lovely in it’s time and very ornately decorated. At some point in it’s history – most likely the 60s all of the decoration was removed or covered over, the entire church carpeted and some quite beautiful modern stained glass installed:
It has been in this slightly sad state up until the current renovations. Numerous problems with water penetration, wheelchair accessibility etc. resulted in the nescessity for a complete overhaul of the church. In my opinion however they are going a bit too far, especially in adopting the central altar approach as in Maynooth:
Apparently the church will also be used for recitals, performances etc. which goes some way to accounting for the “flexible” layout. However the chances are that we will be left with yet another sterile and vacuous space where once there was meaning and purpose. The church re-opens on the 18th December.
-
December 7, 2005 at 10:09 pm #767541
Gianlorenzo
Participantre #325 Fair enough.
-
December 7, 2005 at 10:11 pm #767542
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is yet another example of appaling vandalism and ignorance of an order beyond comprehension. The so called antiphonal lay out that we have here has nothing to do with Catholic worship. In the case of St. Mary’s oratory in Maynooth, Richard Hurley wrongly describes the spacial arrangment as an “antiphonal” arrangment. But this is sheer and utter nonsense. An antiphonal arrangment has been used in Christian Churches, in both Eastern and Western Rites, from time immemorial and is usually associated with abbeys or canonries in which choir stalls, facing each other, were arranged in a space immediately BEFORE the sanctuary. I know of no instance where the choir stalls flanked the altar. The purpose of this arrangment was for the chaunting of the various offices of the Breviary. Indeed, the arrangment of choir stalls in this manner probably dates back to the 4 century and may well have developed from the solea of the early Christian Basilicas (there is an earlier posting with all of this information and drawings). Richard Hurley’s disposition of space, if it ever had an historical progenitor, is merely a modern application of the instructions of the Edwardine Ordinals of November 1547 which, in an effort to ram the Henrician reformation down the throat of a recalcitarnt England, odered the destruction of the altars of every parish church in England and the complete abandonment of the Chancels. In their stead, tressels were ordered to be set up in the naves of the churches and surrounded by furoms. The idea of the move was to break all connection between the new rites of the established Church and the Catholic notion of sacrifice. Traces of the move can be seen in Ireland, e.g. St. Mary’s Collegiate Church in Youghal, Co. Cork, whose Chancel was abandoned at some stage in its history. Describing the Hurley lay-out of St. Mary’s Oratory as “antiphonal” is mendacious and fraudelent. And, for good measure, it has nothing to do with any of the documents coming from the Second Vatican Council on the reform of the liturgy.
-
December 7, 2005 at 10:43 pm #767543
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, BTH, you are perfectly correct in thinking that Richard Hurley is the architect responsible for destruction of St Mary and St Anne’s in Cork and of ST. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth. The Augustinian church in Galway looks like being the victim of yet anoth application of RH’s clapped out faux “antiphonal” formula. Be thankful, however, that the principle items of furnishing (the High Altar) has escaped the junk heap. In the not too distant future RH’s rubbish can be dumped out the door and some liturgical order restored to the church.
-
December 7, 2005 at 11:08 pm #767544
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe. no. 323: I enclose an image of the Purissima by another superb painter of the Sevillian school: Francesco Zurbaran showing very clearly the transparent convex demi-lune mentioned by Francesco Pacheo (cf. 323) and recommended with mathematical precision to all Sevillian painters. This image is a near perfect execution of Pacheo’s canon. At either side of Our Lady are depictions of her attributes as taken from the Litany of Loreto (Gate of Heaven, Mirror of Justice, House of Gold, Tower of Ivory) all of which are referneces to the Old Testament Canticle of Canticles. Like the Cobh figures, this picture also has seafaring associations evident from the ship in lower left hand corner.
-
December 8, 2005 at 5:03 pm #767545
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantMore liturgical confusion from Richard Hurley at the Mercy International Centre Dublin:confused:
-
December 8, 2005 at 5:06 pm #767546
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantFound these picture of the oratory in Maynooth.
As it was and after the first reordering -
December 8, 2005 at 8:00 pm #767547
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Gianlorenzo for that picture of the Choir in the Chapel of the Convent of Mercy in Baggot Street. I had been looking for that for a while. This is another example of Richard Hurley’s antiphonal absurdity – this time exaggerated by the presence of the original choir stalls along the walls of the gutted remains of the Chapel. I am preparing some material on the question of “antiphonal” spacial arrangements and hope to post it soon. With any luck, it should demonstrate just how nonsensical the Hurley invention is.
-
December 8, 2005 at 9:58 pm #767548
Praxiteles
ParticipantI wish to return to a question raised earlier by Graham Hickey, viz that of the compatibility of the Liturgy and modern architecture. This is an interesting question and one often starting on the false premise that the two are incompatible. That is, and need, not always be the case. While an interesting subject, and one worth pursuing, I would have to point out that a distinction has to be made between building a church ex novo in a modern idiom, and approaching a church alread build – especially those of major significance – with a fixated modern idiom mind-set. The disasters deriving from the latter are too endless to count. But the former is an entirely different question and I believe that it is possible to point to a series of modern architects who understand that church building is a sui generis activity and who have the cultural, religious and historical Wissenshaft to know the traditional canon and its elements and the intelligence to articulate these in a sympathetic modern idiom.
I would begin by pointing to Otto Wagner (1841-1918) and his church in St Leopold am Steinhof, near Vienna, built 1905-1907, in collaboration with Marcel Kammerer and Otto Schoental. Elememts of the decoration were executed by Richard Luksch, Othmar, Leopold Foster and Remius Geyling. The church is considered one of the most important expressions of early modernism in ecclesiastical architecture.
The inscriptions, in German, on the Glass are: upper range, Blessed are the Merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Top Lower range: The Spiritual Works of Mercy. Bottom Lower Range: the names of the saints depicted.
-
December 8, 2005 at 11:24 pm #767549
Gianlorenzo
Participanthttp://www.irish-architecture.com/
To Paul Clerkin- NICE ONE
-
December 9, 2005 at 1:30 am #767550
Praxiteles
ParticipantAntonio Gaudi (1852-1926)
-
December 9, 2005 at 1:56 am #767551
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting # 332: The photograh of the old sanctuary just demonstrates once again the brutality of the oft repeated Hurley re-ordering tecnhnique. Aganist the wall, notice the redundant mensa of the High Altar which seem an interesting piece with a rather finely carved lamantation for the dead Christ. The window, which is disproportionately high, obviously was originally built to take account of the height of the reredos of the High Altar, of which no trace whatsoever now exists. The glass in the window depicts an image of the Immaculate Conception copied from a painting of the subject by Bartolom
-
December 9, 2005 at 2:02 am #767552
Praxiteles
ParticipantBarry Byrne was born on December 19, 1883. His father, Charles Emmett Byrne, a native of Prince Edward Island, worked as a railroad blacksmith. His mother Mary Barry Delaney, was a native of Chicago but had family connections to Co. Wexford, Ireland.
Byrne always saw his father as miscast in his role as blacksmith. At home, Charles Emmett Byrne, read Shakespeare aloud and wrote poetry of his own. At the age of 10, Byrne came across an architectural book in a library and from that point onward, knew that he wanted to be an architect. Having seen his fathers own thwarted ambitions, Barry Byrne became determined to fulfill his dream.
In 1897, his father was killed by a locomotive, leaving behind his wife and six children. Mary Byrne remained determined to rear her family despite the misfortunes that were ahead. This strength of character encouraged Barry Byrne and in later life would help him as he too faced the harsh reality of running an architects office.
At the age of 14, Byrne left St. Columcille Parochial School to work in the mail order rooms of Montgomery Ward. His inner ambition to realise his dream of becoming an architect made these times very difficult for the teenager. His escape was to ride the trolley cars of Chicago all day Sunday, visiting the Art Institute and libraries and to indulge himself in reading, a practice he would continue all his life.
On one Sunday afternoon in 1902, Byrne’s life changed forever when on one of his regular visits to the Chicago Art Institute, he saw an exibition of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. The impression the work made on Byrne, was so powerful that he presented himself at Wright’s Oak Park studio and fortunately got a job.
Frank Lloyd Wright had no great love of formal education and the fact that Barry Byrne had not finished his 9th grade, was not of importance. Wright saw in Byrne, the same love and enthusiasm for architecture he too had experienced in his youth.
The early years at Oak Park were prolific and many of the most famous of Wrights buildings were designed, including the Unity Temple and Coonley house. Barry Byrne is known to have worked on the drawings of the Unity Temple, and this is where his thoughts on Roman Catholic church design began. By 1908, an affair between Wright and one of his clients caused the frequent absence of the architect and the office became dis-functional. With an increasingly difficult situation at hand, Byrne felt his post was serving no purpose and left the studio.
Between 1908 and 1913 Byrnes’ main work was in a three year partnership with Andrew Willatzen. During that time, more than twenty buildings were designed by the architects. However differences in opinion led to a mutual agreement to dissolve the partnership. Willatzen continued the practice alone until his retirement.
In 1913, Walter Burley Griffin won a three year contract in Canberra, Australia and asked Byrne to takeover his practice in Chicago while he was away. This was Barry Byrne’s first chance to use his own ideas and autonomy. Projects during this period include the Sam Schneider House and Melson Tomb, Mason City Iowa.
In 1915, Byrne established his own practice in Chicago. Of particular note during this period was the commission for a house for J.F.Clarke in Fairfield Iowa and commission for the J.T. Kenna apartments, Chicago. The design of both buildings shows Byrne clearly breaking from the Prairie School ideas and developing his own distinct style.
Having returned to Chicago from a brief WWI army duty, Byrne continued with his practice in Chicago. It was from this point onward that his ideas and work flourished. The first large building contract was for the Immaculata High School, Chicago, 1921 followed soon afterward by his first ecclesiastical commission, Church of St. Thomas the Apostle, Chicago. By 1924, the Western Architect was publishing articles on his work and praise from renowned critic Lewis Mumford in his writings for Commonweal, brought the architect to the attention of the Catholic clergy as far away as Ireland.
In 1926, Byrne married artist Annette Cremin, who was originally introduced to him by Alfonso Iannelli. They would eventually have three children; Annette Cremin, Cathaleen Mary and Patrick Barry. Annette’s influence on her husbands work is well noted. She regularly drew artists impressions of his designs and in some cases designed the interior colour patterns for some of his buildings and churches. By the end of the 20’s, Barry Byrne had designed four churches, a hospital, several unbuilt projects and some six schools. The business had also expanded with the addition of a construction company. However the stock market crash of 1929 caused a strong lull in the construction industry and the practice and construction company was closed.
Byrne moved to New York in the early thirties and supplemented the limited work as a building inspector and by writing articles for various publications. Work began to revive toward the late thirties and once again things began to look good. However with America’s entry to WWII, Byrne was again forced to scale down his business and work solely as a building inspector.
In 1945, at the age of 62, Byrne returned to Chicago where until semi-retirement in 1953, he continued work and designed four more churches among other smaller projects. The work during these years was again second to none, with such masterpieces as Church of St. Francis Xavier, Kansas City and St. Benedict’s Abbey, Atchison. From 1952 to 1959, he continued to work occasionally until his final project at the age of 79, where he designed a library for St. Procopius College, Illinois. He died in 1967.
Artists are often remembered for their work and talents. The many churches and buildings that Byrne designed will no doubt prove to be a lasting testimony to a gifted architect. However too often, do we lose grasp of the person himself. In our searches, we came across the web site of Stafford James, a Jazz bassist. At the age of 14, Stafford had the pleasure of working as a tracer for Barry Byrne and today, he regards Barry Byrne as one of the most important influences in his life.
With kind permission from Stafford James himself, the following is his personal account and testimony to Barry Byrne:
Dear sirs,
thank you for your e-mail pertaining to Mr. Barry Byrne. To answer your question, Mr. Byrne for me was one of those great inspirations in my life that to this day his ability to share with his fellow human beings has left an indelible mark in my life. When Mr. Byrne took me into his small atelier I was a young boy of 14 years. Each summer I would trace for him and during the year he would give me special projects to work on. He instilled in me the relationship of man and nature, as one can see in his work. At age 17, I won the Rotary International Award for Architecture that was inspired by my years of working for Mr. Byrne.
As I had come from a single parent upbringing, Mr. Byrne gave me so much that has helped me in life. Above all he taught me to always keep my vision on the objective idea even though there will always be those who will not have the vision to pursue the idea to its completion. Although today, as for the past 30+ years, I compose and perform music, it is still with the lessons that I have learned from another artist that have kept the creative flame lit. Barry Byrne’s humanity is something that very few people will know when describing his genius but I am very honored to have in my lifetime known a person such as him.
Sincerely,
Stafford JAMES
(http://www.staffordjames.com)>> Chicago Illinois (1922)
G]http://www.turnerscross.com/[/IMG]
-
December 9, 2005 at 4:03 am #767553
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother example of Barry Byrne’s work: St Thomas the Apostle, Hyde Park, Chicago, built in 1924. The terracotta portal was designed by Byrne and executed by Alfonso Ianelli. I presume that Byrne was aware of the significance of having red doors on the church.
St Patrick’s, Racine, Wesconsin (1924). Unfortunately, Byrne’s original desgin for the sanctuary was subjected to a “reordering”.
Christ the King, Tulsa (1926). Again the original sanctuary design has suffered from an ill advise reordering.
-
December 9, 2005 at 7:06 pm #767554
Praxiteles
ParticipantBack to tympana and the decorative theme of Crist enthroned, surrounded by the tetramorphoi and the twelve Apostles. We have seen that the vesrion in the tympanum of the West Portal in Cobh (posting # ) is directly related to the tympanum of the Royal Portal at Chartres, which in turn, has its immediate iconographic prototypes in the Romanesque tympana, especially those associated with Burgundy and the Cluniac reform, depicting Christ enthroned, surrounded with the tetramorphoi, the Apostles and the Prophets. The earliest extant embyonic example is that of the West Portal of the Priory of St. Fortunat at Charlieu dating from about 1090. It depicts the enthroned Christ, in aureole supported by Angels. Although the type is associated wih Cluny and the investiture crisis, it too has a long art-typical history bringing us to Rome and the Basilica of Santa Pudenziana where we find the earliest extant example of Christ seated in glory, surrounded by the Apostles, the tetramorphoi, and surmounted by his victorious Cross. The mosaic dates from about 390 A.D..
A drawing of the mosaic reconstructing its original state.
The mosaic as preserved to-day.
“This mosaic is important for its iconography. It is the earliest surviving decorated Christian apse which takes us back to the period of classical revival in Rome. This mosaic was heavily restored during the Renaissance and the nineteenth c., but the Christ in the center is not changed, thus, in terms of style we have to look at Christ for analysis.
There is a high degree of classicism in the proportions, modeling, ease and movement, linearity has not yet quite taken hold. Thus we see a union of the old naturalism and the symbolism taking hold in the fifth century.
The subject is Christ teaching the apostles in front of heavenly Jerusalem.
The landscape behind him may be directly related to a reproduction of the Holy Sepulchre – Church built over Christ’s tomb in Jerusalem. The cross is symbolic of the true cross erected on Golgatha (hill on which Christ was crucified).
The four evangelists (gospel writers) are in their animal symbolic form. The iconography can be traced back to the Old Testament when Ezekial saw a vision in heaven of the four beasts spreading the word of the Gospel. It is also found in the book of Revelations. Matthew is the winged angel, Mark is the Lion, Luke is the Ox or bull, and John is the Eagle. Until the fourth c. the relationship between animal symbols and those whom they represented was not fixed.
Peter and Paul are being crowned by female figures who symbolize the church of the Jews behind Peter on the right, and the church of the Gentiles, behind Paul, originally there were 12 apostles, only ten can now be seen, due to restorations.
Again we see naturalism mixing with great symbolism of the Early Christian period. This naturalism will fade, the emphasis will become purely spiritual, other worldly, purposely making no or little reference to our natural world”.
-
December 9, 2005 at 8:27 pm #767555
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe positioning of the mosaic in the apsis of Santa Pudenziana has both architectural and theological significance. The Apse is the focal point of the basilica and immediately draws the eye’s attention. There, Christ is enthroned, his right hand extended in blessing, a book in his left. He is bearded, with long loose flowing hair. He is seated on a high backed throne. Above him is a halo. All of these details attest his divinity. They are all taken from the standard trpes of Roman and Greek art for depicting the gods of the Roman and Greek pantheon. The representation of Christ in Santa Pudenziana is an example of what is nowadays called “inculturation” – Christianity’s assumption of elements from a given culture to convey its message. The results of this early process are still to be seen in some of the prayers of the Roman Missal which can be shown to have been borrowed directly from the pagan temples of Rome and christianized. In the case of the Santa Pudenziana, the beard and halo, borrowed from depictions of Jupiter, signify Christ’s divinity. The enormous high backed throne is borrowed from the high-backed seats used in depictions of the Capitoline triad – Jupiter, Juno and Athena – and again signify his divinity. Similarly, loose long hair was also a standard sign of divinity in Roman and Greek art. Here, applied to Christ, it again asserts his divinity. The positioning of the moasic in the apsis of the basilica also has its significance: beneath it is located the Cathedra of the bishop affirming that the bishop’s authority comes from Christ. The positioning of the Christ figure in the apse also had liturgical significance: it was a physical articulation that Christian life is a procession through time to Christ. Commanding the focal point of the Basilica, all things literally lead to Christ. All things that happen within the Basilica draws meaning from Christ. The liturgical life of the Church unfolds in a series of processions: the entrance in which the clergy come to him; the offertory, in which the elements for the eucharist are brought to him, and the procession to Holy Communion when the faithful share at the Lord’s table. Seven hundred later, the same iconography would be used in the tympana of the Romanesque Churches to inidcate the authority for the justice administered in their portals.
The image of Christ in the mosaic of Santa Pudenziana, showing beard, long hair and halo.
The council of the gods 5th. century (Vatican Library)
Christ handing the law to his Apostles
Santa Pudenziana: the lion symbolizing St. Mark; the ox symbolizing St. Matthew;
-
December 9, 2005 at 9:48 pm #767556
Praxiteles
ParticipantDrawing of old St. Peter’s Basilica, built in 333 replacement by new St. Peter’s begun by Julius II in 1505 and completed in 1649 (Jacopo Grimaldi, 1619, Brabarini Lat. 2733 fol 104v – 105r)
Below are two images of internal facade of Old St. Peter’s Basilica which was built in 333 and demolished in 1608. The first is taken from G.B. Falda’s (Descrizione fatta della chiesa antica e moderna di San Pietro pubklished in 1673. It shows the internal facade of the Basilica which was covered by a mosaic, What is interesting, from our poit of view, is the seated figure of Christ over the central window on the top range. He is seated, right hand extended in blessing with a book in the left hand. He is flanked by St. Peter and St. Paul and by the tetramorphai -or four beasts- representing the four Evangelists. Underneath, appear to be the figures of the Four Evangelists. Benewth them, in the centre, two figures offering bowls of insense -representing prayer- to Christ. The whole scene is surmounted by the Cross. As with Santa Pudenziana, the theme of the mosaic on the facade of Old St. peter’s was the divinity of Christ and that worship (prayer) was due to him as God.
The second image of the facade is taken from Martino Ferrabroso’s, Il libro dell’architettura di San Pietro, Roma, published in 1620. It gives an idea of the impression this great mosaic would have made on pilgrims entering the Basilica through its cortile.
I have given some attention to this mosaic beacuse it represents the same basic themse as the mosaic in Santa Pudentiana. However, it was far more influential than that of Santa Pidenziana because it was seen by every Christian who made the pilgrimage to Rome. Hence, it can be regarded as one of the reasons for the propagation of this image of Christ throughout Europe in late classical period. Unfortunately, it is no longer extant and drawings of it are difficult to find – but I am hoping to come up with something better than these.
-
December 9, 2005 at 9:51 pm #767557
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe tomb of Galla Placida in Ravenna, 425-450, depicting Christ as Good Shepherd but depicting him with the halo, on a thone, wearing the imperial purple, and bearing the labrum of the Roman emperor. Christ is formally seated, legs depicted in the poise of the Roman emperor. in formal session.
http://jfbradu.free.fr/mosaiques/ravenne/galla-placida/galla.htm
http://intranet.arc.miami.edu/rjohn/ARC%20267/Byzantine_2002.htm
While some of the comments on this site are not quite au point, it has a good selection of recent photographs of moasics of Ravenna. Comments in relation to the brown worn by the Emperor Justinian and the Empress Theodora are mistaken. They are not wearing brown but the purple of their imperial state:
http://paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Venice%20&%20N%20Italy/Ravenna/Ravenna%202004.htm
-
December 10, 2005 at 2:31 am #767558
Gianlorenzo
Participant@BTH wrote:
Would I be right in saying that Richard Hurley was the architect for both of these particular “reorderings”? It’s just that he is currently undertaking the renovations of the Augustine Church in Galway City Centre and his scheme, according to a recently published illustration, consists of the japanese – style screen as seen in Cork obscuring the (thankfully retained) high altar and exactly the same wooden altar, seat, pulpit and seating arrangement as in Maynooth… Very disturbing considering that many of the congregation will be housed in the aisles with views into the Nave obstructed by columns…
Very sad to see the same mistakes being made over and over again in churches around the country.
BTH, I found this in today’s Irish Catholic – the picture speaks for itself, and your predictions are correct:(
-
December 10, 2005 at 9:54 pm #767559
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo return to the subject of the mosaic of Santa Pudenziana with its depiction of Christ seated in glory, surrounded by the tetramorphai, we pointed out in posting # 342 the various elements of the mosaic borrowed from pagan Greek and Roman art to depict Christ in such a way as to attribute divinity to him. Seeing these, the average Roman or indeed Greek pagan of the year 390 would automatically assume from the figure of Christ in the ,mosaic that he was a divine person – since his depiction repeats all of the usual elements of Roman and Greek art to underline the quality of divinity (the halo, the beard, the long loose hair, his session on a type throne reserved to Jupiter). The question is: why the emphasis on Christ’s divinity and the insistence on it? The answer probably lies in the theological culture of the time which was heavily dominated by the Arian heresy, specifically denying the divinity of Chirst, which was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325. Clearly, the Basilica of Santa Pudenziana in 390 was in the hands of orthodox Catholic worship which may explain the rather pointed script on book held by the Christ figure:Dominus Conservator Ecclesiae Pudentianae (The Lord is the protector of Pudentiana’s Church). The broad outline of the controversy can be seen by following this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
However, while pagan artistic prototypes were used to create a depiction of Christ that would assert his divinity, the scene which is being depicted is taken directly from the last book of the Bible, the Revelation (or Apocalypse) of St. John chapter 4: 1-11. The Text reads:
” 1After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. 3And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. 4Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads. 5From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings[a] and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, 6and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.
And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: 7the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. 8And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”9And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
11′ Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created’ “.The text of Revelations is not an isolated text in Biblical literature and must be situated in the tradition of the Jewish apocalyptic liteature of the Old Testament on which it draws heavily. In the case of the heavenly court the borrowing comes specifically from the Prophet Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=1&version=47 and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=10&version=47) where we find the the four beasts, the ealders and the Deity seated on the throne.
The novum of Revelations, however, is that Christ is placed on the heavenly throne thereby asserting, in Jewish terms, that he is God, thereby making the basic profession of Christian faith, namely, that Jesus is Lord.
The beasts described by Ezekiel reappear in Revelations and surround the throne. At this point, they are not associated, at least explicitly, with the four Evangelists. That association would first be made by Irenaeus of Lyons (died 202) in his Adversus Haereses, Book III, chapter 3, paragraph 8 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7409_1981656) written c.175-185 A.D.. This text gives us the historical terminus a quo for the artistic tradition of the depiction of Christ to be found in the tympanum of the West door in Cobh Cathedral. It supplies the original historico-cultural context for that depiction, which is the Arian heresy and the measures taken to counter it. It also supplies us with the interpretative key for reading and understanding both the theological and artistic concerns lying behind the artistic type: Christ’s divinity.
-
December 10, 2005 at 11:28 pm #767560
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantBack to RH and the Galway Augustinians.
This is what they feel should be hidden/obscured behind the screen:mad:
-
December 10, 2005 at 11:33 pm #767561
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantAnd here is what some of the locals felt about the renovations
Also a picture of the organ
-
December 11, 2005 at 12:33 am #767562
Boyler
ParticipantSorry to go off the subject, but I was wondering about the re-ordering in St. Mel’s Cathedral in Longford. I saw a photo of it the other day and was thinking about what they must have done to the interior.
-
December 11, 2005 at 12:46 am #767563
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear Boyler,
See posting # 96 and you can see exactly what happened to Longford Cathedral.
-
December 11, 2005 at 1:51 am #767564
Praxiteles
ParticipantFrom 4th/5th century Rome, the artistic type of Christ seated in Majesty, holding a book, surrounded by the Four Evangelists, surmounted by the Cross, spread thoughout Europe. Examples are conserved from the 6th. century on in manuscript miniature, ivory work, and in wrouhgt gold.
The first eample here is from The Book of Kells, folio 32v. Christ, seated in glory, the Cross above his head, at either side a peacock, symbol of eternal life, at either side of his throne, the tetramorphic symbols. The illuminators of the Book of Kells, working probably in Iona, faithfully reproduce the type of Christ’s face to be seen in the moasic of Santa Pudentiana: bearded, with long loose hair (this time blond).
The Gundohinus Gospel of 754
folio 12v
Comparable with Lombard work, especially the altar of Pemmo, Cividale of 731-734In 754, the Carolingian dynasty began. It was the third year of the reign of King Pepin III. Carolingian art was always connected to the court and the royal household. A scribe would be requested to make a copy of a book by a patron. In that same year, at the court of Pepin, a lady, Faustus and a monk, Fuculphus, ordered a scribe named Gundohinus to produce a Gospel Book and oversee its illustration. With this book, the first phase of Carolingian manuscript painting began. His work appears to have been strongly influenced by the art of Lombardy, a part of Northern Italy that had maintained contact with the Byzantine world. However, the work does not appear to reflect a thorough understanding of the classical modeling techniques. Although hatch marks were used by this early Carolingian artist in an attempt to describe the volumetric quality of the human and animal forms, they are not convincing. They indicate that the artist copied classical models, but without conviction. In his hands the repetition of curvilinear marks do little to describe the three-dimensional shape of the form and relieve the flatness of the picture plane. In Christ in Majesty, there are five figures organized in five circles. Christ seated on a throne, flanked by two angels, occupies the center while the four symbols of the Evangelists in four smaller circles surround the image of Christ. The decorative borders of each circle consist of simple schematic foliage or white dots. As we will see, Carolingian painting style develops quickly from here.
Here Christ is clean shaven, long hair, and the Cross has been absorbed into the halo:
The Gosescalc Gospel
f. 3r.
Christ in Glory influenced by the Book of Kells and by an image in Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome
In the year 781, Pepin’s son Charles (i.e. Charlemagne) met Pope Adrian I in Rome. Upon his return Charles ordered Godescalc, a friend and a Frank, to make a Gospel Book to commemorate his meeting with the Pope. This was the beginning of the true style of Carolingian art. Godescalc modeled his work after Late Antique or Classical sources, as did Gundohinus. However, the illustrations in the Godescalc Gospels are clearly the work of a painter who has mastered the techniques of naturalistic illusionism to the extent that the linear outlines of the folds of fabric convey volume. In addition, shading in light and dark and the use of highlights on the garments and flesh of the Evangelists are quite sophisticated and subtle. The colors are cool and somber. The labeling of the evangelist in the image was a common device in Hiberno-Saxon manuscripts. The rectangular frame here, with simplified vegetation flatly drawn in a rhythmic pattern, is reminiscent of the style of Late Antique manuscript illustrations. The overall effect demonstrates that a great deal has been learned since the Gundohinus illustrations of twenty seven years before. Regrettably, much of this particular style ends with Godescalc, thereby closing the first phase of Carolingian illustration.
The Ada Gospels
folio 85v, St Luke
Texts continued to be produced for some years after the Gospel Book of Godescalc, but without illustrations. However, in time, manuscript illustration reappeared. Sometime close to the year 785, a manuscript called the Ada Gospels was produced. The first part was not illustrated, but the second part, made later, was illustrated.
The Ada Gospels are a fine example of the Carolingian artist’s grasp of Classical style. The architectural elements that are included are executed in a highly confident manner. Where the environment of the evangelist in the Godescalc paintings is ambiguous, the evangelists in the Ada gospels are clearly located in a well constructed architectural setting. They are portrayed seated on a throne decorated with panels imitating architectural elevations with rows of windows, repeating the design of the walls surrounding the evangelists. The scene is framed with a traditional classical device of Corinthian columns topped by an arch. Inside the arch, filling the space above the architecture and the evangelist’s head, is a large representation of the symbol of the evangelist. In the case of St. Matthew (see Hubert, Carolingian Art, bibliography, p. 79), it is an angel whose wing span reaches to the border of the arch on either side. The angel seems to be reading from a scroll spread wide in his outstretched arms. St. Matthew’s head is tilted as if he is listening carefully to the angel’s words. His hand is held poised above the page ready to transcribe the inspired Word. These two features–the monumental architecture and powerful image of the angel–give the image a majestic quality. The feeling one gets from this well-ordered composition, beautifully rendered in peaceful pastels, is a sense of quiet grandeur.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/bf/AdaGospelsFol85vLuke.jpg
Evangeliary of Metz
Sacramentary of Soisson 800-820
The Lorsch Gospel c. 800
folio 18v
In this example of Christ in majesty, the right hand is raised in blessing with the fingers in the Greek manner of imparting blessings.
http://www.faksimile.ch/cgi-bin/upload/images/LOR_AJ_gr_RGB.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7023/Lorsch.html?200512
http://www.faksimile.ch/werk01_e.html
Sacramentary of Metz 870
folio 3r
St. Gregory the Greathttp://www.library.nd.edu/medieval_library/facsimiles/litfacs/metz/3r-1L.jpg
For an overview of the Western manuscript tradition see the following link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09614b.htm
Below:
1. A manuscript from c. 800
2. The Gundonius Gospel of 754
3. An early ivory (Bodlian, Oxford) -
December 11, 2005 at 2:19 am #767565
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Longford Cathedral was widely regarded as Ireland’s finest example of a neo-Classical cathedral. The original architect was John Benjamine Keane with subsequent contributions from John Bourke (campanile of 1860) and the near ubiquitous G.C. Ashlin who is responsible for the impeccably proportioned portico (1883-1913) commissioned by Bishop Bartholomew Woodlock of Catholic University fame. The internal plaster work is Italian as were the (demolished) lateral altars. It was opened for public worship in 1856. In the 1970s a major re-styling of the sanctuary was undertaken by Bishop Cathal Daly who employed the services of Wilfred Cantwell and Ray Carroll. J. Bourke’s elaborate high altar altar and choir stalls were demolished and replaced by an austere arrangement focused on a disproportionately scaled altar. The results, which have not drawn the kind of universal criticism reserved for Armagh and Killarney, nevertheless leave the interior of the building without a natural focus. The insertion of tapesteries between the columns of the central apse was an attempt to fill the void and would be used again to solve a similar problem in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin. The absence of choir stalls is to be noted as is the relative obscurity of the Cathedra – the very raison d’etre for the building.
Richard Hurley was also involved here. I found this picure of St. Mels prior to the disasterous reordering in 1976. -
December 11, 2005 at 4:08 pm #767566
Boyler
ParticipantThanks. Such a nice building….
-
December 11, 2005 at 5:32 pm #767567
Anonymous
InactiveWith reference in particular to posting #338 regarding scratching posts, and after a general examination of Mr Hurley’s church interiors, one wonders whether the major inspiration for these might not be the modern lactation centre? They come in a variety of models, catering for all needs. 🙂
-
December 11, 2005 at 5:34 pm #767568
Gianlorenzo
Participant@sangallo wrote:
With reference in particular to posting #338 regarding scratching posts, and after a general examination of Mr Hurley’s church interiors, one wonders whether the major inspiration for these might not be the modern lactation centre? They come in a variety of models, catering for all needs. 🙂
😀 😀 😀 😀
-
December 11, 2005 at 5:45 pm #767569
Anonymous
InactiveOn a more serious note, it is interesting that elements from the great Gothic cathedrals of Chartres, Amiens and Rheims provided much of the inspiration for the exterior of Cobh Cathedral. Adolphe-Napoléon Didron (1806-1867), the great theorist of the Gothic revival in early 19th century France, drew precisely on these three cathedrals to produce a plan for what he regarded as the model cathedral in the Gothic style. The plan was published in the first number of Annales archéologiques, published in 1844.
Didron was friendly with A.W.N. Pugin, so much so that he was present at the consecration in 1846 of Pugin’s little masterpiece, St Giles Church in Cheadle.
Didron’s interest in the Gothic Revival was sparked by the publication of Victor Hugo’s “Notre-Dame de Paris” in 1830. Coincidentally, Bishop William Keane, the first bishop of Cloyne associated with the building of Cobh Cathedral was ordained in Paris in 1828 and remained on the staff of the Irish College there until 1839. He must surely have come into contact with the ideas of Didron, Viollet-le-Duc and others associated with the French Gothic Revival movement.
This opens a very interesting avenue of research for influences on the planning of Cobh Cathedral.For info on Didron, see the link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04783a.htm
For pictures of St Giles in Cheadle, follow the link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/360/stgiles/index.shtml
To whet the appetite, here are some photographs of the interior of St Giles. Note the new altar, situated behind the chancel screen, which blends in perfectly with the overall setting.
-
December 11, 2005 at 7:04 pm #767570
Anonymous
InactiveInteresting developments took place in Lutheran circles in 19th century Germany in relation to church-building. While German Catholics were eagerly embracing the Gothic revival, most notably in the great project of completing Cologne Cathedral, Lutherans had a tradition of centrally-planned churches with concentric circular galleries arranged around the central all-important pulpit. However, through the influence of the Catholic revivalist architect August Reichensperger, Lutherans too engaged in a phase of Gothic-inspired church-building from the 1850s onwards. This was largely due to Reichensperger’s friendship with Conrad Wilhelm Hase (1818-1902), professor of architecture in Hannover. Hase sat on the commission set up in 1861 to draw up the regulations for Lutheran church-building, the Eisenach Regulativ. According to the provisions of the Regulativ, churches were to be built according to the traditional orientation to the east and there was to be a clear distinction between nave and chancel. In this way, new Lutheran churches came to be built in accordance with the older pre-Reformation tradition.
This, however, did not last long. Towards the end of the century, Lutherans again wished to distinguish themselves more radically from Catholics and they wished to express this distinction in their churches. The model for the new way of thinking was the Ringkirche in Wiesbaden, designed by Johannes Otzen, builder of several churches in northern Germany, especially in Hamburg, Kiel and Berlin. On the Wiesbaden church, art historian Prof. Michael J. Lewis has this to say: “This church was intended to serve as a model for protestant church building, and to differentiate this as much as possible from Catholic churches. The competition programme instructed architects not to treat the church as the house of God ‘in the Catholic sense’; instead it should be treated as a communal assembly-room, whose ‘unified, unpartitioned space emphasises the unity of the congregation and the universality of priestliness’. Pulpit and altar were to be given equal architectural importance while spatial unity was to replace the customary division into aisles, nave and chancel” (The Gothic Revival, p. 184).
The suppression of the distinction of specific spaces within the church, i.e., nave and chancel, is characteristic of much modern church-building, as can be seen in the work of Rudolph Schwarz and the Lutheran Otto Bartning, both of whom are acknowledged influences on Richard Hurley. Examples of the suppression of distinction of spaces in favour of flexible arrangements to promote communal or corporate worship are clear in Hurley’s reordering of St Mary’s oratory in Maynooth and in his proposals for the Augustinian church in Galway. The underlying theological understanding of the liturgy and consequently of the Church is clearly not a Catholic one, but owes much more to the kind of thinking exemplified by the Lutheran authorities in Wiesbaden when they laid down the criteria for their 1891 competition for the building of the Ringkirche.
Prof. Cathal O’Neill’s proposals for Cobh, aimed at facilitating communal worship, either consciously or unconsciously, draw on similar ideas.
Attached are some photos of the Ringkirche. -
December 11, 2005 at 9:51 pm #767571
Praxiteles
ParticipantThere is no doubt that A.W. N. Pugin was in contact with his French counterpart A. N. Didron. Indeed, the latter seems to have been influenced in many ways by Pugin and transposed his ideas into the context of the Gothic Revival in France. That Didron was present at the consecration of St. Giles in Cheadle is no surprise. The event probably sets the high water mark of the European Neo Gothic movement with August von Reichensperger, the architect for the completion of Cologne Cathedral, also in attendance. Attached is a letter of Pugin’s to Didron, published in Margaret Belcher’s The Collected Letters of A.W. N. Pugin, OUP, Vol. 2, p. 8.
-
December 12, 2005 at 8:49 am #767572
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 357; In the application for planning permisison submitted to CObh town council by the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral, a “theological” justification for the proposed alterations to the sanctuary was also included. While this item is by no means the theological piece of the year in Ireland (or elsewhere for that matter) I wonder just how different it is from the theological position of the Lutheran authorities who stipulated the conditions for the building of the Ringkirche? I find it extraodrinary that no Catholic bishop in the country, especially the Bishop of Cloyne, seems to have enoough theological training to notice taht the wool is being pulled over their eyes by the kind things built by the “leading” modernist architects. Perhaps the bishops would be better employed attending to what is their own business a little more diligently and leave things concerning the Common Agricultural Policy to those who know best about that. See attached link for what I am talking about:
http://www.foscc.com/downloads/other/Liturgical%20Requirements2.pdf
-
December 12, 2005 at 3:21 pm #767573
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Sangallo for the picture of St. Giles. It is amazing that it has managed to survive – by pure chance, I suspect. Fortunately, in Britain it should be possible to preserve this magnificent building in its integrity thanks to the more competent people who administer the heritage law there. I cannot imagine the Cheadle town council granting planning permission for the wholesale wreckage of this gem. Neither is likely that the law of England would permit an ignoramus to pontificate on plans to dismantle its interior before allowing such to happen. Obviously, we have a little catching up to do in Ireland.
-
December 12, 2005 at 4:28 pm #767574
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSpot the Difference!!!!!
Ringkirche
Ennis Cathedral and Monaghan Cathedral
-
December 12, 2005 at 8:52 pm #767575
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Lombard Kingdom
To return, once again, to the question of the artistic representation of the Majestas Domini, we have followed its development from the mosaic of 390 in Santa Pudentiana in Rome, to the Bizantine Imperial Exarchate in Ravenna and, thence, to the schools of manuscript illumination at Charlemagne’s imperial court at Aachen. In all these cultural contexts, the architpye of Christ enthroned in glory recurrs. The main elements of the Santa Pudentiana mosaic are reproduced in them: Christ seated with imperial poise (though not always sourrounded by the mandorla), the book in his hand, the long hair (though not always bearded), the Cross, the four evangelists and the tetramorphai. This representation of Chirst always emphasises his divinity and the power of the Cross. However, some attention has to be paid to the other great cultural topos of the early middle ages – the Lombard kingdom which had been established in the Po valley and Liguria, as well as in the duchies of Benevento and Spoleto, from the middle of the 6th century when these Longobard tribes came over the eastern Alps from Pannonia and defeated the Bizantine rulers of northern Italy. Their dominance was to continue until their defeat at the hands of Charlemagne. The art of the Lombards was a crucible for various influences: classical Roman, Celt, and Bizantine (evident in the figure of Christ in the Altar of Ratchis as he holds his hand in blessing in the eastern fashion).
http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/ujg/ujgm.html
The Altar of Ratchis c. 740
The altar of Ratchis is the most important monument of the Luitprand renaissance in Cividale. It demonstrates the hight degree of asimilation of Latin civilization by the Lombards. The linear sculpting of the figures is reminiscent of Longobard goldsmithing. The entire altar is the work of a goldsmith done in stone. The composition retains the major elements of the Santa Pudentiana mosaic: the Christ seated in majesty, halo, with the incorporated Cross, the book (this time a rotulus). It also has its own pecularities: Christ wears a stole indicating his priesthood, the hand of God at the top of the manorla, the hand held in the eastern style of blessing, four angels instead of the tetramorphai.
The golden Altar, Sant’Ambrogio in Milan
The Altare d’oro in Sant’Ambrogio was placed over the tomb of St. Ambrose and of Sts. Protasius and Gevasius by the will of Charlemange when Angilbertus was Bishop of Milan (824-859). The treatment of the figures is dynamic and lively. The composition strongly emphasizes the Cross which occupies the central panel of the altar frontal. The Majestas Domini is placed at the centre of the Cross. Instead of blessing, Christ holds the Cross or labrum (reminiscent of ancient Rome and of Moses). The extremities of the Cross contain the tetramorphai representing the Four Evangelists. In each corner is a group of three Apostles.
The victroy of Carlemagne over the Lombards in 774 signalled the end of the Lombard kingdom and the displacement of its artistic accomplishments north of the Alps, eventually to Aachen and the new imperial court.
-
December 13, 2005 at 1:28 am #767576
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Golden Antependium of Basel Cathedral
The Golden Antependium was given to the Cathedral of Balsel by the Emperor Henry III to mark its consecration in 1019. It is one of the greates masterpieces of the goldsmith’s art of all times and is a complete synthesis of Ottonian esthetics. The frontal is divided by an arcade, the central arcade ocupied by Christ (standing) with tiny figures of the Emperor Henry II and Empress Cunigunde prostrate at his feet. He is flanked by the archangales Gabriel, Michael and Raphael, and by ST. benedict. The figures are elongated and abstract and suggest forms of splendid transcendence.
-
December 13, 2005 at 9:51 am #767577
Praxiteles
Participantre posting 361
The Ringkirche is a fine building and a good example of the neo Gothic in post-Bismarkian Germany. The arrangement of the interior corresponds and gives expression to Lutheran ideas about the Church, worship and the priesthood and is therefore accomodated to Lutheran needs.
There is a difficulty however. The Church being neo-Gothic depends on types, models, and spacial disposition going back to the middle-ages and beyond. As a neo-Gothic building it refers to ideas about the Church, worship and the priesthood that are much older than those formulated by Martin Luther in the 16 th. century. WHile liturgically the interior of the church is adapted to Lutheran worship, architecturaly it has to be said that the interior suffers from the conjunction of two (at times radically) differing if concepts of Church, worship and priesthood. We have a midevially inspuired shell with a 16th. century inspired interior spacial disposition. the result is that some elements of the building are made redundant. This is most noticeable in the Chancel which is played down to the extent of being almost superfluous.
-
December 13, 2005 at 7:43 pm #767578
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
re posting 361
The Ringkirche is a fine building and a good example of the neo Gothic in post-Bismarkian Germany. The arrangement of the interior corresponds and gives expression to Lutheran ideas about the Church, worship and the priesthood and is therefore accomodated to Lutheran needs.
There is a difficulty however. The Church being neo-Gothic depends on types, models, and spacial disposition going back to the middle-ages and beyond. As a neo-Gothic building it refers to ideas about the Church, worship and the priesthood that are much older than those formulated by Martin Luther in the 16 th. century. WHile liturgically the interior of the church is adapted to Lutheran worship, architecturaly it has to be said that the interior suffers from the conjunction of two (at times radically) differing if concepts of Church, worship and priesthood. We have a midevially inspuired shell with a 16th. century inspired interior spacial disposition. the result is that some elements of the building are made redundant. This is most noticeable in the Chancel which is played down to the extent of being almost superfluous.
Aha, so that explains Ennis and Clogher.
-
December 13, 2005 at 9:21 pm #767579
Praxiteles
ParticipantA.W. N. Pugin’s St. Giles, Cheadle (1841-1846), built for John Sixteenth Earl of Shrewsbury, and consecreted in 1846,
-
December 13, 2005 at 11:38 pm #767580
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe final stop in tracing the history of the image of Christ in Majecty brings us to the Abbey of Cluny, founded in 909, which for the next 250 years would become a major religious, cultural and political centre in Western Europe. A short history of the movement can be had herehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04073a.htm.
Linked to the reform movement had been the Ottonian dynasty and subsequently the Salian dynast which had established itself in Spire in 1027:http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/k/Konrad_II.shtml. Its political and religious interests lead to the investiture ccrisis and eventually to Canossa: http://www.ulrikejohnson.gmxhome.de/uli/Geschichte/Salier/Salier1.html. It was within both of these two major Western European religious, cultural and political movements that the figure of Christ in Majesty appears on a tympanum for the first time in Western art at the Priory of St. Fortunat in Charlieu in Burgundy
It draws directly on the tradition of iconic depiction that traces its origin to mosaic of 390 in Santa Pudentiana in Rome. While the tympanum of Charlieu represents the full transition of this image from metalwork and illuminated manuscript examples to stonework tympanum around the year 1090, this transition had alrady been underway since about 1020 when the image of Christ in Glory appears on the archatrave of the portal of the abbey of Saint-Genis-des-Fontaines in the Roussillon c. 1020:.
From here, to Charlieu and hence to the Royal Portal at Chartres and from there the image of Christ enthroned in his Majesty arrived to the tympanum of Cobh Cathedral in 1898:
-
December 14, 2005 at 1:19 am #767581
MacLeinin
ParticipantBack to St. Colman’s for a moment. The Trustees of St. Colman’s have received a number of grants from the Heritage Council on the understanding that they would maintain it. How then can they explain their total neglect of this building for example their treatment of the wonderful Baptismal font.:mad:
Below if 1st how it should be and 2nd how it is right now.
How long can the cover of the font hang in mid air before something catastophic happens????:eek:
One can’t help wondering if they want it to collapse competely necessitating a ‘new reordered baptismal’ ie glorified swimming pool????
-
December 14, 2005 at 2:12 am #767582
Praxiteles
ParticipantI can confirm that present state of baisc maintanance of the Cathedral in Cobh leaves a good deal to be desired. Following a visit there earlier in the year, I was horrified to find it it in such a delapidated state and generally unkempt. The Baptistry in particular is a cause for concern. The large brass cover, which should be on top of the font, has been for quite some time left suspended from a bracket on the wall. It is only a matter of time before it comes loose from the wall. It was also noticeable (and it can be seen in the pictures that have been posted) that a section of the marble dado has been hacked off exposing the underlying layer of slate. It was also depressing to see the very beautiful Lady Chapel reduced to a store room for benches that have been displaced from their original positions because an unintelligent attempt to create an antiphonal seating arrangement in both transepts. It is only a matter of time before the particularly fine Oppenheimer mosic in the floor of the Lady Chapel will be wrecked by the abuse to which it is being subjected. I could continue the list but I doubt that Cork County Council is in the least interested in enforcing the law to ensure that this incredibly complex and culturally sophisticated building is treated with the respect that it deserves. As for the clerical guardians of the building, I am afraid to say that the level of education, to say nothing of culture, among them has reached such a nadir that the building would be in more appreciative hands were Radageisus in charge. Cobh Cathedral, and what has been allowed to happen to it, is yet another example of why Ireland is undeserving of anything more than mud and wattle. Unfortunately, it exhibits, in more than cultural terms, the very worst symptoms of the kind of post colonial social malaise that we have come habitually to associate with the furthest reaches of the Limpopo. Clearly, the lack of maintanance of Cobh Cathedral cannot be unintentional and is many ways similar to treatment meated out to preserved structures until they reach a condition that they must be demolished.
-
December 14, 2005 at 2:42 am #767583
MacLeinin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I can confirm that present state of baisc maintanance of the Cathedral in Cobh leaves a good deal to be desired. Following a visit there earlier in the year, I was horrified to find it it in such a delapidated state and generally unkempt. The Baptistry in particular is a cause for concern. The large brass cover, which should be on top of the font, has been for quite some time left suspended from a bracket on the wall. It is only a matter of time before it comes loose from the wall. It was also noticeable (and it can be seen in the pictures that have been posted) that a section of the marble dado has been hacked off exposing the underlying layer of slate. It was also depressing to see the very beautiful Lady Chapel reduced to a store room for benches that have been displaced from their original positions because an unintelligent attempt to create an antiphonal seating arrangement in both transepts. It is only a matter of time before the particularly fine Oppenheimer mosic in the floor of the Lady Chapel will be wrecked by the abuse to which it is being subjected. I could continue the list but I doubt that Cork County Council is in the least interested in enforcing the law to ensure that this incredibly complex and culturally sophisticated building is treated with the respect that it deserves. As for the clerical guardians of the building, I am afraid to say that the level of education, to say nothing of culture, among them has reached such a nadir that the building would be in more appreciative hands were Raidegesus in charge. Cobh Cathedral, and what has been allowed to happen to it, is yet another example of why Ireland is undeserving of anything more than mud and wattle. Unfortunately, it exhibits, in more than cultural terms, the very worst symptoms of the kind of post colonial social malaise that we have come habitually to associate with the furthest reaches of the Limpopo. Clearly, the lack of maintanance of Cobh Cathedral cannot be unintentional and is many ways similar to treatment meated out to preserved structures until they reach a condition that they must be demolished.
Evidence of above.:(
-
December 14, 2005 at 3:01 am #767584
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantGiven that we are dealing in Cobh with the great iconoclast Cathal O’Neill, one shudders at the thought of what he will do. If he is capable of consigning Turnerelli’s masterpiece in the Pro-Cathedral to the scrapheep, there is no telling of what he is capable of in St. Colman’s. 🙁
-
December 14, 2005 at 8:49 am #767585
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe 370:
The dumping of all these benches in the Lady Chapel is an example of the conservation Act gone wrong. They have been moved from where they are supposed to be. They cannot be taken out of the building. The building was not designed to have them anywhere else except where they originally were. So, a dumping ground has to be found within the building. In this case, the Lady Chapel was made the dump. INterestingly, Cathal O’Neill’s drawings for the proposed alterations in Cobh show the Lady Chapel as having benches – an absurdity of which he seems unconcious. It also strikes me that two kneelers and chairs that have appeared in the neighbouring Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy Chapel might have more to do with taking the bare look off of the Lady Chapel in it cluttered condition than with the promotion of an intense piety to Blessed Thaddeus. If memory serves me correctly, the Sacred Heart Chapel has also been used for the dumping of a few more benches, his time parked along the dividing screens. What I would like to know is why the Cork County Manager, the Cobh Town Manager, and the Heritage Officer for the County of Cork have allowed this to happen without the slightest murmur?
The laugh is of course that all this goes on while the City of Cork celebrates, with the seriousness of the unknowing, the 2005 European City of Culture!!! Culture, I ask…..
-
December 14, 2005 at 2:55 pm #767586
anto
ParticipantMaybe you should write to them Prax?
Anyway what’s your opinion on the restoration of some Medieval churches in recent times. I’m thinking in particular of Holycross Abbey in Tipperary, Graiguenamanagh in Co. Kilkenny and the RC church in Adare.
They’re all quite unusual in that they are pre reformation structures and are Catholic churches today. Just curious as to your opinion on them Prax?
Thanks.
-
December 14, 2005 at 3:24 pm #767587
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am glad that you raised this question, Anto. I shall come back to it as it is useful to indicate different approaches to theinterior dispositions the churches you mention, which more or less have had continuous Catholic worship since their construction. Holy Cross is an example of a modern approach. Greiguenamanagh, which I must confess I have not seen, is a modern make over of 19th century restoration and Holy Trinity in Adare which is (more or less) as restored by Harwich for the third Earl of Dunraven in 1855. Ballintubber Abbey in Co. Mayo is, I think, about the only other example of a church in continuous Catholic worship but I have not seen the inside of it.
Re writing to the people responsible for the enforcement of the planning Act in Co. Cork: do you relly think that it would be worth the serious financial committment represented by a postage stamp wrining to them?
-
December 14, 2005 at 3:54 pm #767588
Praxiteles
ParticipantBallintobber Abbey
The Trinitarian Abbey, Adare c. 1230
-
December 14, 2005 at 4:11 pm #767589
Praxiteles
ParticipantDuiske Abbey, Graiguenamanagh 1207
Holy Cross Abbey,1186
As seen by Bartlett in mid 19th century
-
December 14, 2005 at 8:04 pm #767590
Praxiteles
Participantre 376:
In reply to Anto:
1. Graiguenamanagh seem to me rather disastrous. From what I can see the altar has been placed on a landing pad under the crossing. Its circular base takes no notice of the rectangular lines of the building, nor indeed of the rather harsh limestone block that serves as an altar.
Graiguenamanagh is a Cistercian monastic church. It would originally have had a monastic choir in antiphonal arrangement (a true one this time) in the space immediately in front of the altar area. Both areas would have been closed off by a screen. Clearly, the present arrangement takes no account of this historical spacial arrangement and consequently, like the Ringkirche in Wiesbaden and many of the so-called re-ordered cchurches and Cathedrals of Ireland, suffers the imposition on it of something it was never intened to contain.
The 1974 restoration was carried out by Percy leClerc. The roof of Irish oak is certainly praiseworthy and authentic. I am not sure that lifting the plaster from the walls can be described as a “restoration”. It is much more likely that they had plastering which was either white washed or frescoed. The removal of the plaster in 1974 smacks of the horrible fashion set by the sack and pillage of Killarney Cathedral. I think that we can take it that if A.W. N. Pugin believed that the Salisbury interior should inspire Killarney, then it should have been white washed and stencilled.
We are told that the new altar was raised on four steps. This is a solecism as principal Altars always had three steps representing the ascent to Calvery or indeed the Old Testament ascent to Jerusalem which we find in the Hallel psalms. Mr. le Clerc offers no explaination for his choice of four (an even number which tended to be avoided). Placing the Altar outside of the East end of the church is of course at complete variance with the whole design of the church and especially insensitive to its line. Placing the Altar in the East end and facing East both have theological significane and meaning – which is shared with the Jews – and is a direct theological reference to the Temple in Jerusalem which has been re-interpreted by the Gospel to mean Jesus Christ, the place in which, as St. John’s Gospel puts it, worship in spirit and in truth is given. There is no theological significance to exposing one’s sefl to the four winds – or worse. Indeed, I am thinking of doing something on the history of Altars in Christian worship, but I may leave it until after Christmas. As far as I can see, leading re-orders such as R. Hurley and Cathal O’Neill know absolutely nothing about the subject if we are to judge from their efforts. From the photographs of Duiske Abbey, the benches leave much to be desired and are not of the quality of their midevial surrpondings. The central heating radiators along the walls are fairly brutal and I am not sure whether the floors have been covered in carpet. The chair at the altar is a mess and looks more like a commode. The ambo is likewise somewhat out of place.
-
December 14, 2005 at 10:18 pm #767591
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe. # 376
In reply to Anto.
2. Holy Cross Abbey 1180. This is certainly a very fine example of Irish Cistercian architecture and, typical for the order, situated close to a river. This is a true restoration in that the abbey church had been abandoned for over two hundred years. It must be said that the technical aspects of the restoration were carried out to a very high standard and are worthy of praise. The architect for this entire process is Percy le Clerc -to whom great credit must be given for the work done for there was no eperience or other example of an undertaking of this kind in Ireland when he started in 1975. What is rather amazing is that the cloister -at least up to very recently- remains unfinished and gives the impression that the original enthusiasm for the project has dried up. It would be worth completing the job to the same high standards. As at Duiske, the wood work was done to medieval standard and adapted practice. It is authentic and genuine and certainly has none of the faux air about it that is so conspicuous in the work of Richard Hurely and others. I am not sure about the gradiant of the floor. My recollection is that the gradiant increases as one goes towards the west door, thereby leaving the chancel and altar in a depression. My recollection of French medieval churches would have the gradiant reversed, leaving the chancel and the altar on a higer level with the nave of the church. There is a symbolic reason for this: namely, the ascent to Calvary and its association with the sacrifice of the Mass. The liturgical lay out of the Abbey church is, however, another question and a sad one. Again, something has been intruded into a magnificent true medieval setting never intended to take it and which brutally runs rough shod over the entire logic of the medieval building and the reasoning behind its spacial disposition. The main problem, is of course, the cataclasmic abandonment of the Chancel, the “sacred” space of the buiding in which the “actio sacra” takes place. Placing the altar at the crossing effectively renders the most important element of the original composition of space utterly redundant. Michael Bigg’s limestone altar is a monolithic embarrassment and should never have been allowed into such a beautiful and delicate space as Holy Cross Abbey. The same is true of the dreadful lectern and seat (ridiculously placed at a small remove from the magnificent original sedilia) . The liturgical arrangement, as it stands, also has a functional knock on effect on the redundant chancel where we can see the beautiful sedilia (arranged in accordance with the usage of the Roman Rite) shamlessly abused by a clutter of surplus benches and chairs. Even more ironic is the fate of the piscina next to the sedilia. Having survived the ravages of two centuries of war and persecution, it has had what looks like an organ planked in front of it. Would it not have been better, perhaps, had Ireton ripped it out in the same brutal fashion as he had his horsemen drag the high altar out of St. Mary’s Cathedral in Limerick? Who knows. However, one thing is consoling – the late twentieth century dross currently defacing the interior of Holy Cross Abbey can (and I suspect will) eventually be dragged out and dumped. I am not altogether convinced either by the modern shrine containing the relic of the true Cross which is supposed to be the raison d’etre of the Abbey.
-
December 15, 2005 at 1:41 am #767592
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe. # 376
In reply to Anto
3. Holy Trinity Abbey Adare, Co. Limerick, 1226.
The abbey was dissolved in 1537 and reduced to ruins until Edwin third Earl of Dunraven, a noted antiquarian, restored the abbey Church for Catholic worship in 1852. The architect was Philip Hardwick. The restoration was conducted along the lines of neo Gothic revivalist school and remains a rare example in Ireland of the kind of restoration common in France. Harwick lengthened the nave, built the porch, and the Lady Chapel. The Chancel was fitted out with an arrangement sensitive to the medieval Gestalt of the building. Mercifully, most of the fittings survive in tact. In 1884 Windham Thomas fourth earl of Dunraven installed an interesting gilt bronze screen to searate the Lady Chapel from the nave. The esat window is by Willement. George Alfred conducted a restoration of the building 1977-1980. Following the mode set by Killarney, the plaster was stripped from the walls to leave the buiding bare and lacking its original aspect. It still retains much of the 19the century tile work. Some of the recent artistic additions are at best dubious.
-
December 15, 2005 at 8:41 am #767593
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: # 367
In reply to Antho
4. Ballintubber Abbey, Co. Mayo, 1216
The Abbey was built for Cathal O’Connor for the Canons Regular of St. Augustine in 1216. A fire caused a partial rebuilding c. 1270. The abbey was again burned by Cromwell in 1650 leaving the conventual buikldings destroyed and the nave roofless. The vault of the Chancel survived. Restoraltion began in 1846 but work was suspended because of the Famine. Work resumed in 1887 but the nave was not reroofed until 1966. The Chapter House was restored in 1997 and it is hoped to have the ruins of the east wing of the cloister completed by 2016. The altar shown in the chancel may well be the original altar of the abbey. No drastic intrusions have been made and the church is more or less as one would expect to find a 13th. century conventual church. I am afraid that I have been unable to locate an architect for the 1846 or 1886 restorations or indeed for the present restoration. It seems that the indomitable Archbishop John McHale of Tuam began the 19th century restoration and that the Office of Public WOrks is supervising the present restoration. Unfortunately, the Altar which was at the east end of the Chancel has been moved from its position and placed near the west end of the chancel.
Attending Mass in the unroofed nave of Ballintubber in 1865:
The west door and elevation:
-
December 15, 2005 at 6:47 pm #767594
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe # 376:
Well Antho, I have provided whatever information I could find re. the important small group of medieval churches in Ireland in continuous Catholic use. Reflecting on them, it strikes me that you have the outlines of a history of approaches to restoration in Ireland. Clearly, A.W.N. Pugin was most influential in Adare with resultant sympathetic results. Ballintobber, seems to have had a complicated restoration history and finally suffered an albeit minor re-ordering that is reversible. Holy Cross and Graiguenamanagh (while architecturally excellently carried out) came on stream late enough to suffer an insensitive liturgical adaptation that takes little or no account of the buildings. Do you think that a fair comment?
-
December 15, 2005 at 7:51 pm #767595
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe magnificent sedilia in the south wall of the Chancel of A.W.N. Pugin’s masterpiece, St. Giles, Cheadle. The sedilia is arranged in accordance with the usage of the Cathedral of Salisbury: the priest closest the Altar, on his left, and at a lower level, the deacon, and on his left, at a lower level, the subdeacon. To right of the sedilia is a piscina with symbols of water and wine underneath it. the functions of all three orders are alluded tow in the symbols in the pierced quardafoils: the chalice for the priest, the gospel for the deacon, and the cruets for the subdeacon. In case anybody missed the message, benewth the seats, Pugin inscribed “Sacerdos”, “Diaconus” and “Subdiaconus”. The tiles on the floor are by Minton and have miraculously survived. Each step leading to the Altar has an inscription appropriate to its position.
For the purposes of comparison, this is the medieval sedilia in Holy Cross Abbey. The compostion is the same: piscina followed by sedilia in the south wall of the Chancel. This time, however, the sedilia is arranged in accordance with the usage of the Roman Missal: the priest sits in the centre, the deacon on his right and the subdeacon on his left all on the same level.
The sedilia in the south wall of the Honan Chapel in Cork is also in accordance with the usage of the Roman Missal. The piscina is removed from the sedilia.
In an earlier posting, Graham Hickey showed a picture of the Chancel of St. Patrick’s in Dundalk which also has a magnificent sedilia by E.W. Pugin.
-
December 15, 2005 at 10:51 pm #767596
fgordon
ParticipantThanks Gianlorenzo for the juxtaposition of the Ringkirche and Ennis/Monaghan Cathedrals in posting #361. It is most illuminating and explains the rather bland and ugly sanctuary of Ennis. Not indeed that Ennis was any great thing before the hammer fell upon it. The altar, if I’m not mistaken, was not of marble, nor even of cane stone. And the Cathedral was never embellished with any particular beauty. Now however, it looks frightfully empty and the similarity to the Ringkirche explains a lot.
As for Monaghan; it, I am sure, was something, once upon a time. I hope Paul Clerkin can load some images of the sanctuary in its former glory – I think he said he had them in posting #311.
I must say, I think the transformation of St Augustine’s (Galway) into an antiphonal Chinese restaurant (Gianlorenzo again in posting #345) just plain silly. Clearly the architect and the cleric who approved it have no sense of the ridiculous. :p :p
-
December 16, 2005 at 12:21 am #767597
anto
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re # 376:
Well Antho, I have provided whatever information I could find re. the important small group of medieval churches in Ireland in continuous Catholic use. Reflecting on them, it strikes me that you have the outlines of a history of approaches to restoration in Ireland. Clearly, A.W.N. Pugin was most influential in Adare with resultant sympathetic results. Ballintobber, seems to have had a complicated restoration history and finally suffered an albeit minor re-ordering that is reversible. Holy Cross and Graiguenamanagh (while architecturally excellently carried out) came on stream late enough to suffer an insensitive liturgical adaptation that takes little or no account of the buildings. Do you think that a fair comment?
Thanks Prax. Most informative as always!
-
December 16, 2005 at 1:07 am #767598
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantNow that Praxiteles has advanced to the Sedilia, I thought it might be interesting to look at some examples of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’.
New, – or would you have guessed?
Old
And so on..
-
December 16, 2005 at 1:20 am #767599
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantAnd there’s more.
😮
😮 😮
-
December 16, 2005 at 6:01 pm #767600
Praxiteles
ParticipantThat one looks like a recycled bus seat.
-
December 16, 2005 at 8:23 pm #767601
MacLeinin
ParticipantI dread to think what the iconoclast Cathal O’Neill would put in Cobh if he is given the chance.
As we saw in #50 the current caretakers in Cobh have already started the dismantling of the Sedilia by detaching two of the seats from the screen at the back and replacing one with a dining chair. Though the dining chair is preferable the dross Gianlorenzo has posted above.Here is the Cathedra in Cobh, which is also marked for replacement.
-
December 16, 2005 at 11:47 pm #767602
Praxiteles
ParticipantMcLenin, do you have a photograph of the Sedilia in Cobh? It is at the other side of the sancturay facing the Cathedra. Cobh, as you would expect, is designed to accomodate the usage of the Roman Missal, with all three seats on the same level, the priest on a bigger seat in the centre with the deacon adn subdeacon at either side. If I recall correctly, on the oak screen above each seat is inscribed in Latin the words “sacerdos”, d”diaconus” and “subdiaconus”, making it perfectly clear that the seats are an integral part of the screens. If I remember correctly, the Cathedral authorities in c. 1995 signed a covenant with the Heritage Council not to remove or interfere with the screens in order to qualify for a grant of
-
December 17, 2005 at 1:18 am #767603
Praxiteles
Participant -
December 17, 2005 at 1:36 am #767604
Praxiteles
ParticipantNotre Dame de Chartres, the Royal Portal (1145-1155), the archivolt describing Apocalypse 5:8
-
December 17, 2005 at 2:52 am #767605
MacLeinin
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
:confused: At present the Sedelia has been removed from right hand Sanctuary screen and is now free standing in Sanctuary and a dining chair put in its place.
Can anyone explain who this can happen since the building was listed as a protected structure and is the subject of a Covenant with the Heritage Council
These are the only photos I have as originally posted by Gianlorenzo. You can see in the lower image that all the seats have been detached from the screen and the central one (top pic) has been moved out on to the Sanctuary floor and replaced by the infamous ‘dining chair’.
-
December 17, 2005 at 8:45 am #767606
Praxiteles
ParticipantIs not that a disgrace? WHere else would it happen?
-
December 17, 2005 at 3:26 pm #767607
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe archivolt of the West Portal, Cobh Cathedral showing the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets:
-
December 17, 2005 at 11:16 pm #767608
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe archivolt of the West Portal, Cobh Cathedral depicting Patriarchs and Prophets:
-
December 17, 2005 at 11:26 pm #767609
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe West Portal of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, showing the archivolt with series of figures of the Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Testament, which has been combined with the twelve Apostles depicted on the architrave of the portal. Thus, following the iconography of the Royal Portal at Chartres, the West Portal of Cobh Cathedral combines the Old and New Testaments, thereby indicating the continuity of the worship given to God in both Testaments and its culmination in Christ. Unlike Chartres, Cobh has one row of Patriarchs and Prophets rather than three and does not incorporate any of the angelic hosts so evident in Chartres Portal.
In Cobh, the sequence runs as follows:
R
1.Malachiah
2. Ezechiel * associated with the verse Porta clausa et non aperiet, a reference to Our Lady
3. Isaiah* associated with the verse Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium, a reference to Birth of Christ, depicted with the saw by which he died.
4. David
5. Aaron associated with the flowering Rod of Num 17:1-11 a prefiguiring of Our Lady
6. Melchisadeck king and priest of Salem who met Abraham with bread and wine prefiguining the Eucharist (Gen 14:18-24)
7. Noah the flood: Gen 6:14-22; Gen 7,8:1-19; Gen 8: 20-22; Gen 9: 1-19L
1. Abraham depicted with a knife referring to the sacrifice of Isaac in gn 22:1-19- a propotype for the sacrifice of Christ.
2. Moses
3. Job the pype of the suffering Christ.
4. Jonah
5. Jeremiah* the Prophet of the Passion of Christ.
6. Daniel* the lions in background referring to the Book of Daniel Chapter 6.
7. Zachariah* denotes the major Prophets
Below the figures of Patriarch Noah with the ark; and the Priest-King of Salem (Jerusalem) Melchisadeck.
-
December 18, 2005 at 3:21 am #767610
Praxiteles
Participant -
December 18, 2005 at 3:42 am #767611
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is an even better picture to illustrate the balefuls state of the Baptistry in Cobh Cathedral and the evident neglect to which it has been subjected. Since I saw it last summer, one of the marble pillar on the rail has diasappeared. And this is supposed to be listed building and a protected structure. Cork County Council and the Cobh Town Clerk persistently hold that there are no problems about the maintanance of the building.
-
December 18, 2005 at 8:20 pm #767612
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: 376
Dear Anto:
I have just realized that there is another church to add to your list of medieval churches in Catholic use: The Black Abbey in Kilkenny.
-
December 18, 2005 at 9:15 pm #767613
Praxiteles
Participant5. The Black Abbey, Kilkenny 1225
Built for the Dominicans in 1225 by WIlliam Marshall, Strongbow’s son, the Black Abbey was suppressed in 1543 and converted into a courthouse. It was partially restored in 1778 and certainly functioned as a church from 1814. Further reatoration was effected c. 1850. The stone work is good and the wood work of the ceiling excellent. In the 1970s it underwent a typical “restoration” which saw the stripping of the walls alla Killarney, the demolition of the liturgical furnishings ofthe 19th. century, the abandonment of the Chancel and the placing of the Altar in the nave. Much of this work liturgical work pays little attention to the lines or original spacial disposition of the building. Some highly dubious galss has been installed in the Chancel and a scratching post tabernacle installed.
The Black Abbey as engraved by S. Hooper in 1793 followed by a photograph of 1905:
-
December 19, 2005 at 1:45 am #767614
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Franciscan Abbey at Multyfarnham, Co. Westmeath 1268
Another example of a medieval church in Catholic use is Multyfarnham Abbey. It was roofless from 1650 to 1827.
Multyfarnham Franciscan Friary
Multyfarnham
Westmeath.
DescriptionIrish history.
In the present friary church parts of a 15th century church survive, including the nave, south transept and tower, as well as the south window (though not its glass). Nothing remains of the chancel or of the original domestic buildings. The church was given its present form in 1827 when the Franciscans returned to their old monastery. The church was refurbished in 1976.
This last sentence sounds ominous.
-
December 19, 2005 at 11:48 pm #767615
Praxiteles
Participant6. The Cahpel of Gormanstown Castle, Co. Meath, 1687
To round off the tour of churches in continuous Catholic use, mention should be made of the Chapel on the Preston estate at Gormanstown Castle which was built by the Viscount Goranstown in 1687 for Catholic use. It remained in such use until 1947 when the estate was bought by the Franciscans who promptly demolished what was probably the only pre-18th. Catholic estate chapel in the country!
-
December 20, 2005 at 8:37 pm #767616
Praxiteles
ParticipantDoes anybody know anything of the influence this gentleman may or may not have had on E.W. Pugin’s preference for French Gothic?
DIDRON, ADOLPHE NAPOLEON (1806-1867), French archaeologist, was born at Hautvillers, in the department of Marne, on the i3th of March 1806. At first a student of law, he began in 1830, by the advice of Victor Hugo, a study of the Christian archaeology of the middle ages. After visiting and examining the principal churches, first of Normandy, then of central and southern France, he was on his return appointed by Guizot secretary to the Historical Committee of Arts and Monuments (1835); and in the following years he delivered several courses of lectures on Christian iconography at the Bibliotheque Royale. In 1839 he visited Greece for the purpose of examining the art of the Eastern Church, both in its buildings and its manuscripts. In 1844 he originated the Annales archeologiques, a periodical devoted to his favorite subject, which he edited until his death. In 1845 he established at Paris a special archaeological library, and at the same time a manufactory of painted glass. In the same year he was admitted to the Legion of Honor. His most important work is the Iconographie chretienne, of which, however, the first portion only, Histoirede Dieu (1843), was published. It was translated into English by E. J. Millington. Among his other works may be mentioned the Manuel d’icono-graphie chrelienne grecque et latine (1845), the Iconographie des chapiteaux du palais ducal de Venise (1857), and the Manuel des objets de bronze et d’orfevrerie (1859). He died on the i3th of November 1867.
-
December 21, 2005 at 2:41 am #767617
Praxiteles
Participant -
December 21, 2005 at 2:48 am #767618
Praxiteles
ParticipantDidron’s Iconographie Chrétienne
-
December 21, 2005 at 11:45 pm #767619
MacLeinin
ParticipantGlass attributed to Adolphe-Napoleon Didron
Rentrée de la procession de la châsse de sainte Geneviève
Chapelle Sainte-Geneviève
Artist : Adolphe-Napoléon Didron
Lieu : Notre-Dame de Paris, Chapelle Saint-Georges
Artiste original : Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil
Artistes : Eugène Oudinot, Adolphe-Napoléon Didron -
December 22, 2005 at 5:01 pm #767620
Praxiteles
ParticipantPraxileles
A Rege saeculorum immortali et invisibili qui redempturus mundum hominum historiam intravit pro festis venturis ac novi anni principio divinae gratiae ubertatem Vobis omnibus exoptat.
-
December 24, 2005 at 1:49 am #767621
Gianlorenzo
Participant🙂 And so say all of us.
-
December 25, 2005 at 2:22 am #767622
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantA blessed Christmas to all. Some seasonal images.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 -
December 29, 2005 at 9:35 pm #767623
Praxiteles
ParticipantGiven what has previously been said about Richard Hurley’s reordering of the North Cathedral, it was perhaps easy to understand how the carols concert, broadcast by RTE 1 on Christmas Eve, went off so well. It clearly indicated just how much RH has managed to de-sacralize the building reducing it to a gaudy vaudeville music hall!!!!!!!!!!! If anything, those giant candles used for the stage props were an improvement on the place. I suppose the scattering of the benedictional candelabra around the mise en scene was indtnded to add a slightly religious flavour to the gig. The (canned ?) applause added an air of authenticity. The black tie seemed a little off for the occasion. The presence of the pro-Vicerene and the Mayor of Cork belied a separation of Church and State. The whole affair was well summed up at the end by the appearance of My Lord of Cork, Nazerene like, in a very fetching blue ganasi. This was everything that should not not be. Thank God, Tom Colton had more sense.
-
December 30, 2005 at 1:41 am #767624
anto
Participantbit harsh there, hardly vaudeville! I take it you don’t approve of concerts/recitals in churches/cathedrals?
btw have you heard the Jesuitchurch in Limerick is closing the one on the Cresent?
-
December 30, 2005 at 3:23 am #767625
GrahamH
ParticipantHad to grin while watching that – just knew Praxiteles would be sitting at home fuming, shredding the sofa with his fingernails 🙂
-
January 1, 2006 at 6:54 am #767626
MacLeinin
ParticipantAnto. Not harsh, just reality. A church is what it is; it is not a concert hall, it was never meant to be one.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that for those who believe a church, any church, has a meaning beyond the secural understanding of what a building is.To be continued at a later date.
For now I would like to wish everyone a very happy,prosperous and stimulating New Year.
PS. Thank you all for a great 2005 -
January 1, 2006 at 6:29 pm #767627
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 411: Praxiteles has no difficulty with the idea of the “Concerto di Natale” of “di Mezzonotte” and very much appreciates Albinone, Allegri, Bach and, indeed, Handel. The problem is when the idea is confounded with something else and we find a heap of codswollop called a “Concerto di Natale”. Will be back to this subject later on. Have a prosperous New Year, Anto.
-
January 2, 2006 at 2:48 pm #767628
R.Larkin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Pro-Cathedral Church of the Conception of the Virgin Mary was built on the site of Lord Annsley’s town house at Marlborough Street and Elephant Lane, which had been acquired by Archbishop Thomas Troy in 1803 for £5,100. The building commenced in 1814 and was completed in November 1825. Plans for a church in the revivalist Greek Doric style, submitted by an architect who signed himself “P”, won the commission. It is accepted that the architect was George Papworth (1781-1855). Born in London, he moved to Ireland in 1806, and won commissions for Grattan Bridge, King’s (Heuston) Bridge (1828), Camolin Park, Wexford (1815), the Dublin Library in D’Olier Street (1818-1820) and Sir Patrick Dunn’s Hospital and was eventually Professor of Architecture in the Royal Hibernian Academy. The Pro-Cathedral contains monuments to Cardinal Paul Cullen and his immediate predecessor Archbishop Daniel Murray by Thomas Farrell. The apse is decorated by an alto-relief of the Ascension by John Smyth. Thomas Kirk (1781-1845) supplied a monument for the Reverend Thomas Clarke: two figures of Religion and Charity bewteen an urn which was his first exhibited work at the Society of Artists (as Piety and Chastity) in 1813. A relief of the Good Shepherd and a monument to William and Anne Byly are also attributed to Kirk. The organ is by the Dublin organbuilder John White. Its present architectural case was build by WIlliam Hill c. 1900. The great artistic treasure of the Pro-Cathedral, however, was the High Altar by Peter Turnerelli (1774-1839). Born in Belfast, Turnerelli had been deeply influenced by Canova (who much admired Turnerelli’s bust of Grattan (1812). From 1798-1803 drawing master to the princesses of George III, he was appointed Sculptor in ordinary in 1801. While his busts of George III, Washington and Wellington (1815), Louis XVIII (1816), Henry Grattan (1812 and Daniel O’Connell (1829) are well known, his master piece was the High Altar of the Pro-Cathedral with its splendidly proportioned mensa, reredos and ciborium. In 1886, rather incongrously, three stained-glass windows were installed behind the High Altar. Archbishop Dermot Ryan introduced a reordering to the Pro-Cathedral in the late 1970s. The architect for the re-ordering was Professor Cathal O’Neill . In an act beggering civilized belief, he demolished Turnerelli’s High Altar and reredos. The praedella of the altar mensa was salvaged and re-used to form a new altar erected on a lower plain in a hum drum extended sanctuary covered with carpet. The neo-classical altar rails were removed. The canopied and dignified neo-classical Throne was dismantled. The pulpit was reduced to the redundancy of a side aisle and a few surviving vestiges of the High Altar scattered about the interior. The Ciborium of Turnerelli’s High Altar was conserved and placed on a squat disproportioned plinth on a lower plain. The result has been the complete loss of the graceful, proportioned, symetrically articulated dimensions of the Apse and of the building itself which now lacks a central focus and suffers from the same focal void as Longford and Thurles. It seem strange that nobody seems to have realized that the High Altar was custom built to a location it occupied for 150 years. Attempts to relieve the focal void by drapery have not been convincing. It is suggested that at the time of the reordering, the significance of the High Altar and its provenance may not have been known to the architect responsible for its demolition. In Irish circumstances, the destruction of such a major work of art may possibly have cultural significance not too dissimilar to the bombing of Monte Cassino or the feuerblitzing of the Frauenkirche in Dresden.
Hi Praxiteles,
Just registered. Wonderful information on the Cathedrals. Many thanks. I wondered whether the image of the sculptor was Turnerelli? For one exciting moment I thought it might be John Smyth (c1773-1840) on whom I am doing M.A. research. As you mentioned he executed the Ascension in the Pro. Have you come across any image of him? I feel that this Ascension is somewhat unsatisfying when viewed from the door. Do you think that the reordering of the sanctuary might have accentuated this impression? Anything on John Smyth from anyone would be most welcome.
R.Larkin -
January 2, 2006 at 7:51 pm #767629
GrahamH
ParticipantMaybe you could answer R.Larkin – did John Smyth ever live up to his father’s skill and reputation? Often thought he must have been a hard act to follow 🙂
Who was the finer sculptor of the two do you think? What other work in Ireland is his, as you never hear much about him aside from the GPO and Pro, unlike Edward who crops up everywhere! Thanks.
-
January 2, 2006 at 9:28 pm #767630
Praxiteles
ParticipantIf Mosaic 1 is viewing, please note that he should look at Charleville and possibly Killmallock churches as both contain moaisc work most probably by Ludwig Oppenheimer. I have some photogrtaphs and will post same soon,
-
January 2, 2006 at 9:52 pm #767631
POM
ParticipantMacLeinin wrote:Anto. Not harsh, just reality. A church is what it is]Do you believe a church is limited in its function as a place of ceremony? Does it not – should it not have a broader function to fill?
-
January 2, 2006 at 11:54 pm #767632
MacLeinin
ParticipantDear POM,
I believe that a Church is the House of God and a place for Worship, and these functions are what differentiates a Church from any other communal meeting place. Without the element of the Sacred it would not be a Church therefore to regard churches as mere buildings is to effectively de-consecrate them. I know that some Modernist Liturgists would disagree with this as they think a Church should have multiple functions, but this is a very new idea and does not, I believe, have the support of the vast majority of Churchgoers.
Most buildings are constructed with a particular function in mind, for example, a hospital, a bank, a theatre, a community centre and they are expected to fulfil their particular functions, but one does not expect a hospital to function as a bank or theatre, or conversely one does not expect a bank to function as a hospital or community centre. Why then should a building constructed for the very specific purpose of worship be expected to fulfil the function of a theatre or community centre? -
January 3, 2006 at 1:34 pm #767633
anto
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
If Mosaic 1 is viewing, please note that he should look at Charleville and possibly Killmallock churches as both contain moaisc work most probably by Ludwig Oppenheimer. I have some photogrtaphs and will post same soon,
Happy new year to you too, Praxiteles. Would love to hear something about the churches in Kilmallock and Charleville as I’m from the area. I was in Kilmallock last Sunday and it’s a beautiful church. Good choir there too.
-
January 4, 2006 at 9:17 pm #767634
Praxiteles
ParticipantKilmallock church is by JJ McCarthy and an important one which is relatively well preserved and which, mercifully, has been spared most of the usual petty vandalisms practised on Irish churches. I have a picture of the foundation stone and will post it. Charleville, by M. A Hennessey, while interesting is not externally of the same quality as Kilmallock but the mosaic work in the chancel far surpasses Kilmallock’s. You can see the spire of Kilmallock from the terrace of Charleville. Will post all soon.
-
January 5, 2006 at 12:25 am #767635
R.Larkin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Maybe you could answer R.Larkin – did John Smyth ever live up to his father’s skill and reputation? Often thought he must have been a hard act to follow 🙂
Who was the finer sculptor of the two do you think? What other work in Ireland is his, as you never hear much about him aside from the GPO and Pro, unlike Edward who crops up everywhere! Thanks.
H.Potterton thinks the son is a better sculptor of church monuments than the father. There are monuments by Smyth in St Patrick’s Cathedral (several),St Werburgh’s, St Ann’s,Dawson St.,St George’s,Hardwick Place (2),Lisburn Cath.,Goresbridge,Co.Kilkenny,Ferns Cath.,Armagh Cath.,Newry (several), andSt Peter’s,Drogheda (2) all C.of I.Some of these monuments are quite accomplished for example the monument to John Ball in St Patrick’s.He had a talent for portraiture evidenced in some of his classical medallion style low reliefs on monuments. The Ascension in the Pro seems to be the most unsatisfying of all his work; I think one would have to see it from above. From the door it seems to get lost.
The freestanding statue of George Ogle M.P. in St Patrick’s Cathedral,though unsigned, is attributed to him. I think this is his most interesting work. He seems to have captured the character of this rather controversial man who also features in Francis Wheatleys painting of the Irish House of Commons.
There is also a signed monument by Smyth in Holy Trinity Church,Newport, Rhode Island.
J.Smyth carved the figures and the tympanum over the College of Surgeons and several busts still in the possession of the college. St Andrew over the church in Westland Row is also attributed to him, the first statue outside a Catholic church since penal times. An uncharacteristic crucifixion at the back of St Michan’s R.C. church is by him. His father had carved a wooden crucifixion for the then chapel in Navan in the 1770’s. This still exists.
The G.P.O. figures have now been replaced by casts. The originals are in the O.P.W. store. One authority has attributed these to Thomas Kirk but most think they were by J.Smyth. The Royal Arms at the entrance to the Kings Inns have been credited to both himself and his father. Since his father died in 1812 it seems more likely that this was the work of the son.
Smyth worked with his father on the carvings of the Chapel Royal, Dublin Castle and completed the work since his father died two years before it was finished. The heads on the rear garden wall of Francis Johnston’s house at 64 Eccles St bear a strong likeness to the heads at the Chapel Royal. One of these heads is George III. John Smyth’s first exhibited work was a bust of George III, A joint work with his father. This house has been discussed on another thread.The low reliefs on the front of the house may be by Smyth. He was master of the R.D.S. modelling school for 24 years. These are fairly weathered at this stage but they strongly resemblre the style of a charming low relief of Venus and Cupid by Smyth in marble, now hanging in the members’ bar of the R.D.S. It forms a pair with a low relief by Thomas Kirk called ‘The Drunken Banditti’!
It happens that where you find Francis Johnston you will also find one of the Smyths. The little church in Goresbridge was also by Johnston. Edward Smyth did a bust of Johnston. Some people believe that the companion bust of Johnston’s wife was by John. These are now in the possession of the Ulster Museum.
J.Smyth did the keystone heads at the bridge et the Four Courts, (Richmond,now O’Donovan Rossa Bridge).These have also suffered from weathering.
John Smyth was commissioned by the Apprentice boys of Derry to carve a statue of Rev. George Walker,hero of the siege. This was mounted on a massive pillar resembling Nelson’s Pillar. It was possible to climb steps within it to the top. It looked out threateningly over the Bogside until it was finally blown up in 1973. The Walker Memorial was the biggest landmark in Derry until that date.
In the past few days I have discovered that Smyth worked on the carving of the Gothic dining room in the neo-Gothic Gosford Castle,Co Armagh. I am trying to establish its condition. It was derelict for some time but I believe some attempts were made to restore it. Anyone know anything about this place? The same architect (Thomas Hopper) did work at Slane Castle and also designed the gothic conservatory at Carlton house. could Smyth have done some stucco at Slane?
Smyth’s descendants continued to work as monumental sculptors based in North Brunswick St. ,later Pearse St, down to the 1930’s. The last member of the family I see mentioned repaired the statue of Liberty over the Bank of Ireland (portico at Westmoreland St. side) in 1946. He restored her rod and cap which had disappeared in 1803. Look for Liberty’s cat at her feet when next you pass. This man was George Edward Smyth, great-great grandson of our Custom house man Edward Smyth. I think he may have lived in Sandymount,off St John’s Rd. towards the end of his life. There must be members of this family still around. It would be very exciting to track them down. -
January 5, 2006 at 1:10 am #767636
GrahamH
ParticipantHow fascinating, thanks very much for your extensive reply. Very interesting about the decendants of the Smyths!
It’s funny that the manner in which Edward followed Gandon round like a sheep was replicated with John and Johnston!The early 19th century often comes across as so much more interesting a time to be working in architecture and sculpting – projects are much more varied in style and scale than the late 18th century – often ‘refinement’ commissions rather than grand set pieces as before; adding a new wing on here, an extension there, improving streetscapes with carved ornament and new bridges, statuary commissioned to fill empty spaces in public and private buildings, garden follies built, and of course a vast ‘building programme’ of Catholic churches and country houses post-1830.
Sounds a much more interesting time to be working as a prominant architect or artisan, and also why Johnston’s career/portfolio is so fascinating, esp as architect to the Board of Works – he crops up everywhere making well-considered changes to state buildings. -
January 6, 2006 at 8:09 pm #767637
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnto,
I also have some [hotographs of the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Kanturk, built in 1860 (just four years after the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) by J. Hyrly and J.J. Callaghan. As I discovered to my horror, not even remote NW Cork is safe from Richard Hurley. The Nuns’ Choir has been converted into a day chapel. It is a scaled down version of the North Cathedral in Cork and of the Augustinian Church in Galway and of St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth (minus the Japanese Screen). Does RH have only ONE model in his copy book? It is trotted out with such terrible regularity that one begins to think that it must be getting thin from the photocopying! It was a thrill to discover that the gates on the altar rail (which survived because of a mass rebellion in Kanturk at the suggestion of their demolition) are by J.G. McGloughlin, Dublin who also provided for the Honan Chapel; and Cobh Cathedral. The Church is poorly maintained and in need of attention. This is somewhat strange as the Parish Priest, Canon John Terry, is chairman of the Historic Church Commission of the Diocese of Cloyne. If the state in which he maintains the church in Kanturk is anything to go by, then we can understand just why he recommended Cathal O’Neill’ outragous proposal for St. Colman’s Cathedral. Will post pictures soon.
-
January 7, 2006 at 1:18 pm #767638
MacLeinin
ParticipantRe. #442
Re Gosfort Castle. I found this interesting piece today.The cost of building Gosford Castle
The cost incurred in the building of Gosford Castle was an alleged £80,000 (not a surprising figure, in view of the size and quality of the building). Lord Gosford had married Mary, daughter and heiress of Robert Sparrow of Worlingham Hall, Beccles, Suffolk, and the Norman style – of which there are a number of genuine East Anglian examples – may have been her idea. It was also probably her money which in large part financed the venture.
In spite of this, money and other difficulties beset the commission and Lord Gosford did not hesitate to express his dissatisfaction. In response to his recriminations about workmanship and bills, and his insensitive reference to a rival architect, William Playfair (who had been working at Drumbanagher, near Newry, Co. Armagh), Hopper replied sadly, in January 1834: ‘… I suspect it did not cost him one hundredth part the thought, and but a small portion of the trouble, which I took to try to make Gosford Castle as convenient and as good as I wished it to be. … I have always felt a sorrow that I ever went to Ireland. I now consider it a misfortune …’. After Hopper’s death in 1856, the work was continued by George Adam Burn (who had been employed under Hopper since 1853).Lord Gosford’s relations with his wife, as well as with Hopper, may have been affected by the strains of castle-building. The couple separated, and Lady Gosford went back to live at Worlingham, where she died some years before her husband in 1841. The story is told that, on its return journey to Co. Armagh for burial in the family vault at Mullaghbrack, her coffin was mislaid by the drunken servants whom Lord Gosford had sent to fetch it, and was conveyed by train to somewhere in the Midlands. At some time after her death, the Worlingham estate was sold.
-
January 7, 2006 at 1:31 pm #767639
MacLeinin
ParticipantThe following was posted by Jason Diamond on 8/12/01 at this site
http://www.castles.org/qa/messages/1104.htmlIs anyone interested in helping save one of the most important and biggest castles in Ireland? The first example of the Norman Revival in the British Isles and once housing one of the greatest book collections in Ireland (many of the books now in the Pierpont Morgan Library NY)the castle is now derelict and in a perilous state. We have formed a Building Preservation Trust to save Gosford but need all the support we can get. Anyone interested can contact me, Secretary of the Gosford Castle Trust, at the above e-mail address.
You also hear him speak a little about the Castle at http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/community/thisplace/regions/armagh.shtml
-
January 8, 2006 at 12:39 am #767640
Praxiteles
ParticipantMosaics from the chancel of the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
Charleville church is not aligned because of its location. The chancel is at the west end of the church. The entire west wall is covered with an incredibly elaborate mosaic of the Coronation of Our Lady divided into three main sections:
1. Ground level to the string course below the west window showing: subdivided into two sections: a. an arcade in mosaic work rising to about four feet (now unfortunately submerged since tons of concrete were poured into the chancel floor to raise the level); b. above the arcade, three panels; one to the left of the alter dipecting the tree of knowledge, supported by two of the tetramorphe; a panel behind the altar which is of geometric sections; and a thrid panel to the right of the altar depicting the Rosa Mystica held up by the other two tetramorphe.
2. The second section occupies the entire area above the lower window string course up to the attic which is not occupied by the west window. It consists of two monumental figures. On the left, Christ seated in majesty (with all of the attributes that we have spoken about in relation to medieval tympana); and on the right Our Lady, similarly seated in majesty, depicted in pose of humility.
3. The attic above the west window is occupied by three roundels; on the left, the monogram for Christos; the middle depicting God the Father and the Holy Ghost; the left depicting the monogram of Maria.
The High Altar is of the best quality Carrara marble and, mercifully, has managed to avoid demolition (so far). The antependium has a very finely worked panel depicting Leonardo’s Last Supper. Unlike nearby Kilmallock, nobody thought of knocking off the finials of the fleurions on the reredos.
The preservation of the interior of Charleville Church through all of the iconoclasm of the 1970s and 1980s is due to the enlightened and cultivated Parish Priest, Canon Dan Murphy, who gallantly resisted the huns at the door and all pressure from the “liturgical establishment” until overtaken by old age. His successor, Seamus Corkery, wrecked the interior of this fine church by extending the sanctuary towards the nave and increasing the floor level which was then paved, incredibly, with black limestone flags. Worst of all, the Sacred Heart Chapel to the right of the main sanctuary was gutted, its altar stripped out, its magnificent floor in red mosaic (reminiscent of the floor of the Sacred Heart Chapel in Cobh Cathedral) partially concreted and totally obscured by a carpet. It was converted to a baptistry which has since seen its font moved elsewhere in the church, rendering the entire exercise a mindless act of vandalism. In recent times, the statue of the Sacred Heart that originally stood on the praedella of the altar in the chapel has found his way back from obscurity but has been planked on a floor of the chapel. The whole thing looks stupid. The pulpit is believed to be in a local barn. The ornamental brass gates of the mortuary chapel (probably by McGloughlin) now adorn the shop frontage of a public house on the main street of Charleville. Again, it is easy to understand why the Historic Church Commission of the diocese of Cloyne could have recommended Cathal O’Neill’s savagery for Cobh Cathedral when the wrecker of Charleville Church, Seamus Corkery, was a member of that committee and made the recommendation to vandalize the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral. Probably the most devastating thing to happen in Charleville was the destruction of the mosaic floor of the chancel which was of the same standard and an intergral part of the overall decorative scheme of the sancturary of the church.
-
January 8, 2006 at 1:38 am #767641
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe west window (chancel window) in Charleville was erected in October 1900 and depicts the Triumph of the Cross, and its consequent rewarding of good and punishment of evil. St. Michael the Archangel holds the scales with the souls of the virtuous (the less material souls) in the upper pan, while the damned, weiged down by material things are in the lower pan of the scales. The same idea is to be found in Rogier van der Weyden’s Last Judgment (1443-1451) in the hospice of the Hotel-Dieu at Beaune in Burgundy. The window may have be made by Clarke’s of Dublin as much of the rest of the glass in Charleville was.
-
January 8, 2006 at 1:53 am #767642
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere are the monumental figures of the second range of the mosaic on the west wall of the chancel of the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Charleville, Co. Cork. This section of the wall is divided between these two figures and the window.
-
January 8, 2006 at 4:27 pm #767643
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThe Sunday Business Post
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=10844-qqqx=1.asp -
January 8, 2006 at 6:49 pm #767644
Praxiteles
ParticipantObviously, something is moving in an Bord Pleanala. In addition to the article mentioned by Paul Clerkin, the Sunday Independent of today (8 January 2006) published the following article by Jerome Reilly.
Pope’s letter published in Irish local newspaper
ALETTER from Pope Benedict that, bizarrely, found its way into the columns of the Carlow Nationalist newspaper 10 years ago may become a trump card for those trying to stop building work at one of Ireland’s most famous cathedrals, in Cobh, Co Cork.
At the time he was merely a cardinal in Rome, but His Eminence Joseph Ratzinger was an increasingly close confidant of the already frail Pope John Paul, and his own reputation within the Catholic hierarchy was on the rise.
But despite onerous responsibilities at the centre of ecclesiastical power, Cardinal Ratzinger was still keeping a close eye on the pages of the Nationalist.
The 1996 correspondence was unearthed by the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral (FOSCC), a lobby group bitterly opposed to a redesign of the interior proposed by Bishop John Magee of Cloyne.
Adrian O’Donovan, one of those opposed to any change in the Cobh cathedral’s architecture, told the Sunday Independent last week: “We believe that the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict, supports our claim that there is no liturgical or theological reason to change the interior.”
An Bord Pleanala is dueto give its decision on anappeal relating to theredesign within days butthe controversy which has deeply divided the diocese could yet end up in the civil courts.
The matter has led to some opponents threatening to boycott church services within the diocese of Cloyne if the redesign goes ahead.
The cathedral dominates Cork harbour but a bitter nine-year row has rumbled on over the bishop’s plans to renovate the interior of the structure designed by Edward W Pugin and George Ashlin. More than 30,000 signatures have been collected in a petition opposed to the changes, which include the expansion and extension of the existing sanctuary – and the relocation of the bishop’s chair to a more central location.
Bishop Magee and his clergy believe the changes are essential to bring the cathedral in line with Vatican II changes to the liturgy.
But Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter, published in full in the Carlow Nationalist, appears to question this.
In 1996 there was a similar controversy at Carlow Cathedral over the dismantling of the high altar proposed by Bishop Laurence Ryan. Opponents claimed that Cardinal Ratzinger held the view that changes to church interiors were not mandatory under Vatican II, and Bishop Ryan subsequently wrote to the cardinal seeking confirmation. The reply from Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishop remained secret until a High Court judge hearing a subsequent court case asked that the letter be produced in court, and it was then published in the Nationalist.
The letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishop shows he was aware of the war of words in the letters page of the local newspaper.
“Thank you for your letter of April 18 in which you ask for a clarification of certain observations attributed to me by Mr Michael Davies in a letter recently published by a local newspaper in your diocese,” the man who was to become Pope responded.
“It is certainly true that a great number of churches since the Second Vatican Council have been re-arranged; such changes, while inspired by the liturgical reform, cannot however be said to have been required by the legislation of the church,” he wrote.
But like all theological matters the letter could be open to another interpretation. Cardinal Ratzinger adds: “In conclusion, it is the right and duty of the local bishop to decide on these questions and, having done so, to help the faithful to come to an understanding of the reasons for his decision. Trusting that this explanation proves helpful to you in your particular circumstances and with an assurance of kind regards, I remainsincerely yours in Christ, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.”
Jerome Reilly
-
January 8, 2006 at 10:16 pm #767645
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s an interesting case – to what extent will ABP take on board liturgical concerns I wonder?
How do they decide/how are they in a position to decide (presuming they consider it at all)) as to whether the reordering is necessary or not?So the soundbite continues to reign supreme in the Irish media… 🙂
-
January 9, 2006 at 12:19 am #767646
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
The picture below illustrates the mosaic of the north wall of the (unaligned) Chancel. The inscription is taken from line Psalm 41, line 1, and reads: “Quemadmodum desiderat cervus ad fontes aquarum”, an obvious reference to the Cross.
-
January 9, 2006 at 12:37 am #767647
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork.
The south wall of the (unaligned) chancel.
-
January 9, 2006 at 12:53 am #767648
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Curch of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork.
Chapel of the Sacred Heart, to the north of the Chancel showing mosaic work and the Sacristy door.
-
January 9, 2006 at 1:04 am #767649
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork.
The Sacred Heart Chapel.
The picture illustrates the devastation practised on this finely decorated chapel. The votive altar has been demolished. A very inappropriate badly cut lime-stone frame has been placed around the location of the original altar. In the reordering carried out under Seamus Corkery, this chapel was converted into a baptistry. The baptistry has now been located eleswhere and the chapel is redundant. The floor has been carpeted and the original highly decorated mosaic floor totally obliterated by the carpet. When the statue of the Sacred Heart returned, it was abandoned on the floor. SO far, there is no trace of the original altar .
-
January 9, 2006 at 2:04 am #767650
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome external shots of the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork. The massing of the building is seen to best effect arriving into Charleville from the east. According to the foundation stone, layed on the 16 Kalends of October 1898, the architect is M.A. Hennessey who is also responsible for the completion of the spire of the Redemptorist church in Limerick. the church was largely finished by 1900. The glass in the side aisles is by the Clarke Studios, Dublin, and seems to have been installed c.1915. The bust of Christ in the tympan of the main door is loosly modelled on Guido Reni’s Christ crowned with thorns, which in turn is taken from the same Guido’s depictions of the Crucifixions currently in the Galleria Estense in Modena (1639) and in the Basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina in Rome (1678).
-
January 9, 2006 at 11:21 pm #767651
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of Sts Peter and Paul Kilmallock, Co. Limerick, by JJ, McCarthy 1878.
-
January 10, 2006 at 2:27 am #767652
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, Kilmallock, Co. Limerick, JJ. McCarthy, 1879
-
January 10, 2006 at 2:50 am #767653
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of Sts. peter and Paul, Kilmallock, Co. Limerick, JJ. McCarthy, 1879, exterior:
-
January 10, 2006 at 3:36 pm #767654
Praxiteles
ParticipantFinally, I have located a photograph of the interior of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Armagh, as it was intended by JJ. McCarthy. There is some difference between this and what replaced it; and even between this and what replaced that. Also included, is a photograph of the full horror!
-
January 10, 2006 at 4:59 pm #767655
fgordon
ParticipantWell Praxiteles you have certainly been busy snapping away around the country!
But your examples (Charleville, #433-#437, and Kilmallock, #438 & #439) are very interesting. Travelling around Ireland one often happens upon the most unexpectedly beautiful Churches in all sorts of obscure places. Unfortunately, many of them are victims either of vulgar vandalism or neglect. Sometimes, alas, both!
The love of shambolic clutter is typified by some of the shots from both churches – odd plants, benches, dusty brass fittings, abandoned prie-dieu, chairs etc, etc. This is a sure sign of neglect and very often the absence of an aesthetic sense. Which is fine, not everyone has that sense – but if you don’t have it, should you be on diocesan and national liturgical bodies? Whoever was responsible for that idiotic floor in Charleville (it looks like a themed Oirish pub) should be sent to the back of the classroom and told to face the wall. What was he thinking?! 😮 😮
Enough damage has been done so far by ill-conceived, busy-body interference with what our wiser elder brothers and sisters in the faith have bequeathed to us. Our appreciation for this heritage might try to extend itself beyond the nearest jack-hammer! 🙁
-
January 10, 2006 at 7:45 pm #767656
Praxiteles
ParticipantTalking of various actes de vandalisme and of neglect and poor maintenance of 19th. century churches in Ireland, I thought you might like to see some of these specimens from Kilmallock:
The first photograph shows the door to what may have been a mortuary on the north west side of the church. I have seen more delicate ways of closing up a bull-ring.
The second photograph shows the present reredos of the High Altar. Unfortunately, some vandal decided to demolish the High Altar and reredos so as to leave only the tabarnacle with its canopy. However, that solution probably soon left its inadequacies more than evident and a “rectification” took place which saw a disporportionate reconstruction of the reredos. This is evident from the poor quality workmanship employed in the reconstruction as well as the complete lack of any esthetic in re-assembling the variously coloured marbles columns and shafts. The result…… Not content with that, the reconstructed reredos appeard to have attracted a further hammering from the iconoclasts: all of the finials have been knocked off and some of them have been dumped in the piscina of the Lady Chapel as can be seen in the third photograph. I also suspect that the candle sticks are from the side altars. Some of the original candle sticks from the High Altar are behind the present tabernacle and are in fine brass ,twice as tall as the one presently on the reredos. Obviously these were made so as to be in proportion with the soaring canopy over the tabernacle on the original High Altar. Of course, the area behind the present reredos is nothing short of the local unauthorized halting site.
The third photograph shows the unkempt clutter now scattered about the Lady Chapel. The long radiator in front of the mosaic is hardly helpful. And, I suspect that someone has painted brown what was probably a while surround for the piscina.
-
January 10, 2006 at 8:04 pm #767657
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of Sts Peter and Paul, Kilmallock, Co. Limerick.
Here we have the remains of the altar gates, worked over into kneelers. Bythe quality of them, I would be inclined to guess that they are by McGloughlin of Dublin, who also provided brasses for Cobh Cathedral, the Honan Chapel and for Kanturk.
Then we have the modern baptismal font which has been very inappropriately loacted in the Lady Chapel. It seem to be a new construct consisting of bits and pieces left over after the actes de vandalisme. The statue, for instance, is either of St. Patrick or St. Gregory the Great and is not even attached to the font and has no logical connection with Baptism. At best , having such a statue here it is a piece of sloppy misplaced piety. The whole ensemble has been mercilessly planked on top of the central motif of the beautiful mosaic floor.
Thirdly, we have a picture of what was probably the original Baptistery. This has been converted to a Piet
-
January 11, 2006 at 2:27 am #767658
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Immaculate Conception, Kanturk, Co. Cork, J. Hurley, 1867.
Some pictures of the exterior:
The first shows the main Portal which has been adorned by the addition of a cospicuous lamp. More seriously, the original doors seem to have disappeared and been replaced by new doors. While these have been mounted, on the inside, on what looks like an original hinge, the strap work has disappeare from the outside. The door, rather than being held together by wooden pegs, was nailed together with steel nails which are now rusting. Indeed, the door has been affixed to the hinge by galvanized bolts. This must be one of the worst acts of vandalism in the whole county. the strapwork has been removed from all of the doors and in some, the outline of the ornate metal work can stell be seen on the underpaint. In addition, the tarmacadam is at the end of its natural life and wasted or covered in green moss. The gardens and grass verges have not been properly tended for many years. The entarnce gates tot he cburch are in a state of sad neglest. The ensemble crowned by the installation of a bottle and waste paper collection point in the adjacent car-par (I wonder was planning permission sought and obtained for such a change of use?)
The third photograph illustrates the door tot he sacristy. Clearly, it needs a lick of paint.
The fourth phottgraph shows the chancel window which has become obscured by an ungainly chimney stack and the addition of a broadcasting ariel . Al of this degredation has come about in the past ten years.
What amazes me is that the heritage officer for the County of Cork has allowed this to happen to a fine building. That this state should continue is clear indication that heritage protection laws in ireland are largely decorative and certainly not intended to be policed.
The present Parish Priest of Kanturk is John Terry. Ironically, for one who does not appear to be able to maintain his own parish church in decent order and repair, he has no hesitation in sitting on, and indeed, chairing, the Historic Church Commission of the DIocese of Cloyne!! Is it any wonder that he saw nothing wrong with Cathal O’Neill’s proposed vandalization of Cobh Cathedral?
-
January 11, 2006 at 9:03 am #767659
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Exaltation of the oly Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
-
January 11, 2006 at 8:02 pm #767660
Praxiteles
ParticipantJJ. McCarthy’s plans for Monaghan Cathedral, 1861
Unlike the arcades in St. Saviour’s, Dominick’s Street, and in the College Chapel in Maynooth, Monaghan Cathedral managed to complete the arcade with statues. Can anyone identify the subjects and the sculptor?
-
January 11, 2006 at 8:36 pm #767661
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThey were imported from Italy as far as I know, and are mostly irish saints and local bishops – the one at the far right is Donnelly, who finished the cathedral (or maybe McNally who commissioned it, cannot remember) – you can see that he is cradling a model of the cathedral. The arcade is quite high up on the elevation to the N2
there is a similar arcade on the northern side
http://community.webshots.com/photo/519397519/519412454NvnvABThere were also a number of statues on plinths indoors – John the Baptist, st patrick, and two I cannot remember; gone… god knows where… all carrera marble, they stood at the foot of columns at the crossing and where the side chapels met the transepts
recently the statie of st macartan out front has been replaced with a more modern style statue
http://www.clogherdiocese.ie/cathedral/
I must get something from home – when I was in school, I drew up all the elevations of the cathedral and any extant pieces of the original interior (some of which has since disappeared).
-
January 12, 2006 at 12:23 am #767662
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome very interesting pieces of information from the Clogher diocesan site:
The Diocese of Clogher
St Macartan’s Cathedral
The SanctuaryA radical rearrangement and refurbishing of the Cathedral was begun in 1982 to meet
the requirements of the revised Liturgy. The artist responsible for this general
scheme has been Michael Biggs of Dublin, in consultation with local architect
Gerald MacCann.The Sanctuary (Photo by Manuel Lavery)
To encourage maximum participation by the entire congregation in the celebration
of the Eucharist, the altar is given pride of place in the crossing, just at the
point where, because of the deliberate absence of stained glass in the rose
windows of the transepts and in certain other high-level windows, the natural
light of day is brighest and most concentrated. The altar is carved from a single
piece of granite from south County Dublin. As an integral piece of natural stone
it suggests the primeval offering of sacrifice. Its carefully-wrought carving
humanises that concept, so that this great rock is transformed into a table,
inviting the worshipper to partake of the sacred meal in communion with the
Lord.On two curved platforms to each side of the altar and a little behind it stand
the ambo to the north and a cantor’s lectern to the south. The design and
material of the ambo follow those of the altar, but its basic form is that
of a reading-desk rather than a table. The wooden-topped lectern is of more
modest proportions and dispenses with the curved contours characteristic of
the major elements.The third of these liturgical elements is the bishop’s chair (whose outline,
as seen from the front, is for the most part an exact inversion of the ambo).
This stands in a central presiding position, raised ten steps above floor level,
in the vertex of the apse. In spite of its great distance from the altar, the
sense of a unified grouping is undiminished. A wooden back is inset into the
chair, and into this in turn a gilt-bronze roundel or medallion bearing the
inscription: HAEC EST SEDES EPISCOPALIS CLOGHERENSIS
(‘This is the seat of the Bishop of Clogher’).The altar, ambo and bishop’s chair as well as the baptismal font, were carved
by the designer Michael Biggs.The chair is flanked on either side by a semi-circlular bench for concelebrants,
to denote the unity of the priesthood with the bishop. This arrangement of
chair and bench was traditional in early Roman stational churches.There are two other smaller fixed seats nearer the altar, designed in the same
mode as the lectern; one as an alternative seat for a priest who may be
presiding; the other a ceremonial place of honour for a guest.The steps, in solid Travertine marble, are arranged to highlight each of the
three liturgical elements in turn – the altar, ambo and chair – and to
clarify the relationship which exists between them as a whole.The sanctuary crucifix is by Richard Enda King. The cross is of Irish oak,
and the upright, a single piece, rises 15 feet from the floor. The figure
of Christ, calm and compassionate, is cast in bronze. The wood, in contrast,
is given a softened textural finish to heighten its organic nature as the
living cross of Jesus Christ in the world today. The crucifix is the gift
of John Finley of Boca Raton, Florida.The Sanctuary Crucifix (Photo by Manuel Lavery)
-
January 12, 2006 at 9:00 pm #767663
Praxiteles
ParticipantAn interesting connection with JJ. McCarthy and St. Mary’s Cathedral, Killarney.
Divergent Paths:
The Development of Newfoundland Church ArchitectureThe following essay is adapted from a lecture given by Prof Shane O’Dea to the Newfoundland Historical Society on September 23, 1982.
There is a marked distinction in the architecture of religious buildings in Newfoundland, a distinction determined at first by period and then by denomination. The earliest churches, built before 1846, tended to be similar to each other, and essentially primitive or at least simple. In the 1840s the cathedrals of both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches were begun in the capital, and these had a significant effect on churches later constructed by these denominations. In consequence, when looking at Newfoundland’s religious architecture, one is looking at an early period that runs from 1662 to 1800, followed by a span of limited development (1800-1846), then by a interval of cathedral building, and finally by a period when these cathedrals influenced other construction. This essay focuses on the latter two phases of church architectural development.
Anglican Church, St. John’s.
The Anglican Church was inspired by Gothic Revival architecture.
Photo by Duleepa Wijayawardhana. Reproduced by permission of the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project ©1998.
(31 Kb)The churches built before 1820 tended to be rudimentary buildings, lacking towers, steeples and chancels, and were almost indistinguishable from local fish stores. Distinctions began to develop when the two major denominations – Anglican and Roman Catholic – began to build their respective cathedrals. The Roman Catholic community built their cathedral as a Romanesque Revival structure. The Anglicans, led by Bishop Edward Feild, were influenced by the Gothic Revival.
In an effort to establish and promote the use of Gothic Revival architecture in Newfoundland, Bishop Feild commissioned the distinguished British architect Sir Gilbert Scott to design the Anglican Cathedral. He also brought over William Grey as principal of Queen’s College, and made him diocesan architect. Grey designed numerous wooden Anglican churches in rural Newfoundland that combined local materials and craftsmanship to create models for other clergymen to follow. The last surviving church designed by Grey is St. James Anglican church at Battle Harbour, Labrador.
St. James Anglican Church, Battle Harbour, 1991.
Completed in 1857, St. James is typical of Anglican mission churches built throughout Newfoundland in the 19th century.
Reproduced by permission of the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador ©1998.
(26 Kb)Although Grey left Newfoundland in 1857 and Bishop Feild died in 1876 their architectural influence carried on. The Gothic Revival remained the definitive Anglican style until after the First World War. In 1892 the congregation in Trinity borrowed a design from Nova Scotia and built the finest surviving Anglican Church in Newfoundland.
The Catholic churches built in the latter half of the 19th and early 20th century do not show the same commitment to one architectural style. J. J. McCarthy of Dublin designed St. Patrick’s, one of the earliest Catholic churches planned after the Cathedral, in the Gothic style. McCarthy was an associate of a leading figure in the English Gothic Revival movement, A. W. N. Pugin. The design for St. Patrick’s appears to have been inspired by Pugin’s design for St. Mary’s in Killarney, Ireland.
For Newfoundland Catholics, Renaissance or classical models came to dominate. The greatest of these was the cathedral at Harbour Grace. Begun in the 1860s under Bishop Dalton and pursued by his successor, Bishop Carfagnini, it was modelled after St. Peter’s in Rome. Finished in 1884, it was destroyed by fire in 1889.
Cathedral of Immaculate Conception, Harbour Grace, nd.
Catholic churches were modelled after Renaissance or classical architectural designs.
Unknown photographer. From Moses M. Harvey, Newfoundland illustrated : “the sportsman’s paradise.” Concord, N. H.: T.W. & J.F. Cragg, 1894, p. 91.
(27 Kb)In the twentieth century, renaissance forms have been used more readily in the construction of Catholic churches. This reflects the religious and cultural connection between Catholicism and Rome, and possibly, a desire to distinguish itself from Anglicanism.
© 1998, Shane O’Dea
-
January 12, 2006 at 9:18 pm #767664
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe enclosed article from the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society on ST. Patrick’s Cathedral, Armagh, is most illuminating with regard to one of the objectives of the 1980s “re-ordering”: a “return to JJ. McCarthy’s original concept”. That sounds all too familiarily like Cathal O’Neill’s plans for a return to E.W. Pugin’s original conception for Cobh Cathedral – backed up by an ahistorical use of archival material. Can we hope that O’Neill will be any more successful in Cobh than MacCormack, his modernist counterpart, was in Armagh?
BUILDINGS OF CO ARMAGH
[Extracts from Buildings of Co Armagh by C E B Brett, published by the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society in 1999.]
St Patrick’s (R C) Cathedral, ArmaghThis is a most curious example of a very important building which changes both architect, and architectural style, half way up the walls. The bottom half was designed in 1838, in the English Perpendicular Gothic style, by Thomas Duff of Newry; the top half designed in 1853, in the French Decorated Gothic style, by J J McCarthy of Dublin. And just to complicate matters, the interior decor, applied to the conflicting structures of these two architects, is in part to the 1904 designs of Ashlin & Coleman of Dublin, in part to the 1972 designs of McCormick, Tracey and Mullarkey of Londonderry.
The result, unsurprisingly, is a disappointing muddle, quite lacking in the unity and integrity to be expected in a building of such importance (though Father Coleman, in 1900, surprisingly, thought that “the whole structure … shows a striking unity of design”). Of course many other cathedrals have grown and changed over long spans of years and changes of mastermind; but it makes an instructive contrast with its English counterpart, Westminster Cathedral, built to the designs of J F Bentley for Cardinal Vaughan between 1894 and 1903.
It is interesting that on 3 February, 1840, the Building Committee, “His Grace the Primate in the Chair, resolved unanimously that Mr. Duff be appointed our architect; and resolved, that Mr. Duff is to receive five per cent of the full amount expended on the building of the cathedral for his superintendence of the work, and that he will give the Committee one per cent as his subscription thereto”. Galloway suggests that his success at the Roman Catholic cathedral of St Patrick and St Colman in Newry, dedicated in 1829, “probably led to the commission to design the cathedral at Armagh”. Unlike his former partner, Thomas Jackson, Duff was himself a Roman Catholic. According to the 1905 Guide, in Duff’s lifetime “34 feet of the walls were built for £26,000, Dr Crolly himself personally supervising the work with the assistance of several foremen”.
The explanation for the original change of style is, that building was interrupted in 1844 by famine and cholera; Duff himself died in 1848; it was only in 1853 that a new Building Committee settled with his widow for £100 cash down, and the return of all drawings and papers relating to the commission. Work under the new architect did not actually begin until 1854. McCarthy had attacked Duff’s work in the Irish Catholic Magazine in 1847, but he was stuck with the ground-plan, as the walls had reached the tops of the aisle windows, but without tracery. “He completely changed the appearance of Duff’s design by getting rid of the pinnacles on the buttresses, the battlemented parapets on nave and aisles, and by making the pitch of the roof steeper” (Sheehy); also by introducing flowing tracery and numerous carved details. Maurice Craig comments, dryly, “Characteristically, he altered the style from Perpendicular to Decorated, so that the spectator must support the absurdity of “fourteenth-century” works standing on top of “sixteenth-century” (except for the tracery which was harmonised); but in most ways it is a very successful building”. It was dedicated in 1873.
The sacristy, synod hall, grand entrance, gates and sacristan’s lodge were built later (Galloway says, sexton’s lodge and gateway in 1887, sacristy and synod hall between 1894 and 1897), to the designs of William Hague, and he was “engaged on the designs for the great rood screen behind the high altar when he died in March, 1899. Mr. Hague’s work was taken up by Mr. McNamara of Dublin who subsequently superintended the designing and building of the rood screen, the beautiful Celtic tracery of the mosaic passages and floors, and the complex heating and ventilating system”. Further very extensive interior work was undertaken between 1900 and 1905 for Archbishop Logue to the designs of Ashlin & Coleman of Dublin. The cathedral was reconsecrated in 1903. A great deal of this excellent work has been removed.
St Patrick’s cathedral, with its twin spires, stands tall on its hill-top, successfully out-soaring its squatter Protestant rival on the opposite hill. It looks its best from a distance, approached over the drumlin country to south and west, reminiscent, when the light is right, of the twin spires of Chartres dominating the rolling plain of the Ile de France. Stephen Gwynn wrote of it in 1906: “Today Ireland is full of churches, all of them built within a hundred years – and almost every church, let it be clearly understood, is crowded to the limit of its capacity with worshippers. But here at Armagh is the greatest monument of all – planted as if in defiance so as to dominate the country round and outface that older building on the lesser summit: the costliest church that has been erected within living memory in Ireland; and not that only. It is in good truth a monument not of generous wealth (like the two great cathedrals of Christ Church and St. Patrick’s in Dublin) but of devoted poverty: the gift not of an individual but of a race, out of money won laboriously by the Catholic Irish at home and in the far ends of the world … So viewed, I question whether modern Christianity can show anything more glorious: yet in other aspects the new St. Patrick’s Cathedral must sadden the beholder. The stone of which it is hewn, as the money that paid for the hewing, is Irish: but the ideas which shaped the fabric are pure Italian…”
Externally, its best features are the twin broached spires, the great traceried seven-light west window, and the arcade with the eleven apostles above the central porch. Internally, its best feature is now the very high hammer-beam roof with a winged angel at each angle. Formerly, it was the marvellous lacy and frothy high altar, screen pulpit and rails of white Caen stone, all the work of Ashlin & Coleman; but these were unhappily ripped out and simply discarded in the re-ordering after Vatican II: two of the beautifully-carved crockets stand on my window-ledge to this day, having been rescued from the dump by the late Kenneth Adams. This was justified at the time on the grounds that “the fine character of the interior was marred by the later introduction of screens, elaborate altar rails and pulpit”: and what the architects set out to achieve was “a return to JJ McCarthy’s original concept … They recommended a simplification of the interior, which would also add a greater formality to ceremony”. If these were the objectives, few people think they have been successfully achieved. The new fittings already appear dated, and are utterly incongruous. “Neither the quality of the replacements nor the skill of the craftsmanship can disguise the total alienation of the new work from the spirit and meaning that was McCarthy’s ecclesiological and architectural inspiration. In this setting, these modern intrusions appear dispassionate and irrelevant” (UAHS, 1992). Jeanne Sheehy acidly records “the replacement … of a fine late Gothic revival chancel with chunks of granite and a tabernacle that looks like a microwave”. It is hard to divine why the church in Ireland has proved to be so much more insensitive in such matters than in most other countries.
However, one must agree with Galloway’s sympathetic summing up: “Ignoring the work at the crossing, which now has an empty feeling, this great cruciform cathedral has much beauty … The great height, the exquisite perfection of architectural detail, and the caring decoration of every surface of the walls … uplifts the heart and mind … although the building has a soaring loftiness, there is not a trace of gloom. This is Gothic Revival at its very best.”
Photographs: Michael O’Connell (see also colour-plate VIb)…
Situation: Cathedral Road, Armagh; td, Corporation; Parish, and District Council, Armagh; Grid ref H 873 457.Reference: Listed A (15/20/20); in conservation area. Gallogly, ‘History of St. Patrick’s Cathedral’, 1880, passim; Stuart, ‘City of Armagh’ (ed. Coleman), 1900, p 443; Guidebook, 1905, Appendix A; Gwynn, ‘Fair hills of Ireland’, 1906, p 118; Sheehy, ‘J. J. McCarthy’, UAHS, ]977, pp 39-42; Craig, ‘Architecture of Ireland’, 1982, p 294; O Fiaich, ‘St Patrick’s Cathedral’, 1987, passim; ‘Ulster Architect’, June/July 1990, p 58; ‘Buildings of Armagh’, UAHS, 1992, pp 70-76, and see the detailed bibliography on the latter page; Galloway, ‘Cathedrals of Ireland’, 1992, pp 17-20, 185; J Sheehy, in ‘Irish arts review’, XIV, 1998, p 185; copy minutes of Building Committee, in MBR.
-
January 12, 2006 at 9:42 pm #767665
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Church, Rathkeale, Co. Limerick. (1866-1881)
cf. Dublin Builder, 1 May 1866, p. 119
15 November 1866, p. 270
Irish Builder, 15 April 1881, p. 126Like nearby Kilmallock, this church was also built by JJ. McCarthy. Like Kilmallock, it has suffered from the same unwelcome attention doled out to Sts. Peter and Paul’s in Kilmallock:
-
January 12, 2006 at 10:00 pm #767666
Praxiteles
ParticipantWould anybody like to guess who the architect of this church might be and where it might be found? You will of course notice that the integrity of the building’s interior has not been compromised by some awful act of vandalism….
-
January 12, 2006 at 10:31 pm #767667
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterOUR LADY IMMACULATE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, Guelph, Ont.
The parishioners fought a plan to remove the interior fittings
http://aquinas-multimedia.com/renovation/resources/guelph-ont.html
-
January 12, 2006 at 10:54 pm #767668
Praxiteles
ParticipantTop marks to P. Clerkin. The article on the proposed renovation caould refer to what is being proposed for Cobh. All you have to do is change the term “Guelph” for “Cobh” and add in an injudicious solemn promise made by Magee to consult the people of Cobh before anything would be done – alas never honoured. But such is the worth of a bishop’s word in Ireland to-day.
But back to Joseph Connolly and the Immaculate Conception in Guelph; perhaps P. Clerkin would like to take us through the various elements of this spectacular church relating them to works of JJ. McCarthy in Ireland?
-
January 12, 2006 at 11:20 pm #767669
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSome distinct similarities there – what do we know about Connolly?
the polygonal apse, from the bottom of the windows up, it reminds me of Monaghan with the nice hammerbeam roof and the heavier columns at the crossing.
-
January 13, 2006 at 12:16 am #767670
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Joseph Connolly
Try this article from the Ecclesiological Society, c. p. 30
-
January 13, 2006 at 12:56 am #767671
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterAhhh an assistant – I see one of his other works is described thus; “The polygonal apse and lower transepts are adapted from St Macartan’s cathedral, Monaghan (1861-83).19”
Definitely has traces of various works of McCarthy – I really must try and do a section on McCarthy for the site – on the list anyway.
-
January 13, 2006 at 1:56 am #767672
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt would be a very good idea to do something on mcCarthy and his followers, including Joseph Connolly who, although most of his work is in Canada, undoubtedly belongs to to the canon of Irish 19th. century architects. Apart from the article in the Ecclesiological Society, I remember reading about his churches in Canada in an article published in the Irish Arts Review (possibly in the period before it became a “Yearbook”) but I do not have it to hand.
The Apse in the Immaculate Conception in Guelph is practically a verbatim quotation of the apse of the College Chapel in Maynooth. Even that curious chimney stack attached to the apse has quite close cousins in JJ. McCarthy’s Senior Infirmary (1861) at Maynooth College.
-
January 13, 2006 at 4:23 am #767673
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterA pity this church didn’t get the spires intended instead of the later and more English towers.
Twin spires are incredibly common in French Canadian (ie Catholic) communities – more so than in Ireland
-
January 13, 2006 at 4:27 am #767674
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterof course when we talk about Irish architects and Canadian churches – the best story of all is James O’Donnell, a protestant who so fell in love with his work at the basilica in Montreal, that he converted so he could be buried inside it.[
-
January 13, 2006 at 9:13 am #767675
Praxiteles
ParticipantOf course it is not surprising about twin (or nearly twin spires) in French Canada when we remember La Patrie and cathedrals such as Chartres, Strassburg etc. If I remember correctly, the spires were twin in metropolitan sees but varied slightly in other cases.
You are right about the towers giving the Immaculate Conception in Guelph and English look. Perhaps someone into CAD could illustrate what it might have looked like had spires been build instead.
-
January 13, 2006 at 10:30 am #767676
Anonymous
InactiveHappy New Year to all at Archiseek!
Thanks to P. Clerkin for his mention (#454) of the opposition of parishioners to the proposed “renovations” at the Church of the Immaculate in Guelph, Ontario. The article provided is most interesting, as it draws attention to one of the major figures involved in the destruction of churches in N. America, Fr Richard Vosko. Vosko has his own website at http://www.rvosko.com where his projects may be examined. He also provides his “philosophy” which I quote:Philosophy
Where we worship shapes our prayer and how we pray shapes the way in which we live. Using metaphorical equations to design the worship arena my hope in any project is that the congregation will be transfigured by the very space it is helping to create or transform. I believe that places for worship become sacred when the celebrations of life-cycle events occur there. In this sense the building is designed primarily to house the assembly and its worship of God. It is not an object of devotion by itself nor is it a temple to honor the deity. The fundamental blueprint for the building is found in the memories and hopes of the community. This is why participation of the congregation in the building or renovation journey is extremely important.
The time honored ingredients of a worthy place for worship include stories of faith, pilgrimage pathways, transforming thresholds, intimate settings for personal prayer, art work that prompts works of justice and seating plans that engage the community in the public rituals. To evoke a sense of the sacred the building must be designed with attention to detail, scale, proportion, materials, color, illumination and acoustics. All art and furnishings must be of the highest caliber afforded by the community. Sensitivity to ecological and economical factors cannot be overlooked.
Memory and imagination are the main tools in any worship space project.
I think mention of “worship arena” and the rejection of the notion of the church building as sacred in itself are very indicative of the very strange notions of liturgy behind a lot of Vosko’s highly influential work. Worthy of note too is the fact that Vosko’s description does not mention anything to do with Christianity – his “worship arenas” would suit any deity. Surely anything to do with church building requires an underlying Theology, rather than a philosophy.
In any case, the “philosophy” summarised here says it all!:mad: -
January 13, 2006 at 4:28 pm #767677
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust take a look at the endless list of wreckage done by ths yob:
-
January 13, 2006 at 6:50 pm #767678
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Basilique of Notre Dame du Sacré Coeur in Montreal, Quebeque: interior with ingraving by William Bartlett
-
January 13, 2006 at 6:59 pm #767679
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterIt is a mind-blowing interior – more Victorian theatre than church – absolutely a world away from anything else I’ve seen to date.
-
January 13, 2006 at 7:25 pm #767680
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd what of these?
-
January 13, 2006 at 7:31 pm #767681
GrahamH
ParticipantHow extraordinary. And what an incredibly uplifting, soaring entrance portal – fantastic!
Is there a significance beyond the architectural in having two spires?
-
January 13, 2006 at 7:31 pm #767682
GrahamH
Participant………………………….
-
January 13, 2006 at 9:33 pm #767683
Praxiteles
ParticipantMr Walker of Derry
Bartlett print c. 1840
-
January 13, 2006 at 9:53 pm #767684
anto
ParticipantNot Gothic revival but still of interest….
From Limerick Leader
Jesuit Church in €3m sale?By JENNIFER O’CONNOR
THE Jesuit Sacred Heart Church on the Crescent will be put up for sale by the end of January and could be sold for up to €3m.
Auctioneers overseeing the sale have told the Limerick Leader that once the final touches on the sale documents have been completed that they will begin their marketing campaign on the historic city centre building.
And industry sources say that the premises could fetch up to €3 million when it is put up for sale on the open market.
Des O’Malley, of Sherry Fitzgerald O’Malley Auctioneers on O’Connell St said: “We haven’t received the final instructions on the sale yet and are still putting the final touches to the brochures on the premises, but we are expecting it to be put on the open market in late January. Because of this we cannot confirm at what valuation the premises will be placed on the market.”
“There will be three lots-the Jesuits residence will be lot one, the church will be lot two, and the entire building consisting of the residence and church will be lot three,” Mr O’Malley explained.
The auctioneers paid a number of visits to the Jesuit premises in December to take measurements and to place an estimated value on the building. They presented a report on their work to the Jesuit order in late December and Mr O’Malley said that they are expecting major interest in the property from the public and private sector.
“Given the nature of the lot, we are expecting a lot of interest. The residence is an interesting building and is the size of two Georgian houses so it may be a good business structure. The future use of the church depends on what people could reasonable foresee it being used for,” he said.
-
January 14, 2006 at 2:20 am #767685
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am posting here a picture of the South elevation of an ideal Neo Gothic church of the 13th. century which appeared in the first volumn of A. N. Didron’s Annales Archeologiques published in Paris in 1844. He, along with Viollet-Leduc, was the great exponent of the Gothic Revival in France and greatly admired A.W.N. Pugin. While I have never seen a reference to Didron as a possible source for the conception of Cobh Cathedral, I do not believe that it is completely to be ruled out that he was not. I also will add the relevant section for Cobh.
Dideron tells us that this plan was drawn up by Jean-Baptiste Lassus (1807-1857) . It exemplifies a church of the period prior to the reign of St. Louis IX, and roughly from the end of the reign of Philipe-Auguste. Dirdon explains that the plan is presented in such a way “en agrandissant les dimensions du type qui sera offert, on pourrait avoir une cath
-
January 14, 2006 at 7:09 pm #767686
Praxiteles
ParticipantI enclose a short note on Jean-Baptiste Lassus published by the Ecole des Chartes. This begins to explain much of A.N. Didron’s activities in the Annales Archéologiques:
LASSUS Jean-Baptiste 1807-1857.
Jean-Baptiste Lassus interrompit ses études à l’école des Beaux-Arts commencées en 1828 pour entrer chez Labrouste. Il fut parmi les premiers de sa génération à s’opposer à l’emprise de l’Académie et au contenu de l’enseignement de l’architecture fondé sur la tradition gréco-romaine. Après s’être fait connaître par l’exposition de quelques projets au salon : Palais des Tuileries de Philibert de l’Orme, 1833, Projet de restauration de la Sainte-Chapelle, 1835, Réfectoire de Saint-Martin des Champs, 1836, il se consacra à une carrière d’archéologue-restaurateur. Il se situe aux origines du mouvement néo-gothique dont il constitue le courant archéologique et chrétien.
Diamétralement opposé à Quatremère de Quincy, il développa une réflexion théorique qui était axée autour des principes suivants :
– le premier âge gothique a produit une architecture rationnelle et fonctionnelle qui constitue l’apogée de l’architecture nationale. Le gothique ultérieur a dégénéré et la Renaissance a introduit des influences étrangères et païennes.
– la restauration des édifices gothiques doit respecter l’authenticité formelle et structurelle des oeuvres.
– le XIXe siècle doit mettre en application des préceptes du premier âge gothique pour découvrir les voies d’une architecture nouvelle.
En 1836, Lassus est désigné collaborateur de Duban sur le chantier de restauration de la Sainte-Chapelle ; jusqu’à sa mort, il se consacra plus particulièrement à la réédification de la flèche, la décoration intérieure et l’isolement de l’édifice. En 1843, il est chargé avec Viollet-le-Duc de la restauration de Notre-Dame de Paris qui constitue le point de départ d’un changement radical dans les méthodes de restauration. À partir de 1848, il fut chargé de la restauration de la cathédrale de Chartres, dont il établit la monographie avec Amaury-Duval, du Mans et de Moulins dont il entreprit la construction de la nef, oeuvre achevée par Millet. Il travailla également à Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois et à Saint-Séverin à Paris, à Saint-Géraud d’Aurillac dont il projeta la flèche, à Notre-Dame en Vaux de Châlons-sur-Marne dont il construisit les deux flèches et à Saint-Aignan (Loir-et-Cher).
Dans l’histoire de la déontologie de la restauration, Lassus occupa une place éminente. Il se distingue de ses prédécesseurs Alavoine, Debret et Godde par son refus des techniques nouvelles (fonte, mortiers de ragréage, etc.) inadaptés, selon lui, aux bâtiments anciens et par sa volonté de restituer scrupuleusement un parti archéologiquement fondé. À cet égard, il faisait cause commune avec Viollet-le-Duc, mais ce dernier développa par la suite des a priori qui se montrent fort éloignés, à l’exécution (Bayeux, Amiens par exemple), des conceptions pragmatiques, scrupuleuses, érudites et volontairement moins ambitieuses de son aîné.
L’activité créatrice de Lassus est presque entièrement tournée vers l’architecture religieuse avec cinq constructions d’église : Saint-Nicolas de Nantes 1840, Sacré-Coeur de Moulins 1849, Saint-Pierre de Dijon 1850, Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Belleville 1853, l’église de Cusset 1855, deux projets non réalisés (Sainte-Eugénie à Paris et Notre-Dame de la Treille à Lille, concours de 1855), les agrandissements de bâtiments de l’époque classique au séminaire de Chartres et du Mans, des couvents dont celui de la Visitation, rue Denfert-Rochereau à Paris et celui, détruit, des dames de Saint-Maur à Montluçon.
Les constructions civiles sont peu nombreuses : hôtel du prince Soltikoff (détruit à Paris), hôtel de Prosper Tourneux à Maisons-Laffitte, un immeuble de rapport, rue Taitbout à Paris, des travaux dans divers châteaux.
Les oeuvres architecturales de Lassus font montre d’une double orientation. Lassus se montre capable de construire dans les styles à la mode : immeuble Louis-Philippe, rue Taitbout, hôtel néo-Louis XIII à Maisons-Laffitte, inspiration passablement troubadour pour l’hôtel Soltikoff ; il sait aussi se limiter à des architectures d’accompagnement lorsqu’il s’agit d’agrandir les séminaires de Chartres et du Mans. Mais à ces concessions faites au commanditaire ou à l’espace architectural environnant, s’oppose le véritable dessein de Lassus qui est de re-concevoir le style idéal des années 1150–1250 de l’ÃŽle-de-France : tel est le but de ses grands projets pour Nantes, Belleville, Moulins et Lille. Au terme de cette recherche, Lassus a conçu des formes, proches sans doute de ses modèles médiévaux, mais transposées dans une optique finalement assez peu éloignée du néo-classicisme : goût de la symétrie, horreur du pittoresque, subordination du détail à la logique du parti architectural.
À ces productions s’ajoutent de nombreuses expériences dans le domaine des arts décoratifs, peintures murales, orfèvrerie, ornements liturgiques, buffets d’orgue, art du livre (Imitation de Jésus-Christ, 1855), etc.
Lassus conçut ces expériences de la manière dont Didron, dans les Annales archéologiques, voulait faire de l’archéologie pratique ; en proposant des modèles, il faisait oeuvre de militant. Tantôt, il s’adonnait à l’archéologie expérimentale ; c’est ainsi qu’il fit peindre temporairement la nef de Notre-Dame pour mettre en application des recherches sur la polychromie architecturale du Moyen-Âge ; tantôt, il faisait reproduire, selon les méthodes semi-industrielles, des objets médiévaux, tel le reliquaire d’Arras pour répondre aux besoins des fabriques et du clergé.
De cette oeuvre, extrêmement diversifiée, il ressort que Lassus ne peut pas être considéré comme un simple épigone de Viollet-le-Duc : il constitue un maillon indispensable à la compréhension de l’évolution de l’architecture dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle. Il a été formé aux conceptions rationalistes de l’école des Beaux-Arts, adopte les principes fonctionnalistes de Labrouste et substitue à l’historicisme gréco-romain l’historicisme médiéval dans le but de fonder un nouveau style. Mais il ajoute une réflexion religieuse et sociale dans la lignée de Lamennais qui colore d’une certaine poésie, notamment dans les espaces intérieurs, le rationalisme “néo-classique” de son néo-gothique.Bibliographie
F21 2019.
Arch. Monum. Hist., 1994, p. 28.
Bauchal, p. 679-680.
Bouvier, 1999.
A. Darcel, «Lasus architecte», L’Illustration, 8 août 1857, vol. XXX, n°754 et Annales archéologiques, t. XVII, 1857, p. 311 et sq.
Delaire, p. 187.
B. Foucart et V. Noël-Bouton, “Saint-Nicolas de Nantes, bataille et triomphe du néo-gothique”, Congrès archéologique de France, XXVIe session, Haute-Bretagne, 1968, p. 136-181.
Lance, t. II, p. 13-17.
J.M. Leniaud, Jean-Baptiste Lassus (1807-1857) ou le temps retrouvé des cathédrales, Paris, 1980, 296 p.
C. Mignot, L’architecture du XIXe siècle, Fribourg, 1983, 326 p.
R. Middleton, p. 405.
Thieme et Becker, XXII.
N. M. Troche, «L’architecte Lassus», Annales de la Charité, Paris, 1857, in-8°, 8 p.
– «Dernier et pieux souvenir d’un ami», Annales de la Charité, mars 1858, Paris, 1858. -
January 14, 2006 at 7:18 pm #767687
Praxiteles
ParticipantSpot the features that relate directly to the spire of St. Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh.
St. Nicolas, Nantes by Jean-Baptiste Lassus
West elevation of the plan for the Cathedral of Moulins 1851 by Jean-Baptiste Lassus:
North elevation of the plans for the Cathedral of Moulins 1851 by Jean-Baptiste Lassus
South elevation Cobh Cathedral
E.W. N. Pugin’s drawings for the Spire at Cobh
Le style néogothique
Jean-Baptiste Lassus (1807-1857) se fait, dès 1836, à la Sainte Chapelle de Paris, le défenseur d’un art gothique dont il cherche à reproduire les qualités formelles et spirituelles. Architecte diocésain en 1848 pour Chartres et Le Mans, il est aussi chargé de la cathédrale de Moulins, assisté de Louis Esmonnot (1807-1886). Leur projet de construction (il s’agit de terminer la nef) rend compte des recherches de Lassus sur le style gothique d’Ile-de-France des années 1150-1250 dont il tend à retrouver le poétique équilibre des volumes. Il montre aussi la cathédrale fièrement isolée de tout autre bâtiment qui viendrait en masquer l’extérieur. La suppression des constructions accolées aux édifices sera une des actions principales des architectes diocésains dans la seconde moitié du siècle. Lassus est le précurseur des archéologues et des architectes néomédiévaux qui investissent les Cultes en 1848 : Abadie, Baudot, Mérimée, Viollet-le-Duc, Ruprich-Robert.
Le projet de Jean-Charles Danjoy (1806-1862) pour Bordeaux montre comment les architectes diocésains opèrent sur la totalité du bâtiment, incluant à leur action le décor — comme ce mur peint de chapelle — et, souvent, le mobilier. Danjoy est l’un des premiers architectes rattachés au service des Monuments historiques, créé en 1837, qui lui confie le château de Falaise en 1840. En 1843, l’administration des Cultes le charge de la restauration de la cathédrale de Meaux puis le nomme architecte diocésain pour Meaux, Bordeaux et Coutances. Il déploie dans ses travaux un sens artistique délicat, basé sur des connaissances archéologiques sérieuses.
Pierre-François Gautiez (1803-1856), architecte diocésain de Metz en 1853, répond à une circulaire de l’administration des Cultes demandant la réalisation de plans types d’églises, de presbytères et d’écoles. Cette circulaire préconise le style gothique pour le nord de la France et le roman pour le Sud. Gautiez est parfaitement en phase avec les désirs de son administration. Son église de campagne est représentative de ce style néomédiéval un peu raide qui gagne au cours du siècle l’ensemble de la France.
Auteur : Nadine GASTALDI
-
January 14, 2006 at 7:54 pm #767688
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Nicolas, Nantes, Jean-Baptiste Lassus 1844
-
January 15, 2006 at 1:44 am #767689
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s in Dingle, Co. Kerry, by JJ. McCarthy 1862.
In terms of utter vandalism, what happened at St. Mary’s in Dingle manages to surpass even Killarney Cathedral. The original church had a nave and aisles divided by an arcade on pillars – all of which have been demolished. The external wall were also demolished to below the level of the clerstory. The worst was reserved for the west elevation which had its attic and upper ranges demolished. The result looks not too dissimilar from the Notekirchen built on the ruins on churches throughout Germany after the war. Just how could such have happened?
This is what the interior used to look like:
-
January 15, 2006 at 7:04 pm #767690
MacLeinin
ParticipantGood News from Cobh. An Bord Pleanala have granted the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral request for an Oral Hearing of their appeal. Date and location to be announced later.
-
January 16, 2006 at 1:00 am #767691
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. James’s, Killorglin, Co. Kerry, by JJ. McCarthy (1860)
The interior gives an idea of what was in St. Mary’s in Dingle before the partial demolition of both interior and exterior of that church by the bold Eamonn Casey.
Fortunately, it appears still to be intact.
-
January 16, 2006 at 1:17 am #767692
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Brendan’s, Ardfert, Co. Kerry, JJ. McCarthy (1851)
-
January 16, 2006 at 1:28 am #767693
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. John’s, Tralee, Co. Kerry, JJ. McCarthy (1860) reflecting A.W.N. Pugin’s St. Giles at Cheadle
-
January 16, 2006 at 1:54 am #767694
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Joseph’s, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan, JJ. McCarthy begun 1861, finiished by C.J. McCarthy 1882
-
January 16, 2006 at 4:57 am #767695
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSt. Joseph’s, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan,
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/monaghan/carrickmacross/stjosephs.html
-
January 16, 2006 at 9:54 am #767696
Anonymous
InactiveRe. #482.
Beautiful cresting on the roof of Carrickmacross Church. Also to be seen on that of Cobh Cathedral and the chapel of the chateau in Blois (the detail with fleur-de-lys pattern is from Blois). Note also the roof of Rheims Cathedral (large photo below). -
January 16, 2006 at 7:40 pm #767697
Praxiteles
ParticipantMaynooth College Chapel, JJ. McCarthy (1875-1880), interior completed by Hague.
Among many notable features, the most important of the internal features is the oak Choir stalls.
The interior has survived except for the Lady Chapel which had the mensa of its altar removed from the rerdos by the Ramta specialist former president Michael Ledwith. This was to facilitate the “active participation” of American benefactors who hear Mass in the small chapel in pairs.
-
January 16, 2006 at 10:22 pm #767698
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Michael’s, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, JJ,. McCarthy (1873) alas no more.
-
January 16, 2006 at 10:55 pm #767699
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Saviour’s, Dominick St., Dublin, JJ. McCarthy (1852)
This was probably JJ. McCarthy’s finest Dublin church.
This is what the interior has been reduced to:
-
January 17, 2006 at 5:36 pm #767700
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Kevin’s Church, Glendalough, Co. Wicklow, JJ. McCarthy, 1846
-
January 18, 2006 at 1:47 am #767701
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Michael’s, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, by JJ. McCarthy (1846) consecrated by Cardinal Wiseman in 1858.
Therailing and gates in front of the church by W.G. Byrne, Dublin, 1919.
Damaged by fire in July, 2001 and subsequently restored but I am not certain what that might mean. I am inclined to suspect the worst.
A la recherche du temps retrouvé !
Cardinal Wiseman in Ballinasloe
From a Contemporary Record By Samuel J. Maguire
Preparations for VisitOn Tuesday morning, the 24th August, 1858, Cardinal Wiseman left the Broadstone terminus for Ballinasloe, accompanied by the Right Rev. Dr. MacNally, Bishop of Clogher; the Bishop of Elphin, the Bishop of Cloyne, the Rev. E.L. Clifford, the Hon. and Right Rev. Monsignor Talbot, Mr. Wiseman the Rev. William Derry, P.P., Eyrecourt; theRev. Mr. Bannon, Captain Bellew, and several other clergymen and gentlemen, who intended to be present at the consecration of the Church of St. Michael, Ballinasloe. Anxious preparation had been made by the Bishop of Clonfert and by the Town Commissioners. At almost every station along the line, crowds of people gathered who cheered loudly, and evinced the utmost happiness at seeing the Cardinal.
“On the approach of the train to Ballinasloe, the interposition of the clergy became necessary to moderate the enthusiasm of the people, who pressed forward, not without danger to their lives, and, as the train rolled slowly alongside the platform, the cheering was vehement.”
Among these on the platform were:- The Lord Bishop of Clonfert; Rev. Sir Christopher Bellew, Bart., S.J.; Rev. Malachy Green, P.P., Clontuskert; Rev. Wm. Manning P.P., Aughrim; Rev. Mr. Mc Gauran, P.P., Ahascragh; Rev. Mr. Kirwan, R.C.A., Ballinasloe; Rev. Dr. O’ Brien, President of St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam; Rev. M. Walsh, P.P.,Lusmagh; Rev. MR. Egan, P.P., Cloghan; Rev. W. King, P.P., Rev. Mr. Mc Namara, C.C., Rev. Garrett Dillon, Castleblakeney; Rev. W. Larkin; Rev. J. Moone, P.P.; Menlo; Rev. John Macklin, P.P., Rev. James Hynes; Rev. Michael Callahan, P.P., Kiltulla; Rev. M. Galvin, C.C., Rev. Mr. Pelley; Dr. Burke, ex-chairman, Town Commissioners of Ballinasloe; George Crowe, Esq., Aughrim; Robert Bodkin, Esq.; William Hynes, T.C.; Michael Finnerty T.C.; Timothy Egan, T.C.; John O’ Shaughnessy, Esq., Birchgrove; Hugh O’ Kelly, Esq., Woodmount; Francis E. Madden Esq., William Costelloe, Esq., Junius Horan, Esq.,Jeffrey Prendergast Esq., Dr. Colahan; Thomas Hyde, Esq., Solicitor, T.C.; Patrick Ward, T.C.; John Heenan T.C.; Wm. O’ Shaughnessy, Merchant; Robert N. Smith, Esq., T.C. (Western Star); Thomas Carroll, T.C.; William Laghey, Merchant; Garrett Larkin Esq., Cruagh House. Also on the platform were several Protestant gentlemen of the town.
The carriage of Captain Bellew was in waiting and His Eminence, having been conducted to it by the Bishop of Clonfert and Mr. Bellew, took his seat with the Bishop of Clogher and Monsignor Talbot, amid incessant cheering. The carriage went at a slow pace in the direction of the town, proceeded by the multitude carrying flags and green boughs, and followed by a long line of carriages and vehicles of various descriptions. The windows of almost every house in the line of route were occupied by ladies, who waved handkerchiefs and banners as His Eminence passed. When the procession had reached about half way into the town, the horses were removed from the carriage in which His Eminence sat, and he was drawn in triumph through the streets. At various points large poles were elevated, from which floated banners and ribbons; and across the street in which Gill’s hotel is situated, garlands of green boughs were suspended, intertwined with flowers, from a central point of which hung a banner bearing the inscription “Welcome Cardinal Wiseman, to Ballinasloe.”
Opposition to Visit
The displeasure of the Irish Church Mission Society at the triumphant visit of the Cardinal, and the violent efforts of the parties composing it to do something to make an appearance, were manifested by various ludicrous circumstances. Walking through the town, the attention of a stranger was attracted by observing here and there on the walls large placards setting forth in imposing type that the society would give the sum of 40,000 to any person or persons who would prove the Catholic rule of faith, and specially inviting His Eminence to claim that sum by complying with this requirement of the society. Members of the society, well know for their controversial harangues in Townsend-Street (Dublin), came down specially. A letter signed by sixteen Protestant clergymen, challenging him to a public discussion, was forwarded to him.An incident which occurred on the arrival of His Eminence at the railway station is worthy of mention as indicating the dismay which the visit of His Eminence caused in the minds of a few, who are not at all sympathized with by the respectable Protestants of the place. As the Cardinal was proceeding from the train to the carriage which was in waiting for him, amidst the cheers of the crowd, there appeared at the window of a second class carriage a pale face, every feature of which was quivering with emotion. It was that of a person who judging from his general appearance was a clergyman of the Church of England, and who was understood to protest, in the most excited manner, “as a British subject, and a member of the church as by law established, against the introduction into this country of Popish ceremonies.” The gentleman continued to talk a great deal, and to shake his head very energetically, as if he felt what he said; but, fortunately for himself, nobody, save one or two who were pressed by the crowd against the carriage which he occupied, heard a word of his address. The multitude passed on, cheering as they went, and in a second, that very foolish gentleman was left alone … It is proper however, to state that the respectable Protestants of the neighbourhood altogether disclaimed any connection with such offensive proceedings.
The streets were crowded by the inhabitants, not only of the town but of the country around. Numbers of respectable persons came from distant places in order to attend the ceremony next day. The town was brilliantly illuminated, and although a few houses were in darkness, they were so few that the circumstance served to show, more strikingly, the universality of this tribute of respect to His Eminence. The majority of the windows were also decorated with flowers … Chinese lamps were hung out at favourable points in the open air, and thousands continued in the street through the town till near midnight. Several more prelates arrived, including the Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishop of Galway.
Consecration of the Church of St. Michael
The consecration of the Church of St. Michael, Ballinasloe, took place on Wednesday 25th August, 1858, and from the nature of the circumstances connected with it, was perhaps the most remarkable religious ceremonial in this country for over three hundred years. The Church, to the erection of which the faithful people of the district had contributed from their humble means during several years, is a graceful structure. Many bishops and hundreds of clergy came from various parts of the country to assist at the rite of consecration; the people gathered in thousands, and an illustrious member of the Sacred College – the first of that body who had been enabled to officiate in this country for centuries, made the occasion memorable by his presence. On the morning of the ceremony, from an early hour, the roads leading into Ballinasloe were thronged by carriages and by foot passengers. The streets were so crowded that it was with difficulty a man could make his way from one point to another. The shops were closed and all business was suspended. Special trains were run on the Midland Railway.The ceremony of consecration, which is not of frequent occurrence in Ireland, is lengthy and impressive. It was performed by the Bishop of Clonfert. The general congregation was not admitted until eleven o’clock. The arrangements were excellent, and were efficiently carried out by the gentlemen who acted as stewards at the different doors and throughout the interior. The bishops present were: The Archbishop of Tuam, the Bishop of Clonfert, the Bishop of Elphin, the Bishop of Ardagh, the Bishop of Clogher, the Bishop of Cloyne, the Bishop of Kilmacduagh, the Bishop of Ross, the Bishop of Galway, and the Coadjutor Bishop (elect) of Killaloe. There were nearly four hundred clergy present, including M. L’Abb Cruise of Paris, one of the Emperor’s (Napoleon III) chaplains (the Abbe was connected by birth with Ballinasloe).
There was a very large assemblage of the Catholic gentry of the county in the nave. Among those present were:- Lord Ffrench; Pierce Joyce, Esq., High Sheriff; Sir Thomas Burke, Bart M.P.;Sir Thomas N. Redington, K.C.B. and Lady Redington, Charles Farrell, J.P., Dalystown; James Smith, Esq., Masonbrook; Captain Thomas Bellew; Robert D’Arcy, J.P. Woodville; Oliver Dolphin, Jun., Tervoe; Edmund Donnellan, Esq., Hillswood; P. M. Lynch, Renmore Park; Captain Eyre; Edward Brown, Coloo; D., Bodkin, Esq., Annagh; The High Sheriff of the Town of Galway. J. Daly, Esq., Castledaly; Cornelius O’Kelly, Esq., Gallagh; James Blake, Esq., Ardfry; Ambrose O’ Kelly, Esq., Fairfield; Charles Bianconi, Esq.,Patrick O’ Kelly of Craron; John Blake, Esq., Cregg, Richard Kelly, Esq., J.P., Chairman of the Town Commissioners, Tuam; P. Blake, Esq., Bayview; John M. O’ Hara Esq., Sub-Sheriff; Matthew Ryan, Esq., Mullagh, Thomas Macklin, Esq., Loughrea; Garett Larkin, Esq., Coolanny; Major Cruise; Michael Mc Dermott, Rahamore; John Blake; Esq., Fertagh; John Blake Esq., J.P., Tintrim; J. O’ Kelly, Gurtray; Thomas Coen, Esq., Manchester; Geoffrey Prendergast, Esq., William Costelloe.
Ilaria’s Mass was sung by a choir of clergymen, “assisted by some accomplished amateur vocalists,” under the direction of C.B. Lyons, Esq., Secretary to the Archbishop of Dublin. The choir included the Rev. Geroge Harold, Dublin; Rev. Mr. Hampson, Lusk; Rev. Michael Mullaly of St. Mary, Star of the Sea; Rev. Mr. McManus, St. Nicholas of Myra, Francis-street; Rev. Mr. Daniel, St. Catherine’s, Meath-street; the Very Rev. Dr. Dunne, President of Carlow College; Rev. Dr. McManus of St. Laurence O’ Toole’s Seminary, Harcourt-street; and Rev. Mr. Beardwood.
A year after his visit to Ireland the Cardinal stated:
“It may be well, in order to remove prejudice, and correct some false impressions, to state why I went to Ireland. And the narrative will be very brief and very simple. In the course of last spring, I received a letter from a bishop in the West of Ireland, telling me that in a town in his diocese, in a town circumstanced as many others are in Ireland, with its whole property belonging to an adverse landlord, but where the population was almost to a man Catholic, a large and beautiful church had been raised, almost entirely by the unaided efforts of the people; that he thought this was an occasion when the appearance of a bishop from another country, and one circumstanced as I happen to be, would be encouraging to those poor people; that it would give them a feeling of additional satisfaction in the efforts which they had made; and that it would somewhat encourage them to bear up against the constant opposition which they met with in all their efforts to raise their heads a little above the level to which they had been depressed. I reflected and soon concluded that this was an occasion worthy of any one’s embracing, who loved to do good among the poor….”
-
January 18, 2006 at 3:21 pm #767702
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Kilskyre, Co. Meath, by JJ. McCarthy (1847-1854)
Eamonn Hedermann architect for recent “renovations and alterations to the existing church”. I am not sure what that means.
-
January 18, 2006 at 3:42 pm #767703
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary and St. Michael’s, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow, JJ. McCarthy (1856-1858)
-
January 18, 2006 at 3:51 pm #767704
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s, Thomastown, Co. Kilkenny, JJ. McCarthy (1860-1862)
-
January 18, 2006 at 7:21 pm #767705
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Patrick’s Church, Portlaw, Co. Waterford, JJ. McCarthy (1858-1860)
-
January 18, 2006 at 7:32 pm #767706
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of the Holy Cross, Tramore, Co. Waterford, by JJ. McCarthy (1856-1862)
The interior of the church was wrecked beyond recognition by Ray Carroll in 1970s
It seems as though it also lost its original doors in 1995.
-
January 18, 2006 at 7:46 pm #767707
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of Sts. Quan and Broghan, Clonea, Co. Waterford, by JJ. McCarthy (1860)
This is a highly decorted church but the spire was never built.
The windows are by the Harry Clarke studio.
By some miracle, it still seems to be intact.
-
January 18, 2006 at 8:03 pm #767708
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Church, Keadew, Co. Roscommon, by JJ. McCarthy (1860-1862)
-
January 18, 2006 at 8:42 pm #767709
fgordon
ParticipantMany thanks to Praxiteles for this veritable catalogue of McCarthy churches. 😉
It fell to a single generation to build virtually all the churches pictured here – during the unimaginatively named “devotional revolution” of the mid to late 19th century. After Catholic emancipation had made it legal and the growth of a Catholic middle class had made it possible, a whole slew of rather solid, sometimes rather fine, churches were planned and built, to make possible again regular worship in consecrated buildings.
By an unfortunate coincidence of timing and attrition, it also fell to one generation to “restore” and “repair” most of these fine churches. It is deeply regrettable that much of this major work of upkeep happened to become necessary in the years of confusion and iconoclasm that followed the second Vatican Council. The tragedy was not caused by the Council itself, of course, but by a deliberately erroneous and tendentious misrepresentation of the content of the documents of Vatican II by ideologue “experts” who sold their nonsense to a Catholic clergy and people accustomed to obey what came from Rome.
But of course, NONE of the so-called “requirement of the post Vatican II liturgy”, so often used to enforce the rigorously narrow vision of the apparatchiks of the liturgical establishment, came from Rome and certainly not from the Council. But this is a well known argument and it is beyond proof. Nonetheless, we are left with the wreckage.
St Saviours, Dublin is perhaps the proto-example of this whole tragic self-laceration – but more of that anon…delighted to see a pre-JCB image of this noble building in #486.
-
January 19, 2006 at 12:40 am #767710
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Michael the Archangle, Ballylongford, CO. Kerry, attributed to JJ. McCarthy (1865)
-
January 19, 2006 at 12:58 am #767711
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Senan’s church, Foynes, Co. Limerick, by JJ. McCarthy (1868)
St. Senan’s is another example of the unfettered vandalism visited on JJ. McCarthy’s oeuvre: in the 1970s a cheap concrete extension was added tot he south wall which was then demolished and the original church “converted” into a chancel. This piece of hooliganism must surely rank after the assault on Dingle parish church.
-
January 19, 2006 at 1:19 am #767712
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Franciscan Friary of the Most Holy Trinity, Killarney, Co. Kerry, att. JJ. McCarthy (or E.W. Pugin) 1864.
-
January 19, 2006 at 1:26 am #767713
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Vincent’s, Ballyferriter, JJ. McCarthy (c.1865).
-
January 19, 2006 at 2:09 am #767714
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Agatha’s Church, Glenflesk, Co. Kerry, JJ. McCarthy (1862)
Small Gothic Revival church built out of local stone, sited at the start of a mountain pass from Kerry to Cork. Tower never completed.
-
January 19, 2006 at 3:38 pm #767715
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Michael’s, Lixnaw, Co. Kerry, in the hiberno-romanesque style, by JJ. McCarthy (1861).
-
January 19, 2006 at 7:50 pm #767716
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Church, Ballingarry, Co. Limerick, by Jj. McCarthy (1872).
By a miracle of providence the church seems to have escaped the ravages of vandalism and looks mostly intact.
-
January 19, 2006 at 8:03 pm #767717
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Patrick’s, Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, by Jj. McCarthy (1870-1876), interior completed by CJ. McCarthy in 1889.
J J McCARTHY
[Extract from J J McCarthy and the Gothic Revival in Ireland, by Jeanne Sheehy, published by the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society in 1977.]St Patrick’s, Dungannon
The church was begun about 1870, and by 1871 was well under way. The contractor was Mr. Thomas Byrne of Belfast. The building was dedicated on Trinity Sunday 1876. The interior,
however, remained unfinished, and the High Altar, reredos, side altars, and painted decoration were added, to the design of C.J.McCarthy (who succeeded to his father’s practice) about1889. The church was designed to accommodate about 4,000 persons.St. Patrick’s is one of McCarthy’s ambitious town churches, not usually so successful as his smaller country ones. It has a nave with aisles, a chancel, eastern chapels, a sacristy at the south eastern corner, and a tower,whose base serves as a porch, in the north western corner.
The tower and spire are very tall, and dominate the building, which is fairly elaborate on the outside. The east end has two two-light windows, with a buttress between and a rose window above. There are buttresses clasping south corners of the east end, topped with pinnacles and crosses, and the sacristy, at the south-eastern corner, has a corner round tower with a conical cap. The west front, with a rose window set in a pointed frame, a canopied west doorway with a trumeau figure and carved tympanum, many buttresses, and the tall tower and spire, is no less elaborate.
Inside, the pointed nave arcade is carried on cylindrical pillars with carved capitals. The second capital on the south side represents earth, air, fire and water, and includes a monkey. There is an open timber roof, and no chancel arch.
The style is ‘French Gothic of the 13th century’ and the building material ‘the fine warm-coloured yellow sandstone of the district’ . This has been very roughly dressed for the outside walls, which, in combination with the quantity of ornament and carved detail, makes for a very fussy appearance.
Refs: RHA Catalogue 1870; Builder 4 March 1871, pp.166-67; Building News 23 June 1876, p.636; Irish Builder, 1 May 1889, p.115; UAHS Dungannon & Cookstown no.63, p.19.
-
January 19, 2006 at 8:19 pm #767718
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of St. Anne, Bohernabreena, Co. Dublin, JJ. McCarthy (1868-1870), foundation laid by Paul Cardinal Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin, and consecrated by his nephew Patrick Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney.
“The foundation stone of St Anne’s church was laid in 1868 by one of the most distinguished Irish churchmen of his time, his Eminence Cardinal Cullen who had been archbishop of Dublin prior to his appointment as the first of Ireland cardinals in 1866. To this day the people of Bohernabreena and surrounding districts have many reasons to be proud of this fine church which stands looking down on the peaceful valley. It was built in the thirteenth century, French gothic style. The exterior stone used in the building is granite which was cut and dressed on the Glassa mucky mountain between Cunard and Featherbed. All the work was carried out voluntarily by the parishioners. The stained glass window behind Our Lady’s Altar shows the Blessed Virgin on one side holding the Infant Jesus and on the opposite side stands St Joseph. The people of Bohernabreena remain very proud of their fine church which was built by their fathers and grandfathers.”
-
January 19, 2006 at 8:54 pm #767719
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Senan’s Church, Kilrush, Co. Clare, interior (in part) and spire by JJ. McCarthy
-
January 20, 2006 at 5:58 pm #767720
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of St. Mary and St. Laurence, Ballitore, Co. Kildare, by JJ. McCarthy (1860-1863), foundation stone laid by Paul Cardinal Cullen who was born in Ballitore.
-
January 22, 2006 at 12:48 am #767721
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Brigid’s, Kilcullen, Co. Kildare, by JJ. McCarthy (1869)
-
January 22, 2006 at 1:06 am #767722
Praxiteles
ParticipantPassionist Monastery, Mount Argus, Harold’s Cross, Dublin (1862), and adjoining Church of St Paul of the Cross (1874) by JJ. McCarthy, sculpture on church facade by James Pearse.
Interior 1924
-
January 22, 2006 at 9:34 pm #767723
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Assumption, Thurles, Co. Tipperary by JJ. McCarthy (1865-1872)
@Praxiteles wrote:
The Cathedral of the Assumption of Our Lady in Thurles, Co. Tipperary, boasts of being Ireland’s only 19th century cathedral to have been built in the neo-romanesque style. Building commenced in 1865 to plans by JJ McCarthy who relied very heavily on North Italian or Lombard prototypes, modelling the facade on that of the Cathedral in Pisa, and, succeeding to some extent in conveying the spacial sense of the Cathedral complex in Pisa with his free standing baptistery and tower. The Cathedral was consecrated by Archbishop Croke on 22 June 1879. Archbishop Croke replaced JJ McCarthy with George C. Ashlin as architect for the remaining works which included the decoration of the interior on which no expense was spared. The ceiling, designed by Ashlin, was executed by Earley and Powell. The same company are also responsible for the galss and some of the sculpture work, the more important elements of which were executed by Pietro Lazzarini, Benzoni and Joseph O’Reilly. Mayer of Munich also supplied glass as well as Wailes of Newcastle. The most important item, however, in the Cathedral is the Ciborium of the Altar by Giacomo della Porta (1537-1602). This had originally been commissioned for the Gesù in Rome in 1582 by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. The same Giacomo della Porta built the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica 1588/1590 and finished the lantern in 1603. The altar from the Gesù was acquired by Archbishop Leahy while in the City for the First Vatican Council in 1869/1870. Reordering work began here in 1979. The altar rails have given way in the face of a projection into the nave. Unbelievably, the High Altar has been dismantled and its mensa separated from the della Porta ciborium which is now relegated to an undescript plinth. The original stencilled work disappeared in 1973. As with Longford and the Pro Cathedral, the removal of the High Altar leaves the building without a focus, the present dimension and location of the Ciborium not being to the scale of the building. The temptation to hang banners in the apse has not been resisted.
It is difficult to ascertain the architect responsible for the current interior of Thurles Cathedral.
-
January 23, 2006 at 12:40 am #767724
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThe current interior of Thurles.:(
-
January 23, 2006 at 1:11 am #767725
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPaul Clerkin wrote:They were imported from Italy as far as I know, and are mostly irish saints and local bishops – the one at the far right is Donnelly, who finished the cathedral (or maybe McNally who commissioned it, cannot remember) – you can see that he is cradling a model of the cathedral. The arcade is quite high up on the elevation to the N2. END QUOTE]According to Peter Galloway in his ‘The Cathedrals of Ireland’ “The statues in the south transept gable respresents various Bishops of Clogher, with the exception of St. Dympna of Gheel. The gallery begins with St. Tiarnach, successor of St. Macartan and second Bishop of Clogher, and concludes with Bishop Donnelly”.
-
January 23, 2006 at 2:02 am #767726
johannas
ParticipantHurrah to those involved. Maybe with an oral hearing the truth about the reasons for this vandalism will be unearthed!!. And maybe other Churches will be spared the hammer and compressor!:) Good luck.
-
January 23, 2006 at 9:54 pm #767727
Michael J. OBrien
ParticipantSorry to be a spoil sport.
St Senan’s Church in Kilrush, Co. Clare is a true gem at the moment.
6 Harry clarke windows behind the altar. In the 1980s a Japanese Musuem apparently offered millions to purchase them.
Beautiful rose window in the rear wall.
Huge tower of which the base has been conferted into a beautiul chapel.
Original carved wood and marble behind the alter.
Mosaic, tiled and wooden floors
Beautiful patterned ceiling- this is one of the most impressive I have seen in an Irish ecclesiastical building.
Beautiful carved lecturn- one of the statues was missing when he arrived from Dublin (whent he church was build when?) and a local trademan matched it.
Beauiful original altar railings.
Beautiful modern cut stone porches. They were built in the 1970s or 1980s and they nearly bankrupt hte parish. Good to see the Canon at the time had an eye for architecture.Sadly I believe there is a ‘restoration/modernisation’ planned for the church which has commended and there is huge fundraising for it. The church is in need of considerable restoration but I hope they keep the altar and altar rails.
It is amazing that we have the potential to go backwards s still architecturally speaking in 2006.
http://www.kilrushparish.com/churchtour.htm
These photos are poor. The next time I am in Kilrush I will try to take some proper shots.
-
January 23, 2006 at 10:04 pm #767728
Praxiteles
ParticipantAh, Michael, go post haste. The grim reaper has struck and I am afraid that not much of Kilrush will be left before very long. Up to recently, there was a decision published by An Bord Planala which overturned their own inspector’s report which recommended not granting planning permission. I wonder how or why something as strange as that could come about…….. Iwill try to find the link and you can the thing for your self.
The Canon in Kilrush who had an eye to architecture was of the same generation as Canon Dan Murphy in Charleville who staved off the destruction of that gem until oivertaken by old age. This generation of clergy knew something – most of the present generation know NOTHING about ANYTHING.
I all in favour of bankrupting a parish to build a decent church. It is an expense that can spread over several generations. If the penny pinching attitude was widespread in the 19th. century nothing would have been done and the taigs would be still be in their proper places in the back alleys.
-
January 23, 2006 at 10:22 pm #767729
Michael J. OBrien
ParticipantCouldn’t agree more with you.
Where is the new Irish National Trust that is supposed to be protecting our architectural hertiage.
It always amazing me to think of the quality of architectural in Irish Churches built in the 1980s when there was no money and huge emigriation.
The Celtic Tiger is a blessing???……….
-
January 23, 2006 at 11:09 pm #767730
Praxiteles
ParticipantAh, Michael, place not thy trust in princes such as the Irish National Heritage to salvage the few remaining vestiges from the wreck of vandalism and hooliganism. Only the other day, I saw a report in the newspapers on a court case involving the M3 (I think) and Tara and could hardly believe my ears to ghear some whipper snapper of a barrister argue that the State had not duty towards the heritage of the country. What then of all the vesting that went on to put national monuments under the Board of Works? Or was that, perghaps, just an explanation?
-
January 24, 2006 at 10:07 am #767731
Anonymous
InactiveLovers of St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh will definitely be interested in the practically contemporaneous Church of All Saints in Barton-upon-Irwell in the diocese of Salford (England). E.W. Pugin began the church in 1865 at the behest of Sir Humphrey de Trafford of Trafford Park. All Saints was consecrated in 1868 by the Right Reverend William Turner, first bishop of Salford, when work began in Cobh. Like Cobh, the style is French Gothic (note the strong similarity). Once again, we may detect the influence of the French revival movement of Lassus and Didron.
The Church was restored under the auspices of English heritage about 20 years ago.
Here is a link, with photos and some information:http://www.manchestercivic.org.uk/forum/37/F37_15.pdf
Here are other external photos.
-
January 24, 2006 at 3:13 pm #767732
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterPrax – re the interior of St Josephs, Carrickmacross. seems it has already been done. In conversation with my Dad who has been it, he told me that there is “a piece of garden trellis behind the altar”…
-
January 25, 2006 at 2:36 am #767733
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantJ. J. McCarthy was involved with six of Ireland’s Catholic Cathedrals; St. Patrick’s, Armagh; St. Peter and St. Paul’s, Ennis; St. Aidan’s, Enniscorthy; Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Killarney; St. Macartan’s, Monaghan; and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Thurles.
He was the principal designer for Thurles and Monaghan, in Killarney and Enniscorthy he took over from A.W.N. Pugin, in Armagh he followed Thomas Duff, and in Ennis Dominic Madden and Maurice Fitzgerald.
-
January 25, 2006 at 10:11 am #767734
Anonymous
InactiveRe Carrickmacross: P. Clerkin’s report (#519) suggests that the church there has falled victim to the Japanese restaurant formula, already used to such effect in the North Cathedral, Cork. What a pity!:(
-
January 25, 2006 at 12:39 pm #767735
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantGianlorenzo wrote:J. J. McCarthy was involved with six of Ireland’s Catholic Cathedrals]
😮
Change above to seven cathedrals. I forgot St. Eugene’s in Derry. McCarthy was the principal architect assisted by Charles Whelan. -
January 26, 2006 at 1:52 am #767736
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantArchitects directly involved in designing the Catholic Cathedrals of Ireland :-
J.J. McCarthy (7); George Ashlin (4); W.H. Byrne (3) Dominic Madden (3); Thomas Duff (2); A.W.N Pugin (2); George Goldie (2); Marcus Murray (2); William Hague (2); E.W. Pugin (1); Hadfield (1);William Butler (1) Sir John Benson (1); Fr. Jeremiah McAuley (1); John O’Neill(1); Thomas Cobden (1); Maurice Fitzgerald (1); John J. Robinson (1); T.F. McNamara (1); Philip Hardwick (1); Maurice Hennessy (1); Joseph B. Kearne (1); John Burke (1); Ralph Byrne (1); William Murray (1); John Roberts (1); Charles Whelan (1)
-
January 27, 2006 at 12:59 am #767737
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantCatholic Cathedrals (years under construction) Architects
St. Patrick’s Armagh (1840-73) Thomas Duff; J.J. McCarthy
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Nathy, Ballaghaderreen (1855-60) Hadfield & Goldie, (later work W.H. Byrne)
St. Muredach, Ballina (1827-92) Dominic Madden; Marcus Murray: Sir JohnBenson
St. Peter’s, Belfast (1828-66) Fr. Jeremiah McAuley; John O’Neill
Assumption of Blessed Virgin Mary , Carlow (1828-33) (Joseph Lynch) Thomas Cobden
St. Patrick and St. Felim, Cavan (1939-42) William H. Byrne
St. Colman’s, Cobh (1868-1915) E.W. Pugin and George Ashlin
St. Mary and St. Anne’s, Cork(1799-1869) ? Francis Johnson; ?Sir Richard Morrison: ? Fr. Matt Hogan.
St. Eugene’s, Derry (1851-1873) J.J. McCarthy and Charles Whelan
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Dublin (1815-25) ? John Sweetman; ? Louis H. LeBas
St. Peter and St. Paul, Ennis (1828-43) Dominic Madden; Maurice Fitzgerald; J. J. McCarthy.
St. Aidan’s, Enniscorthy (1843-60) A.W.N. Pugin; J.J. McCarthy
Our Lady Assumed into Heaven and St. Nicholas, Galway (1957-64) John J. Robinson
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Kilkenny (1843-57) William Butler
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Killarney (1842-55) A.W.N. Pugin (1842-52); J.J. McCarthy (1853-
1855); Ashlin & Colman (1907-12)
St. Eunan & St. Columba, Letterkenny (1891-1901) William Hague and T.F. McNamara
St. John the Baptist, Limerick (1856-61) Philip C. Hardwick; Maurice Hennessy
St. Mel’s, Longford (1840- ) Joseph B. Kearne; John Burke; George Ashlin
St. Brendan’s Loughrea (1897-1902) William Byrne
St. Macartan’s, Monaghan (1861-92) J.J. McCarthy; William Hague
Christ the King, Mullingar (1933-36) Ralph Byrne
St. Patrick & St. Colman, Newry (1825-29) Thomas Duff; George Ashlin
St. Patrick’s, Skibbereen (1820’s) unknown
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sligo (1869-74) George Goldie
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Thurles (1865-72) J.J. McCarthy
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Tuam (1827-37) Dominic Madden; Marcus Murray; William Murray
Holy Trinity, Waterford (1793-6) John Roberts (1714-96) -
January 27, 2006 at 3:07 pm #767738
ake
Participant1.Just for clarity could someone explain what exactly reordering is: What the effects are on the cathedral and why people want to do it? As an aside – are georgian mansions the only protected buildings in ireland? Are churches not considered heritage to be protected from the whims of the vatican?
2.In a somewhat related vein- is anyone else here bothered by the presence of a gift shop actually in the nave of st.Patick’s Dublin? Is this not a disgrace? I am disgusted by the commercialization of churches when done in such an obtrusive way -anyone who’s touristed london for example will know, both st. paul’s and WA are more akin to theme-parks….
3.Why can’t Ireland have something like Westminster (RC) Cathedral or the Brompton Oratory if we have nominally almost as many Caths. as Britain?
-
January 27, 2006 at 10:05 pm #767739
Gianlorenzo
Participant@ake wrote:
1.Just for clarity could someone explain what exactly reordering is: What the effects are on the cathedral and why people want to do it? As an aside – are georgian mansions the only protected buildings in ireland? Are churches not considered heritage to be protected from the whims of the vatican?
To Ake
1. Re-ordering is a term used by church authorities as a misnomer in an attempt to persuade parishioners that what they intend to do the sanctuaries of their churches is a simple moving about of furniture, when in fact it usually entails the removal of much loved features such as high altars, altar rails, statuary, pulpits, sediliae etc. and the insertion of modern and inappropriate furnishings. [This is a very simplistic answer and I know when Praxitele comes on he will give you a fuller explanation.]
The real tragedy here is that these changes are carried out in the name of ‘liturgical requirement’ from Vatican II, which is quite simply a LIE. These things are not required liturgically, or otherwise, and are usually the personal preferences of the local clerics. It has almost become ‘keeping up with the Joneses’.
I think you would find that, if asked, the vast majority of parishioners involved would say no to these changes, but the whole process is carefully orchastrated so that their opinion is neither invited nor welcome. Therefore the effects on these people is devastation and they would argue that what has occurred is not re-ordering, but destruction, thus the title of this thread. An example of this was seen in Cobh, where when asked c.97% of the adult population opposed the porposed changes, thus the current appeal to APB and oral hearing.
he effect of this in Ireland has been the loss of some priceless works of art and in many cathedrals and churches the skewing of the orientation and raison d’etre of the building.Your question regarding the heritage aspect is good. One would have thought ,in this day and age, that our public bodies would not feel the necessity of kowtowing to some members of the clergy, particularly against the wishes of the people, but sadly it appears that in some quarters they are happy to allow the destruction of our ecclesiastical architectural heritage. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that the media are almost completely silent on this issue. Another is that in most cases people have been faced with a fait accompli and feel helpless to do anything about it. This would change if the great lie of ‘liturgical requirement’ were exposed.
In the end it comes down to “who cares?” Not enough people of influence, is the answer.One final note on this part of your question, the whim involved here has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vatican, the whim is very much an Irish infection, albeit imported from America and parts of the UK.
-
January 29, 2006 at 2:04 pm #767740
johannas
ParticipantAke, oh yes there are many bothered about the commercialization of our Churches. But like everything else, what can one do. Have you seen the Augustinian Church in Limerick City, Ireland. One wonders where it is all going. I suppose they are trying to compete with Sunday Shopping!!!! 😎
-
January 29, 2006 at 11:13 pm #767741
Gianlorenzo
Participant@ake wrote:
3.Why can’t Ireland have something like Westminster (RC) Cathedral or the Brompton Oratory if we have nominally almost as many Caths. as Britain?
I have no answer to this question, but given the wholesale destruction of much of our eccliesiatical architectural heritage, may it is just as well. Can you image what would happen if some of our more notorious re-orderers were let loose in something like the Brompton Oratory.:eek:
-
January 30, 2006 at 3:27 pm #767742
Praxiteles
ParticipantWe should be grateful to the late Bishop Cornelius Lucy whose wisdom and culture assured the survival of St. Peter and Paul’s in Cork, though I notice that in recent times the altar rails, while surviving, are not in their original positions. This is a detail that can be attended to at a later date. Concerning the spire, I would have to note that there is presently in Cork (both ecclesiastical and civil) a very deep lack of imagination – something painfully evident during the so called “culture” jamboree that went on there during most of last year. The best that could be produced were “fireworks” (though credit must be given for the silver exhibition and the James Barry exhibition, probably the only items of cultural importance from Cork2005). Surely, THE millennium project for Cork city should have been the completion of the spire of St, Peter and Paul’s? Technically this is more than possible and, if anything of the civic and philantropic (not to mention religious) spirit still prevails in the city of Cork, funding should have been readily available from the ever expanding tribe of Cork’s merchant princes. Our colonial counterparts, far away as they may be, do not seem to lack the guts and know-how to face major projects such as putting the spires on St. Peter and Paul’s. Sydney finally got around to completing St. Mary’s Cathedral by putting the spires on the towers of their cathedral – a project that had the full support of the city authorities and the governmaent of New South Wales. We could learn a good deal from this example. What will be left in Cork in two hundred years to commemorate the millennium?
-
January 31, 2006 at 12:56 pm #767743
Anonymous
InactiveTalking of spires (previous posting by Praxiteles), here is an interesting photo of the construction of the soaring spire of Cobh Cathedral.
-
January 31, 2006 at 2:08 pm #767744
Anonymous
InactiveEven before St Colman’s Cathedral was built, Cobh was a very desirable and salubrious place to live, as the Dublin Penny Journal of 1832 makes clear:
Cove certainly is a delightful sea shore residence. The town is situated on the steep side of the hill, with a southern exposure; beneath it, and around it extends the noble landlocked harbour, surrounded by fine demesnes; it is clean, from the steepness of the hill on which it is built: and dry, from its southern exposure. It is deservedly considered a place favorable to invalids; and we believe no situation in Ireland enjoys so mild and genial a climate; perhaps the air may be rather moist for some constitutions; but if that is found to be no objection, let those in search of a milder climate, try Cove; in the spring of the year more especially it is not subjected to those keen withering easterly winds, that are so detrimental to weakly frames, and under which many still suffer who seek for health in the south of France, and the shores of the Mediterranean. Let any one read Starke’s Travels in France and Italy, and they will find that Montpelier, Nice, Genoa, and Naples, all suffer under distressing winds in the spring season-that the Vent de Bize, or the Sirocco winds, blowing from the parched shores of Africa, are intolerable to any delicate constitution, and many only proceed to those boasted southern shores to live with less comfort, and die the sooner-far from friends, and all those accommodations, and associations that smooth the pillow, and alleviate the sufferings of the invalid. We have seen a residence in Cove restore many to health; and even to those who need no physician, Cove, for a great part of the year, must be a delightful residence. Not only the beauty of the surrounding country-the lively society afforded by the shipping in the harbour-the ready and rapid communication with the city of Cork; the cheapness of all sorts of provisions, and the abundant supply of the best fish, render it a very attractive place of resort; and we only regret that certain circumstances have, for the present, diminished its importance.
The full text is to be found at the following link:
http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/covecork/index.php
http://www.libraryireland.com is an excellent resource for internet access to many out of print books of Irish interest, including Lewis’ Topographical Dictionary of 1837. Do visit!
-
January 31, 2006 at 3:28 pm #767745
anto
ParticipantCobh certainly is an attractive place but it seems to have an image problem when you talk to Cork people. They will tell you it’s rough, has lots of unmarried mothers etc. I think it suffers from it’s past as a Navy/Dockers/British Garrison town. It doesn’t attract the middle classes like Kinsale for example.
I don’t mean to slag off Cobh, I’ve always enjoyed it and there is some great architecture in the town (spoiled somewhat by the PVC windows plague) but it does have image problems.
-
January 31, 2006 at 3:49 pm #767746
MacLeinin
ParticipantAnto, you are right, Cobh does have an image problem. The middles classes are well represented in Cobh, but they are vitually invisible, in that they socialise and shop outside of Cobh. This problem has been compounded in recent years by a huge influx of people to the new vast housing estates, many of whom have never driven into the town of Cobh.
It is becoming a dormitory town, without the comercial benefits. West Beach the main street in Cobh is becoming a wilderness, not helped by the recent introduction of parking charges, which has driven even more people to shop in Midleton and the new shopping centres in Mahon Point and Blackpool. The longer this goes on the less attractive is Cobh to potential retailers and as one shop after the next closes the relative attractiveness of Cobh decreases.
I have to say that the natives have much to answer for in this regard. They do not support their town and when some brave individual starts a business in the town they are not supported and very soon, they too leave.
Cobh suffers from all the present day social ill, ie gangs of unemployed youths and unmarried mothers, but these problems are actually no worse than in neighbouring towns, but the reputation is there and that is hard to crack. There are no amenities in Cobh, no cinema, theatre, leisure centre, no open green areas for kids to play in. It has taken about 15-20 years for the derelick swimming pool to be earmarked for renovation – that is happening now, but it remains to be seen how this is run.
Thats enough I think. Cobh is still a beautiful place and there are many people trying to improve and preserve what we have, ie the whole Cobh Cathedral saga. -
January 31, 2006 at 7:16 pm #767747
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnto forgets that Kinsale came up in the world as a result of Cobh’s decline. With the heavy industrialization of the lower harbour (most of which is now redundant) in one of the Irish Government’s soviet style five plans, Cobh lost a good deal of its idyllic charm which in turn brought about the abandonment of many of the beautiful 19 century villas along the harbour. The shift to Kinsale was of course topped off by the transferring of the Royal Cork Yacht Club out of Cobh. Clearly, the present bishop in Cobh with his sorry saga in Cobh Cathedral is busily setting about decimating the Catholic Church in the town. As for roughs, unmarried mothers, femmes de joie ou de plaisir etx., well I should say that grottier Cork has its own fair share…. I think I once read something about taking specks out of eyes….. And as for Limerick, well……
-
January 31, 2006 at 8:28 pm #767748
MT
ParticipantWhat’s happening to these church interiors is in many ways a microcosm of all that has gone wrong in development and planning in Ireland in recent years. Heritage is being destroyed, the countryside is being pockmarked with one off houses and ribbon development contiues to dribble out of many towns. A once beautiful place is being seriously disfigured. 🙁
Does all this not suggest that Ireland needs an equivalent to the powerful and influencial English Heritage to preserve what’s left of the island’s historic urban and rural settings and the architectural heritage found within them?
Can you imagine how far the Dean of St Paul’s in London would get if he proposed a similar type of reordering for that city’s famous centre-piece: he’d be run out of the country!
-
February 1, 2006 at 12:07 am #767749
Gianlorenzo
Participant@MT wrote:
What’s happening to these church interiors is in many ways a microcosm of all that has gone wrong in development and planning in Ireland in recent years. Heritage is being destroyed, the countryside is being pockmarked with one off houses and ribbon development contiues to dribble out of many towns. A once beautiful place is being seriously disfigured. 🙁
Does all this not suggest that Ireland needs an equivalent to the powerful and influencial English Heritage to preserve what’s left of the island’s historic urban and rural settings and the architectural heritage found within them?
Can you imagine how far the Dean of St Paul’s in London would get if he proposed a similar type of reordering for that city’s famous centre-piece: he’d be run out of the country!
Funny, I thought we had a ‘Heritage Council’!!:rolleyes:
Anyone up for running Bishop Magee out of the country, at least until they can secure the Cathedral from his disastrous re-ordering proposals.
But in reality no catholic church in Ireland is safe until something is done about that weasely Chapter 5 of the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities which deals with Places of Public Worship. Whoever wrote it managed to get into an important piece of planning legislation, justification for the wanton unnecessary vandalism we have seen on this tread.
The solution may lie in running the so called ‘litugists’ ,who are responsible for the philosophy behind this, out of the country.:D
-
February 2, 2006 at 4:32 pm #767750
johannas
ParticipantSangallo, Will Cobh Cathedral remain in tact!!! A million dollar question? And a couple of million dollar job in the making if the Bishop has his way. Imagine a church which still uses the high altar.!! I thought this was liturigically incorrect!!!!!! according to the Bishops in ireland anyway!
:rolleyes: -
February 2, 2006 at 10:08 pm #767751
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantI see from the FOSCC site that they have been granted an oral hearing of their appeal to An Bord Pleanala re the reordering of St. Colman’s Cathedral. They are also looking for art historian and experts in ecclesiastical and 19th century architecture. Are there any about? 😎 It is coming down to the wire!!!!
-
February 3, 2006 at 2:41 pm #767752
Praxiteles
ParticipantWord has it on the grapevine that the Heritage Council, when asked to make a submission to an Bord Pleanala about Cobh Cathedral, commissioned words from one RICHARD HURLEY. We have already seen his boring and repetative work earlier in this thread and can appreciate the architectural school out of which he works. While we can only guess at this stage what he had to say about Cathal O,Neill’s proposals for St. Colman’s, I will hazard a guess that Richard will not find much amiss about them. The French would give this as a good example of how to menager les choux avec le chevre!!!!!!
-
February 3, 2006 at 6:14 pm #767753
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Word has it on the grapevine that the Heritage Council, when asked to make a submission to an Bord Pleanala about Cobh Cathedral, commissioned words from one RICHARD HURLEY. We have already seen his boring and repetative work earlier in this thread and can appreciate the architectural school out of which he works. While we can only guess at this stage what he had to say about Cathal O,Neill’s proposals for St. Colman’s, I will hazard a guess that Richard will not find much amiss about them. The French would give this as a good example of how to menager les choux avec le chevre!!!!!!
Praxiteles, I think you mean the Arts Council !!
-
February 3, 2006 at 7:48 pm #767754
Anonymous
InactiveCan anyone confirm whether the fox has been consulted about security measures for the henhouse? 😀
-
February 3, 2006 at 9:04 pm #767755
Praxiteles
ParticipantIndeed, quite foxy!!!
-
February 4, 2006 at 1:22 pm #767756
Anonymous
InactiveI have put up a posting on the beautiful SS Augustine and John Church (better known as John’s Lane Church) in Dublin on the E.W. Pugin thread.
Its interior bears a striking resemblance to Cobh Cathedral – there is some loving mosaic work on the sanctuary floor, but I don’t have a good picture. Perhaps someone could oblige.
Using a Google image search, I did come across this one of the sanctuary in John’s Lane, which gives some idea. To my mind the central mosaic is very like Cobh’s. -
February 5, 2006 at 8:56 pm #767757
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantNice piece today in the Sunday Business Post.
Vatican refuses to intervene in Cobh Cathedral Argument
By Kieron WoodThe Vatican has refused to intervene in the row over proposals to remodel St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh.
Bishop John Magee of Cloyne travelled to Rome two weeks ago to enlist the aid of the curia in pushing through controversial proposals to “reorder” the sanctuary of the Pugin cathedral which dominates Cobh harbour.
Bur Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Nigerian prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, told Magee that it was up to the bishop to persuade local people of the merits of his proposal.
In 1998, Magee told a public meeting that no changes would be made without the consent of parishioners. Although more that 24,000 people signed a petition opposing the suggested changes, the bishop lodged a planning application last July.
At the time, Magee said that the proposed changes had been “submitted by me to the relevant congregation in Rome and received its approval”. But protesters argued that the changes were not mandated by Church law or by the Vatican. Magee travelled to Rome on January 24 with Monsignors Denis Reidy and James O’Donnell. At the bishop’s request, the three met Arinze and three officials of his congregation.
The diocese said the liturgical ordering of churches was the responsibility of the diocesan bishop, so approval by the Vatican was not necessary.
Cobh Town Council granted permission for the changes last September, despite more than 200 objections from individuals and groups. An appeal was lodged in October. An Bord Pleanala was due to announce its decision on February 13, but has now agreed to an oral hearing, which will be held on February 28.
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=11588-qqqx=1.asp
-
February 5, 2006 at 9:27 pm #767758
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, it looks as though Magee is changing his story. Last summer, he told us the Vatican had approved his plans to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral and left him with little choice but to do the job. Now, he tells us that no approval is needed – I suppose we have to take that to mean that no approval was ever given. This is beginning to sound a bit like Lewis Carroll’s famous WORDS MEAN WHAT I WANT THEM TO MEAN. If I am not mistaken, I think those famous words were spoken by Humpty Dumpty – and we all know what happened to him!!!!!
-
February 5, 2006 at 10:35 pm #767759
Boyler
ParticipantIt would seem like Bishop Magee wants to be remembered for, literally, destroying the Cathedral not improving it. Does he not realise that people of Cobh don’t want their cathdral ‘reordered’?
-
February 6, 2006 at 12:06 am #767760
MacLeinin
ParticipantBoyler –
It would seem like Bishop Magee wants to be remembered for, literally, destroying the Cathedral not improving it. Does he not realise that people of Cobh don’t want their cathdral ‘reordered’?
24,000 sign petition opposing the changes; 720 people sign 213 objections to the planning application but according to the church authorities in Cobh there are only a handful of ‘fanatics’ fighting them. They have convinced themselves that the people will come around eventually and they plan to achieve this goal by not ever discussing the proposals with the people.They have presented the people with a fair accompli, and call it “consultation”.:mad:
They are delusional as well as being iconoclastic wreckers. Unfortunately they seem to have convinced their planning consultants and architect that really deep deep deep deep down the people like this lunatic plan. Just who are they fooling? :rolleyes: -
February 6, 2006 at 9:28 pm #767761
Praxiteles
ParticipantCathal O’Neill, it seems, thinks that its is more than sufficient “consultation” to travel around the county towns of Cork telling the hoi polloi what he intends to do AFTER he had submitted his plans for approval. Clearly, no improvments were ever to be envisaged.
-
February 7, 2006 at 12:38 pm #767762
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantIt appears that Prof. O’Neill can disregard the level of opposition to the proposed reordering on the grounds that the survey and signature campaign, which resulted in the 24,127 people stating their opposition, was undertaken before he produced the present plans. This is despite the fact that the basic plan is the same, ie extending the sanctuary into the nave; remove altar rails; digging up mosaics; introducing new furnishing into the Cathedral; in fact his plans are even more radical than those first shown which produced such decisive and angry opposition from the people of Cobh and Cloyne Diocese
-
February 7, 2006 at 10:25 pm #767763
Gianlorenzo
Participant🙁 Is there no end to the woes of A.W.N. Pugin’s formerly magnificent Killarney Cathedral. A fire on Sunday night has completely burnt the chalk altar in the Blessed Sacrament chapel. The altar, in the eastern transept was on the only sections of the cathedral left untouched by the disastrous “renovations” , carried out by Bishop Eammon Casey in the early 1970’s.
-
February 7, 2006 at 10:31 pm #767764
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantKillarney in its former glory as envisioned by A.W.N.
-
February 8, 2006 at 1:35 pm #767765
Anonymous
InactiveLovers of St Colman’s Cathedral, Queenstown, will be interested in the description given of it in an 1869 number of the Irish Builder.
NEW ROMAN CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL,
QUEENSTOWN.
IN our number for October 15th, 1868, we gave an account of the laying of the first stone of this important church. We find the following particulars in a circular issued by the bishop of the diocese, from which it will be seen that the contract for the erection of the cathedral has been given to Mr. Michael Meade, Great
Brunswick-street. It appears that steps were taken to collect funds as far back as ten years ago, and up to September last the sum of -
February 8, 2006 at 8:09 pm #767766
Anonymous
InactiveHere is an account of the competition for the building of ST Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, from the pages of the Irish Builder.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE
CLOYNE CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL
COMPETITION.
THE very unusual line of conduct adopted by two of the competing architects for Cloyne Cathedral, and the peculiar nature of the conditions drawn up by them for the signature of the third, may, perhaps, deserve a few words of comment. We cannot but think that they would have consulted better for their own professional dignity by ascertaining in the first instance the views of the third competitor as to an alteration of the conditions. Leaving aside this view of the question, we think some of their proposed conditions are peculiarly unfeasible. The wish to bind the successful competitor and the committee so that no alteration could possibly be made in the drawings: this we think is very objectionable, because it invariably arises, in an important work like the one under consideration, that as it progresses many modifications or substitutions of minor things may be very conducive to the value of the building, without increasing in any appreciable degree the expenditure. If the conditions as proposed by Messrs. McCarthy and Goldie had been adopted by the committee, no alteration, even if it was to reduce the expense, could have been practicable without necessitating a violation of them. Condition No. 2 as proposed by them would not, we think, be a very acceptable one to architects of large practice, as it would involve a considerable amount of extra labour in making duplicates of all submitted drawings, specifications, &c., because the drawings “are not to be returned to the architects on any pretext whatever until the expiration of the time named” (twelve months), and the selected architect should of course have copies of all his drawings in order to prepare ” all supplemental drawings and specifications that may be necessary,” &c. Few builders capable of undertaking such a work would care to go to the trouble of preparing tenders on the terms proposed in condition No. 6, and surveyor’s fees on a work of such magnitude would add not a little to the total cost. For the present we shall dismiss the subject with these remarks, as our readers will easily see from the correspondence (which we print on another page) whether Messrs. McCarthy and Goldie were right in proposing, or Messrs. Pugin and Ashlin in refusing, the conditions.
[Taken from Irish Builder, Vol. IX, 1867, p.284]For more on the controversy surrounding the competition for Cobh Cathedral, see the following link;
-
February 8, 2006 at 8:21 pm #767767
Anonymous
InactiveProgess on Queenstown Cathedral is reported in an 1878 number of the Irish Builder, in an article entitled “Doings in Queenstown”.
See this link: http://www.askaboutireland.ie/asset?id=7776
-
February 8, 2006 at 8:24 pm #767768
Anonymous
InactiveWhile Ashlin was busy in Queenstown, he also found time to plan Buttevant convent in North Cork.
ST. MARY’S CONVENT OF MERCY, BUTTEVANT. THIS building, which was formally opened on Sunday, 9th inst., occupies a fine site on the western bank of the Aubeg, and within a stone’s throw of the ivy-clad ruins of Buttevant Abbey. The style is Domestic Gothic, and the building, with its pointed gables and massive chimneys, has a very pleasing effect. The material used is local limestone, with Youghal bricks in jambs, arches, and chimneys, cut-stone sills, &c. The internal exposed woodwork is of red pine stained and varnished, and all exterior walls are battened. There is every accommodation for a community of 18 nuns, and a pension school to accommodate 100 pupils. The drainage, water supply, and ventilation, have been carefully attended
to, and are giving entire satisfaction. Mr. G. C. Ashlin was the (architect, and Mr. P. F. Monahan clerk of works. The cost was about £3,000.
[Taken from Irish Builder, Vol. XXI, 1879, p.52] -
February 8, 2006 at 10:01 pm #767769
Praxiteles
ParticipantWhat a surprise to find this out about Buttevant Convent of Mercy at this point. The wreckage arrived here just last year. Right throughout the Spring the interior was gutted of practically every single one of its original fittings and fixtures. Fire regulations were cited as necessitating the rmoval of all the pine door and their substitution with pathetic little plywood things. Where was the heritage officer for Co. Cork while this went on?
-
February 9, 2006 at 12:44 am #767770
Praxiteles
ParticipantI thought that I had come across the worst in the horror gallery. Then I discovered the Chapel of the Sisters of Mercy in Cappaquin, Co. Waterford. One Fergus Costello is responsible. Just take one look at it.
-
February 9, 2006 at 12:47 am #767771
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is also by Fergus Costello. It is supposed to be the parish church in Ring, Co. Waterford. Words fail me. It looks like something up the Limpopo….
-
February 9, 2006 at 12:49 am #767772
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis used to be the chapel in St. Patrick’s College, Thurles. To-day, there are no clerics to occupy it.
-
February 9, 2006 at 1:29 am #767773
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This used to be the chapel in St. Patrick’s College, Thurles. To-day, there are no clerics to occupy it.
Are you surprised???
-
February 9, 2006 at 2:21 am #767774
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Mogeely, Co. Cork.
Situated off the main Cork/Youghal road, near Castlemartyr, this small gem owes its survival to the redoubtable Canon William Egan who resisted all attempts on it during his long pastorate. Hopefully, it will survive.
-
February 9, 2006 at 11:06 am #767775
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantDoes anyone know the architect for Mogeely? Or recognise the style, maybe?
It is gorgeous. 🙂
-
February 9, 2006 at 12:52 pm #767776
Anonymous
InactiveI don’t know about the architect for Mogeely – it is certainly a very fine church. It looks late 19th c., coinciding with the transition from churches built in a Gothic style to ones which follow the canons of Romanesque architecture, with its rounded arches etc. Great to see it has survived intact!
-
February 9, 2006 at 12:55 pm #767777
Anonymous
InactiveFor more of Fergus Costello’s work, follow the link http://www.ferguscostello.com/
With all that bog-oak, one is inclined to think that he must have druidic sacrifices in mind – or something pre-druidic.
Indeed, he tells us himself that “In many ways the artist sought to move away from the traditional Religious images, and look at the same Christian concepts in a new light.”
One wonders what ideas lie behind that statement. In any case, the approach to Christian iconography has little to do with Didron’s “Iconographie chr
-
February 9, 2006 at 10:54 pm #767778
Praxiteles
ParticipantMy God!
Santa’s Christmas Cave!
-
February 9, 2006 at 11:26 pm #767779
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Sacred Heart Chapel in Cobh Cathedral
The magnificent mosaic floor, by Ludwig Oppenheimer, depicts the triumph of the Cross of the Lamb over death and evil represented by the asp, basilick, the lion and the dragon.
The inscription on the central roundel is taken from Paslm 90 verse 13: super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis et conculcabis leonem et draconem.
This is an example of the kind of work about to be destroyed by Cathal O’Neill’s proposals for the so called re-ordering of the Cathedral.
-
February 9, 2006 at 11:55 pm #767780
Boyler
ParticipantHe wants to get rid of that!? It’s beautiful!!
-
February 10, 2006 at 12:01 am #767781
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs with the iconography for the tympanum of the West Portal at Cobh, some considerable historical digging is necessary to arrive at the iconographic sources for the floor of the Sacred Heart Chapel in Cobh Cathedral. The more immediate ones are certainly A.N. Didron and his Iconographie Chr
-
February 10, 2006 at 12:30 am #767782
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is the mosaic of the Chancel in Cobh Cathedral. The area is some 50×50 feet. The entire floor is sémi with shamorcks. The central roundel contains the sacred monogram IHS (standing for the Holy Name of Jesus), this is surrounded by a crown of throns, represening his Passion. All is at the centre of a Greek Cross, the ends of which contain medallions representing the Four Evangelists. The spaces between them occupied by crowns representings Christ’s triumph over death. The entire central roundel is surrounded by Passion Flower – with its obvious reference to Christ’s Passion and death – with their gynacia depicting the three nails.
The plan is to lift this entire piece. We are told that this is technically possible – though I have seen no guarantees that it can be done without loosing or damaging part of the mosaic. The mosaic is then to cut up into little pieces. The vestiges of the central roundal will be set into a new, and differently shaped floor, several feet lower than the present floor. The “unused” bits are to be stored or “displayed” in the typical bar, grill and art gallery style.
-
February 10, 2006 at 1:27 am #767783
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantWhen one thinks of the time and craftsmanship involved in the above mosaic, it is beyond comprehension that, on a whim, it might be destroyed forever.
Can Ireland afford such waste? -
February 10, 2006 at 2:14 am #767784
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Lady Chapel in Cobh Cathedral is located to the north of the Chancel and measures 15x30feet. Again the the floor is by Ludwig Oppenheimer. Unfortunately, I cannot supply a panorama of this truly magnificent floor because it now cluttered with surplus benches that are vagrant since the so called antiphonal style of arranging seating was introduced to the transcepts. This is another example of the how idiotic the planning laws are being applied and supervised by the heritage officer of Co. Cork. The benches cannot be removed from the building so they have to be put somewhere. In this case, they have been dumped into the Lady Chapel and occupy a space never intended to have seating. The sum effect of this, apart from the visual problem, is that the bences will inevitaly (and have) cracked and damaged the fine mosaci on the floor which is totally obscured by them.
The iconography of the floor has a marian theme, connected to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which dogma was defined in 1854 – some 40 years before the floor was installed. It it richly sémi with marian motives and contains five roundels: one large central superimposed on a Cross, and four smaller roundels depicting marian themes also inset on floral crosses.
-
February 10, 2006 at 2:58 am #767785
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo complete what I had to say about the Physiologus, I now include a short article from the Catholic Encyclopaedia about Bestiaria and their importance for any understanding of depictions of animals and their symbolic and religious meaning in Western art since the middle ages.
Bestiaries
Medieval books on animals, in which the real or fabulous characteristics of actually existent or imaginary animals (such as the griffin, dragon, siren, unicorn, etc.) were figuratively treated as religious symbols of Christ, the devil, the virtues and vices. The origins of a symbolism of this character, taken from nature, are to be sought in antiquity and above all in the ancient East. Eastern literature, as well as the Greco-Roman literature dependent on it, ascribed to certain animals, whether fabulous or real (the lion, the tiger, the snake, the eagles) a certain connection with the life and actions of man and the gods, and made a corresponding religious use of them. This is exemplified in the Oriental and especially Egyptian worship of animals. Many reminiscences of this animal symbolism are encountered in the Old Testament. From the earliest period Christian fancy interpreted these animals according to the symbolism of the Old Testament, and so depicted them in Christian art. Thus, for example, in the Catacombs some are symbolic of what is good, e.g. the lamb or sheep representing the soul or the believer, the dove the soul, the phoenix Christ or immortality, and the peacock immortality; others symbolic of what is bad, e.g. the serpent representing the devil; still others, especially in later times, are to be interpreted in various senses; thus the lion may symbolize either Christ or the devil. An early compilation of such allegorical interpretations of the nature of plants and animals, made up partly from antique materials, is still extant in the “Physiologus”, the much copied and much used “natural history” of the Middle Ages, and the basis of all later bestiaries. Similar compilations are the “Liber formularum” of Eucherius, some parts of the “Libri originum” of Isidore, parts of the writings of Bede and Rabanus, and the treatise long ascribed to the second-century Melito of Sardes, and known as “Clavis” or “The Key”, which appeared in its present form towards the eleventh century. Later bestiaries obtained much valuable material from the “Libri moralium” of Gregory the Great. The medieval bestiaries are more or less exact translations or imitations of the “Physiologus”; e.g. the bestiary of Philippe de Thaun, about 1121, edited by Thomas Wright (London, 1841), and two bestiaries of the thirteenth century, one by Pierre of Picardy, the other by Guillaume of Normandy published by Hippeau (Caen, 1852). The bestiary appears in its complete development in Richard de Fournival’s “Bestiaire d’Amour”, written in the fourteenth century and published by Hippeau (Paris, 1860), in the treatise “De animalibus” attributed to Bl. Albertus Magnus, in the “Tractatus de bestiis et aliis rebus” supposed to have been written by Hugo of St. Victor, above all in the “Speculum naturale” of Vincent of Beauvais.
The influence of the symbolism of the bestiaries is plainly seen in the various forms of medieval intellectual life. It was evident in the sermon and also in the liturgy as shown by the symbolic use of the bee in the blessing of Easter candles and the blessing of wine on the feast of St. John as a preventive of poisoning from snake-bites. The metrical animal fables, particularly, exhibit the widespread taste for this form of allegory. The influence of the symbolism of the bestiaries is still more manifest in medieval sculpture, both Romanesque and Gothic. Though the use of animal subjects in the oldest Irish and Merovingian art has apparently no deeper aim than the enjoyment of grotesque forms, yet animal symbolism appears from the earliest date as an element of Romanesque art, especially in miniature and sculpture, in both of which it often exhibits a close dependence on the bestiaries. (See ANIMALS IN CHRISTIAN ART; SYMBOLISM.)
For a concrete example of a Bestarius, please follow this link which will bring you the very beautiful example that we have in the Aberdeen Bestiary:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/1r.hti
This link should bring you to an interesting article on animal symbolism in ecclesiastical architecture:
This link will take you to a manuscript of Isodore of Saville’s Etymologiae conserved in Royal Danish Library (GKS 422 2
-
February 10, 2006 at 10:09 am #767786
Anonymous
InactiveMost beautiful the mosaics in the sanctuary and chapels of Cobh cathedral. Pity about the present clutter in the Lady chapel – we have come a long way from the tender devotion to Our Lady to which the great Catholic cathedrals of the Middle Ages testify, and not to our benefit, I might add. Many, such as Paris and Chartres, are dedicated to Our Lady, and practically all would have a prominent and beautifully maintained Lady Chapel.
I was struck too by the titles of Our Lady in the Cobh chapel (beautiful as the moon, morning star, mystical rose, like a lily, etc.) – these, like the Sacred Heart chapel, reflect a culture which saw Old and New Testament as one. Many of the titles of Our Lady, as we find them in the Loreto Litany, come from the Old Testament, especially the Canticle of Canticles. The central part of the mosaic, with its reference to the Immaculate Conception, brings to mind the Genesis text as found in the Vulgate: “ipsa conculcet caput tuum”. These are God’s words to the serpent: she will crush your head. This would of course tie the theme of the Lady Chapel with the Sacred Heart chapel, where the same idea is expressed in the verb “conculcabis” – the crushing of the serpent’s head, the crushing of the animals representing evil. All ties up with the mosaic in the chancel, dedicated to the Passion of Christ, by which evil and death are definitively overcome. The passion theme is seen in the use of passion floors in the mosaic, on the altar gates, and again in the sculpting of the south transept wall. Incidentally the shamrocks in the chancel mosaic, also taken up in the sculpting in the nave, are an obvious reference to the Blessed Trinity and are a good example of inculturation (St Patrick, etc.)
All of this, as Praxiteles so well illustrates in his references to the medieval bestiaries and the Physiologus, is clear evidence of the level of thought that went into the interior decoration of the cathedral. It would be a very brave man (or one who is completely oblivious and insensitive to this) who would interfere with the present layout!! -
February 10, 2006 at 3:24 pm #767787
Praxiteles
ParticipantI wonder whether the Vulagte conculcabis might not also be applied to Cathal O’Neill and his accomplices …? If not, they at least deserve a calceamentum!
-
February 10, 2006 at 5:24 pm #767788
johannas
ParticipantWell done for showing the beautiful mosaics in Cobh. It seems madness. But then what do these people know about beauty! They have eyes but they cannot see, ears but they cannot hear. What a dreadful shame. ! I hope those whose job it is to protect these beautiful mosaics and structures have eyes and ears to hear and see what the “ignorant” people of Cobh and County are saying. Education howareyou!!!:(
-
February 10, 2006 at 9:55 pm #767789
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Lady chapel at Cobh Cathedral
Concerning the titles of Our Lady displayed on the mosaic floor of the chapel, the following literary sources may be of use in understanding their conceptual complexity and iconographic antiquity.
1. ROSA MYSTICA (Mystical Rose)
Mystical Rose: Since antiquity the rose was considered a symbol of mystery, for early Christians the rose is a visual expression for paradise (Catacombs of Callixtus, 3rd century) but also for martyrdom (Cyprian, Ep. 10). The Marian interpretation of this symbol dates to the 5th century (Sedulius Caelius). He is probably the first to call Mary a “rose among thorns” (Carmen paschale II, 28-31). Theophanes Graptos (Monk and metropolite of Nikaia, +845) uses the same symbolism to express Mary’s purity and the fragrance of her grace (Oktoechos, Friday of the sixth week). Frequent Marian references to rose and rosebush were made in medieval times with special reference to Isaiah 11,1 (“…a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse / and from his roots a bud shall blossom.”). This typology is very old. We find it in Tertullian (Adv. Judaeos, 9) and Ambrosius (Exp. Gr. Luc. II, 24). For these authors the root is a reference to the davidic genealogy, the sprout (virga, bush) is Mary, and Christ is the flower (rose). Medieval authors had a second source for their use of mystical rose: the verse from Sir. 24, 14 (“like a palm tree in Engedi, like a rosebush in Jericho”) which makes reference to God graced fertility and growth, again a reference to the mysterious generation of Christ from the womb of Mary. It is based on these two traditions that the expression rosa mystica was coined by the author of the Litanies of Loreto, and subsequently used in hymns (“Es ist ein Ros…”) and art (center of the labyrinth of Chartres).
2. STELLA MATUTINA (Morning Star)
Stella matutina or morning star is first used in the Padua version of the Litanies of Loreto (14th century; Capitolare B63). In a Parisian manuscript of the 12th century we find the expressions “Stella marina” and “lux matutina” (“star of the sea” and “light of the morning”) (Paris, Nat. lat. 5267). It is believed that the author of the Padua Litanies combined these two titles into one to become “stella matutina.”
The morning star is a sign of the coming day, the announcement of the rising sun; it is a promise of light. It announces the coming “sun of justice” (Mal 4,3), the “daybreak from on high visiting us” (Lk 1,78). Mary is morning star not for and through herself but she is only the reflection of the creator and redeemer. She exalts his glory. When she emerges from darkness we know that the day is near (Newman).
The meaning of Morning Star is related to that of Star of the Sea (see the question: Star of the Sea). According to S. Bernard Mary may be compared to a star. A star radiates light without losing its brightness; Mary thus did not lose her virginity giving birth to Christ. She is the star which goes out from Jacob and whose light illumines the world. This star kindles the fire of the spirit, hastens the growth of virtues and burns out vices. Mary, the star, has a role as spiritual model and ideal (De laudibus Virg. Matris 2.17; PL 183, 70f).
2b. STELLA MARIS (Star of the Sea)Star symbolisms on behalf of Mary refer to two types of stars:
a) six-pointed stars indicate Mary’s Davidic origins and Jewish character;
b) stars with eight radiating points highlight Mary’s role in salvation as helper in the “restitutio perfectionis” (8=perfection) or “reparatrix parentum et totius orbis.”
More generally (independently from the number of radiating points), the star symbolism may be used to articulate one or all of the following characteristics of Mary:a) Her privileges, in particular, her mission as Mother of the Redeemer, or her holiness (full of grace);
b) Her anticipatory or demonstrative role (forerunner, announcer …) with regard to Christ [“she is the dawn, Christ the Rising Sun”] and the Trinity;
c) Her role as luminous and enlightening.
The biblical and/or theological foundation of this title (Mary, Star of the Sea) may be based on 1 Kings 18:41-45. This text refers to a little cloud appearing above the sea as a sign of hope, implying that rain will come and free the land from drought. The little cloud (small as a man’s hand) seen from Mt. Carmel is believed to be the “Star of the Sea” and Mary, thus, the sign of hope which announces freedom and renewal. The Carmelites built a church on Mt. Carmel and gave it the title “Stella Maris.”The origin of the expression “Stella maris” is commonly attributed to St. Jerome (d. 420). However, Jerome called Mary “stilla maris,” meaning a drop of the sea. Perhaps a copyist transcribed this as “Stella maris.” Other authors recording the same Marian symbol include: Isidore of Seville (d. 636); Alcuin (d. 804); and Rhabanus Maurus (d. 856).
An explicit reference occurs in Paschasius Radbertus (d. 865):
Mary, Star of the Sea, must be followed in faith and morals lest we capsize amidst the storm-tossed waves of the sea. She will illumine us to believe in Christ, born of her for the salvation of the world.
Hincmar of Reims (d. 882) spoke of Mary as “a star of the sea assumed into the heavens.”There are also some ancient Marian hymns related to the title: “Ave Maria Stella” (8th-9th century); and “Alma Redemptoris Mater” (by Hermann of Reichenau, 11th century).
Very important for this title is the following twelfth-century prayer from St. Bernard of Clairvaux:
If the winds of temptation arise;
If you are driven upon the rocks of tribulation look to the star, call on Mary;
If you are tossed upon the waves of pride, of ambition, of envy, of rivalry, look to the star, call on Mary. -
February 10, 2006 at 10:26 pm #767790
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Lady Chapel, St. Colman’s Cathedral Cobh
Continuing on the literary sources and history of the titles of Our Lady, I am posting sections of a tutorial published by the Royal Danish Library explicitating the sources for these titles and quite correctly mentioning that without a awareness of the marian isogesis of the Canticle of Canticles they are completely impenetrable. It also has to be said that for research on this subject the text of the Latin Vulgate (prior to the Tridentine Sixto-Clementine revision of the text) has to be used. Unfortunately, the English is not pefect but a little patience will bring gold.
The tutorial is arranged as a commentary on a 15century French wood cut:
As sources for the text in Books of Hours were especially 3 books in the Old Testament important. The psalms are occupying the majority of pages, Ecclesiasticus furnished most of the capitula in the Hours of the Virgin (with the important predictions taken from Isaia), and the Canticum Canticorum was the foundation of the general Marian vocabulary, and source for a large number of antiphons and chapters.
Canticum Canticorum is a beautiful oriental erotic poem, for some mysterious reason included in the Old Testament. In medieval exegesis and theology did it serve as a song of praise for the Virgin Mary, and the vocabulary has penetrated all veneration of the Virgin, including the Horae beate Marie Virginis from the very beginning in the 12th cent. (The antiphons were already present in the earliest regular liturgical offices for the special feasts of the Virgin during the year).
In the complete text below are some of the most used quotations highlighted in blue incipits. These are capitula or antiphons used all over Western Europe (some are still found in the Officium parvum in the Roman Breviary). In some local uses are other textparts also included, and quotations of single phrases are found everywhere. The publication of a xylographic flemish edition of Canticum Canticorum as a beautifully illustrated block-book in the 15th cent. is well known. The reasons for the publication must be seen in the light of the dramatic increase in Marian devotion towards 1500, which eventually became so appalling to humanist intellectuals (like Melancthon), that it contributed to the protestant movements. In 13th century Hours from Liège did the Song of Songs also provide three lessons at Matins (2nd Nocturn) with responsories and versicles.The Latin Vulgata text was taken litterally, as it is illustrated in a french woodcut from around 1500 cut after a model by a good miniaturist working in Paris, and used in several parisian editions of Horae (prints among others by Th. Kerver and G. Hardouin), where scrolls of text are shown with a corresponding visualisation of the symbols and so-called “Names of Mary”. Without knowledge of the imposed Marian symbolism in Canticum Canticorum is the picture unintellegible: Lines like “Veniat dilectus meus in hortum suum”, or: “Descendi in hortum nucum, ut viderem poma convallium” and “Dilectus meus descendit in hortum suum — et lilia colligat.” are the background settings for the picture.
At the top is God as ruler of the World, saying:
Tota pulchra es amica mea et macula non est in te. [Cant. 4,7 – common antiphon]
To the left of the Virgin:
Pulchra ut luna. [Picture of the Moon, Cant. 6,9]
electa ut sol, [Picture of the Sun, Cant. 6,9]
Porta celi. [A city gate]
Plantacio rose. [A rose bush]
Cedrus exsaltata. [Scroll around a tree]
Puteus aquarum viventium [Water font in stone, Cant. 4,15]
Virga iesse floruit. [Branch in blossom, common typology to the birth of the Virgin, from Isaias 11,1]
Ortus conclusus. [Enclosed garden, Cant. 4,12 – common antiphon, cf. Speculum humane salvationis chapter 3: Ortus conclusus et fons signatus significat Mariam.]
To the right of the Virgin:
Stella maris. [A star, cf. the hymn: Ave maris stella, found in all Horae]
Sicut lilium inter spinas. [A lily, Cant. 2,2 – Parisian and Carthusian antiphon]
Turris david cum propugnaculis. [Tower in a city, Cant. 4,4 – Typology to the Marriage of Mary and Joseph in Speculum Hum. Salv. chapter 6]
Oliva speciosa. [Scroll around a tree]
Speculum sine macula. [A round mirror]
Fons ortorum. [A fountain, Cant. 4,15 – common antiphon]
Civitas dei. [The city of God, i.e. the Heavenly Jerusalem]See also the influence of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 24
-
February 10, 2006 at 11:24 pm #767791
Praxiteles
ParticipantCobh Cathedral, Lady Chapel
Titles of Our Lady
3. PULCHRA UT LUNA (Beautiful as the Moon)
The so called Luna, half moon, or sickle of the moon, also waning and waxing moon, is a sign of fertility, related to life and death, and thus a popular symbol in many religions. It pinpoints changing seasons, ebb and tide.
The half moon was the attribute of Luna and more specifically of Selene. It was later transferred to Diana (Artemis), known not only as virgin but also as protectress of the newborn and symbol of fertility in her own right.
Biblical references use the moon symbol to highlight cosmic events, divine epiphanies and the ephemeral nature of human life and history (see, for example, Isaiah 30,26; 60,19; Revelations 21,23). Patristic times saw in the symbol of the moon, or the “mysterium lunae”, i.e. the three phases of the moon: dying (waning), generating (waxing) and giving birth (full moon) a valid representation of the Church (ecclesia). Ecclesia is virginal and”dying” in the encounter with Christ, the bridegroom; she is maternal and lifegiving in her spousal relation with the Redeemer, and resplendent in her grace-filled existence.
John the Baptist is sometimes connected with the waning moon (Baptistry of Östr Hoby, Sweden, 12c) to explicate his role as the last prophet of the waning Old Testament which is regarded, simultaneously, as a promise of the New Testament. The moon contrasts here the sun as symbol of fulfillment, in other words, the New Testament, more specifically Jesus Christ himself, the sol invictus. The same contrast is used to signify ecclesia and synagoga. The latter is identified with the symbol of the waning moon.
Mary as the God-bearer is identified with ecclesia. She is standing on the waning moon which points out that the Old Testament and synagoga are the foundations of the Church. No doubt that we have here also the idea of the fulfillment of the synagoga in the Church. The motif of the luna is very old (~820, MS 99 Paris, Valenciennes) and is not used in the beginning as an attribute of Mary but of the Church. It is only in the 14/15c that a lateral transfer takes place, meaning Mary occupies now in iconography the place of the Church and inherits some of its attributes. The Katharinenthal Gradual of 1312 shows an image of transition, where the same feminine figure contains or bears the attributes of the Church, Mary and the Apocalyptic Woman. The figure stands on a personalized half moon. It is true that the visual elements, half moon, stars, sun, are borrowed from Revelations 12,1. Early representations of Ecclesia (10-12c) show her as the apocalyptic woman with the dragon. The motif of the apocalyptic woman is applied in a variety of ways to Mary.
There exists, beginning around 1348, a type of Marian sculpture called Madonna standing on the crescent moon (Mondsichel-Madonna) where the reference to the apocalyptic woman is largely dissociated from the use of the moon symbol (for example, wooden sculpture, Trier, 1480). It sometimes opposes — in representations of the Platytera — the sun born from Mary and the human race in need of salvation (moon) (Katharinenthal, 1312). The crescent moon is used in representations of Mary’s miraculous conception and birth (Joachim and Anna at the Golden Door, da Camerino, Tadino, ~1470). The crescent appears under Mary’s feet in paintings of the Assumption (Meister of the Luzien-Legende, 1485) and signifies her glory and victory over time and space. The most important application of the moon symbol occurred in representations of the Immaculate Conception. The obvious significance of victory over sin is enriched with the ideas of beauty and purity (pulchra ut luna, Litanies of Loreto) (see for example, Francesco Vanni, Altar of the Immaculate Conception, Montalcino, 1588). During baroque times we can observe frequent combinations of the Immaculata motif with that of Our Lady of Victory. In some of these paintings or sculptures Mary stands on a globe combined with the crescent moon.
-
February 10, 2006 at 11:36 pm #767792
Praxiteles
ParticipantCobh Cathedral, Lady Chapel
Titles of Our Lady3. PULCHRA UT LUNA (Beautiful as the Moon) ctd.
This is how Francisco Pacheo approaches the iconographic representation of the Pulchra ut Luna of the Canticle of Canticles.
@Praxiteles wrote:
The dominant influence on iconography in the 17th entury Seville school was Francisco Pacheo (1564.-1654), the father in law of Velasquez. In 1649, he published a definitive treatise on painting, El Arte de la Pintura. His comments on the painting on the Immaculate Conception are the direct source of the sculpted group in the arcade of the attic of the South Transept of Cobh Cathedral. The following are his comments on the painting of the subject: “Some say that (the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady) should be painted with the image of the Christ Child in her arms because she appears thus on some old images that have been found. The opinion is probably based ( as the learned Jesuit Father Alonso de Flores has pointed out) on the fact that Our Lady enjoyed freedom from Original Sin from the very first moment, since she was the Mother of God, even though she had not yet concieved Jesus Christ. Hence from this moment (as the saints know) she was the Mother of God, nor did she ever cease to be. But without taking issue with those who paint the Child in her arms, we side with the majority who paint her without the Child.
This painting, as scholars know, is derived from the mysterious woman whom St.John saw in the sky wiith all her attributes [Revelations XII,1-4]. Therefore, the version I follow is the one that is closest to the holy revelation of the Evangelist and approved by the Catholic Church on the authority of the sacred and holy interpreters. In Revelation she is not only found without the Child in her arms, but even before she ever bore him….We paint her with the Child only in those scenes that occur afer she conceived…
In this loveliest of mysteries Our Lady should be painted as a beautiful young girl, twelve or thirteen years old, in the flower of her youth. She should have pretty but serious eyes with perfect features and rosy cheeks, and the most beautiful long golden locks. In short, she should be as beautiful as a painter’s brush can make her. There are two kinds of human beauty, beauty of the body and beauty of the soul, and the Virgin had both of them in the extreme because her body was a miracolous creation. She resembled her Son, the model of all perfection, more than any other human being. ,,and thus she is praised by her Spouse: tota pulchra es amica mea, a text that is always written in this painting.
She should be painted wearing a white tunic and a blue mantle…She is surrounded by the sun, an oval sun of white and ochre, which sweetly blends into the sky. Rays of light emanate from her head, around which is a ring of twelve stars. An imperial crown adrons her head without, however, hiding the stars. Undr her feet is the moon. Although it is a solid globe, I take the liberty of making it transparent so that the landscape shows through. The upper part is darkened to form a crescent moon with the points turned downward. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I was the first to impart greater majesty to these attributes, and others have followed me.
Especially with the moon I have followed the learned opinion of Father Luis del Alcazar, famous son of Seville, who says: ‘Painters usually show the crescent moon upside down at the feet of this woman. But as is obvious to learned mathematicians, if the moon and sun face each other, both points of the moon have to point downward. Thus the woman will stand on a convex instead of a concave surface…’. This is necessary so that the moon, receiving its light from the sun, will illuminate the woman standing on it….
In the upper part of the painting one usually puts God the Father or the Holy Spirit or both, together with the already mentioned words of her Spouse. The earthly attributes are placed suitably in the landscape]http://www.wga.hu/detail/m/murillo/3/311muril.jpg[/IMG]
-
February 11, 2006 at 1:30 am #767793
Praxiteles
ParticipantAn interesting view of the interior of Cobh cathedral showing the ceiling (based on that of Saintes Cathedral) to good advantage:
-
February 11, 2006 at 1:34 am #767794
Praxiteles
ParticipantCobh Cathedral, G.C. Ashlin’s Pulpit
-
February 11, 2006 at 2:26 am #767795
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the the Holy Name of Jesus, Oxford Road, Manchester
Built by Joseph Aloysius Hanson for the Jesuits 1869-1871.
The building, while French neo-gothic of the 14th century, is, at the same time adapted to the post Tridentine liturgical concerns of the Jesuits – clear unobstructed view of the altar (hence slender pillars) and wide enough for easy preaching from the pulpit, emphasis on the Eucharist, and on devotion to the saints associated with the order adn to the Sacred Heart which they strongly promoted as an antidote to Jansenism.
The church is 186 feet East/ West; 112 feet North/South; and 100 feet in interior height.
Cobh Cathedral is 210 East/West; 120feet North/South; and 80 feet in interior height.Interestingly, the High Altar is in position and in use; as is the pulpit. This clearly indicates the liturgical fraud being pushed in the Cobh development.
-
February 11, 2006 at 2:39 am #767796
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Holy Name of Jesus, Oxford Road, Manchester
The High Altar
The focal point of the church, was completed by the installation of the altar in 1886 to a design by J.A. Hanson’s son. The reredos of Caen stone contains statues in alabaster of ten Jesuits saints. From left to right they are, St. Ignatius (above), St. Aloysius, St. Francis Jerome, St. John Berchmans, St. Francis Borgia, St. John Nepomucene, St. John Francis Regis, St. Peter Claver, St. Francis Xavier (above), St Stanislaus Kostka. The altar itself is of alabaster inlaid with green Russian malachite. The frontal is based on da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’. The five main windows depict the Coronation of Our Lady and are by Hardman of Birmingham (1899).
Th Chapel of St Joseph
Exterior view
The tower as originally designed by Hansom would have been half as high again as the present tower, but was not built due to poor ground conditions under the foundations. The present tower was added as a memorial to Father Bernard Vaughan S.J., Rector of the Holy Name (1888-1901). It is 185ft. high and was completed in 1928 to the designs of Giles and Adrian Gilbert Scott. The tower contains a chime of 15 bells by Gillet and Johnson. A new mechanism was installed in 1995 and plays automatically the Angelus and some twenty hymn tunes as well as bell ringing before Mass etc. There is also a keyboard for manual operation.
The link address is: http://www.holyname.co.uk/
-
February 12, 2006 at 12:40 am #767797
Praxiteles
ParticipantCan anybody identify this interior?
-
February 12, 2006 at 2:03 am #767798
johannas
ParticipantWould it be St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague! I think it looks like that interior.
-
February 12, 2006 at 2:20 am #767799
Praxiteles
ParticipantI thought so, but I am not sure. I am told that an extension of the sanctuary has been made into the nave. My recollection of St. Vitus was such that no extension could be made into the nave because of the sheer distance between the nave and chancel and because of the imperial mausoleum which sits in the lower plane of the Chancel. Could I have been mistaken?
-
February 12, 2006 at 9:19 pm #767800
Peter Parler
ParticipantHappy to confirm that it is indeed St Vitus in Prague – I’d know it anywhere!
Have you seen P Clerkin’s adventurous new thread, off topic but very paranoid? -
February 12, 2006 at 10:25 pm #767801
fgordon
ParticipantWell, if Peter Parler can’t be trusted to know Prague Cathedral, who can? I must say, Peter, I admire your work in particular on the Golden Gate! Below, another image from a different angle.
Obviously all these shots are taken early in the morning, before opening hours. The one characteristic that now blights St. Vitus is the hoards of noisy tourists who constantly tramp around it. Alas, mass tourism has made a spectacle of all places of beauty.
A most interesting feature of St Vitus is the splendid ambulatory altar to St. John Nepomuk – see the image below. If one looks closely just above the mensa of each altar, one sees etched silver tablets containing the texts of the Eternal Mass – what used to be contained on the so-called Altar Charts. Thus on the Gospel Side is John 1: 1-14 “In principio erat Verbum†and on the Epistle Side, some offertory prayers: “Deus qui humanae substantiae….†and “Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas…â€
While the altar charts were one of the first victims of the slash and burn approach to things liturgical that typified the 70s, they could not be removed from the altar of John Nepomuk.
Is this feature unique to this altar?
-
February 12, 2006 at 10:35 pm #767802
fgordon
ParticipantHere is a close-up of the splendid silver work that adorns the altar of St John Nepomuk in spade-fulls. I shall try to find a close-up of those altar charts.
-
February 12, 2006 at 10:56 pm #767803
fgordon
ParticipantSome more views – one can just make out on one of these images an example of the altar charts, etched in silver. Here is shown the altar chart on the Gospel Side of one of the altars of St. John Nepomuk’s tomb. I hope to find a better image of this interesting feature.
Does anyone know of other examples of this type of feature anywhere?
-
February 12, 2006 at 11:22 pm #767804
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantAttached are what are described as Altar Cards from the Honan Chapel, which featured in the book ‘The Honan Chapel’ edited by Virginia Teehan and Elizabeth Wincott Heckett.
Are they the same thing?
-
February 12, 2006 at 11:32 pm #767805
fgordon
ParticipantALERT ALERT
Yes, Michael O’Brien is right to be concerned (#506, #514) – there are plans afoot to make an assault on Kilrush Parish Church. Can anyone in West Clare tell us the state of things – is there opposition – can it be whipped up? West Clare people are not about to roll over and let a belated ghost of the 1970s destroy what has so far been preserved, I hope!
The ecclesiastic responsible for the porches was Peter Canon Ryan, RIP, who also kept the wrecker’s ball from this rather fine church. Now that the chapter in Killaloe is slowly being extinguished…he may well be the last Canon to act as P.P. Kilrush.
The chapter of Killaloe Diocese was re-established in 1904 – can it be allowed to die so quickly? And what will replace the chapter? The Chapter actually acts as a kind of institutional balance within a diocese, ensuring that a manic centralisation does not place all authority, prestige and function in the bishop’s hands.
In any case – can Kilrush be saved? :confused:
-
February 12, 2006 at 11:37 pm #767806
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, indeed they are! And the Honan Chapel examples are especially fine.
-
February 12, 2006 at 11:46 pm #767807
fgordon
ParticipantGianlorenzo, both these altar charts (or cards) are from the Gospel Side of the altar – thus they both contain the Last Gospel (John 1:1-14), read as the final act of faith in the divinity of Christ at the end of every Mass.
The work on the frames is rather fine it seems to me.
The altar cards were, as you know, three in number, one on each side of the altar and one in the middle. The middle chart was the biggest containing offertory prayers (Suscipe sancte Pater, Offerimus tibi Domine etc) as well as the all important consecration formulae (Hoc est enim corpus meum – Hic est Calix sanguinis mei…). The idea was that the priest could read these texts from right in front of him without being distracted by the missal at that vital moment – a very good idea. The charts at the extreme ends of the altar were to help him with the Latin texts when he was too far from the missal to read from it.
Typically these charts were like framed pictures, free standing and removed from the altar when Mass was not being said. What’s extraordinary about the altar of St John Nepomuk is that the text of these card has become a part of the overall piece, being etched into the silver that frames the altar. It’s a lovely thing, and thus make these “altar charts” inseperable from the altar.
I wonder if such a feature is found in any other church?
-
February 13, 2006 at 12:30 am #767808
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am glad to have Peter Parler’s assurances about his Prague masterpiece – the Vitusdom. I posted the photograph in the first place because I am told that the consultancy firm McCutcheon-Mulcahy, who are promoting the wreckage of Cobh Cathedral, are claiming that the sanctuary of the Vitusdom has been re-ordered and brough forward in the same way that the great Professor O’Neill plans to extend the sanctuary in Cobh into the nave. Not having been in Prague for some years, I was not too sure about that claim but am heartened to see from the recent photographs that have been posted that all is still intact in Prague. What McCutcheon Mulcahy do not seem to realize is that if you extend the sanctuary in Prague, you will have to remove the mausoleum of the Emperors Ferdinand and Rudolf which is bang in the middle of sanctuary. Indeed, a new temporary altar has been set up in the sanctuary – but the problem about using it that you cannot see over the mausoleum and anybody behind it cannot see anyone at the new altar. If you were to extend the sanctuary into the nave, you would require a runway of about 150 feet. The peculariaties of the Vitusdom are explained by the history of its building. The medieval part of this vast church consists only of the Chancel. The building of the cathedral was overtaken by the wars of religion in 15th century. This resulted in the abandonemnt of the building process. A wall was build across the west end of the Chancel leaving one with lòittle more than an enormous sanctuary. When the Emperors Ferdinand I Mathias and Rudolf died Bohemia was in turmoil. In the 20th. century, a decision was taken to complete the Vitusdom by building the nave. The work was completed by 1928 and the wall screening off the Chancel was taekn down to reveal the imperial mausoleum right in the middle of the Chancel before the High Altar. The Mosoleum, by Alexander Collin, was built between 1566 and 1589.
-
February 13, 2006 at 1:37 am #767809
Luzarches
ParticipantI’ve been following this thread with some interest and have written to foscc in support of the campaign to preserve the interior integrity of this fine church. I can very readily appreciate the emotive nature of this issue and the puzzlement it causes to the average catholic in the pew.
When I was a child of twelve my own parish and school church, the Sacred Heart in Wimbledon, London, was traumatically and expensively reordered. This is a fine revival of the curviniliar phase of english decorated architecture but it, unexpectedly, has a polygonal apse with 3 radiating chapels (2 of which have preserved the original altars).
I was serving mass regularly at the time. I endeavoured to extract from the parish priest a promise to conserve the sanctuary’s fine hand painted encaustic tiles. He did so with some force: The next week I came to church to find that these had all been jack-hammered and turned in with the concrete to form the base of the new altar platform. This event, as well as the scheme itself, has rather coloured my attitude towards the clergy’s guardianship of our sacred patrimony.
Please take a look at this church at:
http://www.sacredheartwimbledon.org.uk/
You will find the state as existing in the ‘history’ section and an image of the removed baldachino and high altar in the section marked ‘photographs’.
The problem we face is that, in contrast to the holy father and other sympathetic bishops priests and laity, the whip hand is under the control of those who believe that the council (V2) represents a juncture with the development of ecclesiology up to that point. This new ‘renewed’ church requires a radically different architectural manifestation. The liturgical action of the church is submitted to the higher authority of democracy and equality.
Unfortunately, ‘conservative’ resistance to this is at best ambivalent. Will there ever be a crack-down on liturgical abuses? No. Will Rome ever say anything as useful as ‘the eastward position for priest and people is desirable during the eucharistic prayer’- I’ll eat my hat, and in any case who’d obey?
The best we can do is offer ad hoc resistance to immediate threats to specific churches and hope that, over a number of years, if there are any faithful left, that the old high altars are once again used.
I am a student of architecture: For a number of years I have had an idea to compile a ‘before and after’ set of photographs of reorderings from all over the world. This would be free of an overly polemical text. The pictures would do the talking. This would show how we had all, apparently, become low church lutherans.
If anyone has any links to pictures, or pictoral data then I would be delighted to see it to start on the above project…
By the way, if you want to see a truely awful reordering or ‘adeguamento’ as the Italians call it check out the duomo in Milan. In its current state:
http://milan.arounder.com/milans_duomo_cathedral/fullscreen.html (excellent site, incidentally…)
Can’t find a link to its prior state; the 16th C high altar’s been mutilated, ditto the balustrade of the cancelli and, of course-obligatory…?- the tesserae floor’s been ruined.
Then, also, who could forget that the mensa of Bernini’s cathedra petri altar in St Peter’s itself was destroyed under the nose of JP II himself in the early 1980’s. If we’re waiting on any intervention on the side of tradition and sacrosantum concilium from Rome vis-a-vis architectural patrimony then it could only realistically come from BXVI. If he does say anything concrete, a big if, then it will be in such a way that it can be ignored by every iconoclastic bishop who wants to remake his church in his image and make for himself a Star-Trek chair where the tabernacle used to be: cf
In site of this, I try to remain optimistic.
-
February 13, 2006 at 1:55 am #767810
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantLuzarches – did you know that Milan is the reason for the current proposals for Cobh. A former Administrator of the Parish visited Milan and fell in love with the reordered sanctuary and returned with the great idea that this could be done in Cobh, even though St. Colman’s is half the size of Milan cathedral. Even though he is no longer in Cobh, he is still the principal promoter of this scheme and will do anything and everything to get his way.
-
February 13, 2006 at 2:00 am #767811
Praxiteles
ParticipantLuzarches,
I think you need to bring yourself up to speed. Benedict XVI, in his address to the Curia of 22 December 2005, laid down the stakes for the proper interpretation of the Council. He reasserted what the sane have been saying for 50 years – the Council has to be seen in continuity with the Church’s history and not -as the iconoclastis hold – in disjunction from it. If you read the promoters of the Cobh destruction you would imagine that the diocese of Cloyne has not celebrated a Catholic liturgy for 50 years and that somehow the diocese is prohibited from participation in the modern liturgy. Did you ever hear such a turdish heap of rot and that coming from someone who was supposed to have enough Wissenshaft to be Master of Ceremonies to the Roman Pontiff. I ask you….!!!!
-
February 13, 2006 at 3:32 am #767812
Luzarches
ParticipantYes, Praxiteles, I am aware of HH’s recent iteration of the “hermeneutics of reform”. My only point is that, with the best will in the world, there is no substantial institutional platform to initiate a palliative strategy. Is he going to talk over the heads of the bishops, as he needs to? He’s too much a man of the council to do that. I note that HE Card. Arinze made some comments recently about the liturgy. Any good content was enervated by his observation that BXVI would seek to promote such correctives with lovingkindness rather than the paternal firmness proper to the Roman church (But it’s about thirty years too late for that anyway…). I cheered when I heard of J.R’s election and I am still pleased. But you have to remember that even in the excellent ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’ his suggestions aren’t more concrete than mooting putting a crucifix on the reordered ironingboards. The sad fact is that I suspect that even this, let alone the eastward-facing posture, would be too much for some clergy because we are happy easter people dontchaknow?
Gianlorenzo, I didn’t know about Cobh being related to Milan, hence those cretinous proposed curved steps, I suppose. I went to mass there a while back. Maybe it was the gloriously renewed Ambrosian liturgy or the new sanctuary, but it felt like dead space to me. A place of prosaic assembly. Heightened I think by the fact that the architectural aesthetic of the intervention is conservative; it’s impossible to make a visual edit of the sanctuary. Do you have any visual or drawn information re Milan’s reordering?
So the moral is even if the Cobh wreckers have deigned to leave the faithful with their old high altar in tact the architectural meaning will be fatally subverted and the ‘presider’ will have to turn his back on the Blessed Sacrament. This is the central paradox of the conservative position when applied to historic churches. Logic and the ‘spirit’ of the modern rite would tend to demand a clean sweep of the sanctuary. Sacrosanctum Concilium rules this out for historic churches. It’s a syllogism; Use the old high altar! Therefore there is no such thing as a conservative reordering.
At my local parish church the excellent parish priest faces east with his congregation; when the the Archbishop of Southwark came to do confirmations he did likewise. Small gains for which I am thankful. But the pp could be taken away and one parachuted in who wanted to extend the mild, mid 60’s reordering, and I guess the bish would be equally supportive of him.
-
February 13, 2006 at 3:43 am #767813
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHad the promoters of this wrecking had their way, they would have cleared the sanctuary completely. Two things inhibited them, 1 a covenant that had seen signed with the Heritage Council in 1995 – though this on its own wouldn’t have stopped them for long; and 2, the Bishop was forced to make a very public commitment to a very angry group of parishioners in 1998 that the reredos and tabernacle would not be moved. However I do believe that if they get away with this they will begin to scheme to get around both the promise to the people and the covenant with the Heritage Council,- who have been completely silent so far regarding this planning application.Obviously the only remaining intact Gothic Revival Cathedral in Ireland is none of their business!!!!:mad:
-
February 13, 2006 at 3:46 am #767814
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantBy the way, I know the above because I witnessed their frustration at being twarted.
-
February 13, 2006 at 4:11 pm #767815
johannas
ParticipantLuzarches, I see you are a student of architecture and are interested in writing a book on the before and after stories. What a great idea. You may be interested to read a book written by a Michael Rose entitled Ugly as Sin. How they changed our churches from sacred spaces to meeting places and how we can change them back again. Published by sophia press. Mostly written about America but has a piece about the Main door of cobh cathedral, Ireland. It would be very interesting to see one written about the churches in ireland. Hopefully, cobh cathedral will NOT be included though!!!!!:rolleyes:
-
February 13, 2006 at 6:45 pm #767816
fgordon
ParticipantLuzarches has nicely brought the argument back to the central point – the deep void that represents the actual liturgical state of Catholicism.
We must remember that the “liturgical renewal†that followed the Council (but was strictly speaking only tangentially related to it) had been in preparation for many decades before: from elements of the youth movements of 1930s Germany to the rarefied and cliquish “scholarly†meetings in France and Italy in the 1950s. The destruction was planned, but its violence and extent surprised even the planners, I think.
Now that most of the worst vandalism has been done, we are left with a bleak landscape, and I lament the fact that, alas, I see little sign of liturgical revival among the younger clergy. In fact there is almost a complete ignorance of the Catholic conception of the liturgy. It has been exchanged for a Las Vegas conception of the liturgy. But even Las Vegas has much more pizzazz!
Just as the “liturgical movement†worked its revolution slowly over several decades, infecting certain scholarly circles [true scholars like Gamber resisted manfully] and especially seminary professors, and most disastrously, infiltrating the liturgical arm of the Roman Curia (let’s not start the whole Bugnini invective), in the same way, the movement of reforming the reform – to quote Benedict XVI – must begin slowly. The recent appointment to the chair of Liturgy in a certain national seminary in Ireland shows, alas, that it will be another generation before a Catholic liturgical scholar is again let loose on the seminarians there, but the slow process of reforming the reform must begin.
Benedict XVI can give important momentum to this movement, he can’t – and is too wise to try – overturn the past 80 years in a jiffy.
This is why we must be content with saving even some elements of old churches – if it only means leaving the high altar and reredos as a floating compromise. At least such elements will be ready for the restoration! :rolleyes:
-
February 13, 2006 at 6:53 pm #767817
fgordon
ParticipantBy the way, the obvious, I mean OBVIOUS answer in Cobh is to imitate the simple, elegant, common sense example of Holy Name Manchester. If I may juxtapose two images already offered by Prax (#580, 582), one sees at once how utterly beautiful Cobh would be again by the simple removal of the plywood carbuncle that currently pretends to be an altar:
-
February 13, 2006 at 7:32 pm #767818
Anonymous
InactiveHere is a very interesting historic photograph of the interior of Cobh Cathedral, showing the Requiem Mass celebrated on 22 April 1912 by Bishop Robert Browne for those who died in the sinking of the Titanic. Queenstown was the last port of call of the ill-fated ship.
-
February 13, 2006 at 8:24 pm #767819
fgordon
ParticipantOne looks at this lovely image of sangallo (#605) and one hears the words of J.H. Newman re-echoing as both a guide and a warning:
“I never knew what worship was, as an objective fact, before I entered the Catholic Church.”
-
February 13, 2006 at 9:12 pm #767820
fgordon
ParticipantA nice (or horrifying) illustration of the loss of the Catholic conception of the liturgy is found in the recent “restoration” of Blessed Sacrament Cathedral in Detroit. Here we see the typical approach to liturgy as “show” – thus, santuray as stage, overillumination, eye-catching back-drops, shiny materials, dias altar. In a word the opposite of “worship as an objective fact”.
See – and be amazed!
-
February 13, 2006 at 9:20 pm #767821
fgordon
ParticipantIf one thinks of that scene from “Planet of the Apes”: the time-travellers discover underground the remains of New York – and there in a transfigured shell of St Patrick’s the clinically dressed survivors worship a retro 1950s A-bomb. I think the new Detroit Cathedral is certainly based on that scene!!
Below, a perfect illustration of the sanctuary as stage approach – does somebody stand in the wings to prompt? Do they sell popcorn during the performance? Do the lights dip and dim for the soliloquies? Is there a balcony scene? Well, this is certainly NOT “worship as an objective factâ€. I don’t know if it constitutes worship in any way, except the mutual adoration of priest and congregation one for the other. “Now we see in a glass darkly…â€
-
February 14, 2006 at 1:57 am #767822
Luzarches
Participantfgordon,
Have you seen this one from the cathedral-basilica of Covington in Kentucky. Has this appeared on the thread before? Apologies if yes. This is a bizarely two-headed scheme (file under pointlessly conservative reorderings): From what I can understand of the literature surrounding this the diocese retained a Vosko-like clone to direct the scheme. When lay opposition mounted to make a defence of the baldachino and stalls the plans were redrawn and a compromise made. Nevertheless, the very beautiful and unusual altar rails and gates perished. But, still, the new high altar is five steps up; how V2 is that?!
This is a strange church altogether. I note on their website that they have an old rite mass every Sunday: A case of liturgical schizophrenia.
-
February 14, 2006 at 5:24 pm #767823
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis was the Basilica before the wreckage (2003)
Covington Cathedral was begun in 1894 and brought to its present (unsifinished) state in 1915.
The architect was Leon Coquard
This is what happened:
-
February 14, 2006 at 5:38 pm #767824
fgordon
ParticipantThe above is yet another example of liturgy as theatre – certainly, there are theatrical (in the best sense of the word) elements to the sacred liturgy – but it is NOT a show.
In a church that has walls of glass, the simple minded renovator couldn’t overcome the revisionist rubrics he has learned off and keeps repeating everywhere – hence, even here the preternatural over-illumination. It is like the lighting for an experimentalist theatrical performance. It gives the cathedral a bleached, synthetic and anaesthetised feeling.
But, as I said, we must be glad that some of the old elements have survived – ready for the restoration…
😀 -
February 14, 2006 at 5:49 pm #767825
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Covington Cathedral:
Has Luzarches noticed the striking schematic similarities of what heppened in this church with what is proposed fro St Colman’s Cathedral? Certainly, the five stepslead to now where. It is specifically to avoid this net result that Cathal O’Neill wants to dig out the Chancel floor in Cobh and hack the Oppenheime mosaic to bits.
Indee, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, Vasko is a bane-
-
February 15, 2006 at 12:49 am #767826
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Immaculate Concepton of Our Lady, Denver, Colorado
Leon Croquard
-
February 15, 2006 at 1:12 am #767827
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Norwich
Sir Gilbert Scott (1882) by for the Henry 15th. Duke of Norfolk
-
February 15, 2006 at 1:47 am #767828
Luzarches
ParticipantRe: Norwich RC Cathedral.
To my best knowledge, the altar visible in the interior view through the Rood was taken away many years ago. It was not contemporaneous with the Pugin brother’s work, not particularly meritorious and in a partially fragmented state anyway. I understand that there are plans afoot to give the cathedral’s interior greater dignity and solemnity.
Re the Cathedral of the Immaculate Concepton of Our Lady, Denver, this is yet another protype for Cobh. Have you noticed the Anglican-style foldings of the altar cloths?
-
February 15, 2006 at 2:00 am #767829
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore then the altar folds, I noticed that this little arrangement in Denver has reduced the seating capacity from 1,000 to 800.
-
February 15, 2006 at 2:44 am #767830
Luzarches
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
More then the altar folds, I noticed that this little arrangement in Denver has reduced the seating capacity from 1,000 to 800.
At last, we’ve come to the bottom of the great period of renewal and reorderings! I don’t know what things are like on the emerald isle but us (practising) left-footers here in Blighty have been in a demographic death spiral. On current projections, there won’t be any observant catholics left by 2040, or thereabouts. So now you see reorderings in the first place are about decreasing capacity in such a way that makes the churches seem as full as they were 20 years ago. It certainly beats effective catechisis.
-
February 15, 2006 at 3:02 am #767831
Praxiteles
Participantre the 2040 prognostications I should say that I have never taken any notice of the criteria of Emanuel Tode and the sociology department of the Paris Quatrieme!
-
February 15, 2006 at 3:11 am #767832
Luzarches
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
re the 2040 prognostications I should say that I have never taken any notice of the criteria of Emanuel Tode and the sociology department of the Paris Quatrieme!
Is that because he’s an pessimist or an optimist?
-
February 15, 2006 at 6:28 pm #767833
Praxiteles
ParticipantSte. Clotilde, Paris (1846-1857)
Franz Christian Gau (1790-1856)
-
February 15, 2006 at 11:57 pm #767834
Praxiteles
ParticipantFranz Christian Gau
Architect and archæologist, b. at Cologne, 15 June, 1790; d. at Paris, January, 1854. In 1809 he entered the Académie des Beaux-Arts, Paris, and in 1815 visited Italy and Sicily. In 1817 he went to Nubia, and while there he made drawings and measurements of all the more important monuments of that country, his ambition being to produce a work which should supplement the great work of the French expedition in Egypt. The result of his labours appeared in a folio volume (Stuttgart and Paris, 1822), entitled “Antiquitiés de la Nubie ou monuments inédits des bords du Nil, situés entre la premiére et la seconde cataracte, dessinés et mesurés in 1819”. It consists of sixty-eight plates, of plans, sections, and views, and has been received as an authority. His next publication was the completion of Mazois’s work on the ruins of Pompeii. In 1825 Gau was naturalized as a French citizen, and later became architect to the city of Paris. He directed the restoration of the churches of Sain-Julien-le-Pauvre, and Saint-Séverin, and built the great prison of La Roquette, etc. With his name also is associated the revival of Gothic architecture in Paris — he having designed and commenced, in 1846, the erection of the church of Sainte-Clotilde, the first modern church erected in the capital in that style. Illness compelled him to relinquish the care of supervising the work, and he died before its completion
(Catholic Encyclopedia)
-
February 16, 2006 at 12:12 am #767835
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Julien-le-Pauvre, Paris
This picture of the interior of St. Julien-le-Pauvre in Paris shows the liturgical dispositions used by the Greek Melkites. Clearly, there is not much room here for “communal” worship but it does not seem to bother anyone that the altar is not only in the Chancel but completely invisible to the congregation except for those occasions during the Mass when the doors are opened.
-
February 16, 2006 at 1:06 am #767836
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following illustrate how the an altar is view by Russian Orthodox Christians
The Iconostasis of the Chapel of the Glorious Resurrection, Moscow
The Cathedral of the Annunciation, Moscow
The Rila Monastery in Bulgaria
The Nicolai Cathedral, St. Petersburg
St Peter and St Paul, St. Petersburg
-
February 16, 2006 at 1:30 am #767837
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat a stunning building Denver is.
One aspect of St. Colmans that really lets it down I think is the ambo/altar table – it’s quite ugly don’t you think?
It barely fits into context at all; solid, heavy, cumbersome, basic, and ever so faintly naff in that garish white marble in contrast to the muted tones of its surroundings and the tokenistic ‘gothic pointy bits.’
Is it later that the rest of the sanctuary? Looks like a 1920s piece…
-
February 16, 2006 at 1:40 am #767838
Praxiteles
ParticipantGraham,
this is a piece of plywood placed in the sanctuary in the 1970s. In a sense, it is the root of all evils in Cobh. Nobody wants it and everybody agrees that something better is needed. Few, however, think that in replacing it the whole floor should be dug uot and atomized – just as Professor O’Neill did with Peter Turnerelli’s High ALtar in the Pro- Cathedral.
-
February 16, 2006 at 1:54 am #767839
GrahamH
ParticipantAh…
Well for what it’s worth that’s some very convincing ‘marblising’ going on there. That explains a lot so.
Do you have a pre-70s image Praxiteles – there was a c1900 one posted before but it could be anywhere. -
February 16, 2006 at 1:56 am #767840
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe the Immaculate Conception, Denver try this link
-
February 16, 2006 at 2:05 am #767841
Praxiteles
Participant# 605 has the picture from 1912 which I suspect was taken by Fr. Francis Brown, SJ
There is another coulured one taken recently with the timber thing remooved. It ois in the thread so I shall have a look to wsee where.
-
February 16, 2006 at 2:26 am #767842
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantIs this the one you are looking for?
-
February 16, 2006 at 7:46 pm #767843
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York
James Renwick (1853-1889)
-
February 16, 2006 at 8:12 pm #767844
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Patrick’s Cathedral, New York
The ground plan of St. Patrick’s showing the altar rail traversing the nave and both transcepts, as in Cobh.
-
February 17, 2006 at 12:32 am #767845
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantIn 2002, Cardinal Egan of New York ordered the Jesuits who staff the historic St. Ignatius Church in Manhattan (below) to halt a proposed “renovation” of the Church which would have removed the Communion rail and moved the altar into the nave, among other changes in a $3M project.
Although the Jesuits’ proposed ‘renovation’ had received the approval of the archdiocesan officials, Cardinal Egan stepped in and stopped the work.
In a letter to the priest of the parish, Rev. Walter F. Modrys, dated March 6th 2002, he rejected the sanctuary proposal, saying it was unwarranted and harmful to the Church’s tradition.
Oh, to have such a church leader in Ireland.
-
February 17, 2006 at 2:05 am #767846
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. James’ , Spanish Place, London
Edward Goldie (1890)
Length of Church 195 ft; Width of Church 92 ft; Height of Church 67 ft; Seating capacity 2,000
An interesting feature of Goldie’s church is the altar rail which spans the nave and both transcepts – just as at Cobh, although in the Spanish Place church the communion passage behind the rail is gated at the Chancel.
-
February 17, 2006 at 2:51 am #767847
Luzarches
ParticipantAn interesting feature of Goldie’s church is the altar rail which spans the nave and both transcepts – just as at Cobh, although in the Spanish Place church the communion passage behind the rail is gated at the Chancel.
An observation that I would make aboult this configuration of altar rail, from an architectural perspective, is that in a church with multiple altars this feature visually and symbolically unites all the altars within the building and strengthens the reality of the unicity of all altars. The rail as extension of altar and banqueting table is thus emphasized in express contrast to the idea of the rail as a barrier of exclusion and this is further underwritten by the use of the hausling cloth.
To remove the rail in Cobh would then, in a sense, set up the other side altars in opposition to the main one (if the new one looks like an altar that is…).
The altar rail as ‘unjust barrier’ is false consciousness.
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:05 am #767848
Luzarches
ParticipantMore Stateside reorderings:
1. The cathedral in Altoona
2. Cathedral Church of the Incarnation, Nashville, Tennessee
3. Cathedral of St John the Baptist, Charleston
4. Cathedral of St Joseph, Buffalo.If anyone has better quality pics of these in either before or after conditions then I would love to have them.
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:08 am #767849
Luzarches
ParticipantThese are the pictures.
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:14 am #767850
Luzarches
ParticipantThe first image here is meant to be in my previous post and is a lamentably poor image of St Joseph’s Cathedral, Buffalo.
The other images are of the cathedral of St Peter’s, Marquette, Michigan. I think one doesn’t need to be an architectural dectective to work out what’s gone on here, don’t all cathedras have gradines?
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:23 am #767851
GrahamH
ParticipantFor how long have altar rails been in use? Where do they have their origins? When did they stop being regularly installed – indeed were they ever installed in small churches in Ireland?
(thanks for the Cobh picture Gianlorenzo)
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:41 am #767852
Luzarches
ParticipantO’Connell in ‘Church Building & Furnishing’ traces the development of the rail from cancelli, but that the latter were merely barriers rather than a kneeling place for communion. He says that, in England, the rail as we now know it came in in the 15th/16th Centuries. However he groundlessly infers that the absence of rails prior to this demonstrates that the normal posture for receiving communion was to stand. I gather that there is evidence in illuminated MSS that in the sarum use of the Roman Rite the hausling cloth was stretched across the sanctuary by two servers so as to catch any falling particles of the sacred species whilst the people knelt to receive.
Rails certainly are not and never have been required by church law, as far as I understand. The rail primarily makes it easier and more comfortable for the people to kneel, to contemplate the eucharist prior to reception and to make an act of thanksgiving thereafter.
-
February 17, 2006 at 9:28 am #767853
Praxiteles
ParticipantO’Connell is correct in traacing the origin of the altar rail to the cancelli of the Roman Basilicas. However, altar rails, in Catholic Churches since the Council of Trent (1547-1562) have a dual purpose: that of providing a convenient place to receive Holy Communion, and the original purpose of hierarchially demarkating the Chancel (reserved for the Sacred Ministers) from the nave. This latter purpose is still shared by the Latin western Church and all of the Oriental Churches of whatever Rite (Byzantines, Melchites, Copts, Malancharese, Malabarese etc.). The positioning of altar rails in churches is still recommended in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, third edition, published in 2000.
The immediate origin of the distincion between nave and chancel is to be found in the Christian Basilicas of the 4th. century. These were the first Christian Churhes and took as the model for the distinction the “Cancelli” or rails that divided the law courts from the rest of the Roman pagan basilica. In the pagan Basilica, the notary of the courts sat at the gate of the rails and received the pleas to be passed on to the magistrates who sat in judgment behind the Cancelli, in the apsis of the pagan basilica. This official became known as the “chancellarius” which is the origin of the medieval and modern political office of chancellor.
When Christianity was legalized in the Roman empire and began to build its first churches, to mark the theological distinctions between the clergy and laity, the model of the cancelli of the pagan basilica was taken over. It haoever, was used to express a distinction already used in the first house churches of Rome. It is likely that the hierarchical distinction traces its origin to the Temple in Jerusalem – about which we read in the Books of Exodus, Deutoronomy and Leviticus in the Old Testament. The influence of these texts on church building can be seen for example in the dimensions of the SIxtine Chapel in Rome and in the Papal Chapel at Avignon which reproduce the dimensions of the Temple in Jerusalem.
In the Middle ages, the cancelli developed in the Western Church into the famous Rood Screens which carried figures of the Cross and of Our Lady and St. John. They also had galleries from which antiphons and readings were sung or read (e.g. the French term “jubé” coming from the liturgical expression “Jube Domine benedicere” which is asked by the deacon of the priest before he preaches the Gospel).. The rood screen was provided practoically to every christian church. Eamonn Duffy gives an interesting account of their destruction in England during the Reformation in his book “The Stripping of the Altars”. The Council of Trent decreed that the Rood screens should be simplified to a less elaborate structure over which the altar was visible – hence the modern altar rail to which was added the function of receiving Holy Communion. Perviously, the communicants received Holy Communion at the gate of the Rood Screen, a hausling cloth being held by two clerics. All of these elements were passed over to the new altar rails which must be regarded as a continuation of the Rood screen.
In the Eastern Churches, the original cancelli developed into the iconostasis. On the gates of the sanctuary, icons were exposed. These further developed into the elaborate structures we know to-day which completely screen all sight of the altar and which cut access to the altar for all but those clergy destined for its service. This was unaffected by Trent and continues. It is the Eastern counterpart of the altar rail and of the medieval western Rood Screen.
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:24 pm #767854
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston
Patrick Keely
Patrick Charles Keely was born in Thurles, County Tipperary, Ireland, on August 9, 1816, the son of a builder who had moved to Thurles from Mlkenny to construct St. Patrick’s College. After its completion in 1837, the elder Keely acted as both architect and builder for the Fever Hospital, finished in 1840. What training in architectural design young Patrick received is unknown, but it is likely that he learned construction from his father.
At age 25 he sailed for America, settling in Brooklyn where he took up the carpentry trade. Among his first designs were altars at the Seminary at Lafargeville and in St. James’ Pro-cathedral in Brooklyn, for which he acted as superintendent of construction as well. In due course, a young priest of his acquaintance, Father Sylvester Malone, contacted Keely regarding a new church he planned to build in the Williamsburgh section of Brooklyn. Together they worked out a plan from which Keely developed a Gothic design. Its dedication in 1846 opened a new era in Catholic building, and Keely was besieged with requests for designs of churches and other buildings to serve the rapidly increasing immigrant population.
In 1849, a scant three years after completing his first church, Keely was called upon to design the Cathedral at Albany for Bishop McClusky, who was to become the first American cardinal. This was the first of 20 cathedrals for which he received commissions, including those in Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford, Newark, Providence, and, of course, Boston. His total output of churches is said to total more than 600, plus a number of institutional buildings, Virtually all of which were religiously oriented. The geographical distribution of Keely’s work ranged from Charleston, South Carolina to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and as far west as Iowa.
Keely’s work in Boston may have begun as early as 1851, with the rebuilding and enlarging of the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in South Boston. This granite Gothic Revival structure was designed by Gridley J.F. Bryant in 1843, completed in 1845 and burned in 1848. Its rebuilding was completed in 1853. Keely’s first complete church in Boston was St. James on Albany Street (1853-55), followed by Most Holy Redeemer in East Boston (1854-57), Notre Dame Academy in Roxbury (1855-71), Church of the Immaculate Conception in the South End (1866-61), St. Francis de Sales in Charlestown (1859-62), Cathedral of the Holy Cross in the South End (1861-75), St. Francis de Sales in Roxbury (1867-69), Our Lady of the Assumption in East Boston (1869-73), St. Thomas Aquinas in Jamaica Plain (1869-73), St. Augustine in South Boston (1870-74), Holy Trinity in the South End (1871-77), St. Vincent de Paul in South Boston (1872-74), St. James the Greater in Chinatown (1873-75), St. Peter in Dorchester (1873-84), St. Mary in the North End (1875-77), Our Lady of Victory (?) (1877), St. Joseph’s Church interior in Roxbury (1883), St. Peter’s rectory (ca. 1885), and St. Mary in Charlestown (1887-92). The successor firm of Keely and Houghton designed St. Margaret’s Church in Dorchester (1899-1904) and St. Mary’s School in Charlestown (1901-02). -
February 17, 2006 at 3:46 pm #767855
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston
An interior viw of the Cathedral from 1911
-
February 17, 2006 at 6:13 pm #767856
fgordon
ParticipantWashington’s Cathedral of St. Matthew – a disarmingly modest structure in that city of giant edifices – was recently restored. This was a true restoration.
All credit to the Pastor and whoever else determined that the restoration should be precisely that: restoring the already quite attractive elements to their pristine condition. No destruction, no wild re-orderings, no parachuting in of discordant elements; in a word, no doctrinaire impositions. 🙂
It bodes well that the capital of the U.S. has shown the way forward for the rest of that nation. Perhaps those menaces who have masqueraded for all too long in that country as liturgical experts – and who have very expensively wrecked many fine churches – could find a place in one of the many museums in D.C.!! 😀
The image below is somewhat poor – perhaps a better one can be found. The link http://www.stmatthewscathedral.org does not have great images of the restored building, though it has an interesting gallery of the restoration work.
With reference to the discussion on altar rails, it is to be noted that St. Matthew’s has retained them.
-
February 17, 2006 at 10:56 pm #767857
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Joseph’s, Albany, New York
Patrick Charles Keely
The interior, except ro the magnificent hammerbeam roof has been stripped and the church has just about escaped demolition.
-
February 17, 2006 at 11:01 pm #767858
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Joseph’s Church, Albany
Here we have another example of an altar rail traversing the the nave and transcepts. It was built in 1860 to cater for Irish immigrants building the Eirie canal.
-
February 17, 2006 at 11:20 pm #767859
Praxiteles
ParticipantPatrick Charles Keely
Immaculate Conception, Boston
The Church of the
Immaculate ConceptionThe Church of the Immaculate Conception was dedicated on March 10, 1861, and served for three years as the first regional Jesuit seminary in the United States. For the next five decades, from 1864 to 1913, Immaculate Conception served as the chapel for Boston College and Boston College High School until the college moved to Chestnut Hill in 1913 and the high school moved to Columbia Point in 1957.
Designed in the style of Italian Renaissance Revival by Patrick Charles Keeley, a 19th century architect of distinction, the Church of the Immaculate Conception is an imposing structure of white New Hampshire granite. The interior design, particularly noted for its spacious openness and ornate plaster work, is considered to be the work of Arthur Gilman, the architect responsible for crafting the master plan of Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood.
-
February 18, 2006 at 12:04 am #767860
Luzarches
ParticipantRe: Examples of continuous altar rails:
St Paul’s, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
“Designed by Egan and Prindeville of Chicago and built by Thomas Reilly, a general contractor from Philadelphia, the new Saint Paul’s is an example of the Scholastic, or Decorated, Gothic style of the 14th Century.”
-
February 18, 2006 at 1:58 am #767861
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is an extant example of what altar railings originally looked like: San Clemente in Rome. The railing is in two parts: across the sanctuary, dividing the nave from the chancel; and a further rectangular space demarcated in the nave for the lower clergy.
-
February 18, 2006 at 2:19 am #767862
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is an example of a Western Latin Rite Rood Screen sill extant. It can be seen in the church of St Etienne du Mont in Paris.
-
February 18, 2006 at 2:35 am #767863
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is another French example of a Rood Screen
And a rather interesting little text I happened upon:
In the West, an iconostasis
(image-covered wall separating the nave (where
the people stand) from the
chancel (where the Altar is) is documented well before 1000 A.D., and well before such “rood” screens were used in the Christian East.Anglo-Saxon churches had a wall between the nave and the chancel. The earliest recorded example of such a screen or wall comes from St. Brigid of Ireland’s church at the Oak. Curtains covered the door-openings in the solid wall, and sacred imagery decked the entire wall. The image here shows a very late development of the screen, in regard to its open-ness and the rood sculptures.
The Rood Screen at Sligo Abbey
A plain Cornish Rood Screen in a parish church
The Elizabethskirche in Marburg
-
February 19, 2006 at 1:06 am #767864
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Rood Screen of the Sixtine Chapel, Rome,
Mass was celebrated for the first time in the chapel on 9 August 1483
The area of the chapel above the Rood Screen showing the gradine for the throne of the Pope on the left wall.
Originally, the Rood Screen was located at the other side of the choir gallery visible on th left hand side of the photograph.
-
February 19, 2006 at 4:57 am #767865
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Patrick’s Cathedral, Melboune
Designed by William Wardell, St Patrick’s is regarded internationally as the finest ecclesiastical building in Australia and a pre-eminent example of the Gothic Revival style. The austere facade gives little hint of the glorious interior with its ethereal golden light of mesmerising beauty.
St Patrick’s Cathedral is the mother church of the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The Centenary of its official opening and Consecration was marked in 1997; however, the first Mass was celebrated on the site in February 1858 in a former partially completed church, some of which was incorporated into the south aisle of the present building; by 1868, the completed nave of the Cathedral first served the needs of the community for regular worship and prayer.
Dates in the History of St. Patrick’s Cathedral
1835 Settlement of Melbourne (at the head of Port Phillip Bay) in Port Phillip District of the Colony of NSW.
1839 Rev Patrick Bonaventure Geoghegan OSF first priest arrives in Melbourne.
1847 July 9 Australia Felix established as the Diocese of Melbourne .
1847 July The Colonial Secretary grants two acres of land for a church on Eastern Hill, where St Patrick’s Cathedral now stands. Fr Geoghegan establishes St Patrick’s Parish.
1848 October 4 Bishop James Alipius Goold OSA takes possession of See of Melbourne.
1850 April An additional two acres of land is approved for a bishop’s residence.
April 9 Bishop Goold lays foundation stone of first (freestone) St Patrick’s Church.
1858 February 14
Bishop Goold blesses the first section of the second (bluestone) St Patrick’s Church. Bishop Goold announces a cathedral is to be built for the diocese.
November William Wardell commissioned to prepare plans for a cathedral church and work commences.
December 8 First contract for Cathedral signed.
1870 March 17 Dean Fitzpatrick lays first stone of central tower.
1874 March 17 Melbourne created a Metropolitan See
1886 June 11 Death of Archbishop Goold. He lies buried in the Holy Souls Chapel.
1887 June 11 Archbishop Thomas Carr arrives in Melbourne.
1897 October 27 Consecration of St Patrick’s Cathedral under Archbishop Thomas Carr.
1913 March 23 Arrival of Dr Mannix, coadjutor to Archbishop Carr.
1917 May 6 Death of Archbishop Carr who lies buried in the Sacred Heart Chapel. Archbishop Daniel Mannix becomes third Archbishop of Melbourne.
1937 March 31 Contract for central spire signed – Conolly and Vanheems.
October 31 Contract for front spires signed.
1939 March 31 Spires completed and blessed by Archbishop Mannix.
1948 May 2-9 Celebrations to mark Centenary of Diocese of Melbourne.
1963 November 6 Death of Archbishop Daniel Mannix who was succeeded by Archbishop Justin Simonds.
1967 July 30 Installation of Melbourne’s fifth Archbishop, Archbishop James Knox.
October 3 Death of Archbishop Simonds.
1970 November 15 First Masses on New Sanctuary.
1974 July 24 Pope Paul VI confers title and dignity of Minor Basilica on St Patrick’s Cathedral
August 18 Installation of Melbourne’s sixth Archbishop, Archbishop Little.
1986 November 28 Pope John Paul II addresses clergy in the Cathedral on occasion of his Papal Visit.
1989 December 8 Archbishop Little blesses and restores bells.
1992 June 7 Ceremony to mark the Inauguration of Restoration and Conservation Works.
1996 July 16 Retirement of Archbishop Little.
August 16 Archbishop Pell becomes Melbourne’s seventh Archbishop.
1997 St. Patrick’s Cathedral restoration works completed. Centenary of the Consecration of the St Patrick’s Cathedral and dedication of the Altar
2001 March 26 Archbishop Pell appointed Archbishop of Sydney
2001 August 1 Installation of Melbourne’s eighth Archbishop, Archbishop Denis HartFor further information on th architect follow this link:
http://www.melbourne.catholic.org.au/cathedral/williamwilkinsonwardell.htm
-
February 20, 2006 at 1:50 am #767866
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Stephen’s Cathedral, Brisbane
-
February 20, 2006 at 6:23 pm #767867
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney, Australia
In 1821 the foundation stone of the first St Mary’s Chapel was laid by Governor Lachlan Macquarie. Sydney’s first bishop, John Bede Polding took up residence in 1835. In 1842 he becomes first Archbishop of Sydney. In 1865 St Mary’s Cathedral was ruined by fire.
Work begins on a new cathedral in 1865 and is completed in three stage: the northern section in 1882, the central tower in 1900 and the Nave in 1928, a total of 60 years. Between 1998 and 2000 the Spires are added.
The cathedral is 107 metres long, 24.3 wide at the Nave, it’s ceiling is 22.5 metres high with the height of the central tower at 46.3 metres. The front tower and spires are 74.6 metres high.
The completion of the spires for the millennium of 2000
-
February 20, 2006 at 6:42 pm #767868
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt MAry’s Cathedral, Sydney
-
February 20, 2006 at 7:07 pm #767869
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney
The Cathedral in 1865
St. Mary’s in 1901
The facade with the new spires 2000
The present sanctuary in St. Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney
-
February 20, 2006 at 7:14 pm #767870
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney
Interior
-
February 20, 2006 at 7:30 pm #767871
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Cathedral, Hobart, Tasmania
The interior
-
February 20, 2006 at 7:49 pm #767872
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is an interesting link:
http://www.achome.co.uk/ architecture/gothic.htm
-
February 21, 2006 at 12:10 am #767873
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Cathedral, Perth, Western Australia
-
February 21, 2006 at 12:23 am #767874
Praxiteles
ParticipantTh Cathedral of St. Carthage, Lismore, Australia
11 Sept 1887 St Carthage’s Parish Church declared the Pro-Cathedral.
17 March 1892 Building of the Cathedral announced by Bishop Doyle. Architects, Messrs Wardell and Denning, to prepare plans.
2 Oct 1892 Foundation stone of the Cathedral to be laid by Cardinal Moran, Archbishop of Sydney. Ceremony postponed until 4 October because of inclement weather.
April 1893 Building programme deferred due to financial crisis in Australia.
Sept 1904 Excavations for the foundations Commenced.
2 Jan 1905 Pro-Cathedral destroyed by fire.
27 May 1905 Foundations of the Cathedral completed.
31 May 1905 First brick on the Cathedral wall layed by Bishop Doyle.
24 June 1907 First Mass in the Cathedral celebrated by Bishop Doyle.
18 Aug 1907 Dedication of St Cathage’s Cathedral by Cardinal Moran.
10 June 1911 Construction of Tower completed. Bells consecrated.
11 June 1911 Blessing and opening of the Tower.
23 June 1912 Blessing of the pipe organ.
15 Aug 1919 Solemn consecration of the Cathedral and the Altars.
-
February 21, 2006 at 3:18 am #767875
Luzarches
ParticipantRe: The Cathedral of St. Carthage, Armidale, Australia.
Interesting sanctuary grille, it looks more like a cage for a wild animal. Are they trying to protect the people from the old altar or the other way round? The liturgical consultant involved has poetically described the dichotomy between the active prescence of Christ in the mass and His abiding prescence in the tabernacle. I know I find the presence of Christ in the tabernacle to be the single most distracting thing when I go to mass.
-
February 21, 2006 at 3:58 am #767876
Luzarches
ParticipantWhile I remember it, I can wholeheartedly recommend the following link. It is the site of the Australian National University and has tens of thousands of high quality, hi res images of churches and other building types. These are mainly from Europe but also from beyond. The site is even indexed according to reredoses, rood-screens, choir-stalls etc. There are also refs by country. The picture-taker has a compelling knack of taking pictures of the things that others miss and an evident love of ecclesiastical clutter. (This is a good thing…)
Go and visit:
-
February 22, 2006 at 2:57 am #767877
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks for that.
-
February 22, 2006 at 10:50 pm #767878
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Architect: Reed Smart and Tappin of Melbourne
-
February 22, 2006 at 11:51 pm #767879
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Patrick’s Cathedral, Ballarat, Victoria
Although Catholic Services were conducted in Ballarat from 1851 onwards, the parish of Ballarat was instituted in 1852. The first Parish Priest was Father Matthew Downing, who in 1853, selected the two acre site for the church, which was granted under a Crown Grant in 1855. The style of the church is early Gothic from the era of Edward the 1st in the 13th Century. The dimensions are basically 150ft by l00ft. On February 7th, 1858, Bishop James Alipius Goold laid the foundation stone for the church, which commenced being used on a regular basis for Mass in 1863. The miners presented the Bishop with gold nuggets which were formed into a Chalice and Paten, found today in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. With this exception all the presentation plate is still held by the Diocese.
St Patrick’s was Ballarat’s only parish church from 1863 to 1963.The official opening of the church was in 1871 and when the Diocese of Ballarat was formed in 1874, the first Bishop, Dr Michael O’Connor chose it for his Cathedral. When St Patrick’s Cathedral, Ballarat was finally consecrated in 1891 by Cardinal Moran of Sydney, it was the first Catholic Cathedral consecrated in the Australian Colonies, making it today Australia’s oldest consecrated Cathedral.
In 1887, a High Altar, which can be seen still today, and Stations of the Cross were purchased from Rome. The altar is of Carrara marble inlaid with precious stones including Antico Rossi, Lapis Lazuli and antique marbles. The tiles of the Sanctuary and side chapels are from Austria and those in the nave from Minton’s England. The first organ installed in 1867, was replaced with the Fincham in 1930.
The stained glass windows were introduced in 1883, the first being that in the Sanctuary. Following this were the Lady Chapel window and Blessed Sacrament Chapel window. These three windows were made in Germany and a slight variation in colour to the other windows can be noticed.
The remaining windows were gradually added to, until the final one in 1910. Of these, the first was presented by the Loreto Sisters representing St Brigid (note her Crozier, the traditional mark of a Bishop). On the opposite side of the narthex is St Patrick’s window, donated by the third Bishop, Bishop Higgins (note the crozier piercing Aengus through the foot). Both these windows have the Holy Spirit uppermost. The side windows depict the parables.
An extensive renovation and liturgical upgrade of the Cathedral took place in 1999. Highlights of this were the installation of a new altar, tabernacle and baptismal space. Also of note was the discovery of the original paint colours around the sanctuary, which have been conserved in the renovation. The new altar, given by the Archdiocese of Melbourne, was consecrated by Cardinal George Pell on April 26, 2000.
Five of Ballarat’s seven Bishop’s are buried in the crypt, which is in the northern transcept. -
February 23, 2006 at 12:02 am #767880
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Cathedral, Sale, Victoria
-
February 23, 2006 at 9:52 pm #767881
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Cathedral, Amidale, New South Wales
consecrated 1912
-
February 25, 2006 at 12:27 am #767882
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Parish Church of St. Nicholas, Churchtown, Mallow, Co. Cork
Would anyone have any idea as to the architect?
-
February 26, 2006 at 8:33 pm #767883
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt is skin and hair time at the Midelton Park Hotel in Midleton CO. Cork on Tuesday next at 10 am when the Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing gets under way on the subject of the re-oredring of Cobh Cathedral. It appears that there is a titanic legal togg-out with the bishop MacGhee fielding a team calcualted to intimidate Ghengis Khan – its just the Orangeman approach breaking out, bully and bang loud enough and you will have your way. If anyone is free, Midleton is the place to be.
-
February 27, 2006 at 5:22 am #767884
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterHearing into Cobh cathedral plans
The Irish TimesAn oral hearing by An Bord Plean
-
February 28, 2006 at 2:31 am #767885
Praxiteles
ParticipantCathedral of St. Paul. Pittsburg
Designed by Egan and Prindeville of Chicago and built by Thomas Reilly, a general contractor from Philadelphia, the new Saint Paul’s is an example of the Scholastic, or Decorated, Gothic style of the 14th Century. The building rises two hundred and forty seven feet with a statue of Saint Paul mounted on the center pediment. Other exterior statues depict the apostles and evangelists of the Eastern and Western Church. While the overall proportions of the structure are not true to the classic cathedrals of Europe, Saint Paul Cathedral fits the site and (as the cathedrals of old) reflects their spirit and historical significance.
-
March 1, 2006 at 5:52 am #767886
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Hearing into Cobh cathedral plans
The Irish TimesAn oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála into the controversial re-ordering of the interior of St Colman’s cathedral, Cobh, gets under way in at the Midleton Park Hotel, Co Cork, tomorrow. Three days have been set aside to hear submissions. Six parties have lodged appeals against the decision by Cobh Town Council last September to grant planning permission to the trustees of the cathedral for the re-ordering of the interior of the cathedral. Fr James Killeen, spokesman for Bishop John Magee of Cloyne, who is behind the interior design plans for the cathedral, yesterday declined to comment on the hearing. Among the objectors are the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, An Taisce, the Irish Georgian Society and Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0227/4123597307HM2CATHEDRAL.html
On a point of information. There are four appellants to the planning decicion of Cobh Town Council, not six. In some newspapers, the Arts Council and the Trustees of St. Colman’s are being named as appellants when in fact the Arts Council was asked by An Bord Pleanala merely to comment on the proposal and the Trustees of St. Colman’s are the Applicants. But then one doesn’t expect too much accurate information from the media. On of them makes a mistake and the others take it up like lemmings.:rolleyes:
-
March 3, 2006 at 1:30 am #767887
ctesiphon
ParticipantHas anyone been attending the oral hearing?
Curious to get a first-hand account of the goings-on in The Park. As you say, Gianlorenzo, the media aren’t always the most reliable in these matters (witness The Irish Times referring to the Planning and Town Act 2000 😮 ). -
March 3, 2006 at 9:22 am #767888
Praxiteles
ParticipantMidleton Park had a quiet few titters yesterday as Shane Murphy, SC, took Cathal O’Neill through his paces. The great professor told the Cobh Cathedral Oral Hearing that he had been jobbing away as an architect for 51 years. He admitted that he was not a church architect, nor a conservation architect. He had “done” 3 church re-orderings in 51 years. Correcting his drift he siad that it had actually been 2 church re-orderings and 1 cathedral. He said that he was happy with 2 of those re-orderings and not so much with the third. When Shane Murphy asked him which cathedral he had re-ordered, he owned up that it was the Pro-Cathedral, a comment that drew the question from Mr. Murphy, “Are you sure that is a cathedral?”
-
March 3, 2006 at 10:06 am #767889
Anonymous
InactivePraxiteles,
Are you sure about the Great Professor O’Neill’s admission? If so isn’t it extraordinary that someone who is neither a conservationist (by his own admission), nor a church architect (3 churches isn’t much of a portfolio) and who has never worked on a cathedral (credit to the sharp SC for spotting that one) should have been let loose on what the Irish Independent calls one of the world’s greatest Neo-Gothic structures?
What were the powers that be in the diocese of Cloyne playing at?
By the way, the planning hearing has been picked up on an American blogspot (scroll down to the section on news from Ireland):
http://www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/ -
March 3, 2006 at 3:46 pm #767890
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe most important piece of drama at the CObh Cathedral Oral Hearing in Midleton was Shane Murphy’s corss-examination of Des Heffernan (planning official) on behalf og the Friends of St. COlman’s Cathedral. Mr. heffernan, on the basis of whose “work” Cobh Town COuncil granted planning permission for the wreckage of the Cathedral interior was careful enough to begin by pointing out to one of the Town Consellors that he was not in fact a “temporary planning officer” but a senior planning officer whos was acting in a temporary capacity, supplying while the county architect, Deasey, went off on holidays. Strange to say, Mr Heffernan’s contributions to the Orla Hearing, though highly significant, never made it into any of the newspapers. WHile being very careful to correct a minor point touncing his own vanity, Mr. Heffernan quickly let it be known that his cafefulness did not extend to reading all of the objections taht had been lodged against the planning application. Indeed, Mr. Heffernan’s “due care” did not even manage to get beyond 140 of the 214 objections that head been lodged against Cathal O’Neill’s rampage. Despite the fact that 70 people paid Euro 20 each just to express an opinion in a democratic process, the person paid by the public to read, examine and assess those objections did not bother his **** to read almost one third of the objections submitted. Is it any wonder that the populòation of Cobh is this morning on the verge of revolution. The same Mr. Heffernan, under further cross.-examination admitted that even if they had been read it would not have mattered because the planning pèermission was going to be granted simply because Bishop MacGhee wanted it like a child screaming for a rattler. Is not that some level of public “service” for you. There may well be more to discover about how the tpwn officials went about processing the planning application for permission to “develop” the Cathedral sanctuary.
-
March 3, 2006 at 5:03 pm #767891
ctesiphon
ParticipantHmmm. Separation of church and state indeed.
Thanks for the first-hand accounts, Praxiteles. I look forward to hearing the outcome (which, sadly, isn’t a foregone conclusion). -
March 3, 2006 at 6:02 pm #767892
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantAnother “Low Light” of the three days in Midleton was when the Trustees of St. Colman’s announced that they had taken core samples from the mosaics in the Sanctuary and the Predella behind the altar rails in order to prove that they could lift these and replace them again as per their new plan which was drawn up to satisfy the DoEHLG Appeal. It emerged that that little escaped was undertaken in the dead of night and without either Planning Permission or even a Declaration. Wonder how the Dept feel about this bit of civil law breaking? More later.!!!
-
March 3, 2006 at 6:06 pm #767893
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother interesting cross-examination by Shane Murphy SC on behalf of the Friends of St. COlman’s Cathedral was that of Mary O’Halloran, the Cobh Town manageress. Following on the the revelations of Mr Heffernan’s omissions, the town manageress came into the Oral Hearing and announced that she had read all of the objections. Seemingly, she reads all of the objections lodged against every application as a metter of course. She declared that she had set aside a half day to read all of the objections to the application submitted by the Cathedral Trustees. A half day is four hours. Well, the calculators came out and 60X4=240 and 240 divided by 214 amounted to just over a minute per objection – though at least one important objection ran to more than ten pages. Be that as it may, Ms O’Halloran was given a copy of the minutes of the meeting of Cobh Town Council of 12 September 2005 in which there is an account of a debate concerning whether those whose objections had not been read would be receiving a refund. The question wwas posed by Counsellor Sean O’Connor. The good lady assured the council meeting that ALL of the objections had been read and she declared that she knew this because she had been so assured by Mr Des Heffernan. She then is minuted as saying that she did not intend to discuss the matter any further. When asked why she had not told the council’s last September meeting that she had read all of the objections, she mentioned something about not having found the box that Mr Heffernan had not read. When asked why she had not informed counsellor O’Connor of her discovery, she said that he had not asked her. When asked if she noted in the minutes that she said she was not going to discuss the matter further did she think Counsellor O’Connor would have asked her? And so and so forth………
-
March 3, 2006 at 6:13 pm #767894
Praxiteles
ParticipantMurder in the Cathedral in the dead of night!
The mosaic “expert” fished up by Cathal O’Neill and Co. appeared so anxious to have the job of lifiting the floor in Cobh that there was not anything in the workld thta he could not lift. A right bloody Atlas he was….Go bless Cathal O’Neill for finding them.
-
March 3, 2006 at 6:20 pm #767895
Luzarches
ParticipantThe architect has fifty-one years of experience. That begs the question, what was he experiencing? If one looks at the plans at a larger scale then it is evident that no thought whatsoever has been given to the meeting of the new lturgy stage and the remaining mosaics. The geometry is simply severed, as if overidden my his ‘intervention’. But that’s not a surprise. Exactly the same thing can be seen at the same ‘conflict point’ between old and new in the Milanese duomo mentioned already on the thread.
This explicit similarity with Cobh is even seen in the asymetrical treatment of the cancelli balustrade, ananlogous to the rails in St C’s. C O’N has the entrance to one of the side chapels entirely blocked by a bit of chopped up rail. This is evident in the larger scale drawings, which the hapless planning officer called the finest planning drawings he’d ever seen. In Milan there are 3 No bays of rail/cancelli on one side of the sanctuary and 2 or 1 No on the other side.
For Cobh, only the finest architectural precedents will do.
-
March 3, 2006 at 6:30 pm #767896
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother one to cover himself in glory during the Oral hearing was the Bishop of Cloyne, John Magee. Prior to the hearing, he circularised the priests of the diocese to have them turn up to show “support”. This was a sort of Orangeman approach. The bigger and wider the black phalanx the more intimidated the inspetor would be. That approach kind of back fied when the indomitable Counsellor Sean O’Connor, at the end of his submission, thanked the cllergy for coming out in such large numbers to support those trying to save Cobh Cathedral from wreckage.
Bishop Magee also circularised the other bishops of the Munster province. So dutifully, Bishops Buckely of Cork, Murphy of Kerry (who apparently had nothing better to be doing in Killarney on Ash Wednesday), Clifford of Cashel (who drove his own motor car to the hearing) and Walsh of Killaloe all turned up during the course of the hearing to make solidarity with Bishop Magee.
There was another snag to that showing. We are told that on Wednesday night Bishop Magee’s legal team told him to stay at home on the final day of the hearing for he ran the risk of being called togive evidence by the Inspector and his counsel would be able to to save him from the ordeal of cross examination especially as the documentation which had been requested by the Tribunal had clearly shown the extent of the inconsistencies told by Bishop Magee. On Thursday, Magee was in hiding in the palace in Cobh afraid to come out. Unfortunately, he had not had the heart to tell poor Bishop WIllie Walsh who turned up and no body to give support or solidarity to. As soon as Bishop Magee’s insonsistent correspondence can be scanned, I shall post it. It certainly makes very interesting reading.
-
March 3, 2006 at 6:32 pm #767897
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantWell it appear that Prof. O’Neill considers himself the ‘finest architect’. He said at the hearing that if Pugin himself were asked to draw up these plan he would probably have come up with something like that produced by himself. Such modesty.
He also said that when he looked at the altar rail he was convinced that no architect was involved as they were ‘unresolved’. -
March 3, 2006 at 8:13 pm #767898
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantI got a photograph of the offending hole left after the core sample was taken and I have attached it below. Also while I had the opportunity to got behind the reredos in St. Colman’s I got shots of the five medallions on the floor – also attached. Aren’t they beautiful?:)
-
March 3, 2006 at 8:34 pm #767899
Anonymous
InactiveThanks Gianlorenzo for the fine pictures of the medallions, all of which bear references to Christ: IC is Iesous, Jesus in Greek; XC is Christos, Christ in Greek, the chi-rho or XP are the first two letters of the Greek Christos; the alpha and omega symbolise Christ the beginning and end, the IHS is Latin, referring to the name of Jesus or Iesus hominum salvator, Jesus the saviour of men. Most appropriate around an altar of sacrifice, where Christ’s saving work for all takes place and is communicated anew. The prevalence of crowns in a number of the medallions and the star of David in one of the medallions, reminds us that Christ is the true King – that of course is also clear in the very name “Christ”, the anointed one.
It seems from the photos that there is some damage in places, which needs to be attended to.
The wanton drilling of holes in the mosaic is an act of vandalism that beggars belief. How can those responsible get away with such a thing? Even the barbarians who attacked Rome in the early Christian centuries did not damage churches!!
Surely, while the matter is under examination by Bord Pleanala, no one apart from the Bord could possibly grant permission for such an act. If the Bord didn’t give permission, those responsible should not be allowed to get away without facing the legal consequences of their destructive actions on a heritage building of primary importance. -
March 3, 2006 at 9:34 pm #767900
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSangallo , you are right, there is damage to some of the mosaics. Today I saw a crack along one of the panels in the predella in front of the Sacred Heart and Pieta chapels and one or two tesserae missing. This is on a par with the neglect in many other parts of the building. Today I also learned that when they took up the oak woodblock floor to install the underfloor heating, which surprisingly never worked, they also took up the mosaic tesserae which run along the border of the wooden floor.
They then replace the oak floor with a new floor – not sure of the wood – and instead of replacing the original tesserae they inserted new ones as the cleaning of the mortar from the old ones would take too much time and effort – these were then binned.
These new tesserae are now lifting in every part of the nave as it seems that the new floor is ‘shifting’. These people are not capable of maintaining a dog kennel nevermind a priceless heritage Church like St. Colman’s. -
March 4, 2006 at 12:36 am #767901
Praxiteles
ParticipantAfter seeing the sleezy clerics who are promoting the destruction of the interior of Cobh Cathedral and their miserable performance during the Oral Hearing at the Midleton Park Hotel during the week, I am not at all surprised that they would not think twice about digging bore holes in the floor of the sanctuary.
These holes were made last Tuesday night. A notorious iconoclastic ckleric, accompanied by a mosaic “expert” flown in from London, and two workmen entered the Cathedral with a jack hammer and took two sample from the floor of the sanctuary. They were obviously tryoing to determine the substrata of the mosaics – never having bothered to make an attempt to find out what lay below the mosaic up until then. This is another example of the proficiency of Cobh Town Council – they made a grant of permission without even bothering to ask if they knew what the mosaic was fix on. Neither did the Town Council ask for a heritage impact report – that had to be done by a group of sensible parishioners.
-
March 5, 2006 at 1:39 am #767902
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe latest piece of interesting detail from the the Midleton Park Oral Hearing on the planned reordering of ST. COlman’s Cathedral is that of 214 objections lodged with Cobh Town Council, Des heffernan, the Senior Planning Officer who was acting in a temporary capacity admitted under cross examination that he had not read ( or indeed seen) more than 70 of those objections. Having checked the objections to-day, it transpires that 92 objections were not read or seen by him. Those 92 objections were submitted by 311 people. This is certainly a very novel approach to democracy and the rule of law. It also seems that 2 objections made by An Taisce may also fall into this catagory and no mention of them is made in Mr. Heffernan’s Report recommending that planning permission be granted to wreck the sanctuary.
-
March 5, 2006 at 2:19 am #767903
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThe more that emerges from this hearing the smellier it gets. For instance Mr. Brian McCutcheon, who was given the task of arranging “consultation” with the people of the parish, thought that holding the ‘information meeting’ on the evening of the day on which the application was submitted to Cobh Town Council would be best. He appears to think that the word “consultation” means “DICTATION”.
-
March 5, 2006 at 2:27 am #767904
Praxiteles
ParticipantHe also did not seem to know that holding clonsultations with the hoi polloi in parallel with submitting the planning application to Cobh Town Council did not mean putting in the application first and then “consulting” the profanum vulgus – who have now caught up with him.
-
March 5, 2006 at 2:32 am #767905
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantAnother little gem from the hearing. At one stage Prof. O’Neill shows a slide of Da Vinci’s last supper saying that this had given him inspiration for the new confirugation of the sanctuary with the people gather around the altar, until it was pointed out to him that in this painting/fresco the figures are in fact all on one side facing in the same direction.
-
March 5, 2006 at 2:34 am #767906
Praxiteles
ParticipantI had the impression at several points in the proceedings that Prof. O’Neill might have wanted to look to his marbles rather than his frescos.
-
March 5, 2006 at 3:53 am #767907
Luzarches
ParticipantPerhaps Prof O’Neill should take the trouble to read Gamber on the probable table arrangements at the Last Supper. But then other great artists like Dan Brown have been inspired by Leonardo to great effect and to no small commercial advantage. Who are we to judge?
-
March 5, 2006 at 9:27 pm #767908
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is the closing statement of An Taisce circulated at the end of the Oral Hearing on Cobh Cathedral
-
March 5, 2006 at 10:23 pm #767909
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe the Oral Hearing of An Bord Pleanala into the proposed re-ordering of Cobh Cathedral, I enclose a copy of a canonical analysis presented on behalf of the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral by Dr Alan Kershaw and expert in Canon Law:
-
March 5, 2006 at 10:37 pm #767910
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into re-ordering of Cobh Cathedral, the following is a liturgical analysis of the plans being put forward. It was drawn up by Dr. Reid of London for the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral:
-
March 5, 2006 at 10:47 pm #767911
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into re-ordering of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, the following is a sample of local input into the hearing. The Greek Chorus in the audience was a good deal more colourful and did not hesitate to make its opinioins known – including a great laugh at the senior architect Des Heffernan, who was acting in a temporary capacity when he recommended granting planning permission for the devastation of the historic building:
-
March 6, 2006 at 12:01 am #767912
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing on St. Colman’s Cathedral Cobh, here is the submission on behalf of An Taisce
-
March 6, 2006 at 12:23 am #767913
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing on re-ordering of Cobh Cathedral: attached is an important submission made by Anne Wilson for An Taisce:
-
March 6, 2006 at 12:58 am #767914
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into reordering of St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh:
Attached is a submission made ny Louis Harrington, Heritage Officer for the County of Cork. Her original recommendation to the planning officer in Cobh was to turn down the application. Des Heffernan, the Senior Planning Offier acting in a tempoprary capacity saw fit to set her advice aside without giving any reasons for it. It should be stated that Louise GHarrington is not only the most senior heritage officer in Cork but in the Republic of Ireland:
-
March 6, 2006 at 1:28 am #767915
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into Cobh Cathedral
Attached is a submission made by Counsellor Sean O’Connor, a member of Cobh Town Council. He took the unusual step of distancing himself from the decision of the Town Council and elaborates on some of the “consultation” process thatg went on before this plan was submitted for planning permission.
-
March 6, 2006 at 5:31 pm #767916
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into Cobh Cathedral re-ordering
Attached must surely be one of the highlights of the Oral Hearing – the submission of the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral, read by terry Pender. It must surely be one of the best emamples of the public J’accuse genre since Zola. Read it carefully.
-
March 6, 2006 at 9:47 pm #767917
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Oral Hearing on St. Colman’s Cathedral
Attached is the submission of Mr. Adrian O’Donovan on behalf of the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral:
-
March 6, 2006 at 10:50 pm #767918
ctesiphon
ParticipantPraxiteles-
Thanks again for taking the time to post all of these documents. They really do give great insight into the goings-on of the last few years, not least the indefatigability of the FOSCC members (and perhaps too the intransigence of the proponents). -
March 7, 2006 at 12:00 am #767919
Praxiteles
ParticipantIntransigence is the understatement of the year for what has has charcterized those promoting the destruction of the interior of Cobh Cathedral. Mind you, quite a few lies have been told here and there also.
-
March 8, 2006 at 12:30 am #767920
Praxiteles
ParticipantRE Oral Hearing into reaordering of Cobh Cathedral
Attached is the submission of Miss Jessie Castle-Meltiski, of Jack Coughlan and Co. Sunday’s Well, Cork, who co-authored a Heritage Impact Study of Professor O’Neill’s project for Cobh Cathedral for the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral:
-
March 8, 2006 at 12:37 am #767921
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe : Oral Hearing into reordering of the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral
Attached is a report submitted to the Oral Hearing by planning consultant Mary Doran of Cork on behalf of the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral. It makes interesting reading.
-
March 8, 2006 at 1:05 am #767922
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Oral hearing into the reordering of the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh
The following is a submission made by one Guy Edwards of the Cliveden Conservation Workshops on behalf of the Trustees of the Cathedral. He claims that he would have no difficulty whatsoever in lifting a 30sq foot mosaic from the Chancel floor, atomizing it, and relaying bits and pieces of it in various unspecified places in the Cathedral. He was brough into the hearing by the Trustees because a previous report supplied by Trevor Caley gave no guarantees that such lifting would be possible without damage to the fabric of the moasic. Mr. Edward cited a recent example of such work in London where he managed to lift a mosaic with a need to replace ONLY 30% of the original tesserae.
Mr Edwards, along with a number of others, entered the Cathedral in Cobh in the dark of night on Tuesday 28 February 2006 and bored two holes in the floor of the sanctuary. This caused a gasp of unbelief at the Oral Hearing. It also emerged that he (nor anyone else) had not applied for planning permission to make such an intervention and no Declaration had been made. In fact, this act was an unlawful act and subject to sanctions. Had he done it in the UK he would face prosecution and the clinker. It is to be hoped that the acedia of Cobh Town Council can be moved to prosecute this vandal before anyone else gets the idea that they can simply walk into Cobh Cathedral and hack it to bits with imunity.
-
March 8, 2006 at 6:58 pm #767923
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Oral Hearing into the reordering of St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh
Attached is a submission prepared by the great Propfessor O’Neill on bahelf of the Trustees of the Cathedral who are attempting to ruinate the interior of the Cathedral.
-
March 8, 2006 at 9:11 pm #767924
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Oral Hearing imto the Reordering of Cobh Cathedral
Submission of Margaret Baker, Cobh
-
March 8, 2006 at 9:22 pm #767925
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Oral Hearing into the reordering of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
-
March 10, 2006 at 2:13 am #767926
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Oral Hearing into reordering of Cobh cathedral
Attached is a note presented to the Hearing on the “extensive” consultations that took place prior tot he lodging of an application for planning permission. Noticeable is nthe fact thatt the Historical Church Advisory Committe of the diocese of Cloyne (aka teh HACK) was represented by Brian McCutcheon adn the great Professor O’Neill – neither of whom is a member of the HACK and neither of whom knows the slightest thing about liturgy.
-
March 10, 2006 at 2:20 am #767927
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into the reordering of Cobh Cathedral
Attached is the latest financial statement returned to the Companies’ Office by the St Colman’s Catholic Trust Company. It is signed by Bishop Magee and dated 15 September 2005 and covers the year ending 2003. At the Oral Hearing, it was stated that the legal expenses incurred by the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral (a completely different body) would be covered by the Restoration Fund i.e. The St Colman’s Cathedral Catholic Trust Company. However, it would not seem that the Fund is entitled to disburse funds to any body other than the Cathedral Restoration fund. Perhaps someone could study this anomaly and advise.
Note carefully the half truths mentioned in the chairman’s report on page 3. We are told that a communication process was undertaken to tell the diocese about Professor O’Neill’s plans and presumably consult. In the next paragraph we are told that planning application was submitted on 18 July 2005. The planning application was in fact submitted to Cobh Town Council BEFORE anybody was either told or consulted about it. The omniscent Brian McCutcheon, when cross examined on this point, admitted that he had taken a decision to present the planning application in parallel with the consultation process. His understanding of parallel, however, meant that the application had been lodged before the consultation began. When cross examined on the point, he admitted (to howls of laughter) that his understanding of “consultation” was different!!!!
-
March 10, 2006 at 6:22 pm #767928
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnne Wilson did a super job on behalf of An Taisce at the Oral Hearing into the reordering of Cobh Cathedral. Currently she is writing a book on St. Finn Barre’s Cathedral in Cork and we are all waiting its publication.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re Oral Hearing on re-ordering of Cobh Cathedral: attached is an important submission made by Anne Wilson for An Taisce:
-
March 10, 2006 at 11:37 pm #767929
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral hearing into the reordering of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork.
Attached is a summary of the evidence produced for the hearing by Canon John Terry, parish priest of Kanturk, Co. Cork and chairman of the Historic Churches Advisory Commission for the diocese of Cloyne. It has to be pointed out from the beginning that this gentleman does not have a doctoral qualification in any science, ecclesiastical or secular. His interest in conservation can be inferred from the dismal state into which he has allowed the parish church of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady at Kanturk to decline. Pictures were posted shortly after Christmas on this thread.
His manner of conducting the meetings of the Historic Churches Advisory Commission can be gleaned from the evidence supplied by Anne Wilson – which is posted on the previous item on this thread.
-
March 10, 2006 at 11:53 pm #767930
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oral Hearing into the reordering of Cobh Cathedral.
Attached is a statement of evidence produced by Denis Reidy, parish priest of Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork. In the Cobh Cathedral saga this must surely be the real ethnic in the wood-pile, the grey eminence hiding behind the throne, always advising but never around to take the flack. This gentleman has no professional qualification of any kind to make a ststement on anything relating to the history of art, architecture or even higher theology. Indeed, he is not qualified to drove cattle!
In the course of his evidence, he made so bold as to correct a statement made in the evidence of Terry pender to the effect that a conservation study commissioned from Carrig in Dublin had not been funded by the Heritage Council but by the Restoration Fund. That was very peculiar because the He
ritage Council, when asked about this subject, replied in writing that it had funded the conservation Report. Interestingly, both Reidy and his associates in the wreckage of the Cathedral disgarded the findings of the Carrig Report and relied on their own “competence” to make an assessment of the historical and architectural significance of the building they were about to attempt to decimate. -
March 12, 2006 at 2:46 pm #767931
Gianlorenzo
Participant@ctesiphon wrote:
Praxiteles-
Thanks again for taking the time to post all of these documents. They really do give great insight into the goings-on of the last few years, not least the indefatigability of the FOSCC members (and perhaps too the intransigence of the proponents).As can be seen from the previous postings the Trustees of St. Colman’s attitude toward the FOSCC is one of contempt, a contempt which was clearly evident in Midleton at the Oral Hearing. The last paragraph of Canon Terry’s submission says it all, – The HCAC of the Cloyne Diocese when considering the Appeal to An Bord Pleanala considered ONLY the DoEHLG and don’t even mention An Taisce; the Irish Georgian Society; or the FOSCC. Despite the fact that the FOSCC Appeal dealt with every aspect of the case; Liturgical Requirement and lack thereof; improper planning procedures; good conservation practice and the cultural and social aspects of the case. The Trustees chose to ignore all these aspects and dealt exclusively with the question of the lifting and storage of mosaics.
If they get away with this farce then the Planning Act, in so far as it is for the protection of listed and important buildings, may as well be thrown out and as Noel O’Driscoll says in his summing up – get an office and a clerk and a rubber stamp, tell the church authorities that they are outside the law and can do what ever they wish with any of their structure and save everyone a lot of time and effort. All the church authorities have to do is set up their own committee (HCAC), get one of its members to write a document entitled ‘Liturgical Requirement’ , which the same committee will then approve, and away you go. no one in civil authority will question it. And perish the thought that they might seek verification of said document with the proper authority in these matters, i.e. the Holy See.
And to complete the circle, it was the Bishop of Cloyne and his buddy Fr. Paddy Jones who had a hand in writing the Guidelines in the first place – how convenient is that? -
March 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm #767932
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, it is true that McGhee and Paddy Jones were involved in the drawing up of the famopus guidelines. Paddy Jones in his submission to the Oral Hearing made thta clear and gave a good account of the meetings that went on with the then minsiter – one Martin Cullen (has anyone ever heard of him before?). It has been suggested that the guidelines were drawn up with Cullen having a special eye for the Cobh Cathedral and traded off as part of a deal with the government to gain the support of the Catholic CHurch for the last abortion referendum. Amazing, that anything Cullen touches leads to trouble – especially for the government.
-
March 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm #767933
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, it is true that McGhee and Paddy Jones were involved in the drawing up of the famopus guidelines. Paddy Jones in his submission to the Oral Hearing made thta clear and gave a good account of the meetings that went on with the then minsiter – one Martin Cullen (has anyone ever heard of him before?). It has been suggested that the guidelines were drawn up with Cullen having a special eye for the Cobh Cathedral and traded off as part of a deal with the government to gain the support of the Catholic CHurch for the last abortion referendum. Amazing, that anything Cullen touches leads to trouble – especially for the government.
-
March 14, 2006 at 1:06 pm #767934
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantMr. Richard Hurley, whose work has featured prominently on this thread wrote a report for An Bord Pleanala on behalf of The Arts Council. The Bord had requested this report. What is interesting is what Mr. Hurley says in the context of liturgical requirement: “While it is not essential to change, it is desirable” (see Attached)
This, of course, is what FOSCC has been saying from the beginning, that the proposed changes are a ‘preference’ or a ‘desire’ on the part of BIshop Magee and a small number of his clergy and that they cannot be described as ‘liturgically required‘ as they have tried to make out. And, therefore, as St. Colman’s is such an important building in the Irish context, the irreversible and radical destruction of the fabric that is proposed, should not be allowed merely because it is ‘desired’.
In Midleton during the oral hearing, when Mr. Hurley’s contribution was mentioned the spokesman for the applicants said ” Do you realise that Mr. Hurley was in competition [with Prof. O’Neill and others] for the job of re-ordering the Cathedral”, ergo his contribution can be discounted as ‘pique ‘.
It is truly amazing how the Trustees of St. Colman’s and their agents can discount every and all opposition as either personal attacks on themselves, or motivated by the baser emotions, and never ever actually address the arguments put up against the proposals.
-
March 14, 2006 at 3:35 pm #767935
Praxiteles
ParticipantRichard Hurley was wasting his time applying for the job in Cobh. Bishop Magee had been heard on several times to say publicly that “Richard Hurley will never get his hands on MY cathedral”. It is difficult to say what motivates that. Richard Hurley is perhaps not radical enough for the Bishop’s iconoclastic taste. In comparison to the wreckage proposed by O’Neill for Cobh, Richard Hurley was positovely Tridentine in the Honan Chapel.
-
March 15, 2006 at 1:23 am #767936
samson
ParticipantThe hilarious thing is this bishop moving his throne “closer to the people”. who the hell do these guys think they are. the sheer vanity of thinking the people want him any closer. churches fill up from the back for a reason.
-
March 15, 2006 at 3:01 am #767937
Praxiteles
ParticipantNo need to tear out the hair, Samson!
-
March 15, 2006 at 8:05 pm #767938
samson
Participantwhat about this bishop moving his throne out to be “closer to the people”. who do these guys think they are? the sheer vanity of presuming the people want to be closer to them – especially now. why do churches fill from the back?
-
March 15, 2006 at 11:10 pm #767939
Luzarches
ParticipantAlthough, if you look at the O’Neill scheme with the cathedra placed diagonally and against the crossing pier, he will have his back to all those people in the transept facing the altar. Maybe they should divide the seating into ‘Full’, ‘Conscious’ and ‘Active’ Participation categories?
-
March 15, 2006 at 11:24 pm #767940
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantFunny you should say that, Luxarches. Prof. O’Neill considers the seats that are within 15m of the altar the “precious” seat. This was how he described them to the Oral Hearing. So now you know. Get your measuring tape out – check the distance you are from the altar and you will know if you are in the “precious” category or not.
-
March 17, 2006 at 3:38 am #767941
Luzarches
ParticipantFor all the jesting, there is here an implied ‘seniority’ relating to those nearest the altar as distinct from the proper hierarchy of clergy and laity defined by the existing architecture. If this proper distinction is muddied then one arrives at a point where things like altar rails are offensive and a ‘fuedal’ barrier. At present there is an equality in the faithful gathered in the nave outside the sanctuary, there is no sense in which sitting at the front is better qualitatively than half way down or at the back. The rails encourage people of all sorts rub shoulders in a posture of humility.
Anyway, I thought Catholics fought for the seats at the back, not he front.
-
March 17, 2006 at 4:51 am #767942
GrahamH
ParticipantForget seats – the entrance lobby is the hottest place in town on Sunday morning.
Preferably near the 1930s raditator that makes strange gurgling sounds. Or maybe that’s all the stomachs from the night before. -
March 17, 2006 at 6:54 pm #767943
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThe reality is that people will naturally go to the same seats day in day out, or week in week out. One can tell who is around immediately upon entering ones local church. Even visitors, if they attend daily Mass, will inevitably go to the same section of the church everytime. Regarding Cobh Cathedral, the back section of the central nave seats are the ones that fill up first, with a few people choosing to take seats nearer the front. Should the proposed re-ordering take place, this situation will not change, and people will move correspondingly back, until they find the place where they are most comfortable.
This, of course, make Prof.O’Neill assumption that everyone is going to “gather around the altar” in his proposed confirugation, total nonesense. One of the characteristics of the team proposing the changes to Cobh Cathedral is their total divorce from reality. If, once, they had taken the time to actually talk to the people they might have learned a great deal of what actually happens in the church. Unfortunatley their attitiude is that they can impose this on the people and that eventually they will come around. No wonder there is such anger and resentment among the parishioners in Cobh. -
March 17, 2006 at 7:01 pm #767944
Anonymous
InactiveA little question: with all of the emphasis on visibility to ensure greater participation, what is to be said about the blind person? Is he (or she) to be left out, simply because he can’t see what’s going on?
-
March 17, 2006 at 7:43 pm #767945
Gianlorenzo
Participant@sangallo wrote:
A little question: with all of the emphasis on visibility to ensure greater participation, what is to be said about the blind person? Is he (or she) to be left out, simply because he can’t see what’s going on?
Sangallo, from the limited justification produced in Midleton in support of the proposed re-ordering, one would think that anyone who is blind, or even partially sighted, is completely unable to take ‘active participation’ in the Mass. Taking that idea to its end, it would appear that they are saying that people with sight disability have never actually taken part in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Interestingly, I remember it being said, when I was young, that one heard Mass, and that the priest said Mass.Taken along with some of the other bizarre statements made by the Applicants during the recent Oral Hearing,one can only come to the conclusion that they no idea of what their own Church says on these matters and have total contempt for the ordinary parishioners, whose instincts are more inline with true Church teaching then they are.
-
March 19, 2006 at 8:11 pm #767946
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis interesting and well informed piece came to hand from The Phoenix, 10 March 2006. Obviously, there was a chief among the legal eagles taking notes:
-
March 20, 2006 at 3:32 am #767947
Luzarches
ParticipantI found this on the subject of kneeling a book, Sacred Signs, by Romano Guardini, a leading contributor to the thought of the Liturgical Movement. It serves as a timeles rebuke to those who would covertly or overtly attempt to reduce the frequency of this gesture in the liturgy:
KNEELING
WHEN a man feels proud of himself, he stands erect, draws himself
to his full height, throws back his head and shoulders and says
with every part of his body, I am bigger and more important than
you. But when he is humble he feels his littleness, and lowers
his head and shrinks into himself. He abases himself. And the
greater the presence in which he stands the more deeply he abases
himself; the smaller he becomes in his own eyes.But when does our littleness so come home to us as when we stand
in God’s presence? He is the great God, who is today and
yesterday, whose years are hundreds and thousands, who fills the
place where we are, the city, the wide world, the measureless
space of the starry sky, in whose eyes the universe is less than
a particle of dust, all-holy, all-pure, all-righteous, infinitely
high. He is so great, I so small, so small that beside him I seem
hardly to exist, so wanting am I in worth and substance. One has
no need to be told that God’s presence is not the place in which
to stand on one’s dignity. To appear less presumptuous, to be as
little and low as we feel, we sink to our knees and thus
sacrifice half our height; and to satisfy our hearts still
further we bow down our heads, and our diminished stature speaks
to God and says, Thou art the great God; I am nothing.Therefore let not the bending of our knees be a hurried gesture,
an empty form. Put meaning into it. To kneel, in the soul’s
intention, is to bow down before God in deepest reverence.On entering a church, or in passing before the altar, kneel down
all the way without haste or hurry, putting your heart into what
you do, and let your whole attitude say, Thou art the great God.
It is an act of humility, an act of truth, and everytime you
kneel it will do your soul good. -
March 22, 2006 at 2:11 am #767948
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Paul’s Cathedral, Calcutta (1847)
A.N. Didron in his Annales Archéologiques mentions this church as an example of the spread of the Gothic style thoughout the British Empire.
St. Paul’s Cathedral Church
This Catholic Church is situated on the south east of Maidan beside Rabindra Sadan. This was the first ‘Episcopal Cathedral Church’ in an oriental country.Bishop Wilson patronized the construction of this church which was designed after Indo-Gothic pattern at a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs. The foundation stone was laid in 1839. Major Forbes of the Bengal Engineers’ Association made the blueprint. It was completed in 1847. -
March 22, 2006 at 2:36 am #767949
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Albany, New York
Originally constructed in 1848-52 to the design of Patrick Keeley, the cathedral was extended to the west in 1891.
A.N. Didron mentions this church in his Annales Archéologiques for 1853: “la Cathédrale d’Albany, consacrée en novembre 1852, est un très-bel édifice gothique en pierre; elle est située dans une position qui domine le fleuve Hudson. Les vitraux ont été donnés par les différentes paroisses du diocèse, chaque paroisse a fait don d’une fenetre; l’autel en marbre blanc a été sculpté à Paris, où nous l’avons vu et remarqué; c’est dans l’atelier de notre ami M. Froget qu’on l’a exécuté”.
-
March 22, 2006 at 3:02 am #767950
Praxiteles
ParticipantCathedral of St. John the Evangelist, Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland’s first bishop, Amadeus Rappe, built the Cathedral of St John. Work was begun in 1848 with Patrick Charles Keeley as the architect. Keeley would become one of the premier church architects of the 19th century and the Cathedral of Saint John the Evangelist would be one of his first Cathedral designs. The cornerstone was laid on October 22, 1848. Additional property was purchased and the first Mass was held in the temporary chapel of the Nativity on Christmas Day of 1848. During the week it housed a school. The Cathedral, built in what was called a French or ornamental Gothic style, was completed in 1852. The extreme poverty of the Diocese forced Bishop Rappe to go on fund-raising trips to France, New York City, and other parts of Ohio to help finance its completion.
A. N. Didron mentions this cathedral in his Annales Archeologiques and provides some interesti g information about the retable of the High ALtar: “La cathédrale de Cleveland, sur les bords du lac Erié, est en briques, mais l’autel et son rtable gothique, en chene, ont été sculptés dans la ville de Saint-Pol-de- Léon, en Bretagne, par Saint-Yves, un simple menuisier de campagne; il est vrai que M. Pol de Courcy guidait la main, pour ainsi dire, du respectable Saint-Yves”.
This is what the original altar looked like:
The Lady Chapel
The Cathedral as originally built and before reconstruction in 1944-1946
Unfortunately, the interior has been completely devastated. Fortunately, the retable survives but it is difficult to say what happened tot he original High Altar.
-
March 22, 2006 at 6:32 pm #767951
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Port of Spain, Trinidad
-
March 22, 2006 at 11:48 pm #767952
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe St. Kiklaus Kirche in Hamburg built 1845-1874 by G. Scott
Didron in his Annales Archéologiques for 1855 credits G. Scott for having introduced Pugin’s true principles into germany by the construction of the Nicholauskirche in Hamburg for the Evangelical Lutherans. It was the largest church in the city of Hamburg until it was bombed in July 1943.
-
March 23, 2006 at 12:27 am #767953
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. George’s Chentenham, 1854 by Charles Hansom
The plans for this church were much admired by A.N. Didron at the Great Exhibition.
ST. GREGORY’S CHURCH was built in the decorated style and begun in the spring of 1854 to replace a simple chapel which had been erected, on the site of the present tower in 1809 by the first Rector, Father Augustine Birdsall O.S.B. The chancel was opened for worship in May 1857. The tower and spire were begun but not completed until 1876, when the present nave, which connected the two existing parts of the building, was built. The church was consecrated in 1877.
The Church was designed by the famous architect, Charles Hansom. It contains many beautiful stained glass windows, crafted by the John Hardman Studios of Warley, Worcestershire, six of which are original, the others dating from 1857 – 1900. There are many fine stone carvings including the reredos behind the High Altar, the Pulpit front, altar fronts and a magnificent set of Stations of the Cross around the walls.
-
March 23, 2006 at 12:31 am #767954
Praxiteles
ParticipantJoseph Aloysius Hansom (Brother of Charles Hansom)
Joseph Aloysius Hansom
Born: 26-Oct-1803
Birthplace: York, North Yorkshire, England
Died: 29-Jun-1882
Location of death: London, England
Cause of death: unspecifiedGender: Male
Religion: Roman Catholic
Ethnicity: White
Occupation: Architect, InventorNationality: England
Executive summary: Invented the Hansom CabEnglish architect and inventor, born in York on the 26th of October 1803. Showing an aptitude for designing and construction, he was taken from his father’s joinery shop and apprenticed to an architect in York, and, by 1831, his designs for the Birmingham town hall were accepted and followed — to his financial undoing, as he had become bond for the builders. In 1834 he registered the design of a “Patent Safety Cab”, and subsequently sold the patent to a company for £10,000, which, however, owing to the company’s financial difficulties, was never paid. The hansom cab as improved by subsequent alterations, nevertheless, took and held the fancy of the public. There was no back seat for the driver in the original design, and there is little beside the suspended axle and large wheels in the modern hansom to recall the early ones. In 1834 Hansom founded the Builder newspaper, but was compelled to retire from this enterprise owing to insufficient capital. Between 1854 and 1879 he devoted himself to architecture, designing and erecting a great number of important buildings, private and public, including churches, schools and convents for the Roman Catholic church to which he belonged. Buildings from his designs are scattered all over the United Kingdom, and were even erected in Australia and South America. He died in London on the 29th of June 1882.
Wife: Hannah Glover (m. 1825)
-
March 23, 2006 at 12:45 am #767955
Praxiteles
ParticipantCharles Francis Hansom
HANSOM, Charles Francis (1817-88), of Coventry
Steam Mill, 1839-41
[Other work included Holy Sacrament RC church, Coventry, 1844; RC church at Studley, Warwicks, 1850; RC church and presbytery at Coughton, Warwicks, 1851-53]Holy Cross Church, Kenmare, Co. Kerry
-
March 23, 2006 at 10:30 pm #767956
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Canton City, China
The Catholic cathedral in Canton was built between 1860 to 1890. This neo-Gothic granite structure designed by a French architect is an amazing feat of workmanship by Chinese craftsmen with little knowledge of this type of construction. These workers had also to bear the brunt of the local population’s displeasure. Indeed, far from bringing Western missionaries and the people of Canton to some understanding and respect for each other, the building deepened the mistrust and became the focus of bitter disputes and clashes.
The uncompromising attitude and political maneuvering of Bishop Guillemin in the pursuit of his dream of a magnificent Gothic cathedral did nothing to alleviate Chinese suspicion of missionaries’ collusion with Western expansionist plans. He repeatedly disregarded local fengshu i and used French political and military might to his advantage in claiming a site for his new church. His pick was as much a political as a religious statement. Indeed, the location he set sight upon was the grounds of the governor-general palace destroyed in December 1857 by Anglo-French forces. In 1879, the bishop’s obsession with church constructions in his vicariate was to an extent responsible for his recall to Europe by Rome. Guillemin’s immediate successors were unable to defuse the population’s resentment against missionaries, the converts, and the cathedral.
On the Chinese side, the governor and governor-general vacillated between orders from Beijing to accommodate missionaries and demands from the local gentry for punitive actions against these same foreigners. This anti-foreign local elite played a crucial role in venting the population anger against the cathedral as the most obvious and prominent symbol of foreign impingement in the city. In 1880, an angry mob threatened the unfinished building and destroyed Christian housing. The onset of the conflict with France over Annam further increased the tension and led to a widespread persecution of Christians in the province. To prevent another riot in Canton, the governor-general ordered missionaries to leave and confiscated the property of the cathedral. The situation did not quiet down until the end of the Sino-French war in June 1885.
In today Canton, missionaries are gone, anti-foreignism is at an all-time low, and Catholicism is striving. The resentment against the cathedral, known by the population as the Stone House ( shishi ), has disappeared. In a strange twist of history, the present provincial government has declared the building a valued cultural monument. At long last, instead of being a divisive symbol in the city skyline, the Canton cathedral has become a peaceful testimony of a common heritage proudly treasured by East and West. -
March 23, 2006 at 10:33 pm #767957
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSacred Heart Cathedral Guangzhou City, Guangdong China is described as the largest Gothic Church in China.
The cathedral is also known as “Shi Shi” (Stone-Chamber) because that all its walls and poles are made of granite.
Stone House (Roman Catholic Church), located on Yide Road, was actually the office of the Guangdong and Guangxi provinces during the late Qing Dynasty. Originally named the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, it was built entirely of granite, hence its name, the Stone House. This, the largest Catholic church in China, is well known in the Far East and is still a religious centre for Guangzhou’s Roman Catholics. It was built between 1863-1888 by the French Architect Guillemin.
Sacred Heart Catholic Church (Shishi Jiaotang) is now a Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) church, with no contact being allowed outside of China. The church’s construction was begun in the 1860’s and completed in 1888. It somehow survived the Cultural Revolution. It is located on Yide Lu in Central Guangzhou. It is a Gothic-style cathedral with a 190 foot (or so) tower. It’s large copper bell was shipped in from France. -
March 23, 2006 at 10:48 pm #767958
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Ignatius’ Cathedral, Shanghai, China
Built in 1906
-
March 23, 2006 at 11:30 pm #767959
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Catedral of Peking, China
-
March 23, 2006 at 11:46 pm #767960
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Changsha, Hunan Province
(following an attack by the commies in 1930)
-
March 24, 2006 at 12:02 am #767961
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral in Mukden, China
-
March 24, 2006 at 12:17 am #767962
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral in Jinan
German built
-
March 24, 2006 at 12:23 am #767963
LeoWong
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Albany, New York
My church, also threatened with reordering, and nothing to protect it but lack of funds.
Leo Wong
http://www.MurphyWong.net -
March 24, 2006 at 1:11 am #767964
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Albany, New York
Originally constructed in 1848-52 to the design of Patrick Keeley, the cathedral was extended to the west in 1891.
A.N. Didron mentions this church in his Annales Arché]http://www.mcwb-arch.com/images/cathedral/Scaffold1.jpg[/IMG]
Mr Wong,
Did anyone tell the authorities in Albany just how important this building is, and that Didron mentions it and tell exactly where the altar was made and who made it. Is it intented to do to the Immaculate Conception what was done to St. Joseph’s in Albany – an even more important church.
-
March 24, 2006 at 1:33 am #767965
LeoWong
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Mr Wong,
Did anyone tell the authorities in Albany just how important this building is, and that Didron mentions it and tell exactly where the altar was made and who made it. Is it intented to do to the Immaculate Conception what was done to St. Joseph’s in Albany – an even more important church.
Our Rector and our historian love the cathedral, but the Interior committee seem (I can’t swear to it) weighted in favor of Diocesan “faith and worship” members. The consultant is Father Richard Vosko, who happens to a a priest of the diocese and, I’m told “the Bishop’s man.” Moving the altar to the crossing seems a given; even the Rector seems to favor that. Some parishioners will grumble and some may leave, but as I say, the only protection would likely be lack of money, since much else needs to be done (electrical, flooring, etc.) besides any “reordering.” On the positive side, we are also looking to build an organ. How all this works out remains to be seen. Apparently the interior committee makes a recommendation and the bishop decides.
LW
-
March 24, 2006 at 1:37 am #767966
-
March 24, 2006 at 1:40 am #767967
Praxiteles
ParticipantAdolf Napoleon DIDRON, Annales Archéologiques, Vol. 13 (1853), p. 323. The annales were published in PAris between 1844 and 1871. They served as a forum for the excange of ideas about the neo gothic revival and other information on the same subject. The article mentioning Albany is entitled Renaissance de l’Architecture Chrétienne.
We know of Vasko. He is the greatest iconoclast on the face of the western world and responsible for the wreckage of much of North America’s cultural heritage.
What of ST. Joseph’s in Albany. It was built by the same architect, I think?
-
March 24, 2006 at 1:50 am #767968
LeoWong
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Adolf Napoleon DIDRON, Annales Arché]Renaissance de l’Architecture Chr
-
March 24, 2006 at 1:57 am #767969
LeoWong
Participant@LeoWong wrote:
St. Joseph’s interior is practically destroyed. The diocese, I believe, at one time sold it to a restaurateur, but now ti belongs to the City or some preservatrion group. St. Joseph’s I believe is older than the Cathedral, and since the Cathedral was Keely’s first church, SJ must have been by a different architect. I shall have to do some research.
LW
SJ is by Keely: http://www.historic-albany.org/stjoe.html
LW
-
March 24, 2006 at 2:42 am #767970
Praxiteles
ParticipantSee posting no. 644
@Praxiteles wrote:
St Joseph’s, Albany, New York
Patrick Charles Keely
The interior, except ro the magnificent hammerbeam roof has been stripped and the church has just about escaped demolition.
-
March 24, 2006 at 2:51 am #767971
Praxiteles
ParticipantPatrick Charles KEELEY 1816-1896
P.C. Keeley’s importance as an architect can be gathered from the attached link which clearly shows that he was prime American architect and closely linked tot he Neo-Gothic revival movement’s major exponents such as A.W.N. Pugin and A.N. Didron.
-
March 24, 2006 at 3:04 am #767972
Praxiteles
ParticipantPatrick Charles Keely was born in Thurles, County Tipperary, Ireland, on August 9, 1816, the son of a builder who had moved to Thurles from Mlkenny to construct St. Patrick’s College. After its completion in 1837, the elder Keely acted as both architect and builder for the Fever Hospital, finished in 1840. What training in architectural design young Patrick received is unknown, but it is likely that he learned construction from his father.
At age 25 he sailed for America, settling in Brooklyn where he took up the carpentry trade. Among his first designs were altars at the Seminary at Lafargeville and in St. James’ Pro-cathedral in Brooklyn, for which he acted as superintendent of construction as well. In due course, a young priest of his acquaintance, Father Sylvester Malone, contacted Keely regarding a new church he planned to build in the Williamsburgh section of Brooklyn. Together they worked out a plan from which Keely developed a Gothic design. Its dedication in 1846 opened a new era in Catholic building, and Keely was besieged with requests for designs of churches and other buildings to serve the rapidly increasing immigrant population.
In 1849, a scant three years after completing his first church, Keely was called upon to design the Cathedral at Albany for Bishop McClusky, who was to become the first American cardinal. This was the first of 20 cathedrals for which he received commissions, including those in Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford, Newark, Providence, and, of course, Boston. His total output of churches is said to total more than 600, plus a number of institutional buildings, Virtually all of which were religiously oriented. The geographical distribution of Keely’s work ranged from Charleston, South Carolina to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and as far west as Iowa.
-
March 24, 2006 at 3:30 am #767973
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThis is from St. Catherine’s Review. http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/dickvosko1.html
“Father Richard Vosko, Ph.D., a priest of the Diocese of Albany, has been making a comfortable living for the past 29 years, travelling the United States and Canada—parish by parish—promoting his liturgical indoctrination program for the renovation of traditional Catholic churches as well as for the design of new Catholic churches.
He bills himself as a “Designer and Consultant for Worship Environments,” and teaches in a Chicago-based training program for the certification of new consultants.
According to a self-promotional “A Short Biography” that he provides to parishes he is “trained in liturgy, the fine arts, and adult education. His research interest has to do with the impact of the built environment on adult behavior patterns.”
Not an architect
Although he often gives the air of being a professional architect, he is not. The materials he prepares for parish renovation teams, according to architect William J. Miller of Cincinnati, Oh., “clearly appear to be the kind of material that constitutes a portion of architectural service called ‘design programming.’”Vosko, emphasizes Miller, is not a registered architect. “In effect such acts would seem to constitute the illegal practice of architecture in general appearance.”
Miller, who met Vosko at an indoctrination session for St. John the Baptist Church in Harrison, Ohio, raises an interesting point: “For a contract to be legal and binding it must, among other requirements, be for something legal.
In effect a contract for something that is not legal is not binding and enforceable. If a parish, after witnessing Vosko’s presentations and upon hearing his recommendations, decided not to pay him, he has no basis in law to collect since he is not licensed to provide the service he renders.”
-
March 24, 2006 at 3:33 am #767974
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantBrain-washing and manipulation
Vosko’s masquerade attacks the very heart of the Catholic faith.In an effort to bury the Church visible with newfangled liturgical rhetoric, Father Vosko’s modus operandi is predicated on the assumption that he can manipulate parishioners into believing that their own input—ideas of what a parish church building should be—is being taken into consideration in the design of their church.
To this end, diocesan worship committees recommend Fr. Vosko to engineer the whole process that a parish must undergo, to achieve the desired project—which is usually pre-determined before any input is received from parishioners— with little or no resistance from laity.
The fact that bishops and pastors are so ready and willing to “partner” with Fr. Vosko is worrisome to many
If the project calls for the renovation of an historic church or cathedral, Fr. Vosko is hired to have the parishioners come to the conclusion that their traditional arrangement—with pews, central tabernacle, statuary, shrines, elevated sanctuary, Communion rails, baldacchino, high altar, etc.—is unsuitable for “post-Vatican II” worship, and therefore is unsalvageable as a church building.
Ultimate irony
Fr. Vosko’s comment that in the old church the people never had a say in anything is most ironic.His own planning process is engineered down to the most minute details. He, for instance, includes plans on how to arrange the seating during his educational indoctrination presentations, to discourage dissent. Fr. Vosko’s charade is designed to give the impression that everyone has a “say” in the design process, when in fact the whole project has been designed in Vosko’s head before he even arrives at a particular parish.
-
March 24, 2006 at 3:43 am #767975
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantIt looks as if the “indoctrination seesions” have already begun in Albany. God help them.
Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception PARISH NEWS
REMINDER: The first of three informational meetings on the renovation of the interior of the Cathedral will be held Monday, March 6 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cathedral. The topic will be The History of the Christian Place of Worship. Please make every effort to participate in these meetings. -
March 24, 2006 at 4:16 am #767976
LeoWong
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
It looks as if the “indoctrination seesions” have already begun in Albany. God help them.
Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception PARISH NEWS
REMINDER: The first of three informational meetings on the renovation of the interior of the Cathedral will be held Monday, March 6 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cathedral. The topic will be The History of the Christian Place of Worship. Please make every effort to participate in these meetings.Where did you get this? I hope my Rector doesn’t think I’m feeding you this, for I’m not.
Father Vosko’s site: http://www.rvosko.com/
LW
-
March 24, 2006 at 1:21 pm #767977
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantLee Wong,
I got it from the Cathedral wet site you posted on #755.
I speak from personal experience of these types of meetings and the manipulative character of them. I am sorry if you are offended or upset by my use of the above quote, but I find the actions of the people involved in this type of manipulative process very offensive indeed.
If you are concerned for your Cathedral, you should do a little research on the subject. Look at http://www.foscc.com
for a contemporary Irish Cathedral re-ordering story.
Another offensive aspect of all this is the money expended on these totally unnecessary re-orderings. Nothing in Vatican II or subsequent Vatican documents calls for the destruction of sanctuaries in old churches. It is an out-dated liturgical and design preference of some members of the clergy which has been imposed on unwitting parishioners all over the English speaking world. While Bishops and priests spend their time working on these projects their churches are emptying. -
March 24, 2006 at 2:16 pm #767978
LeoWong
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Lee Wong,
I got it from the Cathedral wet site you posted on #755.
I speak from personal experience of these types of meetings and the manipulative character of them. I am sorry if you are offended or upset by my use of the above quote, but I find the actions of the people involved in this type of manipulative process very offensive indeed.No, I am not offended by you. I just don’t want anyone to think that I am starting a campaign or trying to stir up trouble.
I have been following the Cobh events and have recommended the foscc site to anyone who might listen.
LW
-
March 24, 2006 at 2:50 pm #767979
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantLee Wong
May I ask why don’t you want to start a campaign to save your Cathedral?
-
March 24, 2006 at 7:09 pm #767980
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Michael’s Cathedral in Quingdao, China (built 1934)
-
March 24, 2006 at 7:43 pm #767981
Praxiteles
ParticipantA more recent view of the Cathedral of Peking, China
“The largest church in China,” in brick and cast iron Gothic, with an elaborate grey marble facade, and built in 1890 by the French mission. The church was formerly the centre of a great complex of schools, orphanages and hospitals. The building has a tall, wide nave with side aisles, octagonal transepts and a huge sanctuary. There are many chandeliers, plus large, painted stations of the cross, old stained glass and the remains of old wall decoration. You could be in suburban Paris. The Patriotic Church re-occupied the building at the end of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), and the church was restored in 1985. It now claims to house eight bishops and stands in spacious and beautiful grounds planted with big old pine and oak trees and with two Chinese pavilions. The magnificent facade of 1900 dates from after the Boxer Rebellion, when the cathedral compound, filled with converts fleeing the rebels, was besieged. Many people were killed here in the fighting before they were rescued by the Allied troops, led by British Indian soldiers.
-
March 24, 2006 at 7:43 pm #767982
Praxiteles
ParticipantA more recent view of the Cathedral of Peking, China
“The largest church in China,” in brick and cast iron Gothic, with an elaborate grey marble facade, and built in 1890 by the French mission. The church was formerly the centre of a great complex of schools, orphanages and hospitals. The building has a tall, wide nave with side aisles, octagonal transepts and a huge sanctuary. There are many chandeliers, plus large, painted stations of the cross, old stained glass and the remains of old wall decoration. You could be in suburban Paris. The Patriotic Church re-occupied the building at the end of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), and the church was restored in 1985. It now claims to house eight bishops and stands in spacious and beautiful grounds planted with big old pine and oak trees and with two Chinese pavilions. The magnificent facade of 1900 dates from after the Boxer Rebellion, when the cathedral compound, filled with converts fleeing the rebels, was besieged. Many people were killed here in the fighting before they were rescued by the Allied troops, led by British Indian soldiers.
-
March 24, 2006 at 8:32 pm #767983
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral in Chongquing
The Catholic Church was built in Xianfeng Period, Qing Dynasty (1858).Situated on Mingsheng Road in Yuzhong District, it is the main church of Chongqing Parish. It covers an area of 18,298.6 square feet including a main hall of 5,382 square feet with a seating capacity of 1,000. Important rituals such as the Mass usually draws thousands of people.
-
March 24, 2006 at 8:37 pm #767984
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Catholic Church in Pengzhou, Chengdu
-
March 24, 2006 at 8:41 pm #767985
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Catholic Church in Dawu, China
-
March 24, 2006 at 8:54 pm #767986
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Catholic Church in Kangding, China
-
March 24, 2006 at 9:15 pm #767987
LeoWong
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
May I ask why don’t you want to start a campaign to save your Cathedral?
I’ll do as the Spirit prompts me.
-
March 24, 2006 at 10:04 pm #767988
Luzarches
ParticipantDear LeoWong,
I notice that on the website of Immaculate Conception, Albany, there is only one clear image of the sanctuary. This shows a free-standing, almost square altar of a Gothic design. I can make out a stone construction behind it, maybe the cathedra? When was the cathedral first re-ordered? Where’s the old high-altar, the rails etc…? Are there any images of these anywhere?
I am especially concerned that, since the church has appeared to have lost a portion of its original fittings already, any Vosko guided work might be even more drastic. I think it would be prudent to try to extract an undertaking from the authorities at this early stage that items such as the choir-stalls and the pulpit are not at any risk of being removed.
-
March 25, 2006 at 12:43 am #767989
LeoWong
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
Dear LeoWong,
I notice that on the website of Immaculate Conception, Albany, there is only one clear image of the sanctuary. This shows a free-standing, almost square altar of a Gothic design. I can make out a stone construction behind it, maybe the cathedra? When was the cathedral first re-ordered? Where’s the old high-altar, the rails etc…? Are there any images of these anywhere?
I am especially concerned that, since the church has appeared to have lost a portion of its original fittings already, any Vosko guided work might be even more drastic. I think it would be prudent to try to extract an undertaking from the authorities at this early stage that items such as the choir-stalls and the pulpit are not at any risk of being removed.
A history of the cathedral may be published this year. It will probably answer these questions. The old high-altar and the communion rail must have been taken down more than twenty years ago. The present altar (on wheels) is made from the old altar and is about 3/7 as wide (if you take the two side panels on each side and put them on the same plane as the present three center panels, you will probably restore the front of the high altar. A photo from perhaps 1952 shows the high altar 5 or 6 steps up from the sanctuary floor. The steps are gone, their place taken by a box that holds speakers for the electronic organ. I don’t know if the rail exists somewhere; the Rector or the historian may know.
The construction is brick, plastered and painted to look like stone. The exterior has a stone “skin.”
-
March 25, 2006 at 1:07 am #767990
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Sacred Heart in Fujian, China
-
March 25, 2006 at 1:23 am #767991
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Michael’s Cathedral, Quindao, China
-
March 25, 2006 at 11:27 pm #767992
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of Our Lady, Danang, Vietnam (1923)
-
March 25, 2006 at 11:38 pm #767993
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Joseph’s Cathedral, Hanoi 1886
The proto-type is Notre Dame de Paris
-
March 26, 2006 at 2:13 am #767994
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of the Assumption of Our Lady, Bangkok, Thailand 1910
-
March 27, 2006 at 6:23 pm #767995
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Catholic Cathedral at Phat Diem, Vietnam.
This is the site of one of the earliest missions in Vietnam.
-
March 27, 2006 at 6:57 pm #767996
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Catholic church at Sapa, Vietnam
-
March 27, 2006 at 7:07 pm #767997
Praxiteles
ParticipantSo far, this is the only photograph that I can locate of the great Marian Shrine at Sheshan, near Shanghai, built between 1925 and 1935.
-
March 27, 2006 at 9:26 pm #767998
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome further pictures of the Marian Shrine at Sheshan, Shanghai, China
The bronze statue of the Madonna and Child atop the basilica was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. A replica was installed in the year 2000.
In 1866, the Church in Shanghai built a hexagonal pavilion and placed within it an altar and a statue of Our Lady. Five years later, the Jesuits built a church at the summit of the mountain and dedicated it to Our Lady Help of Christians. The church opened in 1873.
In 1924, the China bishops consecrated China to Our Lady, and following the consecration they made a pilgrimage to Sheshan. Work on a basilica began in 1925. It was completed ten years later in 1935. This church was the first basilica in all of the Far East, and it became China’s favourite pilgrim site.
During the Cultural Revolution the beautiful bronze statue of Our Lady at the pinnacle of the basilica disappeared, and other religious symbols, including the altar, and the stained glass window were all virtually destroyed. A replica of the bronze statue of Mary holding up the Christ Child was finally re-installed on top of the tower in the year 2000. Some 10,000 believers paid for it. Pilgrimages to the shrine resumed in 1979.
-
March 27, 2006 at 9:46 pm #767999
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Marian Shrine of Donglu, near Baoding in Hebei Province, China.
The church at Donglu was originally built as a thankoffering for the salvation of Christians from the terors of the Boxer rebellion of 1900.
The main image of OUr Lady in the Church in Donglu is based on an official portrait of the Dowager Impress Tze
-
March 27, 2006 at 10:28 pm #768000
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Marian Shrine at Donglu, Guiyang, Hebei Province, China
Accoding to reports, the shrine at Donlu was bulldozed in 1996 to prevent the usual May prilrimage taking place. As late as last year, a force of 5000 troops, heilcopters and otyher “security” forces were out to stop the pilgrimage.
-
March 29, 2006 at 1:05 am #768001
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Gothic Revival in Holland:
Carl E.M.H. Weber (1820-1908)
Although Weber was born and raised in Cologne, it is almost certain that he did not learn his skill at the completion of the cathedral in that city. Where he did, remains unknown. What is known, is that in secondary school Weber was a classmate of Vincenz Statz, who later became one of the leading neo-Gothic architects of the German speaking part of Europe. As the archbishop of Cologne’s advisor on church architecture Statz gained a position in which he could either make or break an architect’s career, although he often was commisioned himself. Not a healthy climate for an ambitious architect to work in, and this could well have been be the reason for Weber to find his luck somewhere else, although until 1858 he stayed a resident of Cologne, at least officially.
Webers career in Germany is a mystery. The only known building he may possibly have been responsible for is a chapel for a monastery in his hometown, which was designed by a Weber, and which happened to be at just a few meters from Carl’s house.
His career in the Netherlands started with the designing of several churches in the province of Limburg. In 1857 he married his second wife (his first wife died in 1850), and moved to her hometown Roermond permanently.
Confusingly, he changed his first name a few times since. Until c. 1860 he called himself both Karl and Carl. Once integrated into Roermonds French-oriented society he started calling himself Charles. Later he used the Dutch equivalent Karel until his death. All these names have been used in the scarce literature that has been published about him.
Weber was one of the major church-architects in the south of The Netherlands; he built 33 churches, many of which in the ‘s-Hertogenbosch diocese, although he was also quite active in Limburg early in his career.
In Roermond Weber became fascinated by the Munsterkerk, a large church in the late Romanesque style of the Rhineland. It became his biggest wish to restore this church, and he began an extensive study of the church. But it’s another ambitious architect from Roermond who was commissioned for this prestigious project. Weber sharply criticized P.J.H. Cuypers’ plans for the restoration, which in many ways were historically incorrect and lacked respect for the original building, after they had been made public in 1863. Although the restoration started in 1870, it was this sort of reaction that prompted Cuypers to trade Roermond for Amsterdam. Weber himself after the conflict mostly concentrated on building churches in Noord-Brabant, and ultimately developed a style that derived much from the Munsterkerk, ironically including the changes made by Cuypers. It’s worth noting that in a book from 1953 on the subject of catholic church-architecture, which is extremely positive about Cuypers, Weber does not even get mentioned. The rivalry apparently lasted until well after both architects had died.
Weber’s career can be divided in two periods: in the first period (until the late 1870’s) his designs were inspired mainly by late Rhineland Gothicism. In this period his work can be regarded as a bridge between early decorative and later, more historically correct, neo-Gothicism. Churches are often of the Stufenhalle-type, a type of hall-church typical for Westphalia, with three aisles under one roof and the side-aisles being narrower than the central aisle. He continues to use early neo-Gothic ornamenture and plaster vaults especially in his interiors for a long period. In the second period influences from Romanesque architecture dominate, making Weber one of the first architects in the Netherlands to break the neo-Gothic monopoly. Weber’s most monumental works are from this second period, and are often notable for the presence of a tall dome at the crossing.
Besides designing new churches, Weber was also responsible for the restoration of many older examples.
The last years of his life he suffered from a disease to the eyes, which made it impossible for him to work. -
March 29, 2006 at 1:09 am #768002
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Gothic Revival in Holland
Architect No. 2
P.J.H. Cuypers (1827-1921)Petrus J. H. Cuypers, also known as Pierre Cuypers, was responsible for the design of many churches in neo-Gothic style in the Netherlands, and as such is one of the leading figures in the proces of catholic emancipation in the second half of the 19th century.
He was born in a family where an artistic interest was encouraged. Cuypers’ father was a merchant, as well as a church painter. Beginning in 1844, in a time when education of arts in the Netherlands was at a miserably low level, he studied architecture at the Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerpen, Belgium. Among his teachers were Frans Andries Durlet, Frans Stoop and Ferdinand Berckmans, pioneers of neo-Gothicism in Belgium. Cuypers completed his study 1849 with the best possible results and returns to Roermond as a celebrity. In 1850 he made a journey through the German Rhineland, where he visited the completion of the cathedral of Cologne. Ca. 1854 he attended classes by the French restoration-architect E.E. Viollet-le-Duc, who became one of Cuypers’ friends and a major influence in his entire career. Back home he became Roermond’s town-architect.
Cuypers was the man who brought craftmanship back in the Netherlands’ architecture. His office became a school for many architects who were taught all skills of the profession. Besides this, he also participated in a factory for religious art, Atelier Cuypers-Stoltzenberg, that provided complete church-interiors and was founded in 1852.
Besides designing new churches and other buildings, Cuypers also was responsible for numerous restorations of existing churches, including those of many medieval, now protestant churches. His attempts to restore parts of such churches back to their original state occasionally was a cause of conflict with the protestant community that used such a church. Apart from his architectural work, Cuypers was a gifted artist in other respects too, and his work includes several important monuments, tapestries and a piano, a gift to his second wife.
Although Cuypers’ churches usually are of a high quality, there are many reasons for criticism. Like most architects of that time, Cuypers had no problems with sacrificing the authentic look of a medieval church and replacing it with his own typical style, or even completely replacing a centuries-old church by a new one. Small villages saw their small churches replaced by cathedral-size constructions, and a church in Romanesque style could easily become a Gothic one if Cuypers decided that would be appropriate. He was convinced that his designs could compete with the greatest Gothic churches in France and probably were even better, and likewise thought a restoration was a good opportunity to ‘improve’ a church’s appearance, reason why his restorations have often been called falsifications since. For Cuypers churches and other old buildings were not simply reminders of the past, but objects that still had a function.
On advice of his friends, catholic writer, poet, art critic and future brother-in-law J.A. Alberdingk Thijm and French architect and expert on Gothicism Viollet le Duc, Cuypers moved to Amsterdam in 1865. The official reason Cuypers gave was that he needed a more vibrant and artistic environment. In reality, the controversy over his restoration of the Munsterkerk in Roermond will have played a role in this as well. This also gave him an opportunity to escape from the competition with his rival Carl Weber. In Amsterdam he built some of his most ingenious churches, forced by the limitations of the available space in this formerly protestant city. Besides, he also built several houses here. Although still the master of neo-Gothic, in Amsterdam he started to add Renaissance elements to his more profane designs, like the central station and Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. These two buildings are among his most controversial designs, as many protestants were outraged that a catholic, a second-class citizen in their eyes, was commissioned to design two buildings that were regarded as being of national (read: protestant) importance. It’s ironic that with these two buildings Cuypers in fact invented the neo-Renaissance style, which became very popular mainly in protestant circles.
In 1894 he returned to his hometown, where he died in 1921, after having worked behind the scenes for his son Joseph Cuypers for several years.
Cuypers’ career can be divided in two periods. In the first period, the architect mostly built neo-Gothic churches which are highly influenced by 13th-century French Gothic and , to a lesser degree, Rhineland Romanogothic churches. Alberdingk Thijm urged Cuypers to fully study the Gothic architecture of that period, in his eyes the last truly catholic architectural style, which must be the starting point for the development of a new one. Like their never had been a Reformation. Cuypers’ marriage with Alberdingk Thijm’s sister further increases the bond between the two.
The second period of Cuypers’ career is the more interesting one. From the 1870’s, Cuypers starts combining his style with other influences. His knowledge of the national Gothic styles increases, especially as a result of his being appointed to national advisor for monumental buildings in 1874, his friendship with Victor de Stuers, an activist for the protection of historical buildings, and the expansion of the railroad. Also of importance is the St. Bernulphusgilde (‘Guild of St. Bernulphus’), a group of religious artists the most important of which is architect Alfred Tepe, which is so powerful in the archdiocese of Utrecht that Cuypers has no choice but giving in to their demands if he wants to get commissioned in this area which covers a large portion of the country. Other interests in this period include the Gothic styles of England, Scandinavia and Italy.
Cuypers was respected outside his country too. In 1870 he is appointed Dombaumeister of Mainz and advisor of the archbishop in architecture matters until 1877. In this function he restores the east part of the cathedral of Mainz, as well as restoring several other churches and building a few new buildings, until in 1877 Joseph Lucas, also from Roermond, succeeds him. In Belgium he builds two churches and completes or restores a few others.
Sadly, today Cuypers is usually remembered as ‘the architect of the central station and Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam’. Many of Cuypers’ more important designs have already been demolished or otherwise destroyed, but many still remain. Many of his drastic restorations have in part been made undone as the result of a change of taste. -
March 29, 2006 at 1:16 am #768003
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Gothic Revival in Holland
Architect no. 3
A. Tepe (1840-1920)
Wilhelm Victor Alfred Tepe is the second most important architect of neo-Gothicism in the Netherlands, after P.J.H. Cuypers. Tepe, the son of a German textiles-merchant who had moved to the Netherlands, was born in Amsterdam on the 24th of November 1840. He studied architecture at the Bauakadamie in Berlin from 1861 until 1864 but was not content with its Classical orientation. In his free time he studied the work of Viollet-le-Duc, the French expert on Gothic architecture, as well as actual churches. From 1865 until 1867 Tepe worked for Vincenz Statz, one of the leading neo-Gothic architects of Germany, in Cologne. Here he was involved with the restoration and completion of the cathedral, an experience that would become of a major influence on his work in the Netherlands.
In 1867 Tepe returned to Amsterdam, where he worked for an architect Ouderterp for a while, and moved to Utrecht in 1872 where he became one of the leading members of the St. Bernulphusgilde (‘Guild of St. Bernulphus’), a group of Catholic clergy and artists who strived to bring back national traditions and craftmanship in religious art and architecture, and which became a dominant factor in this field in the archdiocese of Utrecht. Influences from medieval indigenous styles were especially encouraged, as was the use of indigenous materials, especially brick. In this diocese Tepe built most of his work. Between 1871 and 1905 Tepe built ca. 70 churches, executed in brick with very little natural stone, and taking the late-Gothic 15th- and 16th-centuries’ styles of the Lower Rhine and Westphalia as examples. The interior of the churches was provided by other members of the St. Bernulphus Guild, of which F.W. Mengelberg was the most important. Until 1882 Tepe had an almost total monopoly in the field of church architecture in the archdiocese. Only after the death of archbishop Schaepman did other architects get more of a chance.
Besides churches Tepe designed various monasteries, schools, orphanages etc., all related to the Catholic Church, as well as a few houses. Throughout his entire career his work shows little evolution in style. There are however four periods in his career. Between 1871 and 1876 Tepe tries to develop his style an experiments with several types of churches. His designs are sparsely decorated in this period. The second phase, from 1876 until 1890 sees an increase in decorations. Between 1890 and 1900 builds several churches with centralizing tendencies, mostly in the form of hall-churches. In the fourth period Tepe’s development has ceased, and several of his designs are closely related to some of his older churches. Especially after 1900 Tepe occassionally built churches in Germany, while the competition in his own country became too strong. In 1905 Tepe moved to Germany, where he designed several more churches, and died in D -
March 29, 2006 at 1:26 am #768004
Praxiteles
ParticipantE.M.H. Weber
The Church of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, Amstenrade, Holland 1852-1856
Weber’s first church is a neo-Gothic church with two towers and plaster ceilings. The church follows the example of the Stufenhalle.
-
March 29, 2006 at 1:35 am #768005
Praxiteles
ParticipantE.M.H. Weber
The Church of St. Martin, Vijlen, Holland, 1860-1862
Neo-Gothic church of the Stufenhalle type. Plastered wooden vaults and western tower with diagonally positioned buttresses reaching almost to the top. Building completed ca. 1879. Highest church in the Netherlands.
-
March 29, 2006 at 10:56 pm #768006
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSt. Petrus’ Loo, Banden
The village of Loo was part of the Bergeijk parish until 1848, although from 1790 it had a ‘hidden’ church, and for the first 13 years as a young parish used that building for Masses. In 1861 a new church was built, designed by C. Weber and is typical of his early career.
It’s a three-aisled neo-Gothic church of the German Stuffenhalle type, a type of church related to the hall-church, only with side-aisles narrower than the central aisle. The side-aisles are closed at the back by polygonal apses. The choir is of the same width as the central aisle, only a bit lower. The modest buttresses indicate the absence of stone vaults. In all, the church is still a far cry from Weber’s much more famous and impressive neo-Romano-Gothic churches. Weber built several similar churches in the province of Limburg.
It is not known whether Weber designed a tower for this church or not. The current tower was added in 1896 and was designed by C. Franssen, an important representative of the second generation of neo-Gothic architects. -
March 29, 2006 at 11:18 pm #768007
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSt. Lambertus, Veghel, Cuypers 1858 – 1862
Having been used by the protestant minority for almost two hundred years the Gothic church of St. Lambertus of Veghel was returned to the Catholic Church in 1819. Up to that time Catholics had used a simple church disguised as a barn. The old church was repaired and was ready for use in 1822. But the church was too small and in 1858 P.J.H. Cuypers started his biggest assignment so far; a new church was built on the location of the old barn church. The old church was demolished in 1860.
The St. Lambertus was to that time Cuypers’ biggest church. It was also the first big church where he applied brick vaults, after having practised with these in the basement of the presbytery. The vaulting of the church was relatively cheap, as the architect managed to use a minimum of material to overarch a maximum of space, although this miracle has caused enormous costs for maintenance since. But from this moment on Cuypers’ name was established nationwide.
It’s a three-aisled cruciform basilica type church with a tower at the west-side and a choir with ambulatory and radiating chapels. The design was inspired by French 13th-century Gothic. The tower has an octagonal upper segment surrounded by four small turrets standing at the corners of the segment underneath, an idea borrowed from Chartres cathedral which Cuypers used on several other occasions. -
March 30, 2006 at 10:36 pm #768008
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe St. Petruskerk in Vught, The Netherlands, (C.Weber, 1881-1884)
Carl Weber, who until then had mostly designed neo-Gothic churches, entered a new period in his career with the building of the Vught Church of St. peter in the 1880s. This was the first in a series of neo-Romanogothic churches with domes over the crossings.
This is a three-aisled cruciform basilical church with an octagonal crossing-tower and a cloverleaf-shaped eastern part. Choir and transept-arms have apses with ambulatories, the transepts are flanked by stair-turrets. The crossing-tower, which already shows similarities with the domes on Weber’s later churches, was intended to be built in brick but was constructed out of wood and lead instead.
-
April 1, 2006 at 3:07 pm #768009
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSt. Micha
-
April 2, 2006 at 3:32 pm #768010
LeoWong
ParticipantCathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Albany, NY USA
From one photo to the next about 50 years passed.
Scanned by Frank Yunker.
-
April 4, 2006 at 12:21 am #768011
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe second photograph of Albany Cathedral is very interesting for it shows another example of an altar rails crossing the entire width of the church as in Cobh Cathedral. The great Professor Cathal O’Neill, at the Midelton oral hearing, gave us to understand that the rail in Cobh is unresolved and may not even have been installed with the aid of an architect. This was an aberation he intends to rectify. I am not sure how much he knows about the neo-gothic. He did not seem to be aware that it was a fairly standard feature in such churches.
-
April 4, 2006 at 1:26 am #768012
LeoWong
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The second photograph of Albany Cathedral is very interesting for it shows another example of an altar rails crossing the entire width of the church as in Cobh Cathedral. The great Professor Cathal O’Neill, at the Midelton oral hearing, gave us to understand that the rail in Cobh is unresolved and may not even have been installed with the aid of an architect. This was an aberation he intends to rectify. I am not sure how much he knows about the neo-gothic. He did not seem to be aware that it was a fairly standard feature in such churches.
There are of course no altar rails in the Albany Cathedral now.
-
April 4, 2006 at 6:46 pm #768013
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Cobh Cathedral
I have just come across a very interesting publication to-day. It is a book, published by the FOSCC, in which they outline the case they advanced in favour of Cobh Cathedral at the recent Oral Hearing in Midleton. It makes for some very interesting reading. It is entitled Conserving Cobh Cathedral; The Case Stated and costs a mere Euro 10 with all proceeds going towards defraying legal costs. It is well worth the read!!!
-
April 7, 2006 at 9:29 am #768014
Praxiteles
Participantp.s Finally, the Pugin Society emerges in the text of this book. Apparently, Roderick O’Donnell was unable to make it to the Midleton Park Oral Hearing but did prepare a paper in support of the Friends of St COlman’s Cathedral. Alexandra Wedgwood also sent a letter of support.
-
April 8, 2006 at 2:07 am #768015
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Bridget’s. Geldorp, Holland (C. Weber, 1889-1891)
C Weber was commissioned to rebuild St Bridget’s in 1887 to replace the medieval church which was returned to Catholic use in 1798 in a ruinous state. The new church was his fourth dome-church. Like St. Bavo’s in Raamsdonk it is a large three-aisled cruciform basilica church in neo-Romanogothic style. The two towers on the west front were not addedin 1895 and were inspired by P.J.H. Cuypers’ Munsterkerk in Roermond.
-
April 10, 2006 at 12:52 am #768016
Praxiteles
ParticipantC. Weber
St. Petrus’ Stoel te Antiochië, Uden, Brabant (1886-1890)
A new church was built, designed by architect C. Weber in Uden in Brabant between 1886 and 1890. The church a three-aisled cruciform basilica type church in Weber’s typical neo-Romanogothic style. The crossing is dominated by an octagonal crossing-tower with dome. The western facade has two octagonal towers. The apses are semi-circular at the end of the choir and transept-arms: The choir apse has an ambulatory. The interior is mostly executed in red brick. Like all the other domed churches designed by Weber, it dominates the landscape and can be seen from a considerable distance.
-
April 10, 2006 at 1:06 am #768017
Praxiteles
ParticipantC. Weber
The Church of St. Bartholomew at Zevenbergschehoek, in Brabant 1886:
Cruciform basilican stylechurch with tall octagonal tower with polygonal dome. Details in Gothic style. Square towers on both sides of the facade. Choir and transepts with three-sided apses. The church was actually too large for this small village, but being located close to the border with Zuid-Holland, near the railroad crossing the border between catholic Brabant and protestant Holland, it had great symbolic value by showing the protestants that despite centuries of oppression, the Catholics were still there. Badly damaged in the Second World War, it was replaced by a new church.
-
April 11, 2006 at 1:31 am #768018
Praxiteles
ParticipantC. Weber 1888-1889
St. Bavo, Raamsdonk, Brabant
In 1888, C. Weber began the construction of a new church in Raamsdonk. This is the current cruciform basilica type church in neo-Romanogothic style with cloverleaf-shaped eastern chancelt, with apses with ambulatories at the choir and the transept-arms. Although the western towers were never finished, this church is regarded as the architect’s finest work.
The tall dome is visible from a long distance. Tthe Germans thretaened to blow it uè during the war but the Parish Priest was able to persuade them otherwise. Unfortunately, the chancel has been destroyed by the liturgists who have installed a highly inappropriate organ in it. -
April 14, 2006 at 6:11 pm #768019
LeoWong
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re Cobh Cathedral
I have just come across a very interesting publication to-day. It is a book, published by the FOSCC, in which they outline the case they advanced in favour of Cobh Cathedral at the recent Oral Hearing in Midleton. It makes for some very interesting reading. It is entitled Conserving Cobh Cathedral] and costs a mere Euro 10 with all proceeds going towards defraying legal costs. It is well worth the read!!!
According to The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral,
Included in this publication are the submissions from the Friends, An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society and some of the interesting revelations which emerged during cross-examination at the hearing. Also included is the list of the people whose objections to Cobh Town Council Planning Authority were not read by the Senior Architect who granted planning permission in Sept. 2005. The book cost €10 and is part of a FOSCC fundraising initiative to pay for the costs of the Oral Hearing.
For the USA, the price, including postage, is $15.
I received this yesterday, April 13, from a member of FOSCC:
We heard today that the Irish Planning Board has delayed its decision until May 11th. It was due out tomorrow (April 14th). We are not sure if this is a good sign or not, all we can do now is hope and pray.
Leo Wong
—
http://www.MurphyWong.net -
April 20, 2006 at 1:37 am #768020
Praxiteles
ParticipantFor those interested in the work of Ludwig Oppenheimer, I would be inclined to suggest that they visit the parish church in Kenmare, Co. Kerry. It has a magnificent mosaic floor in the sanctuary which can only have been made by Oppenheimer. In many respects, it reflects the same iconographic elements as that of the Sanctuary floor in Cobh Cathedral. It is also interesting to note that the altar rail (which survives) has a magnificent brass gate by J and G McGloughlin of Dublin – the same combination as at Cobh and in the Honan Cahpel in Cork.
-
April 24, 2006 at 9:39 am #768021
Praxiteles
ParticipantKenmare also has a very interesting hammer-beam ceiling – much reminiscent of ST. Joseph’s in Albany, New York. Fortunately, it has survived in tact – so far.
-
April 24, 2006 at 10:28 am #768022
Dreamboat800
ParticipantIt was built on a difficult site and required elaborate foundations. It is memorable for its striking location and and wealth of detail. Cobh witnessed the farewells of many thousands of emigrants. It was a major British Army and Naval Base. The emigrants would have seen the many miltary buildings erected for them. They would then have sailed past the prison on Spike Island. As they headed towards Roches Point they would have seen the Cathedral silhouetted against the sky. Then they would have turned towards the open sea and a new life. The sentimental and historic value is the essence of this church and the origional features should remain intact.
Viva la Cork. -
April 25, 2006 at 10:10 pm #768023
Praxiteles
ParticipantI agree that Cobh Cathedral has a sentimental/historic value and a wealth of detail. It would however, be completely inadequate to reduce its signicifance to these elements alone. Perhaps more important are its religious and cultural significance. Over the past six months I have been struck by the complete absence of a detailed inventory or academic study of this most important building. WHile many of the studies that have been done are good in themselves they lack the comprehensiveness that a building like Cobh deserves. Also the existing studies are almost excluisively concentrated on English language sources – which in the case of Cobh are always secondary and derivitave. Some of my efforts have touched the only the surface of the cultural depth of the iconographic scheme of the cathedral. Its iconographic prototypical antecedents, as I hope I have been able to indicate in some schematic way, reach right back to the very foundations of European culture and civilisation. The earliest of these from late antiquity being mediated through the Middle Ages -especially in Burgundy – and fianlly in the great Cathedral of Northern France in the gothic age. To this, must be added the “aracheological” researches of A.N. Didron which he publishjed between 1844-and 1871. All of this is behind Cobh Cathedral but to it must be added the peculairly “Irish” twist to the interest in the medieval which was represented by the scholarship of the Celtic Revival. WHile the tympan of the West door in Cobh can trance is iconographic origin to Santa Pudenziana in Rome, and closely resembles St Clothilde in PAris in several respects, the inclusion of figures such as Colman and Ita make a loud statement that all of this cultural inheritance has been “inculturated” in a very particular form, not only in Ireland, but in the locality of the present Cathedral itself.
I cannot tell you how outraged I am that a clown would propose digging out one of the most important floors in the building, atomizing it and using it as salvage WITHOUT ever bothering to know anything of its significance – either cultural or religious. No study has been done on the iconographic scheme of the mosaic work in Cobh. Yet any hooligan is apparently at liberty to walk in and dig holes in the floor with immunity. Clearly, Cobh Town Council is not fit to be in charge of cow-sheds let alone one of the most important monuments in the country.
-
April 27, 2006 at 8:41 pm #768024
Praxiteles
ParticipantGood News from the FOSCC: Their book Conserving Cobh Cathedral sold out in tend days. Fiortunately a second printing has now been done and the book is available at multiple outlets in CObh or directly from the FOSCC viz http://www.foscc.com
-
May 3, 2006 at 9:00 pm #768025
fgordon
ParticipantForgive my na
-
May 6, 2006 at 11:31 pm #768026
Praxiteles
ParticipantA variant of the Letterkenny solution has been proposed umteen times to bishop McGhee in Cobh. He will not even consider the possibility of placing a new altar in the sanctuary. It was proposed as recently as the Midleton Oral Hearing. He sat emotionless and listened to the proposal. The body language, however, made it clear that it would not give him sufficient prominence.
-
May 8, 2006 at 11:42 pm #768027
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn relation to Cobh Cathedral, a decision from An Bord Pleanala is due on Wednesday, 10 May 2006. Let us hope that they get it right.
-
May 11, 2006 at 8:53 pm #768028
Praxiteles
ParticipantWord on the grape vine has it that An Bord Pleanala has again deferred a decision on Cobh Cathedral. It seems that nothing will be available untiol at least 17 May 2006. Hmmmmm
-
May 16, 2006 at 4:23 pm #768029
Praxiteles
ParticipantI wonder has this anything to do with the further delay by ABP:
http://www.franciscan.edu/home2/Content/main.aspx?id=1984
http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=1905
And here is another piece of fun:
-
May 16, 2006 at 6:34 pm #768030
Luzarches
ParticipantRe the last article:
“Our plans aren’t always His,†said the Rev. John Magee, bishop of Cloyne, Ireland.
Freudian slip?
-
May 17, 2006 at 6:36 pm #768031
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cobh saga took another twist today. An Bord Pleanala once again failed to come to a decision and has deferred making one until 26 May (i.e. 2006)! Just what can all this mean?
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:44 pm #768032
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe latest from Cork suggests that the Bishop McGhee of Cloyne is hell bent on erasing every single church in the county. The latest proposed vistim is the rather fine mid-19th century village church of St. Joseph at Liscarroll, near Mallow. Not surprisingly, the same team proposing the wreckage of Cobh Cathedral are now turning their eyes toward Liscarroll. The bright Fr. Danny Murphy is again leading the possé. You will remember that his “liturgical” assessment of Cobh Cathedral was heavily discredited by the London based professional liturgist, Dr. Alcuin Reid, during the Cobh oral hearing. Indeed, it was interesting to note that Murphy was not called by the developers in the Cobh Cathedral case to give evidence on their behalf – a sign of his ability to provide a reasoned argument for the twaddle he went on with to justify and rubber stam the destructuion of the Cathedral interior.
I cannot locate the architect for Liscarroll but he may have been JJ. McCarthy or a pupil of McCarthy’s.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:02 pm #768033
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is the only photograph I can find of St. Josph’s, Liscarroll, Co. Cork. The interior has a very interesting exposed hammerbeam ceiling. Unfortunately, I cannot find a picture of the interior. perhaps someone in Cork might have one.
-
May 26, 2006 at 6:15 pm #768034
Luzarches
ParticipantI sincerely hope that no news today is not necessarily bad news… Does anyone know what the state of play with the ABP announcement is? My nerves are fraying!
-
May 26, 2006 at 10:37 pm #768035
THE_Chris
ParticipantIm not going to get into this debate as both sides are firmly entrenched. But I will say this.
I am a bit disappointed in how the media and everyone on here are labelling John Magee as some form of mad heretic with a death sentence for us all. He’s been portrayed in a terrible way by the media and it seems there is a massive hate campaign against him by all.
I can say with hand on heart, knowing him personally, that is is the nicest man anyone could ever hope to meet. He is the most caring person I know. Very quiet and a bit shy, but get to know him and he is a great laugh, and the kindest man you could ever know.
Unfortunately, the media never acknowledge this, and everyones opinion of him is swayed by that.
He is now scared to leave his house because of the viscousness of this campaign against him. He used to take walks all over Cobh island. He cant risk it anymore. Would you go out on your own having received DEATH THREATS though the mail?
You read that right.
Please, if you want to have a campaign against the reordering then thats fine by me – its your opinion, but dont resort to personal attacks against John Magee. He doesnt deserve that.
-
May 27, 2006 at 12:04 am #768036
Luzarches
ParticipantIt is an utter disgrace that anyone could issue a death threat against the bishop and whoever has done such a thing should feel abject shame.
But I would also pay tribute to those who have organised the true campaign, the organisers of the FOSCC. For them this has always be an arguement as to the prudence of the current reordering plans. I would never justify the crazed reaction of a very small minority, but a large measure of the ill will produced by this saga has originated in the less than plain dealings of the chancery as documented thoroughly elsewhere.
For my own part I do not doubt the right of the bishop to do as he pleases with the church within the law of the church and of the land, but I do question the merit on the grounds of architecture and liturgy.
One of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council is that, if ever the laity were passive and credulous, now we have members of the church who fully, actively and consciously live their faith and ask, in charity and love, for their voices to be heard on prudential questions by those who have been chosen to shepherd them.
-
May 27, 2006 at 1:40 am #768037
Gianlorenzo
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
Im not going to get into this debate as both sides are firmly entrenched. But I will say this.
I am a bit disappointed in how the media and everyone on here are labelling John Magee as some form of mad heretic with a death sentence for us all. He’s been portrayed in a terrible way by the media and it seems there is a massive hate campaign against him by all.
I can say with hand on heart, knowing him personally, that is is the nicest man anyone could ever hope to meet. He is the most caring person I know. Very quiet and a bit shy, but get to know him and he is a great laugh, and the kindest man you could ever know.
Unfortunately, the media never acknowledge this, and everyones opinion of him is swayed by that.
He is now scared to leave his house because of the viscousness of this campaign against him. He used to take walks all over Cobh island. He cant risk it anymore. Would you go out on your own having received DEATH THREATS though the mail?
You read that right.
Please, if you want to have a campaign against the reordering then thats fine by me – its your opinion, but dont resort to personal attacks against John Magee. He doesnt deserve that.
If you will take the time to read back over this thread you will see that the campaign against the reordering is just that. It is in no way a personal attack on Bishop Magee, it never was and never will be. If you would take the time to get to know the people involved in the Friends of St. Colman’s who are running the campaign you will learn that they are some of the most loyal parishioner Bishop John has.
One of the most frustrating things about this whole affaire is the notion that this is in some way a personal attack on the bishop or the Church.
Regarding the death threat to the Bishop, of which I have heard, to the best of my knowledge it has been sent on to the Gardai and they are investigating. They have never approached the Friends about this as they know that it is nothing to do with them.
Please do enter the debate, but also please get your facts right. If Bishop John has been criticised on this thread it is in connection with the present re-ordering plans which are opposed by over 90% of his flock. If he chooses to ignore this fact then you cannot blame the people for getting angry.
If he only knew that the Friends are in fact a safety valve in Cobh as the anger that is there is currently mooted by the fact that the Friends are running the campaign and refuse to countenance any personal attack on the bishop and have never stooped to personal attack. -
May 27, 2006 at 8:12 am #768038
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother deferral from an Bord Planala. A date for 2 June 2006 has now been set.
-
May 27, 2006 at 8:29 am #768039
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust read The-Chris contribution. I think he has missed the point.
While this thread certainly could have pointed out a number of examples of Bishop Magee’s paucity with the truth and his lack of transparency in dealing with the attempt being made to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral, it has not done so (cf. the documentation contained in the book “Conserving Cobh Cathedral”). Instead, it has concentrated on conservation issues, art history, the neo-gothic revival, and on various comparative studies within the neo-gothic revival movement. There is no mention of a Magee in Didron, for example.
Not knowing John Magee as well as The -Chris, I would be reluctant to say that his hesitation to venture out amongst his own flock can be reduced to a single factor. It would perhaps be best for the bishop to explain that himself
As for those lucky enough to be admitted to his presence, we leave it with them to savour the scintillating brilliance of the bishop’s wit.
-
May 29, 2006 at 5:21 am #768040
LeoWong
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
Im not going to get into this debate as both sides are firmly entrenched. But I will say this.
I am a bit disappointed in how the media and everyone on here are labelling John Magee as some form of mad heretic with a death sentence for us all. He’s been portrayed in a terrible way by the media and it seems there is a massive hate campaign against him by all.
I can say with hand on heart, knowing him personally, that is is the nicest man anyone could ever hope to meet. He is the most caring person I know. Very quiet and a bit shy, but get to know him and he is a great laugh, and the kindest man you could ever know.
Unfortunately, the media never acknowledge this, and everyones opinion of him is swayed by that.
He is now scared to leave his house because of the viscousness of this campaign against him. He used to take walks all over Cobh island. He cant risk it anymore. Would you go out on your own having received DEATH THREATS though the mail?
You read that right.
Please, if you want to have a campaign against the reordering then thats fine by me – its your opinion, but dont resort to personal attacks against John Magee. He doesnt deserve that.
I am not part of the campaign, but have been following the events with interest. Kind man and wit though he may be, Bishop Magee has in this instance shown himself to be a poor pastor and a worse catechist. How does one say this in the nicest possible way? How would someone who knows him personally tell him?
-
May 31, 2006 at 12:58 am #768041
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn relation ot the neo-gothic revival in Holland we have already seen some examples of the work of Carl Weber which drew mainly on the romano-gothic of the Rhineland for its inspiration.
Here we have an example of the work of P. Cuypers, the other great architect of the Dutcj neo-gothic revival. Unlike Weber, his inspiration was French and precisely in the school of Viellot-le-Duc, A.N. Didron and the French 13th. century – the same influences at work on E.W Pugin, JJ. McCarthy and G.C. Ashlin. It is interesting to see how the same inspirational sources were worked out by each of these architects and given very distinctive personal character.
P.J.H. Cuypers (1827-1921)
Ouderkerk aan de Amstel (North Holland), The Church of St. Urban: 1865-1867
Three-aisled cruciform church, the transept extending the width of the nave. Tower on most western side of the northern aisle.
-
May 31, 2006 at 7:34 pm #768042
Praxiteles
ParticipantP.J.H. CUYPERS
Onze Lieve Vrouwe Onbevlekt Ontvangen or Posthoornkerk , Amsterdam, 1860-1863 & 1887-1889
This neo-Gothic church by Cuypers shows several late Romanesque influences. Although officially called the Church of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, it is popularly known as the Posthoornkerk or Posthorn Church, The church was built in two stages: the first 1860 – 1863 which saw the building of the choir, transept and nave; the facade was added in 1887- 1889. Because it is almost completely surrounded by houses, Cuypers designed the church taller than normal. The plain exterior belies the richness of decoration of the interior. The church was abandoned in 1963, and despite listing, only barely esacped demolition. It is now a concert hall.
-
June 1, 2006 at 12:52 am #768043
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother important architect of the Dutch neo Gothic revival is Wilhelm Victor Alfred Tepe.
He was born in Amsterdam in November 1840 and studied architecture at the Bauakadamie in Berlin 1861-l 1864 but was dissatisfied with its Classicism. Tepe devoted much of his time tot he study of of Viollet-le-Duc. and the French neo-Gothic movement which included Lassus and Didron. From 1865 to 1867 Tepe worked under Vincenz Statz, one of Germany’s leading neo-Gothic architects. Tepe was involved with Statz in Cologne on the completion of the cathedral.In 1867 Tepe returned to Amsterdam, where he worked for an architect Ouderterp moving to Utrecht in 1872 where he became one of the leading members of the St. Bernulphusgilde (‘Guild of St. Bernulphus’), a group of Catholic clergy and artists striving to restore national traditions and craftmanship in religious art and architecture. The guild was a dominant influence in the archdiocese of Utrecht. Influences from medieval indigenous styles were especially encouraged, as was the use of indigenous materials, especially brick. Most of Tepe’s oeuvre is to be found in the archdiocese of Utrecht. From 1871 to 1905 Tepe built around 70 churches, executed in brick with very little natural stone, and taking the late-Gothic 15th- and 16th-centuries’ styles of the Lower Rhine and Westphalia as his majopr influence. The St. Bernulphus Guild saw to the sumptous decoration of the interiorrs.
In 1905 Tepe moved to Germany, where he designed several more churches. He died in Düsseldorf in 1920,Church St. Willibrordus, Utrecht 1876-1877
The church has undergone an important restoration which was brought to completion in 2005. It would useful for public bodies in Ireland such as the Heritage COuncil and the architectural “experts” in the Department of the Environment to take a close look at this restoration. They might learn something from it.
-
June 1, 2006 at 1:01 am #768044
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe link below gives access to an interesting article by Auke van der Woud on the Dutch neo-Gothic reviva and may be of interest to readers:
http://www.archis.org/plain/object.php?object=811&year=&num=
-
June 1, 2006 at 1:09 am #768045
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a potted biography of Cuypers.
-
June 2, 2006 at 12:18 am #768046
Praxiteles
ParticipantA. TEPE (1881-1883)
St. Francis Xavier or De Krijtberg in Amsterdam
This Jesuit church was built to replace an earlier one that had been fronted by a private house – much like Adam and Eve’s in Dublin – and was begun in 1881 The site for the new church posed serious spacial difficulties. Tepe however managed to construct a rather large church, especially when compared to the St. Willibrordus in Utrecht, built a few years earlier under similar space limitations.
Because only the front would be directly visible Tepe gave the church a monumental facade with octagonal towers at the sides of it, instead of his usual square tower. Instead of a true transept there’s a pseudo-transept with shallow arms, and the choir is flanked by diagonally positioned chapels. In the interior optimal use of space was made by limiting the width of the side-aisles, thus creating more space for the central aisle. A gallery above the side-aisles provided even more space.
De Krijtberg is one of the highlights in Tepe’s career. The interior was largely furnished by Mengelberg in Utrecht and has survived almost intact..
In the 1970 the church was threathened with demolition, but thankfully it was restored instead. This restoration started in 1979 and was completed in 2001.
-
June 2, 2006 at 1:11 am #768047
Luzarches
ParticipantRe:St. Francis Xavier or De Krijtberg in Amsterdam
I’ve heard that the Jesuits in Amsterdam are nowadays relatively conservative and offer reverent liturgies. The fact that this church is in tact would tend to bear that out. The High Altar remains appropriately adorned; the interiors look stunning. Any chance of posting the pictures at a higher resolution?
Keeping fingers crossed for tomorrow, should the announcement finally be made. Anyone running a sweepstake on whether we’ll hear anything?
-
June 2, 2006 at 1:14 am #768048
duiggs
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:Re n. 98: I am glad you raised the case of Limerick which has undergone a very recent restoration and “make over” of the interior, especially of the sancturay.I was just interested if you have any opinion on the new seating in being placed in cathedrals such as Limerick and Belfast recently. The origional seating often appears unsettled in the origional cathedral environment.(speaking genrally). I have often heard it said that due to budget over runs the origional seating was often “skimped” on to keep costs down as they were the last fixtures to be put in place. This often resulted in plane , simple, out of place pews.
-
June 2, 2006 at 8:05 am #768049
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe seating in Limerick and Belfast cathedrals, I have to confess that I have been in them recently and have not seen the new seating arranhgements. You may have noticed from some of the earlier postings that the current “fad” among the so called liturgists is moveable seating – usually stacked plasticated things, or someting more recogniseably “chair” of “stool” as used by Richard Hurley.
I suppose taht it is possible that seating might have been skimped upon in the building of Irish churches but that would not be true in the case of some of the important buildings. The seating in CObh Cathedral, for instance, was designed by Ashlin and executed to a level consonant with the rest of the building. Unfortunately, this feature of the Cathedral is also under attack: several of the benches have been removed fromn their original position and dumped in the Lady Chapel where they are certainly in the process of impacing on the ornamental mosaic floor – which was never intended to have seating. This is supposed to be a “cute” solution thinking that nobody would notice. I am still waiting to see how it will take the COrk COunty Conservation Officer to have them removed before the floor is wrecked.
The Pro-Cathedral in Dublin also has a fine set of benches.
-
June 2, 2006 at 2:13 pm #768050
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantGreat news from Cobh. The Friends have won they appeal to An Bord Pleanala. Congratulation to them and the Irish Georgian Society and An Taisce Cork.
-
June 2, 2006 at 3:52 pm #768051
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere we are then, the Bord Pleanala Report on Cobh Cathedral.
-
June 2, 2006 at 6:07 pm #768052
THE_Chris
ParticipantLet the FOSCC chaining to the alter rails begin 😎
So basicially, its been granted, with the one (major) clause that the permanent altar and cathedra must be dealt with seperatly. Am I reading that right?
-
June 2, 2006 at 6:16 pm #768053
Anonymous
InactiveNo it has not been granted; a planning report has been written which must now go before the Bord to make a formal decision and the members of the board will have regard to the report in conjunction with all the information on the file.
-
June 2, 2006 at 10:17 pm #768055
Gianlorenzo
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
Let the FOSCC chaining to the alter rails begin 😎
So basicially, its been granted, with the one (major) clause that the permanent altar and cathedra must be dealt with seperatly. Am I reading that right?
Basically it has not been granted. The Inspector went for upholding the planning permission with conditions. Then it went to the Bord who voted 6 to 2 to refuse planning permission.
The_Chris seems to be indulging in wishful thinking and denigrating the FOSCC is a weak and pathetic ploy. His/her original contribution talked about entrenched positions. Well The_Chris seems firmly entrenched and like ,his friend Bishop Magee , is also unwilling to listen to the people of Cobh or even the civil planning authorites. Attack the argument not the people putting them forward.
In Cobh today there was much real joy, but no triumphalism, as those who love their Church realise that while they may have gone some way to saving their beloved Cathedral the rift between the people and the clergy now needs to be healed.
-
June 2, 2006 at 10:17 pm #768054
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPS. The_Chris should know that it was not the FOSCC who were planning to chain themselves to the altar, it was the daily Mass goers who suggested such.
-
June 2, 2006 at 10:36 pm #768056
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe-Chris,again, got it wrong. THe FOSCC did win their appeal with An Bord Pleanala and planning permission to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral has been REFUSED.
I may have contributed to The-Chris’s confusion. I only had time to post the Inspector’s Report. This was done by Mr Tom Rabbitte. It was rejected by the Bord which then issued its own DIRECTION and then made an ORDER for CObh Town Council to refuse the planning application simpliciter.
DO read all three elements. They are important and, I believe, set a flag for the interpretation of this section of the planning act. As an initial commenton the question of the weight to be given to “respecting liturgical requirements”, I would bring your attention to the fact that it is substantialy that outlined by the lovely Deborah Spence of Arthur Cox and Co. on behalf of the FOSCC in their appeal lodged with An Board Pleannala last September. I think that the good lady deserves some kudos for that insight – an perhaps even a feather in her hat!!!!!
-
June 2, 2006 at 11:38 pm #768057
LeoWong
ParticipantLet us hope that the Bishop accepts this gracefully and reconciles with his parishioners.
-
June 3, 2006 at 2:35 am #768058
Gianlorenzo
Participant@LeoWong wrote:
Let us hope that the Bishop accepts this gracefully and reconciles with his parishioners.
And so say all of us.
-
June 3, 2006 at 1:03 pm #768059
Anonymous
InactiveWell done to all concerned you have been part of one of the biggest conservation results in a number of years; I hope that this ruling will send out a message that important architectural fabric is off limits for the ‘reorganisation’ of churches and cathedrals as well as privately held property.
It is good to see that An Bord has yet again proved its independence and clear thinking
-
June 3, 2006 at 2:28 pm #768060
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes indeed. I absolutely agree with Thomond. The very best congratulations are in order for the FOSCC who have done trojan work in the face all sorts of mean and base-bred tricks to stifle the voice of the ordinary citizen whne they had something important to say.
This morning’s newspapers report that Fr. Jim Killeen, the Chris-ologos public relations officer for the diocese of Cloyne, is studying the 90 page Rabbitte Report before deciding what hnext to do. Perhaps he did not notice that the Rabbit Report has been binned in its totality and, hence, there is little or no need for the Cloyne diocesan authorities to stretch their ample brains on it. Just concentrate on on the single page Order made by An Bord Pleannala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast. Indeed, most of the luminaries involved in recommending Prof. O’Neill’s mad-hatter scheme should simply resign – starting with the over qualified members of the Historic Church Commission of the diocese of Cloyne who obviously cannot be trusted to safeguard the interests on one of the most important monuments in the country. Even the good Bishop, who staked so much on bulldozing his way over his own flock, should also consider sending in a little letter to BXVI.
-
June 3, 2006 at 2:45 pm #768061
Anonymous
InactiveDefinitely time to move on as has been said above
I think the article below captures the mood very well
Board bars alterations to Cobh cathedral
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 3rd June, 2006An Bord Pleanála has refused planning permission for extensive alterations to the interior of St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh, Co Cork, because they would “adversely affect the character . . . of a protected structure of national importance”.
The board unanimously rejected a recommendation by the planning inspector who dealt with the appeal that the liturgical changes should be allowed, saying it disagreed with his interpretation of its role in determining such applications.
By a majority of six votes to two, the board went on to overturn Cobh town council’s decision to approve plans by the cathedral trustees to carry out a re-ordering of its interior to meet the liturgical requirements of the Second Vatican Council.
One of the board members, Mary Bryan, absented herself because the Irish Georgian Society – of which she was formerly a senior official – was one of the appellants. Other appellants included An Taisce and the heritage division of the Department of the Environment.
Welcoming the board’s ruling yesterday as a “landmark decision in protecting Ireland’s architectural heritage”, a spokesman for An Taisce said it laid down a “significant marker for any future proposals for alterations to churches of all denominations”.
The proposed “re-ordering” of the interior of St Colman’s would have involved extending the sanctuary area into the nave of the cathedral, removing and partially relocating the existing altar rails, and creating a permanent altar in the extended sanctuary.
In its decision, An Bord Pleanála described St Colman’s Cathedral as “a most important example of 19th-century Gothic Revival architecture by the architects Pugin and Ashlin, which has retained the integrity of its original architectural treatment”.
The board said the building “is of the finest quality, both in its exterior and interior” and the proposed alterations would “adversely affect” its character and would, therefore, be “contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.
In deciding not to accept the recommendation of senior planning inspector Tom Rabbette, the board disagreed with his interpretation of its powers under the 2000 Planning Act to decide on planning appeals involving protected structures which are used as a places of worship.
“The board considered that the obligation placed on it to respect liturgical requirements must be interpreted in the context of its other duties, as defined in the Act, including in respect of protection of the architectural heritage,” it said in its ruling.
Niall O’Connor in Cork adds: Adrian O’Donovan of the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral group told The Irish Times that his group was pleased that An Bord Pleanála had taken its decision. “We are relieved and pleased, but this is not a day for triumphalism – it is a sad day because it should never have come to this. No one has won today – it is a sad day for the church when people must appeal to the civil authorities,” he said.
Cllr Stella Meade, mayor of Cobh, said that she was pleased by the board’s decision.
A statement from Bishop John Magee said: “The Cloyne Diocesan authorities have noted the decision by An Bord Pleanála . . . A detailed study of the decision will now be made by the Diocesan authorities and their professional advisers, before deciding on the next course of action.”
-
June 3, 2006 at 3:02 pm #768062
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, well….Stella Meade, the Mayor of Cobh, is pleased with An Bord Pleannala’s decision. How else could she be. AT this point she has no choice in the matter except to be pleased.
We note that she was not too helpful last August in facilitating a motion of the counsellors of Cobh Urban Council to hold a special meeting to discuss the application to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral and, I would point to the minutes of the September minutes of the Council where her conservationist track record in relation to the Cathedral is publicly minuted. She might also consider resigning – before the none too happy Cobh electorate deal with her at the next local election. This lady’s democratic credentials waere also available for all to see at the March 2006 meeting of the Cobh Urban Council when she vindictively EXPELLED two members of the FOSCC form visitors gallery by invoking a procedural measure NEVER perviously used in the COuncil Chamber.
-
June 3, 2006 at 4:02 pm #768063
LeoWong
ParticipantWriting from a distance, it would seem that mass resignations would be similar to disbanding the Iraqi army after the fall of Saddam Hussein. There are so many in positions that are required to run the Church (don’t know if the Mayor’s resigning would affect anything). Better to reconcile and transition. How much better for everyone (including us in the USA) if the Bishop saw the light and said something to the effect that he now knows that the faithful were right in this matter (c.f. Newman’s “On Consulting the Faithful”) . How much better if FOSCC and the Bishop came to together to show that the fight was not against the Bishop personally, but against a misguided plan proposed by the Bishop. If the Bishop is the man The-Chris knows, this coming together should be likely, for I am certain (even looking on from Albany NY) that FOSCC would be happy to make peace. The-Chris, am I right about the Bishop?
-
June 4, 2006 at 12:23 am #768064
Praxiteles
ParticipantA. TEPE (1884-1885)
The Church of the Asumption of Our Lady into Heaven (Onze Lieve Vrouwe ten Hemelopneming) at HOUTEN in the archdiocese of Utrecht (A. Tepe, 1884-1885)
A new Catholic church was built in Houten by A. Tepe 1884-1885. It’s a three-aisled cruciform basilica in the neo-Gothic style. This is the only instance when Tepe used a crossing-tower for one of his designs. Also the Romanesque details, which are especially present in the clerestorey, make this an exceptional design in Tepe’s career.
-
June 4, 2006 at 12:44 am #768065
-
June 5, 2006 at 5:49 pm #768066
Praxiteles
ParticipantCharles Guilfoyle DORAN (1835-1909)
Someone who read of the recent Bord Pleanala decision sent me the link which I attach below. It is a short outline of the biography of Charles G. Doran who was the clerk of works for the building of St. Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh. The finest quality craftsmanship both of the interior and exterior of the building is in no small part due to Doran who was very much a hands -on -man and most exigent with all craftsmen working on the Cathedral project. Although several contract suppliers complained to a succession of Bishops about his over demanding standards, Doran always had the complete support of the architect ,G.C. Ashlin, who relied on him completely. This article is a valuable contribution to the biography (which still needs writing) of this important figure of 19th. Cobh:
http://dunlavin.blogspot.com/2006/06/charles-guilfoyle-doran-du_114935465372819584.html -
June 7, 2006 at 12:24 am #768067
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe latest from Cobh:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0606/6news.htmlThe same old pea rattling around the same old pot
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0606/news1pm.htmlLocal reactions
-
June 10, 2006 at 11:22 am #768068
Anonymous
InactiveReaders of this thread might be interested in exploring some of the new thinking about church architecture and reordering of older churches going on in the United States. Two leading architects are Duncan Stroik and, of course, Thomas Gordon Smith. A third is Henry Hardinge Menzies, who recently worked on Bridgeport Cathedral. Details on Menzies’ work on his website: see http://www.hmenzies.com
I would recommend reading his article on recovering a sense of the sacred, published in the “Homiletic and Pastoral Review”: see this link: http://www.hmenzies.com/articles_whathappened.html -
June 10, 2006 at 11:42 am #768069
Anonymous
InactiveA question that has arisen in recent times in the US is that of interventions in churches built in the stark and bare styles common in the 60s and 70s. These occur especially when parishes want to give a sense of the sacred to churches which originally resembled gymnasia and haybarns. Henry Hardinge Menzies has devoted considerable thought to this question, which he terms “salvaging renovations”. See his interesting article on Church renovations in Homiletic and Pastoral Review: http://www.hmenzies.com/articles_renovations.html
This is an important theme which should hopefully provoke some debate among Irish church architects.
Any thoughts? -
June 10, 2006 at 5:44 pm #768070
Anonymous
InactiveA new cathedral is currently being built in Oakland, California. Various projects were proposed but the winning one is by San Francisco architect Craig Hartman. The proposed cathedral, it appears, will resemble a 120 ft high woven wooden basket, wrapped in opaque glass. In daylight the glass is a veil, shrouding what’s within; but at night, light seeps out through the basket and the veil, glowing for all to see
Here is the full description:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/BAGU0CSU631.DTL
Any comments? -
June 10, 2006 at 5:59 pm #768071
-
June 10, 2006 at 6:46 pm #768072
Anonymous
InactiveThe Adoremus bulletin has devoted numerous articles to church architecture, in an effort to promote more traditional styles in keeping with the genuine spirit of the liturgy. Some of the articles offer a critique of “modernist” architecture, while others deal with the principles which should inspire sacred art and architecture. A convenient list with links is available here:
http://www.adoremus.org/ArchArticles.htmlAn interesting project for an Irish location, drawn up by a graduate of Thomas Gordon Smith’s school, is Divine Mercy Chapel in Islandeady, Co. Mayo. For details, see:
http://www.adoremus.org/0404HaighChapel.html -
June 10, 2006 at 6:55 pm #768073
Anonymous
InactiveBy the way, Domiane Forte, another graduate of the Notre Dame school of architecture had submitted a project for the new Oakland Cathedral. To say the least, it is quite different from the project eventually adopted. For details, follow this link: http://www.adoremus.org/0404DForte.html
Here it is: -
June 10, 2006 at 7:52 pm #768074
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is another interesting link on church architecture:
-
June 10, 2006 at 8:00 pm #768075
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother interesting youn architect is Matthew Enquist.
This was his proposal for a chapel at Ave Maria College in Florida:
-
June 10, 2006 at 8:14 pm #768076
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a link to Dino Marcantonio’s site.
-
June 11, 2006 at 10:42 am #768077
Anonymous
Inactive@Praxiteles wrote:
Another interesting youn architect is Matthew Enquist.
This was his proposal for a chapel at Ave Maria College in Florida:
Let’s hope that this promising young architect gets a chance to realise his plan somewhere. I noted his sensitivity to local building traditions and the use of local material – it would be interesting to see what he would come up with in an Irish context.
The big challenge, as always, is to build something in line with, inspired by or in harmony with a region’s traditions, which is at the same time contemporary. This applies to all buildings but for church building, the demands are even greater, for a church is not something purely functional. It must correspond to liturgical norms and also be a place of prayer, evoking a sense of the sacred.
Furthermore, if the church building is also supposed to anticipate, in some way, the heavenly Jerusalem, it cannot simply be built according to the architectural canons applicable to the theatre, the cinema or the gymnasium. The Notre Dame school of architecture really does show one promising way of moving forward on this front. -
June 11, 2006 at 6:34 pm #768078
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis link gives some idea of the nuclear scale of the Oakland cathedral disaster:
-
June 11, 2006 at 6:42 pm #768079
Praxiteles
ParticipantThere is indeed something very fishy about the Oakland project so much so that it looks like a very big fish bowl so that we can all see sally fish swimming around inside.
Just get a load of this crap put out by Vigneron, the silly bishop:
Here follows a description of the Cathedral by the Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron, Bishop of Oakland. We have included recent working model studies and artist renderings, which at this stage are thematic studies only; the Sacred Art & Design Committee continues to develop design details, artwork, and furnishings.
Introduction
Welcome!
Our Cathedral of Christ the Light must teach what we believe. It is my hope that our Cathedral will demonstrate that the idiom of our day can give voice to faith that is timeless, that a technologically advanced building can indeed be filled with God.Here in the East Bay, one of the most technological societies, science and faith can work hand-in-hand to engender compassion and search for truth. This is as true for Hagia Sophia, St. Chapelle, and St. Basil – of past centuries – as it is for Pope John Paul II’s new Jubilee Church for the Third Millennium in Rome.
Location: The Word Flows from Here
Our Cathedral is oriented toward Lake Merritt, which flows ultimately into the Pacific. This suggests the Word flowing into the Christian community of the East Bay and through us into one that is larger and more interconnected than ever before.We reach out to our neighbors around the Pacific Rim, just as the Pacific Rim has sent us so many of her priests, religious, and faithful. The Cathedral position also acknowledges the ocean, a primal element of God’s creation and an obviously important one for those of us in the Bay Area.
Abundant with Catholic Symbols
The Cathedral of Christ the Light will be abundant with Catholic symbols and metaphors, woven into a context that has universal appeal. This is achieved through the very shape of the Cathedral and within it the dramatic unfolding of the Story of Creation leading to Redemption through Christ. On this point there is much more to come: the Sacred Art & Design Committee will be spending the next several years working out finishes, furnishings, and sacred art.
Our design architect Craig Hartman, FAIA and our liturgist, Brother William Woeger, FSC are acknowledged leaders in their fields and make a fruitful partnership. Please take time to notice Craig’s brilliant use of natural phenomena – light, the cosmos, classic geometries – to speak of God in a universal sense, while Brother William builds on these natural symbols to thoughtfully weaves traditional Catholic metaphors and symbols into the very fabric of the building.
Main Entrance:
Welcome to God’s TimeThe entry to the Cathedral symbolizes the threshold of God’s time. Here, we are invited to step out of the day-to-day, the mundane, into the world of eternal truths Where did we come from? Where are we going? Who is God? What is expected of us? And so here we begin the story of God’s creation.
Above the main entrance will be a large sculpture that clearly identities the building as a Catholic Cathedral. A cross has been discussed, but there are many rich possibilities to be considered. The main entrance will be accessed directly from the plaza. It will include a large vestibule, with connecting stairs and elevator to the mausoleum below.
Floor Plan: A Welcoming Gathering Place
The floor plan of our Cathedral of Christ the Light is based on the “vesica pisces”- the intersection of two circles – an ancient sign among many cultures in the East and the West for a gathering place. Catholics and other Christians will recognize a variation of this in the shape of a fish, a reference to the miracle of the loaves and fishes that was used by persecuted members of the early Catholic Church to secretly signal places for gathering and worshipping. This fitting geometry, commonly used in Church art through most of its history, simultaneously reminds us of our heritage and welcomes people of all faiths.
The Alpha Window: Let there be Light
The Cathedral of Christ the Light will tell the story of God’s creation, starting at the very entrance.
We speak of God as the Alpha and Omega (the beginning and the end), which are marked on the Easter candle every year. The south window – the “Alpha” window – is above the Cathedral main doors. The Alpha window will evoke the beginning of time and the light that emerged from it. From that first act of calling forth light, God went on to make the stars, the earth, plant life and the animals, which will be depicted in the entry floor and wall areas.
Baptistery, the Start of Creation
A point near the entry will describe the creation of man, which is the capstone of God’s creation since He made man in His image. Nearby will mark original sin. The baptistery will be located just below the Alpha window, reminding us when we enter the assembly area that we are born again in love, in Christ.
During earliest days of the Catholic Church, the liturgy was processional, and churches had no permanent seating. The Mass would begin with a procession starting at the baptistery, stop midway for the Liturgy of the Word, then fill in around the altar for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The floor plan of our Cathedral echoes this custom, evoking a pilgrimage in which each of us takes part.
Devotional Chapels and Spaces
The wood and glass form of our Cathedral ascend from a thick base of architectural concrete, twelve feet tall. This promises to be one of the more intriguing areas of our Cathedral, for within this base will be six to eight devotional areas, including a Marian chapel. Windows in these enclosures will bring light of many tones and textures into the main nave of the Cathedral. I am looking forward to seeing how these develop. Early concepts are delightful and inspiring. This may be where artifacts from our original Cathedral, St. Francis de Sales, can be installed, along with culturally significant devotional icons. There will also be a chapel for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and vesting and storage areas here.
Choir and Ambo: Proclaiming the Word
The ambo, or lectern, is here within the choir. To modern eyes this may seem strange, but this placement would be familiar to Catholics of the 5th through 10th centuries. At that time, the choir was more directly involved in the proclamation of the Word, reading of the book of hours, and singing the psalms. This is still true today in the recitation of the Responsorial Psalm. This location will allow for the Liturgy of the Word to be celebrated more fully and will establish good sight lines.
Organ
Much study has been given to determining the location and contour of the choir and organ areas, so that they may be visually and acoustically beautiful. The organ pipes, positioned in openings in the wooden louvers, will be visible from within and without our Cathedral. They will rest on platforms that act as sound canopies for the choir, so that choir members may hear their own voices.
Regarding the quality of sound, we have employed acoustical experts who, with the aid of computer systems, are able to anticipate and produce the sound of celebrants, readers, choirs, organ, and other instruments just as they will be heard in the Cathedral. The echoing effects of the glass surfaces of the Cathedral will be minimized through hidden baffles and sound-absorbing material in the wooden louvers.
Altar & Tabernacle
In our metaphor for creation, the altar is the point of redemption, where the Eucharist takes place. The altar will be place on a raised, circular platform so that all can see it clearly.
An important point to make here is that our Holy, Apostolic Church is a Church of communion, not separate congregations. Our Cathedral represents the focal point of our communion within the Diocese of Oakland and with our whole church, for 2,000 years, to Jesus. Here, we can easily reflect on the profound meaning of “the communion of saints”.
To further convey this theme, natural light from the heavens enters the Cathedral, illuminates the interior with minimal artificial light, then continues to flow from the altar area to the mausoleum beneath. And so God’s first creation, light, unifies the saints – those who came before us, those with us now, and those who will come after us.
The tabernacle, where the Holy Eucharist is reserved, will be visible throughout the Cathedral. It will be located below the north window, behind the altar. Behind the tabernacle will be the Eucharistic chapel, which will seat about 75 for Mass.
North Window & Eucharistic Chapel
Above the tabernacle will be the north window: the Omega window. This will reflect the Last Judgment, or the consummation of creation restored in Christ. This completes the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Thus, all things created by God are returned to God.
Vault of the Heavens, Filled with Light
The vault will be a signature element of the Cathedral. It will rise emphatically to the heavens and signify most dramatically our transcendent destiny. It will be an icon for the heavenly vault, conceived through understanding of physics and technology, filled with God.
In order to draw light into and out of the Cathedral, the vaulting will be covered in a sweeping veil of glass, achieved through an innovative integration of wood and glass connected by a slender, high-tension trellis system. The all-embracing use of glass continues the evolution of Church architecture over the centuries toward more glass and less stone, made possible by new materials and building methods.
The opaque strength of the wooden vaults and the delicate transparency of the glass veil speak eloquently of the miraculous interdependency of all God’s creation. The overall impression will be fluid and modern in form, but with easy-to-see references to Cathedrals past.
The Oculus, a Glimpse of Heaven
Our Cathedral will culminate in a delicate, jewel-like ceiling that mirrors the vesica pisces shape of the floor plan. This is made possible by an inventive “compression ring” that protects the glass ceiling from the cumulative forces of the vaults. Reflected natural light will cause the roof to appear as though it is floating above its wooden vaulted walls. The tradition of offering a glimpse of heaven and God above through painted ceilings will be continued in a wholly new way, through artful use of light, texture, and shadows.
Cathedra
The cathedra, or bishop’s chair, will be placed in the presbyterum behind the altar: that is, where the concelebrating priests will be. This location is an ancient tradition going back to the fifth century. It strongly symbolizes the collegiality among the priests and bishop, which is important to me.
The cathedra is a reminder of the direct line of succession from St. Peter that is uniquely Catholic. It will also be a continual personal reminder to me and to future bishops that we are the trustees of the Church in these two counties, the very Church instituted by Jesus Christ and belonging to God.
Here, bishops will be immersed in our purpose in the Church, which is to serve the faithful so that they can exchange their precious, unique gifts to be a leaven in the world, so that the world can be restored to the vision of the Father when He made it. In other words, we will constantly be inspired by the culmination of the history of creation and salvation so eloquently expressed in our Cathedral of Christ the Light.
-
June 12, 2006 at 2:44 pm #768080
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a little something that might be of use to anyone interested in building a church. It was written by the architectural historian Denis McNamara:
-
June 12, 2006 at 2:48 pm #768081
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is an conference for anyone interested in church architecture and a few days to spare next October:
http://www.vocations.org/liturgicalinstitute/conferences/conferences%20%208-11-2005.htm
-
June 12, 2006 at 3:29 pm #768082
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore onan earlier Chicago Conference on the same subject:
http://www.vocations.org/liturgicalinstitute/conferences/2010%20I%20long/2010-I%20long.htm
-
June 12, 2006 at 8:08 pm #768083
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe link below will take you to the site of the Washington firm of Franck, Lohsen and McCreery who designed the new choir chapel fo the Dominican Nuns at Nashville, Tennessee.
http://www.flmarchitects.com/religious.htm
http://www.flmarchitects.com/religious/images/stcecilia1.jpg
-
June 12, 2006 at 8:16 pm #768084
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe residential portfolio of the same firm:
http://www.flmarchitects.com/residential.htm
Some further information on this firm:
-
June 14, 2006 at 6:24 pm #768085
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is something that might be of use to a leaving cert. student thinking of taking architecture as a career:
-
June 15, 2006 at 10:55 pm #768086
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is another American institute dedicated to the transmission of the principles of classical architeture:
-
June 15, 2006 at 11:04 pm #768087
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is an interesting crash course for anyone interested in whiling away a few weeks amid the umbrella pines of beautiful Tuscany:
-
June 17, 2006 at 9:22 pm #768088
Oswald
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Yes indeed. I absolutely agree with Thomond. The very best congratulations are in order for the FOSCC who have done trojan work in the face all sorts of mean and base-bred tricks to stifle the voice of the ordinary citizen whne they had something important to say.
This morning’s newspapers report that Fr. Jim Killeen, the Chris-ologos public relations officer for the diocese of Cloyne, is studying the 90 page Rabbitte Report before deciding what hnext to do. Perhaps he did not notice that the Rabbit Report has been binned in its totality and, hence, there is little or no need for the Cloyne diocesan authorities to stretch their ample brains on it. Just concentrate on on the single page Order made by An Bord Pleannala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast. Indeed, most of the luminaries involved in recommending Prof. O’Neill’s mad-hatter scheme should simply resign – starting with the over qualified members of the Historic Church Commission of the diocese of Cloyne who obviously cannot be trusted to safeguard the interests on one of the most important monuments in the country. Even the good Bishop, who staked so much on bulldozing his way over his own flock, should also consider sending in a little letter to BXVI.
Although Praxiteles insisted during the appeal that we should read the tendentious documents produced by FOSCC, we are now advised to “bin” the objective Inspector’s Report “in its totality” without reading his assessment or considering the implications of the Board’s decision for the conservation of protected structures which are used as places of worship. One important difference between the Inspector and the Board appears to be that the Inspector took account of Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection and the Board did not. Even if we concentrate on the Board’s Order, as Praxiteles advises, we find that the Board accepted that reordering is justified to meet liturgical requirements but decided it could not support the particular design solution proposed. The question to be addressed – by anyone pursuing a genuine interest in architecture and conservation, rather than a vendetta against Bishop Magee – is how the design should now be amended to meet the liturgical requirements while retaining more of the existing fabric of the cathedral.
-
June 17, 2006 at 10:52 pm #768089
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following link re Michael Lykoudis may be interesting:
-
June 18, 2006 at 12:49 am #768090
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Oswald wrote:
Although Praxiteles insisted during the appeal that we should read the tendentious documents produced by FOSCC, we are now advised to “bin” the objective Inspector’s Report “in its totality” without reading his assessment or considering the implications of the Board’s decision for the conservation of protected structures which are used as places of worship. One important difference between the Inspector and the Board appears to be that the Inspector took account of Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection and the Board did not. Even if we concentrate on the Board’s Order, as Praxiteles advises, we find that the Board accepted that reordering is justified to meet liturgical requirements but decided it could not support the particular design solution proposed. The question to be addressed – by anyone pursuing a genuine interest in architecture and conservation, rather than a vendetta against Bishop Magee – is how the design should now be amended to meet the liturgical requirements while retaining more of the existing fabric of the cathedral.
Oswald. GET A LIFE !!!!
There is no vendetta against Bishop Magee and, even if there were, he is a big boy and can defend himself.
If you are concerned with Liturgy- read up on it. You may be surprised to learn that what was proposed for Cobh Cathedral is nowhere mention in relevant Vatican document.
Regarding the infamous Guidelines on Architectural Heritage protection read what Noel O’Driscoll of An Taisce has to say.
Finally – Grow Up. Coming to the discussion at this stage and getting personal is childish to say the least. Try coming with constructive and original points. -
June 18, 2006 at 10:41 am #768091
descamps
ParticipantOswald looks as though he has strayed from a set for King Lear. He should be careful to be back for his part in Act II, scene 2, especially around lines 355-360. If not back, what will poor Edgar do in Act IV, scene 6, circa line 250?
-
June 18, 2006 at 10:55 pm #768092
Luzarches
ParticipantOswald,
Go away and read ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’ by the current holy father and then come back and tell is that beautiful Cobh cathedral needs to be mutilated like every other great church in Ireland at the service of a bankrupt liturgical ethos.
-
June 19, 2006 at 12:00 am #768093
MacLeinin
ParticipantOswald, just in case you don’t have a copy of King Lear to hand, here is a link.
http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/files/Lear/lear_home.htm
-
June 19, 2006 at 6:55 pm #768094
Praxiteles
ParticipantI came across this interview with QUinlan Terry and thought it might be useful:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1161347,00.html
-
June 19, 2006 at 7:25 pm #768095
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following link gives an idea of some of the English version of the American neo classical school:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/england/cambridge/downing/howard.html
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/england/cambridge/downing/library.html
-
June 19, 2006 at 7:37 pm #768096
Praxiteles
ParticipantQuite by accident, I came across this photo-study of Palladio’s Santissimo Redentore in Venice.
The photographs of the interior are particularly useful, especially that of the chancel area. Here we see the original High Altar enfolded by sweep of corinthian columns. I imagine that Longford Cathedral, and the Pro- Cathedral in Dublin must, originally, have conveyed a similar idea of the use of space.
If we were to transpose to Venice the hack mentality that ruined the interiors of both Longford and the Pro-Cathedral, can we even begin to imagine the uproar that would take place? Yet, the hacking happens in Ireland and nothing happens. Indeed, with a sort of perversity it is hailed as “genius” by those who know even less than the hackers.
The Santissimo Redentore is a functioning Catholic church. It seems to be able to do so without the daft “liturgical” iconoclasim that stalks the land in Ireland.
I might also add that we have come quite a distance since the Venitian Santissimo Redentore to reach the Holy Redeemer built in Dundalk – where even the inscriptions on the altar had degenerated to English!
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/venice/redentore/redentore.html
-
June 19, 2006 at 7:49 pm #768097
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs I was at it, I could not resist this:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/orvieto/cathedral/duomo.html
-
June 20, 2006 at 12:24 am #768098
Oswald
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Oswald. GET A LIFE !!!!
There is no vendetta against Bishop Magee and, even if there were, he is a big boy and can defend himself.
If you are concerned with Liturgy- read up on it. You may be surprised to learn that what was proposed for Cobh Cathedral is nowhere mention in relevant Vatican document.
Regarding the infamous Guidelines on Architectural Heritage protection read what Noel O’Driscoll of An Taisce has to say.
Finally – Grow Up. Coming to the discussion at this stage and getting personal is childish to say the least. Try coming with constructive and original points.An Taisce insist on strict compliance with the “infamous” Guidelines when it suits their purpose.
It was considered to be “a threat to democracy” when An Bord Pleanala overruled its Inspector, and ignored the outcome of the oral hearing, in granting permission for the incinerator at Ringaskiddy. Where are the outraged democrats now?
The Board’s role in the planning process is often described as that of a referee. Having been howled at for a dubious decision in Ringaskiddy was it not inevitable that they would use the opportunity of the St. Coleman’s appeal to even things up – particularly as we head into an election year.
Should planners be allowed to dictate to a religious denomination that only Victorian liturgy may be celebrated in a Victorian church?
-
June 20, 2006 at 1:38 am #768099
-Donnacha-
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
Oswald,
Go away and read ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’ by the current holy father and then come back and tell is that beautiful Cobh cathedral needs to be mutilated like every other great church in Ireland at the service of a bankrupt liturgical ethos.
The great churches of Europe tell the story of their history. We see how the church evolved as a place of worship. Liturgy, philosophy and science change over time and reflect the spirit of the age. It is idolatry to insist that a church should remain as designed by the original architect and should not be allowed to change when the liturgy changes
-
June 20, 2006 at 8:35 am #768100
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, Bruges, “idolatry” is a value term indicating religious blame and hardly appropriate here.
1. The point at issue in Cobh was rather simple. The official requiremenets of the Catholic liturgy can be accomodated without wrecking the historical interior of the building.
2. What is oficially required for Catholic worship is stipulated in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.
3. The Canonical discipline of the Catholic Church does not exclude State intervention in the regulation or preservation of historical churches. Indeed, it stipulates that ecclesiastical authorities are bound to adhere to the civil law (conservation law) . No where does it suggest that such civil provisions are an enchoachment on freedom of worship.
There has been a bit of shrill on the subject of freedom of worship in the aftermath of the Cobh decision. This is eye-wash. Read your Constitution and you will see that the right to freedom of worship in Ireland is not an absolute right. It is conditional on “public order”. [On this subject, the guardians of the faith would want to be concerning themselves with an award for discrimination made to a person on the basis that his name was not included on a confirmation list. It was reported in yesterday’s newspapers. The implications of this for freedom of worship are much more grave and begin to sound like the communist set-up in Czecoslovakia. Admission of candidates to the sacraments is no one’s business but the Church’s.]
4. The Rabbit report did not go into the liturgical question. Indeed, its treatment of the liturgical question was fairly basic if not inadequate. Little or no attempt was made to ascertain what the official liturgical requirements of the Catholic Church are. [And by this I do not mean recourse to the over educated semi-zwinglian Historical Churches Commission]. In so far as those requirements were made available to Mr. Rabbit, he made no attempt to distinguish them from the personal liturgical assertions of various persons present at the oral hearing, nor even to distinguish between the serious and the dafter personal liturgical asertions that were made (though, I would have to concede that his task in this matter was at times rather difficult). Had Mr. Rabbit made the fundamental distinction bewteen the public objective liturgical norms of the Catholic Church and the private subjective opinions also advanced, he would have cleared a good deal of fog.
5. The liturgical problem with the trustees’ application in the Cobh case was that they had bought into a certain liturgical theory which is not an official position of the Catholic Church. To portray it as such is mendacious.
6. In so far as political considerations are concerned, I think that it should be noted that the Irish Bishops were consulted as an interested party on the present Act before its enactment. They appeared not to have had any problems with the provisions of the act.
The guidelines on which so much ink has been spilled is another example of a Martin Cullen gubu. Curiously enough, the famous guidelines were worked out by the minister and the Bishop of Cloyne – who may have thought that he was a getting a package tailor made for the Cobh scenario. Gubu prone as Cullen is, he did manage not to mention to the good bishop that although he might have been a legislator, his was not the interpretation of the law.
-
June 20, 2006 at 10:47 am #768101
Gianlorenzo
Participant“Should planners be allowed to dictate to a religious denomination that only Victorian liturgy may be celebrated in a Victorian church?” – Oswald.
Have you been to Mass in Cobh Cathedral ?
Where do you get the idea that “Victorian Liturgy” is celebrated in Cobh ?
How many times does it have to be said that the changes proposed for St. Colman’s are not liturgically required. At the oral hearing in Midleton this was stated ad nauseum by the FOSCC. When the Applicants had an opportunity to explain to the Bord just how these proposals were required for the Liturgy they singularly failed to take that opportunity. In fact the Trustees and their agents have been very careful not to say they were liturgicaly required in any public forum, other than the one document submitted to Cobh Town Council.Even Richard Hurley writing on behalf of the Arts Council says that the changes are not required but desireable. This is precisely the point that FOSCC has been making from the beginning.
Maybe Oswald can enlighten us as to how these proposals are required and by whom ?
-
June 20, 2006 at 2:29 pm #768102
Praxiteles
Participant1. Just to be clear about things: there is and never was any such thing as a “Victorian” liturgy.
2. The liturgy of the Catholic Church underwent little change between the publication of the Missale Romanum, of St. Pope Pius V in 1570, and the publication of the revised version of that Missal by Pope Paul VI in 1969.
3. It would also be useful to bear in mind that the Rite of the Mass in both editions of Missale Romanum is and remains substantially the same. There is no radical rupture between the Missal of Pius V and that of Paul VI.
4. Talking of a “Victorian liturgy” is simply ill informed. You could speak of the liturgy as celebrated in the Victorian era i.e. 1837-1901; just as you can speak of the same liturgy being celebrated in the post conciliar period, i.e. 1965-2006.
-
June 20, 2006 at 2:49 pm #768103
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs a help for Bruges, and anyone else who does not know what the canonical structure of authority in relation to the liturgy in the Catholic Church is, I am posting a few paragraphs from the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum which sets out that authoriy in the clearest of terms. The document was published in MArch 2003 and I am very surprised that the Applicant in the Cobh Cathedral case – and especially his planning consultant – did not seem to know of it:
[The full text is available here:
Chapter I
THE REGULATION OF THE SACRED LITURGY
[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]
[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.
[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.[36]
[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected”[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.
[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”[38].
This text is a normative text. It has been issued by a public juridical body with authority to publish it. This represents the objective structure of liturgical authority in the Catholic Church.
-
June 20, 2006 at 4:56 pm #768104
Praxiteles
ParticipantBy the way Bruges, if you are living anywhere near Bruges/Brugge, you might like to post some photographs of Jean-Baptiste de Bethune beautiful Chapel of the Most Precious Blood (Heilig Bloedkapel) which is as important for the neo gothic revival in Belgium as Cobh is in Ireland!
-
June 20, 2006 at 11:45 pm #768105
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis gives an idea of the exterior of the Heilige Bloedkapel in Bruges:
-
June 21, 2006 at 12:19 am #768106
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome further links on the Heilige Bloedkapel in Bruges:
http://www.catalunatics.com/be/Brg/brg.htm
http://www.trabel.com/brugge/bruges-holyblood.htm
http://www.terragalleria.com/europe/belgium/bruges/picture.belg10483.html
http://cruises.about.com/library/pictures/baltic/blbruges31.htm
-
June 21, 2006 at 1:13 am #768107
GrahamH
ParticipantI hope to stay there during the summer, so lots to look forward to!
Do you know who the architect of the Holy Redeemer in Dundalk was Praxiteles?
I was in there recently, and whilst not exactly enamoured with the interior, the exterior has great appeal I think. It presents a formidable silhouette over its environs positioned on that elevated site. Unfortunately it’s only when you get close that you realise how poorly finished the building is. -
June 21, 2006 at 1:21 am #768108
Oswald
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Rabbit report did not go into the liturgical question. Indeed, its treatment of the liturgical question was fairly basic if not inadequate. Little or no attempt was made to ascertain what the official liturgical requirements of the Catholic Church are. [And by this I do not mean recourse to the over educated semi-zwinglian Historical Churches Commission]. In so far as those requirements were made available to Mr. Rabbit, he made no attempt to distinguish them from the personal liturgical assertions of various persons present at the oral hearing, nor even to distinguish between the serious and the dafter personal liturgical asertions that were made (though, I would have to concede that his task in this matter was at times rather difficult). Had Mr. Rabbit made the fundamental distinction bewteen the public objective liturgical norms of the Catholic Church and the private subjective opinions also advanced, he would have cleared a good deal of fog.
Tom Rabbette (not Rabbit) produced a fair report in difficult circumstances. He is an Architect/Planner and not a Liturgist. You should not be too hard on him if his treatment of the liturgical question seemed fairly basic by your exalted standards. It is quite likely that his next gig will be a waste transfer station in North Offaly and he will be hoping that he will never have to read Latin again in his professional career.
You make a good point about the Inspector’s difficulty in distinguishing between the serious and the dafter personal liturgical assertions that were made by the various appellants and observers. The FOSCC supporters at the oral hearing appeared to have the same problem as they gave equally rapturous approval to the views of Ms Sherwin and Dr. Reid. -
June 21, 2006 at 1:23 am #768109
Praxiteles
ParticipantThinking of St. Patrick’s in Dundalk and its magnificent sedelia, I hope you notice the superb example in the Heilige Bloedkapel, which is arranged according to the Roman usage.
-
June 21, 2006 at 1:29 am #768110
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am terribly sorry for Tom Babbette that he cannot read Latin. There were several people at the Midleton hearing who had a pefectly good knowledge of it while others present had taught it for over thirty years. What was someone doing trying to sort out this quagmire when he was not even capable of accessing the primary sources. As for audience re-action, who could possibly take that seriously. No one has since Artstophanes sent up the Greek chorus in his frogs! It seems to methat there are horses for courses and courses for horses.
I include among the dafter private liturgical views the submission produced by that liturgical luminary Danny Murphy and accepted by the over educated semi-zwinglian Historical Churches Committee with an unanimity that would have embarrassed the East German Communist Party!!
-
June 21, 2006 at 1:56 am #768111
Oswald
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
How many times does it have to be said that the changes proposed for St. Colman’s are not liturgically required. At the oral hearing in Midleton this was stated ad nauseum by the FOSCC. When the Applicants had an opportunity to explain to the Bord just how these proposals were required for the Liturgy they singularly failed to take that opportunity. In fact the Trustees and their agents have been very careful not to say they were liturgicaly required in any public forum, other than the one document submitted to Cobh Town Council.
Even Richard Hurley writing on behalf of the Arts Council says that the changes are not required but desireable. This is precisely the point that FOSCC has been making from the beginning.
Maybe Oswald can enlighten us as to how these proposals are required and by whom ?
The matter has now been resolved but not in the way Gianlorenzo assumes. According to Praxiteles:
“the Rabbit Report has been binned in its totality and, hence, there is little or no need for the Cloyne diocesan authorities to stretch their ample brains on it. Just concentrate on the single page Order made by An Bord Pleanala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast”.
If you concentrate long enough on that single page you will find in the third reason for refusal that: “the Board accepted that changes to the interior arise from liturgical requirements, but considered that this does not bind it to accept this particular design solution.”
The liturgical argument has been won by the diocesan authorities – the changes are based on liturgical requirements rather than liturgical preferences. The issue that remains to be decided is the appropriate architectural response to those requirements. -
June 21, 2006 at 4:13 am #768112
Luzarches
Participant@Bruges wrote:
The great churches of Europe tell the story of their history. We see how the church evolved as a place of worship. Liturgy, philosophy and science change over time and reflect the spirit of the age. It is idolatry to insist that a church should remain as designed by the original architect and should not be allowed to change when the liturgy changes
You should thank me that I choose to ignore your foolish, ignorant and illogical words on my comment:
1. Go away and read ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’ by BXVI with an open mind and then say whether the iconoclasm inflicted on Irish (and other European Catholic churches) is the fruit of authentic developement and grounded in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
2. Churches in Europe have indeed been remodelled throughout history to accomodate liturgical changes. For example, many medieval churches were very drastically remodelled in the Baroque period supposedly in the spirit of the Council of Trent. The clergy at Chartres replaced the venerable fittings of the sanctuary gifted in part by the saint-king Louis IX himself and replaced them with crude splurges of vulgar marble. They smashed out two clerestory stained glass windows (13th C) so that they could read the liturgical texts more clearly, or so they said. Presumably you and Oswald would have been cheering the then bishop on from the side-lines? Just because we have ruined in the past doesn’t mean that we should carry on today.
3. You say liturgy should reflect the ‘spirit of the age’. Do you really believe this? Are you a catholic? Do you mean that it should reflect radical feminism? Abortion on demand? Gross materialism and consumption of unecessary products and luxuries? The cult of self?
I recommend you read Jonathan Robinson’s book ‘The Mass & Modernity’. In it he unpicks in a scholarly and unpolemical way the extent to which liturgical thought has been undermined by the unconscious importation of , e.g., Hegelian optimism and other strands of Enlightenment speculation which are premised in a hostile attitude towards Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
The partisan liturgical modernists have had it all their own way in Europe and, despite the ill concealed liberal revulsion at the election of our new pope (long may he reign) they retain all the main positions of power.
We’ve helped save one church. Maybe, one day, on a visit to Cobh, you’ll find yourself thankful?
-
June 21, 2006 at 8:42 am #768114
Praxiteles
ParticipantOswals, if we are still talking about the same case, i.e. Cobh Cathedral, then quite clearly nothing remains to be decided. As far as the O’Neill mad-hatter scheme is concerned, perhaps the easiest approach is to consider that BINNED as well!!
P.S. It might also be better to avoid the expression “diocesan authorities”. There is only one and we all know who that is.
The mess was created by the Applicants, i.e. the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral.
-
June 21, 2006 at 8:42 am #768113
Praxiteles
ParticipantOswals, if we are still talking about the same case, i.e. Cobh Cathedral, then quite clearly nothing remains to be decided. As far as the O’Neill mad-hatter scheme is concerned, perhaps the easiest approach is to consider that BINNED as well!!
P.S. It might also be better to avoid the expression “diocesan authorities”. There is only one and we all know who that is.
The mess was created by the Applicants, i.e. the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral.
-
June 21, 2006 at 9:59 am #768115
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantOswald.
You still have not told me what the liturgical requirements are? And how can the diocesan authorities have won an argument they never took part in? The Bord has gone along with the status quo regarding liturgical requirement as presented in the Guidelines. These were put together by a mish mash of people who seem to have no idea of true Liturgy. It is interesting that Bishop Magee was involved in that process and that the Guidlines are uncanningly similar to the plans for Cobh. Coincidence!!!!!! I think not. BIshop Magee met with the then minister Cullen on a number of occasions and the infamous Guidelines are the result.Forget the people’s reaction in Midleton. Look at the FOSCC site and you will see that Ms Sherwin and her ilk are completely ignored. Dr. Reid was the liturgical representative for FOSCC and that it where they stand. You might learn alot from reading his submission. You might also try reading Dr. Kershaw’s contribution which is very interesting on Canon Law and the Cobh diocesan authorities total lack of compliance with same.
-
June 21, 2006 at 8:48 pm #768116
Praxiteles
ParticipantJean-Francois Pluys, nother great exponent of he Belgian neo-gothic. He worked on the restoration of Mechlin cathedral, among other projects:
-
June 21, 2006 at 8:54 pm #768117
Luzarches
ParticipantIf you follow Praxiteles’ link on Mechelen Cathedral you will find that the reordered altar in the crossing has a glass mensa. I wonder whether whichever bishop consecrated this altar consulted the GIRM or other relevant documents as to what constitutes an altar in liturgical law?
But then liberals don’t care about these sorts of technicalities and I would probably be denounced as some sort of pharisee for pointing this type of thing out.
Who cares eh? After all, we all know that the bishop is pope in his own diocese.
-
June 21, 2006 at 8:55 pm #768118
Praxiteles
ParticipantAlthough slightly off the neo-gothic point, I am posting this link to St. Jamess in Antwerp which has a magnificent rood-screen, stll intact, closing off the chancel from the nave. Clealy, it was not a liturgical “requirement” to demolish it.
It is interesting to note the Roman influences on this 17th century interior: the columns of the High Altar derive from Bernini’s baldachino in St. Peter’s; the organ gallery/porch from Bramante’s Tempietto and the facade of Santa Maria della Vittoria.
-
June 21, 2006 at 9:14 pm #768119
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Savour’s Cathedral in Bruges:
-
June 21, 2006 at 9:26 pm #768120
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp.
The picture ofver the High Altar is PP. Ruben’s Assumption of Our Lady of 1619; as well as as his two famous triptychs of the Raising of the Cross of 1610; and the Taking Down from the Cross of 1610-1612.
-
June 21, 2006 at 9:31 pm #768121
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Paul in Liège
-
June 21, 2006 at 9:36 pm #768122
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of Our Lady in Tournai, the largest church in Belgium
Again, the beautiful rood-screen is still intact.
-
June 21, 2006 at 9:43 pm #768123
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Bavo in Ghent
The most remarkable treasure here is the Adoration of the Lamb, painted by the van Eyck brothers.
-
June 21, 2006 at 10:01 pm #768124
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is a link to a very useful data base containing details of nearly 400 churches scattered throughout Belgium:
-
June 21, 2006 at 10:26 pm #768125
Luzarches
ParticipantOh, Praxiteles, please stop! It pains me that worshipers in these churches might commit the sin of idolatry! Their souls are in danger! I dread to think; all those side altars, these people must have a warped view of the mass! We can’t allow our judment to be clouded by mere aestheticim here, those extraneous altars must be removed! And the rood-screens, don’t get me started! The people are being oppressed by these grotesque barriers, like having the Berlin Wall run straight through your church with the clerical elite cocooned in sanctuaries of luxury whilst the poor ignorant faithful shudder in draughty naves!
Those poor Belgians can’t really have been Catholics at all until 1965! And their numbers have, er…, gone from strength to strength!
-
June 21, 2006 at 10:33 pm #768126
Luzarches
ParticipantRe St James’ Antwerp.
I knew of this church by way of a pre WW1 guide written on the churches of Belgium by the rather wonderful T Francis Bumpus. In it he expresses the hope that the ecclesiastical authorities would resist the temptation to remove this roodscreen (on the grounds of architectural taste rather than liturgical requirements…).
I’m pleased to discover that his wish has been granted.
-
June 21, 2006 at 10:53 pm #768127
Praxiteles
ParticipantLet us not underestimate the achievements of the Duchy of Burgundy. Re the religious inheritance of the same, I am posting an image of Rogier van der Weyden’s triptych of the Seven Sacraments, painted in 1440-1444, which shows you fairly realistically how those wonderful churches operated at that time. As you see, the chancel is completely cut off from the nave by the Rood Screen, outside of which a nave altar has been erected for the faithful. WIthin the chancel, the offices and Mass were attended to by the Chapter of Canons attending on the church. The religious intensity of van der Weyden is clearly conveyed. Let us ot forget either that the low countries were birth place of the devotio moderna, typified by Thomas a Kempis’ little book The Imitation of Christ
-
June 22, 2006 at 12:33 am #768128
Praxiteles
ParticipantJan van Eych’s Madonna and Child in a Church of 1425 provides another example of how these wonderful flemish churches operated at that time.
The full import of van Eych’s theological statements in this picture become evident only from a close study of the details. For example, the church depicted here is oriented. The Altar is in the chancel behind the Rood Screen in the East end. How or why then is the church lit with sunshine from the NORTH?
-
June 22, 2006 at 12:48 am #768129
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs for flemish piety, suffice it to post Jan van Eych’s 1435 great picture of Nicolas Rolin, Chancellor of the Dukes of Burgundy and Brabant who ruled the Low Countries as Counts of Flanders. Again, the point being made in the picture is stated in its minute details – even in the differentiation of architectural types:
The donor of this painting is Nicolas Rolin, Chancellor of Burgundy and Brabant. He established the Hôtel-Dieu hospital at Beaune where Rogier van der Weyden executed the famous Last Judgment.
Nicolas Rolin, who commissioned this work, was a man with a forceful personality. Despite his humble background, he was highly intelligent and eventually rose to hold the highest offices of State. For over forty years he was Philip the Good’s right-hand man, and one of the principal architects of the monarch’s success. Van Eyck painted him when he was already in his sixties. His face, though marked by the heavy responsibilities he has had to bear, still fascinates the viewer with the sense of energy and will-power which it projects. Rolin is wearing a gold brocade jacket trimmed with mink. He kneels at prayer on the left of the composition. His gaze is pensive, looking as though he has just raised his eyes from his book of hours.
On the right is the seated figure of the Virgin. Wrapped in a voluminous red robe, she is presenting the Infant Jesus to the chancellor while a hovering angel holds a magnificent crown above her head. The figures have been brought together in the loggia of an Italianate palace. The three arches through which the space opens out behind them seem rather large in relation to their immediate surroundings. They give first onto a small garden with lilies and roses symbolizing Mary’s virtues. Slightly farther back are two small figures, one standing at an oblique angle to the viewer and the other with his back to us. Near them are two peacocks, symbols of immortality, but perhaps also of the pride to which such a powerful man as Chancellor Rolin might well succumb.
The most surprising feature in this splendid picture is without doubt the townscape that stretches out beyond the loggia. The crenellated battlements indicate that the palace is in fact a fortress, built on the edge of an escarpment. Below, a broad meandering river with an island in its midst flows through the heart of a city. The humbler areas of the town lie to the left, behind Chancellor Rolin. On the right, behind the Virgin, are the wealthy quarters, with a profusion of buildings, dominated by an imposing Gothic church. Countless tiny figures are flocking towards this part of town, across the bridge and through the roads and squares. Meanwhile on the river, boats are arriving and putting into shore. It is as if all mankind, united by faith, were travelling in pilgrimage towards this city and its cathedral. In the distance, the horizon is closed off by snow-capped mountains under a pinky-yellow sky. In the opinion of Charles de Tolnay, this painting represents a comprehensive vision of the entire universe.
-
June 22, 2006 at 3:50 pm #768130
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe greatest treasure of St. Bavo’s cathedral in Ghent is Jan van Eyck’s Adoration of Lamb which was installed there on 6 May 1432, having been commissioned by vice-burgomeister of Ghent, Jodocus Vijd and his wife Elisabeth Borluut. This picture tells us much about how liturgy should be understood. It represents the communion of saints, the new heaven and the new earth, mentioned in St. John’s Revelations. The lowe tier portrays the saints symbolizing the eight Beatitudes gathered around thealtar where the sacrifice of the Lamb take place, at the centre of the heavenly garden which has sprung from his side. To the lestf and right are two processions: one made up of the prophets of the Old Testament; the other made up of figures from the New Tastament. All are organized according to hierarchy. IN the background, two further processions appear. These are the Confessors of Faith on the left, and the Virgin Martyrs on the Right. In the centre. the Lamb is surrounded by angels holding the instruments of the Passion. All of the texts undelying this icon are those used for the Mass of All Saints Day.
-
June 22, 2006 at 7:35 pm #768131
Praxiteles
ParticipantA wing from Rogier van der Weyden’s St. Columba altar piece (1455) depicting the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, set in the romanesque interior of St. Gereon’s in Cologne and showing the octagonal nave of the church. Here the contrast bewteen gothic and the earlier romanesque is used to indicate the distinction between Old and New Testaments. The altar piece is now in Munich.
-
June 22, 2006 at 8:58 pm #768132
Praxiteles
ParticipantAother example of a Rood Screen is this one in the Cathedral of Auch in SOut WEst Frace. Behind the screen is the famous choir with its early rensaissance stalls:
-
June 22, 2006 at 9:16 pm #768133
Praxiteles
ParticipantPostong 919 featured a 1450 depiction of the interior of St Gereon in Cologne. Below is a picture of teh same church following re-construction after the last war.
-
June 22, 2006 at 10:53 pm #768134
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother interesting example of medieval liturgical use of church buildings is to be seen in the Master of Fl
-
June 22, 2006 at 11:18 pm #768135
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother example of liturgical use of the gothic cathedral: Jan van Eyck’s Requiem Mass celebrated in a Gothic Cathedral, possibly Ghent, c. 1440. This is a miniature in the Turin Hours (folio 116r), kept in the Museo Civico in Turin. Note in this case, that everything takes place within the ambit of the gothic, i.e. the Christian Church or the New Testament:
-
June 22, 2006 at 11:28 pm #768136
Praxiteles
ParticipantGeertgen tot Sint Jans’ picture of the De Heilige Maagschap -or the Family (extended) of Our Lady – shows another intesting liturgical use of a medieval church. The picture dates from around 1480. It shows taht Mass has been celebrated at the parochial altar which is situated outside of the Rood Screen. You can see a rather plump altarboy putting out the candles. The earlier posting of the Cathedral at Auch shows an extant example of a Rood Csreen completely closing off the chancel from the nave.
-
June 22, 2006 at 11:45 pm #768137
Praxiteles
ParticipantAlbert van Ouwater’ picture of 1450 depicting the raising of Lazarus shows another liturgical use of the interior of medieval churches, namely burial. In this case, the church is a romanesque church indicating taht we are still operating in the Old Testament. Clearly. the burial took place behind the High Altar.
-
June 23, 2006 at 12:14 am #768138
Luzarches
ParticipantRe Roodscreens in greater French churches.
The greatest is at the Cathedral of Albi, which retains not only its Flamboyant Gothic roodsreen but also a complete choir enclosure en suite with it.
The Cathedral at St Bernard-des-Comminges retains a wood first French Renaissance screen and stalls.
The Cathedral at Limsoges retains its early Renaissance stone roodscreen/jube but it has been repositioned to form a quasi gallery at the western end by the 18th century clergy.
The Cathedral of Rodez has a beautiful pure Flamboyant jube repositioned in one transept; there was some talk, years ago, about reinstalling it in the proper place at the entrance to the choir.
Although not a cathedral, the church of St Etienne du Mont in Paris has an extraordinary cantilivered arch jube designed by de Lorme, I think.
The Madeleine at Troyes has a very beautiful Flamboyant jube seemingly suspended by an anti gravity device.
There are also quite a few in the parish churches of Britanny, which have been left more in tact and unmolested than elswhere in France.
Most were destroyed by the clergy more with an eye to prevailing fashion than pastoral care, some had been got at in the Wars of Religion by the blinkered iconoclasts, the Hugenots, and the rest were done for at the bloody revolution.
-
June 23, 2006 at 1:07 am #768139
Praxiteles
ParticipantTh Cathedral of St. C
-
June 24, 2006 at 12:08 am #768140
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Bernard des Comminges
The Jubé or Rood Screen and the choir stalls and High Altar beyond
-
June 24, 2006 at 12:35 am #768141
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother excellent example of the liturgical use of space in medieval Cathedrals is Seville. The Choir is separated from the nave of the Cathedral by an opaque Rood Screen, behind which is an enormous choir. While the Choir is immediately in front of the High Altar, it is again separated from the High Altar by a spectacular grille.
-
June 24, 2006 at 1:42 am #768142
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPrax. You must really write a book on all this. It is fantastic. Could such magnificence be constructed today??
-
June 24, 2006 at 2:00 am #768143
Oswald
ParticipantLuzarches wrote:Oh, Praxiteles, please stop! It pains me that worshipers in these churches might commit the sin of idolatry! Their souls are in danger! I dread to think]While they may be items of historic or architectural interest, Rood Screens give me the impression that their primary function was to screen out the ruder elements of the congregation and preclude universal participation in the liturgy. I am not sure that the Berlin Wall is the most appropriate analogy – it was after all designed to keep people in. What may be more relevant is they way the Berlin Wall has been conserved by the German people through demolition and recording. A number of sections are retained in situ in order to demonstrate the folly of the original structure. In most cases the Wall is recorded as a double line on the pavement which identifies the location and at the same time celebrates the fact that there is no longer any barrier.
-
June 24, 2006 at 2:27 am #768144
Sirius
ParticipantThomond Park wrote:Those are good points you make]Now that the reordering of St. Colman’s Cathedral has been refused by the Appeal Board the question posed by Thomand Park above should be reexamined. One of the options would be to build a new cathedral – but not on Great Island as Cobh no longer deserves the status of a cathedral town. Mallow is more centrally located to serve the diocese of Cloyne and has been designated as a “hub town” in the National Spatial Strategy. The Town Park there could provide an ideal site.
-
June 24, 2006 at 8:02 am #768145
Praxiteles
ParticipantMallow Town pak would be an excellent location for a post V2 Cathedral for the diocese of Cloyne -which for that matter should probably have been merged with Cork years ago – as the site, suggested by Sirius, poses the additional challenge of being subject to flooding. Presumably the proposed structure could either be built on stilts or else fortified against the Blackwater. Perhaps the services of Professor Cathal O’Neill could be retained (remember those steel lifts at Drogheda railway station). It sounds just like the sort of scheme that wouuld suit him down to the ground (or should I say water)! Aye, there’s the rub of being the hub!
-
June 24, 2006 at 8:13 am #768146
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oswald’s last posting: It is clear that Oswald knows nothing about the history of the development of the Latin Rite and its liturgical use of space. It is neither helpful nor useful to read a struicture like the cathedrals of Albi or Seville or Auch with a modern idea of “community”. Much more to the point would be St. Paul’s idea of corporation -each part having its own thing to do yet all parts making up the one Body. I have been posting these examples to demonstarte that St. Colman’s Cathedral, while inspired by gothic models, is not a gothic cathedral. Its liturgical use of space, while drawing on gothic prototypes, is not gothic. Indeed, the point to be made about Cobh Cathedral is that it is a “modern” building and its liturgical use of space is also “modern”. Perhaps Oswald should begin to read a little Jungmann and forget about his Cassell inspired a-historicism.
-
June 24, 2006 at 9:48 am #768147
Sirius
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Mallow Town pak would be an excellent location for a post V2 Cathedral for the diocese of Cloyne -which for that matter should probably have been merged with Cork years ago – as the site, suggested by Sirius, poses the additional challenge of being subject to flooding. Presumably the proposed structure could either be built on stilts or else fortified against the Blackwater. Perhaps the services of Professor Cathal O’Neill could be retained (remember those steel lifts at Drogheda railway station). It sounds just like the sort of scheme that wouuld suit him down to the ground (or should I say water)! Aye, there’s the rub of being the hub!
The fact that Mallow Town Park is currently subject to flooding is not an insurmountable challenge. It is after all zoned for development of Community Facilities, a land use category which specifically includes a church. Finding a central and visually impressive site for a new cathedral within an established town would normally involve enormous expense (particularly with land prices as they are now) and it would be difficult to achieve a suitably iconic building on an awkward infill site.
Various engineering options for dealing with the flooding issue have been floating around in the backwaters of bureaucratic inertia for the past few decades. The plan put forward by Dr. Ger Kiely of UCC retained a significant portion of the Town Park above the flood plane. This could be adapted to provide a superb cathedral site.
As the adjoining lands would remain part of the designated flood plane the cathedral would never be hemmed in by future development . While the cathedral would occasionally be isolated (but not inundated) by a 100-year flood, the floodwaters would soon recede, symbolising the way the Catholic Church will always be able to rise above the periodic assaults by conservative and/or conservationist zealots.
-
June 24, 2006 at 12:24 pm #768148
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSirius, are you really saying that virually the entire population of Cobh are conservative and/or conservation zealots?
You should float your idea of a new Cathedral to Bishop Magee, he might be interested. I think he might have a problem finding the money, but maybe all the non-conservative/conservation zealots around could start a fund to help him. Best of Luck. I love the idea as it would keep our beloved catherdral safe from the wreckers.
Please go for it.. -
June 24, 2006 at 12:52 pm #768149
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThomond Park wrote:Well done to all concerned you have been part of one of the biggest conservation results in a number of years]Sirius, does your ‘conservative/conservation zealots’ tag also refer to those on this thread who welcome the An Bord Pleanala decision?
-
June 24, 2006 at 12:55 pm #768150
Anonymous
InactivePrax,
I like the stilts idea. Maybe this could serve as an inspiration. A couple of boats would solve the access problem! -
June 24, 2006 at 2:26 pm #768151
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oswald’s last posting: The following article came to hand just this morning. It was a proivdential answer to prayer in coming back to Oswald:
-
June 24, 2006 at 2:46 pm #768152
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Sangallo. That is just the thing for Mallow. If nothing else, it will certainly be noticed. As Sirius says, the flooding problem is not insurmountable. Were the great Professor Cathal O’Neill engaged to draw up plans for this one, his brief should include instructions to make it look as much like Venice as possible. The idea being that Mallow would displace Antewrp and then become the Venice of the Far-North! The stilt solution would also serve the purpose of allowing the good professor to install a marina under the cathedral to accomodate the arrival and departure of gondolas. Of course, a rather larger berth would be needed near the sacristy end to accomodate the arrival and departure of the episcopal bucentaur – but that should not be an insurmountable problem for the man who made over Drogheda railway station.
I am inclined to think that three solutions for the Mallow Cathedral site could be put to the Cloyne Historical Churches Commission (HACK) for recommedation (making sure to tell them that only one option can be chosen):
A. The fortress approach which would require the building of some rather grim fortifications against the Blackwater. The HACK would be unlikely to go along with that as it would it would regard the attendant reduction or loss of the “caring” aspect of the building too much to handle.
B. The Venitian remedy and a stilthed – solution base ever so roughly on the C
-
June 24, 2006 at 3:07 pm #768153
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Oswald’s last posting # 913:
With all this tidy mind approach to things, poor old Oswald is beginning to sound like a nun or a traffic warden. But the recent controversy, I was tempted to start a new thread: “Educating Oswald”. Instead, I will post the relevant literature here:
http://www.ucd.ie/jhnewman/works/music.htm
As for active participation in the Liturgy, Oswald might like to read this little bit:
-
June 24, 2006 at 3:11 pm #768154
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
As the adjoining lands would remain part of the designated flood plane the cathedral would never be hemmed in by future development . While the cathedral would occasionally be isolated (but not inundated) by a 100-year flood, the floodwaters would soon recede, symbolising the way the Catholic Church will always be able to rise above the periodic assaults by conservative and/or conservationist zealots.
The problem with the hundred year flood in Mallow is that it comes harder and faster and more frequently nowadays. And with all the building in Mallow, the flood is more often than not an inundation.
-
June 24, 2006 at 4:18 pm #768155
Sirius
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius, does your ‘conservative/conservation zealots’ tag also refer to those on this thread who welcome the An Bord Pleanala decision?
Although they shared a common objective during the appeal this is a most unstable coalition with conflicting long term interests. The various appellants have welcomed the Board’s decision for radically different reasons.
1. The secularist conservationists in An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society believe that they have gained effective control over the architectural heritage of the main religious denominations.
2. The bureaucratic conservationists in the Department of the Environment believe they have “binned” Chapter 5 of the Architectural Heritage Guidelines.
3. The conservative Tridentines in FOSCC believe that they have turned back the liturgical clock.FOSCC were so focused on embarrassing their own hierarchy that they still do not realise the extent to which the appeal decision has advanced the cause of Secularism. Ian Lumley must find it amusing to hear the turkeys welcome Christmas.
-
June 24, 2006 at 4:27 pm #768156
Sirius
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The problem with the hundred year flood in Mallow is that it comes harder and faster and more frequently nowadays. And with all the building in Mallow, the flood is more often than not an inundation.
If it came more frequently it would not be the hundred year flood.
-
June 24, 2006 at 4:29 pm #768157
Sirius
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius, does your ‘conservative/conservation zealots’ tag also refer to those on this thread who welcome the An Bord Pleanala decision?
Although they shared a common objective during the appeal this is a most unstable coalition with conflicting long term interests. The various appellants have welcomed the Board’s decision for radically different reasons.
1. The secularist conservationists in An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society believe that they have gained effective control over the architectural heritage of the main religious denominations.
2. The bureaucratic conservationists in the Department of the Environment believe they have “binned” Chapter 5 of the Architectural Heritage Guidelines.
3. The conservative Tridentines in FOSCC believe that they have turned back the liturgical clock.FOSCC were so focused on embarrassing their own hierarchy that they still do not realise the extent to which the appeal decision has advanced the cause of Secularism. Ian Lumley must find it amusing to hear the turkeys welcome Christmas.
-
June 24, 2006 at 4:43 pm #768158
Anonymous
InactiveFrom what I understand Ian Lumley was simply shocked at the scale of intervention proposed at the Cathedral it is also worth taking notice that An Taisce Corcaigh played a very important role on the An Taisce Appeal and that some members of An Taisce Corcaigh are both local parishioners of St Colmans as well as long term members of ATC . It is simply untrue to accuse An Taisce or the Irish Georgian society of hijacking this matter as part of a wider campaign aimed at the church.
Their submissions were simply a reaction to the unprecedented scale of works proposed in one of Ireland’s finest Cathedrals and those proposed works were found to be unacceptable in many quarters. Other than the Bishop and design team who actually supported the works?
-
June 24, 2006 at 4:50 pm #768159
Praxiteles
ParticipantSirius:
You comments about the FOSCC being “conservative” Tridentines is as wide of the mark as claiming that Praxiteles made remarks about a certain person on another thread.
If you read the position outlined by FOSCC at the ordal hearing, you will see that their liturgical stance is dead centre of the road in what is prescribed OFFICIALLY by the Catholic Church. I include the link to bring you up to speed:
http://www.foscc.com/downloads/oh/5.Terry%20Pender%20.pdf
The so called liturgical experiìtise wheeled out by the Trustees of Cobh Cathedral and by the Cloyne HACK in all of this debacle was a junior cleric of absolutely no Wissenshaft of any kind. The only knowledge he has of the Christian liturgy was gleaned during a six-month sabbatical course spent in the United States of America. I doubt that he has ever heard of, let alone read, Mario Righetti’s Manuale della Storia Liturgica, nor Ildefonso Schuster’s Liber Sacramentorum, nor Bartolomeus Gavantus ‘Thausurus Sacrorum Rituum to cite but a few of the classical commentators. As for his having access to Migne’s Patrologia Latina or to his Patrologia Greca throw you hat at it for he cannot tell the difference between Greek and Latin as is quite obvious from the riseable text he produced for the Cloyne HACK. Who in their right minds would want to take medical advice from a doctor who had never studied medicine nor read a medical textbook?
Just read the earlier parts of this thread and see for your self the extent of the wreckage that has been worked on the fairly slim architectural inventory that we have in Ireland. From it one thing emerges: the Catholic bishops simply cannot or else are not able to ensure the conservation of thsoe monuments of historical and architectural interest in their charge. As you know, natur abhors a vacuum. If someone else fills it in this case, what more can be said.
-
June 24, 2006 at 4:56 pm #768160
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 943:
Sirius:
In epistomological terms, you have just had what is called an INSIGHT.
-
June 24, 2006 at 7:22 pm #768161
Luzarches
ParticipantSome on this thread ought to wake up to the fact that there is a legitimate, current and scholarly conversation taking place within the church on the nature and practice of the liturgy. In particular, the question on the position of the priest at the altar has been highlighted by the public reception given by the new Sri Lankan Secretary of Divine Worship to the italian edition of Michael Lang’s book Turning Towards The Lord. I note that today the same Archbishop has made pretty acute observations on the radicalism and experimentalism that has seeped in the liturgy after the Council. There is a view gathering strength that a return to the ad orientem position of the celebrant during the eucharistic prayer would more fully exemplify and symbolize the full, conscious and active participation of the faithful and therefore conform the liturgy more truthfully to the spirit of the council.
It is the modernists of the 60’s and 70’s who now find themselves recast by events as conservatives. This is exemplified by the reaction of, say, Bishop Trautmann in America to the very mild corrective to the vernacular texts of the ordinary. He’s worried that the people will, after 30 years of the current version, be upset, confused and angry at the rupture in their routine. His ideological predecessors didn’t have a mind to similar concerns between 1964-70.
A measured response to the current climate and new pontificate would be to hang on and see what results are produced and not to fight the irrelevant and fatuous debates of the 60’s & 70’s. It is clear that the renewal needs recalibration, to be reset according to an hermeneutic of continuity with the Church’s sublime Tradition. People who characterize others who take hope in these murmurings are not, in general, Tridentine fundamentalists or haters of the modern liturgy. This straw man argument is a sign of fear and a symptom of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Politicised communitarianism, a wilful distortion of the council documents, will no longer be permitted to be the prime criterion by which liturgy and the architecture that envelopes it is judged.
In this time of transition the prudent make themselves themselves via caution.
-
June 24, 2006 at 7:37 pm #768162
Praxiteles
ParticipantLuzarches.
You might be interested in the link below to an interview with Archbishop Ranjith published in yesterday’s Le Figaro in Paris:
-
June 24, 2006 at 8:38 pm #768163
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
FOSCC were so focused on embarrassing their own hierarchy that they still do not realise the extent to which the appeal decision has advanced the cause of Secularism. Ian Lumley must find it amusing to hear the turkeys welcome Christmas.
Now Sirius, regarding the FOSCC’s role in the Cobh debacle, there are some points that you would need to correct.
!. The FOSCC never set out to embarrass the Bishop of Cloyne – despite the dirty tricks practised on them by his agents. If it becomes necessary, documented examples of this can be provided.
2. The FOSCC directed its campaign against the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral.
3. While recourse was made to the civil authorities in this matter, that came about because of the belligerent and uncompromising attitude taken by the Trustees, and by Fr. Denis Reidy, the Parish Priest of Carrigtwohill who is, in many respects, the agent provocateur in this entire affair and the one whose warped sense of political judgement ulltimately drove the bus into the wall. While the FOSCC tried every possible means of settling their concerns in house, the Trustees and their agents made no effort whatsoever to go any way to meet them. What alternative had they but to use the civil instances available to them?
4. If there was a moot point in law concerning the application of the guidelines, which Sirius mentions, then the INTELLIGENT thing to have done was to ensure that they were NOT tested. Thereby, the status quo – for whatever it was worth – would have been maintained. Initiating a planning application, as the Trustees did, when such doubt existed was foolhardy. You cannot blame the FOSCC for the outcome of the Trustees’ folly.
5. Also, it is disingenous to suggest that the Trustees entered into this with their legal eyes closed. There was already available to the Trustees a vein of legal counsel -at least since the Edenderry case, that made it specifically clear to the Irish Bishops and to the Bishop of Cloyne in particular, that were the law tested it would be likely to end as in fact it did in the ABP’s decision. Furthermore, the same basic position was available to the Heritage Council in a legal opinion sought by them in relation to another matter. I am sure that they would make copies of it available to you on request. So where is the big surprise? If the Trustees of St Colman’s Cathedral were that concerned about encroaching secularism why did they take the reckless decision to seek planning permission when they knew (or should have known) what the likely outcome would be?
6. I understand that the official contempt exhibited to the FOSCC by the Bishop of Cloyne and his office is so petty that he will not even refer to them by their official name in his correspondence with them.
-
June 24, 2006 at 9:12 pm #768164
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Sirius wrote:
3. The conservative Tridentines in FOSCC believe that they have turned back the liturgical clock.
FOSCC were so focused on embarrassing their own hierarchy that they still do not realise the extent to which the appeal decision has advanced the cause of Secularism. Ian Lumley must find it amusing to hear the turkeys welcome Christmas.
Sirius, seriously!! Do you personally know the members of FOSCC? If so, please enlighten us as to how you can say they are “Tridentines”? If you do not, how can you say they are “Tridentines”?
Also if you know anything of this whole affaire you will know that FOSCC merely reacted to what was coming from the Trustees of St. Colman’s. Do you really think that people should just sit back and accept whatever is thrown at them? This is not an issue of disobedience to a bishop. In fact that was one of his great errors. If Bishop Magee had ordered the member of FOSCC to stop, they would have felt duty bound to do so, as they firmly believe in the concept of obedience to ones bishop and Church. This was primarily an issue of architectureal conservation and the only reason that liturgy became an issue was that this was the excuse given to Cobh Town Council to justify the proposed changes to this very important historic building.
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 be preserved and appreciated for what it is.
Finally regarding ’embarrassing their own hierarchy’, if the said hierarchy had been open and honest in all their dealings they could not have been embarrassed. -
June 24, 2006 at 9:17 pm #768165
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Luzarches.
You might be interested in the link below to an interview with Archbishop Ranjith published in yesterday’s Le Figaro in Paris:
Prax. Is there an English translation? We are not all as erudite as you are.
-
June 24, 2006 at 9:37 pm #768166
Luzarches
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Prax. Is there an English translation? We are not all as erudite as you are.
Here you go:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=181675
-
June 24, 2006 at 9:59 pm #768167
Sirius
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius, seriously!! Do you personally know the members of FOSCC? If so, please enlighten us as to how you can say they are “Tridentines”? If you do not, how can you say they are “Tridentines”?
The FOSCC legal team made no attempt to distance themselves from the following arguments which were made by Ms Sherwin in support of their appeal:
The Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar experiment has been a total disaster.
The rotten fruits of Vatican II are everywhere to be witnessed both in the Church and in civil society.
Vatican II is responsible for the catastrophic condition of the Catholic Church today.
“Everywhere you look there is heresy and moral decay; ecumenism is a manifest disaster; the documents of Vatican II and all post-conciliar documents are misleading and ambiguous.†(Quoted by Ms. Sherwin from “Christian Orderâ€, Oct. 2004): -
June 24, 2006 at 9:59 pm #768168
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am now going to make a digressio from the labours of the day and post some things related to St. John the Baptist since to-day is the feast of his Nativity, and is placed in the Christian Calendar after the summer solstice reflecting the line in ST. John’s Gospel: He must increase and I must decrease.
Pierro della Francesca (1449)
St. John The Baptist on the West portal of Cobh Cathedral
Bartolomé Esteban Murillo’s famous treatment of the young St. John the Baptist (1670)
The Cathedral of St. John’s in New Foundland
Th Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Savannah, Georgia
and as is today
-
June 24, 2006 at 10:11 pm #768169
Anonymous
InactiveSirius wrote:The FOSCC legal team made no attempt to distance themselves from the following arguments which were made by Ms Sherwin in support of their appeal:
The Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar experiment has been a total disaster.
The rotten fruits of Vatican II are everywhere to be witnessed both in the Church and in civil society.
Vatican II is responsible for the catastrophic condition of the Catholic Church today.
“]Sirius
FoSCC have no legal or moral obligation to make comment on any other observation or appeal taken in the process.
For the record there were three appeals taken FoSCC, An Taisce & Irish Georgian Society all who felt strongly enough to pay the full appeal fee and not the cheaper observer fee in any previous planning appeal and I have never heard anyone berated for maintaining the normal dignified course of action.
I am entirely unaware of any case where one non- governmental organisation has distanced itself from another non- governmental organisation.
-
June 24, 2006 at 10:24 pm #768170
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe post # 954:
Sirius
1. The FOSCC legal team were hired to represent the FOSCC position to An Bord Pleanala. They were not hired to represent the lady to whom you refer.
2. Let us use a little logic, shall we? The fact that the FOSCC legal team did not say anything about the remarks to which you refer does not allow you to insinuate that they supported such views. If you do intend this then, you are affording us with a rather nice example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. [The kind of argument that we get when someone says “the light is on, therefore they must be at home”. If the light is on, all you can say is taht the light is on].
3. You should also note that the legal team hired by the Trustees did not distance themselves either from the views which you mentioned. Are we to make anything of that?
4. The legal team hired by the Urban District Council did not distance themselves either from the same views. Is anything to be inferred from that?
5. I am beginning to think that you are not quite up to this discussion!
-
June 24, 2006 at 10:46 pm #768171
Sirius
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius,
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. -
June 24, 2006 at 10:46 pm #768172
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSirius wrote:The FOSCC legal team made no attempt to distance themselves from the following arguments which were made by Ms Sherwin in support of their appeal:
The Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar experiment has been a total disaster.
The rotten fruits of Vatican II are everywhere to be witnessed both in the Church and in civil society.
Vatican II is responsible for the catastrophic condition of the Catholic Church today.
“Everywhere you look there is heresy and moral decay]The FOSCC legal team made no effort to distance themselves from Miss Sherwin, but then again the Trustees legal team made no effort and neither did the legal team representing the local authority.
I happen to know that FOSCC decided to completely ignore Miss Sherwin and her ilk, as, to acknowledge them, would have given them a credence they did they did not deserve. FOSCC had no control over how some of the audience reacted. To tar them with this particular brush because of their silence is a little disengenuous to say the least.
Do you not realise that our late Pope John Paul II based his entire papacy on Vatican II and he was supported in this by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Maybe you should take the time to read what these eminent men had to say on liturgy – you might learn something. FOSCC enlisted an eminent liturgist Dr Alcuin Reid and an eminent canon lawyer Dr Alan Kershaw, to put their point across. Have you read what they had to say? FOSCC has never deviated from the Vatican line, albeit pre or post Vatican II.
If you could put your prejudices on hold for a short time and read the entire FOSCC submission to the oral hearing you might learn something. Do not judge them on what they did not say, judge them on what they said. -
June 24, 2006 at 10:59 pm #768173
Sirius
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re post # 954:
Sirius
1. The FOSCC legal team were hired to represent the FOSCC position to An Bord Pleanala. They were not hired to represent the lady to whom you refer.
2. Let us use a little logic, shall we? The fact that the FOSCC legal team did not say anything about the remarks to which you refer does not allow you to insinuate that they supported such views. If you do intend this then, you are affording us with a rather nice example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. [The kind of argument that we get when someone says “the light is on, therefore they must be at home”. If the light is on, all you can say is taht the light is on].
3. You should also note that the legal team hired by the Trustees did not distance themselves either from the views which you mentioned. Are we to make anything of that?
4. The legal team hired by the Urban District Council did not distance themselves either from the same views. Is anything to be inferred from that?
5. I am beginning to think that you are not quite up to this discussion!
You don’t have to distance yourself from somebody who is attacking you.
I am beginning to think you sound like Gerry Adams
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:01 pm #768174
Sirius
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius,
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. -
June 24, 2006 at 11:04 pm #768175
Anonymous
Inactive@Sirius wrote:
You don’t have to distance yourself from somebody who is attacking you.
I am beginning to think you sound like Gerry Adams
I disagree I feel it is you that is apologising for the intended actions of another which have been regarded in many quarters as representing the destruction of a very precious and sacred building; whilst Praxiteles and many others have relied solely upon the statutory process to acheive their goal by entirely legitimate and dignified means without descending into rancour or personal attack.
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:07 pm #768176
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Sirius wrote:
You don’t have to distance yourself from somebody who is attacking you.
I am beginning to think you sound like Gerry Adams
Sticks and stones etc. etc.
Please keep to the point. FOCSS has made its position perfectly clear. There is no hidden ‘Tridentine’ agenda. Talk to the point and stop throwing mud at people it won’t stick to.
Once again I ask you to be specific and tell me what are the particular liturgical requirements you keep referring to in the abstract. Give me concrete examples and please quote from the relevant Vatican II documents. -
June 24, 2006 at 11:10 pm #768177
Praxiteles
ParticipantSirius is still not getting the point:
1. The FOSCC did everything possible to resolve the Cobh crisis in an in-house manner. The Trustees would have nothing to do with FOSCC.
2. By making a planning application, the Trustees dragged the liturgical question into the civil instances. The outcome, as they knew or should have known was inevitable. Do not blame the FOSCC for this. Blame the TRUSTEES. Indeed, the Trustees based their legal argument almost entirely on the liturgical question at the Oral Hearing. FOSCC tried to avoid mentioning that subject as much as possible.
3. The Bishop of Cloyne may not yet be out of the woods as regards a contentious case being brought against him by any member of the faithful in the diocese of Cloyne – and he has given sufficient canonical grounds under several headings to have such launched against him. The Roman tribunals can be pretty mean places when they start listening to how ecclesiastical (and civil) authority was abused in efforts to suppress Christ’s little ones. They could quite easily hand down a sentence that would make An Bord Pleanala look like a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
4. The are no such things as “diocesan liturgical requirements”. A bishop may decide in relation to liturgical matters in his diocese. But, he should remember, that every decision he makes is open to appeal to the justice tribunals of the Holy See. As far as the Catholic liturgy is concerned, there is only one head of the Roman Rite and that is the Bishop of Rome who is the highest authoirty on the matter and his decisions are final and without appeal.
The absurdity of the assertion of the Cloyne HACK that it decided what was liturgy in Cloyne should be clear. It is a position that I can imagine would warm the heart of any Inquisitor. It was not without reason that I refer to this body as semi-zwinglian.
5. I do not know what your problem about the civil authorities is. It is the norm in practically every european country that government conservation offices look after historic churches.
Of course, if the the Guardians of Faith and Morals in Ireland were a bit brighter, they might be able to see that if the civil authorities claim rights over ecclesiastical buildings in Ireland, then they must surely also have DUTIES in relation to them as well. If they thought about it, as they did in France after 1905, the penny might begin to drop that money for the upkeep of historical churches can now be wrung from the Irish government.
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:18 pm #768178
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
On the one hand, it was made to seem suspicious, at the least, that FOSCC did not distance itself from a particular view, while for others it is asserted that there is no necessity for them to distance themselves from the same particular view!!
This makes abslutely no sense or reason. Logicallly, both goose and gander must use the same sauce.
Or are we dealing with someone who thinks that FOSCC must establish its credentials while the others need not?
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:24 pm #768179
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantKeeping to your theme Prax. Here is the Baptistry in St. Colman’s.
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:24 pm #768180
Praxiteles
ParticipantIf a future Bishop of Kerry ever wanted to redstore KIllarney and An Taisce object to it, then that Bishop of Kerry should blame the infamous Bishop of Kerry who wrecked it in the first place. It has been observed that one who will damage a church will also damage the Church. It was certainly true in the case of Killarney. BUt, I think it better we do not get any further into that.
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:27 pm #768181
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
On the one hand, it was made to seem suspicious, at the least, that FOSCC did not distance itself from a particular view, while for others it is asserted that there is no necessity for them to distance themselves from the same particular view!!
This makes abslutely no sense or reason. Logicallly, both goose and gander must use the same sauce.
Or are we dealing with someone who thinks that FOSCC must establish its credentials while the others need not?
Prax. Gerry Adams must be one of those conservative/conservation zealots referred to earlier.
-
June 24, 2006 at 11:37 pm #768182
Praxiteles
ParticipantOh, I see. Not being into zelotypia myself, I did not know that. Thanks ab imo pectore!
-
June 25, 2006 at 12:15 am #768183
Praxiteles
ParticipantFra Angelico. The naming of ST. John the Baptist, 1434
The Preaching of St. John the Baptist by Bachiacca (1530)
-
June 25, 2006 at 12:41 am #768184
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe WIlton Diptych, St John the Baptist (1395)
Jan van Eyck, The Ghent Altarpiece, St. John the Baptist /1425)
Rogier van der Weyden, The Birth and naming of St. John the Baptist (1455)
Rogier van der Weyden, The Decollation of St. John the Baptist (1455)
El Greco, St. John the Baptist (1600)
-
June 25, 2006 at 12:47 am #768185
Praxiteles
ParticipantMatthias Gruenewald, The Isenheim Altar, St. John the Baptist (1510)
-
June 25, 2006 at 1:00 am #768186
Oswald
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
FOSCC enlisted an eminent liturgist Dr Alcuin Reid and an eminent canon lawyer Dr Alan Kershaw, to put their point across. Have you read what they had to say? FOSCC has never deviated from the Vatican line, albeit pre or post Vatican II.
If you could put your prejudices on hold for a short time and read the entire FOSCC submission to the oral hearing you might learn something. Do not judge them on what they did not say, judge them on what they said.I have read through the FOSCC submission and I agree that the evidence given by Dr. Reid was impressive. However, the implication of Dr. Kershaw’s evidence was that Dr. Reid had come to the wrong forum. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments appears to be the appropriate body to review the Cloyne HCAC’s statement on the liturgical requirements. The Inspector noted that under Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, “a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any developmentâ€. FOSCC should not have expected the Appeals Board to intervene in the internal affairs of a religious denomination.
-
June 25, 2006 at 1:26 am #768187
Praxiteles
ParticipantOswald is correct in saying that an authoritative judgement on the liturgical document submitted to the Cloyne HACK can only be given by the Holy See, which in this cse, operates through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. (see the posting I put up quoting from Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Did the HACK ever think of sending it to Rome before proposing and accepting it unaninously? I do not think so.
I am not sure what your point about a permission is. Are not permissions given to carry out minor repairs without having to resort to planning applications? Indeed, some of the “authorities” in Cloyne were trying to persuade the p.a. for years that they were only carrying out mminor works tot he Cathedral in implementing the O’Neill scheme.
I cannot see how the FOSCC can be involved in this.
-
June 25, 2006 at 2:25 am #768188
Oswald
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am not sure what your point about a permission is.
I cannot see how the FOSCC can be involved in this.Dr. Kershaw pointed out that “regardless of what the Appeal Board should decide the entire matter must still receive approval by the Holy See which will exercise its authority by evaluating and establishing whether liturgical laws have been scrupulously followedâ€. He also stated that “all of the decisions of the bishop are open to administrative recourse to the competent Dicastery of the Roman Curiaâ€. This implies that that there is a separate appeal procedure on liturgical matters available to FOSCC within the administrative structures of the Church. If that is the case there was no purpose in challenging the HCAC’s liturgical requirements during the oral hearing.
-
June 25, 2006 at 10:45 am #768189
Praxiteles
Participant@Oswald wrote:
I have read through the FOSCC submission and I agree that the evidence given by Dr. Reid was impressive. However, the implication of Dr. Kershaw’s evidence was that Dr. Reid had come to the wrong forum. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments appears to be the appropriate body to review the Cloyne HCAC’s statement on the liturgical requirements. The Inspector noted that under Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, “a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any developmentâ€. FOSCC should not have expected the Appeals Board to intervene in the internal affairs of a religious denomination.
Oswald:
The sentence beginning “The inspector noted….” seems somehow unceoonected with the preceding sentence and the following sentence. That is my trouble with this posting. Is it part of some other text that was cancelled and this sentence inadvertently left behind?
-
June 25, 2006 at 10:57 am #768190
Praxiteles
ParticipantOswald wrote:Dr. Kershaw pointed out that “]That there are juridical and administrative recourse systems to the Holy See available to Christ’s faithful is simply a matter of fact. Indeed, the FOSCC may well take an action against the HACK before the competent Dicastery of the Holy See. I would encourage them to do so.
Simply because a range of options is available to someone does not mean that they are automatically obliged to use only one option.
I would also point out that the FOSCC could take a civil action in the Irish High Court to have the bishop of Cloyne apply the norms of Canon Law to the set up, structure, and functioning of the HACK. The precedent is there for this in the famous O’Rourke/McGrath before the Irish Supreme Court which was provided by the bishops themselves. So far, they have not chosen to do that.
-
June 25, 2006 at 2:08 pm #768191
Oswald
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Simply because a range of options is available to someone does not mean that they are automatically obliged to use only one option.
There was nothing to stop FOSCC playing their liturgical card. However, as they also had the option of the ecclesiastical courts, the Inspector could invoke Subsection 34 (13) in order to keep out of the liturgical dispute.
Stephen Dodd, in his commentary on the 2000 Planning Act, says that Subsection 34 (13):
“reflects the fact that planning permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights to carry out the development assertable against all persons. Other permissions or rights may need to be obtained before the development can occur”.There is plenty of case law on this point, e.g. Convery v Dublin City Council and Houlihan v An Bord Pleanala.
-
June 25, 2006 at 2:37 pm #768192
Anonymous
InactiveOswald you are taking Dodd’s remarks entirely out of context his remarks are deliberately intended to illuminate that in particular situations concerning large scale commercial projects there may be a requirement to source permission or consent from another government body or a landlord other than the Local Authority or Bord Pleanala examples of this include:
a> An Integrated Pollution Control Licence in the case of a factory or incinerator
b> A seven day on sales licence in the case of a bar
c> Landlords consent in the case of an application for development where the property is held on a long building lease -
June 25, 2006 at 3:59 pm #768193
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting # 978
At this point, I have to say that I no longer am able to follow Oswald’s line of thought. He is beginning to sound as ridiculous as Des Heffernan under cross-examination at the Oral Hearing in Midleton. Could we have a little more clarity?
-
June 25, 2006 at 4:20 pm #768194
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn response to the argument put up by the Applicant’s legal team, the FOSCC did play the liturgical card and to excellenyt effect.
The Trustees tried to claim a role for the Bishop of Cloyne that would have made him appear not unlike the Maharaja of Maharafelt. The claim was advanced that he was was above and beyond the law.
A liturgical position was advanced, without a shred of support, that was presented as an OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church when it simply was not. Dr. Reid very quickly disposed of that pèarticular piece of mendaciousness.
-
June 25, 2006 at 4:45 pm #768195
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantGiven FOSCC’s stated position they had no choice about playing the liturgical card as the whole emphasis of the Guidelines is that ‘Liturgical Requirement’ should be respected. FOSCC has no problem with that position if and only if what was proposed was actually required by the liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. In the case of St. Colman’s cathedral this was not the case. That being so the plans proposed were unnecessarily intrusive and destructive of the fabric of the building. That is FOSCC’s position.
Again they had no choice other than to challenge the HCAC’s document on Liturgy. The interesting thing is that the Trustees, at the oral hearing, made absolutely no effort to engage on this point and no effort was made to cross examine Dr. Reid or put forward a counter argument. -
June 25, 2006 at 4:54 pm #768196
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Oswald wrote:
There was nothing to stop FOSCC playing their liturgical card. However, as they also had the option of the ecclesiastical courts, the Inspector could invoke Subsection 34 (13) in order to keep out of the liturgical dispute.
Stephen Dodd, in his commentary on the 2000 Planning Act, says that Subsection 34 (13):
“reflects the fact that planning permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights to carry out the development assertable against all persons. Other permissions or rights may need to be obtained before the development can occur”.There is plenty of case law on this point, e.g. Convery v Dublin City Council and Houlihan v An Bord Pleanala.
One final point. FOSCC is not about attacking the bishop or the Church. They will take no action against them if it is not necessary. Just because options are available does not mean they have to be used. FOSCC was elected by the people of Cobh to represent them regarding the proposed re-ordering of the Cathedral and that they did in the only way open to them at the time.
As no official Decrees were issued regarding the HCAC or the proposed re-ordering they could not take recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship. The other option of going to the High Court, while still available, would be very expensive and would bring the bishop and the diocese of Cloyne into disrepute – not something FOSCC desires.
The Trustee brought this into the civil forum by applying for planning permission without any effort to engage with the people of the parish or the diocese. FOSCC merely reacted. -
June 25, 2006 at 6:56 pm #768197
Praxiteles
ParticipantGianlorenzo!
Please do not think that because no official Decree was issued bu the Bishop of CLoyne in setting up the HACK and in deceding to re-order Cobh Cathedral thta you cannot make a recourse to the Holy See. This is a common and well known ruse. It is well known to canonical system. Believe you me that over the centuries several effective antidotes have been developed to cure this problem. A number of juridical preliminaries will quickly solve this problem and open the way, pretty speedily, for the FOSCC to plead before the Roman courts.
-
June 25, 2006 at 8:00 pm #768198
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
One of the options would be to build a new cathedral – but not on Great Island as Cobh no longer deserves the status of a cathedral town. Mallow is more centrally located to serve the diocese of Cloyne and has been designated as a “hub town” in the National Spatial Strategy. The Town Park there could provide an ideal site.
To return to this posting for a brief moment. Sirius seems thinks that the Cloyne Cathedra was set up in Cobh because Cobh had some special merit as a centre of population or for some other prestige motive. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Clearly, Sirius knows little of the recent history of the diocese of Cloyne.
Sirius should know that the Cathedra of Cloyne was set up in Cobh by a mere accident of history and the generosity of the Earl of Barrynore who afforded protection to the Catholic Bishop during the persecutions of the 18th. century. From 1749, the Bishop of Cloyne was sheltered by Lord Barrymore at Castlelyons. When the castle burned down in 1770, Lord Barrymore’s residence moved to Barrynore Castle at Carrigtwohill (and subsequently to Fota). With him moved the bishop who set up in Cobh. During the 18th. century, the Earls of Barrymore , especially James, the fourth Earl, prohibited priest-catchers from operating within their manorial domains in East and North Cork.
-
June 25, 2006 at 8:28 pm #768199
Oswald
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
In response to the argument put up by the Applicant’s legal team, the FOSCC did play the liturgical card and to excellenyt effect.
The Trustees tried to claim a role for the Bishop of Cloyne that would have made him appear not unlike the Maharaja of Maharafelt. The claim was advanced that he was was above and beyond the law.
A liturgical position was advanced, without a shred of support, that was presented as an OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church when it simply was not. Dr. Reid very quickly disposed of that pèarticular piece of mendaciousness.
What result did Dr. Reid actually achieve for the FOSCC?
The Inspector ‘s conclusion was as follows :
“whether the bishop and the HCAC erred under canon law in determining that the re-ordering is a liturgical requirement, are not matters for the Board to adjudicate upon, in my opinion. In this regard it is important to note the provisions of Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
A person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any development.
Dr. Kershaw did note that regardless of what the Board should decide the entire matter must still receive approval by the head authority of the religious denomination.
I am therefore of the opinion that it is the religious denomination as represented by the applicants (as far as civil planning law is concerned) that determines the liturgical requirements. That is not to say that the bishop and the HCAC are correct and those liturgical experts opposing are incorrect, I simply don’t know, but that is not a determination I have to make. What is of importance to the planning process is whether Guidelines in relation to ascertaining the liturgical requirements are complied with”.
While the Board did not agree with the weight the Inspector gave to the liturgical requirements they accepted that the changes to the interior arise from liturgical requirements.
-
June 25, 2006 at 9:02 pm #768200
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantDr. Reid achieved precisely what FOSCC wished in that he stated for the record the Official position of the Catholic Church regarding liturgy. And as I said previously he was unchallenged on this issue.
-
June 25, 2006 at 9:18 pm #768201
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe question of “ascertaining” what liturgical requirements are is indeed of importance for the Cobh issue.
Dr Reid’s presence at the Oral Hearing was most important. The problem was that insular Ireland had no realization of the international standing of this scholar nor of the weight of his judgement on the question of liturgical requirements. His submission to the hearing should have made it absolutely clear that what had been presented by the HACK as and OFFICIAL requirement was no such thing but a personal private preference.
Hence, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned what the HACK presented was NOT a liturgical requirement.
Morever, presenting it as such was mendacious.
The fact that the Applicants legal team did not cross examine indicates that they had some realization that Dr. Reid’s submission had substance and consequences for the outlandish claims they had been instructed to represent.
-
June 25, 2006 at 9:38 pm #768202
Luzarches
ParticipantAs I understand it it is the terminology of the planning act that refers to ‘requirement’. Surely, in canon law, there is no mention of liturgical ‘requirements’ at all other than discharging obligations to the GIRM and the rubrics therein.
It is therefore somewhat a sleight of hand to import a certain interpretation of the liturgical law under the guise of a requirement, which is why Dr Reid’s contribution was of such use. In all deference to the authority to the bishop others in the diocese have been well reminded that the church is at once particular to a place and also universal. Given the terms of the act the apellants had no choice other than to engage with the applicants on this issue.
-
June 25, 2006 at 9:39 pm #768203
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn reflection, I am inclined to think that the position advanced by the HACK might not have been entirely motivated by mendaciousness. You have to take into account the collective professional ignorance of that body when it come to the liturgical sciences. All of the clerics on it are parochial clergy and are not expected to have expert knowledge of the disciplinary norms of Catholic Liturgy. None of the laity on the HACK had the slightest clue as to what they were doing. Alex White proposed a document that was a piece of consumate ignorance. Proposeing it was like shooting into hedge.
-
June 25, 2006 at 9:41 pm #768204
Praxiteles
ParticipantGood on you Luzarches!
Everything in a nutshell!!
-
June 25, 2006 at 11:35 pm #768205
Oswald
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
As I understand it it is the terminology of the planning act that refers to ‘requirement’. Surely, in canon law, there is no mention of liturgical ‘requirements’ at all other than discharging obligations to the GIRM and the rubrics therein.
I agree.
If you appeal to An Bord Pleanala you must present your case using the terminology of the Planning Acts and the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection. If you decide instead to appeal to an ecclesiastical court you will refer to Canon Law and the GIRM.
-
June 26, 2006 at 12:22 am #768206
Praxiteles
ParticipantOswald, let us try to simplify matters:
1. If I am in an ecclesiastical tribunal, then I have to present my case according to the terms of that system of law.
2. If I am in a civil tribunal -such as ABP – then, I have to present my case according to that system of law.
When it comes to “requirements” as far as Catholic worship is concerned:
1. In an ecclesiastical tribunal I will have to refer to the relevant liturgical law: The Code of Canon Law; the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis; the Praenotanda of the Litrugical Books; and the authoritative interpretations given to these texts by the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is the system within which a case is presented and judged in an ecclesiastical tribunal.
2. In a civil instance tribunal, such as ABP, if we are talking about the “requirements” of Catholic worship, then that discourse must occur within the terms of that legal system. This is how you present what you have to say about “the requirements of Catholic worship” and it is within that system that a decision is made.
3. However, a definition of the “requirements” of Catholic worship can only be made in reference to the sources that I have outlined above: The Code of canon Law; the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, the Praenotanda of the liturgical Books and the authentic interpretation of these given by the Congregation for Divine Worship. This constitutes the objctive, public, OFFICIAL, definition of what liturgical requirement is for the Catholic Church.
It is this definition that has to be represented to the civil instance as Catholic “liturgical requirement”. Catholic liturgical requirement cannot be defined by reference to any other sources. If you do define “liturgical requirement” by reference to other sources, then it is not “Catholic liturgical requirement”.
It seems to me that it would be strange for a law to admit of a definition of “liturgical requirement” for every denomination according to the norms of their worship, except for the Catholic Church. Indeed, for ABP or any other civil instance to suggest that the liturgical requirements of the Catholic Church are to be defined by reference to sources other than those outlined above is an undue interference on the part of the civil state in the worship of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has an official mechanism for ascertaining what a liturgical “rquirement” is. For a civil state to suggest that it can provide a substitute or an alternative for that system is not acceptable and an undue interference in Catholic worship.
All that one is saying here is to repeat a principle that is accepted in Irish law: when the law of a foreign state has a bearing on a case, the provisions of that foreign system are admitted by court in resolving the case. The Canon Law of the Catholic Church is regarded in the Irish law system as a foreign law jurisdiction. It has been admitted in cases. Precedents exists. In the Irish legal system, there should not per se be any difficulty about admitting the canon law regulating the liturgy if there is a difficulty about defining what “liturgical requirment” is.
-
June 26, 2006 at 12:25 am #768207
Praxiteles
ParticipantP.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.
-
June 26, 2006 at 3:05 pm #768208
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis little gem was posted on 15 June 2006 by the Catholic Communications Office in the wake of the last meeting of the Bishops’ Conference:
The decision of An Bord Pleanála regarding St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh
The Bishops’ Conference has noted with grave disappointment and concern the decision of
An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission for the liturgical reordering of the
Sanctuary of St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh.The direction and order of the Board to refuse planning permission is being studied.
The extensive report of the Board’s Inspector, who conducted the oral hearing (28 February,
1-2 March 2006), and who recommended approval for planning, is also being studied.Perhaps they should tells us what is gravely dissapointing them and causing such concern!
-
June 26, 2006 at 5:55 pm #768209
Praxiteles
ParticipantSomething of the history of the artistic representation of the Apostles Peter and Paul who feast is inscribed in the Christian Calendar on 29 June:
The Cross of Muiredeach at Monasterboice, Co. Louth
From the Cathedral of Guylafehevar, Hungry (1190):
Benozzo Gozzoli, Oue Lady with St Jerome, ST. John the Baptist andSts. Peter and Paul (1465)
-
June 26, 2006 at 10:31 pm #768210
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
I am deeply shocked that a person with your knowledge and experience is not even aware of the existence of Gerry Adams. Here in Belfast he is idolised as a statesman of intentional importance. I warned Gerry that the day he signed the Good Friday agreement he would begin to slide into political obscurity. I never thought that it could happen so soon!
-
June 26, 2006 at 10:37 pm #768211
Praxiteles
ParticipantChuck E R Law:
Well, we cannot know everything in life. Although the cadences of Munster Irish are a little different, I must say that I do like the interlinguistic pun!
I also like the ecumenical-interpolitical-reference suggested by the interposed initials and their their pun on a well-known cipher!
-
June 26, 2006 at 10:44 pm #768212
Praxiteles
ParticipantEl Greco (1587), in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg :
The Apostles Peter and Paul
Domenikos Theotokopoulos (El Greco) 1587-92Oil on canvas; 121 x 105 cm
El Greco was one of the first painters in Spain to depict the apostles, St Peter and St Paul, together. This enabled the artist both to reflect on religious concerns and to contrast their different personalities: St Paul is devout and passionate, St Peter gentle and meek. The poses and gestures, the colours and expression, the superb technique, all these emphasize the contrast between the two. This painting comes from the high period of El Greco’s creative life, a period during which he executed a whole series of works on the subject of Christ and the Apostles.
-
June 26, 2006 at 11:05 pm #768213
Sirius
Participant@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?
-
June 26, 2006 at 11:07 pm #768214
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Martyrdom of St. Peter, Michelangelo’s fresco of 1546 in the Cappella Paolina of the Apostolic Palace:
According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside down, either on the Janiculum hill or in a circus arena between two metae, the pair of turning-posts or conical columns set in the ground at each end of the course. Artists have used both settings, depicting Peter on the cross at the moment of being lifted by soldiers, often surrounded by onlookers, or already raised in position, with a small group of women standing by in allusion to the similar group at Christ’s crucifixion.
In Michelangelo’s composition everything is centred in the fearful event; in triumph over pain and suffering. As in the fresco of St Paul, the main protagonist fits into an ellipse placed in the centre of the cross, extended on four sides by the disposition of the figures. This device lends to the design a clarity and strength which is absent from the restless Damascus scene, because there the fallen Saul appears suspended in mid-air at the lower edge of the picture, and the accompanying figures occupy different levels of space. In the Crucifixion, on the other hand, most of the figures are vertical; only those near the centre give the impression of rotating round the martyr. Their features betray the utmost horror, especially those of the women on the lower right who tremble with terror, and several onnlookers seem on the verge of madness
The Conversion of St. Paul on the opposite wall of the Cappella Paolina:
The conversion of Saul (St Paul) is the best-known and most widely represented of the Pauline themes (Acts 9:1-9). On the road to Damascus, where he was going to obtain authorization from the synagogue to arrest Christians, Paul was struck to the ground, blinded by a sudden light from heaven. The voice of God, heard also by Paul’s attendants, as artists make clear, said, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ They led him to the city where, the voice had said, he would told what he had to do. According to a tradition, connected with the medieval Custom of representing pride as a falling horseman, Paul made the journey on horseback. He lies on the ground as if just thrown from his horse, prostrate with awe, or unconcious. He may be wearing Roman armour. Christ appeares in the heavens, perhaps with three angels. Paul’s attendants run to help him or try to control the rearing horses.
In Michelangelo’s fresco the composition shows great depth of feeling obtained by the use of light and darkness that foreshadows Rembrandt and testifies to the heroic virtuosity of the aged master. A focal line traverses the the painting, its progression at once reveals the meaning of the composition. Starting at the top left it flows diagonally, along the figure of Christ descending and a beam of light. It follows a figure with raised fingers and another, bent over the fallen Saul, and circumscribes the ellipse of this body. From his right leg it curves back and upward in the direction of a horse galloping in the background, and loses itself in the undulating contours of the mountains with a vision of the heavenly Jerusalem faintly outlined in their folds – unless we accept a more literal explanation and call it Damascus. The high-light on the head of Saul and on the horse’s head confirms the symbolic meaning; the dim awarness of fallen man is touched by the lightning flash of grace, and as universal conciousness awakens in him, he loses his animal torpor and gains true knowledge.
-
June 26, 2006 at 11:13 pm #768215
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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?
Well somewhere among the tons of paper generated by the the Trustees and their Planning Manager, McCutcheon and Mulcahy, there must be something provoking the sub-conscious associatioin of ideas!
-
June 26, 2006 at 11:19 pm #768216
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd this is Caravaggio’s rendition of the same subject (1600):
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/caravaggio/st_peter.jpg.html
And this is Caravaggio’s rendering of the conversion of St. Paul on the opposite wall of the chapel (1600):
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/caravaggio/caravaggio_conversion_of_st_paul.jpg.html
-
June 26, 2006 at 11:41 pm #768217
Praxiteles
ParticipantGuido Reni’s version of 1605:
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/PINs/PINs_Sala12_06_050.html
Lucas Cranach’s Conversion of St. Paul of 1545
http://cgfa.dotsrc.org/c/p-cranach2-4.htm
Raphael’s St. Paul preaching to the Athenians (1514) – with Bramante’s Tempietto in the background
-
June 27, 2006 at 10:34 am #768218
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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?
Sirius, do you object to everything Victorian or it is just architecture and liturgy?
Re. 963. you still haven’t defined your terms.
What precisely is ‘Victorian liturgy’ and what are the ‘liturgical requirement’ that you presume for Cobh Cathedral? -
June 27, 2006 at 9:22 pm #768219
Kennie
ParticipantAs 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.
-
June 27, 2006 at 9:34 pm #768220
Praxiteles
ParticipantThqn you very much kennie for the kind remarks.
I doubt that Sirius is in a position to make a professionql comment on the liturgy as practised in the 19th. century. So far, he has produced no indication of knowing anything about the subject
-
June 28, 2006 at 12:02 am #768221
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Kennie wrote:
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.
Kennie, welcome to the thread. Re the above, it would appear that you can dig up a protected mosaic floor with a pneumatic drill during a planning hearing and the forces of law and order will completely ignore it. Bishop Magee’s friends in Cobh Town Council do not feel it necessary to reprimand his agents for their defying of the planning law during the recent oral hearing. Obviously the DoEHLG feel similarly unconcerned about this blatant contempt for civil authority.
-
June 28, 2006 at 12:18 am #768222
Sirius
Participant@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!
-
June 28, 2006 at 1:00 am #768223
-Donnacha-
Participant@Kennie wrote:
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.
Is there no right of reply in the land FOSCC?
It is disappointing that Praxiteles, whose postings are usually laced with razor sharp invective, should gratefully accept protection from a blunt instrument like Kennie.
-
June 28, 2006 at 3:36 am #768224
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Bruges wrote:
Is there no right of reply in the land FOSCC?
It is disappointing that Praxiteles, whose postings are usually laced with razor sharp invective, should gratefully accept protection from a blunt instrument like Kennie.
Hardly protection. Amusement maybe. Prax is quite capable of taking care of herself.
In the land of FOSCC there is always right of reply along as it is to the point and not needless invective. -
June 28, 2006 at 10:23 pm #768225
Armandd
ParticipantBonjour
I was reading the informations about the cathedral of St Colman in Cobh. Is he permitted to the bishops in Irelande to make some directions to the agents of the generalities for the urbanization? En France we have the legalities of separations. The bishops are never asked for informations.
-
June 28, 2006 at 11:33 pm #768226
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Armandd wrote:
Bonjour
I was reading the informations about the cathedral of St Colman in Cobh. Is he permitted to the bishops in Irelande to make some directions to the agents of the generalities for the urbanization? En France we have the legalities of separations. The bishops are never asked for informations.
Salut Armand!
Malheureusement, de nos jours en Irlande le primary role of the Irish bishops is to preserve English architectural heritage. Once they have achieved that, the bishops are permitted to look after the liturgical needs of their congregations, in consultation with the Pugin Society and their Irish franchisees. Quel dommage that Amiral Hoche, Wolfe Tone (and the brave troupes de marines from Brest and La Rochelle) came so close but did not succeed in 1796! -
June 29, 2006 at 1:34 am #768227
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Salut Armand!
Malheureusement, de nos jours en Irlande le primary role of the Irish bishops is to preserve English architectural heritage. Once they have achieved that, the bishops are permitted to look after the liturgical needs of their congregations, in consultation with the Pugin Society and their Irish franchisees. Quel dommage that Amiral Hoche, Wolfe Tone (and the brave troupes de marines from Brest and La Rochelle) came so close but did not succeed in 1796!Say again!!!
-
June 29, 2006 at 10:45 am #768228
Armandd
ParticipantBonjour Chuck
Explique moi cette drole de situqtion. Je n’en comprends plus rien
-
June 29, 2006 at 1:31 pm #768229
Praxiteles
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Salut Armand!
Malheureusement, de nos jours en Irlande le primary role of the Irish bishops is to preserve English architectural heritage. Once they have achieved that, the bishops are permitted to look after the liturgical needs of their congregations, in consultation with the Pugin Society and their Irish franchisees. Quel dommage that Amiral Hoche, Wolfe Tone (and the brave troupes de marines from Brest and La Rochelle) came so close but did not succeed in 1796!Can you really be serious about Hoche???
-
June 29, 2006 at 3:45 pm #768230
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Armandd wrote:
Bonjour Chuck
Explique moi cette drole de situqtion. Je n’en comprends plus rien
My suspicions are confirmed! Would a genuine resident of La Rochelle say “bonjour” at 9.23pm (see post #1012) Obviously you are an agent provocateur!
-
June 29, 2006 at 7:54 pm #768231
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
My suspicions are confirmed! Would a genuine resident of La Rochelle say “bonjour” at 9.23pm (see post #1012) Obviously you are an agent provocateur!
And you are not?
-
June 29, 2006 at 11:09 pm #768232
Armandd
ParticipantI am placed on La Rochelle. I do not understand the provocative agent. The addesse is normal to chat (causer) on forums in the French internet.
-
June 29, 2006 at 11:21 pm #768233
Armandd
ParticipantHoch has been the pacificateur of the West France. He does not like him vey much in the Vendeé. The pacificateur of the west comitted the masacres de part tout on the inhabitants.
How does the Anglais influences the urbanization in the republic d’Irlande? In France he is the Bâtiments de France to protect the patrimonys architecturals nationals. He exists also in Irlande?
-
June 30, 2006 at 10:24 pm #768234
Praxiteles
ParticipantChuck,
Before making a fool of yourelf with grandiose nonsense about Hoch, do please go and read Francis Moylan’s, Bishop of Cork, Correspondence with the Abbe Edgworth de Firmont on the subject of the French Revolution. Moylan is likely to know what he was talking about having been educated in Toulouse and so should Edgworth who was a fellow student of Moylan’s. If you think there is any histroical connection between a jacobite expedition to Ireland and the butcher Hoch’s arrival you are deluded beyond redemption. A copy of Moylan’s book should be available on abebooks. An interesting study of this subject was published within the last few years called “The French Disease”. I think that you may have contracted it but I am not sure whether in the great or lesser form!!!!
-
June 30, 2006 at 10:30 pm #768235
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd Chuck,
What kind of imperialism are we dealing with that presumes to tell the frogs how to speak French? It might be better trying to teach comprehensible English, or even Irish for that matter, to the people of Belfast.
-
June 30, 2006 at 10:33 pm #768236
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 1009:
Sirius, as usual, is lowering the tone of the discussion. Perhaps the administrator should recommend that he keep his clothes on in public at least!!
-
June 30, 2006 at 10:35 pm #768237
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd, if he really cannot help himself, at least buy a pair of comfortable runners. Speaking of which, has anyone seen our Oswald of late?
-
June 30, 2006 at 10:40 pm #768238
Praxiteles
Participant@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.
One of my reasons for speaking favourably of Kennie was of course his daily bravery in passing under that awful footbridge in Drogheda railway station. It looks like two unpainted bean-tins planked precariously at either side of the track. Just how much precipitation must we have to take care of them once and for all?
-
June 30, 2006 at 10:55 pm #768239
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs a help for the Monkstown boetians, I am posting the following about J. B. Lassus and would be glad were someone to take up the question of his first neo-gothic church, St. Nicholas in Nantes:
1807-1857.
Jean-Baptiste Lassus interrompit ses -
July 1, 2006 at 8:11 pm #768240
Praxiteles
ParticipantArmand!
Perhaps you might be able to supply us with some photographs of Lassus’ great first work in the neo gothic idiom? If memory serves me, La Rochelle is no more than 45 minutes from Nantes and I understand that St Nicholas has been undergoing a restoration. We would all be eternally grateful!!!
-
July 1, 2006 at 8:35 pm #768241
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe latest intelligence signalled from Cobh relates the following:
A nun over there who is a feared Gauleiterin on the Cloyne liturgical Soviet has let it be known in public quarters that the decision of An Bord P. is unacceptable and that the catheral just MUST be changed. The same lady was also good enough to communicate that poor bishop McGhee has not the money to take ABP to the High Court and has been advised to let his plan go. However, the same lady says that he is currently involved in drawing up a further set of plans and, according the Eva Braun of Cobh, the plans will be ready and presented in TWO WEEKS time. That, incidentially should coincide with the first anniversary of last year’s presentation to Cobh Town Council and it should yet again coincide with Cobh Town Council’s annual holidays for 2006. If there is any truth in this, then I expect that McCutccheon and Mulcahy, the unhappy bishop’s “advisors” must have lost all semblance of reason and reality. Moreover, should this prove true the FOSCC will once again do it duty without remorse. It might be no harm for the poor bishop to stand down his Gauleiterin, who has lately been bleating in the Irish Catholic about her arthritic knees, before she leads to his being stood down himself. There is only a certain amount of liturgical warefare that will be tolerated after which heads have to roll.
-
July 3, 2006 at 2:40 pm #768242
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantInteresting piece by Fr. Paddy Jones in today’s Irish Times. Funny he didnt’ think to say that he and Bishop Magee of Cobh were heavily involved in the drawing up of the November 2003 Guidelines for Places of Worship, which reflect their particular and much criticised ‘vision’ of liturgy. As usual there is no reference to offical authentic Vatican II documents to back up this ‘vision’.:rolleyes:
Irish Times Article:
Applying Vatican II’s vision to architecture and worship
Rite & Reason: There is disappointment in the Catholic Church at the refusal of permission to liturgically reorder St Colman’s cathedral, writes Fr Patrick Jones.
At their June general meeting, the Catholic bishops discussed the decision of An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission for the liturgical reordering of St Colman’s cathedral in Cobh. The bishops expressed their disappointment and concern at this decision.
At the final stage in major restoration work, a planning application was submitted to the local authority to have a more extensive and open sanctuary, with new altar, ambo and chair and, being a cathedral, the bishop’s chair or cathedra. The proposed altar would replace the temporary plywood altar but the old high altar with its tabernacle, reredos, screens and old cathedra would be untouched.
All through the project, great care was taken to respect the architectural heritage of the building. The application was considered by the planning officer to be the best he reviewed.
The documentation included the liturgical rationale behind the design. The diocesan Historic Churches Advisory Committee had been involved and the architectural heritage guidelines, prepared by the Department of the Environment and accepted by the churches, was adhered to by the diocese and the planning authority. Planning permission was given. It was appealed and an oral hearing was conducted by An Bord Pleanála.
The board’s inspector, who conducted the hearing, recommended approval, but the board itself decided against it. Many are disappointed. Many are not, including those who campaigned against the planning application and those who campaigned against any change in the sanctuary layout. Their objections are based on liturgy and/or heritage.
The design was a contemporary plan to express the liturgy of the second Vatican Council, which is characterized by “full, conscious and active participation”. Wishing to have our liturgy as it was before the council or wanting it revised according to a “reform of the reform” agenda may be strongly held opinions.
It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterized by a strong element of disagreement, some of which oppose the charter of reform given in the council.
But given the vision of Vatican II and applying it to matters of architecture and the environment for worship, the overriding weight must be given to a design plan that is thoroughly documented in accordance with liturgical guidelines.
It must be endorsed by those charged in a diocese to offer advice on liturgy, architecture and heritage and which is certified as meeting liturgical requirements by the bishop who is “the chief steward of the mysteries of God” and has to act as “moderator, promoter and guardian” of the liturgical life of the diocese. Where this overriding weight is not given, it is a matter of grave concern.
For a church listed in the Record of Protected Structures, the law calls on planning authorities to “respect liturgical requirements” regarding declarations and planning applications. A commentary by department officials at the time of the drafting of the Planning and Development Act 2002, stated that “respect” carried a note of “heavy obligation”, stronger than the usual “due regard”.
This Act made provision for guidelines for use by local authorities. The pertinent guidelines, architectural heritage protection, have a chapter given to churches, which was accepted by the four main Christian churches in November 2003.
The chapter replaced a draft first published in a consultation document in March 2000 but unfortunately republished in December 2001 in a draft manual of guidelines for planning authorities at a time when the Department of the Environment was consulting the churches.
The churches strongly advised that the treatment of places of public worship should be omitted until there was agreement.
Stating that “the overriding remit of the statutory authority is to protect the special character of the protected structure” could be interpreted in a way to prevent working to a solution which gives a balance between liturgical requirements and heritage concerns. The November 2003 guidelines achieved this and remain the best way forward for all concerned: churches, planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála.
The sanctuary of St Colman’s cathedral – like all the other cathedral sanctuaries in Ireland – was built for a very different way of worship. Keeping it unchanged would fail to respect the demands of a changed way of worship. It is a matter of judgment whether a particular design plan respects these demands and the protection of our heritage. The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate.
Making temporary adjustments in the 1960s is also inadequate. Leaving in place the historic elements but creating a larger space is often the solution. A contemporary sanctuary can be built in a historic building and, far from taking from its character, enriches it. It also keeps the building as a place of worship.
The best way of maintaining a historic church is to maintain it as a church, as a place for today’s worshippers, a place of living worship. This must be our common concern.
Fr Patrick Jones is director of the National Centre for Liturgy at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth
-
July 3, 2006 at 3:42 pm #768243
Praxiteles
ParticipantRegarding Gianloremzo’s posting of Fr. Jones’ article from to-day’s IT, I would like to make a few comments:
1. Fr. Jones refers again to that oft quoted little phrase that the bishop is the chieft stewart of the mysteries of God in his diocese. At the oral hearing and throughout the planning process, an interpretation of this claim was put forward that would have the Bishop of Cloyne look like the Maharaja of Maharafelt, answeable to no one, either in civil or ecclesiastical law. It seems more than strange that he has not said one single word about Cobh Cathedral since 2 June. What business is Cobh Cathedral to the Irish Bishops Conference and why is Bishop McGhee so willing to allow this body trespass over what he claimed to be his private domain? Or, are they fronting for him in an attempt to pressurise ABP?
2. Sending Fr. Paddy Jones, who is nice man, out to do a man,s work is not very convincing. Fr. Jones is the head of a PASTORAL institute for liturgy which concentrates on the finer details of flower arranging and voice pitch. It is not an ACADEMIC institute. Although based in Maynooth, it should be forgotten that this Institute was originally based in Portrarlington before moving to Carlow College and hewnce to Maynooth College where it is a tenant occupying one of the many empty rooms in that establishment.
The Institute, after I do know how many decades, has yet to produce a solid work of academic liturgical research. It certainly comes nowhere near the Liturgical institute of Trier or even of the Catholic Institute in Paris to say nothing of the Santa Croce in Rome.
In the Cospectus Liturgicus, I have failed to find an indication that Fr. Jones has a Doctorate in Canon Law, Theology, Sacred Scripture, Liturgy or even Architecture.
3. Fr. Jones sounds something like the French Bourbons who learned nothing and forgot nothing. Although he has spoken this morning of a “vision” of Vatican II liturgy and liturgical practice, he nowhere mentions even the flimsiest reference to a source for this “vision”.
He also ASSUMES that what he is at is what the Council intended. This is patent nonsense. Fr. Jones has for some time been pushing a certain kind of church architectire that is cleraly a PRIVATE opinion of his own. A clear example of its daftness is St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth. Fr. Jones is quite entitled to pursue this opinion but I do not believe that he should try to fob it off on the general public as “the liturgy of Vatican II”.
4. If Fr. Jones had some idea of the Canon Law of the Liturgy, he might be in a better position to state what the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is when it comes to liturgiucal requirements. For example, had he read the Enchiridion Liturgicum, he might have come across Cardinal Lercaro’s letter stating that the use of the High ALtar, even not facing the people, is in accord with active participation in the Mass. That position was also confirmed by Cardinal Medina as recently as 2002 cin an official interpretation published in Communicationes. This list could continue but I wonder if there is much use as I fear it might not be managing to penetrate.
At the Oral Hearing and throughout the planning process, the FOSCC argued their grounds in direct reference to the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church on the liturgy as published in the Code of canon Law, the Institutio Missalis Romani, and the Praenotanda of the liturgical books as well as their interpretation given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. These are the sources that define OFFICIAL Catholic liturgical requirements. As were shown they are not in conflict with the civil requirements of the law nor with the decision of ABP. Can Fr. Jones be accurate in saying that the Catholic bishops are disappointed that a decision was made by ABP that makes full allowence for the OFFICIAL requirements of Catholic liturgy? Can he seriously suggest that the Irish bishops Conference has an agenda which is at variance with the OFFICIAL position of the CAtholic Church? If he is, then someone would want to contact headquarters.
5. Fr Jones states; “The sancturay designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate. That is a fair mouthful from a know-nothing and a generalisation so sweeping as to be risable. Just what sanctuary is he talking about? Does it apply to a 4th century sanctuary or to an 18th century sanctuary?
6. Back to the bishop being the stewart of the mysteries in his diocese: It has already been pointed out on this thread just how relative that role is and just how subordinate the bishop is to the Roman Pontiff in matters of liturgy. Should the silen bishop of Cloyne wish to devise another mad scheme for the interior of Cobh Cathedral, enough people are now aware of the action they can take against him the Roman law courts which are likely to put manners if not sense on him.
-
July 3, 2006 at 7:58 pm #768244
Armandd
ParticipantBonjour Praxiteles!
I arrive with some photos in a very short delay of time. The church is very beautiful.
-
July 3, 2006 at 8:28 pm #768245
Praxiteles
ParticipantJean-Baptiste LASSUS
The restoration of the Sainte Chapelle, Paris
http://www.paris.org/Monuments/Sainte.Chapelle/
http://www.parisdigest.com/monument/sainte-chapelle-interior.htm
-
July 4, 2006 at 9:11 am #768246
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Regarding Gianloremzo’s posting of Fr. Jones’ article from to-day’s IT, I would like to make a few comments:
It has already been pointed out on this thread just how relative that role is and just how subordinate the bishop is to the Roman Pontiff in matters of liturgy. Should the silen bishop of Cloyne wish to devise another mad scheme for the interior of Cobh Cathedral, enough people are now aware of the action they can take against him the Roman law courts which are likely to put manners if not sense on him.
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
-
July 4, 2006 at 9:34 am #768247
Anonymous
InactivePeople who don’t want their religious heritage destroyed by someone who is far from the top of his organisation
Senor Po
-
July 4, 2006 at 11:17 am #768248
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
Have you nothing constructive to add to this thread?
-
July 4, 2006 at 2:55 pm #768249
Praxiteles
ParticipantPraxiteles is an ordinary joe-soap with a minimum of education just interested in ensuring tht one of the most important buildings in the country is not wrecked.
Praxiteles cannot speak for the others.
Now, perhaps, Churck, you might tell us who you are and what you are up to when not trying to improve the standard of spoken English (and/oor Irish) in Belfast.
-
July 4, 2006 at 3:18 pm #768250
Praxiteles
ParticipantJean Baptiste LASSUS (1807-1857)
Some further resources on this important architect for the neo-gothic revival:
http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/fr/biographies/lassus_jp_antoine.html
http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/fr/biographies/lassus_jp_antoine.html
http://www.mediatheque-patrimoine.culture.gouv.fr/fr/biographies/lassus_jp_antoine.html -
July 5, 2006 at 1:20 am #768251
MacLeinin
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Who are these guys?
Praxiteles
Gianlorenzo (Bernini)
(Francesco or Giuliano da) SangalloMasons?
Dear Chuck,
Are you not aware that Masonry is frowned upon by the Catholic Church and whatever you problem might be with Praxiteles, Gianlorenzo and Sangallo, you can hardley accuse them of antipathy to Catholicism. On the other hand you come and go firing darts, but I still do not know what you object to in this discussion. Can you leave off posturing for a while and just tell us?
-
July 5, 2006 at 9:22 am #768252
Chuck E R Law
Participant@MacLeinin wrote:
Dear Chuck,
whatever you problem might be with Praxiteles, Gianlorenzo and Sangallo, you can hardley accuse them of antipathy to Catholicism.
I still do not know what you object to in this discussion.
Can you just tell us?I object to a liturgical campaign against one particular bishop being presented as a general concern about architectural heritage.
Some of my best friends are masons.
-
July 5, 2006 at 10:26 am #768253
Anonymous
InactiveThis is where you seem to miss the entire point it is the works that are the issue and not the bishop however it would appear that if the proponent of the works refuses to accept the views of the majority of his parishioners, the majority of the people in Cobh, the National Trust, a leading architectural heritage organisation and the statutory planning appeals bord then it is reasonable to consider that in fact he is wasting copious amounts of funds.
How much has been spent to date on
Architects fees
Planners Fees
Solicitors fees
Barristers Fees -
July 5, 2006 at 4:48 pm #768254
Praxiteles
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
This is where you seem to miss the entire point it is the works that are the issue and not the bishop however it would appear that if the proponent of the works refuses to accept the views of the majority of his parishioners, the majority of the people in Cobh, the National Trust, a leading architectural heritage organisation and the statutory planning appeals bord then it is reasonable to consider that in fact he is wasting copious amounts of funds.
How much has been spent to date on
Architects fees
Planners Fees
Solicitors fees
Barristers FeesIn this case, it is rumoured that the bishop of Cloyne has been charged something in the region of 50,000 Euro for the barrister’s fee alone.
The solicitor’ fees are likely to be something in the region of another 60,000 Euro since Ronan Jermyn and Daly have been retained on almost a daily basis to draft replies to the FOSCC for the bishop.
McCutcheon and Mulcahy have been working on this project for over a year. Even a conservative estimation of their fees must leave the bishop with a bill of soemthing around 100,000 Euro.
It is difficult to say what was paid to the great Professor O’Neill for hie various doodlings but in the returns made to the Registrar of Companies by the St Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Fund there is an item of something in the region of 34,000 Euro which may have been a down payment.
All told,Bishop McGhee’s folley must have generasted a bill of something in the region of 250,000 Euro.
The curious thing about this bill is that it was incurred by the TRUSTEES of the St. Colman’s Cathedral.
During the course of the Oral Hearing, it was mentioned that the bill would be picked up be another entity: The St. Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Fund which is a public company with charitable status and therefore is non tax paying.
The question is: is a company such as the St Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Fund (which collected money for the RESTORATION of the Cathedral) entitled to pay out funds to cover debts incurred by another independent company, The Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral?
An another question; is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cloyne, which is a registered public charity, entitled to dispurse funds to pay debts incurred by a another independent group just like the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral?
Put another way: why are the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral not paying the debts incurred by themselves as a result of the planning debacle?
Should this matter be submitted to the Coorporate Enforcement Agency so taht they can investigate the various ins and outs of teh matter?
Does anybody have any ideas on this subject?
-
July 5, 2006 at 5:26 pm #768255
MacLeinin
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I object to a liturgical campaign against one particular bishop being presented as a general concern about architectural heritage.
Some of my best friends are masons.
Chuck, the general concern here and in Cobh is about our architectural heritage and in this case ecclesiatical architectural heritage. It was the applicants, ie Trustees of St. Colman’s , who brought the liturgical question into play by insisting in their application that these intrusive changes were ‘liturgically required’. This was not something that could be ignored. This is not and never was about ‘one particular bishop’. It just so happens that Cobh was the first of the Irish Cathedrals to fall under the 2000 Planning Act. and thank God for that. If you look back on this tread you will see the wholesale destruction which has occurred in our ecclesiatical architectural heritage and mostly justified by the same ‘pseudo liturgy’.
The people in Cobh were fortunate that they were able to get authentic liturgical and canonical advice in addition to access to excellent architectural and conservation assistance. -
July 5, 2006 at 10:09 pm #768256
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a link to an interesting article on the neo gothic revival in France which seems useful in pursuing the backgrounng to J-B Lassus:
-
July 6, 2006 at 1:15 am #768257
Anonymous
Inactive@Praxiteles wrote:
All told,Bishop McGhee’s folley must have generasted a bill of something in the region of 250,000 Euro.
The folly was surely the responsibility of whoever asked for the oral hearing, which I assume in this case was the appellants. If the appeal was decided by written correspondence the fees would have been less than one tenth of the cost of the hearing.
-
July 6, 2006 at 9:33 am #768258
Anonymous
InactiveSo it should be swept under the carpet so that an estimated €250,000 isn’t squandered by an applicant who was not using private funds?
The costs of reversing the scheme if it were to go ahead could add another a zero to the above figure at a future date and the purpose of the oral hearing was to give transparency to the process which otherwise would have been lacking.
-
July 6, 2006 at 4:33 pm #768259
Praxiteles
Participant@Dieter wrote:
The folly was surely the responsibility of whoever asked for the oral hearing, which I assume in this case was the appellants. If the appeal was decided by written correspondence the fees would have been less than one tenth of the cost of the hearing.
Dieter:
I think that you are engaged in a defective if not a selective application of the principle of causality. If we are to take that approach to the planing case of Cobh Cathedral, then I think thta you might move the cause another degree further back – to the Applicants who lodged a disgraceful and deeply unpopular plan to wreck Cobh Cathedral without consulting anyone in Cobh.
If we must use the causality principle to understand this process, then, I am inclined to think that the unmoved mover in the process must be the Applicants.
That an Oral hearing was needed to serve transparencey and the public interest was more than adequately proven by the degree of mendacity exhibited by the Apllicants (e.g. that they had the approval of the Holy See when they had not; that they had a letter of approval from Cardinal Arinze when it transpired that they had a letter of commendation for those involved on the project of drawing up the plans: that all of the 214 objections lodged against the planning application had been read when in fact 95 had NOT). This list could be extended.
Do, Dieter, you see, in ireland, cartogra[phic efficiency is not always the most cost effective.
-
July 7, 2006 at 4:06 pm #768260
Praxiteles
ParticipantI do not know what heppened to Armandd and his photographs from Nantes but while awaiting his return I am posting this one of St. Nicholas in Nantes, Jean Baptiste Lassus first neo gothic church:
-
July 8, 2006 at 8:02 am #768261
Anonymous
InactivePraxiteles wrote:Dieter:I think that you are engaged in a defective if not a selective application of the principle of causality. If we are to take that approach to the planing case of Cobh Cathedral, then I think thta you might move the cause another degree further back – to the Applicants who lodged a disgraceful and deeply unpopular plan to wreck Cobh Cathedral without consulting anyone in Cobh.
If we must use the causality principle to understand this process, then, I am inclined to think that the unmoved mover in the process must be the Applicants.
That an Oral hearing was needed to serve transparencey and the public interest was more than adequately proven by the degree of mendacity exhibited by the Apllicants (e.g. that they had the approval of the Holy See when they had not]
The point at issue here is a general one concerning the planning appeal process and not specifically about Cobh Cathedral. The sequence of events was as follows:
1. The Applicant sought planning permission in accordance with a layout that had been agreed with the planning authority.
2. The Third Party objected.
3. The Planning Authority decided to grant permission.
4. The Third Party lodged a detailed written appeal and requested an oral hearing.
5. The Applicant had made a detailed written response to the appeal before the Board decided to hold an oral hearing.
6. The Board decided to hold a 3 day oral hearing at the end of which the Inspector found in favour of the Applicants and the Planning Authority.
7. The Board ignored the outcome of the oral hearing and decided to refuse on the basis of the written submissions.
8. As the oral hearing lasted 3 days and let us assume that each party incurred costs of €100,000 (i.e. five times more than the €20,000 that might have been involved if the appeal was decided on the basis of written submissions).
It is suggested by Praxiteles that in such situations the Applicants should have avoided this expense by throwing in the towel as soon as the oral hearing was announced.
Is there anybody out there who would recommend such course of action to an applicant who has received a decision to grant permission?
-
July 8, 2006 at 4:31 pm #768262
Praxiteles
ParticipantThat is exactly the advice given to the princpal Trustee on the morning of the Oral Hearing by a member of the Cobh Cathedral Restoiration Fund so as to save himself further embarrasment. It was not taken and the embarrassment followed both at the hearing – by the level of mendacity uncovered – and subsequently by the ABP decision. Tough you know what as they say…
-
July 8, 2006 at 7:25 pm #768263
Armandd
ParticipantMe voici finalmente avec les photos de Saint-Nicolas de Nantes!!
-
July 8, 2006 at 7:42 pm #768264
Armandd
ParticipantSaint-Nicolas, Nantes, exterieur
-
July 8, 2006 at 7:49 pm #768265
Armandd
ParticipantSaint-Nicolas, Nantes, interieur
-
July 8, 2006 at 7:56 pm #768266
Armandd
ParticipantSaint-Nicolas, Nantes
-
July 8, 2006 at 8:04 pm #768267
Armandd
ParticipantSaint-Nicolas, Nantes
-
July 9, 2006 at 9:14 pm #768268
Praxiteles
ParticipantArmandd
Thank you so much for those superb pictures of St. Nicholas. They were worth waiting for. I particularly liked the ones showing the massing of the east end; the magnificent Porta Coeli arch; the vaulting; and of the turret on the High Altar which is so reminiscent of JJ. McCarthy’s High Altar in St. Peter and Paul’s at Kilmallock, Co. Limerick.
-
July 9, 2006 at 11:59 pm #768269
Chuck E R Law
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:ArmanddThank you so much for those superb pictures of St. Nicholas. They were worth waiting for. I particularly liked the ones showing the massing of the east end]
I sometimes wonder whether Praxiteles, who claims to be a sculptor, has all his/her marbles. The photographs presented by Armand, which brought Praxiteles to an architectural orgasm, were to any rational person une piece de merde. The only thing these photos show is that the poor demented La Rochellais was on his ear. He seemed to be incapable of holding the camera in the vertical position presumably because of a lifelong addiction to absinthe.
-
July 10, 2006 at 1:12 pm #768270
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPraxiteles has never had anything to do with Zola !!!
-
July 10, 2006 at 4:04 pm #768271
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell our dear militant friend has been back on and does not seem to appreciate feeling the drunkness of things being varied. Armandd did a wonderful job and has provided pictures not otherwise available even on the net.
From what I reacll of my school French, “piece” means either “a coin” or “a roomt”. Chuck’s grammar is also as wobbly as his frog vocalary.
What ever you do do Chuck, do not start teaching French in Belfast or we will have a right mess.
-
July 10, 2006 at 8:17 pm #768272
Praxiteles
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I sometimes wonder whether Praxiteles, who claims to be a sculptor, has all his/her marbles. The photographs presented by Armand, which brought Praxiteles to an architectural orgasm, were to any rational person une piece de merde. The only thing these photos show is that the poor demented La Rochellais was on his ear. He seemed to be incapable of holding the camera in the vertical position presumably because of a lifelong addiction to absinthe.
It says a lot that Chuck should describe Praxiteles as A sculptor!
As for “rational person”: well the same rational person would probably feel a discrepency between the premise and conclusioon of that syllogism. Enough said.
Is “La Rochellais” a correct French description for an inhabitant of La Rochelle?
-
July 10, 2006 at 10:58 pm #768273
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Is “La Rochellais” a correct French description for an inhabitant of La Rochelle?
I had the impression that The Three Masons (Praxiteles, Sangallo and Gianlorenzo) had modelled themselves on The Three Musketeers at the Siege of La Rochelle, i.e. relying on extravagant (s)wordplay to escape from impossible situations.
-
July 11, 2006 at 1:20 am #768274
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I had the impression that The Three Masons (Praxiteles, Sangallo and Gianlorenzo) had modelled themselves on The Three Musketeers at the Siege of La Rochelle, i.e. relying on extravagant (s)wordplay to escape from impossible situations.
Impossible situations??????????????????:confused:
-
July 11, 2006 at 1:51 pm #768275
Praxiteles
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I had the impression that The Three Masons (Praxiteles, Sangallo and Gianlorenzo) had modelled themselves on The Three Musketeers at the Siege of La Rochelle, i.e. relying on extravagant (s)wordplay to escape from impossible situations.
Not a bad pun at all, we are improving! But, please do not venture into 17th. century French history. I have the feeling you do have a handle on it and would find it difficult to work out the political combinations of the regency of Queen Mary and the successive ministry of the great Cardinal.
What about the “piece” bit?
-
July 11, 2006 at 10:14 pm #768276
Praxiteles
ParticipantEugene Emmanuele viollet le Duc 1814-1879
Our consideration of Jean Baptiste Lassus must of necessity lead us to Eugene Emmanuele Viollet le Duc (1814-1879). I am posting a short biography:
Born to a well connected Parisian family living in an apartment in the Tuileries, Viollet-le-Duc first studied Renaissance architecture in Italy before returning to France and a lifelong love of Gothic engineering and decoration. His appointment in the 1840s to head the Office of Historic Monuments was the perfect combination of the right man for the right job. What the effects of time had not already degraded, the French revolution nearly destroyed fifty years earlier as the buildings of church and state had become targets of mob violence leaving the great Gothic structures shattered wrecks.
Viollet restored Notre Dame, Hotel de Cluny and other Medieval icons in Paris as well as the cathedrals of Amiens and Saint-Denis, the cities of Avignon and Carcasonne, and numerous city halls and chateaux.
He understood that Gothic architecture derived its beauty from the artful expression of its structure. That the engineering of a building was as beautiful a visual exercise as its decoration . When Louis Sullivan later insisted that “form ever follows function,” he may have been recalling the principles of Viollet-le-Duc.
As he mastered the vocabulary of the Gothic, he utilized new materials of the industrial age in a manner that correlated to Medieval construction. While not authentic to the period, his techniques updated the ethos of Gothic structural expression. Later historians vilified Viollet’s use of machine age building materials and artful rearrangements as a revisionism of historical reality. Today he has become a verb in modern French, as “to Viollet-le-Duc” means to heavily restore an ancient structure.
His political influence during the Second Empire of Napolean III enabled his architectural firm to assume a major role in the reconstruction of Paris. And his family’s friendship with the Empress Eugenie meant that his competition design for the new Opera house nearly won over that of Charles Garnier. While reconstructing the ancient castle of Pierrefonds into a summer retreat for the Emperor, Viollet saw the Second Empire collapse and his firm relegated to restoring provincial city halls. He devoted much of his time to teaching and writing, producing encyclopedias of French architecture and lectures on modern construction that were later found in the libraries of the great architects of the modern movement.
He was awarded a medal by an international jury for his Lausanne Cathedral restoration designs at the 1872 Vienna World Exposition. His retirement to Switzerland developed into a careful study of the Alps, what Viollet-le-Duc considered the perfect structural expression of stone.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Viollet-le-Duc
click on image
to enlargeDesign for Mural
Pierrefonds Castle
watercoler on paper
c. 1860
11 x 14 inchesLink to Paris: Building Splendor
Link to Louis Villeminot Biography page -
July 12, 2006 at 3:17 pm #768277
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following link to the Cathedral of the Assumption in Clermont goves an idea of Viollet le Duc’s work there:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cath%C3%A9drale_Notre-Dame-de-l%27Assomption_de_Clermont-Ferrand
-
July 12, 2006 at 11:43 pm #768278
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
What about the “piece” bit?
There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.The common or garden meanings of piece are indeed ‘coin’ and ‘room’. But would you insist on translating piece de resistance as ‘the currency of liberated France’ or ‘a room that an estate agent would find difficult to let’?
Piece can mean ‘bit’ or even ‘piece’. For example when your absinthe friend, Armand, wakes up he will probably exclaim “Je suis en pieces!”
or as my friend Bertie says ‘Jaysus, I’m in bits’But what I had in mind when looking at Armand’s curiously tilted photographs was piece in the sense of an amateur theatrical performance.
Incidentally when I read your postings the phrase “c’est forgé de pieces” somehow comes to mind.
-
July 14, 2006 at 4:03 pm #768279
Praxiteles
ParticipantForging ahead with our study of E. Viollet le Duc, here is a link to the Basilica os St Sernin in Toulouse giving an idea of how Viollet le Duc’s restoration looks:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilique_Saint-Sernin
For Irish readers, it has an interesting connection. The building that originally housed the Irish College in Toulouse stands opposite St. Sernin which gave three burial places to the College: one in the Cimtiere des Nobles immediately outside of the Chapel du Saint Esprit, and two others in the floor of the church itself.
-
July 14, 2006 at 4:52 pm #768280
Praxiteles
ParticipantLet us rivet on a few more images of St Sernin in Toulouse:
-
July 15, 2006 at 5:45 pm #768281
Praxiteles
ParticipantPraxiteles does not usually advertise but Stephen Schloeder’s excellent book Architecture in Communion is an important work especially in diagnosing the problems facing post-modernist Catholic Church architecture and could usefully be read by some of those posting on this thread. While Praxiteles does not agree with everything Schloeder has to say, it is clear that Schloeder is aware that there is a theologicl, archictectural and iconographic canon out of which Catholic architecture should procede. This has been one of the points that Praxiteles has been trying to make on this thread. If for no other reason, Schloeder’s book is interesting for its insightful comments on Austin Flannery’s inadequate commentary on the concent of Populus Dei as expounded by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium. Schloeder is quite correct in saying that all the demotic nonsense about liturgy derives from a misconstruing of this fundamental idea – the last example of which was to be seen in Fr. Danny Murphy’s appaling piece of rubbish presented to the Cloyne HACK and UNANIMOUSLY adopted by that over educated body in its effotrs to wreck Cobh Cathedral.
Architecture in Communion: Implementing the Second Vatican Council Through Liturgy and Architecture (Paperback)
by Steven J. Schloeder “I have undertaken this work because I find many-or rather most-recent Catholic churches to be banal, uninspiring, and frequently even liturgically bizarre [fig. I.1]…” (more)
Explore: Citations | Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats | SIPs | CAPs
Browse: Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!
List Price: $27.95
Price: $19.01 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $8.94 (32%)Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Want it delivered Tuesday, July 18? Order it in the next 54 hours and 55 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details
36 used & new available from $15.00
Product DetailsPaperback: 267 pages
Publisher: Ignatius Press (April 1998)
Language: English
ISBN: 0898706319
Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 7.1 x 0.7 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.16 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: based on 3 reviews. (Write a review.)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #515,565 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books)
Yesterday: #524,087 in Books
(Publishers and authors: improve your sales)
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? (We’ll ask you to sign in so we can get back to you)
Reviewer: FrKurt Messick “FrKurt Messick” (Bloomington, IN USA) – See all my reviewsSteven Schloeder has written a book in which he attempts to capture what he describes as the ‘true spirit of the Second Vatican Council’ in architectural design for churches. Schloeder identifies difficulties in theology and liturgy that have, in his opinion, translated also in problem architecturally. With regard to modernism, he states, ‘Many prominent Catholic thinkrs have not discerningly separated the wheat from the chaff and have accepted certain secondary issues as primary ones.’ Among these are issues of the Eucharist being a sacrificial meal vs. a communal one, or the difference between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all being downplayed – these and others are issues that he discusses briefly in theological and historical terms, but quickly develops the way in which architecture shapes and is shaped by such ideas.
Schloeder’s vision for the book is set out in the introduction: ‘Our goal is to enliven the parish community – which is the true Church built of living stones in Christ – with a material church building designed to serve and further the primary vocation to become a community of love, which must mean a people of sacrifice and redemption.’ This is a constant theme throughout the entire text, always present in the spirit of the photographs, drawings, and essays.
Even the structure of the book speaks of an underlying theological bent – three clusters of three chapters. The first three chapters explore issues of history, sociology, theology and liturgy with regard to the modern Catholic church building. The nature of the church is a primary consideration when considering what kind of design and structure its physical enclosure and manifestation should bear.
The second cluster of three chapters look at particular architectural aspects. One chapter examines the needs of the santuary itself, another chapter more broadly at other services and sacramental needs, and the final chapter the wider considerations of the church family and its place in the community. In this later aspect, the church building can grow from being the domus ecclesiae (house church, or home of the church) to being a civitas dei (a city of God).
The final three chapters look at artistic and aesthetic elements, particularly the icon; Schloeder strives to regain the iconographic aspect of the church in the community. The building itself can be a symbol and a work of art, and most certainly should be a sacramental space.
Schloeder is honest about this book not being an answer book – to many of the issues he explores, he has no concrete answers to offer, but rather serves to highlight particular issues for consideration. Indeed, in the creativity of modern architecture, there are often multiple solutions to the same problems.
This book has hundreds of photographs, examples of architecture modern, medieval and ancient, works of art, and outside symbols and examples. It is rather fun, for example, to see a picture of the British House of Commons chamber as an example of similar types of church architecture, then to know that the British HoC is modeled on the older structure in which the Members met in the choir stalls of a chapel.
The writing is crisp and flowing, and fits very well its topic and the surrounding images. This is a good book for all those interested in architecture, church design, liturgy, and the intersection of theology with material arts.
REVIEW BY STAINED GLASS ARTIST OF 90-YEAR OLD FAMILY FIRM, May 22, 1999
Reviewer: A reader
ARCHITECTURE IN COMMUNION gave an excellent insight into the challenges and crises that Catholic church art has faced since the Second Vatican Council. Mr. Schloeder really understands the anguish that many traditional church artisans faced following the aftermath of the Council–when confusion seemed to leave traditional Catholic church arts at a crossroads.An excellent source book for Catholic church design, November 4, 1998
Reviewer: A reader
“Architecture in Communion” is a detailed, yet highly approachable, weaving of theology, liturgy, architectural history, and iconography. Schloeder’s vision for a restoration of beauty and meaning in Catholic church design is both original and solidly rooted in the traditions of the faith.
His central premise is that Catholic church architecture is essentially “sacramental”, that is to say, the material building is meant to be an icon or an image of the spiritual reality of the Church. Drawing upon sources from Scripture, the Church Fathers, architectural history, conciliar documents, canon law, and the Catechism, Schloeder shows us the symbolical language that has traditionally underpinned Catholic church design, and examines each part of the church (nave, sanctuary, altar, ambo, baptistery, etc.) with respect to its function, traditional form, symbolic meaning, and canonical status.The book is very nicely illustrated with over 300 photos and illustrations.
-
July 17, 2006 at 2:21 pm #768282
Praxiteles
ParticipantStephen Schloeder’s book deals with the question of altar rails rather interestingly and cites a number of “reasons” for their removal that could have been cogged from the wonderful piece of “theological” free composition prepared for the HACK by Fr Danny Murphy. It is amazing how great minds think alike – imagine, in rural backwater Cloyne, the same reasons are brought out to rid us of ecclesiastical barriers as in cosmopolitan Milwaukee. Strange that!
-
July 17, 2006 at 9:20 pm #768283
Armandd
ParticipantBon jour Chucker Law
I write somes recherches concerning Hoche for you.
Le général Lazare Hoche (1768-1797), commandant en chef l’armée de la Moselle en octobre 1793, est connu comme le” pacificateur” de la Vendée. Ce titre n’est sans doute pas totalement usurpé, mais comme beaucoup de ses collègues, il a commencé par exercer une répression sanglante, notamment dans l’affaire de Quiberon au mois de juin 1795 contre le royalistes débarqués dans cette presqu’île. L’un de ses collègues, le général Humbert, aurait promis la vie sauve aux émigrés, s’ils se rendaient et près de 800 d’entre eux ont effectivement déposé les armes. Hoche affirma ne pas avoir été au courant de cette promesse et, après avoir reçu confirmation du comité de Salut public parisien, il fit procéder à l’exécution des 800 malheureux au lieudit de Brech, près d’Auray. Mais, au contact quotidien de la guerre de Vendée, il se rend compte de la valeur exceptionnelle de ces Vendéens et cherche à informer, sans succès, les autorités parisiennes sur un nécessaire changement de politique. C’est ainsi qu’il écrit : “Il y a dans ses enfants de l’honneur et du courage. La Révolution a eu tort de le méconnaître ; soyez assez justes pour revenir sur des erreurs que, dans les premiers temps, on pouvait répandre en France, afin d’exciter l’enthousiasme ; mais croyez bien que tout ce que j’ai accompli sera inutile si vous continuez le système jusqu’à présent suivi. C’est un pays exceptionnel que la Vendée : il faut donc la laisser se régir avec des lois exceptionnelles, car une guerre pareille, renouvelée dans quelques années perdrait le gouvernement… Inspirez de la confiance aux Vendéens par des mesures même un peu contre-révolutionnaires ; flattez leurs idées religieuses ; faites des concessions à leur fanatisme monarchique et surtout au désir immodéré qu’ils ont tous de ne pas perdre de vue le clocher de leur village…”
Ce sont de tels propos réalistes d’un homme de terrain qui lui ont valu la réputation de pacificateur qu’il devint finalement au fil des événements. Hoche fut affecté par la suite en Allemagne où il mourut le 18 septembre 1797 d’une hémoptysie.
-
July 18, 2006 at 3:11 pm #768284
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe E.E. Viollet le Duc, I am nailing up the following concerning his restoration of the Basilica at Vezelay in Burgundy:
-
July 19, 2006 at 9:47 pm #768285
Praxiteles
ParticipantBelow is an interesting link concerning the bells at Vezelay.
-
July 19, 2006 at 10:15 pm #768286
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following link offers a (peculiar) potted history of Vezelay:
http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/France/Vezelay/Vezelay.htm
-
July 20, 2006 at 4:29 pm #768287
Praxiteles
Participant -
July 21, 2006 at 12:08 am #768288
MacLeinin
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I had the impression that The Three Masons (Praxiteles, Sangallo and Gianlorenzo) had modelled themselves on The Three Musketeers at the Siege of La Rochelle, i.e. relying on extravagant (s)wordplay to escape from impossible situations.
Chuck etc.
What is your problem? Are one of the ‘Liberals’ of our time who is intollerant of anyone who does not see the world as you do?
You have been fairly regular recently, but you have resticted yourself to personal attack (as above) rather than acutally stating your position. Any chance that you might enlighten us?:) -
July 22, 2006 at 10:09 pm #768289
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following is a link to the online index of E.E. Viollet-le-Duc’s important publication Dictionnaire Raisonne de l’Architecture Francaise of 1856. Along with Didron’s Annales Archeologiques, this is an important source for the irish neo gothic revival.
-
July 22, 2006 at 10:12 pm #768290
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis link brings you to the article on “Cathedrals” in the Dictionnaire Raisonne de l’Architecture Francaise
-
July 25, 2006 at 1:57 pm #768291
Praxiteles
ParticipantIcannot locate a copy in a public library in Ireland. Anyone hvae any ideas?
-
July 25, 2006 at 8:35 pm #768292
Praxiteles
ParticipantAfter a long interval following on the disasters of the Bishop Casey era, it looks as though the diocese of Kerry is embarking on another round of church “re-orderings”. The chosen instrument for this endeavour seems to be Holly Park Studios, Newtownpark Avenue Blackrock, Dublin, an enterprise under the direction of a notable “liturgical” dilettante called Eamon Hedderman. It appears that he has a project in mind for Millstreet church – which apparently he does not know was built by Michael Augustine O’Riordan. It will be interesting to see what this produces. The renaissance of interest in “re-ordering” in Kerry diocese might well explain the interest of Bishop Bill Murphy in the Midleton Oral Hearing of ABP and his beyond-the-call-of-duty attendance at the proceedings on last Ash Wednesday when you would have expected that he might have had more importnat things to attend to in the ruins of Killarney Cathedral.
-
July 28, 2006 at 2:00 pm #768293
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs was expected, the diligent Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral have decided not to pursue a judicial review of ABP recent decision refusing planning permission for the proposed wreckage of the interior of Cobh Cathedral. Another pastoral letter on the subject will be read at all Masses in the diocese of Cloyne over the week-end. Given the mendaciousness of the pastoral letter read last July, it will be interesting to see the gloss put on biting this particular bullet. Perhaps Tom Cavanagh of Fermoy will now devote even more of his time and attention to tidy towns, leave Cobh Cathedral alone, and air brush Cobh from his consciousness.
-
July 31, 2006 at 5:04 pm #768294
Praxiteles
ParticipantVery bad feeling registeded in Cobh on Saturday and Sunday with the reading of Bishop McGhee’s daft letter about constitutional infingement in the wake of ABP’s decision not to permit the wreckage of Cobh Cathedral. Several walked out of Masses as the bishop’s ponderous words were droned out over the congregation as inappropriately as a the harbour boon on a fine day.
The FOSCC has replied and made a right fool of the bishop’s claim by p[ointing out that Cobh Cathedral is not owned by any religious denomination but by a secular trust established in Irish law of which Mr. Tidy Towns (aka Tom Cavanagh) of Fermoy, Fr. Timmy Foughy and bishop McGhee are the trustees.
-
July 31, 2006 at 8:49 pm #768295
Luzarches
ParticipantAny chance of a transcript of the bishop’s letter?
-
August 1, 2006 at 12:54 pm #768296
MacLeinin
ParticipantTEXT OF BISHOP’S Letter
My Dear People, July 25th 2006
I write to you today concerning our much admired Diocesan Cathedral – St Colman’s in Cobh. The Diocese had proposed changes to St. Colman’s which involved replacing the present temporary plywood altar with a permanent altar, something worthy of the Cathedral, as well as extending the sanctuary so that the altar would be more visible to the congregation and so make it easier for people to experience full, active and conscious participation in the Mass. As you may be aware, An Bord Pleanala recently has refused planning permission for the proposed changes.
Whilst the An Bord Pleanala decision is of particular importance for our Diocese, the Irish Bishops, as a group, have also expressed their concern. The decision could have serious implications for all places of worship in the State that are also protected structures. It must be viewed in the context of the Constitutional right of every religious denomination “to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable or immovable†which is contained in Article 44.2.5 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann.
In its decision, An Bord Pleanala accepted that changes in the sanctuary arose from liturgical requirements, but considered that this did not bind it to accept the particular design proposed. An Bord Pleanala believed that the changes proposed “would constitute an excessive intervention in the protected structureâ€, but they did not give any guidelines as to what design would be acceptable.
As a result of An Bord Pleanala’s decision, the situation concerning the temporary plywood altar still remains unresolved and needs to be addressed. The Diocese will initiate discussions with the planning authorities in an attempt to find a solution, which would be acceptable from both the liturgical and heritage points of view. I will keep you fully informed of the outcome of these discussions.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for your outstanding financial and moral support, which has enabled the undertaking of excellent work to conserve and preserve the fabric of the Cathedral building. Through your generosity €4,000,000 (four million euro) has already been spent on restoring the Cathedral. The excellence of the workmanship has brought praise from many quarters, including a European Architectural Heritage Award. Without your generous assistance this would not have been possible.
I appreciate that some members of the faithful may find it difficult to understand why it is necessary to continue with the process for the internal re-ordering of St. Colman’s. I do so because of my concern, as your Bishop, that the present sanctuary layout of our beautiful and historic Cathedral does not satisfactorily meet the current liturgical requirements for a Diocesan Cathedral.
With every good wish and blessing,
+John Magee, Bishop of Cloyne
-
August 1, 2006 at 12:58 pm #768297
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantWell it looks like Round 2 in Cobh.!!!!
The FOSCC put out a reply to the Bishop’s Letter. See below:
THE FRIENDS OF ST. COLMAN’S CATHEDRAL PRESS RELEASE
30TH JULY 2006Contrary to what is asserted in the letter from Bishop Magee which was read at all Mass in the Diocese 29th/30th July 2006, the Friends once again would point out that the Sanctuary of Cobh Cathedral is in complete conformity with the present liturgical norms promulgated in the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis. Sufficient expert advice has been provided to prove this point. Also we regard it as a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the people of Cobh have been unable fully, actively and consciously to participate in the Church’s Liturgy.
The letter also mentions the property rites guaranteed to Religious Denominations by Bunreacht na hEireann. We believe this to be irrelevant in the context of An Bord Plean
-
August 1, 2006 at 4:06 pm #768298
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt looks a though the poor beknighted bihsop overlooked the apparent contradiction between saying his property rights were infringed by the state and his surprise at not having been issued with directives on how he should liturgically reorder the sanctuary in Cobh by the planning authority aka the State. This is another example of the disorganised state of “reasoning” prevalent among those wishing to wreck the Cathedral.
-
August 3, 2006 at 10:34 pm #768299
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cobh saga now appears to be focusing on the altar and on the distance between the altar and the nave. The spokesmman for the Trustees has been rabbiting on again about reducing the distance between the altar and the congregation. He believes that this is something “required” by Vatican II liturgy. Clearly, he does not eother know or realize that the source of this idea in modern church architecture has nothing to do with the lirurgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and a great deal to do with application of universal space to church architecture by Ruudolf Schwarz who spend much of the 1950s busily redefining christian iconography and symbolism. While successful in his efforts, they ended in one significant problem: inaccessibility. there is no use in assigning geometrical shapes to specific theological propositions unless those assignations are generally known and accepted universally. Poor Schwarz ended with aprivate language talking mostly to himself. Both the Cloyne diocesan spokesman, bishop McGhee, Brian McCuteheon and the great Professor Cathal O’Neill would do well reading Schwarz’s Kirchenbau which will immediately source the idea of communal aka universal space in church interiors. If some philantrophist might be persuaded to put copies of this book in the christmas stokings of the above, they might just stop telling us (incorrectly) that Vatican II came up with this idea or that Vatican II canonized Schwarz’s ideas – which it most definitely did not.
-
August 4, 2006 at 5:08 pm #768300
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe bishop of Cloyne is on about his constitutional rights having been infringed by ABP. This old chestnut was already dealt with on this thread a month ago but, it seems, both the good bishop and his advisers all seem to be in the slow-learners class and, at this point, face demotion to ultra remedial level as they do not seem able to get the poit at all. It was Brian McCutcheon of McCutcheon and Mulcahy planning consultants who dreamt up this scare tactic in an attempted rebuttal of the FOSCC objection made to ABP. Brian’s musings are available in his November 2005 submission to ABP.
Despite having expressed “concern” the Irish Cathoplic Bishops clearly did not place any great confidence in whatever they were told by bishop McGhee and, sensibly, do not seem to have been wiulling to underwrite a quixotic outiong in the High Court. It really is time the good bishop got the message that he is really beginning to annoy people at this stage with his silly posturings.
-
August 5, 2006 at 4:09 pm #768301
Luzarches
ParticipantI know that Prax isn’t too much of a fan of Schwarz. He is right to point to the problem of the ‘legibility’ of liturgical symbolism and Schwarz could be accused of fabricating arbitrary categories. However, I think that a complete reading of Schwarz’s oeuvre and works show that he always had, or came to have, a settled preference for the priest to stand before the altar, with the people either disposed processionally behind him or around him. Read his salient self criticism of the ‘sacred inwardness’ model in Vom Bau Der Kirche.
If you look at Schwarz’s churches, the ones that have been reordered since VII, these have been as undermined liturgically as many historical churches receiving the same treatment.
I’m pretty sure that Schwarz was an ad orientem man. He would make a useful figure to reclaim onto the side of liturgical continuity rather than that of rupture.
-
August 8, 2006 at 1:42 pm #768302
Praxiteles
ParticipantBy a complete chance, I happened on this firm of architects who spesialize in “reorderings”. It operates out of Belfast but seems to have operations’ field extending at least as far as Co. Louth. I think it may deserve a closer inspection and examination of liturgical and conservationist outlook.
The following description of the practise is certainly arresting: “
Rooney & McConville do not have a ‘house style’ as such. This is deliberate as we employ a collaborative style of working, developing the architecture in response to the need of the Christian community we are serving. Our work is specific to each circumstance, to each site and to each religious community. Consequently, every project has a unique set of circumstances,………. and a unique outcome”.Unique outcomes…hmmmm?
Here is the link: http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/whoweare.aspx
-
August 8, 2006 at 9:12 pm #768303
Luzarches
ParticipantUnique outcomes? They all have square altars. All projects consectrated to the Holy Trinity: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
-
August 9, 2006 at 11:02 am #768304
Praxiteles
ParticipantAn interesting point.
-
August 10, 2006 at 3:08 pm #768305
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis little item appeared recently in Cork’s Evening Echo:
-
August 10, 2006 at 3:14 pm #768306
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd another little item from the Cork Examiner
-
August 10, 2006 at 3:20 pm #768307
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd yet another contribution from the Irish Times
-
August 10, 2006 at 3:36 pm #768308
Praxiteles
ParticipantBishop McGhee mentioned article 44.2.5 recently in a public letter. I wonder did he read article 44.2.6?
5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation. -
August 11, 2006 at 11:48 am #768309
Praxiteles
ParticipantIf anybody is lucky enough to be in or near Venice at this time, do not forget to stop off at Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari and take a look at Titian’s extraordinary altar piece.
Titian worked on this huge altarpiece for more than two years from 1516 to 1518. It has to be seen as a milestone in his career establishing him as a more universal artist drawing inspiration from outside the confines of Venice. Indeed the powerful figures of the Apostles reflect the influence of Michelangelo, whereas the painting demonstrates clear iconographical similarities with the works of Raphael (cf. his Ascension). Above all, what emerges most strongly in the assumption is Titian’s desire to break definitely with the traditions of Venetian painting in order to arrive at a synthesis of dramatic force and dynamic tension which will become from this moment on the most obvious characteristic of his work.
The picture is composed of three orders. At the bottom are the Apostles (humanity), amazed and stunned by the wondreous happening. St Peter is kneeling with his hand on his breast, St Thomas is pointing at the Virgin, and St Andrew in a red cloak is stretching forward. In the middle, the madonna, slight and bathed in light, is surrounded by a host of angels that accompany her. Above is God the Father, serene and noble in majesty, calling the Virgin to him with a look of love.
The painting is signed as “Ticianus” low down in the middle of the picture.
-
August 12, 2006 at 1:24 am #768310
brianq
ParticipantHi Luz,
Brian Quinn here and Rooney & MConville is my company.
You said: @Luzarches wrote:
Unique outcomes? They all have square altars. All projects consectrated to the Holy Trinity: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
I don’t understand your point about Liberty etc. Maybe you can clarify?
As regards unique outcomes take a closer look at the projects on our web site. No two are the same?
BQ
-
August 12, 2006 at 1:25 am #768311
brianq
ParticipantHi Luz
Is there an english translation of Schwarz available?
BQ
-
August 12, 2006 at 1:49 am #768312
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax
You said @Praxiteles wrote:
The Cobh saga now appears to be focusing on the altar and on the distance between the altar and the nave. The spokesmman for the Trustees has been rabbiting on again about reducing the distance between the altar and the congregation. He believes that this is something “required” by Vatican II liturgy. Clearly, he does not eother know or realize that the source of this idea in modern church architecture has nothing to do with the lirurgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and a great deal to do with application of universal space to church architecture by Ruudolf Schwarz
BQ: I don’t think you’re correct here. The desire for a more appropriate proximity between altar and congregation is now – if maybe not directly after Vatican 2 -about expressing more clearly the nature and reality of the People of God. When we gather for worship Christ is truly present. We gather as one people within which the priest has a special ministry. Christ is truly present in the priest when he presides over the assembly as well of course but the guidelines produced by the Irish Bishop’s conference are clear that the primary symbol is the unity of the assembly – the People of God. This undestanding of the People of God has developed slowly since the beginning of the Twentieth Century and reached a high point in Vatican 2. It’s still developing now. The question is how should our understanding of the People of God be manifest in the church interior? We have come to realise that perpetuating an exclusive zone into which only male ordained may enter contradicts the reality of what the People of God is and this in turn undermines the liturgy. Does that mean the wholesale reorganisation of historic church interiors? No. Whatver is proposed must take into account the integrity of the architecural setting and must be sensitive to the particular faith community. However, to freeze the interior in a moment of time is to deny the constant striving for understanding of who we are and of our Christian mission.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Prax: If some philantrophist might be persuaded to put copies of this book in the christmas stokings of the above, they might just stop telling us (incorrectly) that Vatican II came up with this idea or that Vatican II canonized Schwarz’s ideas – which it most definitely did not.
BQ: I think in logic this is called a ‘straw man’ argument?
BQ
-
August 12, 2006 at 6:31 am #768313
Gianlorenzo
Participantbrianq wrote:Hi PraxYou said
BQ: I don’t think you’re correct here. The desire for a more appropriate proximity between altar and congregation is now – if maybe not directly after Vatican 2 -about expressing more clearly the nature and reality of the People of God. When we gather for worship Christ is truly present. We gather as one people within which the priest has a special ministry. Christ is truly present in the priest when he presides over the assembly as well of course but the guidelines produced by the Irish Bishop’s conference are clear that the primary symbol is the unity of the assembly – the People of God. This undestanding of the People of God has developed slowly since the beginning of the Twentieth Century and reached a high point in Vatican 2. It’s still developing now. The question is how should our understanding of the People of God be manifest in the church interior? We have come to realise that perpetuating an exclusive zone into which only male ordained may enter contradicts the reality of what the People of God is and this in turn undermines the liturgy. Does that mean the wholesale reorganisation of historic church interiors? No. Whatver is proposed must take into account the integrity of the architecural setting and must be sensitive to the particular faith community. However, to freeze the interior in a moment of time is to deny the constant striving for understanding of who we are and of our Christian mission.
Dear BQ,
Like many modernist you have the whole thing backwards. Christ is Truly Present in the Eucharist. He is also present in the priest as he is “in persona Christi”, and in the assembly. What you refer to as ” an exclusive zone into which only male ordained may enter” is in fact a place set aside, not for Man, but for God. We do not attend church to worship Man. What is undermining the Liturgy, as you put it, is this elevation of the “People of God” above God Himself.
You refer to ‘guidelines produced by the Irish Bishops’, can I presume you are referring to ” A Place of Worship”.
I will quote what Dr. Alan Kershaw, Advocate of the Apostolic Tribunal or the Roman Rota, said regarding this publication at the An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing re. Cobh Cathedral, in Midleton:
” It must be stated that this publication was never put to a vote by the [Irish] Episcopal Conference and it was never submitted to the Holy See for recognitio meaning that it has never been approved. Hence this publication is not vested with vim legis and thereby is totally devoid of any authority.….. The book “A Place of Worship contains nothing more than opinions, hence it must be disregarded.”
I don’t know who has been instructing you regarding Catholic Liturgy, but I suggest that you look to the authentic Church document on this, and in particular, I would suggest you start with the writings of our present Holy Father. 🙂 -
August 12, 2006 at 11:35 am #768314
Anonymous
InactiveRegarding the development of the idea of People of God, Is Brian referring to the official teaching of the Church or the opinions of individual theologians?
It should be pointed out that the category of People of God taken on its own is insufficient to describe the reality of the Church. The People of God is not an amorphous mass but a community which is hierarchically organised: see chapters II, III and IV of the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Not only the aspect of the Christian community called by God to worship but also the hierarchical reality of the Church must be reflected in the architecture of a church building, if the church building is to be an image of the reality of the Church itself.
Also it is insufficient to describe the priest simply in terms of “special ministry” – the Catholic understanding goes deeper. The priest is not simply delegated by the community to exercise a special function within it, but receives his power to act “in persona Christi” from Christ himself through the sacrament of holy orders, which involves a change at the deeper level of his being. Only on the basis of what the priest is can we understand what he does. -
August 12, 2006 at 3:09 pm #768315
Fearg
ParticipantI am not a thologian, or an architect, however I cannot understand how moving the sanctuary forward into the nave of Cobh cathedral, can really bring the majority of the congregation any closer to the altar. This has failed in every single re-ordering of an Irish Cathedral. You cannot and never will be able see the altar in the side aisles or rear of Cobh, Derry, Armagh, Killarney, Letterkenny or any other large Irish Cathedral. They now have plasma screens in Armagh to address this problem – so I do not understand why we need to physically move anything! Cobh is the only intact victorian cathedral we have left, future generations can learn so much from leaving it as is.
-
August 12, 2006 at 5:24 pm #768316
Praxiteles
ParticipantAm I to suppose that Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville of Belfast is the same Brian Quinn who is a member of the Art and Architecture Committee of the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference; and the same BQ who posted some rather colourful material on this thread under another alias some time ago?
If so, then it is nice to know whom we are dealing with and shall be able to spedite things much mor snappily when dealing with him.
I would mention that BQ should be careful about making theological statements as he obviously knows next to nothing about professional theology which is a good deal more complex – as Sangallo has made clear to him.
I find it peculiar that someone who claims to be seriously engaged in modern church design should not have read Rudolf Schwarz -if not in the original at least in a French translation!
-
August 12, 2006 at 5:31 pm #768317
Praxiteles
ParticipantI wonder is Rooney and McConville thinking that they might now try their hand to make a few bob wrecking the interior of Cobh Cathedral? If so, they should bear in mind all those paddies down there for whom thy appear to have such high regard!!!
-
August 13, 2006 at 10:50 am #768318
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is our Belfast friend’s web page.
-
August 13, 2006 at 11:01 am #768319
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd this is what brought us to our Belfast friend’s opus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/yourplaceandmine/down/rostrevor_monastery.shtml
-
August 14, 2006 at 12:10 am #768320
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis link to Rooney and McConville’s webpage makes for interesting reading:
-
August 14, 2006 at 12:32 am #768321
brianq
ParticipantHi Gian
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Like many modernist you have the whole thing backwards. Christ is Truly Present in the Eucharist. He is also present in the priest as he is “in persona Christi”, and in the assembly.
I’m not sure what you’re point is here. We’re obviously in agreement on the latter two points as I specifically said them in my post. I didn’t mention Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist as I took it as read. Unless you are implying there is a hierarchy of ‘presences’ which of course we can discuss?
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
What you refer to as ” an exclusive zone into which only male ordained may enter” is in fact a place set aside, not for Man, but for God.
Yes and no. Yes it is a special area where the ‘priest, deacon and other ministers exercise their offices’ (GIRM 295). Yes it is one of the options for the placement of the tabernacle. No because all of this is subserviant to the unity of the liturgical assembly – which includes the priest. It is the reality of unity that is primary and which makes us consider something like altar rails. GIRM calls upon us to consider: ‘ The special character of the sanctuary is emphasised and enhanced by the distinctiveness of its design and furnishings, or by its elevation’. Nowhere does it say about it being exclusive.
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
We do not attend church to worship Man. What is undermining the Liturgy, as you put it, is this elevation of the “People of God” above God Himself.
You see this is where we have to give each other the courtesey of actually reading what is posted, not what we think is posted. Nowhere did I say that we attend church to worship Man nor did I say I was elevating the People of God above God.
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
You refer to ‘guidelines produced by the Irish Bishops’, can I presume you are referring to ” A Place of Worship”.
Yes
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
I will quote what Dr. Alan Kershaw, Advocate of the Apostolic Tribunal or the Roman Rota, said regarding this publication at the An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing re. Cobh Cathedral, in Midleton:
” It must be stated that this publication was never put to a vote by the [Irish] Episcopal Conference and it was never submitted to the Holy See for recognitio meaning that it has never been approved. Hence this publication is not vested with vim legis and thereby is totally devoid of any authority.….. The book “A Place of Worship contains nothing more than opinions, hence it must be disregarded.”er.. that would be the opinions of the Irish Episcopal Conference? I’m not au fait with the mechanism by which it came to be issued other than it was presented to the Irish Episcopal Conference for approval by its Liturgical sub-committee. I presume, since POW exists, that it received that approval. I’ve certainly never heard of any objections to it voiced by any Irish bishop. I suggest Dr Kershaw needs to read up on his procedures though as the Irish Episcopal Conference have authority to issue such guidelines without recourse to the Holy See. This authority is in GIRM (and, going on memory now, I think that bishops conferences are obliged to issue such specific guidelines). So it never would have been submitted as it already has approval by definition.
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
I don’t know who has been instructing you regarding Catholic Liturgy, but I suggest that you look to the authentic Church document on this, and in particular, I would suggest you start with the writings of our present Holy Father. 🙂
POW is an authentic Church document.
BQ -
August 14, 2006 at 12:38 am #768322
brianq
ParticipantHi sang
I understand and agree with all of what you said – except I never said that the priest was delegated by the community to exercise a special function.
BQ
@sangallo wrote:
Regarding the development of the idea of People of God, Is Brian referring to the official teaching of the Church or the opinions of individual theologians?
It should be pointed out that the category of People of God taken on its own is insufficient to describe the reality of the Church. The People of God is not an amorphous mass but a community which is hierarchically organised: see chapters II, III and IV of the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Not only the aspect of the Christian community called by God to worship but also the hierarchical reality of the Church must be reflected in the architecture of a church building, if the church building is to be an image of the reality of the Church itself.
Also it is insufficient to describe the priest simply in terms of “special ministry” – the Catholic understanding goes deeper. The priest is not simply delegated by the community to exercise a special function within it, but receives his power to act “in persona Christi” from Christ himself through the sacrament of holy orders, which involves a change at the deeper level of his being. Only on the basis of what the priest is can we understand what he does. -
August 14, 2006 at 12:54 am #768323
brianq
ParticipantHi prax,
Praxiteles wrote:Am I to suppose that Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville of Belfast is the same Brian Quinn who is a member of the Art and Architecture Committee of the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference]I am as regards R&McC and the Art & Architecture advisory committee – which has fr Paddy Jones as its secretary and also has Eamon Heddermann as a member. The Art & architecture committee prepared the text of ‘The Place of Worship’ – though before I was a member.
I’m puzzled about your last comment regarding posting under a different alias. I am registered under ‘brian quinn’ as well as my current alias ‘brianq’. The reason for having two is I registered under ‘brian quinn’ a long time ago and when I returned to these fora nearly a year had elapsed and I couldn’t remember my login details so I had to create a new alias. I haven’t contributed to this discussion before though under any alias? Maybe you could clarify what you mean? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility and I’ve forgotten – I can harldy remember what I did yesterday.
BQ
-
August 14, 2006 at 11:03 am #768324
Anonymous
Inactive@brianq wrote:
Hi sang
I understand and agree with all of what you said – except I never said that the priest was delegated by the community to exercise a special function.
BQ
Brian, my apologies if I misunderstood your meaning. My concern about the expression “special ministry” is this: nowadays the term is applied very easily not only to priests, deacons and the instituted ministries of acolye and lector, but also to musicians, flower-arrangers, ushers and so on. Like the question of applying “People of God” to the Church, one can certainly apply “special ministry” to priests, but one has to complete it in order to account for what is specific to the priesthood.
On the question of the Church, I would agree with the idea that the church building should reflect our understanding of the Church as Vatican II presents it, especially in Lumen Gentium. In addition to what I said earlier, it could be added that the Church is on a pilgrim journey and that it embraces the community of the saints in heaven. Traditionally, the sanctuary is seen as heaven, the place where God dwells, and by setting it apart as a place of special beauty, something of the notion of heaven is communicated. Similarly statues of the Virgin Mary, the angels and saints, give some idea of the communion of saints in heaven with whom we are in constant contact (they intercede for and protect us).
All of this no doubt represents a particular challenge to the church architect who wants to make of the church building an image or icon of the overall understanding of the Church.
What do you think? -
August 14, 2006 at 8:32 pm #768325
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi prax,
I am as regards R&McC and the Art & Architecture advisory committee – which has fr Paddy Jones as its secretary and also has Eamon Heddermann as a member. The Art & architecture committee prepared the text of ‘The Place of Worship’ – though before I was a member.
I’m puzzled about your last comment regarding posting under a different alias. I am registered under ‘brian quinn’ as well as my current alias ‘brianq’. The reason for having two is I registered under ‘brian quinn’ a long time ago and when I returned to these fora nearly a year had elapsed and I couldn’t remember my login details so I had to create a new alias. I haven’t contributed to this discussion before though under any alias? Maybe you could clarify what you mean? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility and I’ve forgotten – I can harldy remember what I did yesterday.
BQ
I am afraid that I have failed to notice any member registered under @Brian QUinn@ in the members- list.
-
August 14, 2006 at 8:40 pm #768326
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian
Could you ever explain to us what you you mean by saying that Place of Worship is an authentic Church document?
Clearly, you cannot here be speaking of a document having canonical effect and authority. In this sense, it has no bearing whatsoever on church architecture. It has already been pointed out on this thread, I think, that as the Art and Architecture Committee is an ADVISORY committeeto the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference, all it can do is advise the body that was appointed to advise. Clearly neither the Committee nor the Commission has any authority to LEGISLATE for the Bishops Conference. Indeed, it is doubtful that the Art and Architecture Committee should even have published the document Place of Worship.
I am am sure that you are expert in the rules laid out in the planning laws and how they are drawn up and how they are applied. In the Catholic Church, there are rules governing how the liturgy is celebrated and what is needed for its celebration. These rulese are laid down by ecclesiastical authority / and, I am afraid, that the Art and Architecture Committe is no such authority.
-
August 14, 2006 at 8:54 pm #768327
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe 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, BrÃd NÃ 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.
-
August 14, 2006 at 10:14 pm #768328
Sirius
Participant@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, BrÃd NÃ 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!
-
August 14, 2006 at 11:25 pm #768329
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSirius,
Do you actually know Adrian O’Donovan? Or does it infuriate you that Adrian O’Donovan and his committee turned out to be right and whatsmore on the winning side in the Cobh dispute? As usual you come on to throw stones. Have you nothing constructive to say?
The old order is dying and giving way to the new. Thank God. -
August 15, 2006 at 1:45 am #768330
brianq
Participant@sangallo wrote:
Brian, my apologies if I misunderstood your meaning.
Hi Sang, I’m sorry to be pedantic here but there was nothing to misunderstand. I simply did not say that. You read all these things in my post which were simply just not there. (There’s no need to apologise).
@sangallo wrote:
My concern about the expression “special ministry” is this: nowadays the term is applied very easily not only to priests, deacons and the instituted ministries of acolye and lector, but also to musicians, flower-arrangers, ushers and so on. Like the question of applying “People of God” to the Church, one can certainly apply “special ministry” to priests, but one has to complete it in order to account for what is specific to the priesthood.
Your concerns about ‘special ministry’ are probably very real but they are not what I was talking about. If you want to talk about them I am more than happy to do so but I think we are wandering into pure theology which is not relevant to this forum? As regards the ‘People of God’, it is a common and well understood liturgical and theological term which is much wider than I suspect you define. Forgive me for straying into theology for a moment but the People of God is not restricted to the ‘congregation’ as a gathering of human beings. People of God encompasses all aspects of ‘being’ and includes the priest and laiety – and has no meaning without Christ as the ‘head’. It also includes all that we are called to be and do as followers of Christ. It means we are a dynamic people relating to each other as well as our creator. It also means we can’t just relate to our creator, we must also relate to each other.
@sangallo wrote:
On the question of the Church, I would agree with the idea that the church building should reflect our understanding of the Church as Vatican II presents it, especially in Lumen Gentium. In addition to what I said earlier, it could be added that the Church is on a pilgrim journey and that it embraces the community of the saints in heaven. Traditionally, the sanctuary is seen as heaven, the place where God dwells, and by setting it apart as a place of special beauty, something of the notion of heaven is communicated. Similarly statues of the Virgin Mary, the angels and saints, give some idea of the communion of saints in heaven with whom we are in constant contact (they intercede for and protect us).
yes, yes and thrice I say yes, but don’t forget the primary notion is of a people called to worship, called to be united in the Eucharist, the sacrament of unity. The idea of the sanctuary as heaven is subserviant to the idea of unity, yes a hierarchical community but first and foremost a united community, united with their maker and united with each other.
@sangallo wrote:
All of this no doubt represents a particular challenge to the church architect who wants to make of the church building an image or icon of the overall understanding of the Church.
What do you think?Indeed it does. A response I have made to the challenge is St. Colmcille’c Church in Holywood just outside Belfast which is a circular church that I designed for the parish there. One aspect of it was that in the circular arrangement, the altar was of course in the centro of the circle. The congregation is arranged around three quarters of the circle – from 2 o’clock round to 10 o’clock if you like. The remainder of the circle is completed by a platform containing the ambo and chair for the priest. This platform also has a work of art depicting the communion of saints the idea being that the communion of saints completes the circle and the worshipping congregation etc. The church is featured here: http://www.rooney-mcconville.com
BQ
-
August 15, 2006 at 2:11 am #768331
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am afraid that I have failed to notice any member registered under @Brian QUinn@ in the members- list.
yes I’ve noticed that too. Brianq is listed but I’ve no idea why brian quinn isn’t. I can log in using brian quinn but I can’t post using that alias as the account seems to be in a suspended limbo.
BQ
-
August 15, 2006 at 2:37 am #768332
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Brian
Could you ever explain to us what you you mean by saying that Place of Worship is an authentic Church document?Yes, the ‘Place of Worship’ is a valid Church document as it is issued by the Irish Episcopal Liturgy Commission on behalf of the Irish Episcopal Conference. The Irish Episcopal Conference is obliged to issue guidelines on the building and renovation of church buildings and it fell to the Liturgy Commission to expeite this. As such it represents the mind of the Irish Bishops.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Clearly, you cannot here be speaking of a document having canonical effect and authority. In this sense, it has no bearing whatsoever on church architecture.
yes and no. Yes in that it is canonical in as far as it quotes GIRM, the Rite of Dedication of an Altar, Eucharisticum Mysterium and so on. It is not canonical of itself. It certainly has a bearing on church architecture because it is issued by a ‘competent authority’ as defined in Sancrosanctum Concilium as it is obliged to do by GIRM, and it represents the mind of the Irish bishops and can not be ignored.
@Praxiteles wrote:
It has already been pointed out on this thread, I think, that as the Art and Architecture Committee is an ADVISORY committeeto the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Bishops Conference, all it can do is advise the body that was appointed to advise. Clearly neither the Committee nor the Commission has any authority to LEGISLATE for the Bishops Conference.
Again yes and no. Yes in that I agree with everything you say about the advisory committee on art & architecture. It is advisory and all it can do is advise (the liturgical commission). No in that the Liturgical Commission is an episcopal commission – consisting of bishops. It has the full authority of the Irish Episcopal Conference to make directives regarding liturgy.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Indeed, it is doubtful that the Art and Architecture Committee should even have published the document Place of Worship.
It didn’t, the irish Episcopal Liturgy Commission published it. The Art & Architecture Committee advised the Liturgy Commission regarding its content.
@Praxiteles wrote:
I am am sure that you are expert in the rules laid out in the planning laws and how they are drawn up and how they are applied. In the Catholic Church, there are rules governing how the liturgy is celebrated and what is needed for its celebration. These rulese are laid down by ecclesiastical authority / and, I am afraid, that the Art and Architecture Committe is no such authority.
I am probably more expert in the spatial requirements of liturgy than secular planning law. Indeed the art & architecture committee is not permitted to issue authorative directives in the sense you describe.
BQ
-
August 15, 2006 at 2:44 am #768333
brianq
ParticipantHi prax,
What’s your point?
BQ
@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, BrÃd NÃ 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.
-
August 15, 2006 at 10:40 am #768334
Anonymous
Inactive@brianq wrote:
As regards the ‘People of God’, it is a common and well understood liturgical and theological term which is much wider than I suspect you define. Forgive me for straying into theology for a moment but the People of God is not restricted to the ‘congregation’ as a gathering of human beings. People of God encompasses all aspects of ‘being’ and includes the priest and laiety – and has no meaning without Christ as the ‘head’. It also includes all that we are called to be and do as followers of Christ. It means we are a dynamic people relating to each other as well as our creator. It also means we can’t just relate to our creator, we must also relate to each other.
BQDear Brian, Now you are suspecting me of holding a narrow theological understanding of People of God ! In this you are incorrect.
The notion of People of God goes back to the Old Testament, to the people of God or qahal YHWH which God called in the first place to worship him. It is in the first place God’s initiative, addressed to Israel as a whole. The Hebrew qahal comes over into Greek as ekklesia or assembly. Of course in the New Testament it comes to fulfilment and as you say under Christ as head. It is obvious that People of God embraces both priests and laity – I never said otherwise. This is also clear from the organisation of the chapters of Lumen Gentium: first the mystery of the Church, which originates in the Trinity, second the People of God as a whole, third the hierarchical organisation of the Church, fourth, the laity. The primary relationship though is to God the Creator, who takes the initiative, and flowing from that comes the relationship to each other.
I agree with “dynamic” in the sense that the Church as a whole is on the way to our heavenly home – this is the so-called eschatological dimension, which is dealt with in Lumen Gentium in chapter VII. The Eucharist, apart from uniting the individual Christian to Christ in this life and building up the unity of the Church through the effect of charity in the soul of the communicant, is also a foretaste of the definitive union with Christ, which takes place in heaven. One must not lose sight of the eschatological dimension of the Eucharist when speaking about what goes on in the Eucharistic celebration.
It is for this reason that one cannot give priority to unity over heaven, if unity is simply confined to this life. Obviously heaven is about unity: we will be united with each other because of our unity in Christ. Paragraph 2 of Sacrosanctum Concilium mentions both unity and the Church’s pilgrim journey to heaven, and explains that the liturgy is above all the work of our redemption and that what is earthly and visible is directed to what is heavenly and invisible. Hence, I don’t think that you can say that the sanctuary as image of heaven, or as the place where earth encounters heaven is subservient to unity, desirable and all as unity is. Rather the priority is the other way round: hope in eternal life and our sharing in it now through the Eucharist have unity as an effect.
It should be clear then that theology is not irrelevant to architecture, and that is why I have entered into a discussion of the fundamental theological understanding of the Church as essential to building churches which are genuinely Catholic. -
August 15, 2006 at 10:49 am #768335
Praxiteles
ParticipantBravo Sangallo!!
But I fear you cast your theological pearls before the theologically ill instructed. from what I can see BQ has no theological competence what so ever and is simply parrotting a couple of half baked pieces of clap trap opicked up along the way.
-
August 15, 2006 at 10:49 am #768336
Praxiteles
ParticipantBravo Sangallo!!
But I fear you cast your theological pearls before the theologically ill instructed. from what I can see BQ has no theological competence what so ever and is simply parrotting a couple of half baked pieces of clap trap opicked up along the way.
-
August 15, 2006 at 10:54 am #768337
Praxiteles
ParticipantAlthough BQ is very chatty about it, I suspect he has never read the text of the Lumen Gentium. What we hear from him on the subjet is the sort of thing one heard whafting about fashionable cocktail parties about forty years ago. Sound Snippetts rising between cigarette smoke and ringing crystal. For the benefit of anyone who wants to check the matter out, I am posting a link to the Englisjh translation of the text of Lumen Gentium>
-
August 15, 2006 at 11:27 am #768338
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
Thanks very much for the clarification concerning POW being an authentic church document and for stating that it represents what you are pleased to call the mind of the Irish Bishops Conference.
There are some things I would have to say about you comments as I am left with the impression that as a member of the Art and Architecture Committee of the Irish Episcopal Conference you are perhaps not quite up tto speed about the legal or canonical staus of an Episcopal Conference and of its commissions and advisory bodies.
The Art and Architecture Committe of the Liturgical Commission of the Irish Episcopal Conferenbce is an Advisory Committee of the Liturgical Commission. The Liturgical Commission is an advisory doby of the Plenum of the Episcopal Conference and as such it can only provide advice to the Conference. A decision which the Plenum of the Conference is entitled to make following a canonical vote of all the voting members fo teh Conference can be entrusted to the Liturgical COmmission for EXECUTION. The Plenum of the Conference cannot delegate its responsabilities to a Commission.
When we bring these few principles to bear on the so called publication of Places of Worship, the Liturgy Commission could have proposed it to the Plenum of the Conference for a vote and so proceed to its publication AFTER it had been submitted to the Holy See for its approval. Had this happened, then the book POW would have been a canonically approved provision of the Conference and as such would have had vim legis. However, and it has been said umpteen times on this thread, this course of action was not followed. We do not know the reason for it. Perhaps the great minds in the Irish Episcopal Conference might have realised that had such a pathetic prodiuction been submitted to the Holy See someone would have to take out the red pencil and correct the poor scholars efforts. Clearly, the greter mninds in the Conference would have liked that.
What happened then seem to be that the Liturgical Commission of the Conference simply published the book. As an advisory body of the Plenum of the Conference, its job is to advise the Plenum of the Conference and any production of the Commission should be addreessed to the Plenum only. This is the provision of Apostolos Suos the motu proprio governing the running of Episcopal Conferences.. Since the Liturgy Commission did publish the book POW, what canonical or legal validity does it have or what force of law does it have? The answer to those questions is simply NONE. It is simply to be regarded as a private publication expressing private opinions. There are plenty of these around and few are to be given much if any credibility.
If BQ wishes to chek that what is outlined above concerning the jurisdiction, functioning and procedure of Episcopal Conferences is correct, then just take a trip to Ara Coeli and ask the BOSS himself and, I susppect, he will have no hesitation in confirming just what I have said.
As
-
August 15, 2006 at 11:38 am #768339
Praxiteles
ParticipantBBQ writes>
The Irish Episcopal Conference is obliged to issue guidelines on the building and renovation of church buildings and it fell to the Liturgy Commission to expeite this.
The Irish Episcopal Conference has no such obligation. Were it to have had such, perhaps BQ would like to produce the document obliging it to issue such guidelines.
In saying this, interestinngly, you raise the question fo the relationship of the Episcopal Conference and the Diocesan Bishop. Am I to take it that you are arguing that the bishop of Cloyne had no option but to implement an idiotic sheme at Cobh Cathedral that represented the mind of the Irish Bishops? Surprisingly, that would go directly against the semi zwinglian position argued by teh Cobh Trustees at the Midleton Oral Hearing. Are we not perhaps knotting something there?
-
August 15, 2006 at 8:48 pm #768340
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome further reading material for BQ.
Try this link to a recent little instructiuon called Redemptionis Sacramentum which should sort out clearly in your mind just how authority in the Ctholic Church concerning liturgy is organized. You will note that the emphasis is on Bishops rather than Bishops Conferences. Do not lose sight of that.
The following few articles, that I have previouslly posted gives you everything in a nutshell>
Chapter I
THE REGULATION OF THE SACRED LITURGY
[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]
[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exerciseâ€[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.
[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observedâ€.[36]
[17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebrationâ€. Finally, it “carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detectedâ€[37]. In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.
[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebratedâ€[38].
-
August 15, 2006 at 8:54 pm #768341
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
How could this be!
They are all out of step with the real Bishop of Cloyne +Adrian O Donovan!
Well, in fact, Adrian O’Donovan’s Press Release on behalf of the FOSCC makes for much clearer reading than the muddled nonsense from the Bishop of Cloyne. Indeed, AO’D might make a better fist of the job of bishop of Cloyne than the present occupant.
-
August 15, 2006 at 9:00 pm #768342
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Yes in that it is canonical in as far as it quotes GIRM, the Rite of Dedication of an Altar, Eucharisticum Mysterium and so on.
BQ
Even making allowances for someone who does not have a training in Canon Law, szing the above with respect to The Place of Worship is nonsense. Any liturgical norm alreadz vested with the force of law quoted in that document gains nothing from it and is completelz unnecessary to their legal status.
-
August 15, 2006 at 9:08 pm #768343
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
…the ‘Place of Worship’… is not canonical of itself.
describe.
BQ
Such sweet music!!!
Brian! The above is all I ever wanted to hear from someone on the famous Art and Architecture Committee of the Liturgy Commission of the Irish Episcopal Conference. It is exactly what the FOSCC argued in Midleton.
The upshot of The Place of Worship not being canonical is that it has no more force of law -vim legis- than a piece of jacks paper – which is about as much use as it has.
Thanks for that admission.
-
August 15, 2006 at 9:21 pm #768344
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Yis
Again yes and no. Yes in that I agree with everything you say about the advisory committee on art & architecture. It is advisory and all it can do is advise (the liturgical commission). No in that the Liturgical Commission is an episcopal commission – consisting of bishops. It has the full authority of the Irish Episcopal Conference to make directives regarding liturgy.
BQ
Which of the august bodies are we advising: the Irish Episcopal Commission for Liturgz which is made up of the following luminaries on the episcopal benceh, none of whom has anz professional qualification in anz of the liturgical sciences. Obviouslz, thez must be depending on soimething other than Wissenshaft to tell their good eggs from their gluggers:
Irish Episcopal Commission for Liturgy
Most Reverend John Magee, Bishop of Cloyne (chairperson), Most Reverend Fiachra Ó Ceallaigh, Auxiliary Bishop in Dublin, Most Reverend John McAreavey, Bishop of Dromore
Reverend Patrick Jones is secretary to the Commission.Then we have another august bodz: The Irish Commission for Liturgy. This has a verz interesting line up.The only person on this committee worth listening to when it comes to a liturgical matter is the Reverend Patrick McGolderick, Professor emeritus of Sacred Liturgy, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth.
Irish Commission for Liturgy
This is the primary consultative agency on liturgy. Its members are: Reverend Séan Collins, ofm., Dr Margaret Daly-Denton, Ms Jane Ferguson, Reverend Patrick Jones, Ms Julie Kavanagh, Reverend John Keating, ocarm, Reverend Hugh P. Kennedy, Sr. BrÃd Liston, fcj Reverend Columba J. McCann, Reverend Patrick McGoldrick, Reverend Edward Magee, Reverend Dermot Meehan, Reverend Daniel Murphy, Reverend John Terry, Reverend Liam M. Tracey, osm, Reverend Thomas Whelan, cssp.I am afraid, Brian, that zou are incorrect in sazing that the Episcopal Commission has the full authoritz of the Episcopal Commission to make DIRECTIVES on the liturgy. An Episcopal Conference can make precious little in the waz of DIRECTIVES about the liturgz. That is the business of the Holy See and of the Diocesan Bishop in his diocese. The Conference has no authority in this area. Even if it had, it could not delegate that authoritz to a sub commission.
-
August 15, 2006 at 9:30 pm #768345
Praxiteles
ParticipantFollowing on the above Brian, I am adding a link to the Code of Canon Law where zou can chek it all out for zourself:
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm
Concerning the liturgz and Episcopal Conferences, take a look at the text of Canon 838
BOOK IV : THE SANCTIFYING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 – 848)
Can. 834 §1 The Church carries out its office of sanctifying in a special way in the sacred liturgy, which is an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, by the use of signs perceptible to the senses, our sanctification is symbolised and, in a manner appropriate to each sign, is brought about. Through the liturgy a complete public worship is offered to God by the head and members of the mystical body of Christ.
§2 This worship takes place when it is offered in the name of the Church, by persons lawfully deputed and through actions approved by ecclesiastical authority.
Can. 835 §1 The sanctifying office is exercised principally by Bishops, who are the high priests, the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God and the moderators, promoters and guardians of the entire liturgical life in the Churches entrusted to their care.
§2 This office is also exercised by priests. They, too, share in the priesthood of Christ and, as his ministers under the authority of the Bishop, are consecrated to celebrate divine worship and to sanctify the people.
§3 Deacons have a share in the celebration of divine worship in accordance with the provisions of law.
§4 The other members of Christ’s faithful have their own part in this sanctifying office, each in his or her own way actively sharing in liturgical celebrations, particlarly in the Eucharist. Parents have a special share in this office when they live their married lives in a christian spirit and provide for the christian education of their children.
Can. 836 Since christian worship, in which the common priesthood of Christ’s faithful is exercised, must proceed from and rest upon faith, sacred ministers are to strive diligently to arouse and enlighten this faith, especially by the ministry of the word by which faith is born and nourished.
Can. 837 §1 Liturgical actions are not private but are celebrations of the Church itself as the ‘sacrament of unity’, that is, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishops. Accordingly, they concern the whole body of the Church, making it known and influencing it. They affect individual members of the Church in ways that vary according to orders, role and actual participation.
§2 Since liturgical matters by their very nature call for a community celebration, they are, as far as possible, to be celebrated in the presence of Christ’s faithful and with their active participation.
Can. 838 §1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.
§2 It is the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.
§3 It pertains to Episcopal Conferences to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of the Holy See, to publish these translations.
§4 Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.
Can. 839 §1 The Church carries out its sanctifying office by other means also, that is by prayer, in which it asks God to make Christ’s faithful holy in the truth, and by works of penance and charity, which play a large part in establishing and strengthening in souls the Kingdom of Christ, and so contribute to the salvation of the world.
§2 Local Ordinaries are to ensure that the prayers and the pious and sacred practices of the christian people are in full harmony with the laws of the Church.
-
August 16, 2006 at 11:51 pm #768346
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis little article appeared on the Irish Times on 7 August 2006 concerning the destruction of Irish cathedrals and churches.
-
August 17, 2006 at 1:02 am #768347
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantI have to say that I was surprised, to say the least, that such an article could appear in the Irish Times.
A few weeks ago there was an article by Fr. Paddy Jones in the same publication which referred to the “concern” of the Irish Bishops regarding An Bord Pleanala’s decision on Cobh Cathedral, without any reference to the fact that he, Fr. Jones, was a party to the applicants case and that he was also instrumental in the drawing up of the Guidelines for Places of Worship in the 2000 Planning Act.
I recently learned that the secretary of FOSCC asked for a right to reply to Fr. Jones’ article and didn’t even receive the courtesy of a reply from the News Editor of the IT. So much for Ireland’s premier newspaper. -
August 17, 2006 at 10:17 am #768348
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn relation to Jim Duffy’s article in the Irish Times, I think it needs to said that the destruction of Ireland’s ecclesiastical architectural heritage is not something exclusive to the Catholic Church (as the cocktail party people might think) and I doubt that, for example the Church of Ireland record is any better: think for example of the stripping of the roof from the Cathedral on the Rock of Cashel or on the 19th century Guinness financed “restoration” of Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin which was much criticised at the time. Then there are the small disused parish churches throughout the country that have been razed to the ground.
-
August 17, 2006 at 10:21 am #768349
Praxiteles
ParticipantP.S. There is an interesting restoration project going on in Kentstown, Co. Meath. Reports would have us believe that the results should be interesting and should perhaps herald a more enlightened approach to church restoration. We await the outcome with interest. If anyone is passing, they might like to take and post a photograph.
-
August 17, 2006 at 7:47 pm #768350
Praxiteles
ParticipantConcerning architectural modernism and church building, perhaps it might be helpful to examine some of the principles underlying the work of Joze Plecnik.
-
August 18, 2006 at 12:00 am #768351
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax
@Praxiteles wrote:
BBQ writes>
The Irish Episcopal Conference is obliged to issue guidelines on the building and renovation of church buildings and it fell to the Liturgy Commission to expeite this.
The Irish Episcopal Conference has no such obligation. Were it to have had such, perhaps BQ would like to produce the document obliging it to issue such guidelines.
Sacrosanctum Concilium para 44: It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Am I to take it that you are arguing that the bishop of Cloyne had no option but to implement an idiotic sheme at Cobh Cathedral that represented the mind of the Irish Bishops?
No.
BQ
-
August 18, 2006 at 12:04 am #768352
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear Brian!!
Once again we are not paying attention to the detail of the text. The English text you quote says that its is “DESIRABLE” to set up such commissions. The Latin word is “EXPEDIT”. This has no connotation of OBLIGATION. It is merely a pious wish.
-
August 18, 2006 at 1:05 am #768353
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax
apologies for the sloppy typing. My sentence should have read ‘….episcopal liturgical commission – consisting of bishops…’ etc.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Then we have another august bodz: The Irish Commission for Liturgy. This has a verz interesting line up.The only person on this committee worth listening to when it comes to a liturgical matter is the Reverend Patrick McGolderick, Professor emeritus of Sacred Liturgy, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth.
I am afraid, Brian, that zou are incorrect in sazing that the Episcopal Commission has the full authoritz of the Episcopal Commission to make DIRECTIVES on the liturgy. An Episcopal Conference can make precious little in the waz of DIRECTIVES about the liturgz. That is the business of the Holy See and of the Diocesan Bishop in his diocese. The Conference has no authority in this area. Even if it had, it could not delegate that authoritz to a sub commission.
Two points here -( neither of which are relevant to our discussion about POW as it (POW) is not a directive and I never said it was) an episcopal conference can make directives on the liturgy, admittedly in limited circumstances – can455 & GIRM 390. Also, and I can’t confirm if it is actually the case, but the Episcopal Conference can delegate to an episcopal commission by virtue of Can 451.
BQ
-
August 18, 2006 at 1:20 am #768354
brianq
Participanthi Prax
@Praxiteles wrote:
Dear Brian!!
Once again we are not paying attention to the detail of the text. The English text you quote says that its is “DESIRABLE” to set up such commissions. The Latin word is “EXPEDIT”. This has no connotation of OBLIGATION. It is merely a pious wish.
ok maybe I’m missing something here. as regards the quoted text you are indeed correct, the word ‘desirable’ is indeed used to refer to the setting up of an episcopal liturgical commission. (The fact that the episcopal liturgical commission has been set up presumably means that the Irish Bishops’ conference thought it was ‘desirable’). However, our discussion was about the obligation or otherwise on the Irish Episcopal Conference to issue guidelines was it not?
BQ
-
August 18, 2006 at 1:23 am #768355
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
Here is the text of canon 451. Nothing here about DELEGATION:
Can. 451 Each conference of bishops is to prepare its own statutes which must be reviewed by the Apostolic See and which are to organize, among other things, the plenary meetings of the conference which are to be held and to provide for a permanent council of bishops, a general secretariat of the conference, and also other offices and commissions which, in the judgment of the conference, more effectively help it to achieve its purpose.
-
August 18, 2006 at 1:28 am #768356
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
I am glad that you mention canon 455 for that is the canon that outlining the procedure to be followed were the Conference to promulgate POW as binding on the dioceses within its jurisdiction and clearly it has not. One can only speculate whay the Conference seems to lack the will to do so.
Re: GRIM 390: are you referring to the 1969 text or to the 2000 text?
-
August 18, 2006 at 1:34 am #768357
Praxiteles
ParticipantiBrian
Here is the text of the GRIM 2000. It is not pertinent to the question of the canonical status of the POW. This text indicates those places in the Institutio Generalis of the Roman Missal where Episcopal Conferences are asked to decide specific questions which are specified in the text of the article. Even those decisions have to be referred to the Holy See before they can have its approval and obtain the force of law.390. Conferentiarum Episcoporum est aptationes definire, et actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis, in ipsum Missale introducere, quae in hac Institutione generali et in Ordine Missae indicantur, uti sunt:
fidelium gestus et corporis habitus (cf. supra, nn. 24, 43);
gestus venerationis erga altare et Evangeliarium (cf. supra, n. 274);
textus cantuum ad introitum, ad praeparationem donorum et ad communionem (cf. supra, nn. 48, 74, 87);
lectiones e Sacra Scriptura peculiaribus in adiunctis desumendae (cf. supra, n. 362);
forma pro pace tradenda (cf. supra, n. 82);
modus sacrae communionis recipiendae (cf. supra, nn. 160-161, 284);
materia altaris et sacrae supellectilis, praesertim sacrorum vasorum, necnon materia, forma et color vestium liturgicarum (cf. supra, nn. 301, 329, 332, 342, 345-346, 349).
Directoria vero aut Instructiones pastorales, quas Conferentiae Episcoporum utiles iudicaverint, praevia Apostolicae Sedis recognitione, in Missale Romanum, loco opportuno, induci poterunt -
August 18, 2006 at 10:00 am #768358
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 1119 and the following quotation from it: “the Liturgical Commission is an episcopal commission – consisting of bishops(.) [and] (It) has the full authority of the Irish Episcopal Conference to make directives regarding liturgy”.
I am sorry to appear to harp on the subject of the authority of a liturgical commission of an Episcopal Conference but I think that it is important to distinguish clearly the specific competence of a Liturgical Commission. It certainly does not have “the full authority” of an Episcopal Conference “to make directives regarding the liturgy”. Directives about the liturgy, where they can be made by a Conference, are made only by the full assembly of the Conference on a two thirds majority. Such diorectives are then submitted to the Holy See before publication to obtain recognitio which permits their rception into the law of the Church.
I am attaching the text of the motu proprio Apostolos Suos of 21 May 1998 which explicitates why the “full authority” of an Episcopal Conference cannot be be Delegated or passed on to one of its subordinate organisms or commissions. I am also adding a link to this posting which will give you the full text of the English translation of Apostolos Suos. Dr. Alan Kershaw’s evidence at the Midleton Oral Hearing was perfectly accurate – as you would expect from an advocate of the Roman Rota.
“20. In the Episcopal Conference the Bishops jointly exercise the episcopal ministry for the good of the faithful of the territory of the Conference; but, for that exercise to be legitimate and binding on the individual Bishops, there is needed the intervention of the supreme authority of the Church which, through universal law or particular mandates, entrusts determined questions to the deliberation of the Episcopal Conference. Bishops, whether individually or united in Conference, cannot autonomously limit their own sacred power in favour of the Episcopal Conference, and even less can they do so in favour of one of its parts, whether the permanent council or a commission or the president. This logic is quite explicit in the canonical norm concerning the exercise of the legislative power of the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference: “The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines itâ€.(77) In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consentâ€.(78)”.
The full text of the English language can be found here:
-
August 18, 2006 at 9:23 pm #768359
Praxiteles
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
I know that Prax isn’t too much of a fan of Schwarz. He is right to point to the problem of the ‘legibility’ of liturgical symbolism and Schwarz could be accused of fabricating arbitrary categories
Perhaps we could now return to the question of the legibility of liturgical symbolism in modern architecture. We have laready pointed out the difficulties that we encounter with Schwarz whose lirurgical symbolism is clearly incommunicable because, in effect, it amounts to a private esoteric language accessible only to the initoiated. On the other hand, if we look at the work of Plecnik, we have a range of accessible liturgical symbols that is clearly connected with the symbolic and architectural canon of Western civilisation and that is a re-working of that canon. An example of that is the design of the church of St. Francis the main body of which is located at a slightly lower level and surrounded by a colonade on four sides. Surely, here we have a reference to the impluvium of a Roman domestic villa which archeologists such as Krautheimer have shown probably lay at the very origin of the first Christian churches: the impluvium was roofed and served as the body for the house church. The idea seem to be very much much part of Plecnik’s back-to-origins concerns which are also to be seen in his designs for ecclesiastical plate.
I merely throw out the idea to see if anybody is interested in it.
-
August 19, 2006 at 12:31 am #768360
Luzarches
ParticipantI think that the quality of numinousness is present in some of Schwarz’s churches, especially the earlier ones. Despite his co-opting of the Modernist aesthetic, his churches were never ‘machines for praying in’. In terms of his use of space, extravagent heights and expressive surfaces I think that the sacred purpose of these buildings would have struck their parishioners as evident. Even in his least ‘expressivist’ church, Corpus Christi, Aachen, there is a transliteration of the tradition of sacred architecture. Here we have the High Altar, a rectangular slab of black marble at the summit of eleven steps, also black. The altar is free-standing, bu there is only the slightest of spaces between it and the back wall. This huge sheer wall of white render functions conceptually almost like a baroque ‘potra caeli’ reredos. We are being invited to turn our minds beyond the immanent, the church has become a conduit through which we look beyond. This gap between the altar and this wall was not occupiable to Schwarz, the idea of versus populum here anathema. Although this may strike Prax as quite fanciful, I think that the faithful then could only have seen this wall as a reredos, accustomed as they would have been then to altars attached to retables, and it’s whiteness seen not as an extension of the Post Enlightenment attempt to sanitze (and neutralize) the Church but more as like the whiteness of the garments on Mount Tabor.
I’m getting a bit carried away here. I think I’ll stop….
-
August 19, 2006 at 11:37 am #768361
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn Catholicism and the modern aesthetic the following might be of interest.
-
August 19, 2006 at 12:37 pm #768362
Praxiteles
ParticipantPraxiteles has just discovered what appears to be the latest fashion in liturgical “reorderings”: that of placing the altar on a plane lower than its surroundings and in some instances dominated by higher planes carrying such items as chairs or even cathedras.
It has long been a principle of Catholic liturgical space arranging to place the altar on the highest plane and everything else on a descending gradation of planes. For example, in a cathedral, the praedella of the altar will have three steps; the Cathedra placfe on an area two steps high; and a celebrants sedilia placed on one step etc.
In the illustration below, we seem to have the complete inversion (or subversion ?) of this simple principle. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate the name of the church involved but will set about doing so.
The Studios of Potente Inc. are responsible for the work.
-
August 19, 2006 at 1:17 pm #768363
Luzarches
ParticipantVery interesting link, Prax. The topic of my current dissertation is whether contemporary architecture, modernism with a small ‘m’, can ever become an appropriate vehicle for expressing orthodox Catholicism.
I agree completely that arrangements whereby the altar is either lower than other elements, presiding chairs, cathedras etc, or off central axis are harmful to right belief at this point in time. Of course there are noble examples from tradition where the cathedra is higher, the cathedral of Parma, or even more elevated, the cathedral of Girona in Spain. We’re in a muddle now because the central placement of chairs has been misappropriated from tradition.
Because a friut of Trent was the placement of tabernacles on main altars we have had to dethrone the Blessed Sacrament in order to enthrone the priest or bishop. The separation of the tabernacle from the main altar is a consequence of making ‘modes of Christ’s prescence’ into a critical issue, as if the faithfuls’ ‘comprehension’ of the nature of the dynamic mystery whereby the gifts are consecrated is somehow undermined by the abiding prescence of the lord in the tabernacle. (As well as the ‘facing the people’ chesnut…)
Another very unfortunate misappropriation from tradition has been the attempt to introduce the fixed ambo in counterpoint to the altar. I think that the faithful have been mislead into thinking that there is a parity between the prescence of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel and His prescence in the eucharist. As Paul VI reaffirmed, it is incorrect to claim a kind of equality here. The Word is present for the duration of the proclamation, to be sure, but is fully present, body and blood, soul and divinity, in the sacrament. The Gospel is, I suppose, a sacred induction into the mystery of the eucahrist. Therefore an ambo, I suggest should be in a high place, but not higher than the footpace of the main altar. It should be off-axis and well in front of the altar. It should also be reserved for the proclamation of the gospel alone. A legile should be set up on the epistle side of the sanctuary and used for the homily.
In this way a hierarchy of dignity can be established without creating confusions of parity, or false dichotomies developed in the 60’s (that have been shown to be false). -
August 19, 2006 at 2:07 pm #768364
Praxiteles
ParticipantLuzarches!
You might like to try this link to something called an association of liturgical consultants. It seems to be an American association working out of Chicago. There are some interesting things but most of what is available her displays the usual banality deriving from an absence of the cultural baggage needed to address liturgical questions.
-
August 19, 2006 at 2:15 pm #768365
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt appears that the source for the diploma in liturgical consultancy is the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. This will require a little further investigation.
-
August 19, 2006 at 2:31 pm #768366
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis must be read to be believed. Again, the product of a jejune appreciation of Western and Christian culture:
-
August 19, 2006 at 3:02 pm #768367
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe link below connects to a list of (mainly) American “liturgical consultants”. Most seem to have gone through the pro-forma mill at the Catholic Union in Chicago. Reading the various approaches to “liturgical consultancy” is interesting and very enlightening – some of it goes some way to explain the liturgical turmoil experienced in some parts of the USA. It is also interesting to note just how much of a manual for this group is the book Built of Living Stones the US counterpart of The place of worship. Even more interesting is the almost universal absence of any reference to the Instituto Generalis Romani Missalis, Sacrosanctum Consilium and other normative texts. Again we have the recurrence of the notion of “People of God”. I am not certain that it is always used in the same sense as when found in its theological context in Lumen Gentium and I am almost certain that it is used without reference to the theological debate surrounding the idea in 1970s which did much to qualify and nuance it. But, see for yourself:
-
August 19, 2006 at 8:03 pm #768368
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is the text of the famous Built of Living Stones, the American version of The Place of Worship. It is important to note that this document is described as “guidelines”. This means that it has no juridical standing or authority – just like The Place of Worship.
It looks as though this document gave rise to the “liturgical consultant” industry by mentioning the species.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/livingstones.shtml#chapterone
-
August 19, 2006 at 11:53 pm #768369
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am posting some comments from Stephen Schloeder’s book Architecture in Communion published in San Francisco by Ignatius Press in 1998. Schloeder is a good representative of the contemporary ascendent current of thought in the United States on liturgy and art. While I do not quite share everything Shloeder says, especially in translating principles into practical architecture, I do recognise a freshness in his approach deriving from a critical mind at work on an hegemony that has been far too compaisant and far too much of a monopoly for far too long.
-
August 20, 2006 at 10:37 am #768370
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following link gives an interesting account of the operations of the so called liturgical consultants in the U.S.A.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20592 -
August 20, 2006 at 11:07 am #768371
MacLeinin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The following link gives an interesting account of the operations of the so called liturgical consultants in the U.S.A.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20592That sounds all too familiar. The line taken by the various church officials and architects and so called ‘liturgical consultants’ is exactly what was used by the church representatives, Prof. Cathal O’Neill and planning consultant Brian McCutcheon in Cobh – they were not destroying the architectural heritage of St. Colmans they were bringing it back to its original design and ‘fixing’ Pugin obvious errors. Thankfully An Bord Pleanala didn’t swallow this mendacious line.
I wonder has there ever been a time before this when the ‘Shepherds’ and their firends have railroaded wholesale over their flock in such heartless fashion. How can they talk about ‘community’ when they are prepared to ignore completely the heartfelt wishes of their congregations. -
August 20, 2006 at 12:54 pm #768372
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, Denny Reidy, the parish priest of Carrogtwohill, obviously got hold of one of those DIY public relations manuals to paper over any public opposition to his great plan to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral. However, the manual did not count on a phenomenon like the FOSCC and sidelining it was not the answer.
-
August 21, 2006 at 1:43 am #768373
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax
may I provide some clarification regarding liturgical consultants, the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago and ‘Built of Living Stones’?
A ‘liturgical consultant’ (LC) in the instance you have referred to is, as far as I’m aware, an American phenomenon. An LC was actually first referred to in the predecessor to ‘Built of Living Stones’ (BOLS), ‘Environment and Art in Catholic Worship’ (EACW). EACW mentioned an LC but did not explain what one was or did.
The Catholic Theological Union in Chicago (CTU) was formed as an amalgamation of theological teaching schools of various separate Catholic Church orders – a pooling of resources. Thus CTU is a Catholic teaching entity. It runs a course to train LCs at the request of the Archdiocese of Chicago which attempted to fill the void regarding what an LC did. The course was originally conceived to supply LCs for the archdiocese but it quickly attracted a much wider attendance. The students are balanced between ordained ministry, artists, architects.
As I said above BOLS succeeded EACW. Over the years EACW aroused much antipathy as it was considered fairly radical. I understand that it was often presented during church building renovation projects as ‘authorative’ when in fact it had the same status as the Place of Worship (POW). Also similarly to POW it was issued by the American bishop’s equivalent of our Irish Episcopal Commission on the Liturgy and not he American bishops’ conference (though validly so as the American episcopal liturgy commission were empowered to do so by the conference). As a result of rising resistance to EACW, not least of which by the some of the bishops themselves, and the fact that EACW was not voted upon by the conference, it was decided by the conference to have a new document drawn up (BOLS) and voted upon. It is ironic (for you Prax) that you consider it suspect as the main reason it came into existence was as a result of conservative lobby pressure. Many LCs consider it to be retrograde step.
BQ
(yes as you might have guessed I am a LC and i attended the CTU course). -
August 21, 2006 at 11:53 am #768374
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
Thanks very much for that clarification. But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?
-
August 21, 2006 at 11:55 am #768375
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is the link toCardinal Francis George’s Liturgical Institute at Mundelein:
http://www.vocations.org/liturgicalinstitute/liturgicalinstitute.htm
-
August 21, 2006 at 11:57 am #768376
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt looks as though we have hit on something interesting and worthwhile here. A conference on church building being promoted by the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein:
Here are the programme details:
If anybody had a moment to spare they might like to take a trip to the windy city!
-
August 22, 2006 at 12:17 pm #768377
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax
may I provide some clarification regarding Built of Living Stones’?
… B[uilt] O[f]L[iving] S[tones] succeeded E[nvironment] and A[rt] in C[atholic] W[orship]. Over the years EACW aroused much antipathy as it was considered fairly radical. I understand that it was often presented during church building renovation projects as ‘authorative’ when in fact it had the same status as the Place of Worship (POW). Also similarly to POW it was issued by the American bishop’s equivalent of our Irish Episcopal Commission on the Liturgy and not he American bishops’ conference (though validly so as the American episcopal liturgy commission were empowered to do so by the conference). As a result of rising resistance to EACW, not least of which by the some of the bishops themselves, and the fact that EACW was not voted upon by the conference, it was decided by the conference to have a new document drawn up (BOLS) and voted upon. It is ironic (for you Prax) that you consider it suspect as the main reason it came into existence was as a result of conservative lobby pressure. Many LCs consider it to be retrograde step.
BQ
(yes as you might have guessed I am a LC and i attended the CTU course).Praxiteles would like to clarify a few small point concerning the above:
1. The term “empowered” is not a canonical term. As we have already said it cannot mean “delegate”. It could mean “authorise” in the sense of authorising the commission to prepare a draft for the plenum of the Conference. If it did, the draft should not have been published. POW is in a similar canonical limbo.
2. Built of Living Stones, hereinafter BALS, describes itself as “guidelines”. This is not a canonical category and hence the doucment, regradless of who published it, lacks the force of law and remains merely at the level of suggestion.
Although BOLS was voted on by the plenum of the United States Bishops Conference, it was not submitted to the Holy See for approval and reception into the legal corpus of the Catholic Church.
In this sense, EACW, BOLS and POW are all on the same canonical plane: they are private publications expressing private ideas.
3. I came across the following canonical commentary on BOLS which rather better explicitates my point :
The Legal Status of “Built of Living Stones”
Question:
What is the legal status of “]
-
August 22, 2006 at 9:00 pm #768378
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt looks as though the Cobh Cathedral saga was followed with close interest as far away as St. Paul, Minnesota by the redboutable Catholic newspaper The Wanderer. The edition of 22 June 2006 features a front page picture of the cathedral; and this their article published on p. 3 [vol. 139, n.25]:
-
August 23, 2006 at 12:35 am #768379
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Praxiteles has just discovered what appears to be the latest fashion in liturgical “reorderings”: that of placing the altar on a plane lower than its surroundings and in some instances dominated by higher planes carrying such items as chairs or even cathedras.
Prax, if I’m reading you’re post correctly you’re insinuating that the church featured in the image you posted is a Catholic one and therefore an example of current thinking in liturgical reordering in the Catholic Church. Well, I can allay your fears and rehabilitate the principle of reordering in your mind at the same time by confirming that the church is in fact a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran church in Fond du Lac, Wisonsin.
BQ
-
August 23, 2006 at 12:56 am #768380
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax,
BOLS & POW etc
Your consistent offering of the ‘straw man’ argument that BOLS / POW are not legally binding is becoming irritating now. I know you hate to admit it but we are actually in agreement regarding this point. I have never heard of anyone stating that and I have never stated it in this forum or during the course of my work. Maybe you could let me know when, where and by whom it was said?
however, you can’t seriously believe that POW need only be given the same consideration as any other private document such as you or I might author for instance. It has been published by bishops for heaven sake, and, I might add, wihout demurring from any other irish bishop – or any bishop for that matter. POW deserves our full attention because it pulls together the legislation on spatial requirements and represents the mind of the irish bishops. It has been produced to assist the bishop in his diocese in the discharge of his obligations as all documentation produced by the bishops’ conference is.
BQ
-
August 23, 2006 at 1:34 am #768381
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes! I am perfectly happy to confirm that we are in agreement that POW has no legal force and therefore cannot bind anyone.
This position, however, has consequences. Canonically, POW is not a “public” document of the Church. Consequently, it can only be a private document and, in canonical terms, the opinions expressed in it are only imputable to the person or persons expressing them – from what I can see the only person who signed it was Joe Duffy, the Bishop of Clogher. That is all I am saying.
For an example of an augmentative use of POW see footnote 38 of the document in the attached link. When referring to POW the use of the term “requirement” is not appropriate and should not be used. Remember the principle ubi lex non distinguit
http://www.foscc.com/downloads/other/Liturgical%20Requirements2.pdf
-
August 23, 2006 at 11:28 am #768382
Praxiteles
ParticipantDescribing The Place of Worship as a Directory is also problematic – but we sahll return to that at another time.
It seems strange that POW, which has been around in three editions since 1966, has never had the anomoly of its canonical status sorted out by the Irish Episcopal Conference. Are we to infer from this a lack of political will to do so or simply a lack of interest in authentic liturgy?
I am not sure who was responsible for the first manifestation of POW. The second edition (1972) was the responsibility of Cathal Daly when Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise. The third (1993) edition is closely associated with Joe Duffy, Bishop of Clogher. Given the phenomenal gutting done by both of these gentlemen respectively on Longford and Monaghan cathedrals, you will understand my hesitation to underwrite anything associated with them that might be seen in the slightest way to legitimate their acts of cultural vandalism. Just look at St Macartan’s in Monaghan and at St. Mel’s in Longford!!
-
August 23, 2006 at 11:42 am #768384
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax, if I’m reading you’re post correctly you’re insinuating that the church featured in the image you posted is a Catholic one and therefore an example of current thinking in liturgical reordering in the Catholic Church. Well, I can allay your fears and rehabilitate the principle of reordering in your mind at the same time by confirming that the church is in fact a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran church in Fond du Lac, Wisonsin.
BQ
Brian!
Reassurance is sometimes worse than perplexity. If the church displayed earlier on is a Lutheran one in Westconsin, what are we to make of the recent re-reordering in Armagh that leaves the Altar -the central point of a church and of the liturgy – on a plane several steps below that on which stands the cathedra and the choir-stalls? Indeed, looking at it again, the cathedra is in fact two planes higher than the altar plane. Also, the siting of the ambo on a plane higher than the altar and behind it is also a bit unusual. Please do not get me wrong on this – I am prepared to admit that the re-rereordering is light years ahead of the tooth but perhaps not yet at a state of perfection!
-
August 23, 2006 at 11:43 am #768383
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax, if I’m reading you’re post correctly you’re insinuating that the church featured in the image you posted is a Catholic one and therefore an example of current thinking in liturgical reordering in the Catholic Church. Well, I can allay your fears and rehabilitate the principle of reordering in your mind at the same time by confirming that the church is in fact a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran church in Fond du Lac, Wisonsin.
BQ
Brian!
Reassurance is sometimes worse than perplexity. If the church displayed earlier on is a Lutheran one in Westconsin, what are we to make of the recent re-reordering in Armagh that leaves the Altar -the central point of a church and of the liturgy – on a plane several steps below that on which stands the cathedra and the choir-stalls? Indeed, looking at it again, the cathedra is in fact two planes higher than the altar plane. Also, the siting of the ambo on a plane higher than the altar and behind it is also a bit unusual. Please do not get me wrong on this – I am prepared to admit that the re-rereordering is light years ahead of the tooth but perhaps not yet at a state of perfection!
-
August 23, 2006 at 1:01 pm #768385
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantRe. post #1108
POW is an authentic Church document.
BQ
Brian, the Sunday Mass leaflet is an ‘authentic’ church document, but no one would say that it is an authoritative church document.
My question is: Do you think that POW is an ‘authoritative document’?
And if so, whose authority has it? -
August 24, 2006 at 6:57 pm #768386
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn the question of the erection of the Cathedra in Armagh Cathedral, someone has pointed out to me the relevant text containing the rules on the height of a Cathedra and its relation to the height of the High Altar and the stalls of canons: not surprisingly, it was in J. O’Connell’s Church Building and Furnishing: The Church’s Way. As pointed out out, the Cathedra “is to be on a platform approached by three steps – so that it is higher than the canons’ stalls in the chancel, but not higher than the footpace of the High Altar”. Conveniently, he also gives the references for this rule which is found in the Cottectanea Sacrae Congregationis Rituum nn. 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). While other rules mentoned by O’COnnell have been explicitly abolished, the one concerning the height of the Cathedra in relation to the High Altar has not been explicitely abrogated.
I may seem churlish, but I also have to point out that the colour of the cloth on the cathedra (not to mention the other chairs) is wrong. The colour “red” is reserved for a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. “Green” is reserved for all other archbishops and bishops. This oversight is also remarkable when you notice the heraldic achievement inset in the floor before the Cathedra which correctly displays a “green” galero.
In contrast, if you look at the outlay of the sancturay in Cobh Cathedral, you will notice that all of the rules have been meticuously observed.
Of course, I accept that all of these are very fine points – but knowing them separates the men from the boys!!
-
August 24, 2006 at 7:41 pm #768387
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo illustrate my point about the rules governing the height at which a Cathedra may be erected and its relation to the height of the High Altar, I am enclosing a photograph of the sanctuary of the Cathedral of St. André in Bordeaux. You will notice that the Cathedra is raised on a dias on three steps while the High Altar is raised on four higher steps. Also, the red colour indicates that the present Archbishop of Bordeaux is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. The aquiline ambo is placed at the altar rail which is of fine 18th century wrought iron for which Bordeaux is famous.
-
August 25, 2006 at 2:35 pm #768388
descamps
ParticipantGosh. That bird looks about as benign as Praxiteles.
-
August 25, 2006 at 7:52 pm #768389
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a little something that Brian Quinn might be interested in.
It outlines the principles of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council by someone who was there at all its sessions and who exercised a very serious influence on the proceedings of the Council since he was a member of its doctrinal commission.
-
August 26, 2006 at 11:31 pm #768390
Gianlorenzo
Participant
Looking at the floor in Armagh Cathedral I can’t help thinking that all those miles of barley twist and acres of celtic squiggle can’t be too easy on anyone with a delicate constitiution – it’s all too fussy for a liturgical setting. Just take a look at the black and white tiles on the floor of Bordeaux Cathedral and one is struck immediately by the dignity of its restraint.
If something fancy was wanted in Armagh a mosaic should have been put in.
All those tiles, no matter how expensive, just can’t lift the mind from thinking of an elegant water closet in an upmarket hotel. -
August 26, 2006 at 11:50 pm #768391
MacLeinin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here is a little something that Brian Quinn might be interested in.
It outlines the principles of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council by someone who was there at all its sessions and who exercised a very serious influence on the proceedings of the Council since he was a member of its doctrinal commission.
Praxiteles, my dear lady, don’t waste your time. Brian is, unfortunately, completely brainwashed by the modernist litugical propaganda and will, like all the rest, ignore anything that might impinge on their given ‘orthodoxy’ even if it originates with our current Holy Father.
Jones et al in Maynooth and everything they touch sing from the same outdated hymn sheet. They have staked their whole careers and to recognise any other view now would negate their entire lives. True Catholic teaching holds no authority for them. The pity is that they seem like nice people but like all liberals they are totally illeberal in their attitudes to anyone who disagrees with them.:( -
August 26, 2006 at 11:58 pm #768392
Praxiteles
ParticipantI should not worry too much about them. For most, their “careers” are slowly but surely coming to a close and will be over and done with very soon.
-
August 27, 2006 at 12:13 am #768393
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe latest from the FOSCC.
Recent News and Events of the F.O.S.C.C
August 2006
FOSCC 2007 Calendar Now Available !!!FOSCC has produced a beautiful 2007 Calendar with 12 stunning photographs of
St. Colman’s Cathedral, taken by well known Cork press photographer
Mr. Des Barry.The calendar retails for €5 and is a bargain at the price.
Copies are available from any member of the FOSCC committee or order one online via email from terrypender@foscc.com
-
August 27, 2006 at 12:37 am #768394
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantWhere was that photograph taken from? It looks like it was taken from the ground of the Palace. It is a wonder that those in charge in Cobh never thought to produce a calendar featuring the cathedral. They must be kicking themselves right now!!!!!:D
-
August 27, 2006 at 12:49 am #768395
Praxiteles
ParticipantFurther to posting 1176, I am enclosing the following articles just to give a flavour of current thinking among a younger generation of architects and liturgists:
-
August 27, 2006 at 2:09 am #768396
Praxiteles
ParticipantGianlorenzo!
Re posting 1177, I came across this in an article by Anthony Delarue and thought it summed up what you were saying: “So the fittings of our churches are expected to be art, reflecting Christ and His creation, not just a
furnisher’s decorations, and they are to be Christian art?that is, firmly rooted in our tradition, both
spiritual and cultural. This inherently excludes any transient fashion or the adoption of inappropriate
secular styles”. -
August 27, 2006 at 2:14 am #768397
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Gianlorenzo!
Re posting 1177, I came across this in an article by Anthony Delarue and thought it summed up what you were saying: “So the fittings of our churches are expected to be art, reflecting Christ and His creation, not just a
furnisher’s decorations, and they are to be Christian art?that is, firmly rooted in our tradition, both
spiritual and cultural. This inherently excludes any transient fashion or the adoption of inappropriate
secular styles”.Unfortunately this or any other argument falls on deaf ears. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
August 27, 2006 at 3:44 am #768398
MacLeinin
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Looking at the floor in Armagh Cathedral I can’t help thinking that all those miles of barley twist and acres of celtic squiggle can’t be too easy on anyone with a delicate constitiution – it’s all too fussy for a liturgical setting. Just take a look at the black and white tiles on the floor of Bordeaux Cathedral and one is struck immediately by the dignity of its restraint.
If something fancy was wanted in Armagh a mosaic should have been put in.
All those tiles, no matter how expensive, just can’t lift the mind from thinking of an elegant water closet in an upmarket hotel.G. Don’t mind the floor. Don’t you think that the present incumbant in Armagh might be ‘hiding’? This is hardly surprising as the poor congregation in Armagh have gone through three seperate re-orderings – all I am sure in the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’. At this stage they must be driven to taking pot shots at their ‘Shepherd’ – just as well he is so well out of range!!!!:rolleyes:
-
August 27, 2006 at 3:48 pm #768399
Fearg
ParticipantI visited Armagh in 2003 – the new floor in the sanctuary matches very well with the rest of the interior – the simple granite floor from the previous re-ordering did not work so well in this setting. The following photo (attempts) to show the sanctuary in context with the walls and ceilings:
[ATTACH]2772[/ATTACH]
Some excellent work has been carried out, the re-instatement of the original baptistery for instance:
[ATTACH]2771[/ATTACH]
and the re-use of the original gates from the former rood screen:
[ATTACH]2773[/ATTACH]
And for the sake of comparison:
[ATTACH]2774[/ATTACH]
-
August 27, 2006 at 4:28 pm #768400
Fearg
ParticipantAttached is a photo of the west end organ gallery of St Eugene’s Cathedral in Derry. Where there is now a grille, was once a decorative Telford organ (replaced by the current insturment in the 1950s). I cannot locate a picture of this anywhere.. if anyone can help, I’d like to hear from you.. thanks.
[ATTACH]2775[/ATTACH]
-
August 27, 2006 at 4:36 pm #768401
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax,
apologies but I am not able to keep up with all of the issues raised in all of your posts as quickly as you are posting them, hence I am somewhat behind. This post is regarding POW and the discussions we had about Irish Episcopal Condferences etc (round about posts 1142/1143 etc)
In summary you were contesting my point regarding the issue and status of POW. My point was that it is an authentic church document representing the mind of the Irish bishops on the architectural setting for liturgy and as such it requires consideration by any community contemplating such work. Your contention is that it is merely a private document produced by Bishop Duffy and need be given no more consideration than any other publication about church architecture.
Following on from that you contested my point that the Irish Episcopal Commission for the Liturgy (IECL) can issue documentation with the authority of the Irish Bishop’s Conference (IBC) (post 1142). My point in referring to Can 455 was that each Bishop’s Conference is to draft its own statutes and therefore can contrive to delegate to an episcopal commission if it sees fit. (I don’t actually know if that is the case here in Ireland but it is a possibility?).
As regards post 1143 I did indeed make a mistake and quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point. Indeed subsequent sections do refer specifically to issues that do require recognitio which would tend to support my interpretation. My point was, therefore, that if the bishop can regulate the construction and ordering of churches without the need for recognitio then presumably IECL and IBF can do so also. POW is issued to assist bishops carry out such regulation and would not need recognitio.
Of course POW doesn’t need recognitio anyway as it does not institute any changes. As I said in a previous post it brings together directives from various liturgical sources and presents them in one location. There is no daylight between it and the sources it quotes / refers to. To ignore it, or to treat it as a private treatise is to ignore GIRM, Eucharisticum Mysterium etc etc.
BQ
(ps I intend to follow up most of the other posts when I get time).
-
August 27, 2006 at 8:21 pm #768402
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear BQ !
Let me put the point another way. If The Place of Worship were to represent what you refere to as the “mind” of the Irish Bishops Conference, then it would have to express that “mind” in a formal manner which is laid down by canon law. That procedure entails that the draft document be submitted to the plenary meeting of the bishops. That a vote be taken on it in accordance with the statutes of the conference. That at least a two thirds majority be obtained. And, in order for to have effect in every diocese, it would have ot have the recognitio of the Holy See before it could be promulgated by the Conference.
To the best of my knowledge, this procedure has not happened in the thrity years since the the appearance of the first text of this document.
Concerning the question of the plenary of a conference DELEGATING authority to a commission to issue a document in the name of the Conference, I think you will need to look at a response given on this very subject by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the mid 1990s (I shall chase down the text). The answer of the Congregation for the Doctrine was negative: i.e. a Conference cannot DELEGATE a commission to prepare and issue a text. The reason for this was simple: neither a whole Conference nor any of its commissions is entrusted with the government of a diocese. This is reserved to a diocesan bishop.
Unless and until such time as the process outlined above has been followed, then, I am afraid, The Place of Worship is no more than the musings of whoever signed it. This is not a contention. It is a canonical fact.
You mention canon 455 again and the requirement that Conferences draw up their own statutes. In fact it is canon 451 that establishes that requirement and not 455 (I attach the link below). But, having done so, they have to submit them to the Holy See shich grants both “confirmatio” and “recognitio” to them. Without these, and just like POW, statutes would have no force of law. Given taht the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that Conferences cannot delegate to commissions, then I take it that no Conference would propose such a move in their statutes; and if they did, it would be removed by the Holy See before “confirmatio” and “recognitio” would be granted. Just rust over to Ara Coeli and I am sure that the Archbishop of Armagh will be only too glad to bear out what I have alread said on a number of occasions.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTM -
August 27, 2006 at 8:48 pm #768403
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
As regards post 1143 I did indeed make a mistake and quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point. Indeed subsequent sections do refer specifically to issues that do require recognitio which would tend to support my interpretation. My point was, therefore, that if the bishop can regulate the construction and ordering of churches without the need for recognitio then presumably IECL and IBF can do so also. POW is issued to assist bishops carry out such regulation and would not need recognitio.
BQ(ps I intend to follow up most of the other posts when I get time).
Brian!
The above is a piece, relating to no. 389 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, is piece of canonical muddle and has nothing to do with the production of texts such as The Place of Worship. I reproduce the relevant chapter heading from the Institutio Generalis Romani MIssalis and the text of no. 389:
“Chapter IX
Adaptations Within the Competence of
Bishops and Bishops’ Conferences389. It is the competence of the Conferences of Bishops in the first place to prepare and
approve an edition of this Roman Missal in the authorized vernacular languages, for use in the
regions under their care, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic
See.
The Roman Missal, whether in Latin or in lawfully approved vernacular translations, is to be
published in its entirety.”Brian, I do believe taht you are out of your canonical waters!
-
August 27, 2006 at 8:57 pm #768404
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
As regards post 1143 ….I quoted the wrong reference in GIRM. It should have been GIRM 389 where it states that a bishop is to regulate the construction and ordering of churches. It makes no reference to recognitio from the Apostolic See so it would be reasonable to assume that the bishop does not require recognitio on this point.BQ
I think that you are actually referring to no. 387. Yes, it is true that a bishop makes decisions concerning the construction and ordering of churches in the diocese which has been entrusted to his pastoral care. Yes, he does not need the recognitio of the Holy See for every little action that he has to do in his diocese – that would be absurd.
However, he does not automatically have the final say in any decision he makes concerning the construction and ordering of churches in the diocese entrusted to his pastoral care. Should any of the faithful in the diocese be unhappy about any decision the bishop makes with regard to the construction or ordering of a church, then they have the RIGHT to appeal the bishop’s decision before the competent instances of the Holy See which will decide the matter for the bishop.
Anyone with a basic modicum of canon law will confirm that for you.
-
August 27, 2006 at 10:01 pm #768405
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
I visited Armagh in 2003 – the new floor in the sanctuary matches very well with the rest of the interior – the simple granite floor from the previous re-ordering did not work so well in this setting. The following photo (attempts) to show the sanctuary in context with the walls and ceilings:
[ATTACH]2772[/ATTACH]
Some excellent work has been carried out, the re-instatement of the original baptistery for instance:
[ATTACH]2771[/ATTACH]
and the re-use of the original gates from the former rood screen:
[ATTACH]2773[/ATTACH]
And for the sake of comparison:
[ATTACH]2774[/ATTACH]
Fearg!
Please do not get me wrong. Some good work has been done in Armagh and the dreadful McCormack mess has finally been dumped out it. However, we cannot accept that what has been recently be done is the best solution.
Certainly, it was a good idea to put the Baptismal fount where it was supposed to be – in the baptistry. But it would be a good idea to put the cover on it. See the example in Cobh or for instance the monumental one in Orvieto cathedral.
I have not seen Armagh since the recent efforts. I can imagine, however, from the photographs, that the latest installations are certainly more sympatic with the interior of the building than the horrible tranches of stone placed there by McCormack. Nevertheless, matching colours is only half the exercise. What is installed must have a didactic and symbolic end. Hence, rather than all the tiles, it would have been preferable to have installed a new mosaic – albeit a much costlier exercise – with suitable themes taken from the canon of Christian symbology and iconography.
Likewise, the levels of the various planes in the sancturay is problematic and a feature possibly less happy than the McCormack tooth. I was recently reading an essay on St. Augustine’s Commentary on the psalms of ascent (119-134) and could not help being struck by his comments on the theological importance of “ascent” as a prophetic and eschatological gesture – which all liturgical gesture must be. Likewise, his comments on “descent” will clarify why it is very inappropriate for a bishop to “descend” to the altar.
The recessed ambo is simply eccentric and impractical.
While the recent Armagh effort was better than the McCormack tooth and a good deal more respectful of such a great building, at the same time it could have been even better had a greater degree of Wissenshaft been available.
-
August 28, 2006 at 1:22 am #768406
Fearg
ParticipantHi Prax,
Since my photos were taken, the Armagh font cover (in oak) has been reinstated also. As for ambos – I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that works well, they always seem like an afterthought. In the case of Armagh, it is a shame the original pulpit could not have been restored in some form.[ATTACH]2783[/ATTACH]
-
August 28, 2006 at 2:10 am #768407
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs yes! That is more like it. I am attaching a photo of the Cobh one which has survided so far.
-
August 28, 2006 at 2:34 am #768408
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs for ambos and their positioning, just take a look at the double ambos, one for the Gospel (left side) and the other for the epistle (right side) in St. Clemente in Rome. They have been more or less like this sine the 7th century.
The following link gives a video tour:
-
August 28, 2006 at 9:51 am #768409
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re. post 109
.The spacial outlay of an early Christian Basilica… a Solea extending one third of its length and marked off by barriers]Ciborium[/I] or Baldachino over an altar on a raised dais. [See attachment 1 and 2]
In this system, the nave is reserved for the entry and exit of the Roman Pontiff and his attendants at least since the year 314when he was invested with the Praetorian dignity. When he arrived at the main door, his military or civil escort was shed; he processed through the nave with clergy any other administrative attendants until he reached the gate of the Solea at which point all lay attendants were shed; the lower clergy lined up in the Solea and remained there while the Pontiff, accompanied by the Proto Deacon of the Holy Roman Church and the Deacon of the Basilica accompanied him through the gate of the Sanctuary as far as the Altar where other priests or Bishops awaited him.
The laity were confined to the side isles; the matroneum (or womens’ side); and the senatorium (men’s side).
In Rome, two extant eamples of this spacial disposition illustrate the point: Santa Sabina which is partially intact [attachment 3]; but, more importantly, San Clemente which is well preserved [attachment 4].
Remarkably, the author who believes that the present interior lay out of Longford Cathedral somehow reflects that of an early Christian Basilica quite obviously has not read Richard Krautheimer’s Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae and may not have been familiar with the same author’s Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Yale University Press). C. H. Kraeling’s The Christian Building (The Excavations at Dura Europos…Final Report, VIII, 2 (Yale University Press) and T. Matthew’s writings on the disposition of the chancel in early Christian Basilicas (Revista di Archeologia Cristiana, XXXVIII [1962], pp. 73ff. would certainly dispel any notion of even a remote connection between the early Christian Basilica and the current pastiche in Longford Cathedral.
On the spatial disposition and the placing of the ambo of the early Christian basilica see the above.
-
August 28, 2006 at 2:57 pm #768410
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust take a look at this mouthful of guff:
-
August 28, 2006 at 4:34 pm #768411
Paul Clerkin
Keymastermore pictures of the interior of Armagh
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/armagh/armagh/st_patricks_interior.html -
August 28, 2006 at 10:39 pm #768412
MacLeinin
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Just take a look at this mouthful of guff:
Once again Fr. Jones neglects to declare his involvement in the writing of the infamous Guidelines for Places of Worship and his involvement in the APB oral hearing into the planning decision re. Cobh Cathedral.
He is a past master of the arbitrary uncorroberated statement such as – “The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate”.
Says who?
We know Paddy, and his pals in the Maynooth liturgical clique, think so, but when are they going to realise that the vast majority of the worshippers they so glibly refer to, do not. -
August 29, 2006 at 10:01 am #768413
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 1197:
Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute mentions the follwoing in his article in the September 2006 number of Intercom:
“It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterised by a strong element disagreement, and some of which oppose the charter of reform given by Vatican II”.
What, might I ask, does he mean by this? Surely, he cannot be suggesting that it is a matter of grave concern [to himself presumably] that more than one theoretical position can be taken by a bona fide academic on an open liturgical point? If he does, then we are are facing the end of any form of liturgical science and research and we are staring at the advent of an academic totalitarianism that would even cause Enver Hoxha to blush. If our learned author is indeed postulating a monolithic liturgical establishment in which only what he has to say is to be taken as a genuine representation and interpretation of the liturgical renewal initiated by the Second Vatican Council, then we could possibly have serendipitously happened upon an embarrassing explanation for the fact that in its 40 years of existence the Institute for Pastoral Liturgy in Ireland has NOT yet produced a single liturgical textbook of any enduring significance.
Our over learned author must surely realize that even within the matrix of the liturgical principles outlined by Sacrosanctum Concilium and the subsequent post conciliar normative documents, there exists plenty of scope for adacemic research and for that healthy critical spirit needed in any academic enterprise?
Our author also mentions that some strong elements of disagreement in liturgical matters opposes “the charter of reform given by Vatican II”. Again it is not clear what, if anything, is intended by such a statement. The only people who publicly and explicitly reject Sacrosanctum Concilium are the Lefevrians – of whom there are not too many in Ireland and none was involved in the campaign conducted by the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral. Although he does not mention it, Fr. Jones should be aware that covert opposition to Sacrosanctum Concilium is to be found in a variety of places determined to hijack the Conciliar renewal of the liturgy and some of these would be at the polar opposite of the Lefevrian position. For example, a book has recently been published in Germany which makes reference to a liturgical institute which banned from its library shelves those books written by the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lest what he has to say about the renewal of the liturgy have an influence on its students. What are we to make of all that and those?
-
August 29, 2006 at 11:33 am #768414
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHi Prax.
Could you please give us a reference to the book published in Germany that you mentioned. Title, Author, etc.
-
August 29, 2006 at 11:38 am #768415
Praxiteles
ParticipantGianlorenzo!
No greater pleasure could I have than to supply the details.
-
August 29, 2006 at 11:43 am #768416
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPrax. Is that Fr. Vincent Twomey from Maynooth?
-
August 29, 2006 at 11:46 am #768417
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes! the one and only.
The only Irish doctoral student to have studied under Ratzinger when Professor of Dogmatics at Regensburg.
We can safely assume that the liturgical institute he is referring to is NOT in Germany………..
-
August 29, 2006 at 12:09 pm #768418
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantWould the liturgical institute referred to have anything to do with our friend Paddy Jones?
-
August 29, 2006 at 12:19 pm #768419
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, I would not want to give away the book’s plot. You will have to read it for your self. But one thing I can say, he did not rule out Paddy Jones liturgical hedge-school!!!
-
August 29, 2006 at 1:15 pm #768420
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPrax. How many times do I have to tell you – I don’t read German, or French or Latin or Spanish etc etc.
-
August 29, 2006 at 1:22 pm #768421
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust hold on a very little while for the English translation of Professor Twomey’s book is scheduled for the Spring publication list of Ignatius Press, Sam Francisco.
-
August 30, 2006 at 10:09 am #768422
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting 1197:
Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute mentions the follwoing in his article in the September 2006 number of Intercom:
“It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterised by a strong element of disagreement, and some of which oppose the charter of reform given by Vatican II”.
In relation to this comment some other points must be made.
1. While it is true to say that a spectrum of theological opinion has given rise to a concomitant spectrum of liturgical positions, it has to be borne in mind that none of these positions adopted by liturgists necessarily represents the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church with regard to liturgy and what is required for its celebration. In effect, the spectrum of opinions mentioned by P. Jones must be classified as PRIVATE opinions.
2. The OFFICIAL position of the Church with regard to liturgy, and what is required for its celebration, is contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, the Praenotanda of the liturgical books, the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, the authentic interpretation of liturgical law given by the Holy See and the various Instructions issued for the implementation of the above mentioend corpus of liturgical law (e.g.the most recent being Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Liturgiam Authenticam, and Redemptionis Sacramentum). This, and only this, constitutes the OFFICIAL position of the Church and what is required for the celebration of the liturgy. Nothing more than what is contained in this corpus can be demanded of anyone. It is very surprising that Fr. Paddy Jones makes not even the slighest mention of this fact in his article.
3. It certainly is a move in the right direction for Fr. Jones to recognise that a range of liturgical opinion exists. The usefulmness of the various positions expressed with that range can be tested in reference to what is expressed by teh Church’s OFFICIAL position on liturgy and by reference to a long theological tradition. This exercise will quickly enough sort out what is genuinely helpful both at an academic and pastoral level.
However, our learned author is NOT engaged in any META-LITURGICAL exercise – if we can call it that – which seeks critically to examine the spectrum of private liturgical opinions expressed by any number of theologians so as to extract the positive elements that can be found in all (or nearly all) of these positions and integrate them into a new and higher liturgical synthesis. Our author does not mention that he is the promotor of a single position within the broader spectrum of liturgical opinion.
He is of course entitled to do so. But he may not represent his own view as the ONLY possible position that can be taken on the Liturgy and he may certainly not represent his view as that of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council nor as that of the Official position adopted by the Church.
4. Given that there is a spectrum of opinion with regard to liturgy, it is perhaps naive of our zealous author to have overlooked the certain fact that the general outlines of a theological consensus are gradually emerging and assuming an increasing dominance within liturgical debate. There can be doubt that one of the main players over the past thirty years in the development of that consensus has been Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. His ideas have been taken up and expanded by an ever increasing number of younger theologians. Our widely-read author seems either unaware of this movement or has chosen to ignore it and to cosset himself in the frail certitudes of another generation. Praxiteles is unaware of anything published by Fr. Paddy Jones in which he gives unqualified support to the present Pope’s liturgical agenda.
5. Let us be clear about one thing! The so called “re-ordering” of the interior of Cobh Cathedral is not the punctum stantis aut cadentis (as Luther said when referring to another matter) of the renewal of the liturgy instituted by the Second Vatican Council and given effect in the legislative enactments of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. That process will continue and is likely to evolve in the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.
The so-called “re-ordering” of the interior of Cobh is, in reality, the Irish punctum stantis aut cadentis for a certain outlook that has arrogated to itself an almost total hegemony in the area of liturgy over the past thirty years. That same hegemony has been so complete that it has mistakenly assumed that the positions it holds are the only possible ones that can be held. But, more seriously, it has portrayed a private theoloogical position as an OFFICIAL position adopted by the Catholic Church. Perhaps our liberal minded author’s “disappointment” at the outcome of the Cobh saga may, at least in part, derive from a vague reliazation that things are no longer as they were?
-
August 30, 2006 at 11:27 pm #768423
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPrax. As I said I don’t understand Latin, so can you tell me what does punctum stantis aut cadentis mean ?
-
August 30, 2006 at 11:44 pm #768424
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt means literally: the point on which everything stands or falls. The crux of the matter.
-
August 31, 2006 at 12:02 am #768425
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe postings 1197 and 1209 on the guff published by Fr. Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute in his article of the September 2006 number of Intercom.
In the above mentioned article, our gentle scribe penned the following:
The sancturay of St. Colman’s Cathedral – like all the other cathedral sanctuaries in Ireland – was built for a very different way of worship. Keeping it unchanged would fail to respect the demands of a changed way of worship. The sanctuary designed in the 19th century is certainly inadequate…
This is quite a statement and redolent of the discontinuity historiography once fashionable among writers such as Theodore Kreuser (1894-1984) of Bonn, Josef Jungmann (1889-1975) of Innsbruck and the notorious Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982), who was eventually sent to a Mesopotamian exile by Paul VI. In case Fr. Paddy Jones might not have noticed, things have changed in relation to this way of viewing the liturgy. What I am wondering about is how Fr. Paddy Jones’ comments above can be squared with those contained in the attachment below:
-
August 31, 2006 at 2:07 am #768426
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
It means literally: the point on which everything stands or falls. The crux of the matter.
Thanks
-
August 31, 2006 at 10:42 am #768427
MacLeinin
ParticipantI have been thinking about Fr. Paddy Jones and I wonder if it is he who is leading the Bishops along the road of liturgical nonesense, or if he their willing donkey?
-
August 31, 2006 at 3:10 pm #768428
brianq
Participant@MacLeinin wrote:
the poor congregation in Armagh have gone through three seperate re-orderings
Mac,
Was there a third reordering? When was it?
BQ
-
August 31, 2006 at 3:19 pm #768429
brianq
Participant@MacLeinin wrote:
True Catholic teaching holds no authority for them. The pity is that they seem like nice people but like all liberals they are totally illeberal in their attitudes to anyone who disagrees with them.:(
mac,
I have to take issue with your sweeping generalisation here. I readily accept yours and anyone else’s right to disagree with my views. I readily accept when I am wrong on a factual basis and will thoughtfully consider contrary views on those issues about which contrary views can be legitimately held e.g. aesthetics etc. The authority of true Catholic teaching is accepted fully on my part. I don’t know what you mean by a liberal and therefore couldn’t say if I am one or not. I suspect it is irrelevant anyway.
BQ
-
August 31, 2006 at 3:25 pm #768430
brianq
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Looking at the floor in Armagh Cathedral I can’t help thinking that all those miles of barley twist and acres of celtic squiggle can’t be too easy on anyone with a delicate constitiution – it’s all too fussy for a liturgical setting.
Gian
My design for the floor was conceived in such a way as to relate both in pattern and colour to the existing mosaic floors (seen in the foreground of the left hand image in your post) in a contemporary way.
BQ
-
August 31, 2006 at 4:08 pm #768431
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
On the question of the erection of the Cathedra in Armagh Cathedral, someone has pointed out to me the relevant text containing the rules on the height of a Cathedra and its relation to the height of the High Altar and the stalls of canons: not surprisingly, it was in J. O’Connell’s Church Building and Furnishing: The Church’s Way. As pointed out out, the Cathedra “is to be on a platform approached by three steps – so that it is higher than the canons’ stalls in the chancel, but not higher than the footpace of the High Altar”. Conveniently, he also gives the references for this rule which is found in the Cottectanea Sacrae Congregationis Rituum nn. 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). While other rules mentoned by O’COnnell have been explicitly abolished, the one concerning the height of the Cathedra in relation to the High Altar has not been explicitely abrogated.
Prax,
The Ceremonial of Bishops (CB) is the law on this point. #47 states that ‘….the chair should have enough steps leading up to it for the bishop to be clearly visible to the faithful’. That is why the Cathedra is physically higher than the altar. Nothing is said about a specific number of steps. The Cathedra is sited where it is because GIRM310 states: ‘Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’. This location in my opinion is at the crossing of nave and trancepts which is the ‘architectural’ centre of the space and is the natural focus of the interior. It is presumably why the original altar i.e. the one before Liam McCormick’s reordering, was placed there too. It is also the place where those in the trancepts can see it. Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
@Praxiteles wrote:
I may seem churlish, but I also have to point out that the colour of the cloth on the cathedra (not to mention the other chairs) is wrong. The colour “red” is reserved for a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. “Green” is reserved for all other archbishops and bishops. This oversight is also remarkable when you notice the heraldic achievement inset in the floor before the Cathedra which correctly displays a “green” galero.
Strictly speaking the colour is not wrong as those rules have been abandoned. The background is that the Cathedra in Armagh is the original one when those laws were applicable. It was retained and incorporated as it was into the new layout. You would have a point in saying why not conform to them as a traditional element and I wouldn’t have a problem on that basis. That is an example of where we can have two legitimate views. But it is simply wrong to take the view that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell has to be complied with and therefore what has been done now is illegitimate.
BQ
-
August 31, 2006 at 6:22 pm #768432
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
That was a valiant effort but I am afraid your normae generales are not quite up to scratch when it comes to dealing with the sacred canons of the Code of Canon Law and you will find that a close and accurate study of Book I of the same text will make clear that the law is a good deal more subtle than you make it out to be. For example, where prior dispositions exist and these have not been abrogated and are not contrary to subsequent norms and no new explicit provision has been made, then they retain their force. Hence, note carefully the arrangement of the sancturay in the Cathedral of St. Andr
-
August 31, 2006 at 7:52 pm #768433
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax,
The Cathedra is sited where it is because GIRM310 states: ‘Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’.
BQ
Brian!
This statement, to beging with, is not accurate. Article 310 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, aka the GIRM, talks of a “sedes” and not of a “Cathedra”. I am sure that I do not have to spell out the difference between them.
Secondly, if you look at the text of 310 carefully, you will see that it simply says “locus eius magnus congruus est versus populum in vertice presbyterii, NISI aedis structura vel ALIA adiuncta id impediant”. You will notice that the text here is not prescreptive ordering that the “sedes” be facing the people or in the “vertice presbyterii”. Rather it is indicative and merely expresses a suggestion in law qualified by further considerations (NISI) to make it clear that we are not dealing with a prescriptive act.
Thirdly, the reason for the statement that the “sedes” could face the pople in the “vertice presbyterii” is to be found in the context of the architectural development of the Roman Rite, namely the Roman Basilica. But, as the Church does not canonize any architectural style, it does not canonize this arrangement either. As an example of what we are talking about we can look at the arrangement in the Lateran Basilica. In this case, the “Cathedra” is placed on steps in the “vertice presbyterii”. The High Altar is placed opposite. The Pope descends from the Cathedra to the floor of the sanctuary and ASCENDS to the High Altar – unlike in Armagh where the Archbishp merely DESCENDS to the Altar.
Fourthly, if we are going to speak of Cathedras, in the arrangement of the Lateran Basilica the Pope is not visible from the nave when seated on the Cathedra. Surely, if the Roman Pontiff is not visible from the nave when seated on his Cathdra, there is less reason for lesser mortals to be made more visible when seated on theirs.
“310. Sedes sacerdotis celebrantis debet munus eius praesidendi coetui atque orationem dirigendi significare. Proinde locus eius magis congruus est versus ad populum in vertice presbyterii, nisi aedis structura vel alia adiuncta id impediant, ex. gr. si propter nimiam distantiam communicatio inter sacerdotem et coetum congregatum difficilis evadat, aut si tabernaculum locum habeat in media parte retro altare. Omnis autem species throni vitetur. [119] Convenit ut sedes benedicatur, antequam usui liturgico destinetur, iuxta ritum in Rituali Romano descriptum. [120]”.
The English translation reads:
The Chair for the Priest Celebrant and Other Seats
310. The chair of the priest celebrant must signify his office of presiding over the gathering and
of directing the prayer. Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the
head of the sanctuary, unless the design of the building or other circumstances impede this: for
example, if the great distance would interfere with communication between the priest and the
gathered assembly, or if the tabernacle is in the center behind the altar. Any appearance of a
throne, however, is to be avoided.119 It is appropriate that, before being put into liturgical use, the
chair be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.120 -
August 31, 2006 at 9:25 pm #768434
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax,
. Again, Caeremoniale Episcoporum makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
BQWhile I am pleased that this discussion seems to have resussitated the idea that liturgy is conducted in accordance with the norm of law, established by ecclesiastical authority, it appears that we are going to have dust off the concept a bit before we begin to realize how it functions.
In the quotation above, the following is claimed. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted by McConnell’s (sic) book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I am afraid that this assumption is not at all reasonable. The law presumes that those provisions mentioned in O’Connell’s book which cover areas not explicitely dealt with in the most recent legislation are, subject to certain conditions already mentioned, still in force, do have binding authority and must be complied with. Remember that the law operates on an hermeneutic of continuity and not one of discontinuity. In O’Connell’s book, only those provisions of law cited by him that have been aborgated have been superceded. Again, a little subtlty of mind please.
Thus, assuming that no other provision has been made elsewhere on the subject of the proportion of heights to be observed betewwn planes bearing High Altars and those bearing Cathedras, we have to take it that the lacuna legis is supplemented by the existing legislation quoted by O’Connell. Strictly speaking, the same is true of what he says about colours – pending the creation of another Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church in Armagh, the Cathedra should be covered in green. Otherwise, it could be read as an aspiration!!
-
August 31, 2006 at 11:10 pm #768435
-
September 1, 2006 at 2:37 am #768436
MacLeinin
Participant@brianq wrote:
mac,
I have to take issue with your sweeping generalisation here. I readily accept yours and anyone else’s right to disagree with my views. I readily accept when I am wrong on a factual basis and will thoughtfully consider contrary views on those issues about which contrary views can be legitimately held e.g. aesthetics etc. The authority of true Catholic teaching is accepted fully on my part. I don’t know what you mean by a liberal and therefore couldn’t say if I am one or not. I suspect it is irrelevant anyway.
BQ
Dear Brianq,
I do not question you acceptance of Church teaching. I question the interpretation you have been given. You are free to explore these issues and expand your knowledge. Unlike many you appear to be willing to take that course. I am leagues behind you. I need every latin phrase translated for me.
What I do not understand about the above quote is what you mean by I readily accept when I am wrong on a factual basis and will thoughtfully consider contrary views on those issues about which contrary views can be legitimately held e.g. aesthetics etc. .Expand please.
-
September 1, 2006 at 9:16 am #768437
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
That was a valiant effort but I am afraid your normae generales are not quite up to scratch when it comes to dealing with the sacred canons of the Code of Canon Law and you will find that a close and accurate study of Book I of the same text will make clear that the law is a good deal more subtle than you make it out to be.
Prax, On this specific point your beloved Canon law is not germain. This is a liturgical law item – see Can#2
@Praxiteles wrote:
For example, where prior dispositions exist and these have not been abrogated and are not contrary to subsequent norms and no new explicit provision has been made, then they retain their force. Hence, note carefully the arrangement of the sancturay in the Cathedral of St. André in Bordeaux. Can you source the reference to the abandonment of the use of “green” to denote an archbishop or bishop? I do believe that the Cathedra in Armagh should have been sent ot the upholstrers!!
The introduction to the Ceremonial of Bishops explicitly states that all previous versions of the ceremonial (those which include directives on the use of coloured upholstery and numbers of steps etc ) are abrogated.
All of that having been said I think there is a discussion to be had on how the use of different levels in a sanctuary can be used to signify theological meaning.
BQ
-
September 1, 2006 at 9:28 am #768438
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This statement, to beging with, is not accurate. Article 310 of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, aka the GIRM, talks of a “sedes” and not of a “Cathedra”. I am sure that I do not have to spell out the difference between them.
Prax, my statement is accurate as GIRM applies even more so to a Cathedra since the sedes derives it meaning from the Cathedra.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Secondly, if you look at the text of 310 carefully, you will see that it simply says “locus eius magnus congruus est versus populum in vertice presbyterii, NISI aedis structura vel ALIA adiuncta id impediant”. You will notice that the text here is not prescreptive ordering that the “sedes” be facing the people or in the “vertice presbyterii”. Rather it is indicative and merely expresses a suggestion in law qualified by further considerations (NISI) to make it clear that we are not dealing with a prescriptive act.
Thirdly, the reason for the statement that the “sedes” could face the pople in the “vertice presbyterii” is to be found in the context of the architectural development of the Roman Rite, namely the Roman Basilica. But, as the Church does not canonize any architectural style, it does not canonize this arrangement either.
Agreed. Of course I never said that it was an obligation to locate the presider’s chair in the apse. You read that into my post yourself. What I was saying was that I exercised the option – an option that it is reasonable to assume is the preferred option as it is the only one specifically metioned in GIRM.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Fourthly, if we are going to speak of Cathedras, in the arrangement of the Lateran Basilica the Pope is not visible from the nave when seated on the Cathedra. Surely, if the Roman Pontiff is not visible from the nave when seated on his Cathdra, there is less reason for lesser mortals to be made more visible when seated on theirs.
prax, you’re not seriously suggesting that such an unsuccessful arrangement should be canonised? – despite what it explicitly says in the Cermonial of Bishops? (This reminds me of Monty Python’s ‘The Life of Brian’ when he takes one sandal off because it is hurting and the whole crowd take one sandal off).
BQ
-
September 1, 2006 at 9:44 am #768439
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
I think that it has been more than satisfactorilly proven that you are not a canonist. If you are taking advice from a “cnonicst” I would advise finding a more competent one<:
Canon 2 states three prinicple things:
1. Only some norms for the celebration of the liturgy have been received into the present (1983) code in contrast to the preceeding (1917) code. These are usually the more important principles which you can look up for yur self in a sopare moment.
2. Liturgical norms other than those in n.1 are established in, what is in effect, partyicular law. Indeed, the growth of particular law is one of the features of the 1983 code as it organised teh sacred canons.
3. The Canon makes explicit what I have been trying get across to you: anything not contrary to the general norms contained in teh Code remains in force and is binding.
I think that you will find that what is stated above is more than relevant to what I have been trying to get across to you earlier.
I include the text of the canon together with a translation to aid communication:
This is the text of Canon 2;
Can. 2 – Codex plerumque non definit ritus, qui in actionibus liturgicis celebrandis sunt servandi; quare leges liturgicae hucusque vigentes vim suam retinent, nisi earum aliqua Codicis canonibus sit contraria.
And this is the translation of Canon 2:
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code. -
September 1, 2006 at 10:37 am #768440
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn posting n. 1218 brian wrote:
“Prax,
The Ceremonial of Bishops (CB) is the law on this point. #47 states that ‘….the chair should have enough steps leading up to it for the bishop to be clearly visible to the faithful’. That is why the Cathedra is physically higher than the altar. Nothing is said about a specific number of steps. The Cathedra is sited where it is because GIRM310 states: ‘Thus the best place for the chair is in a position facing the people at the head of the sanctuary’. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’…. Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar.
… It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so. I have a copy of McConnell’s book. It’s a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.”
I could not deal with this until now as I was awaiting a mitered friend to lend me his Caeremoniale Episcoporum – which he kindly did last night.
In relation to article 47, it should be noted that this article begins by referring you to article 42 which gives us a definition of a cathedral, the place wherein a Cathedra is ubiquated. Cathedra (which is perhaps not quite accurately translated by the English word “chair”). No definition of a sedes is given in reference to a cathedra.
Please note that in the absence of a prescription concerning the relationship between the height of the altar and the height of the cathedra, the provisions of canon 2 (which you youeself quote) become operative and you are referred to the already existant norms which O’Connell mentions in his book. Thus, on this specific point, they continue to have force and they were not observed in the last re-ordering of the cathedral in Armagh. No one has the right to presume otherwise.
-
September 1, 2006 at 10:50 am #768441
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 1225:
Brian wrote: “Prax, my statement is accurate as GIRM applies even more so to a Cathedra since the sedes derives it meaning from the Cathedra”.
You have already pointed out that the law referring to the Cathedra is to be found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum articles 42 and 47.
The Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, or GRIM as you call it, is not relevant to the case in point and cannot be extended to it. Sedes is not Cathedra. These are two different things and have different significations.
You are simply all over the place!
-
September 1, 2006 at 11:47 am #768442
Praxiteles
ParticipantMy point about an altar being raised is made patently clear from the illustration of the altar in Bordeaux cathedral. I regret to say taht the altar in the present Armagh arrangement looks as though it has been just abaodoned there on the floor having been taken out of its wrappers. It should really have been elevated on a praedella of a few steps which would also have served the principle of the altar always being Ascended to – as we find mentioned in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum article n. 178.
I wonder could anyone take a photograph of the altar presently in Armagh and do one of those computer images of how it would look had it been raised on a praedella of say three steps?
-
September 1, 2006 at 2:54 pm #768443
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
I am posting the following photographs to illustrate the liturgical lay-out of the Lateran Basilica which still largely maintains the form given to it when built around 315 A.D..
Please notice the position of the Cathedra of the Bishop of Rome which is placed in the Apse – where it has always been. Note the arrangement of the stalls for the Lateran Chapter.
About 50 yards in fron of the Cathedra is the High Altar which is under a canopy built by Arnalfo da Cambio. Please note that the mensa of the Altar is not on the floor of the sancturay but is raised on a praedella of at least 4 or five steps.
The practical consequence of this means that when the Pope leaves the Cathedra, he descends tot he floor of the sancturay, crosses it and, on arrival at the High Altar, he ASCENDS to the Altar.
Please note also that from the nave of the Basilica the Cathedra is hardly visible and the Pope certainly not when enthroned on it.
-
September 1, 2006 at 3:22 pm #768444
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is another exampòe of the application of the classical disposition of a sanctuary. This time it is Sant’Appolinare in Classe in Ravenna which was consecrated in 549. Bear in mind, that many of the prescriptions that are lay down in the current liturgical books derive from contexts such as this. After all, returning the liturgy to its pristine sources was one of the objectives of the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council.
You will notice here that although the floor of the sanctuary is already quite high, the Altar is again raised on a praedella of sevral steps which will allow for the priest’s ascending to the Altar. Unless you know this background, you cannot properly understand how liturgical law thinks and operates.
-
September 1, 2006 at 3:36 pm #768445
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd another example: Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome
Here the cathedra is not visible from the nave. The High Altar which is several yards in front of it is not sitting on the sancturay floor but is raised on a praedella of several steps and covered by a canopy.
In this case, again, the priest ascends to the altar.
-
September 1, 2006 at 3:49 pm #768446
Praxiteles
ParticipantSame arrangement in Santa Prassede in Rome.
Interestingly, the mosaic in the arch of the sanctuary bears the cipher of Pope Paschal I (817-824) indicating when it was exsecuted.
-
September 1, 2006 at 7:52 pm #768447
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Gian
My design for the floor was conceived in such a way as to relate both in pattern and colour to the existing mosaic floors (seen in the foreground of the left hand image in your post) in a contemporary way.
BQ
I am inclined to agree with Gianlorenzo, tile was not the best medium. Mosaic was called for.
-
September 1, 2006 at 11:31 pm #768448
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax,
. The altar is sited where it is because CB #48 states: ‘It (the altar) should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centres naturally’…. . Again, CB makes no reference to a height relationship between Cathedra and Altar. It is reasonable to assume that the liturgical law quoted in McConnell’s book (if not formally abrogated) is de facto so….. McConnell’s book is a wonderful book and I refer to it from time to time. I find it very useful for historical / traditional purposes but it should be remembered that it and the law quoted / referred to within it has been superceded.
BQOn the question of the construction of an altar and the ened to have it raised on a predella, let me quote paragraph no. 61 of Peter Elliott’s important work Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, second revised edition, 2005, at page 62, commenting on the GIRM says:
The steps around the altar should be planned carefully so that all the people can participate visually and so that the ceremonies can be carried out conveniently. The Missal assumes that can be celebrated either facing the people or facing the altar. A new main altar should be built to make it possible to celebrate Mass either way. therefore there should ample space on the footpace or “predella” on both sides of a freestanding altar for the celbrant to stand and genuflect and also so that he may conveniently walk around the altar when he insenses it. The footpace is usually covered with fine quality carpet
A further problem with the present arrangement of the altar in Armagh is the proportion employed between the rather large sanctuary floor on which the the altar is sitting, and the dimensions of the altar itself. It appears to be rather small for its rather expansive setting. That problem could be partially remedied by raising it on a smaller sized predella.
-
September 1, 2006 at 11:58 pm #768449
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Agreed. Of course I never said that it was an obligation to locate the presider’s chair in the apse. You read that into my post yourself. What I was saying was that I exercised the option – an option that it is reasonable to assume is the preferred option as it is the only one specifically metioned in GIRM.
BQ
Yes, it is true that this is the only option mentioned in the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis. Yet, the same text makes absolutely clear that other solutions are acceptable taking into account (among other things) the architectural style of a given church.
As the posts I put up earlier show, the rubric of the Roman Missal evolved within the architectural context of the Roman Basilica – examples of which I have made available. The qualification placed on the Basilical arrangement derives from a realization that the history of Christon art and architecture has also used other solutions – for example, in the Gothic and neo gothic, as well as in the classical revival of the renaissance and in the Baroque, where the Cathedra is placed on the gospel side of the Altar , near the praedella.
In exercising an option, as you say, a prudential judgement must be made bearing in mind all sorts of factors. In the case of Armagh, one very large consideration would be whether or not it would be intelligent to insert into a neo gothic interior -albeit already wrecked – an arrangement that evolved from and was intended for a Roman Basilica. Alternatively, a closer aquaintance with the historical, cultural and architectural background of the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, and perhaps a greater degree of intellectual subtlty, would have recommended a modern adaptation of the gothic and and neo-gothic solution for the Cathedra and Altar in Armagh. Had I had the doing of it, then I think I should have been more inclined in this direction.
-
September 2, 2006 at 12:45 am #768450
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax,
You contend that it is current liturgical law that the altar in a cathedral should be raised on steps and should be higher than the cathedra which should also be raised on steps. This is not the case. It is not the case because that was a law contained in the previous version of the Ceremonial of Bishops. The current CB states in section 2 of the preface: ‘The present volume ………takes the place of the previous ceremonial, which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’. I take that to mean that if it is not found in the current CB then it is not liturgical law. (The CB I am quoting from is published by The Liturgical Press and dated 1989).
BQ
-
September 2, 2006 at 12:51 am #768451
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear Brian!
What edition of the Caeremoniale was the last before the one you quote and at what point does it refer to colour and steps?
I think you need to take a course in the Sacred Canons. I really cannot provide the same over the internet.
As a matter of interest, does the translation of the Caeremoniale you quote have a decree of approval?
-
September 2, 2006 at 1:22 am #768452
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
What edition of the Caeremoniale was the last before the one you quote and at what point does it refer to colour and steps?
hi Prax,
Regarding the steps (I want to post a comment regarding colour in a later post) see the attachment you posted in #1173 (page 91 from McConnell’s book). The exact reference is in a footnote. Presumably he refers to the Ceremonial current when McConnell’s book was published in 1955.
@Praxiteles wrote:
As a matter of interest, does the translation of the Caeremoniale you quote have a decree of approval?
Yes.
BQ
-
September 2, 2006 at 1:35 am #768453
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
Regarding the steps (I want to post a comment regarding colour in a later post) see the attachment you posted in #1173 (page 91 from McConnell’s book). The exact reference is in a footnote. Presumably he refers to the Ceremonial current when McConnell’s book was published in 1955.
Yes.
BQ
Brian!
The book we are talking about was published by J.B. O’Connell and not McConnell.
Yes, the reference is in a footnote and the reference is to two decisions given by the Congregation for Rites and published in the Collectanea S.C. Rituum. As I have not the book to hand at the moment I cannot supply the respective entry numbers – but I shall do so in the morning.
Secondly, you may also be interested to consult Pietro de Gasparri on the subject. the relevent locus is his De Eucharistia, vol I, p. 220, where he further cites another desicion of the S.C. Rituum and gives the reference -missed by O’COnnell: 2 Jun 1882 (n. 5874). Gasparri published this work when teaching in Paris in 1897 through Delhomme et Briguet.
-
September 2, 2006 at 1:59 am #768454
Luzarches
ParticipantHello Brian,
I’m interested in how much imput you yourself had in the design of the altar itself (It seems de riguer to farm out the most exciting part of the reordering to an artist.That was the plan for Cobh anyway…). How were the dimensions and shape determined? I’m sorry I haven’t yet caught up with you on my rather elliptical broadside against some, but not all, of the work on your website. I have to say that, in spite of primitive examples of square and even partially circular altar mensae I just cannot be doing with a square altar and especially in a Gothic church. In a large neo-Gothic church the altar should be a third of the total width of the main vessel, both for aesthetic reasons and so that the people, not all of them sitting in the extra special active participation zone near the sanctuary, can clearly see it. (IMHO)
Even if it is not intended, having four equal sides implies a fear of hierarchy and a dogmatic preference for equality over a nuanced expression of liturgical difference. Perhaps an equality of function between the ordained clergy and the laity? Even the primitive and Romanesque altars that were of this shape had one privileged side that was indicated perhaps with a higher level of richness or some other iconographical indicator.
The smallness of the altar, an alter Christus, becomes, I would imagine, even more noticable when a mass is being concelebrated. The altar, the objective ‘trunk’ is partially hidden in a thicket of branches of the vested clergy. Surely such a spectacle is more clericalist than of old. Then all approached the literally high altar with trepidation, a certain right-minded fear of the Lord?
-
September 2, 2006 at 9:52 am #768455
Praxiteles
ParticipantHear we are Brian, bright and early and ready for another day!
Concerning posting 1173:
I attached a scan of O’Connell’s book which contains the two references to the Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. For convenience I will give them again: SCR 2049 (25) and 2231 (7). This was in the context of indicating that a throne was not to placed on a plane higher than a main Altar.
However, our good friend O’COnnell also has a chapter in his book entitled: The Altar Steps. Here he makes it quite specific that an altar had to be raised on at leastthree steps to comply with the rubris of the Mass – especially when celebrated in solemn form with the assistance of a Deacon and Subdeacon. He points out that the number has varied over time; three is common; and five not unusually found in Cathedrals so as to ensure that the Altar is higher than the Cathedra.He gives a furtehr reference: the Collectanea of the Sacred Congregation of Rites 1265 (4) which seems to discourage anything more than five steps – though in Hungry the practice of having an extremely hight elevation for the Altar was characteristic feature of the country.
Concerning the rubric of the Mass, Praxiteles would point out that the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum maintains the usage of “ascending” to the Altar (cf. n. 178) thereby presuppoing that steps do in fact exist tobe ascended.
-
September 2, 2006 at 11:09 am #768456
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
You contend that it is current liturgical law that the altar in a cathedral should be raised on steps and should be higher than the cathedra which should also be raised on steps. This is not the case. It is not the case because that was a law contained in the previous version of the Ceremonial of Bishops. The current CB states in section 2 of the preface: ‘The present volume ………takes the place of the previous ceremonial, which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’. I take that to mean that if it is not found in the current CB then it is not liturgical law. (The CB I am quoting from is published by The Liturgical Press and dated 1989).
BQ
1. Praxiteles contends nothing. Praxiteles merely states.
2. Praxiteles has consulted the major authority on the Caeremoinale Episcoporum the good Braziliam Ioachim Nabuco and his authoritative work Ius Pontificalium: Introductio in Caeremoniale Episcoporum. I am using the edition published by Desclé]the previous version[/I] of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. This is problematic because there were more than one version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The follwoing is the main line of versions and does not include local parallel lines:
The Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by decree of Pope Clement VIII on 14 July 1600.
A revised version was published by Pope Innocent X by decree of 30 July 1650.
A further revision was made by Pope Benedict XIII by decree of 17 July 1727.
Another revision was by Benedict XIV and published by decree of 25 March 1752.
A revised typical edition was published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and published by Marietti of Turin.4. Praxiteles has taken wise counsel from an acknowledged expert in this field and is advised that “because a new edition do not repeat all of the rubrics of a previous edition it cannot be automatically presumed that the contrary is the case”. That is substantially what has been argued up to now.
5. Nabuco, following the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ennuntiates that the throne is made of wood or sometimes of marble or another material. The principle to be followed for its adornment is: “color vestium throni sequitur colorem festivi vel temporis” (the colours of the adornments of the throne follow those of the [liturgical] feast or that of [ordinary] time) when used in a liturgical context.
That means, that when a bishop presides at the throne, the colours of the throne will be: green in ordinary time, white on Solemnities, red on the feasts of martyrs, purple for Lent etc.
When a Cardinal presides at the throne during a liturgical ceremony, the throne will be vested in his prelatial colours.
WIth the exception of Cardinal, basically the colours of the throne follow those of the Altar as a general rule.
Outside of the liturgical celebrations, the throne of a bishop or archbishop is to be covered in green – which is what I have adverted to about Armagh in its resent state (afterall, nobody has seen the present Archbishop going around in scarlet).
6. Again, the problem with the quotation above derives from an inadequate understanding of canonical jurisprudence and an application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity when one of continuity should have been applied.
-
September 2, 2006 at 12:25 pm #768457
Praxiteles
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
Hello Brian,
I’m interested in how much imput you yourself had in the design of the altar itself (It seems de riguer to farm out the most exciting part of the reordering to an artist.That was the plan for Cobh anyway…). How were the dimensions and shape determined? I’m sorry I haven’t yet caught up with you on my rather elliptical broadside against some, but not all, of the work on your website. I have to say that, in spite of primitive examples of square and even partially circular altar mensae I just cannot be doing with a square altar and especially in a Gothic church. In a large neo-Gothic church the altar should be a third of the total width of the main vessel, both for aesthetic reasons and so that the people, not all of them sitting in the extra special active participation zone near the sanctuary, can clearly see it. (IMHO)
Even if it is not intended, having four equal sides implies a fear of hierarchy and a dogmatic preference for equality over a nuanced expression of liturgical difference. Perhaps an equality of function between the ordained clergy and the laity? Even the primitive and Romanesque altars that were of this shape had one privileged side that was indicated perhaps with a higher level of richness or some other iconographical indicator.
The smallness of the altar, an alter Christus, becomes, I would imagine, even more noticable when a mass is being concelebrated. The altar, the objective ‘trunk’ is partially hidden in a thicket of branches of the vested clergy. Surely such a spectacle is more clericalist than of old. Then all approached the literally high altar with trepidation, a certain right-minded fear of the Lord?
I think Luzarches has raised several interesting points in this posting.
-
September 2, 2006 at 12:31 pm #768458
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax, On this specific point your beloved Canon law is not germain. This is a liturgical law item – see Can#2
BQ
This statement is problematic. If liturgical law is not part of Canon Law, what is it? Surely you are not contending that it is civil law or that it has its source of authority is other than an ecclesiastical one?
Indeed, Canon Law should be beloved. It is all that stands between us and ecclesial chaos and liturgical Wildwuchs. As in civil society, a Rechtsgesellschaft is all that separates us from the jungle.
-
September 2, 2006 at 2:47 pm #768459
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
1. Praxiteles contends nothing. Praxiteles merely states.
2. Praxiteles has consulted the major authority on the Caeremoinale Episcoporum the good Braziliam Ioachim Nabuco and his authoritative work Ius Pontificalium: Introductio in Caeremoniale Episcoporum. I am using the edition published by Desclée in 1956.
3. Your mention the previous version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. This is problematic because there were more than one version of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The follwoing is the main line of versions and does not include local parallel lines:
The Caeremoniale Episcoporum was published by decree of Pope Clement VIII on 14 July 1600.
A revised version was published by Pope Innocent X by decree of 30 July 1650.
A further revision was made by Pope Benedict XIII by decree of 17 July 1727.
Another revision was by Benedict XIV and published by decree of 25 March 1752.
A revised typical edition was published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and published by Marietti of Turin.4. Praxiteles has taken wise counsel from an acknowledged expert in this field and is advised that “because a new edition do not repeat all of the rubrics of a previous edition it cannot be automatically presumed that the contrary is the case”. That is substantially what has been argued up to now.
5. Nabuco, following the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ennuntiates that the throne is made of wood or sometimes of marble or another material. The principle to be followed for its adornment is: “color vestium throni sequitur colorem festivi vel temporis” (the colours of the adornments of the throne follow those of the [liturgical] feast or that of [ordinary] time) when used in a liturgical context.
That means, that when a bishop presides at the throne, the colours of the throne will be: green in ordinary time, white on Solemnities, red on the feasts of martyrs, purple for Lent etc.
When a Cardinal presides at the throne during a liturgical ceremony, the throne will be vested in his prelatial colours.
WIth the exception of Cardinal, basically the colours of the throne follow those of the Altar as a general rule.
Outside of the liturgical celebrations, the throne of a bishop or archbishop is to be covered in green – which is what I have adverted to about Armagh in its resent state (afterall, nobody has seen the present Archbishop going around in scarlet).
6. Again, the problem with the quotation above derives from an inadequate understanding of canonical jurisprudence and an application of the hermeneutic of discontinuity when one of continuity should have been applied.
hi Prax,
you can wriggle and you can squirm. You can quote all of the supereceded law you like but you’re just going to have to take it on the chin. Which bit of ‘The present volume …… takes the place of the previous ceremonial which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’ do you not get?
BQ
-
September 2, 2006 at 3:03 pm #768460
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Concerning the rubric of the Mass, Praxiteles would point out that the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum maintains the usage of “ascending” to the Altar (cf. n. 178) thereby presuppoing that steps do in fact exist tobe ascended.
Hi Prax,
that is indeed a valid interpretation – though it would be pushing it to make the leap to saying that it is liturgical law that the altar must be ascended to – which I think you are inferring? liturgical law clearly permits other solutions (though I make use of the option of elevating the altar in most of my designs).
BQ
-
September 2, 2006 at 3:18 pm #768461
brianq
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?
Hi Prax, no.
BQ
-
September 2, 2006 at 3:24 pm #768462
brianq
ParticipantHi all
back to ‘the Place of Worship’. It has been stated previously in this forum that Fr Paddy Jones is its author. This is not the case. Fr Jones was not the author. It was drafted by an advisory committee of which Fr Jones was not a member.
BQ
ps Gian, I have read your last post and agree with Prax it raises good points for discussion which I’ll certainly do when I get time.
-
September 2, 2006 at 5:00 pm #768463
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
you can wriggle and you can squirm. You can quote all of the supereceded law you like but you’re just going to have to take it on the chin. Which bit of ‘The present volume …… takes the place of the previous ceremonial which is henceforth to be considered entirely abrogated’ do you not get?
BQ
Sorry Brian!
But, you will just have to do a course in the Sacred Canons and learn how they work.
-
September 2, 2006 at 5:05 pm #768464
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
that is indeed a valid interpretation – though it would be pushing it to make the leap to saying that it is liturgical law that the altar must be ascended to – which I think you are inferring? liturgical law clearly permits other solutions (though I make use of the option of elevating the altar in most of my designs).
BQ
Brian!
Praxiteles is not interpreting anything. Praxiteles is quoting article 178 of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum which says that he “ascends” to the Altar. Clearly, the text is explicit and that is law. The altar MUST be ascended to. How, might I ask, can that be done without steps?
If liturgical law permits other solutions, could you cite a few numbers of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum?
-
September 2, 2006 at 5:17 pm #768465
Praxiteles
ParticipantOriginally Posted by Praxiteles
But, may I ask is the Liturgical Institute of the Catholic Theological Union the same thing as the Liturgical Institute founded by Cardinal Francis George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, that is attached to the University of St. Mary at Mindelein?@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax, no.
BQ
Ah, yes. Now I understand.
It was the Catholic Theological Union LIturgy faculty that Cardinal George, the present Archbishop of Chicago, was not happy with and when it refused to reform itself and bring it self into the mainstrem (i.e. abandon the whachy), he set up his own Liturgy Faculty at the University of St. Mary in Mundelein in direct opposition to it. Nothing like determined action and it looks as though Francis George is about to put order on the house in Chicago. Sooner or later, the Catholic Theological Union liturgy faculty will come to heel
-
September 2, 2006 at 5:25 pm #768466
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi all
back to ‘the Place of Worship’. It has been stated previously in this forum that Fr Paddy Jones is its author. This is not the case. Fr Jones was not the author. It was drafted by an advisory committee of which Fr Jones was not a member.
BQ
ps Gian, I have read your last post and agree with Prax it raises good points for discussion which I’ll certainly do when I get time.
Brian!
I have the very document (third edition 1994) here to hand. The names of the Committee are to be found on page 4. Joe Duffy, the artistcally inclined bishop of Clogher is forst on the list. Number 5 on the list is: Revd Patrick Jones (and no academic qualification is indicated). There can be little doubt that is our one and only LYTUPGOS, Paddy Jones. Just in case you do not believe me I will scan the page and post it.
Just done it. Here is the evidence:
-
September 2, 2006 at 11:48 pm #768467
Praxiteles
ParticipantBack to the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis !
If we accept that the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis is the source for normative presecription on the subject of arranging liturgical space, as they call it, and specifically for the disposition of the sacntuary, then how do we explain this?:
-
September 3, 2006 at 1:51 am #768468
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterIs that the waiting room for the main church?
-
September 3, 2006 at 3:02 am #768469
Luzarches
ParticipantWhich is the most important element within the space? If one knew little about Catholicism would one necessarily infer from this space that the altar is pre-eminent? They would more likely infer that the font, ambo, altar and tabernacle were absolutely equal in importance, with no differentiation. I think that this space would suit someone between Lutheranism and Calvinism.
-
September 3, 2006 at 11:32 am #768470
Praxiteles
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Is that the waiting room for the main church?
I do not think so. There are not any coat hangers to be seen. But, perhaps Brian will talk us through this little one!!
To my mind, Luzarches has hit the nail on the head (cf. Eamonn Duffy’s book The Stripping of the Altars and the Edwardine Ordinals of November 1547).
-
September 3, 2006 at 1:04 pm #768471
Sirius
ParticipantLet 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.’
-
September 3, 2006 at 2:02 pm #768472
Fearg
ParticipantCan someone help me understand how we are any closer to God by changing:
http://www.saintsavioursdublin.ie/churchpictures_large/Old%20Dominic%20Altar.jpg
TO
http://www.saintsavioursdublin.ie/churchpictures/New%20Saint%20Dominic%20Altar.jpg
Just an example of how silly some of these interpretations of liturgical requirements can be.. I’m just amazed that poor St Dominic has not been adorned on either side with some nice bits of carpet!
Thanks,
Fearg. -
September 3, 2006 at 3:36 pm #768473
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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.’
Sirius, as ever comes on to insult.
I am very glad that he is so cognisant of what God is thinking and what is in the hearts of the ‘Elders of FOSCC’.
It must be pointed out that his argument could equally be applied to the Trustees of St. Colman’s and their friends, but then I have no idea what is in the Mind of God and as for what is in the hearts of FOSCC – well “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. -
September 3, 2006 at 4:41 pm #768474
Luzarches
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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.’
Sounds like the sort of scriptural gobbet that Martin Luther or John Calvin would have directed at the Roman Church ‘in Babylonish captivity’.
Presumably the church was born in 1965? I remember now. We’d lost the true spirit of worship, the old mass, the nursery of saints, was an organized hypocricy, sterile, rubrical and dead. We know we must now be worshiping in a spirit of truth because the numbers so doing have declined. Real Christians must have, after all, an authentic gnosis, a superior one to the infantile kneeling and mumbled rosaries that stunted the spiritual maturity of our grandparents and theirs’.
They were idoloters, too, these people: That’s why the stautues have to be removed, lest these simpletons get the wrong idea.
I would imagine that destruction and hurtful alterations to the products of a living faith, a faith that has not changed, equals a cleansing.
-
September 3, 2006 at 4:43 pm #768475
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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.’
And hear ye the comfortable words as written in the Gospel of St. Luke:
4 1 Jesus autem plenus Spiritu Sancto regressus est a Jordane : et agebatur a Spiritu in desertum 2 diebus quadraginta, et tentabatur a diabolo. Et nihil manducavit in diebus illis : et consummatis illis esuriit. 3 Dixit autem illi diabolus : Si Filius Dei es, dic lapidi huic ut panis fiat. 4 Et respondit ad illum Jesus : Scriptum est : Quia non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei. 5 Et duxit illum diabolus in montem excelsum, et ostendit illi omnia regna orbis terræ in momento temporis, 6 et ait illi : Tibi dabo potestatem hanc universam, et gloriam illorum : quia mihi tradita sunt, et cui volo do illa. 7 Tu ergo si adoraveris coram me, erunt tua omnia. 8 Et respondens Jesus, dixit illi : Scriptum est : Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. 9 Et duxit illum in Jerusalem, et statuit eum super pinnam templi, et dixit illi : Si Filius Dei es, mitte te hinc deorsum. 10 Scriptum est enim quod angelis suis mandavit de te, ut conservent te : 11 et quia in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem tuum. 12 Et respondens Jesus, ait illi : Dictum est : Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum. 13 Et consummata omni tentatione, diabolus recessit ab illo, usque ad tempus.
-
September 3, 2006 at 5:02 pm #768476
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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.’
I think Sirius taht you are labouring with a somewhat quirky English translation of the Church’s official text of the Bible – the Nova Vulgata. The following is the text in the official Latin
6 At ille respondens, dixit eis : Bene prophetavit Isaias de vobis hypocritis, sicut scriptum est :
Populus hic labiis me honorat,
cor autem eorum longe est a me :
7 in vanum autem me colunt,
docentes doctrinas, et præcepta hominum.
8 Relinquentes enim mandatum Dei, tenetis traditionem hominum,In asserting what he asserted, Sirius gives us a beautiful example of a Lutheran approach to the Sacred text. Reflecting on that, Praxiteles is remineded of St. Augustine’s famous line on a simimilar topic which we can paraphrase as ; “I could not care twopence about your interpreattions of the Bible, the only thing that interests me is what the Church says”.
-
September 3, 2006 at 7:54 pm #768477
descamps
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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.’
Let’s not tempt fate on the Bishop Adrian bit. Bishop John is just back from his holidays in America suffering from phlebitis and an osteo-arthritic knee.
-
September 3, 2006 at 8:28 pm #768478
Sirius
ParticipantPraxiteles resorts to Latin in the same way that a jet fighter spreads radar chaff to evade a SAM missile.
-
September 3, 2006 at 8:34 pm #768479
Praxiteles
ParticipantI 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.
-
September 3, 2006 at 9:01 pm #768480
Sirius
Participant@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!
-
September 3, 2006 at 9:09 pm #768481
Praxiteles
ParticipantSirius!
You sound like Judy back for more Punch!
-
September 3, 2006 at 9:15 pm #768482
Praxiteles
Participant@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.
Let me rephrase that…. “important that you hear the Gospel preached in the Catholic original rather than in a filtered version”. In normal circumstances it would not have been necessary to qualify.
-
September 3, 2006 at 9:23 pm #768483
Sirius
ParticipantWhat happens when you apply your Catholic filter to hypocrisy? Does it somehow become righteousness?
-
September 3, 2006 at 9:57 pm #768484
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
What happens when you apply your Catholic filter to hypocrisy? Does it somehow become righteousness?
You have got it mixed up again. Read carefully. The Nova Vulgata is the original text. When this is translated, into say English, it is the Nova Vulgata that gets filtered. Not the other way around.
P.S. I do hope you had an opportunity to meditate on the second part of this morning’s Gospel pericope in moment of self-examination!
P.P.S. I must say that all this talk of “righteousness” is not very characteristic of theSouth of Ireland hmmmmm
-
September 3, 2006 at 10:47 pm #768485
Sirius
ParticipantSurely 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?
-
September 3, 2006 at 11:06 pm #768486
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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?
Let us not get into the question of the accuracy or otherwise of English language translations of the Sacred Page.
Since the Council of Trent, Sirius, the Church has canonized the manuscript tradition of the Vulgate thereby making it authoritative. You would need to check that the English language text used in Cobh today was a text that followed the Vulgate rescension text and included its variants.
Any old fool knows that the Gospel text, as it come down to us, survives in its earliest rescensions in Greek – though it has not been ruled out that an Aramaic text might have pre-existed the Greek text. Be that as it may, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the canon was closed at Trent, the book determined and the Vulgate estalished as the source for the authoritative redation tradition.
-
September 4, 2006 at 12:22 am #768487
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax,
never too proud to admit when I’m mistaken – indeed Fr Jones was on the committee who prepared the draft text of POW for approval by the Irish Episcopal Commission for the Liturgy. (It was very late when I posted that).
So …… at best he was a co-author, one fourteenth to be exact! There is no way however that one can say that POW is his.
BQ
-
September 4, 2006 at 12:32 am #768488
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
never too proud to admit when I’m mistaken – indeed Fr Jones was on the committee who prepared the draft text of POW for approval by the Irish Episcopal Commission for the Liturgy. (It was very late when I posted that).
So …… at best he was a co-author, one fourteenth to be exact! There is no way however that one can say that POW is his.
BQ
WHile I do not think that I raised this issue I suppose there is no harm in saying that he is dreary even in small doses!
-
September 4, 2006 at 12:33 pm #768489
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 1254
Praxiteles was hoping that Brian Quinn might talk us though it a little,
-
September 4, 2006 at 12:34 pm #768490
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Back to the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis !
If we accept that the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis is the source for normative presecription on the subject of arranging liturgical space, as they call it, and specifically for the disposition of the sacntuary, then how do we explain this?:
For greater convenience it might be better to have the posting on a new page.
-
September 4, 2006 at 8:16 pm #768491
Fearg
ParticipantSome (not very good pictures) taken yesterday in Derry
[ATTACH]2860[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2861[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2862[/ATTACH]
-
September 5, 2006 at 10:42 am #768492
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe postings 1254 and 1277 we are still waiting!!
-
September 5, 2006 at 6:50 pm #768493
Praxiteles
ParticipantHello! Anyone out there?
-
September 5, 2006 at 10:28 pm #768494
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax,
I have more things to do you know than just trying to drag you back into the mainstream of the Catholic Church!
What do you want to know?BQ
-
September 5, 2006 at 10:36 pm #768495
brianq
Participant@MacLeinin wrote:
The first was by Ashlin c. 1904, second the infamous McCormack (dinosaur tooth) job and the third is yours, I believe.
mac,
Ashlin’s work was the conclusion of the original construction process. There have only been two reorderings.
BQ
-
September 5, 2006 at 10:42 pm #768496
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrain!
I do not want to take up too much of missionary time, but we might start with trying to distinguish the sanctuary from th nave of the church shown above. I was just looking at my old friend Pietro de Gasparri on the subject and the ultimate minumum to which he was able to reduce it to was: Duabus partibus ecclesia constat: sanctuario seu abside et navi: illud reservatur episcopis, presbyteris, diaconis, et comprehendet altare; haec reservabitur fidelibus et inferioribus clericis et in ea est ambo pro schola cantorum et lectoribus. Sanctuarium separabitur a navi per cancellos.. Roughtly, that would be: A church consists of two parts: the sanctuary and the nave. the former is reserved for bishops, priests and deacons,a nd contains the altar; the latter is reserved to the faithful and th lower clergy and contains the ambo for the schola cntorum and for the readers. The sanctuary is separated from the nave by a rail.
-
September 5, 2006 at 10:46 pm #768497
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
mac,
Ashlin’s work was the conclusion of the original construction process. There have only been two reorderings.
BQ
I am not sure that you can talk of an “original” construction process in Armagh when the style changed for the first time twleve feet up the walls!!
-
September 5, 2006 at 10:54 pm #768498
brianq
Participanthi Prax,
Pietro de Gasparri is so pre vatican 2.
BQ
-
September 5, 2006 at 11:06 pm #768499
brianq
ParticipantHi Prax,
What I meant was that Ashlin’s work was considered as the completion of the cathedral.
BQ
-
September 5, 2006 at 11:10 pm #768500
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
Pietro de Gasparri is so pre vatican 2.
BQ
Have you any idea of who he is? You will be surprised to find that quite a bit of his stuff went into the making of the present Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis. Speaking of which, can we get back to our home work for to-night !
-
September 5, 2006 at 11:13 pm #768501
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Hi Prax,
What I meant was that Ashlin’s work was considered as the completion of the cathedral.
BQ
And by whom is it so considered?
-
September 5, 2006 at 11:13 pm #768502
Fearg
ParticipantI think the original sanctuary in Armagh was located in the chancel. If you look very carefully at the central niche, you can still see where the tabernacle once was. The scale of the reredos also suggests that it was designed to dominate the cathedral, not just the 1904 lady chapel.
-
September 5, 2006 at 11:15 pm #768503
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
I think the original sanctuary in Armagh was located in the chancel. If you look very carefully at the central niche, you can still see where the tabernacle once was. The scale of the reredos also suggests that it was designed to dominate the cathedral, not just the 1904 lady chapel.
Good on you Fearg! There is an example of one who does NOT consider.
-
September 5, 2006 at 11:28 pm #768504
Fearg
Participant@brianq wrote:
hi Prax,
Pietro de Gasparri is so pre vatican 2.
BQ
Brian,
I’d be interested to know what was the thinking behind such a radical reorganisation in Drumaroad? (I’m assuming the altar was originally located at the gable end). For example, Steelstown church in Derry is very much post Vatican II, but still hints at the division into Nave and Sanctuary, respecting tradition in a modern context possibly..[ATTACH]2868[/ATTACH]
Thanks,
Fearg. -
September 6, 2006 at 12:38 am #768505
MacLeinin
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Brian,
I’d be interested to know what was the thinking behind such a radical reorganisation in Drumaroad? (I’m assuming the altar was originally located at the gable end). For example, Steelstown church in Derry is very much post Vatican II, but still hints at the division into Nave and Sanctuary, respecting tradition in a modern context possibly..[ATTACH]2868[/ATTACH]
Thanks,
Fearg.Did the architect forget to include walls?
-
September 6, 2006 at 1:10 am #768506
Fearg
ParticipantHe did indeed – the architect was none other than Liam McCormack
Ironically, the slate roof is now in need of replacement 😉
-
September 6, 2006 at 11:41 am #768507
Luzarches
ParticipantI think Brian needs to readjust to the new ‘mainstream’ in the church. Hasn’t he noticed who was raised to the papacy last year? I think that the post synodal exhortation will contain a few surprises for the Irish Church. Not to mention the progress possible now that Card Bertone is about to take the reins in the curia…
-
September 7, 2006 at 1:07 pm #768508
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Back to the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis !
If we accept that the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis is the source for normative presecription on the subject of arranging liturgical space, as they call it, and specifically for the disposition of the sacntuary, then how do we explain this?:
While we are waiting for our architect friend to gather his thoughts on Drumaroad, I am wondering how the fundamental (dogmatic) distinction between the sanctuary or presbyterium and the nave is made in the lay-out of this church?
-
September 7, 2006 at 5:59 pm #768509
MacLeinin
ParticipantOr these for that matter.
-
September 7, 2006 at 7:38 pm #768510
Fearg
ParticipantWhere is the first one?
-
September 7, 2006 at 8:00 pm #768511
Praxiteles
Participant -
September 7, 2006 at 11:33 pm #768512
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd do not forget Richard Hurley’s daft “untervention” in the Augustinian church in Galway!
This link will give an virtual tour of the horror that has been created.
http://www.augustinians.ie/galway/picture_gallery/newvirtual.htmThis is a virtual visit of the church before the Hurley wreckovation:
http://www.augustinians.ie/galway/picture_gallery/virtual.htmBelow will give you view of the church post 1924.
-
September 8, 2006 at 9:49 am #768513
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt is just as well that we record for posterity the names of those who carried out the saccage of the Augustinian Church in Galway:
ProjectArchitect: Richard Hurley & Associates.
Structural Engineer: P.J. Tobin & Co. Ltd.
Quantity Surveyors: Noel J. Farrell & Associates
Building Services Engineers: Heavey, Kenney Associates.
Project Manager: Integrated Project Management: Fin Garvey.
Contractor: J.J. Rhattigan & Co. Ltd News of Church Renovation ProjectArchitect: Richard Hurley & Associates.
Structural Engineer: P.J. Tobin & Co. Ltd.
Quantity Surveyors: Noel J. Farrell & Associates
Building Services Engineers: Heavey, Kenney Associates.
Project Manager: Integrated Project Management: Fin Garvey.
Contractor: J.J. Rhattigan & Co. Ltd.
See photos of the Walk-About Tour hereTHE COST:
only €3.7 million
THE PLOT
In 2003 the Augustinian Community applied to the Galway City Council for permission to install new seating, floors, doors, lighting, and sanctuary furnishings, as well as providing disabled access and removing the Marian Shrine from outside the church.
THE GUFF
St Augustine’s was originally built in 1855 and its foundation stone was laid by the Galway historian James Hardiman on August 28 of that year. Although its old interior was much loved it had the disadvantage of reflecting a 19th century vision of Catholicism: that of a sanctified priesthood and a passive people – a vision no longer useful to today’s laity or clergy.
THE WRECKER’S MANUAL
As a result, prior to any planning application being made, the priests and laity of St Augustine’s discussed the proposed changes. This became known as the Augustinian Project. The project looked, not only at changes to the churches interior, but at how to develop a better sense of spirituality and social interaction in Galway city; greater participation by the lay community, and the future of the church and its community.
THE BOGUS “ANTIPHONAL” SOLUTION
The church’s new ‘antiphonal design’ should have both a practical and symbolic effect creating a welcoming entrance sequence and presenting the conviction that the people too are sacred. It is also to be functional through the more effective use of space, be user-friendly by removing barriers, and to make available a venue for recitals and plays.
MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
The changes to the Priory are designed to assist in fostering Galway’s Christian community. These changes are designed to ensure safe practice in the workplace; facilitate lay leadership; offer a youth ministry; provide education services in theology, philosophy, and scripture; practice of the Children’s Liturgy; to assist outreach services; provide counselling; provide a library, conference centre/public meeting rooms; to provide for small music recitals, and host and facilitate various support groups.
-
September 8, 2006 at 12:06 pm #768514
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn a completely different subject; Bells
I do not know how evident the absence of bells is in Irish churches and the almost total absence of a bell ringing tradition. Where good quality bells were installed, these have frequently been ruined by the application of cheap automatic clappers rather than automated bell-swings. The link below will take you to one of the best bellfoundries in Germany: Perner of Passau
-
September 8, 2006 at 1:02 pm #768515
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following links will give you an idea of how bells should sound:
Erfurt (Germany):
http://www.erfurt-guide.de/erfurts_big_bell.htm
Cologne Cathedral (Germany)
http://www.koelner-dom.de/domglocken.html?&L=1
Freiburg Cathedral (Germany)
– scroll down to “Hoerbeispiel”:
http://dompfarrei-freiburg.de/process.php?nav=muenster&subnav=glocken
-
September 8, 2006 at 4:03 pm #768516
Luzarches
ParticipantRe: Post 1299 and the Augustinians in Galway.
At least the altar rails are still there. It is reversible… ultimately. What does the new table look like. You can’t see it in the virtual tour.
-
September 8, 2006 at 5:24 pm #768517
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am afraid Luzarches that they are lost and gone forever!
-
September 8, 2006 at 5:37 pm #768518
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore Bells:
(hit the bell-icon under the description to hear the peal in each case)
The 18 bell peal of the Cathedral of the Asumption of Our Lady into Heaven in Eichstaett made from the 14th. century to 1957:
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Eichstaett_Dom.htm
The peal in the South tower containing two bells cast in 1265 and in 1299
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Eichstaett_Dom.htm
The Cathedral in Regensburg
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Regensburg_Dom.htm
The Basilica of St. Ulrich and St Afra in Augsburg containing the Benedict bell cast in 1280:
-
September 8, 2006 at 5:58 pm #768519
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore Bells:
The Church of ST. Anthony in Regensburg:
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Regensburg_Anton.htm
St Michael’s am Keilberg in Regensburg
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Regensburg_Keilberg.htm
St. Paul’s am Konigswiesen in Regensburg
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Regensburg_Paul.htm
St. George’s Pruefining in Regensburg
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Regensburg_Georg.htm
St. Joesph’s Ziegersdorf in Regensburg
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Regensburg_Ziegetsdorf.htm
Holy Trinity Amberg
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Amberg_Dreifaltigkeit.htm
The WIlten Basilica in Innsbruck (Austria)
http://home.arcor.de/armrein/Innsbruck_Wilten.htmThe Abbey Church of Sts Theodore and Alexander at Ottobeuren
-
September 9, 2006 at 12:31 am #768520
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe following link contains a recording of the bells of the Archabbey of St. Ottilien, Augsburg. It is interesting for the peal is still rung according to the tradition of Cluny. Bells were rung not together, but after each other. This was the method of bell ringing in the great medieval churches. In St. Ottilien, this peal is rung only five times in the year (though perhaps six times this year): Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Penetcost, and the feast of the Sacred Heart. The full peal takes 22 minutes to complete.
(hit the red KLUNIAZENSERLAUTEN for the recording)
http://www.erzabtei.de/html/Jahrbuch/1999/Glocken/kluni.html
-
September 9, 2006 at 8:36 pm #768521
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore about the bell peal in St. Ottilien:
http://www.erzabtei.de/html/Jahrbuch/1999/Glocken/Glocken.html
Some pictures of the Abbey Church
http://www.erzabtei.de/html/Bilder/Serien/Kirche/kirche.html
Under “Aktuelles” is a link to the sung offices of monastery:
http://www.erzabtei.de/html/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ottilien_Archabbey
-
September 9, 2006 at 11:28 pm #768522
jmrowland
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
On a completely different subject]http://www.glocke.com/frameset.htm[/url]
Having spent nine years in Limerick City, I can say that both St Mary’s Cathedral and the Redemptorist church have fine sets of bells. Both churches share the same team of bell ringers. I do believe that the St Mary’s webpage features a page dedicated to the bell ringers, but I don’t think there is an audio link. You will have to google to find the exact page.
-
September 9, 2006 at 11:42 pm #768523
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Back to the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis !
If we accept that the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis is the source for normative presecription on the subject of arranging liturgical space, as they call it, and specifically for the disposition of the sacntuary, then how do we explain this?:
To begin with, the outlay is a disaster. No focal point. This is definitely not apt for Catholic worship of any kind. I cannot begin to count the number of contraventions of the IGMR (GIRM). The architect would do well to consult Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 2000), pp.62-91, which deals quite clearly with the disposition and rationale of the architecture of the Christian church.
Ratzinger enunciates the generally accepted principle that the Christian church combines the chief elements of synagogal worship, with its concentration on the divine Word exemplified by the Torah (cf the Christian ambo where the Gospel is proclaimed as the fulfilment and explanation of the Law and the Prophets), and the Temple cult with its focus on the altar (cf. the Christian altar of sacrifice) and the Ark of the Covenant (cf. the tabernacle).
The chapel under consideration offers a hodge-podge of ideological statements each screaming for attention and ultimately distracting and disorienting the worshipper. Too much visual noise and not enough harmonisation.
The architect and Brian Q would do well to consult the design of the papal chapel in Avignon and Rome (Sixtine) for the kind of harmonisation of features that enhances Christian worship.
Incidentally, the tawdry banners displayed grimly on the walls of the depicted chapel, are sorely lacking in taste and pleasing effect. Ornamentation ought to exemplify a certain quality of excellence and would do well to communicate something of the grandeur and majesty of the paschal mystery.
-
September 10, 2006 at 12:01 am #768524
Rhabanus
ParticipantThis kind of unremitting iconoclasm leads to liturgical vertigo.
Are there no competent Christian artists who could embellish this chapel with images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, St John the Baptist, and other saints? Where is the exuberance of the paschal mystery? Everything is flattened right down. No stairs for elevation of anything or anyone; no hierachisation or prioritisation of features; no sense of progression from Word to Sacrament; no verticality drawing the worshippers beyond themselves into the glory of divinisation.
If the earthly liturgy is to be a reflection of the cosmic liturgy in the new and eternal Jerusalem, then St John the Baptist in Drumaroad has a bit farther to go. Would the average visitor, for example, have the faintest notion that the chief act of worship offered within this space is the Sacrifice of the Mass?
Let the knowing reader consult U.M. Lang’s Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 2004) and Michael McGuckian’s The Holy Sacrifice of teh Mass: A Search for an Acceptable Notion of Sacrifice (Leominster UK: Gracewing and Chicago IL: HillenbrandBooks, 2005) in addition to Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy San Fancisco CA: Ignatius, 2000).
-
September 10, 2006 at 3:29 am #768525
MacLeinin
Participant“It looks like a cat walk” – a spontaneous reaction from someone who was looking over my shoulder at the interior of Drumaroad.
To all you architects out there, please explain how this can possibly be an improvement on what went before – given that this is a church. Does one have to be a theologian or modern liturgist to ‘read’ this conformation? Please explain.
Brianq – over to you. -
September 10, 2006 at 7:11 am #768526
corcaighboy
ParticipantGentlemen – I was sitting here at home this Sunday morning having a coffee and watching the BBC world TV channel (Asian feed, although programmming is similar in all territories). To my surprise, they had a news feature on St. Colman’s Cathedral and the ongoing controversy re the proposed changes to the altar. They included interviews with the local clergy, representatives of those against the move, and the Irish Times religous correspondent. Anyway, thought it might be of interest to you all.
-
September 10, 2006 at 11:11 am #768527
Praxiteles
ParticipantThere you are! It is like the inquisition the tenttacles just reach everywhere! Have got a link to it ?
-
September 10, 2006 at 3:14 pm #768528
Fearg
Participant -
September 10, 2006 at 3:50 pm #768529
Fearg
ParticipantArmagh Cathedral Prior to 1904: Strangely similar to what someone suggested could have been achieved in the most recent reordering!
http://www.geh.org/ar/strip62/m198715950018.jpg
http://www.geh.org/ar/strip60/m198705340472.jpgKillarney:
http://www.geh.org/ar/strip62/m198715950137.jpgKilkenny:
http://www.geh.org/ar/strip62/m198715950169.jpg
http://www.geh.org/ar/strip62/m198715950170.jpg -
September 10, 2006 at 4:39 pm #768530
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Fearg for that more than useful link to the BBC ptrogramme. It says it all that the bishop should decide to train the sights on his own flock – and on the best part of it.
-
September 10, 2006 at 6:28 pm #768531
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis photograph which Fearg has managed to unearth shows what the interior of Armagh Cathedral was like prior to 1904 and is truly most interesting.
Firstly, we have an Altar in the crossing, elevated on three steps, without reredos, and supplied with six very tall candlesticks and a seemingly small Crucifix and no tabernacle. I suspect that this arrangement is probably proportionate to the hight of the arches in the crossing. The present arrangement is not.
Secondly, the throne is on the right (gospel side) of the sanctuary, on steps, but lower than the altar. In front of the throne, and on the floor, a priedieu. The bogusness of the current claims for the so called “antiphonal” arrangement is clear from this photograph: you will notice that the seating in the transepts is arranged to face the sanctuary.
Behind the Altar is the retro choir which is railed off both in front and behind. Nothing survives of the choir stalls.
Behind the retor choir is another (Lady?) altar, with a tabernacle. Nothing survives of this but the reredos. The mensa has been gutted.
This arrangement, in all its major elements, is practically identical with the photographs that I have already posted of Bordeaux Cathedral.
Clearly, a wonderful opportunity was wasted with the last “reordering”. It is a terrible pity that those who were responsible for the lastest in Armagh did not do a bit more (if any) historical research.
-
September 10, 2006 at 6:54 pm #768532
Fearg
ParticipantThe second link looks to be even earlier, notice that the stained glass is not yet installed in the east window and the niches in the reredos are empty.
[ATTACH]2912[/ATTACH]
-
September 10, 2006 at 6:55 pm #768533
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Here is a link to the report:
I have just listened to this BBC link provided by Fearg. The diocesean spokesperson exudes a less than totally reassuring sense. I had to laugh at the mouthfoul of guff pourded aout by him: “The real problem is that we have a 19th. century sanctuary for 21 st. century worship”. ! There is one for – no doubt landed to him by Paddy Jones and repeated in the case of less than well educated Augustinian friars in Galway. Clearly, the Cloyne spokesman has not been keeping up to date with his clerical reading and does not appear to have heard anything of the hermeneutic of continuity.
-
September 10, 2006 at 6:58 pm #768534
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
The second link looks to be even earlier, notice that the stained glass is not yet installed in the east window and the niches in the reredos are empty.
[ATTACH]2912[/ATTACH]
Indeed, Fearg, you are perfectly correct. This photograph is focused on the Lady Chapel Altar and is taken over the altar in the crossing – you can just about see the top of it. Would this be c. 1880.
Did you notice the depiction of the Crucifixion over the Porta Coeli arch reproducing a medieval element found on rood-screens? I wonder is it still there?
-
September 10, 2006 at 7:09 pm #768535
Fearg
ParticipantSeems that it went in 1904, also, the mural/mosaic at the east end of the nave must also have been replaced at that time:
[ATTACH]2913[/ATTACH]
-
September 10, 2006 at 7:59 pm #768536
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Seems that it went in 1904, also, the mural/mosaic at the east end of the nave must also have been replaced at that time:
[ATTACH]2913[/ATTACH]
Oh! That is magnificent and perfectly appropriate above an Altar: the choirs of angels acarrying thuribles indicating divinity. Am I correct in thinking that there is a dove in the center cuspe?
-
September 10, 2006 at 11:28 pm #768537
Praxiteles
ParticipantWhile not quite ad rem, the following quotation which was sent me is not without some bearing on the FOSCC case and on some of the charges laid at the doorstep:
One thing I deduce from the whole proceedings: that Irish bishops do not like judicial processes; a fact of the gravest import for the Irish Church. It is because I lament this so greviously – believing as I do, that no crime which the subject can commit is nearly so injurious to the public weal as is refusal of justice on the part of those who rule – it is because I am deeply convinced of this, while I lament that in the Irish Church there is no liking for judicial forms, in which alone are the safeguards of justice for the subject – it is for this reason and this alone, please God, I have set forth the details of this case. The only way left us to prevent scandals of this kind is to expose them – some of the worst of them, at least.
Would anyone have any idea of who wrote this?
-
September 11, 2006 at 4:15 pm #768538
-
September 11, 2006 at 4:57 pm #768539
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Seems that it went in 1904, also, the mural/mosaic at the east end of the nave must also have been replaced at that time:
[ATTACH]2913[/ATTACH]
The stencilling in the arch crossing is absolutely splendid. Great colour reproduction, Fearg! I gather that the statues in the crossing are the four Evangelists – again highly appropriate. The key here is the Apocalypse where the four creatures (symbolising the Evangelists) surround the Throne of the Lamb. Christ, the Alpha and the Omega on the porta coeli is the focal point of the cosmic liturgy into which the worshipping faithful in the earthly liturgy are drawn. This is what Vatican II tells us ought to be happening. The earthly liturgy is to be a reflection of the heavenly liturgy being offered in the New Jerusalem:
In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God, Minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle. With all the warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; venerating the memory of the saints, we eagerly hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until he our life shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory.
The Holy Spirit hovering over the alter beneath the transversal represents the dual epicleses, first over the offerings (which will be changed into the Eucharistic Body of Christ) and the second over the congregants nourished by the Sacred Species (which incorporates them into the Mystical Body of Christ the Church).
The crucifixion depicted in the earlier design (1880?) does, as Praxiteles mentions, echo the Rood screen which adorned most medieval churches. In that arrangement, the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist is underscored by showing its identity with the sacrifice of Calvary. The figure of the Blessed Virgin represents the Church (Bride of Christ) sprung to life by the water (baptism) and blood (Eucharist), reflecting sacramental life. John the Beloved Disciple represents the individual disciple called to stand at the foot of the Cross in solidarity with the Church. We, each of us, stand in the place of that beloved disciple and we are to embrace the Church, as John embraced Mary, and to take her to our own.
All this profound theology is at work in the two artistic programmes of this glorious church. Brian Quinn would do well to take a leaf or two from this particularly rich and illuminating tome. None of the above is evident in the wreckage called St John the Baptist at Drumaroad. I shudder to think of the twankling guitars and the tambourines leading the jittering throng in a cacophonous din more akin to the ninth ring of the Inferno than to the cosmic liturgy of the new and glorious Jerusalem our Mother.
-
September 11, 2006 at 5:05 pm #768540
Rhabanus
ParticipantJust heard the BBC report from Cobh. Perhaps the local bishop might find the good grace to leave any “improvements” to his successor and drift purposefully into blessed retirement.
The clerical person interviewed gave a less than stellar performance with his feeble “This is a nineteenth century church inadequate for a twenty-first-century liturgy” or some such palaver. Liturgy is too important to be left to the likes of that nincompoopery. All these timeservers can do is spout the jargonese they picked up from some slickster who runs about giving “workshops” on liturgy and worship. Snake oil, anyone?
-
September 11, 2006 at 5:33 pm #768541
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrian!
Thanks for the other shots of Drumaroad. They will allow for a closer consideration of the church. But. could ever tell us:
-a. what is that just inside what looks like having been the old main door?
– b. what is the black looking object standing in front of what looks like a side door – in fron of the chair?
– c. what is the tree-trunk looking object at wall end of the church?
– d. what is the totem looking black item on the wall?
Can I presume that what looks vaguely like a first empire occasional table is the Altar?
-
September 11, 2006 at 6:00 pm #768542
Praxiteles
ParticipantHi Rhabanus!
Your advent to this discussion is truly a blessing and promises to be very postive. I liked your liturgical analysis of the ceiling in crossing at Armagh. Unfortunately, I very much doubt that much notice was taken of it. Certainly, I cannot recall mention of it in any of the broschure literature I saw before, during or after the arrival of BQ’s expeditionary force.
But to return to an earlier question of mine: I contended on this thread that BQ should have raised the Altar on a predella of at least one step and on possibly further steps bearing in mind the proportions of the crossing. BQ disputed that there was not any need to raise an Altar on a predella for, he claimed, the Institutio Generalis and the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, make no mention of this. He further calimed that the “praxis curiae” amassed by the Sacred Congregation for Rites had been abrogated by the publication of the 1984 Caeremoniale Episcoporum (for which I am not certain that an approved English translation exists); and the commentary of Pietro Gasparri de Sanctissima Eucharistia was dismissed as being simply “so pre-vatican II”.
I contended that at least one step is needed for any sacrificial altar to assure the prophetic, priestly and regal gesture of “ascending” to an Altar. BQ believes that he has an option not to use a predella when constructing an Altar and did not comment much on the point of ascending – although, I think that I did make reference to St. Augustine’s commentary on the Psalms of ascent and on his comments on the importance of this gesture both in cultic or liturgical activity (New and Old Testaments) and for the living of the Christinan life :laetatus sum in eo quod dixerunt mihi. in domum Domini ibimus. Stantes iam sunt pedes nostri in portis tuis Ierusalem!!. I think that I also referred to Augustine’s comments on the theological significance of “descent” and on their application to liturgical action (cf. Aurelii Augustini, Ennarationes in Psalmos 119-134 in J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Latina etc.). This line of discussion, however, seems to have dried up.
My problem about alllof this is to be seen in BQ’s arrangement of the sancturay of Armagh: a). an small ALtar of peculiar design sitting on the raised floor of the crossing; behind this is a higher plane (three steps higher, I think) containing b). a hemisphere of wooden chairs, covered in red, and built to resemble a faldisterium which seem to serve a dual purpose of “stalls” for the chapter and seats for concelebrants; and then, on a plane a further step higher, the Cathedra. As I pointed out, in this arrangement, we have the theologically peculiar sight of the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, having to DESCEND several steps to the Altar which is just sitting on the crossing floor.
I have already pointed out that in the classical Basilicas where the Cathedra or sedilia is situated in the apse, the celebrant leaves the sedilia or cathedra, descend the steps, corsses the floor of the sanctuary and then ASCENDS the predella of the Altar – as e.g. in the Lateran, and Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome.
I have also pointed out that the long tradition in other styles of churches has been to have the Cathedra on the Gospel side raised on three steps but never higher than the presella of the Altar. I posted a good example of this arrangement in Bordeaux Cathedral which, like Armagh, has a retro-choir. Indeed, since making those remarks the good Fearg unearthed a picture of the pre-1904 sanctuary in Armagh which reveals an arrangement very similar to Bordeaux – bearing out my point, I think.
As an impartial commentator and expert would you have any comments to make on the position I maintained in the face of BQ’s more social-democratic understanding of the theological concept of “Populus Dei” or People of God? Frankly, I do believe that BQ’s (faulty) understanding of this concept lies at the heart of all of our trouble!
-
September 12, 2006 at 12:15 am #768543
Rhabanus
ParticipantTu dixisti, Praxiteles! Any fool knows that one DESCENDS into the waters of baptism and one ASCENDS to the Altar of the Lord. Here again, those who reject the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (and their name I regret to say is Legion) will flatten down the Altar lest the image of Isaac ascending Mt Moriah or the words of the Psalmist “laetatus sum in eo quod dixerunt mihi: in domum Domini ibimus. Stantes iam sunt pedes nostri in portis tuis Ierusalem! find appropriate expression. Christ descended into the River Jordan but WENT UP to Jerusalem. This is a frequently mentioned reference to His Passion and Death where, according to the Fourth Gospel, the Hour was accomplished when the Son of Man was GLORIFIED, not hidden from the crowds.
The cathedral in Milwaukee was wreckovated by Rembert Weakland osb and the Altar, which is where the central act of Catholic worship and the very priestly office itself of Jesus Christ is exercised. There, too, the celebrant must descend to the level of the floor to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice. Abraham and Moses, no less than Our Lord, offered sacrifice on the heights, the summits, the peaks. The Shekinah YHWH – the Glory of the Lord – hovered over the mercy seat of the Ark atop Mt Zion.
In the Milwaukee cathedral the sanctuary of the Lord is filled not with His glory but with organ pipes (the graceful ciborium having been discarded as a mere “distraction”) and jutting out from a platform, like the prow of the Titanic, is a kind of ambo. So what greets the visitor upon entrance to that Abomination of Desolation is MUSIC and WORD: the work of the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century carried out four hundred years too late.
I’m sorry, Praxiteles, and all kind readers, but this reduction of the Altar to an ignominious, disproportionately truncated butcher’s block on the lowest point of the building screams out a rejection of the SACRIFICE of the MASS. The good folks in Cobh can tell when they are being bamboozled. Cliche after banal cliche is trotted out by every architectural hack keen to make a quick buck off the vanity of idle prelates and the caprice of cynical clerics keeping the Church going as long as She keeps them going. Time-servers and wastrels the lot of them! Let them turn their attention to something useful, like reevangelizing the Emerald Isle, feeding the poor, harbouring the homeless, and letting Catholic believers and thinkers get on with restoring the Worship of God in the House of God.
The glory of Ireland’s magnificent houses of worship is too precious a patrimony to be handed over to ill-educated clerics with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Before they are allowed to put one grubby, iconoclastic finger on any part of a church or chapel (let alone a cathedral!), they should be made to pass an examination in systematic theology, then another in liturgical and sacramental theology; then finally, another in Christian iconography.
There would be fewer tragedies like the wreck in Drumaroad if Ireland were to rediscover the rich tradition of her Catholic faith and recover the noble patrimony of classic Christian iconography. For Heaven’s sake, break down and buy a book like Zibawi, The Icon: Its Meaning and History, tr. Patrick Madigan (Collegeville MN: Order of St Benedict, 1993) or the classic work by Evdokimov, The Art of The Icon: A Theology of Beauty, tr. Stephen Bigham (Redondo Beach CA: Oakwood Pub, 1990 [original French, 1970]). Ratzinger, incidentally, uses the latter to great advantage. Oh yeah! He’s Pope now. I suppose that counts for something, even these days!
One excellent way to begin is to read (or reread) and circulate Jean Corbon’s The Wellspring of Worship. Corbon, an Easterner who brings to his subject some well-needed Lumen Orientale, He unpacks for even the most theologically and liturgically illiterate, the mystery (mysteries) of the Sacred Liturgy. He brings the reader from the fountain of life streaming from the Heart of the Father to the New Jerusalem where the River of Life culminates in the trees that bear fruit in due season (saints around the Throne of God and of the Lamb).
And if any of these books is beyond your limited income, either go to a public library or ask to use the library of any Catholic college or university.
And if you cannot read these works for lack of time or academic acumen, then just read an Easter homily by St Melito fo Sardis (available in The Liturgy of the Hours, Vol. 2: Holy Thursday Office of Readings): All the Old Testament types of Christ are mentioned there. This single homily alone could inspire a bright new interior of St John the Baptist in Drumaroad and help, rather than distract, the congregation to take their rightful place around the Altar of God as they celebrate the Victory (not the deflation) of The Lamb!
St Patrick preached the fundamental mystery of the Blessed Trinity with the simple shamrock. How is it that centuries of Catholic worshippers in Ireland recognised this treasure of inestimable worth and the wannabe-chic know-alls of the new liturgical destruction despise it?
The solipsistic designs on the oversized dishrags hanging from the walls of the drearily reordered St John the Baptist in Drumaroad sum up the whole pitiful tale: we repudiate excellence in design; we reject the vast heritage of Christian art; we defy any attempt either to raise the worshipper to the new Jerusalem or even to push aside for an instant the curtain of heaven. “Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return!” None too soon, either!
The real animus against the elevated Altar is a combined opposition to the Sacrifice of the Mass and the glory of the Catholic priesthood. It likewise is a rejection of Roman models of worship. After all, these ideologues are inveterate Gallicans, who long since have rejected Rome’s authority on all levels. O Ireland, Isle of Saints and Scholars! How didst thou press such snakes to thine unstained bosom?
-
September 12, 2006 at 12:37 am #768544
Fearg
ParticipantArmagh Ceiling:
Here is a close up – I think the repetitive patterns are stencil work – all executed in oils – but does anyone know if these were painted directly onto the plaster, or are they canvas?
[ATTACH]2916[/ATTACH]
-
September 12, 2006 at 4:43 pm #768545
Rhabanus
ParticipantThe fissure emanating from the rib down through the fabric to just above the head of the saintly bishop suggests to me that the stencilling and painting were done directly onto the plaster or stonework. Amazing!
Note the delicate coloration of the painting, the subdued hues, the elegance of design and mastery of execution. This is excellence indeed! Thanks for the splendid detail, Fearg.Do you have access to details of the actual iconographic programme of the triumphal arch? I would hazard a guess that there is a progression in unfolding mysteries as the pilgrim faithful move from the west door toward the east. Has a book recording these murals been published locally? Nationally? Do be sure to secure that patrimony for generations yet to come.
The decoration of these magnificent houses of worship reflects not only a profound understanding of liturgical theology, but also – and this is critical – clarity of ecclesiology. What makes Ratzinger such an insightful liturgist is his mastery of ecclesiology.
The iconographic programmes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries so far displayed on this thread, through the kindness and industry of Fearg, communicate as much ecclesiology as they do liturgical theology. Consider, for example, the cruciformity of the buildings themselves. They reflect the Pauline theology of the Church as the Body of Christ and likewise the theological understanding of Christ as High Priest and sole Mediator of the New Covenant as elaborated in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The faithful gather in the Church as Ark (Noah’s) and Barque of St Peter. They usually stand atop promontories – the site of the union between Heaven and earth, between God and man, effected by Christ’s once-for-all Sacrifice. Ratzinger reminds us that the Church in her earliest period used to be known as the corpus verum Christi – the real Body of Christ – nourished by the mystic Food of the Eucharist (corpus mysticum) but that these two terms, owing to the eucharistic controversies of the 9th and 11th centuries, came to be reversed in their application: the corpus verum referring now to the eucharistic Body of the Lord and the corpus mysticum to His ecclesial body.
The awesome examples of Armagh and Cobh resonate this theology of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ the High Priest, Minister of the Holies at the right hand of the Father.
What seems to be woefully lacking in recent “renovation” packages like the example furnished by St John the Baptist in Drumaroad is any appreciation of the mystery of the Ascension. Jean Corbon, author of The Wellspring of Worship (as well as the section on prayer in The Cathechism of the Catholic Church) bemoans this unhappy lacuna in the mindset of many:
“It is highly regrettable that the majority of the faithful pay so little heed to the ascension of the Lord. Their lack of appreciation of it is closely connected with their lack of appreciation of the mystery of the liturgy. A superficial reading of the end of the Synoptic Gospels and the first chapter of Acts can give the impression that Christ simply departed. In the minds of readers not submissive to the Spirit a page has been turned; they need now to think of Jesus as in the past and to speak of what “he said” and what “he did.” They have carefully sealed up the tomb again and filled up the fountain with sand some churches in North America suffer from this problem literally when the local liturgical ideologue visits in Lent, dumps out the holy water from the stoops and fills them with sand!— my aside (Rhabanus); they continue to “look among the dead for someone who is alive” and they return to their narrow lives in which some things have to do with morality and others with cult, as in the case of the upright men and women of the old covenant. But in fact the ascension is a decisive turning point. It does indeed mark the end of something that is not simply to be cast aside: the end of a relationship to Jesus that is still wholly external. Above all, however, it marks the beginning of an entirely new relationship of faith and of a new time: the liturgy of the last times.” The Wellspring of Worship, tr. Matthew J. O’Connell (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press and Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), p. 36.
Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy) reminds readers that the Pantocrator which dominated the apse of Byzantine and Romanesque churches represented the ascended Lord who would return from Heaven in His glory to judge the quick and the dead. Corbon points out that the eastern churches would adorn the interior of their domes with the image of the ascended Lord who will return in glory – the rising Sun of justice.
This liturgy of the last times is something intuited if not explicitly stated by the artists and patrons of the majestic cathedrals and noble churches of Ireland. Examine the marble used in Armagh and Cobh – where did that marble come from? So pure and so clean! Note the excellence of both material and design.
Consider, too, the presence of so many saints around the altar – that great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews and to which the liturgy in the Apocalypse frequently alludes. These are the great witnesses who washed their robes clean in the Blood of the Lamb. Their statues are rightly carved with exquisite craftsmanship out of carefully selected stone or wood. Their attributes, clearly distinguishable to convey meaning, remind us of their martyrdom or, in the case of confessors, doctors, pastors, and virgins, various other contributions to the life of the Church by their life and by their holy death. They remind us likewise of their continued intercession for us. They, the Church Triumphant, call us, the Church Militant (coheris with them of Heaven), to joing the cosmic liturgy and to pray for the Church Suffering that we might all meet happily in Heaven – before the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Does one have to be a nineteenth-centruy Catholic to understand this perennial truth? Those who erected the monuments of faith that are the glory of the Church in Ireland had no doubt in their minds about the reality of the Communion of Saints. Vatican II underscored the importance of KOINONIA not only within the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but within the whole Church – in Heaven, on earth, and in Purgatory. How is any of this reflected in St John the Baptist in Drumaroad or its other contemporary packages?
Like Praxiteles, I would be interested to discover the meaning of the dark figures directly across from the chair (in front of the [side] door), and on what was likely the eastern wall at Drumaroad. What are they? Have they a purpose? A meaning? Were they covered up for Lent? What gives?
My point is that liturgical design reflects ecclesiology as much as it reflects an understanding of the liturgy itself. Between the models of nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century cathedrals/churches like Armagh and Cobh, and the latest wreckovations foisted upon congregations in the twenty-first century, as at Drumaroad and proposals elsewhere, a movement is clearly traceable from a Church confident in its identity as the Mystical Body of Christ arrayed hierarchically in mirror-image of the hierarchically-arrayed Church at liturgical prayer in the New Jerusalem (Heaven) to a group arranged only randomly, without regard to hierarchy (whether earthly or heavenly) and without much perceptible purpose or direction. Look carefully at the model of St J-B, Drumaroad. Defeatism, confusion and dysfunction, hollowness, sterility are all perceptible in the scattered lawn ornaments utterly out of proportion (and sync) with the vestigial architecture of the building’s outer shell.
In The Spirit of the Liturgy and elsewhere, Ratzinger cautions against the solipsism that is the fruit of the congregation turning inwards upon itself rather than oriented towards Christ. This, he insists, is essential to any worshipping community. The object of worship is unmistakable in the design and iconographic programmes of Armagh and Cobh. I fear that it is evident, too, in the postmodern example afforded above.
Any more details from Armagh, Fearg?
-
September 12, 2006 at 6:34 pm #768546
Praxiteles
ParticipantBene hibernicis de omnibus Rhabane dixisti!!
Some one from the outside is always best placed to put his finger on a problem and diagnose the malady. It is most interesting what you say about the Irish Church’s decline in self understanding: how can we explain the slump from the self confidence that raised Cobh Cathedral (touched on by Anne WIlson and Jesse Castel Mitliski in their studies of St. Colman’s) to the kind of self (and everything else) effacing pathos (bathos?) of the likes of Drumaroad?
It is perhaps not unconnected with a very interesting historical detail concerning the period between the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) and the Second Vatican Council (1963-1965): in its principal (though not sole) representative at the First Vatican Council, Paul Cardinal Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin, the Irish Church played a pivotal role in the proceedings of that Council and thereby exercised considerable influence on the whole Catholic world . Indeed Paul Cullen produced the definition of papal infallibility that was eventually accepted by the Council; whereas 90 years later, the entire Irish hierarchy (with one or two exceptions) had nothing to say at the Second Vatican Council and were largely regarded by their more plugged in continental counterparts as totally detached not only from the kind of philosophical influences unleashed by the likes of Nitzsche and his ilk in the formation of the so called “modern world”, but more seriously, from every major theological development that had taken place within the previous fifty years. It was no surprise that the hierarchy were very quickly sidelined at the Council by the heavy guns who regarded what they had to say as about as relevant as though someone from Mongolia had said it. If you do not believe what I have to say, just read the submissions made tot the Ante-Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council. All documents submitted to the commission havel been published in the Acta Sacrosancti Oecuminici Concilii Vaticani Secundi .
Is it any wonder that all we can do is laugh at the mouthful of guff that crossed the globe from Hong Kong to San Francisco on last Sunday’s BBC World Service: “The main problem we have is a 19th century sanctuary for a 21 st century liturgy”.
-
September 12, 2006 at 10:50 pm #768547
MacLeinin
ParticipantThe problem, of course, is not the liturgy, but those who are presiding at the liturgy. If Cobh is anything to go by they haven’t a clue. The level of disobedience to the Magisterium is growing weekly. Maybe they think that no one will notice is they can move the ‘furniture’ about.
-
September 12, 2006 at 11:40 pm #768548
Chuck E R Law
ParticipantA most impressive debut by Rhuburanus, with him iconography becomes pornography.
-
September 12, 2006 at 11:59 pm #768549
Praxiteles
ParticipantHello Brian!! are you out there somewhere? Hello…..is anyone out there? Perhaps you might like to joint the discussion?
-
September 13, 2006 at 12:00 am #768550
Fearg
ParticipantAhem, here is some more photography, some of it not the best, but a few images not seen on the net before..
[ATTACH]2919[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2920[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2921[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2922[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2923[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2924[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2925[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]2926[/ATTACH]
-
September 13, 2006 at 12:16 am #768551
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, at least this much has survived.
The inscription on the right hand side of the ceiling is indeed from paslm 83 ( Quam delicta tabernacula tua Domine virtutum ..how beautiful art thy dwellings Lord God of hosts..) and the angels do carry the instruments of the passion.
The prototype for the Baptism of Our in the Jordan is Juan Fernandez de Navarrete, “El Mudo”‘s picture of 1565 in the Prado.
Are the panels in the spandrels depictions from the life of St. Patrick, possibly taken from the Confessions of St. Patrick (the dream, the consecration by St. Germain l’Auxerrois, the mission from Pope Celestine)?
There seems to be some water ingress.
Surprising that the inscriptions under St. Luke’s account of the dream of St. Joseph and the flight into Egypt should be in English!
Thanks Fearg for the splendid pictures.
-
September 13, 2006 at 12:31 am #768552
Fearg
ParticipantDETAILS OF THE CEILINGS
Moving from the sanctuary towards the organ gallery on the South side:
1 The apparition of the Angel to St Patrick.
2 St Martin of Tours gives St Patrick the religious habit.
3 St Patrick receives the mission from Pope Celestine.
4 His dispute with the Druids.
5 The vocation of St Benignus.
6 St Benignus recalling to life the daughter of King Daire.
7 St Brigid blessing her monastery at Kildare.
8 St Brigid giving sight to sister Dara.
9 St Columcille receiving the cranes from Ireland.
10 Prophecy of St Columcille to Eman.
11 St Columbanus founding his monastery at Bobbio.
12 St Ita and her companions guided by an angel.On the North side, beginning at the organ gallery:
1 Death of St Dympna.
2 St Brendan sails on his voyage
3 St Aidan blessing the hands of Gobban.
4 St Colman teaching at Lismore.
5 St Adamnan writing the life of St Columcille.
6 The Pope blessing St Alban and his brothers.
7 St Virgil founding the cathedral at Salzburg.
8 St Celsus dying, sends his crozier to St ~Malachy.
9 St Malachy chosen as Primate of Armagh.
10 St Malachy helping the plague victims at Armagh.
11 Gelasius consecrates St Laurence O’Toole.
12 St Laurence O’Toole before Henry II of England. -
September 13, 2006 at 12:36 am #768553
Fearg
ParticipantAnd here is a (poor) shot of the magnificent organ – which was being played when the photo was taken (don’t worry, the protrusion from the gallery was temporary and has since been removed)
[ATTACH]2927[/ATTACH]
-
September 13, 2006 at 12:48 am #768554
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe more I look at this, the more I am convinced that the last effort at “restoring” Armagh was a lost opportunity. Something much more in keeping with the pre-1904 arrangements could quite easily have been installed and would have been both esthetically and financially more satisfactory than it is now.
I expect that the next historic opportunity will arise with dim Duffy’s departure from Monaghan and the centainty that the horrors with which he burdened the interior will follow him shortly after. I think we should begin to prepare for that eventuality sooner rather than later and ensure that all of the necessary historical groundwork has been done so as to avoid the Armagh solution.
-
September 13, 2006 at 12:54 am #768555
Fearg
ParticipantOn the subject of Monaghan, has anyone been able to dig out images of the interior prior to the current arrangements? Thanks!
-
September 13, 2006 at 1:27 am #768556
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs a comparison with the Armagh ceiling, I am attaching some pictures of the ceiling in the College Chapel (JJ. McCarthy) in Maynooth. The Chapel is internally 188 feet long, 40 feet wide and 70 feet high. The ceilig and internal furnishings of the chapel were installed by Robert Browne who subsequently became Bishop of Cloyne and completed the building of St. Colman’s Cathedral. The contract went to JJ. McCarthy’s successor, WIlliam Hague. The artist was N. H. C. Westlake and the execution was left to Robert Mannix of Dublin. The ceiling panels are painted on canvas and affixed to the wooden ceiling. The wok was carried out between March and December 1888:
-
September 13, 2006 at 5:38 am #768557
corcaighboy
ParticipantApologies in advance for this photo as it is more concerned with the exterior than the interior of St. Colmans. I took this in August and thought readers of this thread might find them interesting. The imposing sight of St. Colman’s is something that has to be seen to be believed. (Will add more shots later)
-
September 13, 2006 at 2:23 pm #768558
Praxiteles
ParticipantNice picture!!
-
September 13, 2006 at 9:49 pm #768559
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo return to the question of the present floor in the crossing in Armagh, and on the use of tiles, and of kinds of tines that might be used in these circumstances, I am posting the ling to the article Dallage from E. Viollet-le-Duc’s Dictionnaire Raisonné:
If tiles have to be used rather than mosaic, then A.W.N. Pugin’s superb masterpuiece, St. Giles at Cheadle, illustrates what we should expect to see in a neo-gothic church:
Note the inscriptions on the steps. These are psalm versicles taken from Psalm 42 used at the beginning of Mass before the priest ascended to the Altar: Introibo ad Altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat iuventutem meam. Judica me Deus et discerne causam meam. E gente non sancta; ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Quia tu es Deus fortitudo mea; quare me repulisti etc.. Clearly, this is no place for frivolity and there are no acres squiggles all over the place.
[for more information on St Giles see here:http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tilesoc.org.uk/images/wpe11650.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tilesoc.org.uk/dpagecheadle.htm&h=426&w=276&sz=108&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=DmLNBAV7KrPvrM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dst%2Bgiles%2Bcheadle%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN ]
-
September 13, 2006 at 10:50 pm #768560
MacLeinin
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
A most impressive debut by Rhuburanus, with him iconography becomes pornography.
Constructive and gentlemanly as ever Chuck !!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
September 14, 2006 at 2:32 pm #768561
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn the light of the conversation that we have been having on the present liturgical arrangement of Armagh Cathedral, I was wondering if perhaps Brian Quinn had anything to say on the subject.
-
September 14, 2006 at 11:15 pm #768562
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
DETAILS OF THE CEILINGS
Moving from the sanctuary towards the organ gallery on the South side:
1 The apparition of the Angel to St Patrick.
2 St Martin of Tours gives St Patrick the religious habit.
3 St Patrick receives the mission from Pope Celestine.
4 His dispute with the Druids.
5 The vocation of St Benignus.
6 St Benignus recalling to life the daughter of King Daire.
7 St Brigid blessing her monastery at Kildare.
8 St Brigid giving sight to sister Dara.
9 St Columcille receiving the cranes from Ireland.
10 Prophecy of St Columcille to Eman.
11 St Columbanus founding his monastery at Bobbio.
12 St Ita and her companions guided by an angel.On the North side, beginning at the organ gallery:
1 Death of St Dympna.
2 St Brendan sails on his voyage
3 St Aidan blessing the hands of Gobban.
4 St Colman teaching at Lismore.
5 St Adamnan writing the life of St Columcille.
6 The Pope blessing St Alban and his brothers.
7 St Virgil founding the cathedral at Salzburg.
8 St Celsus dying, sends his crozier to St ~Malachy.
9 St Malachy chosen as Primate of Armagh.
10 St Malachy helping the plague victims at Armagh.
11 Gelasius consecrates St Laurence O’Toole.
12 St Laurence O’Toole before Henry II of England.Ferg very kindly posted this list of the scenes depicting the history of the Irish Church in Armagh Cathedral. Cobh Cathedral has no major painted works in its internal conception and organisation. It does have a similar variant history which is depicted on carved panels placed in the spandrels of the nave. The history starts at the east end of the nave and runs as follows:
1. St Patrick captured by Niall
2. St. Patrick instructed by St Germain
3. St. P. calls the synod of Cruchan
4. St Fiachs school at Sletty
5. St Brigid founds Kildare
6. St. Columchille preaches to the Picts
7. Synod of Dromceat
8. Sts. Brendan and Ita meet
9- Saran persents a church to Finbarr
10. Comgall founds Bangor
11. St Cumian
12. St. Dympna
13. St Fergal (Virgilius) of Salzburg
14. Synod of KellsSouth side beginning at the west end
1. Rory O’Connor, last High King dies at Cong
2. The founding of Youghal Abbey (by Maurice Fitzgerald for the Franciscans in 1220)
3. Unification of Cloyne and Cork under Bishop Jordan Purcell
4. The trial of Archbishop Hedian of Cashel
5. The Martyrdom of Archbishop Hurley of Cashel
6. Bishop Creagh of Cloyne (and subsequently of Dublin) dies in the tower of London
7. The martyrdom of Br. Dominic Collins S.J. at Youghal
8. The martyrdom of Bishop terence Albert O’Brien of Emly
9. Bishop heber McMahon
10. The nartrrdom of Bishop Boethius McEgan at Clondrohid bridge
11.Rined churchyard
12. Mass in penal times
13. Bishop de Burgo with his book Hibernia Dominicana; Bishop Coppinger flees Youghal
14. Daniel O’Connell wins Catholic Emancipation
15. Bishop Rober Brown presents Cobh Cathedral to God.A second historica series is depicted on the capitals of the nave. beginning on the nrth side, east end they are:
1. Patrick receives his mission from Pope Celestine
2. Patrick preaches at Tara
3. Patrick baptises the king of Cashel
4. Brigid receives the veil from St Mel
5. Brigid cures a leprous boy
6. Columbcille writes the Book of Kells
7. Columcille leaves Ireland
8. St. Colman the bard of Cashel
9. Colombanus instructed by St, Comgall
10. Colombanus and Gall convert Switzerland
11. Killian rebuks the DUke of Wurzburg
12. Killian and the lunatic woman Geilana
13. Malachy visits Pope Innocent IIThe series continues on the south side, west end:
1. The dean and chapter of Cloyne trample on a presumptious warrant of Henry III
2. Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy dies in Ivrea
3. The Blessed Thaddeus appears tot he bihop of Ivrea
4. The legate David WOulfe hears confessions
5. The burning of Our Lady of Tuam and of the Bachall Iosa
6. Bishop Macraidhe dies in hiding in teh Galtees
7. Bishop McRaidhe ordains
8. Luke Wadding writes the Annals of th Four Masters
9. The martyrdom of St Oliver Plunkett at Tyburn
10. Bishop John Baptist Sleyne imprisoned in Cork
11. Bishop Slyne sentenced to transportation to Portugal
12. The Sermon on the mount
13. St. John the Baptist preaches penance
14. The institution of the Blessed EucharistAn eample of the spandril panels: no.15 SouthSide; Bishop Browne presents Cobh Cathedral to God:
-
September 15, 2006 at 5:25 pm #768563
Praxiteles
ParticipantReturning to matters of form and symbolism in the wake of our discussion re. the present interior of Armagh and of Drumaroad, I am now posting this picture of a church at Jenkinstown, Co. Meath sporting the very curious title of “Our Lady of the Wayside”.
Looking at this picture strongly recalls something for me but I cannot quite put my finger on it – just yet. Perhaps Rhabanus, or indeed anybody else, might have something to say?
-
September 16, 2006 at 6:43 pm #768564
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: Posting # 1350
Well, I think the penny has finally dropped. Sorry for the delay….getting older! Do not tell me that the sun or moon is not calculated to enter the round aperture on a particluar day of the year.
-
September 16, 2006 at 7:29 pm #768565
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo return to the subject of painted neo-gothic ceilings, I have another example to post, this time from the Cathedral of St. Peter in London, Ontario. Note the difference of style and motif to demarcate the sanctuary from the nave. The architect for St. Pter’s, London, Ontario was Joseph Connelly, a pupil of JJ. McCarthy. The same technique of differentiating the nave from the sanctuary by changing the motifs and colours of the ceiling is also employed by JJ. McCarthy in Sts. Peter and Paul, Killmallock, Co. Limerick.
-
September 16, 2006 at 10:48 pm #768566
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
What makes Ratzinger such an insightful liturgist is his mastery of ecclesiology…………
Ratzinger reminds us that the Church in her earliest period used to be known as the corpus verum Christi………..
Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy) reminds readers that the Pantocrator which dominated the apse of Byzantine and Romaneque churches represented the ascended Lord………
Ratzinger cautions against the solipsism that is the fruit of the congregation turning inwards upon itself rather than oriented towards Christ.
On mature reflection I may have been a little hasty in praising Rubheranus. Having read through his postings again I find that beneath the extravagant prose lies an ultramontanist toady.
His idol, who he refers to as “Ratzinger”, has shown that he is not immune to solipsism himself.
-
September 16, 2006 at 11:01 pm #768567
Praxiteles
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
On mature reflection I may have been a little hasty in praising Rubheranus. Having read through his postings again I find that beneath the extravagant prose lies an ultramontanist toady.
His idol, who he refers to as “Ratzinger”, has shown that he is not immune to solipsism himself.
I think that should be a “whom” in the last sentence. Tut tut tut chuck chuck….!
-
September 17, 2006 at 1:19 am #768568
Luzarches
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
On mature reflection I may have been a little hasty in praising Rubheranus. Having read through his postings again I find that beneath the extravagant prose lies an ultramontanist toady.
His idol, who he refers to as “Ratzinger”, has shown that he is not immune to solipsism himself.
As opposed to a diocesan ‘toady’, eh Chuck? Thank God there aren’t too many of them in Ireland and England, or heaven knows the state we might be in!
-
September 17, 2006 at 1:31 am #768569
Anonymous
InactiveWhen Benedikt XVI visited the parish church of St. Oswald in his hometown of Marktl am Inn he prayed at the baptismal font where he was baptised in 1927. The font had been used as a garden ornament since the church was reordered in 1965 but was reinstated last Easter as a focal point for visitors.
-
September 17, 2006 at 1:39 am #768570
Luzarches
ParticipantIncidentally Chuck, it is an academic convention to refer to an author by their surnane when discussing or quoting them in writing. What was Rhabanus meant to have done? Refer to him as Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was when he wrote the book referred to, but is no longer? Or as Pope Benedict, which he is now but wasn’t then? Or perhaps he should write ‘the then Cardinal Ratzinger’ every time he mentions a piece of his?
-
September 17, 2006 at 1:47 am #768571
Luzarches
Participant@Dieter wrote:
When Benedikt XVI visited the parish church of St. Oswald in his hometown of Marktl am Inn he prayed at the baptismal font where he was baptised in 1927. The font had been used as a garden ornament since the church was reordered in 1965 but was reinstated last Easter as a focal point for visitors.
I notice, Dieter, that this fine baptismal font you mention is now placed directly in front of the old Gothic altar and reredos. Perhaps in such a way as to impede it’s use?
I have also noticed that in many German Gothic medieval churches that passed into Protestant hands that there was a trend to place the baptismal font on the main altar-table axis, presumably to underline the perfect equality of the sacraments in the new theology. I wonder whether that’s going on when modern ‘Catholic’ liturgists seek to place the font in very close proximity to the main altar…. (along with the larger-than-altar-ambo)?
-
September 17, 2006 at 1:55 am #768572
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt is nice to know that the popular movement to save the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral can draw on the writings of no less a personality than Martin Mosebach. The link leads to the translation of a very interesting article by him on the subject of iconoclasm and its inherent denial of the Incarnation:
http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2006/08/iconoclasm-and-liturgy.html
http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=8545
http://www.single-generation.de/kohorten/78er/martin_mosebach.htm#neu
-
September 17, 2006 at 2:07 am #768573
Luzarches
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
It is nice to know that the popular movement to save the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral can draw on the writings of no less a personality than Martin Mosebach. The link leads to the translation of a very interesting article by him on the subject of iconoclasm and its inherent denial of the Incarnation:
http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2006/08/iconoclasm-and-liturgy.html
I’ve ordered his book ‘The Heresy of Formlessness’ from the Ignatius Press in the US, but it is, alas, taking an age to arrive.
-
September 17, 2006 at 2:26 am #768574
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Raphael in Neuenheim comes a close second to Monaghan Cathedral for sheer totality of its iconoclastic devastation. You would hardly ever imagine that it managed to survive the war:
-
September 17, 2006 at 9:46 am #768575
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
Incidentally Chuck, it is an academic convention to refer to an author by their surnane when discussing or quoting them in writing. What was Rhabanus meant to have done? Refer to him as Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was when he wrote the book referred to, but is no longer? Or as Pope Benedict, which he is now but wasn’t then? Or perhaps he should write ‘the then Cardinal Ratzinger’ every time he mentions a piece of his?
Point taken.
It is important that we should distinguish between the earlier writings and the statements HH has made since he became “infallible” and “impeccable”
I find it ironic that a Pope who his admirers confidently expected would undo the work of the Second Vatican Council has managed instead to undo the work of the First.
-
September 17, 2006 at 1:50 pm #768576
Praxiteles
ParticipantDear Chuck!
Leaving aside the problem of pronouns, it is perhaps more important that we concentrate on your historical perception of the Second Vatican Council. Clearly, you seem to be unaware that present Pope is one of the major influences on the Council and every document promulgated by it (including Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy) had to go thourgh him in one way or another since he was one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. He was appoined to that position in 1962 and continued in it until the final session of the Council in 1965. I, or indeed any other fair-minded person, could not possibly go along with the a-historical rant that would have him undo the work of the Council. Bishop Connie Lucey, when once challenged by a hot-headed student about the Council, explained the matter on which he was questioned and added that he should know since he had been there. I suspect that Chuck is in a similar position: just hot-headed guffing about something he knows little or nothing about: I am inclined to think that Joseph Ratzinger is likely to know a good deal more about the subject – like Connie Lucey, he was there.
-
September 17, 2006 at 9:26 pm #768577
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Dear Chuck!
Leaving aside the problem of pronouns, it is perhaps more important that we concentrate on your historical perception of the Second Vatican Council. Clearly, you seem to be unaware that present Pope is one of the major influences on the Council and every document promulgated by it (including Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy) had to go thourgh him in one way or another since he was one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. He was appoined to that position in 1962 and continued in it until the final session of the Council in 1965. I, or indeed any other fair-minded person, could not possibly go along with the a-historical rant that would have him undo the work of the Council. Bishop Connie Lucey, when once challenged by a hot-headed student about the Council, explained the matter on which he was questioned and added that he should know since he had been there. I suspect that Chuck is in a similar position: just hot-headed guffing about something he knows little or nothing about: I am inclined to think that Joseph Ratzinger is likely to know a good deal more about the subject – like Connie Lucey, he was there.
I couldn’t agree more. Now that we are about to embark on the Tenth Crusade let us not worry to much about “the problem of pronounsâ€.
Your desire to erect mental Rood Screens seems to have contaminated your ability to debate with the laity. You seem to feel that the only persons entitled to have an opinion about the Second Vatican Council are those who sat inside that particular screen rather than those who waited outside in faith and hope.
I was aware that Joseph Ratzinger was one of the major influences on the Council and one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. Does that mean that he is incapable of undoing the work of the Council if he now finds that the laity and the pastoral clergy have taken to reform in a way never intended by the control freaks within the Vatican?
No doubt there are hot-headed seminarians who can be brought to book by a belt of an Episcopal Crosier but as I am not looking for a clerical job I do not feel similarly constrained in forming my opinions.
I do not worry that Joseph Ratzinger might know a good deal more about these subjects that I do. What worries me is what he appears to have forgotten or ignored. In his eagerness to airbrush unpleasant episodes from his own history he seems to have lost his historical bearings. If he genuinely wants to have an open dialogue with Muslims he should try to focus on the 15th century of the Islamic rather than the Christian calendar.
-
September 17, 2006 at 10:35 pm #768578
Praxiteles
ParticipantChuck E R Law wrote:I couldn’t agree more. Now that we are about to embark on the Tenth Crusade let us not worry to much about “]Anyone is entitled to an opinion about the Council and its work. Indeed, many people do offer opinions on this subject. The problem arises in trying sift the wheat from the chaff; the informed from the ignorant; the sensible from the insane; the good from the guff. One criterion to assist that process is to seek the view of one who was an intelligent de visu witness. After that, we have to hear what those who have studied the subject have to say and take on board their scientific findings. It seems to me that Chuck was neither present in the Aula of St. Pete’s (which never had a Rood Screen) for the scessions of the Council nor outside among those of good faith and hope. As for Wissenshaft or even basic knowledge about the Council, I believe there is absolutely no need for me to emphasize the obvious dirth under which Chuck labours. Neither I, nor anyone else for that matter, is denying him the ability to comment on the Council. I am simply saying that he disqualifys himself from making either an informed or, indeed, a sensible comment about the Council.
That said, I do regard it as worrying that anyone would seriously advocate dismissing scientific knowledge on any subject, and its exponents, in favour of what……the mob? If this is what we are talking about, then I am afraid that we are hearing echos of Berlin in 1933 and implicit (and that is all, I hope) advocacy of a mind set calculated to create truth for itself and to eliminate anyone else who might have the scientific means of demonstrating that that truth, or reality, might be different from what is actually out there.
Thirdly, it seem to me highly improbable that some one who spent five years of his life or more working on a project of such importance as an Oecumenical Council would be likely to turn around and dismantle it. That said, however, Chuck needs to distinguisg what the council dcuments say from the various -and often contradictory – interpretations given to those documents. A clear example of this was in the field of liturgy. What the Council wanted and the principles it set out to achieve that were hijacked by every liturgical charlatan trapsing the streets. There is no doubt that the present Pontiff has for a long time been sorting that situation out: but he was not alone. In 1989, the last Pope effectively signalled that die Schone liturgische Zeiten waren leider ausgelaufen and that the time had come to put order on things. If you do not believe me, then simply read Vigesimus quintus annus. That led to the appointment of a number of interesting Prefects of the Congregation for the Sacraments among them Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer and the revered Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez (who was also a member of the central docrtinal commission of the Council from 1962) and Cardinal Francis Arinze. The work of putting order on the chaos outlined by John Paul II continues and is likely to gain momentum.
I find it risable that Chuch should espouse the virtue of historicity in view of previous postings and contemptible that he should seek to sully the charcated of one who lived under the experience of the kind of political system which Chuch seems to promote. If you read what the man has written the one thing you will be struck by is his consistency from beginning to end. A little book will be published on this subject by Ignatius Press next Spring and I will be happy to furnish a copy – if it will at all, help.
Finally, I am not sure that Chuck is not one of those persons who make a living gripping onto the coat-tails of Holy Mother Church. In view of some of his opinions, not only in relation to the Pontiff but also to the institution in itself, does it ever occur to him that he might not be a wee little bit hypocritical?
-
September 18, 2006 at 1:40 am #768579
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, here it is ! The famous baptismal font Dieter referred to yesterday. Dumped out in a “re-ordering”, it found shelter in the local Heimatmuseum until it had to be put back into the parish church before someone came to visit.
Read all about it here: http://www.marktl.de/en/papst_taufbecken.php
-
September 18, 2006 at 1:53 am #768580
Luzarches
ParticipantChuck,
“…the laity and the pastoral clergy have taken to reform in a way never intended by the control freaks within the Vatican.”
Every Catholic is bound by tradition. Popes are not fabricators of the faith, still less the laity. I’m interested to know which the reforms are that those crazy ‘control freaks’ at the Vatican are trying to rein in? I pressume we’re not talking about the ‘We Are Church’ agenda?
Do you feel threatened by the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’? Or is it the Church that was supposedly founded in 1965 that you feel under attack?
You can tell us! We’re all Easter People, after all…
-
September 18, 2006 at 2:10 am #768581
Praxiteles
ParticipantHallelujia!!!
The ecclesiological problem underlying poor old Chuck’s outbursts, like those of another contributor to this thread, is that he does not seem to realize that the Catholic Church is hierarchially structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of “People of God”. If dear Churck ever takes the time to open the documents of the Second Vatican Council he will fail to find even the slighest suggestion that the charism to rule the Church is given to the hierarchy by the people. What he will find repeated again and again is that this charism is given by God in the Sacrament of Orders. You see, Rhebanus was correct when he fingered the ecclesiological problem and Luzarches has rightly pointed out why that fingering was so sore with Chuck.
-
September 18, 2006 at 5:40 pm #768582
Anonymous
Inactive@Praxiteles wrote:
Re: Posting # 1350
Well, I think the penny has finally dropped. Sorry for the delay….getting older! Do not tell me that the sun or moon is not calculated to enter the round aperture on a particluar day of the year.
That church is very eccentric with much character; I hope it is not considered tired and in need of a makeover.
-
September 18, 2006 at 11:06 pm #768583
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Hallelujia!!!
The ecclesiological problem underlying poor old Chuck’s outbursts, like those of another contributor to this thread, is that he does not seem to realize that the Catholic Church is hierarchially structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of “People of God”. If dear Churck ever takes the time to open the documents of the Second Vatican Council he will fail to find even the slighest suggestion that the charism to rule the Church is given to the hierarchy by the people. What he will find repeated again and again is that this charism is given by God in the Sacrament of Orders. You see, Rhebanus was correct when he fingered the ecclesiological problem and Luzarches has rightly pointed out why that fingering was so sore with Chuck.
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
-
September 18, 2006 at 11:14 pm #768584
Praxiteles
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
Praxiteles has only insisted on observance of the norms established by lawful ecclesiastical authority. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing personal in that… and publicly to impute the contrary will expose you to a libel action, dear Chuck, to whose challenge Praxiteles is gladly willing to rise! Qui aures audiendi habet, audiat, quia nil molitur inepte Praxiteles
-
September 19, 2006 at 1:07 am #768585
Praxiteles
ParticipantReturning to the subject of the design of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown, Co. Louth, I forgot to include this image of the interior about which it would be useful to have the cmments of Rhabanus
-
September 19, 2006 at 1:37 am #768586
Luzarches
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
“…damage…inflict[ed] on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.”
As opposed to the damage and division created by those who would force a reordering through in the teeth of impassioned and principled opposition across whole dioceses? Oh, I forgot, that’s just a small number of reactionary crypto-Lefebvrists. How silly of me.
-
September 19, 2006 at 4:40 pm #768587
Rhabanus
ParticipantPraxiteles says it all, folks! The Irish prelates and priests of the second half of the nineteenth century exuded qualities of leadership that exercised a deep and long-ranging influence on the Church universal from its centre in Rome (and pronouncedly at the First Vatican Council!) to the humblest village missions in densest Africa. This unmistakable influence was crucial, and clearly evident, in the formation and direction of local and regional churches in North America and Australia. The Irish Church of that period was marked by an elan and an eclat that resonated around the world. These distinctive qualities resonate from the magnificent cathedrals and churches that sprang from the ultramontane movement that characterised the Catholicism of Ireland when it really led the rest of the Church.
What a contrast with the pathetic, vascillating world of petit-bourgeois and lower-middle class timeservers that now occupy the seats of those noble, great-souled, educated leaders of the past. Not only had those Cullens taste and a sense of proportion, but, far more important, they had the Faith in both its integrity and entirety, and they knew the instrinsic power, majesty, and beauty of the Sacred Liturgy. They recognised in it the Church arrayed in hierarchic order. Those great men were hierarchs – sacred leaders whose authority came not from the state or the media or the prinicipalities of this world, but from Almighty God. They knew that at the end of each day – and finally at the end of their lives – they had to give an account of their stewardship of the Lord’s vineyard. They laboured long and hard to produce the results that survived them by hundreds of years. They provided venues worthy of a liturgy which mirrored that of the cosmic liturgy offered to God and to the Lamb by the saints and angels.
A church confident in its direction and leadership has abundant seminarians to fill its seminaries. It likewise serves the liturgical needs of so many that new churches must be built to house the vast numbers of the faithful who throng to the Sacred Liturgy. The Holy See is torn between its choices of highly-qualified personnel to anoint and ordain bishops for such a church. Is this the picture of Ireland today? Think again, people!
Take a good look at Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown, Co. Louth. Eschewing any likeness to cruciformity, it resembles a monstrous, mechanical Buddha plunked down in the lotus position. Note the centre of the piece, to which the viewer’s gaze is drawn: is it a navel – or something far more sinister? I wonder they didn’t name it St Molloch or Blessed Elvis the Pelvis. I can hear the wits in Cloyne now: “Twenty-first century vespasian for twentieth-century nostalgics.” I love the two miniature lamp-posts for twenty-first-century canines: Take dead aim, Bowser, but beware electrocution!
Sorry, kind readers, it doesn’t do much for me. And I daresay it scarcely inspires anyone else to worship either. Indeed, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has pointed out, the Eastern desire to void the mind (the aim of the lotus position and the direction of Buddhist meditaion) is the very antithesis of Western Christian prayer. Serious Catholics, devout worshippers, rely on iconography to direct our attention beyond ourselves (and our navel lint) to the higher realities to which we are called. Remember: God calls us to worship Him, not to void our minds in a dubious quest for ‘nirvana.’ What is the abomination in Jenkinstown saying? Anything remotely connected with Christ or worship of the triune God? Any visitor to Paris or to a North American park or garden might conclude that it is a post-modern loo with separate entrances for men and women. [Fi-fi and Bowser use respective mini-poles.] I suppose that the drains over the windows accommodate any overflow. Heavens to Murgatroyd!
It would be most fascinating to learn how this building came to be: who nominated (or appointed) the building committee, who authorised the proceedings, and how it passed the scrutiny of the diocesan committee on sacred architecture. Even more interesting would be the relationship of the local bishop to the building firms.
The photos of Armagh are exceedingly beautiful, except for the references to the gallery (now remedied, I understand) and the portable altar trundled out for the daily Mass now. The iconographic programmes illustrate the glorious foundation of the Christian Faith in Ireland under the leadership of St Patrick and St Brigid. The priesthood, religious life, and vigorius family life all thrive when the Faith is embraced willingly and openly, Check recent statistics, gentle reader, and then CONNECT THE DOTS! And finally PRAY that leaders may be found to continue or revive the legacy of Irelands former saints and scholars.
-
September 19, 2006 at 5:08 pm #768588
Rhabanus
ParticipantChuck ought to check his Butler’s or Baltimore catcehism again. No pope is regarded as “impeccable” even in the most ultramontane circles. On the other hand, orthodox Catholicism upholds the infallibility of the pope.
By the way, the spelling in R-H-A-B-A-N-U-S. The suggestion that I may be ‘rhuberanus’ is just a bit too personal. Let’s keep it above the belt, eh Chuck?
-
September 19, 2006 at 5:16 pm #768589
Rhabanus
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
On mature reflection I may have been a little hasty in praising Rubheranus. Having read through his postings again I find that beneath the extravagant prose lies an ultramontanist toady.
His idol, who he refers to as “Ratzinger”, has shown that he is not immune to solipsism himself.
Sorry, Chuck, but the author Joseph Ratzinger is no idol, but an informed authority on the subject of liturgy. Now, as pope, he exercises more than a scholarly authority, but I consider it appropriate to quote him in the context of scholarly exposition as Joseph Ratzinger. If you have managed to come up with a more appropriate way of citing him, do let me know, lest I distract you any further.
Fond regards,
RHABANUS (check spelling, there, Chuck!)
-
September 19, 2006 at 6:13 pm #768590
Rhabanus
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
Chuck, it’s time you opened a book. Please turn to chapter 3 of The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium 10-29 and READ about the hierarchical nature of the Church. Hierarchy is not a bad thing, Chuck. It orders the mystical Body of Christ both in heaven and on earth. Have you difficulty comprehending this mystery of the faith? Keep on reading, Chuck:
“This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican Council [NB: the hermeneutic of continuity], teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors the bishops namely, should be the sheperds in his Church uintil th eend of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lastin and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith an dof communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.” [LG 18]
What part of this do you not understand, Chuck? Vatican II teaches and declares not only the primacy of the Petrine see but also the infallibility of the pope. So far in this pontificate I have noticed that Benedict XVI, far from renouncing the claims to primacy and infallibility, frequently styles himself the Bishop of Rome – with all that this authority implies (review the quotation above). Innocent III, by the way, regarded his authority as deriving precisely from his marriage (cf. bishop’s ring) to the Ecclesia Romana. Fr Leonard Boyle op (a native of Ireland who emigrated to Canada, became a Canadian citizen, conducted an eminent scholarly career at the Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies at Toronto, and in 1984 was appointed Vatican Librarian) gave a learned disquisition on this very topic in Rome back in 1985 – the year of the Extraordinary Synod which asserted the fundamental coherence between the doctrinal and the pastoral authority of the Church. Had you been in the audience, Chuck, the iconographical references to the Roman Church (in the Lateran basilica and elsewhere) could hardly have escaped you. Innocent III, like Benedict XVI, was well acquainted with the Pauline images of the Church as Sponsa Christi (Eph 5:23-32) as well as Corpus Christi (1 Cor 12-30). One does not have to wear the tiara or the mitre, much less the mortarboard, to comprehend the Pauline ecclesiology at work in Christian theology, literature, and iconography.
By the way, Chuck, it may interest you to know that, whereas theological and liturgical Gallicanism introduces ecclesiological divisions and empties churches, ultramontanism unites the Body and fills churches. Do the math, Chuck; do the math!
-
September 19, 2006 at 6:20 pm #768591
Rhabanus
ParticipantBy the way, Praxiteles, thanks for the interior shot of Wayside in Jenkinstown shown earlier in this thread. The centrality of the font betrays the whole plan. The font, known as the “womb” of Mother Church, is displayed at the centre of the building. Martin Luther, defying Catholic tradition and rejecting Catholic parlance, militated agains calling the Eucharist the “Blessed” Sacrament and insisted on calling baptism by that epithet, Too bad he missed the point that baptsim is merely the doorway to, not the apex of, the sacramental system.
More of the usual jiggery-pokery in this modern farrago.
-
September 19, 2006 at 8:18 pm #768592
Rhabanus
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
A most impressive debut by Rhuburanus, with him iconography becomes pornography.
Perhaps you would care to clarify this remark? It really ought to be “unpacked” so that th ereadership can grasp your precise meaning.
In the meantime, you would do well to consult Lumen gentium further. In Chapter I “The Mystery of the Church,” section 6, you will find a nice variety of pastoral, agrarian, vegetative, architectural, familial, and spousal images employed throughout Sacred Scripture to describe the Church: sheepfold, gateway, cultivated field, tillage of God, vineyard, building of God, house of God, household of God in the Spirit, holy temple, Holy City, New Jerusalem, “that Jerusalem which is above,” “our mother,” spotless spouse of the spotless lamb, body of Christ.
You might consider this passage, too:
“The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). In them he prays and bears witness to their adoptive sonship (cf. Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15-16 and 26). Guiding the Church in the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of ministry, he bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22). By the power of the Gospel he permits the Church to keep the freshness of youth. Constantly he renews her and leads her to perfect union with her Spouse. For the Spirit and the Bride both say to Jesus, the Lord: “Come!” (cf. Apoc. 22:17)
I hope that this does not approach pornography in your narrow, prudish estimation. After all, it comes right from Sacred Scripture, rather than from the ravings of the monkish mind.
But you have touched, obliquely I suppose, on an interesting anthropological point. The Church is described in Scripture and Tradition as the spotless spouse of the spotless Lamb. Jesus the Lamb of God takes His Bride the Church unto Himself. This is clear in the canticle of Apoc. 20:6b-7, especially v. 7: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made hgerself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure.”
If this seems even remotely pornographic to you, Chuck, then you may wish to reconsider further participation in this thread. After all, I should have thought someone possessed of your intellect and imagination would wish to bring more to this discussion than compromised Latin orthography, poor English grammar, and ill-conditioned ad hominem remarks. Leave the guttersnipe prudery at home and consider making a worthy contribution.
Cheers,
RHABANUS
-
September 19, 2006 at 8:18 pm #768593
Chuck E R Law
ParticipantWhen I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!
-
September 19, 2006 at 8:56 pm #768594
Rhabanus
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
When I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!
Keep on reading, Chuck. It may improve your perception if not your disposition.
And don’t stop with this thread. Try Jean Corbon (Eastern [Melchite], non-Vatican writer) The Wellspring of Worship (1988, reprinted 2006)]The Wedding Feast of the Lamb[/I (2005); ]Matthew Levering (USA), Sacrifice and Community (2005); Michael McGuckian sj (Ireland) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (2005); Uwe Michael Lang (German living in England) Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer[/I (2004)].
You may find something to sweeten you up in Nichals Cabasilas (Greek, 14th cent.), The Life in Christ (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press [Orthodox]).
Come on, Chuckles, broaden your horizon and shed thecrankiness of those living in the unpleasant past (1960s-70s). And put on a happy face!
-
September 19, 2006 at 10:44 pm #768595
Sirius
ParticipantPraxiteles, 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 Councilâ€. 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 chaosâ€. 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.
-
September 20, 2006 at 12:41 am #768596
Praxiteles
Participant@Sirius wrote:
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 Councilâ€. 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 chaosâ€. 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.
Welcome back Sirius (& Oswald)
As usual, we are a little weak on the detail and a little hazy on the memory.
It was unfortunate that you raise the question of Cardinal Arinze’s “apporval” of the Cobh scheme for this is probably the most embarrassing aspect of the Midleton Hearing and the one which all parties would prefer to forget about for it does no honour to the bishop of Cloyne. Praxiteles raises the matter here to correct your misunderstanding of the matter and hopes that you will not want to return to it.
You will recall thah Bishop Magee claimed in a pastoral letter read at all Masses in July 2005 that his design was submitted to the relevant Congregation [for Divine Worship] in Rome and “received its approval”. In two subsequent sentences of the same circular letter he refers twice to “a letter of approval” having been sent to him by Cardinal Arinze.
Sirius will recall that this correspondence between Bishop Magee and Cardinal Arinze was the subject of an exchange at the Oral Hearing between Mr. Shane Murphy, Barrister for the FOSCC, and the chairman of the Hearing. You will recall that Mr. Collins, for the Trustees, had cross examined Dr. Alan Kershaw on the nature of the “approval” the Bishop of Cloyne had for his project. You will recall that Mr. Murphy pointed out that it was not fair to cross examine his witness on the contents of a letter that he (Dr Kershaw) had never seen. You will recall that Mr Murphy asked the chairman to obtain from the Bishop a copy of the letter from Cardinal Arinze allegedly granting “approval” for his plan. The chairman did request the bishop to provide the letter -which was faxed from the diocesan office to the Midleton Park Hotel and admitted as evidence at the Oral Hearing.
The letter is dated 9 December 2003. The word “approval” does not appear in this letter. In fact Cardinal Arinze wrote: …the Congregation does not wish to take a position regardinag the details of the project. It also pointed out that any presentation of the project should avoid mentioning the Council which in fact did not legislate in detail on these matters and suggested that Bishop Magee refer instead to the requirements of the subsequent legislation, including in particular the current text of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. I am afraid that the so called “approval” for the project was a figment of Bishop Magee’s imagination.
From this letter of 9 December 2003, it emerged that a previous correspondence has transpired between the Bishop and Cardinal Arinze in October 2003. The letter from the Cardinal dated 9 December 2003 was in fact a reply to a letter sent to the Cardinal by Bishop Magee on 12 October 2003. That letter was also requisioned by the Oral Hearing, faxed from the diocesan office and admitted as evidence and is on public record. In this letter, Bishop Magee says that he was in a position “to present the fnal design project”. He then writes the Cardinal: I would be grateful to receive from Your Eminence a word of encouragement so that I can convey it to all those many people who have worked on this project now for many years. Having asked Cardinal Arinze for a word of encouragement for those who worked on the project, that is precisely what Bishop Magee got as the letter of 9 December 2003 concluded: The Congregation wishes to congratulate Your Excellency once more on the zeal shown by many in the drafting of this project . Please note, that there is no mention of “approval” and certainly nothing of the kind to be conveyed to the population of the diocese.
From the above, Sirius, you should be able to see that it is better for the Bishop’s sake to leave this unfortunate matter drop.
With friends like Sirius (& Oswald) …..
Copies of all of the relevant documentation are available in the book published by the FOSCC Conserving Cobh Cathedral: The Case Stated. There should not be any difficulty in obtaining a copy as there appears to be thousands of them flying around Cobh. For convenience, however, I have scanned and will now post the pages containing the documentation referred to above:
Scan 1: The introduction from the FOSCC book, p.5, n.2 is the relevant section
Scan 2: Bishop Magee’s letter of 12 October 2003
Scan 3: Photocopy of Cardinal Arinze’s reply of 9 December 2003
Scan 4: Transcription of Cardinal Arinze’s letter and a copy of the Pastoral Letter of July 2005 -
September 20, 2006 at 1:14 am #768597
MacLeinin
ParticipantSirius wrote:Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’]
Sirius, you astound me. Following your comments:1.The FOSCC case stated that in many of the churches in Europe re-ordering had not been implimented. If you must know Ireland is following in the footsteps of Americe and to some extent England, ie the English speaking world in this.
2. Do you really want to bring this up??? Cardinal Arinze approved nothing. Take a look at the book produced by FOSCC and you will see that Bishop Magee wrote to Cardinal Arinze in OCT. 2003 asking for a ‘word of encouragement’ to the many people who had worked on the project. This in fact he received from Cardinal Arinze – a word of encouragement for the workers on the project and not an ‘approval of the plans’ as was suggested in his letter read out at all Masses in July 2005.
Incidently since that time I have learned that nobody in the hierachy in Cloyne Diocese actually saw the letter from Cardinal Arinze and all believed that it was an approval when in fact it was nothing of the kind.3. Read again and again the FOSCC position. They have never questioned the Bishop’s authority when it comes to true and authentic Church teaching. The re-ordering of the Cobh Catheral never came into that sphere. FOSCC did ask the pasishioners what they felt in the matter as otherwise they would have been sidelined as cranks – a ploy which is still being tried. In the end they did not gather large numbers of people to support their view at the Oral Hearing in Midleton, they invited experts on Liturgy and an advocate from the Roman Rota to present their case.
On a final point. It was Bishop John who, first day, came to the people with this project. You cannot now blame them if they considered that an invitation to express their opinion. The thing is that the opinion of the people did not conform to what was already planned and therefore they have been sidelined ever since. You connot blame FOSCC either for the initial position or the subsequent reaction.
On a personal note I have to say that recently a number of contributors have come on to this site and all they seemed interested in is firing darts at FOSCC. Can you not talk to the point. I have to say that you are so way off base that I wonder if you are, maybe, a member of the Trustees or the HCAC.
If not, please talk to the point. -
September 20, 2006 at 1:55 am #768598
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantSirius and Chuck ER etc.,
You are shadow boxing.
The appellants won the case.
-
September 20, 2006 at 4:20 am #768599
Rhabanus
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
When I read the Rehabanus postings I imagine I am listening to Robin Williams in Good Morning Vatican!
Perhaps Chuck would be good enough to explain the liturgical theology underlying some of the “renovations” that he advocates. He might likewise reflect on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of the buildings that he so admires. This would make a positive and interesting contribution to the discussion.
Any texts to adduce? References to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, for example? A favourite theologian or qualified liturgist? I’. merely asking.
This is the chance for Chuck to let his glory shine!
Perhaps a learned consideration on the Church as the People of God arrayed hierarchically to reflect the divine ordering of the ecclesial structure. Or maybe a sacramental treatise on the ordering of Christian sacraments in the construction and arrangement of Catholic churches.
Wisdom! Be attentive!!
-
September 20, 2006 at 2:39 pm #768600
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius and Chuck ER etc.,
You are shadow boxing.
The appellants won the case.
Yes, indeed. A fact that Sirius seems reluctant to acknowledge. Is he pitting himself against the authority of the State?
-
September 20, 2006 at 11:28 pm #768601
Praxiteles
ParticipantSirius wrote:Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’]
Sirius!
Do not forget that Martin Mosebach is talking primarily of the German situation – one that saw the systematic bombing of practically every urban centre in Germany during the last war. This, not surprisingly, brought the concomitant destruction of many churches throughout the country and the development of the so-called Notkirche (or emergency church) idea developed by persons such as R. Schwarz in the immediate aftermath of the war with its shortags ofbuilding materials. These, of course, were not intended as “temporary” and have continued. This was one of the major sources for the vandalism that swept certain parts of the US in the 70 and 80s and, as a result of little conference in Belfast and Dublin in the early 60s, began the rot in Ireland – where there was no tabula rasa because there had been no war – but with the likes of Monaghan, Killarney, Armagh and Longford one could be forgiven for thinking that most of Ireland had been just as heavily bombed as Dresden during WWII..
-
September 21, 2006 at 1:30 am #768602
Luzarches
Participant…and yet even R Schwarz was an advocate of the ad orientem mass, I am convinced.
-
September 21, 2006 at 4:16 am #768603
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
To begin with, the outlay is a disaster. No focal point. This is definitely not apt for Catholic worship of any kind. I cannot begin to count the number of contraventions of the IGMR (GIRM). The architect would do well to consult Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 2000), pp.62-91, which deals quite clearly with the disposition and rationale of the architecture of the Christian church.
Ratzinger enunciates the generally accepted principle that the Christian church combines the chief elements of synagogal worship, with its concentration on the divine Word exemplified by the Torah (cf the Christian ambo where the Gospel is proclaimed as the fulfilment and explanation of the Law and the Prophets), and the Temple cult with its focus on the altar (cf. the Christian altar of sacrifice) and the Ark of the Covenant (cf. the tabernacle).
The chapel under consideration offers a hodge-podge of ideological statements each screaming for attention and ultimately distracting and disorienting the worshipper. Too much visual noise and not enough harmonisation.
The architect and Brian Q would do well to consult the design of the papal chapel in Avignon and Rome (Sixtine) for the kind of harmonisation of features that enhances Christian worship.
Incidentally, the tawdry banners displayed grimly on the walls of the depicted chapel, are sorely lacking in taste and pleasing effect. Ornamentation ought to exemplify a certain quality of excellence and would do well to communicate something of the grandeur and majesty of the paschal mystery.
Take a closer look at this postmodern farrago.
Let’s consider a pinball game. There is a proximity of elements: altar, font, black totem, chair, other black totem on plynth BUT NO true RELATIONSIP among the disparate parts. Upon entrance, the visitor, like the pinball, runs into these items but not in a guaranteed order in the hope of arriving at the bumper that will award the highest score. Presumably the other chairs are filled with observers (unless they have gone home to drink). Of course it takes imagination and effort to design with meaning and with due respect to and understanding of the person entering the church.Aside from the utter disregard for the hierarchical arrangement worthy of the house of God, the disposition of all the elements in this building shows disrespect also toward the intelligence and spirituality of the visiting Christian. The Christian, though pilgrim, is lost precisely at the point where he expects to find the end of his journey.
Is this mini-putt or a shell game?
How is the pilgrim to connect with the sacrifice of Christ? How is the Christian worshipper here to relate to his pastor, his bishop, his Lord, and his brothers and sisters in Christ without the hierarchical arrangement of the People of God? Finally, why should the pilgrim even bother coming here if this building does not represent within itself the hierarchical arrangement of the People of God as instituted and directed by Christ the Guardian of the Flock and High Priest?
Chuck and fellow scoffers fail to confront this deficiency head-on. We are waiting for them to answer these challenges and to share a theological and liturgical perspective with us.
-
September 21, 2006 at 8:07 pm #768604
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
If I could distract your momentarily from Dr. Jekyll and direct your attention to Mr. Hyde.
Looking around casually on the net this evening, I encountered this extraordinary description of the Church of Our Lady of the Wayside at Jenkinstown, Co. Louth written by its architect, Mr. Brian Quinn. Can I ask you what we are to make of it? Is it to be taken seriously or are dealing with just another guff merchant? The statement saying “…only recently..the Spirit has revealed the prsence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly iteslf” was enough to give me certain a certain frissonnement or the collagirfeen as they call it in Cork:
“CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
The construction of a new church is always more than placing one brick on top of another, it is an act of faith. The building itself becomes a physical manifestation of a parish’s vision of faith and as such is an exciting, if somewhat grave, responsibility for the building team.When designing the new Church of Our Lady of the Wayside, we were mindful of the fact that a parish vision of faith is forged by locality within the context of the Universal Church. The vision given to us by the Universal Church, through the Second Vatican Council, is of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.
The presence of Christ in the presider and consecrated species has been understood for a long time. It is only recently that the Spirit has revealed the presence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly itself. The response in church architecture has seen a moving away from passively watching the action at one end of the building to gathering around the table of the Word and table of the Eucharist. In order to represent this theology architecturally an oval plan was employed for Our Lady of the Wayside in which the assembly are arranged on either side of a central ‘sanctuary’. This enables all to be proximate to the shifting centres of liturgical action yet maintaining a meaningful distance between them. A sense of gathering is further emphasised by the curved form of the seating. That fact that fellow parishioners are seen face to face bears witness to Christ in each of us and in the assembly gathered for worship.
Elements prompted by the ‘local’ church are Mourne granite for the external walls and the form of the external cross inspired by those adorning the chapel in nearby Bellurgan which this church replaces. In addition, the theme of water, life-giving and cleansing, is particularly apposite due to the close proximity of Dundalk Bay. This theme is taken up by the boat-like form of the building, in the design of the stained-glass windows and the tabernacle.
Brian Quinn, RIBA, RIAI.
November 1994″
-
September 21, 2006 at 8:20 pm #768605
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is another bit of blank firing, and I cannot find anyone to own it:
CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
Random ReflectionsI don’t want to become too excited yet, just in case things don’t work out for us. But I am gradually becoming more hopeful that the outcome will be a completely new church. Then, I ask, what would I like to see rising on the rather circumscribed site?
I see a building, with beauty, a simple beauty, with space for 350 people seated. I’m not even sure that the seating will be in rows or solid benches. Maybe an alternative? My principal criterion will be a building where people feel participants, not spectators; where they are drawn into the action by the location of the altar. Notice I don’t say ‘sanctuary’. Perhaps the whole church is the sanctuary? Somewhere in it will be the focal point, for the proclaiming of the Word of God. Somewhere in it will be the president’s chair. Somewhere in it will be the tabernacle for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. The altar will be the dominant element. The tabernacle will be secondary to the altar, but yet will draw the attention of the person entering to the presence of the Lord in the reserved sacrament.
There will be a baptistry, maybe slightly below floor level, recalling going down into the grave with the Lord, dying with Him and coming up to new life. It might even be a natural flowing stream of water or a fountain.
The church will be adequately heated for comfort and sufficiently endowed with natural light so as not to need artificial lighting except on darker days.
There will be one confessional room, welcoming and comfortable. There will be space earmarked for a choir within the general space of the people. And wouldn’t it be marvellous to have a small pipe organ – maybe in later years?
As well as a sacristy (from which the celebrant would walk to the altar through the area where people are gathered), it would be desirable to have a reasonable-sized room with independent heating where 20 members of the Vincent de Paul Society could meet, or where the people could count the weekly envelopes. Maybe this could double as a sacristy for the acolytes.
The outside appearance or design – my dream would be something semi-circular or elliptical, not square or rectangular or triangular. Why? – the gentler, flowing lines of the circle or semi-circle seem to me to harmonise better with the horizon or landscape of the rolling Cooley hills. Something in me recoils from an angular building in this setting.
I would have a longing to see this new church have a special ‘feature’ to distinguish it. Maybe it’s a large window or glass panel through which the hills on the horizon could be visible. Country people can find God in the mountains, in nature.
Maybe it’s connected with the story of the blessing of the old church. It was, as you know, built against the wishes of the archbishop and priests of the parish. So the people who built it with their own hands and money had to get a strange priest, a ‘religious’ priest, to come and bless it. He was not permitted to go into the church, so he blessed it from a boat in the bay!
Another stray thought. I have seen some new churches with a lovely spacious assembly area or narthex. So attractive that it encourages many to remain there during mass instead of coming in to join the real assembly. THey can see what is going on and have no desire to hear or listen! Maybe they have good reason! But whatever we do, we will have to encourage them to join.
I don’t forsee any statues in the sanctuary area, but I do think we should have an area or place of devotion to Our Lady, the church is St. Mary’s church. Something not too obtrusive but will foster devotion to Mary, Mother of the Church”.
Interesting about the statues!! I wonder what that might indicate as far as the Communion of Saints is concerned? Are they nolonger part of the Church? Did the Spirit also reveal this lately?
In case you think I am having you on, here is the link:
http://www.rmc.dnet.co.uk/jenklit.html
[
-
September 21, 2006 at 9:53 pm #768606
Chuck E R Law
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
why should the pilgrim even bother coming here if this building does not represent within itself the hierarchical arrangement of the People of God as instituted and directed by Christ the Guardian of the Flock and High Priest?
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
-
September 21, 2006 at 9:58 pm #768607
Praxiteles
ParticipantAt this stage, Chuck, you have lost your sense of humour! Too bad, for it was quit entertaining. The loss may be due to too much Feurbach and to taking our friend Karl Marx just a little too seriously – opium of the people and all that. Pity….
P.S. careful on the split infinitives!!!
-
September 21, 2006 at 10:05 pm #768608
Luzarches
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
Chuck,
In your sarcasm you have seemed to confuse Catholicism with the most joyless strand of puritanism. You seem to have an almost manichean disdain for the material order and, more importantly, beauty itself. You would have us worship in plain boxes lest we fall into the dire error of being distracted by some ornament or image. That’s against a commandment anyway, you suppose?
You have signally failed to answer the constructive criticisms here on the basis of any theology. Are you sure you’re not a bishop, because you seem to be working from a position of pure complacency?
-
September 21, 2006 at 10:10 pm #768609
Luzarches
ParticipantAnyway, Chuck. What have you got against Christian martyrdom? Not relevant today, eh? I’m sure the Christians in Iraq and the Holy Land would agree with you there…
As for those forelock tugging peasants you mentioned, devoutly telling their beads. Do you think that God was deaf to their prayers? Their knowledge of God would have been so much more superior if they’d lived to sing ‘Shine Jesus Shine’, of course.
-
September 21, 2006 at 10:13 pm #768610
Praxiteles
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
Not too many craws were thumped and not too many forelocks were tugged among those worshipping in the acres of victorian mosaics in Cobh Cathedral. Beads were heard to rattle though during the Midleton Oral Hearing. You see, Chuck, the argument just does not follow….!
-
September 21, 2006 at 11:24 pm #768611
brianq
ParticipantDrumaroad & Jenkinstown
Sorry, I’ve been away a bit hence haven’t had a chance to talk about these churches. I’ve only been able to check in now and again.
As regards planning these two churches take as their starting point GIRM 294 (I’m using the version produced by the Irish Bishops’ Conference published by Irish Liturgical Publications 2005 with the Imprimatur of the archbishop of Armagh). This is a lengthy paragraph which deals with the relationship of the hierarchical structure of the People of God with that of the unity of the PoG. The particular interest is where it says ‘ All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people’. So there is a balance to be struck between expressing hierarchy and unity. Drumaroad and Jenkinstown tussle with this aspiration pushing it quite far to see how far you can go. There is no doubt that they are both favouring unity, Drumaroad more so than Jenkinstown, but they also express hierarchy. The altar is in the central space and is the main element of that space, the space to which the community are focused. In Drumaroad the ambo is at one end of the central space so that there is no one behind the celebrant proclaiming the Word. At the other end of the central space is the baptismal font and about two thirds of the way down amongst the pews but separate due to the space around it and different material is the presider’s chair. It’s placed here in an attempt to express the celebrant’s role as presider and also the reality that he is part of the PoG. In Jenkinstown there is a slight difference in that the central space has the presider’s chair at one end of the central axis, the ambo in front of it, then the altar. The baptismal font is where the presider’s chair is in Drumaroad, i.e. amongst the pews. Beyond the altar and terminating the central axis in Jenkinstown is the tabernacle (behind the circular window in the image of the exterior posted by Prax). The image of the interior posted by Prax is looking towards the altar from a position beside the ambo with the tabernacle beyond in the distance.
The issue of differentiating the sanctuary from the body of the church as required by GIRM 295 is explored by the use of space rather than relying on physical barriers. This is an option where GIRM says ‘….either by its (the sanctuary) being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation’. The sanctuary is the central space where the liturgical furniture stands. When one leaves the pews to approach the altar it is clear you have left one ‘zone’ and entered another.
As a bit of background, I enthusiastically inherited Drumaroad layout from Ray Carroll who was initially involved as the liturgical artist. Unfortunately he died at an early stage in the project and I took on this theme of exploring the possibilities of expressing hierarchy v unity. Fergus Costelloe was subsequently appointed and he ended up doing the liturgical furniture. The furniture for Jenkinstown was designed and made by Ken Thompson.
With the benefit of hindsight I would do a few things differently (though I think that for most of my work). Whilst I think the ‘sanctuary’ in Drumaroad is differentiated whether it is sufficiently so I have constantly differing opinions myself. I think now I would have changed the floor covering in the centre to reinforce the difference. As regards the artwork, for me the jury is still out regarding Fergus’ work. His specialism is taking bog oak and forming it into liturgical furniture and I must admit i’m ambivalent towards the result. Fergus is clear about what he wants to achieve but I think myself that there is a question to be answered about how his work supports the weight of the mystery.
I have been trying to post more information and images on my website (can someone tel me how to post them here?) but there are a few technical hitches at the moment.BQ
-
September 22, 2006 at 12:01 am #768612
brianq
ParticipantArmagh
Space in the sanctuary – it was part of my brief to provide at least the same amount of space as there had been in the Liam McCormick layout (although Liam’s partner Joe tracey had a big hand in it as well I believe). In fact I had a slightly different proposal whereby due to the configuration of the steps from the main floor level up to the altar level followed a gentle curve in towards the altar reducing slightly the floor area in the immediate vicinity of the altar but this was changed to straight steps at the request of the client. Obviously plenty of space is required in a cathedral sanctuary in order to accommodate all of the ceremonies and whilst the LMcC layout has been criticised negatively it did clear away a lot of the furniture that had existed before thus creating that space. The pre1981 sanctuary wa so cluttered it restricted and impaired an appropriate celebration of liturgy where processions can take place, prostrations and so on (I’ll post an image of it on my website soon). So the requirement in that respect was a given.
Some time ago Luz I think asked about the design of the altar itself and whether I had anything to do with it. Well I designed it. Its shape was arrived at by looking at where it was going to be placed and its liturgical significance. It is in the architectural centre of the interior – at the intersection of trancept and nave. This intersection is defined by the four over-sized columns at each corner that are turned through 45 degrees. The corners of the altar you will see respond to this geometry setting up a relationship which helps root the altar to its location. Because of the scale of the interior the altar had to be the quite large size that it is. In order for the celebrant to be able to reach most of the mensa I decided to curve the sides inwards so that the altar is physically somewhat smaller (and more managable) than it appears. These curved sides also have the effect of elegantly resolving the 45 degree geometry. The altar is symmetrical so that it has no front sides or back expressing the idea of gathering around it, Christ in our midst, even if that is not physically possible in this instance. The figures are there because I always like to have the touch of a human hand so that the altar is not exclusively produced on a factory turntable but has been worked by human hands as well. Christ is the central figure on each side. He is surrounded by the apostles on three sides and on the fourth facing the nave are malachy, brigid, Patrick and Oliver plunkett. The figures were sculpted by gabriel gilmore to my design. They are deliberatly ‘distorted’ so that they are obviously still human figures but do not project an ideal physique – to be as inclusive as possible. The distortion is suggestive of those on high crosses. I wanted the viewer to be conscious of the lives of those depicted and what they meant rather than being distracted with their physicality eg the arms are too long and not right, or they were all physically perfect (whatever that means).
BQ
-
September 22, 2006 at 12:36 am #768613
Praxiteles
Participant@brianq wrote:
Drumaroad & Jenkinstown
Sorry, I’ve been away a bit hence haven’t had a chance to talk about these churches. I’ve only been able to check in now and again.
As regards planning these two churches take as their starting point GIRM 294 (I’m using the version produced by the Irish Bishops’ Conference published by Irish Liturgical Publications 2005 with the Imprimatur of the archbishop of Armagh). This is a lengthy paragraph which deals with the relationship of the hierarchical structure of the People of God with that of the unity of the PoG. The particular interest is where it says ‘ All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of roles, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of the unity of the entire holy people’. So there is a balance to be struck between expressing hierarchy and unity. Drumaroad and Jenkinstown tussle with this aspiration pushing it quite far to see how far you can go. There is no doubt that they are both favouring unity, Drumaroad more so than Jenkinstown, but they also express hierarchy. The altar is in the central space and is the main element of that space, the space to which the community are focused. In Drumaroad the ambo is at one end of the central space so that there is no one behind the celebrant proclaiming the Word. At the other end of the central space is the baptismal font and about two thirds of the way down amongst the pews but separate due to the space around it and different material is the presider’s chair. It’s placed here in an attempt to express the celebrant’s role as presider and also the reality that he is part of the PoG. In Jenkinstown there is a slight difference in that the central space has the presider’s chair at one end of the central axis, the ambo in front of it, then the altar. The baptismal font is where the presider’s chair is in Drumaroad, i.e. amongst the pews. Beyond the altar and terminating the central axis in Jenkinstown is the tabernacle (behind the circular window in the image of the exterior posted by Prax). The image of the interior posted by Prax is looking towards the altar from a position beside the ambo with the tabernacle beyond in the distance.
The issue of differentiating the sanctuary from the body of the church as required by GIRM 295 is explored by the use of space rather than relying on physical barriers. This is an option where GIRM says ‘….either by its (the sanctuary) being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation’. The sanctuary is the central space where the liturgical furniture stands. When one leaves the pews to approach the altar it is clear you have left one ‘zone’ and entered another.
As a bit of background, I enthusiastically inherited Drumaroad layout from Ray Carroll who was initially involved as the liturgical artist. Unfortunately he died at an early stage in the project and I took on this theme of exploring the possibilities of expressing hierarchy v unity. Fergus Costelloe was subsequently appointed and he ended up doing the liturgical furniture. The furniture for Jenkinstown was designed and made by Ken Thompson.
With the benefit of hindsight I would do a few things differently (though I think that for most of my work). Whilst I think the ‘sanctuary’ in Drumaroad is differentiated whether it is sufficiently so I have constantly differing opinions myself. I think now I would have changed the floor covering in the centre to reinforce the difference. As regards the artwork, for me the jury is still out regarding Fergus’ work. His specialism is taking bog oak and forming it into liturgical furniture and I must admit i’m ambivalent towards the result. Fergus is clear about what he wants to achieve but I think myself that there is a question to be answered about how his work supports the weight of the mystery.
I have been trying to post more information and images on my website (can someone tel me how to post them here?) but there are a few technical hitches at the moment.BQ
Thanks Brian for this postitive contribution which we will discuss – as time permits. To begin, I am posting, once again, the text of the General instruction article 295. I think, however, that this article has to be seen in the context of 294, so I have included that text as well. I am posting the original Latin (which is the binding text) and an English translation to facilitate communication:
Latin text:
294. Populus Dei, qui ad Missam congregatur, cohaerentem et hierarchicam habet ordinationem, quae diversis ministeriis diversaque actione pro singulis celebrationis partibus exprimitur. Generalis itaque dispositio aedis sacrae ea sit oportet quae coetus congregati imaginem quodammodo prae se ferat, atque congruam omnium ordinationem permittat necnon rectam muneris exsecutionem uniuscuiusque foveat.
Fideles atque schola cantorum locum obtinebunt, qui ipsorum actuosam participationem faciliorem reddat. [114]
Sacerdos celebrans, diaconus et alii ministri locum capient in presbyterio. Ibidem parentur sedes concelebrantium]
An English Translation
[there are basically two approved translations, one published by the American Bishops, the other by the English bishops. The one you refer to is merely a reproduction oft he English approved text which was subsequently approved for Ireland. I am quoting the American text simply because it is available on the net.]
294. The People of God, gathered for Mass, has a coherent and hierarchical structure, which
finds its expression in the variety of ministries and the variety of actions according to the
different parts of the celebration. The general ordering of the sacred building must be such that in
some way it conveys the image of the gathered assembly and allows the appropriate ordering of
all the participants, as well as facilitating each in the proper carrying out of his function.
The faithful and the choir should have a place that facilitates their active participation.114
The priest celebrant, the deacon, and the other ministers have places in the sanctuary. Seats for
concelebrants should also be prepared there. If, however, their number is great, seats should be
arranged in another part of the church, but near the altar.
All these elements, even though they must express the hierarchical structure and the diversity of
ministries, should nevertheless bring about a close and coherent unity that is clearly expressive of
the unity of the entire holy people. Indeed, the character and beauty of the place and all its
furnishings should foster devotion and show forth the holiness of the mysteries celebrated there.295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed,
and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably
be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a
particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist
to be celebrated properly and easily seen.I would begin by saying that theologically there is no tension bewteen hierarchy and unity in the Church. Hieracrhy ensures, guarantees and expresses unity. Consequently, in the building of a church, which should in some way reflect the reality of the Church (which is a heavenly entity, an earthly entity and a purgatorial entity), there should be no tension between “hierarchy” and “unity”.
In the case of Drumaroad, I am inclined to think that the distinction between the sancturay (presbyterium) and the rest of the church has not been sufficiently emphasized. Indeed, one would be forgiven for thinking that the underlying organizing principle was a flat democracy that certainly does not convey anything of the differene not only in function but also in essence between the ordained and the non-ordained very specifically re-iterated by Lumen Gentium 10 and explained in Redemptionis Sacramentum 36 and 37; and agin in Ecclesiae de Mysterio, theological principles, n.1. I include a link to the full text of this very important statement of dogmatic prinicples: http://www.adoremus.org/Instruction-lay-ministry.html#anchor23456
-
September 22, 2006 at 12:58 am #768614
Luzarches
ParticipantOf course, the GIRM is the principle normative text for the disposition of churches. But it is not without it’s problems. BQ uses it with reference to Drumaroad in accordance with his interpretation of the text. The text itself is written in such a way that may be interpreted in any different numbers of ways, and the physical results of those paths might appear very different or even contradictory: One could end up with a conservative basilican church or a trendy antiphonal one. The problem here is that the Church seems to have given up on a degree of ‘rubrical’ precision with regard to this question. The Church expects that one reading the GIRM will interpret it in the light of precedent, using the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’, so to speak, and not from a premise of radical freedom which is not in any way ‘constrained’ by tradition. The fault lies therefore in the context in which interpretations are made and, to some extent, conditioned by. For example, it is no surprise that the idea of ‘the People of God’ is not in some way modified by an inappropriate idea of democracy or functional equality. This tendency could also be said to be manifested in the equal sizing of the liturgical furniture. I maintain that it is simply not correct, theologically, to appear to give a greater prominence to the ambo than to the altar. Similarly, to dispose of both of these elemnts around the central axis, but neither on it.
-
September 22, 2006 at 1:50 am #768615
Praxiteles
ParticipantLuzarches!
You have actually anticipated my next point: that the general principles outlined in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal are to be understood in the context of the architetcural, artistic and rubrical tradition of Church. That tradition affords wide scope for artistic imagination in applying these principles (which in themselves are not new) in a contemporary context that is at the same time visibly in continuity with a antecedent theological tradition. An application of the principles of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal should not end in a Melchisadeck-type form without father or mother, antecedent or descendent. That point has been sufficiently expounded by writers such as Stephen Schloeder and Martin Mosebach, Peter Elliott and Klaus Gamber etc.,
Again, you are perfectly correct in seeing the application of the principles fo the General Instruction to the Roman Missal within this context as another aspect of the general hermeneutic of continuity. The Second Vatican Council does not represent a radical rupture with the Church’s history up to 1965. It has to be seen as an essential element of the continuum that is the Church’s history.
Likewise, with regard to the present Roman Missal, it would be well for some of the people contribuiting to this thread to read the early articles of the Instruction to the Roman Missal which makes it patently explicit that the
present Roman Missal is not a new production but a revision of the Roman MIssal published by St, Pope Pius V in 1570. In saying as much, I have implied consequences for the theological undestanding of the Mass, the priesthood and the purpose of worship.Given the above, I would point out that Drumaroad does not represent a form found within the Catholic tradition. Rhabanus was correct in detecting a certain Calvinism in its approach. Indeed, I would point to the Edwardine Ordinances of 1547 as the source for this disposition of a church interior. We should bear in mind that these ordinances were enforced throughout England specifically to destroy the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice and, more specifically, a sacramental re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. These ordinances required the abandonment of the sanctuary, the destruction of the altar (oftentimes the table-stone of the altar was saved in English parish churches by conceling it in the walls or by inverting it and insetting it in the floor of the sancturay), and the setting up of a table in the nave surrounded by benches. That such was also enforced at least in certain parts of Ireland is to be seen from the scars on St. Mary’s Collegiate Church in Youghal, Co. Cork. If anyone wshes to pursue the point, then he could not do better than read Eamonn Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars.
A similar arrangement grew up among the Calvinists in Hungry whre they obtained possession of the parish churches: the altars were demolished, the sanctuary abandoned, a pulpit raised against the north wall of the nave surrounded by benches, underneath which was placed a small square shaped altar. I presume that none of these intentions informed the re-organisation of the churches we are considering.
I have already pointed out on several occasions on this thread that the arrangement in Drumaroad has nothing to do with an antiphonal arrangement. Such is something proper to a monastic or collegiate church or canonry where there is a canonically instituted group of CLERICS to discharge the daily offices of the Roman Breviary. I have also pointd out that where a proper antiphonal arrangement exists, it consists of choir stalls which face each other usually in the sanctuary between the rail and the High Altar; or sometmes behind the High Altar in what is called a retro-choir. Where this arrangement exists or existed, it was unheard of to have an altar between the choirstalls. Drumaroad, I am afraid is an all together differnt bird and, in Catholic terms, an all together inadequate one. To pass Drumaroad off as an antiphonal arrangement of liturgical space, to my mind, represents one of the worst tendencies in some quarters over the past twenty years: the patronising clericalisation of the laity with its implicit suggestion that the lay state is somehow imperfect or inadequate. That, I tend to think, is a trend diametrically opposed to one of the great themes of the Second Vatican Council, namely, the vocation of the laity to holiness. It is ironic that the clericalising trend should invoke the Council to justify its lunacy.
-
September 22, 2006 at 12:30 pm #768616
Praxiteles
ParticipantWhat I have to say above is perhaps better conveyed by a single sentence taken from J. Ratzinger’s discussion of sacred art (Die Bilderfrage) in his Geist der Liturgie, translated as The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, San Francisco): Aus der isolierten Subjektivitaet kann keine Sakrale Kunst kommen (op.cit p. 115).
-
September 22, 2006 at 10:35 pm #768617
brianq
ParticipantA few images of the interior of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown.
BQ
-
September 22, 2006 at 11:10 pm #768618
MacLeinin
ParticipantIs the structure at the very back under the round window the Tabernacle? If so, can I ask, what is the point?
From the position of the chairs/pews (I can’t quite make out which they are supposed to be) no one in the congregation can see the Tabernacle from the orientation of the seats. But then again that may be just what was wanted.!!!!!
The thing that I am presuming is the ambo I have to say reminds me of an urinal and as for the ‘thing’ at the opposite end which again I have to presume is supposed to be an altar looks like something my children would produce with playdough (although lacking the colour).
In truth there is nothing in this that I, as a Catholic, can identify with. If I happened upon this unawares there is nothing here to tell me that this is the House of God and that He resides here. It is cold and soulless and my heart goes out to the poor unfortunates who have no choice but to attend Mass in this place.
It would take St. Paul himself or the Cure d’Ars to uplift the faithful in these surroundings. Unfortunately I do not think we have their like in Ireland today. -
September 22, 2006 at 11:21 pm #768619
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust as a matter of interest, how does this arrangement work for the ceremonies of Benediction? If the monstrance is placed on the altar along the axis, then all you can see is the profile of the monstrance. If turned around, and I would not recommend that, then you end up with half the Congregation looking at the back of the monstrance.
Come to think of it, the lack of a step or predella in Armagh means that you have to kneel on the floor for benediction – which is an uncomfortable and awkward thing.
-
September 23, 2006 at 10:31 pm #768620
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of the Assumption of Our Lady, Newry, Co. Down
Refurbished by Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville.
I post this example by way of rounding off our discussion of the distinction between sanctuary and nave as an expression of the hierarchial structuring of the Church and of the distinction to be made between the priesthood and the laity.
This church clearly had a set of altar rails which served the purpose mentioned in the General Instrucction n. 295 – distinguishing the sancturay from the nave of the church. In the present arrangement, they have been move up against the back wall of the sancturay. This, we are told, was to provide a sense of the sanctuary’s having leap-frogged over them into the nave to “embrace” the Congregation (an activity not really to be encouraged for all sorts of reasons). Presumably, the wall against which they now stand can be concomitantly read to symbolize the closing or walling up of heaven -which the sanctuary traditionally symbolizes. This is exactly what happened with the chancels of English parish churches following the publication of the Edwardine Ordinances – they were walled aoff an allowed to fall into ruin. A survey carried out in Ireland under the reign of Charles I will tell you exactly the extent to which chancels were derelict in parish churches in ireland.
I just wonder if those involved in this project realized the theological implications of what they were doing and the dogmatic import of what the state in some sections of the broschure accompanying this project. For example:
“The original altar rails were relocated at
the rear of the sanctuary giving them a
new dignity and appropriateness, and
providing a sense of the new sanctuary
having moved beyond the altar rails to
embrace the congregation. Similarly, the
frontal of the previous altar, which
began life at the rear wall, has been
relocated there again.”(The full text is available here:
http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/FileAccess.aspx?Id=147 ). -
September 24, 2006 at 9:28 pm #768621
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs an indication of the use of altar rails, I am posting a picture of the Cathedral of St. Andrew in Bordeaux. Firstly, it is noticeable that the floor of the sancturay is ony three steps above the nave. As we have seen before, the altar is raised on a predella within the sancturay. The threone is on the Gospel (left) side on a predella lower tahtn that of the altar. The sedilia for the priest is on the right hand (epistle) side. The epistle is read at the ambo. The Gospel is read from another portable ambo at the other side of the sanctuary – you can see the podium for it. All of the ironwork is 18th. century and very typical of Bordeaux.
It should also be noticed that the predella of the High Altar is raised 9 steps above the floor of the nave: 3 steps at the altar rail; 2 steps dividing the plane of the sanctuary itself; and the Altar raised on a predella of 4 steps, reflecting the tradition that the total number of steps be an uneven number: 1:3:5:7 or 9. All of these numbers have symbolic significance, ususlly relating to perfection. St. Augustine has a commentary on the symboic nature of numbers in which he outlines their significance. In the case of Bordeaux; 9 probably reflects 3×3 where 3 represents the perfection of God that we have in the Trinity. Its multiplication by 3 indicates the fulness or superabundance of perfection accomplished in the Sacrifice of Christ on the Altar.
-
September 24, 2006 at 10:00 pm #768622
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs an example of St. Augustine’s theory of numbers and their significance, I am posting an extract from his tract on the exegesis of Scripture written in 397, the de Doctrina Christiana exegeting the number 10:
“25. Ignorance of numbers, too, prevents us from understanding things that are set down in Scripture in a figurative and mystical way. A candid mind, if I may so speak, cannot but be anxious, for example, to ascertain what is meant by the fact that Moses and Elijah, and our Lord Himself, all fasted for forty days.(7) And except by knowledge of and reflection upon the number, the difficulty of explaining the figure involved in this action cannot be got over. For the number contains ten four times, indicating the knowledge of all things, and that knowledge interwoven with time. For both the diurnal and the annual revolutions are accomplished in periods numbering four each; the diurnal in the hours of the morning, the noontide, the evening, and the night; the annual in the spring, summer, autumn, and winter months. Now while we live in time, we must abstain and fast from all joy in time, for the sake of that eternity in which we wish to live; although by the passage of time we are taught this very lesson of despising time and seeking eternity. Further, the number ten signifies the knowledge of the Creator and the creature, for there is a trinity in the Creator; and the number seven indicates the creature, because of the life and the body. For the life consists of three parts, whence also God is to be loved with the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind; and it is very clear that in the body there are four elements of which it is made up. In this number ten, therefore, when it is placed before us in connection with time, that is, when it is taken four times we are admonished to live unstained by, and not partaking of, any delight in time, that is, to fast for forty days. Of this we are admonished by the law personified in Moses by prophecy personified in Elijah, and by our Lord Himself, who, as if receiving the witness both of the law and the prophets, appeared on the mount between the other two, while His three disciples looked on in amazement. Next, we have to inquire in the same way, how out of the number forty springs the number fifty, which in our religion has no ordinary sacredness attached to it on account of the Pentecost, and how this number taken thrice on account of the three divisions of time, before the law, under the law, and under grace, or perhaps on account of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Trinity itself being added over and above, has reference to the mystery of the most Holy Church, and reaches to the number of the one hundred and fifty-three fishes which were taken after the resurrection of our Lord, when the nets were cast out on the right-hand side of the boat.(1) And in the same way, many other numbers and combinations of numbers are used in the sacred writings, to convey instruction under a figurative guise, and ignorance of numbers often shuts out the reader from this instruction.”
As an example of the influence and variety of Augustine’s analythic theoy of numbers try this articel on its use in the Book of Kells:
http://www.sca.org.au/scribe/articles/building_on_belief.htm
-
September 25, 2006 at 8:14 pm #768623
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
As an example of St. Augustine’s theory of numbers and their significance, I am posting an extract from his tract on the exegesis of Scripture written in 397, the de Doctrina Christiana exegeting the number 10:
“25. Ignorance of numbers, too, prevents us from understanding things that are set down in Scripture in a figurative and mystical way. A candid mind, if I may so speak, cannot but be anxious, for example, to ascertain what is meant by the fact that Moses and Elijah, and our Lord Himself, all fasted for forty days.(7) And except by knowledge of and reflection upon the number, the difficulty of explaining the figure involved in this action cannot be got over. For the number contains ten four times, indicating the knowledge of all things, and that knowledge interwoven with time. For both the diurnal and the annual revolutions are accomplished in periods numbering four each]http://www.sca.org.au/scribe/articles/building_on_belief.htm[/url]
Right, Praxiteles, it is this Augustinian understanding of the sacred significance of numbers that found expression in countless churches throughout not only Eurpoe, but indeed the entire world wherever the Christian Gospel was preached. It is unmistakable in Romanesque churches but particularly so in Gothic churches – especially in Cistercian churches where restraint in iconography accentuated the theological implications of sacred geometry. Very trinitarian and utterly transcendent. These qualities were valued and displayed to advantage in the Neogothic revival shlin aslo of St Colman’s Cobh). The Gothic image has long been identified closely with the Catholic Church for obvious reasons. Film director and producer Rouben Mamoulian, for example, underscores this relationship between Catholicism and Gothic architecture in his 1929 classic Applause, but it is clear in scores of other works of art and literature (eg Victor Hugo, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Readers ought to consult Augustine’s small dialogues recorded from discussions at his retreat in Cassiciacum, De numero and De musica. Brian, you would do well to give them a fair perusal. Always go directly to the master himself.
I am afraid but round altars do not find a place in the orthodox Christian life of worship, whereas pagan and Gnostic traditions do favour round altars. In fact the circle is not the customary way that Christians have gathered before the Altar of the Lord. Even the earliest extant depictions of the Lat Supper show Christ and the Apostles assembled at a convex table with Christ at the viewers left. The concave side of the table provided access to the servants who brought food & drink and removed dishes. See, for example the mosaic of the Last Supper in S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, executed around 520. This shows Christ leading the Last Supper at the extreme end of the table with the Apostles arranged in succession behind Him. The Passover, after all, was a formal, ritual meal, not a picnic with random arrangement calculated to facilitate chit chat and incidental badinage.
The relentless placing of round altars in new churches (eg Wayside, Drumaroad) prompts me to wonder not just about the anti-hierarchical spirit behind it but also raises questions about ultimate inspiration. Praxiteles made the astute connection between the design (and even colour) of Wayside and the pagan (Druidic) temple mound. Before I saw the photo of the pagan mound temple I had thought that the inspiration was a Buddha in the lotus position. The interior is completely out of sync with the long history of Christian worship, whereas it is rather more in keeping with Gnostic and pagan fixation on the circle. It certainly figures grandly in feminist ideologies and praxes. Connections with Wicca?
I eschew round altars and round worship spaces as they give me the creeps. Too closely allied with pagan and gnostic systems of worship, belief, and ideology. Even the Constantinian covering of the Holy
Sepulchre, was octagonal rather than strictly spherical, and it contained an oblong Tomb within an aedicule.Who gave permission to erect these round altars in modernist churches built with Catholic resources and under Catholic auspices? This bears close scrutiny.
Those seeking to be avant-garde and ultrachic would do well to consult the earliest models of Christian houses of worship. They can start with the domus Ecclesiae at Dura Europas (circa AD 240). A Roman garrison town on the Euphrates, the place was destroyed by the Sassanians in 256 and never was rebuilt. The excavations done in the early twentieth century reveal an oriented rectangular altar in the assembly hall. Its shape resembles the rectangular baptismal tank in the baptistery.
More later.
-
September 25, 2006 at 9:24 pm #768624
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
Do you konw of any link to a translation of Augustine’s de Musica and the de Numero? There are translations around of the references to the de numero in the de Civitate Dei but it is not very extensive. Perhaps it would also be interesting to add something about Boethius on numbers as well as Macrobius, Isidore and Thierry of Chartres.
-
September 25, 2006 at 11:27 pm #768625
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
If I could distract your momentarily from Dr. Jekyll and direct your attention to Mr. Hyde.
Looking around casually on the net this evening, I encountered this extraordinary description of the Church of Our Lady of the Wayside at Jenkinstown, Co. Louth written by its architect, Mr. Brian Quinn. Can I ask you what we are to make of it? Is it to be taken seriously or are dealing with just another guff merchant? The statement saying “…only recently..the Spirit has revealed the prsence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly iteslf” was enough to give me certain a certain frissonnement or the collagirfeen as they call it in Cork:
“CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE WAYSIDE
JENKINSTOWN, Co. LOUTH
The construction of a new church is always more than placing one brick on top of another, it is an act of faith. The building itself becomes a physical manifestation of a parish’s vision of faith and as such is an exciting, if somewhat grave, responsibility for the building team.When designing the new Church of Our Lady of the Wayside, we were mindful of the fact that a parish vision of faith is forged by locality within the context of the Universal Church. The vision given to us by the Universal Church, through the Second Vatican Council, is of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.
The presence of Christ in the presider and consecrated species has been understood for a long time. It is only recently that the Spirit has revealed the presence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly itself. The response in church architecture has seen a moving away from passively watching the action at one end of the building to gathering around the table of the Word and table of the Eucharist. In order to represent this theology architecturally an oval plan was employed for Our Lady of the Wayside in which the assembly are arranged on either side of a central ‘sanctuary’. This enables all to be proximate to the shifting centres of liturgical action yet maintaining a meaningful distance between them. A sense of gathering is further emphasised by the curved form of the seating. That fact that fellow parishioners are seen face to face bears witness to Christ in each of us and in the assembly gathered for worship.
Elements prompted by the ‘local’ church are Mourne granite for the external walls and the form of the external cross inspired by those adorning the chapel in nearby Bellurgan which this church replaces. In addition, the theme of water, life-giving and cleansing, is particularly apposite due to the close proximity of Dundalk Bay. This theme is taken up by the boat-like form of the building, in the design of the stained-glass windows and the tabernacle.
Brian Quinn, RIBA, RIAI.
November 1994″
“The building itself becomes a physical manifestation of a parish’s vision of faith” – I wonder just how many parishioners were consulted re their “vision of faith” in the plannin g and construction of this edifice? And just what exactly does this mean? What if a given parishioner suffered from a skewed “vision of faith” – would that parishioner’s “vision of faith” be given equal status with the “vision of faith” articulated in the sacred Scriptures, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the sacred ecumenical councils, the Holy See and all bishops in communion with Rome? Are these all of equal worth (or wothlessness)? Revelation does not start with “the people in the pews” or “the priest in his presbytery” or the “bishop in his cathedra.” Revelation is the self-manifestation of the living God Who calls into being His Church. Catholicism publicly acknowledges and proclaims its adherence to sacred Tradition as well as to Sacred Scripture, for it was Tradition that canonised the books of the Bible. As the great western doctor, St Augustine, wrote, “I believe in the gospels because the Church bids me do so.
Given the priority of divin revelation, the statement cited above gives the first hint that the end product will be dependent upon a highly subjective, ecclectic “vision of faith” reflective not of the once and future Church universal but of a collectivity of locals who have chosen to commit their interest and efforts to this project.
How different was the approach of Abbot Suger of St-Denys, architect of the first Gothic church. He took as his inspiration not the ravings of the potato-pealers in the cellar doing penance for their sins, but rather the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation) and selected the stones mentioned in that Book. He designed his abbey church on the basis of the description rendered by the visionary St John. Now that is a worthy “vision of faith” – and it looks quite a bit different from Wayside in Jenkinsville, n’est-ce pas? The abbey church of St-Denys is a masterpiece of architecture – original, magnificent, faithful to a reliable model, true to form, a conscious reflection of the liturgy of the new and eternal Jerusalem above.
Now let us consider the next claim:
“When designing the new Church of Our Lady of the Wayside, we were mindful of the fact that a parish vision of faith is forged by locality within the context of the Universal Church. The vision given to us by the Universal Church, through the Second Vatican Council, is of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.”
A parish vision of faith is “forged”? Interesting verb here! How does one “forge” a “vision of faith”? Does this mean “make it up as you go along”? “Hammer it out in the heat of intense self-reflection and labour”? Does this term not imply a certain contrivance and artificiality? Certainly artifice comes to my mind. I’m sorry, but I simply do not understand how one “forges” a “vision of faith.”I thought, too, that the Christian faith derives from God, the Source of divine revelation, which He transmits to us through the two aforementioned channels of Tradition and Scripture. I had no idea, and have no idea, that “a parish vision of faith is forged by locality within the context of the Universal Church.” I understand that koinonia or communio or communion is shared among all local churches that are in union with the Apostolic See. The universal Church is the source of the communion shared by the local church with all the other local churches throughout the world. A local church can claim to belong to the Mystical Body or the People of God (choose your own metaphor) only on the condition that it shares communion with the see of Peter. It’s that simple.
“The vision given to us by the Universal Church, through the Second Vatican Council, is of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.” The council merely transmitted, and did not invent, the vision of God’s people gathered together in the Spirit. Why not BY the Spirit? At any rate, when the Holy Spirit, soul of Christ’s Mystical Body, forms and guides the Church on the way to Heaven, He arrays her (the Church as Bride – a Johannine image) in hierarchical order – not as a scrum of local yokels huddling around some round contrivance of a table with no other goal than experiencing themselves in a huddle or scrum.
Where, may I ask, is the language of worship?
“God’s people gathered together in the Spirit to partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son.” Ah! Here it is at last. Just how would “God’s people,” gathered in this particular building, effectively “partake in the eternal liturgy offered to the Father by the Son”? You imagine it – I can’t. Worship implies adoration of the Divine Majesty. Do we see priedieux or kneelers here? As at Drumaroad, the “worshippers” are not aided in their primary role of worshipping (ie “adoring” God). The layout of both Drumaroad and Jenkinstown resembles more a Quaker meeting hall or an IBM waiting room than a Christian church.
“The presence of Christ in the presider and consecrated species has been understood for a long time. It is only recently that the Spirit has revealed the presence of Christ in the Word and in the gathered assembly itself.” This is a veiled slight against Pius XII’s encyclical letter Mediator Dei of 1947 and an oblique reference to Eucharisticum mysterium (1967): “In order that they should achieve a deeper understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist, the faithful should be instructed in th eprincipal ways in which the Lord is present to his Church in liturgical celebrations.
He is always present in a body of the faithful gathered in his name (cf. Mt 18:20). He is present, too, in his Word, for it is he who speaks when the Scriptures are read in the Church.
In the sacrifice of the Eucharist he is present both in the person of teh minister, “the same now offering through the ministry of the priest who formerly offered himself on the cross,” and above all under the species of the Eucharist. For in this sacrament Christ is present in aunique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially an dpermanently. This presence of Christ under the species “is called ‘real’ not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence.”“The response in church architecture has seen a moving away from passively watching the action at one end of the building to gathering around the table of the Word and table of the Eucharist. In order to represent this theology architecturally an oval plan was employed for Our Lady of the Wayside in which the assembly are arranged on either side of a central ‘sanctuary’. This enables all to be proximate to the shifting centres of liturgical action yet maintaining a meaningful distance between them.”
“Passively watching,” is it? What unmitigated presumption! What unparalleled arrogance and haughty condescension! The author had better reconsider the meaning of the term participatio actuosa. Theologians by the dozens have been examining and re-examining this particular phrase in light of the Tradition, particularly since the pontificate of St Pius X (1903-1914), but even more intensely since 2000 and have come to recognize that “actual” or real participation does not in any sense imply that unremitting “activism” which has invaded the sacred liturgy on both sides of the Atlantic, whereby everyone and his dog crushes about the Altar and performs so many actions and gestures along with the priests and deacons that the qualitative distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful is obscured or simply discarded.
What does this blurb mean when it states that “an oval plan was employed for Our Lady of the Wayside in which the assembly are arranged on either side of a central ‘sanctuary’.” What SANCTUARY? How is such a space delineated in architectural terms? By elevation? By a bema? By a rail? No to all three questions. How Gnostic! Only the designer and those “in the know” understand where the presbyterium begins and ends, and where the rest of the church begins and ends.
Just follow the altar round and round and round in a Dionysian frenzy, and see how long it takes before one falls into a trance or ecstatic state. Was such a structore intended to faciltate sharing of worship space with Gnostic groups or pagan communities?
“This enables all to be proximate to the shifting centres of liturgical action yet maintaining a meaningful distance between them.” A three-ring circus is what this observer sees. It also reinforces the earlier-mentioned taboo of gazing instead of participating fully. Circuses cater to spectators who naturally have come specifically to watch “the spectacle.” Seats devoid of kneelers reinforce this passivity of watching a form of entertainment. How do the designs of Jenkinstown and Drumaroad fit into the plan of Catholic worship.
“A sense of gathering is further emphasised by the curved form of the seating.”
Gathering for what? Another spectale? Rome’s collisseum was designed for entertainment. Rome’s basilicas were designed as courts of law and high business. The Christian Church adopted this, not circular pagan temples (eg. that of Vesta), as the ideal model of its assembly halls, once Constantine had assured the peace of the Church.
“That fact that fellow parishioners are seen face to face bears witness to Christ in each of us and in the assembly gathered for worship.”
How cliche. Gathered for worship of whom? God? Us? Is the central focus US or God? Is there a central focus at all? Looks like plenty of distraction coming from all directions and no real focus at all. Confusion and horizontalism dominate.
What kind of architectural language is at work in these designs under review? Did the adminstrators of the parishes think to question or challenge them? Are sacred art and architecture no longer taught in Irish seminaries?
Was novelty the only criterion at work in the adjudication and approval of these designs proposed for Catholic houses of worship? Was no attention paid to the fundamentally iconoclastic approach taken and the discarding of timeless customs such as rectangular altars, a place of prominence for the reserved Blessed Sacrament (where Christ is present ‘par excellence’) and to hierarchy in architectural language? Why is everything on the same level and all flattened out? How is it that NO ONE questioned these assumptions or subjected the plans to more instense theological and historical scrutiny?
The rupture with the venerable tradition of Catholic art and architectgure clearly evident in the examples so far discussed (and contrasted with the remnants of the beuatifully designed and executed cathedrals and church of nineteenth0century Ireland ought to give one pause and likewise give rise to some serious questions about the underlying theological and ecclesiological presuppositions at work in these postmodern designs and their execution.
A careful reading of the documents of Vatican II and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal makes me wonder how these buildings can be taken seriously as examples of Catholic houses of worship. The egregious eccentricity, lack of integration, iconoclasm, agressive anti-heirarchisation, and insistence upon disunity from recognizably Catholic architecture are all sufficiently disturbing that I ask “In what sense does this provide for the requirements of Catholic worship?”
Any answers out there?
-
September 26, 2006 at 1:21 am #768626
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Church of the Assumption of Our Lady, Newry, Co. Down
Refurbished by Brian Quinn of Rooney and McConville.
I post this example by way of rounding off our discussion of the distinction between sanctuary and nave as an expression of the hierarchial structuring of the Church and of the distinction to be made between the priesthood and the laity.
This church clearly had a set of altar rails which served the purpose mentioned in the General Instrucction n. 295 – distinguishing the sancturay from the nave of the church. In the present arrangement, they have been move up against the back wall of the sancturay. This, we are told, was to provide a sense of the sanctuary’s having leap-frogged over them into the nave to “embrace” the Congregation (an activity not really to be encouraged for all sorts of reasons). Presumably, the wall against which they now stand can be concomitantly read to symbolize the closing or walling up of heaven -which the sanctuary traditionally symbolizes. This is exactly what happened with the chancels of English parish churches following the publication of the Edwardine Ordinances – they were walled aoff an allowed to fall into ruin. A survey carried out in Ireland under the reign of Charles I will tell you exactly the extent to which chancels were derelict in parish churches in ireland.
I just wonder if those involved in this project realized the theological implications of what they were doing and the dogmatic import of what the state in some sections of the broschure accompanying this project. For example:
“The original altar rails were relocated at
the rear of the sanctuary giving them a
new dignity and appropriateness, and
providing a sense of the new sanctuary
having moved beyond the altar rails to
embrace the congregation. Similarly, the
frontal of the previous altar, which
began life at the rear wall, has been
relocated there again.”(The full text is available here:
http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/FileAccess.aspx?Id=147 ).I am not sure what to think of hat wavey-band effect on the sanctuary step. It looks a litle misplaced.
-
September 26, 2006 at 3:03 am #768627
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am not sure what to think of hat wavey-band effect on the sanctuary step. It looks a litle misplaced.
Given the ridiculous proximity of the baptismal font (see on Epistle side) to the main altar, it would be an altogether short “procession” to the altar (as mandated in the Ordo Baptismi parvulorum). I suppose, though, if you followed the wavey lines where the altar rail used to be, one could do “The Wibbley-Wobbley Walk” all along the front of the sanctuary and back to the Altar from behind. Quite the momba-line led by the priest, the parents, babe-in-arms, and godparents, Mrs Magillacuddy, the parish snoop, George Formby the British entertainer, the irrepressible Carmen Miranda, and the whole baptismal party.
Misplaced? Not with the St Vitus liturgical dancers mincing their way along the front of that sanctuary – not to mention the three dancing dogs arrayed in party-hats strutting along at the offertory.
-
September 26, 2006 at 3:12 pm #768628
Luzarches
Participant“…above all under the species of the Eucharist. For in this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species “is called ‘real’ not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence.”
EM 1967
In Newry it is precisely this sense which is being deliberately undermined. The font, though used on occasion, is permanently on view and competes visually with the altar. At least the altar is on axis, although it seems to be at the same level as the ‘presidential’ chair and the ambo.
But consider the length of time at which the priest spends at the altar and let’s take a guess that EP II is frequently used. Out of a parish mass of say 45 minutes, the priest might have spent 3 minutes at the altar. Now what are the people supposed to take from that? That the real presence in the Eucharist is the ‘pre-eminent’ event in the liturgy? Or maybe that’s Father’s 10 minute homily, the exhaustive lay-led bidding prayers, or the elongated liturgy of the word, not to mention the improvised comments?
In the new liturgy, if anything, the altar needs to be even more elevated, central and imposing than in the old rite, precisely to guard against what Rhabanus accurately characterizes as a flatening out or equalizing of the modes of Christ’s Presence in the liturgy, which Paul VI, for all the unfortunate things that happened in his reign, at least pointed out in his teaching.
-
September 26, 2006 at 6:59 pm #768629
Rhabanus
ParticipantWhat we have here is a liturgical disaster – theological impoverishement and liturgical confusion expressed in architectural language. Back to the drawing board – tabula rasa!
-
September 26, 2006 at 9:27 pm #768630
Rhabanus
Participant@brianq wrote:
A few images of the interior of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown.
BQ
What is the canonical, liturgical, and theological justification for a ROUND altar? Why are there no altar cloths on the disk-like structure with the gold letters engraved around it?
Why is the celebrant’s chair exalted higher than both the ambo and the altar? Could there be some clericalism at work here? Why are there more stairs ascending to the ambo than to the altar? How does this make any sense when the within the sacred liturgy itself there is a progression from Word to Sacrament?
If one examines the arragement of the ambones in the church of san Clemente Rome (Irish Dominicans), the hierarchy within the liturgy of the word is glaringly obvious: OT readings are proclaimed on the lowest level, then the NT lessons from Acts and the epistles of the Apostles are read on the middle level. The highest level is reserved for the proclamation of the Gospel and, on the opposite side but equal in height to the Gospel ambo, the Exultet.
Gradation (literal and temporal) is an architectural and liturgical reflection of the respective honour accorded the individual components within the Liturgy of the Word, and, beyond this part of the Mass, the rest of the sacred liturgy.
Of course the Liturgy of the Word precedes and prepares the congregation for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It leads TO the Eucharist. The Eucharistic Prayer and Holy Communion constitute the apex of the assembly’s central act of worship. Hence the climactic role of the Eucharist is indicated by further gradation, the Altar being elevated high above the celebrant’s chair, the lecterns or ambones, etc. The altar’s position either in the apse or in the actual crossing (in a cruciform building) proclaims the importance of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice itself.
How is it that this language has been lost, or, worse, discarded in Ireland? Having witnessed the destruction of many beautiful churches in North America and the erection of new strange, bizarre, and downright UGLY monstrosities on that very continent, how could the Church in Ireland fall under the spell of such tomfoolery and waste huge sums on emulating junk?
What does a tabernacle stuck into a wall without reference to the altar say in theological or liturgical terms?
What does a round altar suggest?
What might an oval-shaped “sanctuary” mean?
-
September 26, 2006 at 9:52 pm #768631
Rhabanus
Participant@brianq wrote:
A few images of the interior of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown.
BQ
I do not understand the purpose of adding written phrases on altars and pulpits or sanctuary walls for that matter, unless of course they are there to prompt the memory of those who may have forgotten their prayers. They seem particularly out of place where the sacred Liturgy is celebrated in the vernacular.
They make sense as captions to iconography, eg. “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” under a depction of the conversion of St Paul, or “Ave gratia plena” beneath a depiction of the Annunciation. Golden letters issue from the mouths of the Angel Gabriel and the Blessed Virgin in several depictions of the Annunciation by Fra Angelico, but these freschi are in the cells and corridors of the monastery of san Marco, Florence, not in a church.
Protestant churches frequently display scriptural phrases over the central arch of their sanctuaries, or in other prominent parts of their churches, but I do not understand why Catholics would feel the need to write out phrases on altars or other liturgical furniture, rather than express their messages iconographically.
The imposition of written phrases strikes me as far too didactic (a characteristically western weakness) for the liturgical environment. It also undermines the mystery of the liturgy. The earliest Christian art in churches and catacombs depicted biblical narratives that rendered present the very events portrayed (Noah’s ark, Red sea, Jonah being spat out of the whale in or near baptisteries; Sacrifice of Isaac, Melchisedech offering bread and wine in sacrifice, meal of the three Visitors with Abraham, feeding of the multitude or Last Supper near the altar).
Given the lack of elementary catechesis in most parish mystagogical or educational “programs,” I should have thought that Irish clergy and congregations alike would be quite keen to have depictions of these mysteries ornament the liturgical environment. Instead, what I detect is an overintellectualization of the mysteries being celebrated (or not) in the churches proposed as recent models of the new, modern(istic) approach taken by the “cutting edge” architects stalking the Hibernian landscape.
-
September 26, 2006 at 10:29 pm #768632
Rhabanus
Participant@Chuck E R Law wrote:
Catholicism is quite simple – it is a another form of Cargo Cult. First the physical shape of the church must be just right and there should be lashings of gorgeous Victorian mosaic on the floor and lurid images of martyred saints on the walls. Then people start to really believe in God and the decor gradually makes them more devout and you begin to hear again the sound of beads being thumbed…. and craws being thumped… and forelocks being tugged…
As to “lurid images of martyred saints on the walls” it may interest Chucko to read the words of that AFRICAN doctor of the Church St AUGUSTINE on the heavenly birth of the martyrs (sermo 329 [PL 38:1454-1456]):
“The Church everywhere flourishes though the glorious deeds of the holy martyrs. With our own eyes we can judge the truth of our song, that the death of his saints is precious in the sight of the Lord as well, for in his name they died. … Reflecting on all this, man cries out, saying: What shall I give the Lord for all he has given me? I shall take up the cup of salvation.
What is this cup? It is the cup of suffering, bitter yet healthful: the cup which, if the physician did not first drink it, the sick man would fear to touch. Yes, it is the cup of suffering, and of it Christ is speaking when he says: Father if it is possible let this cup pass from me.
Of this cup the martyrs said: I shall take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. But are you not afraid you will weaken? No, they reply. And why? Because I shall call upon the name of the Lord. Do you think the martyrs could have been victorious, unless he was victorious in the martyrs who said: Rejoice, for I have overcome the world? The Lord directed their minds and tongues]the death of the saints is precious in the sight of the Lord[/I].”The Church adorns her churches and sanctuaries with images of the saints, and particularly the martyrs, because they participated in a unique way in the sacrifice of Christ made present sacramentally on the altar. Another reason why the altar ought to dominate the sightline in Catholic churches.
Leave the cult cargo of your own fraught world, Chuck, and glimpse the glory of the saints in the beauty of the Chruch’s authentic worship.
-
September 26, 2006 at 11:22 pm #768633
Rhabanus
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:As an indication of the use of altar rails, I am posting a picture of the Cathedral of St. Andrew in Bordeaux. Firstly, it is noticeable that the floor of the sancturay is ony three steps above the nave. As we have seen before, the altar is raised on a predella within the sancturay. The threone is on the Gospel (left) side on a predella lower tahtn that of the altar. The sedilia for the priest is on the right hand (epistle) side. The epistle is read at the ambo. The Gospel is read from another portable ambo at the other side of the sanctuary – you can see the podium for it. All of the ironwork is 18th. century and very typical of Bordeaux.It should also be noticed that the predella of the High Altar is raised 9 steps above the floor of the nave: 3 steps at the altar rail]
Glancing over the handsome new volume of Alcuin Reid’s revised and corrected edition of Fortescue and O’Connell’s The Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite Described, 14th ed. (Farnborough: Saint Michael’s Abbey Press,2003), it occurred to me that bishops and priests now considering the advisability of handing their cathedrals and churches over to the “renovators” and wreckovators would do better to recall that the Holy See has been increasingly more generous in permitting the Mass to be celebrated accoridng to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal. The sanctuaries and accoutrements of the altar in pristine churches and cathedrals (like Cobh, for example) would be suitable venues for the sacred liturgy whether celebrated according to the 1962 or 2002 editions of the Roman Missal. Festina lente!
-
September 27, 2006 at 12:08 am #768634
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
I. ….I detect is an overintellectualization of the mysteries being celebrated (or not) in the churches proposed as recent models of the new, modern(istic) approach taken by the “cutting edge” architects stalking the Hibernian landscape.
Believe me when I say that this would be a serious over statement. “Intellect” not only does not operate but, for the most part, does not exist in the Irish Church.
-
September 27, 2006 at 3:33 pm #768635
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Believe me when I say that this would be a serious over statement. “Intellect” not only does not operate but, for the most part, does not exist in the Irish Church.
I recall seeing a rather outre statue supposedly of Saint Patrick erected in a prominent spot on the Irish landscape (southern Ireland, I believe). The statue portrayed not the majestic figure of the “steadfast man” [cf. Paul Gallico] vested in full pontificals as he drove out serpents with his crozier and preached the Triune God by means of the simple shamrock, but some scruffy youth barely clothed in a brief shift or skimpy tunic. It reminded me of a pagan shaman. The controversial statuette, titled ‘Padraig’ replaced the more familiar statue of St Patrick easily recognised worldwide by the usual iconographic attributes listed above. Does that eyesore still blight the Irish countryside? Speculation at the time suggested that a countermovement would have the offending image removed. Is anyone conversant with the controversy to which I allude?
My point is that some outrageous iconography has been put forward with a view to “reclaiming” Irish history and insinuating a pagan worldview into the Irish consciousness or self-awareness.
Needless to mention, I was appalled by the ruthless iconoclasm of Drumaroad and Wayside in Jenkinstown. The shocking feature is that it was allowed IN CHURCH.
God be with the faithful anawim in Cobh!
Are the Catholic faithful in Ireland organising some civic or religious body to review cases of liturgical malfeasance or misfeasance? I thought that the Irish constitution and government was officially supportive of the Catholic Church.
-
September 27, 2006 at 5:21 pm #768636
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
I think you are probably referring to the controversy some years ago when the Board of Works decided to take away the statue of St. Patrick from the Hill of Tara and replace it with something not in the least religious and which could be perceived as a piece of hum drum ding dong. The locals in the village of Slane kicked up stink and the result was that the less than religiously minded Board of Works withdrew their “innovative” plan and were supposed to return the restored statue that had been there. Of the abomination, I know not what happened – perhaps a reader might.
I am posting a photograph of the old statue with someting like -if not what was proposed for Tara – which is currently being advertised on the official website of the Archdiocese of Armagh.
As you will see, the iconographic crisis merely gives expression to a much deeper identity crisis!
(P.S. What an interesting use of the term “shift”. I had not seen or heard of for years!!).
-
September 27, 2006 at 5:47 pm #768637
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is an article from the Irish Independent. 17 March 1999
Should St Patrick stand again on Tara?
Our most famous statue of St Patrick now lies forgotten, broken and battered in a yard in Co. Meath. Cian Molloy tracks down the statue of St Patrick that once stood on the Hill of Tara and follows the row over finding a replacement
As you drown the shamrock today, spare a thought for the most important statue of St Patrick, Ireland’s patron saint, that once stood proudly on the Hill of Tara.
The whereabouts of the statue, once one of the best known landmarks in the country, has been a mystery for some time. But now the Irish Independent has tracked it down. And we have found that our most famous statue of St Patrick now lies forgotten, broken and battered in the corner of a government depot.
The statue, erected in Tara shortly after Catholic emancipation in 1829, commemorated the events of 433AD when St. Patrick lit a bonfire on the nearby hill of Slane on the eve of Easter Sunday.
Lighting such a fire was contrary to the pagan laws of the time which dictated that the first fire lit that night be in Tara. Observing St. Patrick’s bonfire from afar, the chief druid of the ancient Gaelic capital predicted that if the flame were not extinguished that night, Christianity would never be extinguished in Ireland.
The saint’s bonfire continued burning and the next morning, Easter Sunday, St. Patrick entered Tara to convert the king and his followers to Christianity.
Now the statue commemorating that event lies abandoned in a remote Co. Meath depot owned by Dúchas, the heritage service formally known as the Office of Public Works (OPW). St. Patrick’s once fine form now resembles the victim of a gangland killing.
The body is pockmarked by bullet-holes, its hands are missing and the statue has been decapitated the statue is almost a metaphor for the standing of the Church in Celtic Tiger Ireland.
It was removed from Tara in 1992 for refurbishment by the then OPW but in the removal the statue was damaged beyond repair. It was taken to a depot in Trim where it lay for a while, before being moved to another depot in Athcarn, when it was damaged again.
At some point it was also used for “target practice” according to a Dúchas spokesman. The spokesman couldn’t say who took pot shots at our patron saint or when the statue suffered the gunshot damage.
Following reports that the OPW were not planning to replace the statue, because Tara was a “pagan” site, an angry meeting of locals was held at the local Skryne Parish Hall.
At that meeting the local Rathfeigh Historical Society formed the Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara and pressure was put on then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht Michael D. Higgins, who was responsible for the OPW.
Following a two-year campaign, Minister Higgins agreed that a competition would be held for a new replacement. But, instead of standing at Rath na RÃ, the highest point in the Tara complex, it would stand between the entrance to Tara and the site’s new interpretative centre.
“This was the ideal solution, we thought,” said Dr. Leo Curran, chairman of the Rathfeigh Historical Society. “St. Patrick would be there to give a Céad MÃle Fáilte to visitors and he would be the last thing they saw as they left the site.”
But when the five member judging panel, which had only one local representative,announced the competition’s winner in 1997 there was further uproar among locals.
The competition rules had specified that the statue should incorporate traditional features which one would expect to include shamrocks, a harp, a mitre, a crozier and perhaps fleeing snakes. But the winning entry, by sculptor Annette Hennessy, instead was of a shaven headed teenage boy, wearing a short mini-skirt-like kilt and carrying a handbag-shaped bell. She agreed hers was “not a traditional style statue” saying it “acknowledges our Pagan Celtic history”.
Dr. Curran said: “This was a statue of a young boy, It would have been appropriate for Slemish, (a hill in Co Antrim) where St. Patrick was a slave and a swineherd. But when he arrived in Tara he would have been an older man, dressed as a bishop or priest. You would need an interpreter to know that this design is a statue of St. Patrick.”
According to expert opinion, St. Patrick was a middle-aged man when he entered Tara in the first half of the 5th century. There is some debate about whether he would have worn a mitre, with some historians saying mitres are an invention of the Middle Ages and others arguing that they date back close to the time of the apostles.
But Gerald Parry, secretary Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara, said: “Even if this is St. Patrick as a boy on Slemish mountain, in that outfit he would have frozen during the winter, he would have been paralysed from the knees down.”
The new statue was due to be unveiled on St. Patrick’s Day two years ago, but local opposition has prevented this. With the arrival of a new government, the Rathfeigh Historical Society started to lobby SÃle de Valera, the Minister of thenewly-named Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, but so farlittle has been achieved. Following a meeting with the minister, Dúchas were ordered to search Ireland to see if a suitable statue of St. Patrick was available elsewhere.
But on Tuesday of last week, eight days before St. Patrick’s Day, the historical society were told that “nationwide trawl” has failed. Dr. Curran said: “For the last 12 months we have been getting nowhere. The Minister has told us nothing new in the last 12 months.”
Dr. Curran now believes there will be no statue of St. Patrick at Tara by the dawn of the new Millennium marking 2,000 years of Christianity. He said: “I believe that the OPW are just waiting for local opposition to die off. I believe the permanent removal of St. Patrick’s statue from Tara was pre-planned six years ago by the OPW. Decisions on what is appropriate and inappropriate are being made by bureaucrats.
“I want to know are we living in a bureaucracy or a democracy? We agreed that most of the monuments in Tara are from the pre-Christian era, but St. Patrick should be at the uppermost layer, representing Christian tradition extinguishing paganism.”
Fr. Declan Hurley, secretary of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Meath, said: “The bishop did intervene at one stage, but we haven’t heard anything since. I hope that we would see a statue there before the end of the millennium. A statue of Saint Patrick that would do justice to the man himself and his legacy. We would love to see that.”
* Cian Molloy is news editor of the Irish Catholic
-
September 27, 2006 at 5:56 pm #768638
Peter Parler
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
I thought that the Irish constitution and government was officially supportive of the Catholic Church.
😎 Dear Rhabanus,
Article 44.1.2 of the Irish Constitution:
“The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church
as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens”
was deleted as long ago as 1973
– though I notice that An Taoiseach Bertie is clinging desperately to the concept of venial sin…. -
September 27, 2006 at 11:52 pm #768639
Rhabanus
Participant@Peter Parler wrote:
😎 Dear Rhabanus,
Article 44.1.2 of the Irish Constitution:
“The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church
as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens”
was deleted as long ago as 1973
– though I notice that An Taoiseach Bertie is clinging desperately to the concept of venial sin….Well, cut me in two and call me “Shorty”! Thanks for the clarification, Peter. What is the point of having a constitution if all the good parts are later deleted? I was under the impression that a constitution established the fundamental vision or the basic premise of a given country. Has Ireland abandoned its identity as a Catholic country?
If so, then this may well explain the horizontalization of Irish church interiors and the unrecognisable exteriors of new houses of worship.
-
September 28, 2006 at 1:21 am #768640
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn terms of the inspiration fro Our Lady of the Wayside in Jenkinstown, I am attaching a link to the Newgrange neolithic complex. As far as I remember, Brian QUinn has not positvely excluded Newgrange as a typos for his Jenkinstown church:
-
September 28, 2006 at 4:00 am #768641
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
In terms of the inspiration fro Our Lady of the Wayside in Jenkinstown, I am attaching a link to the Newgrange neolithic complex. As far as I remember, Brian QUinn has not positvely excluded Newgrange as a typos for his Jenkinstown church:
The resemblence between the ‘fairy-mound’ and Wayside in Jenkinstown is chilling, though I wonder whether the mysterious builders of the ancient heathen burial site weren’t much more prescient and competent than their ‘post-modern’ heirs:
“Within the mound, a long passage, only going in one third of the length of the mound, leads to a cruciform (cross-shaped) chamber. The passage itself is over 60 feet (18m). The burial chamber has a corbelled roof which rises steeply upwards to a height of nearly 20 feet (6m). A tribute to its builders, the roof has remained essentially intact and waterproof for over 5,000 years.”
Can the moderns take any credit for cruciformity, corbels, and waterproof rooves?
-
September 28, 2006 at 4:30 am #768642
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here is an article from the Irish Independent. 17 March 1999
Should St Patrick stand again on Tara?
Our most famous statue of St Patrick now lies forgotten, broken and battered in a yard in Co. Meath. Cian Molloy tracks down the statue of St Patrick that once stood on the Hill of Tara and follows the row over finding a replacement
As you drown the shamrock today, spare a thought for the most important statue of St Patrick, Ireland’s patron saint, that once stood proudly on the Hill of Tara.
The whereabouts of the statue, once one of the best known landmarks in the country, has been a mystery for some time. But now the Irish Independent has tracked it down. And we have found that our most famous statue of St Patrick now lies forgotten, broken and battered in the corner of a government depot.
The statue, erected in Tara shortly after Catholic emancipation in 1829, commemorated the events of 433AD when St. Patrick lit a bonfire on the nearby hill of Slane on the eve of Easter Sunday.
Lighting such a fire was contrary to the pagan laws of the time which dictated that the first fire lit that night be in Tara. Observing St. Patrick’s bonfire from afar, the chief druid of the ancient Gaelic capital predicted that if the flame were not extinguished that night, Christianity would never be extinguished in Ireland.
The saint’s bonfire continued burning and the next morning, Easter Sunday, St. Patrick entered Tara to convert the king and his followers to Christianity.
Now the statue commemorating that event lies abandoned in a remote Co. Meath depot owned by Dúchas, the heritage service formally known as the Office of Public Works (OPW). St. Patrick’s once fine form now resembles the victim of a gangland killing.
The body is pockmarked by bullet-holes, its hands are missing and the statue has been decapitated the statue is almost a metaphor for the standing of the Church in Celtic Tiger Ireland.
It was removed from Tara in 1992 for refurbishment by the then OPW but in the removal the statue was damaged beyond repair. It was taken to a depot in Trim where it lay for a while, before being moved to another depot in Athcarn, when it was damaged again.
At some point it was also used for “target practice” according to a Dúchas spokesman. The spokesman couldn’t say who took pot shots at our patron saint or when the statue suffered the gunshot damage.
Following reports that the OPW were not planning to replace the statue, because Tara was a “pagan” site, an angry meeting of locals was held at the local Skryne Parish Hall.
At that meeting the local Rathfeigh Historical Society formed the Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara and pressure was put on then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht Michael D. Higgins, who was responsible for the OPW.
Following a two-year campaign, Minister Higgins agreed that a competition would be held for a new replacement. But, instead of standing at Rath na RÃ, the highest point in the Tara complex, it would stand between the entrance to Tara and the site’s new interpretative centre.
“This was the ideal solution, we thought,” said Dr. Leo Curran, chairman of the Rathfeigh Historical Society. “St. Patrick would be there to give a Céad MÃle Fáilte to visitors and he would be the last thing they saw as they left the site.”
But when the five member judging panel, which had only one local representative,announced the competition’s winner in 1997 there was further uproar among locals.
The competition rules had specified that the statue should incorporate traditional features which one would expect to include shamrocks, a harp, a mitre, a crozier and perhaps fleeing snakes. But the winning entry, by sculptor Annette Hennessy, instead was of a shaven headed teenage boy, wearing a short mini-skirt-like kilt and carrying a handbag-shaped bell. She agreed hers was “not a traditional style statue” saying it “acknowledges our Pagan Celtic history”.
Dr. Curran said: “This was a statue of a young boy, It would have been appropriate for Slemish, (a hill in Co Antrim) where St. Patrick was a slave and a swineherd. But when he arrived in Tara he would have been an older man, dressed as a bishop or priest. You would need an interpreter to know that this design is a statue of St. Patrick.”
According to expert opinion, St. Patrick was a middle-aged man when he entered Tara in the first half of the 5th century. There is some debate about whether he would have worn a mitre, with some historians saying mitres are an invention of the Middle Ages and others arguing that they date back close to the time of the apostles.
But Gerald Parry, secretary Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara, said: “Even if this is St. Patrick as a boy on Slemish mountain, in that outfit he would have frozen during the winter, he would have been paralysed from the knees down.”
The new statue was due to be unveiled on St. Patrick’s Day two years ago, but local opposition has prevented this. With the arrival of a new government, the Rathfeigh Historical Society started to lobby SÃle de Valera, the Minister of thenewly-named Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, but so farlittle has been achieved. Following a meeting with the minister, Dúchas were ordered to search Ireland to see if a suitable statue of St. Patrick was available elsewhere.
But on Tuesday of last week, eight days before St. Patrick’s Day, the historical society were told that “nationwide trawl” has failed. Dr. Curran said: “For the last 12 months we have been getting nowhere. The Minister has told us nothing new in the last 12 months.”
Dr. Curran now believes there will be no statue of St. Patrick at Tara by the dawn of the new Millennium marking 2,000 years of Christianity. He said: “I believe that the OPW are just waiting for local opposition to die off. I believe the permanent removal of St. Patrick’s statue from Tara was pre-planned six years ago by the OPW. Decisions on what is appropriate and inappropriate are being made by bureaucrats.
“I want to know are we living in a bureaucracy or a democracy? We agreed that most of the monuments in Tara are from the pre-Christian era, but St. Patrick should be at the uppermost layer, representing Christian tradition extinguishing paganism.”
Fr. Declan Hurley, secretary of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Meath, said: “The bishop did intervene at one stage, but we haven’t heard anything since. I hope that we would see a statue there before the end of the millennium. A statue of Saint Patrick that would do justice to the man himself and his legacy. We would love to see that.”
* Cian Molloy is news editor of the Irish Catholic
Thanks, Praxiteles, this was the very statue I had in mind. The prompt was just what I needed. I now recall much more vividly the ultra-modern and paganising statue of the adolescent druid gussied up for a night on the town. Imagine replacing the venerable statue of St Patrick with that will-o-the-wispy tart. Good grief!
I am disappointed to read in the article above that the well-proportioned and attractive statue of St Patrick that once stood on Tara hill was used as target practice by gunslingers. What a crude, pathetic statement about national pride and self-respect.
Perhaps God in His mercy will raise up a worthy successor to the glorious St Patrick who will revive the Christian Faith in the Emerald Isle.
In the meantime, look for the images of the dreadful statuette of Paddy-in-a-kilt and compare it with the similarly hideous image of the druid with a stag on his shoulders provided in the previous submission (juxtaposed with the earlier majestic statue of St Patrick). Note the pharaonic headress (mitre?) and the quasi-masonic apron over the tunic. Priest of Isis? Osiris? Worse?
The posture of the druid carrying a deer contrasts (mocks?) the renowned classical sculpted-marble statue of the clean-shaven, Romanised Christ with a sheep on His shoulders. The inspiration for the latter is Psalm 22 (23) Dominus regit me (The Lord is my Shepherd). This motif is present over the baptismal font in Dura-Europas, the earliest extant domus Ecclesiae (house of the Church) in the Roman garrison town on the Euphrates destroyed in 251 (?) by the Sassanians and preserved intact for nearly two millennia. The image of Christ as Shepherd is among the earliest depictions of the Saviour.
The contrast between that noble, correctly-proportioned, classical marble statue of the Lord Jesus and the pokey, ‘oxidised’ bronze of the bow-legged druid sporting a deer is risible.
I suppose one must frankly raise the question: What is the purpose of this kind of ugly statuary? Is it to adorn a Christian church/basilica, or is it to haunt a house? Perhaps to blight the landscape?
Too bad some people’s taste is all in their mouths.
-
September 28, 2006 at 4:41 am #768643
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
I think you are probably referring to the controversy some years ago when the Board of Works decided to take away the statue of St. Patrick from the Hill of Tara and replace it with something not in the least religious and which could be perceived as a piece of hum drum ding dong. The locals in the village of Slane kicked up stink and the result was that the less than religiously minded Board of Works withdrew their “innovative” plan and were supposed to return the restored statue that had been there. Of the abomination, I know not what happened – perhaps a reader might.
I am posting a photograph of the old statue with someting like -if not what was proposed for Tara – which is currently being advertised on the official website of the Archdiocese of Armagh.
As you will see, the iconographic crisis merely gives expression to a much deeper identity crisis!
(P.S. What an interesting use of the term “shift”. I had not seen or heard of for years!!).
Holy Horrors! Put a bright, clear, yellow banana on a table, then place beside it a spotty, shrivelling, blackened banana]Caveat emptor[/I]!
-
September 28, 2006 at 4:43 pm #768644
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust as a matter of interest Rhabanus, how would you have gone about restoring Armagh Cathedral whe the damage of the McCormack effort of the 1970s was finally dumped out and before Brian Quinn got to work on the sanctuary? I will try and find a picture of the McCormack mess jus t let you see what we are starting from. Earlier on this thread, someone posted a picture of the sanctuary as it stoo prior to 1904 when Ashling installed the High Victorian sanctuary gutted by McCormack.
-
September 28, 2006 at 5:14 pm #768645
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhanane!
Quid tibi videtur?
The following images will give you idea of the “evolution” of the interior of Armagh Cathedral:
the first one shows the interior prior to 1904; the second shows G. Ashling’s sanctuary of 1904; the third shows McCormack’s gutting job done in 1982; and the final one shows Brian Quinn’s latest effort. -
September 28, 2006 at 5:18 pm #768646
Praxiteles
ParticipantSorry, Rhabanus, but this is the result of Ashlin’s 1904 interior gutted in 1982.
-
September 28, 2006 at 5:26 pm #768647
Rhabanus
ParticipantI look forward to seeing the “before” and “after” photos of 1970 and 1990 and can refer to the pre-1904 photo. In the coloured photos provided by Fearg, the remodelling of the sanctuary was not shown. I did, however, quite enjoy the magnificent stencilling of the ceiling and the triumphal arch.
I suppose what strikes me most about the postmodern efforts displayed thus far on the thread is the avoidance of any distinctly Christian (much less Catholic) iconography or architectural language. I find it quite ironic that in Ireland, of all places, the trefoil makes absolutely no appearance. It has, of course splendid possibilities for a really creative approach to church design and ornamentation. It would certainly make sense to incorporate it into a baptistery or at least the font itslef. Does it not, after all, have some connection to the great founding figure of Christianity in Ireland?
And what of cruciformity? Has the cross been ellided from Catholicism in Ireland? The crucifix scarcely claims any focus whatsoever in the models seen thus far. At leas the architects and artists of the nineteenth century made a conscious connection bewteen the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of Calvary, and did a rather clever job of communicating it to others – in architectural and iconographi language.
Given that architecture and art constitute highly privileged forms of communication even to the non-literate, it seems a shame that so many opportunities for proclaiming the Gospel and attracting people to the beauty of Catholicism have been wasted in favour of iconoclastic, sterile, and unremittingly grim waiting rooms. Perhaps there is a message there after all, but it’s not one that I associate with the faith of the Church.
One may find consolation in the speculation that, given the hostility toward Catholicism and Christianity now increasingly evident in the Celtic Tiger, these structures can be converted with little effort into mini-putt golf courses (for leisured bureaucrats), or ballet schools (for their offspring), or pubs.
A colleague, stopping at a Bread and Breakfast in the west of Ireland, spied an ornately-wrought chalice veil from the nineteenth century hanging on the wall. When he inquired of the mistress of the household where she had found such a treasure, she replied, “A chalice veil, is it? So that’s what it is! I had no idea. We found it in a jumble sale and picked it up for a pittance. Looks nice, doesn’t it?” It may be the case now that residences and businesses in Ireland may display more Christian iconography than its churches. Pity, that!
-
September 28, 2006 at 6:04 pm #768648
Praxiteles
ParticipantSorry for the confusion Rhabanus, but the historical sequence is as follows:
A. Posting 1,432 picture n.1 = Armagh prior to 1904.
B. Posting 1,433 picture shows Armagh post 1904 -1982
C. Posting 1,432 pictures 2 and 3 show Armagh 1982- c 2003 – the McCormack gutting.
D. Posting 1, 432 the last three small pictures show Brian Quinn’s efforts post c. 2003. -
September 28, 2006 at 6:07 pm #768649
Praxiteles
ParticipantNow, Rhabanus, if you had to dispose of McCormack’s whale tooth monstrosity, how would you have gone about the business and what would be your starting point, given the Cathedral’s evolution throughout the 19th and 20th. century or would you have started from something else?
-
September 28, 2006 at 7:38 pm #768650
Fearg
ParticipantAnd a similar hypothetical question for Brian Quinn – if the 1904 sanctuary had still been intact in 2002, how would you have proceeded? (Assuming the client gave you complete freedom!).
Thanks,
Fearg. -
September 28, 2006 at 8:47 pm #768651
Rhabanus
ParticipantAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am still reeling from the shock. I had just gone to the site of the Armagh cathedral, http://www.armagharchdiocese.org/html/PlanofCathedral.htm, and decided to take the virtual tour.The very moment that the interior of the cathedral appeared on my screen, a tinny rendition of Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” blared forth from the speakers of my computer. That anti-papal dirge heralded the destruction wrought in this once-magnificent House of God. Don’t tell me that the coordinator of the website had no idea of the origins and significance of that tune. It fit perfectly with the display which it accompanies. Seems pretty carefully calculated to me.
I was viewing the sanctuary furnishings and the exaggerated sanctuary floor supporting its army of faldstools when I noticed the hideous altarling. My biggest shock, however, came when I was touring around the Lady chapel portion and the camera turned its gaze on a vast inverted parabola with a stone block in it. This concrete tuning fork, thrusting its tines into the air, was the tabernacle. How can anyone in his right mind justify the incursion of the “altar”ling, the “ambo,” and that “tabernacle” into such a magnificent church? Who is the Emperor standing buck naked before the multitude and presiding over these rites of spring?
Was a national day of mourning declared for the entire Irish Church after this?
John Paul II had been calling for a second spring, not a second reformation ala Cranmer, Calvin, and O. Cromwell.
How can this be justified??In answer to your question about renovating de novo, Praxiteles, I suppose I would start by mounting the majestic pulpit of the 1904 Ashlin church and expelling the moneychangers from the Temple. Then, I would lay down the principle that the interior of this exquisitely beautiful church would not be marred in any way. ANY attempt at renewal or renotaion would have to cohere with the neoGothic architecture of the cathedral.
Next, an international search would commence to find an architect of sufficient education and training to handle such an important project. Once a competent architect convinced me of his theological, liturgical, and artistic expertise, I would proceed in the following way.
A thorough cleaning and restoration of the cathedral would take place. New sets of vestments and vessels matching the architecture of the church would be ordered from Luzar in Oxford, UK. A copy of the Missale Romanum editio typica tertia (2002) would be purchased and a Te Deum commissioned of Domenico Bartolucci and sung by the cathedral choir to celebrate the rededication of the renovated cathedral. The carollon would be played twelve hours a day for an entire octave and, voila, the cathedral would be restored and ready for worship.
This is basically what the Archbishop of Ottawa, Canada, did to renovate his cathedral. You must see it:
http://www.notredame.ottawa.on.ca/.
Absolutely glorious. It is a national treasure.
You can take the tour in French or in English. Of course, he did not go as far as I would go. He did not order a new set of vestments and vessels from Luzar in Oxford, UK. Then, again, one learns not to expect radical behaviour from seniores leaning towards a happy retirement. [Some wag remarked that His Grace actually contemplated building a teepee-like structure behind the cathedral to satisfy th eliturgical aspirations of those who favoured a complete modernization (aka destruction) of the cathedral interior. A dramatic waste of good parking space, wouldn’t you agree?]Amazing what modern lighting can do to show off the glorious splendour of Gothic architecture. It can highlight the intersection between the cosmic and the historical: the heavenly liturgy being offered in t he new Jerusalem above and the great events of salvation history being rendered present in the celebration of the sacraments in the Church below.
Hierarchy, transcendence, beauty, harmony, splendour and glory are all preserved in the Ottawa cathedral. Pity the “eclipse of the transcendent” [U.M. Lang, Turning towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004), p. 103] in so many Irish churches.
If you want another excample of a successful renovation, consult the website of Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal: http://www.basiliquenddm.org/
With the purchase of a Missale Romanum editio typica tertia and a new set of vestments and vessels, plus the aid of a lighting expert, you, too, can renovate a Catholic house of worship without shaking th efoundations of the Temple.
-
September 28, 2006 at 9:07 pm #768652
Rhabanus
ParticipantI suppose that the speakers on the pillars of the 1904 Armagh cathedral would have to be removed and an alternate sound system installed discreetly without attracting attention to it.
Lighting might be impoved, although there is much to be said for subdued illumination. On the other hand, the Gothic is displayed to great advantage with effective spotlighting, particularly during ceremonies.
-
September 29, 2006 at 1:34 am #768653
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
And a similar hypothetical question for Brian Quinn – if the 1904 sanctuary had still been intact in 2002, how would you have proceeded? (Assuming the client gave you complete freedom!).
Thanks,
Fearg.Indeed, a very interesting question.
-
September 29, 2006 at 1:26 pm #768654
Luzarches
ParticipantIt seems astonishing, for all the expertise and pooled resources of this thread, that only one good picture seems to be available of Armagh 1904-’82. Could there be some way of finding more? Many photographs must have been taken during various liturgies so surely close-ups of the sanctuary for first Holy Communions and Confirmations exist?
As for the absence of documentary photos, it only serves to underline a discussion we had in the office today: Catholics have only just got around to thinking of their own churches as ‘historical’ and objectively meritorious. This attitude to a largely Victorian stock of buildings would have been unthinkable in the ‘mainstream’ even 10 or 15 years ago. When I grew up, not so long ago, I never used to consider the Victorian as historical at all, but as near modern and therefore, I suppose, still ours to possess, mutate and change in a fairly abitrary way. With the change of century I think that we have suddely all woken up to the fact that these are now venerable buildings, worthy of the respect that we would unthinkingly accord to buildings of the eighteenth century and earlier.
However, an eighteenth century style clerical dilettante-ism with respect to the Gothic style still exists in pockets. I think that this is still evident in BQ’s recent renovation, though it is still a great improvement of the scandalous paganism of the previous ‘sanctuary’. I mean that I think it is odd to treat the floor with a nod to the Gothic, but then, in another design mentality altogether, to erect an altar and ambo that are still aesthetically incongruous. It reminds me of one of those reordering projects where the poor old architect gets to design the sanctuary steps and the new disabled lavs whilst the parish priest, fancying himself a Maecenas of the arts, commisions some New Age artist to come up with the liturgical furniture.
Reminds me of Cobh, where the good folks at An Bord were being asked to approve a new sanctuary without seeing detailed designs of the most important things in it (aka that ‘worship space for the 21st century), because ‘an artist’ was going to get to do it. Anyone for blobs?
-
September 29, 2006 at 4:23 pm #768655
Rhabanus
ParticipantIt prompts the question: Whatever happened to common sense?
Odd, indeed, that it was the floor that received the most respectful treatment of all the parts that came in for ‘renovation.’Someone ought to inform the webmasters of the cathedral of Armagh that their website still features a virtual tour of the whale-tooth/Star Trek furnishings. [I assume that the concrete monstrosities have now been removed and replaced by the less offensive but still inapt altar and ambo. Where did the tabernacle finally end up?
As far as the new arrangement is concerned, could the architect not tell that the main altar is far too small for the space? It is all a matter of proportion, isn’t it? After all, the current altar ought to be at least four or five times longer than it is. Moreover, the little engravings on it are lost on the average viewer. Inlaid marble of appropriate size and colour could have featured a striking labarum in the centre or the chi-rho flanked by pendant alpha and mega – something easily visible from the entrance of the church.
Once a handsome rectangular altar of highly polished marble was elevated by three steps in the sanctuary, an impressively grand rood loft could be mounted over it. A clever designer could arrange for the Crucifix flanked by the Blessed Virgin Mary and St John to be mounted high above the altar. The figures, of course, would have to be large enough to be distinct. Their base would start at the end of the columns and the beginning of the arches themselves. The fogures ought to be polychromed. The pillars of the cathedral, likewise, would be brightly coloured and variegated to reinforce the vitality of the Gothic architecture and to complement the stencilling in the ceiling. If the walls suffered any whitewashing in any of the previous renovations, a team of Polish artisans could easily be commissioned to remove th eoffending coats of whitewash an drestore the original Victorian ornamentation.
An elevated ambo for the proclamation of the Old Testament readings and Apostolic books on the Epistle side would face a higher and more ornate pulpit on the Gospel side. From there the Gospel would be proclaimed, the homily delivered, and the Exultet sung at the Paschal Vigil. A large marble cereostasis decorated sumptuously with mosaics would be erected beside this more ornate ambo/pulpit.
The episcopal throne/chair would be slightly elevated but not as high as the higher ambo or the main altar.
In fact, in terms of gradual elevation, three steps symbolising faith, hope, and charity, would lead to the communion rail, then after a suitable distance, three further steps, each representing the three Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity would lead to the presbyterium proper; finally a series of three steps, each representing one of the falls of Christ on the via crucis, would lead to the altar of sacrifice (properly lengthened in proportion to the rest of the sanctuary and the church). This hierarchisation would distinguish each part of the sanctuary from the nave and each part from the others. The Eucharistic Sacrifice would be offered directly beneath the Rood, depicting in dramatic terms the Sacrifice of Calvary and highlighting its vital significance for the Church (Blessed Virgin Mary) and for the individal disciple (St John).
Does this not make slightly more sense in liturgical and architectural terms than the current arrangement?
-
September 29, 2006 at 7:50 pm #768656
Rhabanus
ParticipantOn second thought, the rood figures could surmount a baldachino or ciborium over the main altar. A baldachino covers the old high altar in St Patrick’s, New York City, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, and, of course, St Peter’s-in-the-Vatican and the other four major basilicas in Rome.
-
September 29, 2006 at 8:57 pm #768657
Fearg
ParticipantTabernacle in Armagh ended up in the south transept. I think I posted a photo of it earlier in the thread.
-
September 29, 2006 at 10:31 pm #768658
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
The baldacchino in Armagh is incorporated into the ceiling of the crossing. It is stoill there. The point has been made that a free-standing baldacchino would obscure the view of the East end and the East window. If I were to have restored Armagh, I would have taken Rheims as my point of departure. There the East end of the Choir is open allowing a view of the East chevet.
-
September 29, 2006 at 11:50 pm #768659
Praxiteles
ParticipantA view of Rheims Cathedral showing the High Altar, retro Choir and the East chevet.
-
September 30, 2006 at 12:22 am #768660
Luzarches
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
A view of Rheims Cathedral showing the High Altar, retro Choir and the East chevet.
Of course, the altar at the eastern arch of the crossing, an eighteenth century replacement of a rather finer mid-sixteenth century altar AND reredos, is a double-mensa altar; the canons, seated in choir, thus face west, although inadvertantly.
-
September 30, 2006 at 12:29 am #768661
Luzarches
ParticipantLuzarches wrote:Of course, the altar at the eastern arch of the crossing, an eighteenth century replacement of a rather finer mid-sixteenth century altar AND reredos, is a double-mensa altar]In fact, since the gradine and big six are all that separates the two sides I’m surprised that one of the distinctly liberal archbishops of Reims hasn’t thought of eliminating them….(!)
It’s terrible at the moment: There is a table in front of the western face of the double altar (that JPII was made to use at an outdoor mass in the parvis) and another table at the eastern face of the altar so that the canons are spared the sight of the back of a priest’s chasuble. So there are thus 3 permanent altars in the choir and crossing of Reims and 2 temporaries.
It’s the medieval multiplication of masses again!
-
September 30, 2006 at 12:32 am #768662
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is the idea that could quite easily have been used in Armagh.
You mentioned the dirth of photographs of these interiors prior tot he vandalizations. Yuo have no idea of how difficult it is to find photographs of the original state of these churches. Like post 1918 Russia – all images of the Tsar disappeared. Despite ongonig efforts, no one has yet been able to post a picture of the interior of Managhan Cathedral before the saccage!
-
September 30, 2006 at 12:35 am #768663
Praxiteles
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
In fact, since the gradine and big six are all that separates the two sides I’m surprised that one of the distinctly liberal archbishops of Reims hasn’t thought of eliminating them….(!)
It’s terrible at the moment: There is a table in front of the western face of the double altar (that JPII was made to use at an outdoor mass in the parvis) and another table at the eastern face of the altar so that the canons are spared the sight of the back of a priest’s chasuble. So there are thus 3 permanent altars in the choir and crossing of Reims and 2 temporaries.
It’s the medieval multiplication of masses again!
That is a terrible pity. There was a time when the liturgy in Rheims was superior to that of Notre Dame in Paris. Furthere déchéance!!
-
September 30, 2006 at 1:04 am #768664
Luzarches
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
That is a terrible pity. There was a time when the liturgy in Rheims was superior to that of Notre Dame in Paris. Furthere déchéance!!
How recently was that?
-
September 30, 2006 at 3:27 am #768665
Rhabanus
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
It seems astonishing, for all the expertise and pooled resources of this thread, that only one good picture seems to be available of Armagh 1904-’82. Could there be some way of finding more? Many photographs must have been taken during various liturgies so surely close-ups of the sanctuary for first Holy Communions and Confirmations exist?
As for the absence of documentary photos, it only serves to underline a discussion we had in the office today: Catholics have only just got around to thinking of their own churches as ‘historical’ and objectively meritorious. This attitude to a largely Victorian stock of buildings would have been unthinkable in the ‘mainstream’ even 10 or 15 years ago. When I grew up, not so long ago, I never used to consider the Victorian as historical at all, but as near modern and therefore, I suppose, still ours to possess, mutate and change in a fairly abitrary way. With the change of century I think that we have suddely all woken up to the fact that these are now venerable buildings, worthy of the respect that we would unthinkingly accord to buildings of the eighteenth century and earlier.
However, an eighteenth century style clerical dilettante-ism with respect to the Gothic style still exists in pockets. I think that this is still evident in BQ’s recent renovation, though it is still a great improvement of the scandalous paganism of the previous ‘sanctuary’. I mean that I think it is odd to treat the floor with a nod to the Gothic, but then, in another design mentality altogether, to erect an altar and ambo that are still aesthetically incongruous. It reminds me of one of those reordering projects where the poor old architect gets to design the sanctuary steps and the new disabled lavs whilst the parish priest, fancying himself a Maecenas of the arts, commisions some New Age artist to come up with the liturgical furniture.
Reminds me of Cobh, where the good folks at An Bord were being asked to approve a new sanctuary without seeing detailed designs of the most important things in it (aka that ‘worship space for the 21st century), because ‘an artist’ was going to get to do it. Anyone for blobs?
“Catholics have only just got around to thinking of their own churches as ‘historical’ and objectively meritorious. This attitude to a largely Victorian stock of buildings would have been unthinkable in the ‘mainstream’ even 10 or 15 years ago. When I grew up, not so long ago, I never used to consider the Victorian as historical at all, but as near modern and therefore, I suppose, still ours to possess, mutate and change in a fairly abitrary way. With the change of century I think that we have suddely all woken up to the fact that these are now venerable buildings, worthy of the respect that we would unthinkingly accord to buildings of the eighteenth century and earlier.”
You make an excellent point, Luzarches! In fact, a number of these Neo-Gothic Irish churches, particularly Armagh and Cobh, deserve to be recognised officially and listed as World Heritage Sites, particularly in view of their relationship to the myriads of emigrants from Ireland to North America, Australia, and elsewhere. In many cases, St Colman’s, Cobh, was the last bit of Ireland the emigrants saw on their peregrinations to other parts of the world, Armagh rates significantly, too, as the primatial see of All Ireland and owing to its connection to St Patrick himself. Does Ireland have access to a World Monuments Fund?
As for the baldachino or ciborium I proposed for Armagh earlier, I accept Praxiteles’ point about blocking a view of the apsidal window. I shall have to consider Rheims more carefully. You will recall that Rheims was the site of the coronation of the kings of France, so its liturgical tradition would have been richer than that of ND-Paris. Incidentally, Rebecca Baltzer has published (ca 2001) an interesting study of the iconographic programme of ND-Paris (with its emphasis on the Incarnation through the lens of the Blessed VirginMary) and that of the Sainte Chapelle (with its focus on the Passion of Our Lord – particularly the Crown of Thorns, which it housed), constructed by St Louis as an highly privileged royal rival to the diocesan cathedral.
To return to your earlier point, Luzarches, the deconstructional experiments perpetrated at Armagh in the 1980s were abominable by any standards and on the grounds of common sense alone, ought never to have been allowed to leave the drawing board. Where is the offending primate now?
-
September 30, 2006 at 7:59 am #768666
Praxiteles
Participant[quote=”Rhabanus Does Ireland have access to a World Monuments Fund?
[/QUOTE”]
Does anybody know anything about this?
-
September 30, 2006 at 3:33 pm #768667
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus,
This is the effort made at re-reordering St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast.
I am not sure who the architect was but I am inclined to suspect Brian Quinnof Rooney and McConville -currently advertising themselves in the clerical directory of the diocese of Down and Connor as “liturgical consultants” – but those glossy tiles tell a tale.
Here is a rather novel ecclesiastical eccentricity: a tabernacle door equippe with spy-hole to facilitate “perpetual adoration” -though, I do know what is done when persons are present who are not intent on adoration, for the bishop of Down and Connor must surely realize that perpetual adoration is the same thing as having the Sacred Species exposed to the scoffing multitude 24/7.
The lack of proportion in the tabernacle and plinth is most striking and reminds one of the pathetic effort of re-assembling lego done by Prof. Cathal O’Neill in the Pro-Cathedral after he wrecked that building. Also, the lack of any connection between this tabernacle and an altar is telling of the theologically unacceptable disjoining of Eucharistic Adoration from the Mass.
-
September 30, 2006 at 3:58 pm #768668
goldiefish
ParticipantI still don’t see what all the fuss is about St Colmans Cathedral. Its not as if they are knocking the spire and replacing the roof tiles with red slate. Much of this “protest” is merely a means of venting dislike of Bishop Magee.
-
September 30, 2006 at 4:24 pm #768669
Luzarches
Participant@goldiefish wrote:
I still don’t see what all the fuss is about St Colmans Cathedral. Its not as if they are knocking the spire and replacing the roof tiles with red slate. Much of this “protest” is merely a means of venting dislike of Bishop Magee.
Another comedian.
-
September 30, 2006 at 5:46 pm #768670
Praxiteles
Participant@goldiefish wrote:
I still don’t see what all the fuss is about St Colmans Cathedral. Its not as if they are knocking the spire and replacing the roof tiles with red slate. Much of this “protest” is merely a means of venting dislike of Bishop Magee.
You could be putting ideas into some people’s heads, here.
-
September 30, 2006 at 6:18 pm #768671
Luzarches
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
You could be putting ideas into some people’s heads, here.
Quite. During the French Revolution various commisions for ‘Equality’ during The Terror tried to find various ways to promote their particular brand of joylessness and malice: There was an idea, at Strasbourg, that because the cathedral had only one tower, when two were intended, this should be demolished on the grounds that it offended the principle of equality. Fortunately, this did not occur. However, at Laon cathedral at least one of the exquisite 13th century towers, because it had a spire and the others did not, was demolished on the same grounds.
I wonder how far into the future we’ll have to wait for spires and towers to be demolished on political and/or ideological grounds?
-
September 30, 2006 at 7:28 pm #768672
Rhabanus
Participant@goldiefish wrote:
I still don’t see what all the fuss is about St Colmans Cathedral. Its not as if they are knocking the spire and replacing the roof tiles with red slate. Much of this “protest” is merely a means of venting dislike of Bishop Magee.
The church mouse that roared.
The French Revolution, as Luzarches wisely points out, had its own unique approach to church renovation. Perhaps its most characteristic touch was the enthronement of a harlot on the high altar of Notre Dame de Paris. The femme de nuit was crowned ‘the goddess Reason.’ The rest of the sanctuary, however, was not rearranged. No addition of a whale’s tooth or installation of the Eye of Osiris [see Praxiteles’ posting of the peek-a-boo tabernacle mounted on a plinth far-removed from any altar].
At least at Paris during the Terror, an attempt, however crude, was made to acknowledge ‘reason.’ The antinomian erection of the whale-tooth in Armagh surpassed the French-revolutionary crowning of the goddess Reason and reached much further back beyond a classical framework into the pagan irrationality of cthonic worship. That any Catholic priest, canon, bishop, or primate would not just allow that abomination to be perpetrated, but actually patronise and reward it, beggars all belief.
If the Mighty Pipsqueak would care to review the thread in greater detail, it would become obvious fairly soon that the opposition to the desecration and destruction of churches in Ireland is much broader and deeper than any dislike of the bishop fo Cloyne. Is the Pipsqueak suggesting that somehow Cloyne was in on the other vandalizations too? Dic nobis, Maria, quid vidisti in via ….
-
September 30, 2006 at 8:09 pm #768673
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
As we are on the subject of St. Peter’s in Belfast, perhaps you might like to comment liturgically on this arrangement of things there?
-
September 30, 2006 at 9:04 pm #768674
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is another snap of the re-reordered St. Peter’s Cathedral in Belfast
-
September 30, 2006 at 9:25 pm #768675
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is another snap of the ambo – it looks somewhat American bald eagle:
-
September 30, 2006 at 11:05 pm #768676
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd, here we have a closer look at the Baptismal Font, placed awkwardly before the main door, calculate to impede ingression and egression of every procession. The floor lighting before the main features is also not very very inspiring of any great confidence.
-
October 1, 2006 at 1:14 am #768677
Fearg
ParticipantI think the architect for St Peter’s cathedral was Richard Pierce of Enniskillen. The floor tiles are by Armatile (who also did Armagh). The 2 small chairs on either side of the cathedra are apparently “thrones for the Auxilliary bishops”, somehow, I don’t think they are normally provided.
-
October 1, 2006 at 1:17 am #768678
Praxiteles
ParticipantAh, so that explains the conversational posture of the three chairs. The idea of thrones for Auxiliary bishops is complettely off the wall.
-
October 1, 2006 at 1:30 am #768679
Fearg
ParticipantAs always, for the purposes of comparison – here is St Peter’s as it was in the early 1900’s
[ATTACH]3033[/ATTACH]
-
October 1, 2006 at 1:46 am #768680
Praxiteles
ParticipantI think the architect here was Jeremiah MacAuley who built St. Peter’s around 1860. The first noticeable feature of the 1900 picture is the focal point of the building which is the High Altar in general, and probably the tabernacle in particular. The re-reordered result cannot escape a great void in the apse of the church which is not filled by the trinity of chairs.
Striking again is the anachronistic intrusion of a basilical arrangement on a gothic structure. Even more odd is the high elevation of the cathedra – gauchely covered in red (as far as I know, Down and Connor never had a bishop Cardinal) and, as at Armagh, the placing of the altar on the floor without elevation -except taht the problem is more accentuated here because the sanctuary is not as large as Armagh.
While the Altar, is size, is better than Armagh, it looks abandoned there on the floor and is rendered impractical for the ceremonies of benedictuion. Fetching are those floor lights – for what purpose I know not and cannot begin to imagine. Ultimately, they are a distraction.
Again, as with Armagh, it has to be said that it is better than the enormous megalomaniac mess made of St. Peter’s by Cathal Daly’s destructive boot-boy penchant – do not forget, that is is responsible for the mess in Longford. But this kind of comparison is hardly reason for self-congratulation when you realize the difference that a little historical investigation would have made in Armagh.
That ambo is just simply AWFUL!
-
October 1, 2006 at 1:51 am #768681
Fearg
Participantand the architect responsible for Cahal Daly’s intervention was a Laurence McConville (I guess from Rooney and McConville) under the direction of Ray Carroll.
-
October 1, 2006 at 2:04 am #768682
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
and the architect responsible for Cahal Daly’s intervention was a Laurence McConville (I guess from Rooney and McConville) under the direction of Ray Carroll.
Well, well…a really awful concatination of the very very worst offenders as far as Irish churches are concerned. Strange that this should cause one to think of Chateaubriand’s famous description of what came out of an audience of Louis XVIII: … “Tallyrand appuy
-
October 1, 2006 at 2:14 am #768683
Luzarches
Participant“Again, as with Armagh, it has to be said that it is better than the enormous megalomaniac mess made of St. Peter’s by Cathal Daly’s destructive boot-boy penchant.”
Do we have any pictures of this era at St Peter’s?
-
October 1, 2006 at 2:18 am #768684
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes Luzarches!
see posting 1466. Hopefully some more recent one may emerge.
-
October 1, 2006 at 2:38 am #768685
Praxiteles
ParticipantSorry for the confusion Luzarches!
Below is a photograph of the state of St. Peter’s in Belfast after the boot-boy’s outing:
-
October 1, 2006 at 2:43 am #768686
Fearg
ParticipantInteresting – I think at first the old high altar and tablernacle remained in place, under the baldichino, with the cathedra against a pillar to the left. I will see if I can find a picture of that.
-
October 1, 2006 at 7:04 am #768687
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus,
This is the effort made at re-reordering St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast.
I am not sure who the architect was but I am inclined to suspect Brian Quinnof Rooney and McConville -currently advertising themselves in the clerical directory of the diocese of Down and Connor as “liturgical consultants” – but those glossy tiles tell a tale.
Here is a rather novel ecclesiastical eccentricity: a tabernacle door equippe with spy-hole to facilitate “perpetual adoration” -though, I do know what is done when persons are present who are not intent on adoration, for the bishop of Down and Connor must surely realize that perpetual adoration is the same thing as having the Sacred Species exposed to the scoffing multitude 24/7.
The lack of proportion in the tabernacle and plinth is most striking and reminds one of the pathetic effort of re-assembling lego done by Prof. Cathal O’Neill in the Pro-Cathedral after he wrecked that building. Also, the lack of any connection between this tabernacle and an altar is telling of the theologically unacceptable disjoining of Eucharistic Adoration from the Mass.
No sense of proportion whatsoever! And no understanding of the concept of either a Sacrament House or the purpose of the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. Perhaps this was perpetrated at the insistence of an indolent cleric too lazy to bother coming out to expose and then repose the Blessed Sacrament.
Peek-a-boo to you, too, Brian!
-
October 1, 2006 at 7:08 am #768688
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Sorry for the confusion Luzarches!
Below is a photograph of the state of St. Peter’s in Belfast after the boot-boy’s outing:
A shrine to Episkopos – the most important ornament in the whole church. Even God takes a lower place to the enthroned potentate. Lo how the mighty have fallen!
The later arrangement with the auxiliaries cosily flanking Lord High-and-Mighty seems inspired by American talk shows, though rather overdone with the ornate gothic thronettes. Recall that on the cross Christ was flanked by two thieves.
-
October 1, 2006 at 7:22 am #768689
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
As always, for the purposes of comparison – here is St Peter’s as it was in the early 1900’s
[ATTACH]3033[/ATTACH]
Thank you, Fearg! What a beauty St Peter’s, Belfast, was in the early twentieth century. Note the fulfilment of the aesthetic canons of integritas, consonantia, and claritas. Everything fits together so harmoniously and proportionately. The effect is immediately pleasing without any need to analyse or explore the details. Upon closer, scrutiny, however, each detail brings one back to the glory of the whole. The entire ensemble works perfectly.
The later jiggery-pokery merely exposes the charlatanism of the architectural fakirs and the gullibility, idleness, and fecklessness of the sponsoring prelates.
The destruction of the pulpit is telling: out goes the Word of God proclaimed in Scripture]Dum vivimus, speramus[/I].
-
October 1, 2006 at 7:44 am #768690
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
As we are on the subject of St. Peter’s in Belfast, perhaps you might like to comment liturgically on this arrangement of things there?
Whatever happened to the Francis Bigg tapestries, the central one of which portrayed a broken Host with a kindof triple-lightning-bolt pointing towards the episcopal chair? Fire? Jumble sale? Surely, no self-respecting thief would have made off with those ‘tapestries.’
I suppose the arrangement portrayed in this photo celebrates liturgical knavery at its cheekiest: three potentates for the price of one. Liturgically inept parish priests frequently have themselves flanked by altar boys (a cheap substitute for deacon and subdeacon). Liturgically inept ordinaries may like to have themselves flanked by their auxiliaries. But look who is always front-and-center: ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! Look Ma, no taste!! 😀
I suppose after consulting with his episcopal underlings, His Lordship may CONDESCEND to the altar for whatever it is the hoi polloi are expecting of his graciousness today.
By the way, has anyone figured out why the website fo Armagh cathedral still offers a tour of the cathdral in its whale-tooth stage of aggiornamento? And how come the tour comes with a rendition of Luther’s anti-papal “A Might Fortress”? I should have though that a robust recording of John McCormack or Frank Petterson singing Faith of Our Fathers would have been far more appropriate for the primatial see of All Ireland. Perhaps the episcopoi get a bit nervous when they hear those stirring words of Fr Faber: “How truly blest would be our fate/ If we, like them, should die for Thee!”
Perhaps the renovations committee at Belfast could install a television on the reverse side of the altar so that the episcopal trio can follow the soaps during the liturgy of the Word proclaimed from the ambo of the Roman Eagle. “Our response to today’s psalm will be: Giovanezza!“
-
October 1, 2006 at 7:50 am #768691
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And here is another snap of the ambo – it looks somewhat American bald eagle:
Dig those crazy talons!! This is definitely the Roman Eagle which surmounted Musso in WWII. I think Cecil B. DeMille mimicked it in Ben Hur or The Sign of the Cross.
-
October 1, 2006 at 8:05 am #768692
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And, here we have a closer look at the Baptismal Font, placed awkwardly before the main door, calculate to impede ingression and egression of every procession. The floor lighting before the main features is also not very very inspiring of any great confidence.
Help me to understand this better, Praxiteles. Either the water is too cold or too forceful for Our Lord, or else the iconography is really portraying Al Jolson performing “Mammy!” to a hostile audience.
In any case, the structure certainly impedes liturgical processions. But then such ordered movements of clergy in hierarchical array are not preferred (or rather are openly opposed) by the anti-hierarchical factions in militant circles.
Keep it all horizontal, flat, and straight. No imagination, no exuberance, no effort to rise above this sublunary world to a higher, nobler life in the New Jerusalem above, our Mother. Ignore that Gothic architecture at all costs. It’s pulling us upward and we must resist its siren-song to rise above ourselve in God-ward flight. Keep focused on that BIG chair up front. You’ll take your marching orders from there, you will – and you’ll thank His Lordship for it! Or else he’ll send that fascist eagle after you, all the way home.
-
October 1, 2006 at 8:23 am #768693
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
As we are on the subject of St. Peter’s in Belfast, perhaps you might like to comment liturgically on this arrangement of things there?
The retro-fitted vents in the sanctuary on either side of the throne-like chair do nothing to enhance the ensemble. Che tackezza!
Where is the tabernacle located, anyway? I know that it’s perched parlously on that ridiculous plinth, but where? In some side chapel? The north transept? The south transept? Where is it hiding?
As the Magdalene once famously complained, “They have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have put Him!”
Peek-a-boo! I am sure that He sees us, but where are we to see Him?
Peek-a-boo!
“L’oeil etait dans le tombe – et Il regardait Cain!”
Peek-a-boo!
-
October 1, 2006 at 8:45 am #768694
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus,
This is the effort made at re-reordering St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast.
I am not sure who the architect was but I am inclined to suspect Brian Quinnof Rooney and McConville -currently advertising themselves in the clerical directory of the diocese of Down and Connor as “liturgical consultants” – but those glossy tiles tell a tale.
Here is a rather novel ecclesiastical eccentricity: a tabernacle door equippe with spy-hole to facilitate “perpetual adoration” -though, I do know what is done when persons are present who are not intent on adoration, for the bishop of Down and Connor must surely realize that perpetual adoration is the same thing as having the Sacred Species exposed to the scoffing multitude 24/7.
The lack of proportion in the tabernacle and plinth is most striking and reminds one of the pathetic effort of re-assembling lego done by Prof. Cathal O’Neill in the Pro-Cathedral after he wrecked that building. Also, the lack of any connection between this tabernacle and an altar is telling of the theologically unacceptable disjoining of Eucharistic Adoration from the Mass.
Consider the admonition of Pius XII that the fruit of the Eucharistic Sacrifice ought never to be separated from the altar. In arrangements where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a separate chapel, the tabernacle is always to be reserved on an altar sufficiently large for Mass to be celebrated upon it. This is upheld in the new liturgical legislation in teh GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Furthermore, the architect would do well to return to a study of proportion and aesthetic. I refer kind readers to an essay by Douglis Richard Beck which discusses St Thomas Aquinas’ theory of aesthetic. St Thomas’ theory influenced (for better or worse) the Irish author James Joyce. Mr Beck’s essay is titled “A PORTRAIT OF ART AS IT SHOULD BE THE AESTHETIC THEORY OF JAMES JOYCE.”
“Examining the indebtedness of Joyce’s aesthetic theory to Aquinas, Maurice Beebe asserts that:
‘Joyce draws three main principles from two statements by Aquinas; thus, there is some overlapping. An outline of the entire theory may therefore serve as a useful point of reference for discussion of the parts:
I. Art is a stasis brought about by the formal rhythm of beauty. . . .
II. Art or beauty, divorced from good and evil, is akin to truth; therefore, if truth can best be approached through intellection, beauty or art is best approached through the three stages of apprehension. . . .
III. The three qualities of beauty which correspond to the three stages of apprehension are, in the terms of Aquinas, integritas, consonantia, and claritas. . . .’ (21-22).A sense of proportion, please, How is it that an architect today cannot find the wherewithal to design a Sacrament Shrine in proportion to an apse or a chapel? This example seems dwarfed and isolated, lost in the vast expanse of a Neo-Gothic church demanding a much stronger, clearer, more-well-defined and well-proportioned structure.
Isolated as it is, this peek-a-boo tabernacle seems to me to reify the Eucharist rather than to establish a personal relationship between the Eucharistic Lamb of God sacrificed and slain for me and for all the Church. Recall that in the Apocalypse the Throne of the Lamb is on the Altar from which flows the River of Life streaming out through the sacraments of the New Covenant sealed in the Blood of the Lamb. That relationship is established immediately in the 1900 arrangement of St Peter’s Belfast. Note too that the Lamb is surrounded by the saints in the niches of the reredos and that saints (likely the apostles, although I cannot tell with certainty owing to the faintness of the photo) line up down the nave where the arches begin to soar from the columns.
Note the dignity of the pulpit in the 1900 photo.
-
October 1, 2006 at 12:32 pm #768695
Praxiteles
ParticipantMore guff from Paddy Jones, the Director of the Pastoral Liturgical Institute in the October number of Intercom. We will shortly have to start a guffers corner!
Perhaps Rhabanus would like to walk us over this particular one.
-
October 1, 2006 at 12:51 pm #768696
descamps
ParticipantImagine P.Jones having visions. What will we have next?
-
October 1, 2006 at 5:30 pm #768697
Praxiteles
ParticipantCan anyone confirm that this is a view of Monaghan Cathedral before the drastic destruction wrought by Joe Duffy?
-
October 1, 2006 at 5:52 pm #768698
Praxiteles
ParticipantAn this link may well tell us where some of the material dumped out of MOnaghan Cathedral may be located:
-
October 1, 2006 at 7:00 pm #768699
Fearg
ParticipantSome more shots of St Peter’s Belfast:
A superb job has been done on repairing the fabric – as can be seen if you compare with those at this link: http://www.simonknott.co.uk/northbelfastcathrc.htm
[ATTACH]3041[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3042[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3048[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3043[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3046[/ATTACH] -
October 1, 2006 at 7:12 pm #768700
Fearg
ParticipantClonard Monastery Belfast:
[ATTACH]3049[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3050[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3051[/ATTACH] -
October 1, 2006 at 7:24 pm #768701
Fearg
ParticipantSt John the Baptist Drumaroad:
[ATTACH]3052[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3053[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3054[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3055[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3056[/ATTACH]
-
October 2, 2006 at 4:01 am #768702
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Some more shots of St Peter’s Belfast:
A superb job has been done on repairing the fabric – as can be seen if you compare with those at this link: http://www.simonknott.co.uk/northbelfastcathrc.htm
[ATTACH]3041[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3042[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3048[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3043[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3046[/ATTACH]The rood (crucifix), now suspended with fishing wire and utterly detached from its original rood beam and its flanking statues of Our Lady and St John, seems to me to be too low. It blocks the view of the East window. I’m in favour of raising it to its original height and replacing the beam with the accompanying statues as much for liturgical and theological as for aesthetic reasons.
-
October 2, 2006 at 4:05 am #768703
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
St John the Baptist Drumaroad:
[ATTACH]3052[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3053[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3054[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3055[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3056[/ATTACH]
All I can say about this is: WEIRD! Re the penultimate photo, I think Aunt Minnie left her dustcloth on a plinth in front of the weapon rack. Guest (tradesman?) must have rung the doorbell.
-
October 2, 2006 at 4:26 am #768704
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
More guff from Paddy Jones, the Director of the Pastoral Liturgical Institute in the October number of Intercom. We will shortly have to start a guffers corner!
Perhaps Rhabanus would like to walk us over this particular one.
A Feeble Attempt at Damage Control
Paddy Jones (“The Liturgy Corner,†Intercom, October 2006) may prattle away as much as he likes about the notion of “active†participation in the sacred liturgy. He ought to be told, however, that the word used by Pope St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council was actuosa, translated as “real†or “actual.†Latin, after all, is a precise language and has a term that means “active.†The Latin equivalent for the English adjective ‘active’ is activus, -a, -um, as in vita activa (‘the active life’) as opposed to vita contemplativa (‘the contemplative life’). What Pius X and Vatican II were encouraging was something more subtle and profound than simply particpation that is “active†or an“activity.†An appropriate translation of actuosa here would be ‘involved.’ Paddy Jones, though, would do much better to consult Joseph Ratzinger, Report on the Faith (with Vittorio Messori, San Francisco CA: Ignatius, 1981), pp. 34-35 for an authoritative treatment of th ereal meaning of participatio actuosa.
The sacred Liturgy is essentially a form of prayer, indeed the Church’s official, public prayer. Both Pius X and Vatican II strove to involve the lay faithful more deeply in the mysteries being celebrated by the Church in that priestly office of Jesus Christ which we call the sacred Liturgy. In practical terms, they urged a remote preparation for participation in the sacred Liturgy by the frequent reception of the sacrament of Penance and the avoidance of sin, both mortal and venial, in order to enhance the fruitfulness of participation in Mass and the reception of Holy Communion.
Prayer manuals like Bishop Richard Challoner’s Garden of the Soul and, in later generations, The Key of Heaven tutored the faithful in the ways of prayer, so that their participation in the Mass and the sacraments would be more fruitful. Dom Gaspar Lefebvre’s pastoral explanation of the contents of the Mass and the liturgical year in the St Andrew’s Daily Missal enhanced the liturgical participation of countless Catholics. An ongoing conversion of heart was fostered by such spiritual exercises and pious devotions as the novena of the Nine First Fridays, and after 1917 the Five First Saturdays, membership in sodalities and fraternal organizations like The Holy Name Society, the Children of Mary, the Divine Childhood Association, The St Vincent de Paul Society, the Rosary Guild, etc, etc, etc.
As the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy aptly put it, “… the liturgy itself inspires those who have eaten their fill of the ‘easter sacraments’ to become ‘united in holiness and mutual love’. It prays that, ‘as they live their lives they may hold fast to what they have perceived through faith’. The renewal of the Lord’s covenant with human beings in the eucharist really does have the effect of drawing believers into the overwhelming love of Christ, and fires them with it. From the liturgy, then, especially from the eucharist, grace comes flowing to us as if from a fountain] 10). This is much broader a vision than simply “active†participation understood in functional terms such as making a reponse or singing an acclamation, however worthy these may be in themselves.
Saint Pius X (pope 1903-14) and Vatican II (1963-65) certainly urged the faithful to learn to pray the Eucharistic Liturgy by reciting (saying or singing) those parts of the Mass which pertained to them. Consider, for instance, the effort that went into the 28th International Eucharistic Congress of 1926, held at Soldiers’ Field in Chicago, Illinois, USA, when, for the Solemn Pontifical High Mass celebrated by His Eminence John Cardinal Bonzano, a choir composed of 60,000 parochial school children chanted Gregorian Mass VIII (Missa de Angelis or Mass of the Angels). “Involved� I should say they were. How many school children today, whether in Dublin, New York, or Chicago, have even heard of “The Mass of the Angels,†much less know how to sing Mass VIII.
I hope that Paddy Jones and his ecclesiastical superiors have not utterly shed their training in Latin, for it would do them credit to read, with comprehension and suitable reflection, section 11 of Sacrosanctum concilium: Ut haec tamen plena efficacitas habeatur, necessarium est ut fideles cum recti animi dispositionibus ad sacram liturgiam accedant, mentem suam voci accommodent, et supernae gratiae cooperentur, ne eam in vacuum recipient. Ideo sacris pastoribus advigilandum est ut in actione liturgica non solum observentur leges ad validam et licitam celebrationem, sed ut fideles scienter, actuose et fructuose eandem participent.
Section 12 of Sacrosanctum concilium reminds all that the spiritual life does not stop with the liturgy, but must penetrate one’s entire life: ‘However, the spiritual life has more to it than sharing in the liturgy. Christians, though called to prayer together, must nevertheless also go to their own room and pray to their Father in secret. Indeed, according to Paul’s teaching, they must pray without ceasing. Again we are taught, also by Paul, always to carry round the dying of Jesus in our bodies, so that the life of Jesus also can be manifested in our mortal flesh. It is on this account that, during the sacrifice of the mass, we pray the Lord, “to receive the offering of the spiritual victimâ€, and then raise our very selves†to their perfection in becoming “an eternal gift†for himself.’
And this is where the example of the holy pastors of the Church comes in. How are the faith of the Church and the reality of the Liturgy to take root in the hearts and souls of the faithful, when they witness the clergy (higher and lower) denigrate and destroy the very houses of worship that were designed by internationally renowned (and historically acclaimed) archtiects like the Pugins, George Aslin, and James Joseph MacCarthy, and erected by their (the lay faithful’s) ancestors at great, even overwhelming expense met by personal sacrifice? [Consider, for example, the cathedrals of Killarney, Monaghan, Armagh, Belfast and devastation wrought upon the Neo-Gothic interiors.] “You will find,†Paddy Jones jauntily declares, “a renewed emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word.†This “renewed emphasis†on the Liturgy of the Word coincided most ironically with the removal of every magnificent pulpit from the cathedrals of Ireland. Has an explanation of this irony ever been tendered? Are the people in the pews taught to make the correct responses in Latin to the parts of the Mass that pertain to them, as stipulated by the Sacred Congregation for Divine worship under Pope Paul VI in its Letter to Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of Plain Chant Voluntati obsequens? Some words simply remain unspoken (or unsung).
Paddy Jones exclaims: “In brief, we reordered our churches!†With what preparation of the faithful? To what degree of consulting them on the planning and execution of such reordering? And with what results? Was the wreckovation of churches the length and breadth of Ireland a “grassroots†movement? Are there more Catholics (or others) attending Masses in Ireland in 2006 than in 1966? Surely there are relaiable statistics, available from the Irish government if not from the chancery offices of the Irish Church, which provide the answer to this question. Perhaps Paddy Jones would care to trot them out for our perusal and further discussion. That would make for a most interesting “Liturgy Corner.â€
He then rationalizes: “We learned by doing what was required by whom or what?? to translate the vision into reality.†What did ‘we’ learn, anyway? It seems that some dioceses made several not-very-deft attempts to reorder their churches with varying degrees of success (or not). “It is a task not fully achieved yet.†How many more churches have to be sacrificed to the wrecking ball before the experiment is declared “unsuccessfulâ€? Is this a veiled threat against St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh – the last intact Pugin church in all Ireland? I am fully aware that St Colman’s is not the work of Augustus Welby Pugin (1812-52) but that of his son Edward Pugin and George Ashlin (1837-1921). In Irish Churches and Monasteries: An Historical and Architectural Guide (Cork: The Collins Press, 1997), Séan D. O’Reilly points out, “Their finest achievement in church building was Cobh Cathedral, County Cork, begun in 1868 but not completed until the second decade of this century†(pp. 170-171). Is the renovation of St Colman’s the “task not fully achieved yet?â€
Several more questions naturally arise: How carefully have the clergy of Ireland read the documents of Vatican II (and for that matter the writings of Pope St Pius X, particularly Tra le sollecitudini with its clarion call for the revival of Gregorian chant in the life of the sacred Liturgy)? Have the clergy also read the FIVE later instructions on the correct application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium? Did, or does, each bishop in the cathedrals mentioned earlier regard it as his prerogative to bulldoze the sanctuary and reappoint it according to his personal taste with little or no sensitivity for the harm done to the integrity of the sacred architecture itself and the effect that all of this might have on the lay faithful who are constantly being dunned to pay for wreckovation after senseless wreckovation? Is it reasonably to be expected that each bishop, upon episcopal ordination, will proceed to alter his predecessor’s sanctuary according to his own “inspired†designs? And, more concretely, how “actively†were the lay faithful consulted on the inauguration of the abominable whale’s-tooth-tabernacle in Armagh? Or the peek-a-boo tabernacle in once-glorious St Peter’s, Belfast? How about those tapestries in Monaghan? Does Paddy Jones think, even for a heartbeat, that the average, common-sensed lay person with two eyes and a functioning brain in his head, would have opted to destroy the priceless nineteenth-century retables and pulpits of the great cathedrals of Ireland and replace them with either hideous monstrosities that hinder any devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, or overdone palanquins retro-fitted from Eucharistic canopies to exaggerate the importance of bishops?
It seems that the lay faithful and clergy connected with St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh recognise the value of their ecclesiastical heritage and are “actively†“involved†in preserving it from the wiles of architects and prelates alike. They seem fully, actively, and consciously aware that involvement in the sacred Liturgy has nothing to do with chancel-prancing and doing a bit of liturgical soft-shoe or “dance†whenever one feels the humour coming on. They seem intent on keeping their church, their house of worship, intact so that it may glorify God in its artistic integrity, and serve subsequent generations of “pray-ers†as a venue of liturgical and devotional service of God. An Bord Pleanala has concurred with them.
It would behoove Paddy Jones, then, to take as his next text for commentary John Paul II’s last encyclical letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, or the Instruction Redemptionis sacramentum of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. If he should feel particularly “plucky and adventuryâ€, he might even deign to comment on Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy [trans. John Saward (Ignatius, 2000)]. An excellent section on “The Body and the Liturgy†has this to say: “We are realizing more and more clearly that silence is part of the liturgy. We respond, by singing and praying, to God who addresses us, but on the greater mystery, surpassing all words, summons us to silence. It must, of course, be a silence with content, not just the absence of speech and action. We should expect the liturgy to give us a positive stillness that will restore us. Such stillness will not be just a pause, in which a thousand thoughts and desires assaults us, but a time of recollection, giving us an inward peace, allowing us to draw breath and rediscover the one thing necessary, which we have forgotten. … For silence to be fruitful … it must be an integral part of the liturgical event†[p. 209].
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, exhorts the faithful – and celebrants – to observe a period of silence after Communion: “This, in all truth, is the moment for an interior conversation with the Lord who has given himself to us, for that essential ‘communicating’, that entry into the process of communication, without which the external reception of the Sacrament becomes mere ritual. … whenever possible, this silence after Communion should be used, and the faithful should be given some guidance for interior prayer†[p. 210]. Perhaps with more fervent interior prayer on the part of people, priests, and prelates, there would be less inclination to propose new schemes of “reordering†churches, and more real “reordering†of one’s spiritual life. It would certainly go a considerable way to creating more peace in the Church.
Abandon the sources of controversy, and there will be no controversy. A sober reconsideration of the perils of resorting to the sledge hammer in a bid to make over a Victorian sanctuary as the solution to declining church attendance and general ecclesial malaise seems the easiest way forestall further unrest and unpleasantness. Perhaps it is best to leave it to another, less restless generation to sort out the arrangement of the liturgy in the light of a more authoritative reading of Vatican II.
In the meanwhile, every effort should be made to learn about the Gothic ideal in art and architecture. It may well be the key to authentic Church renewal in Paddy Jones’ own bailliwick. I leave the final word to Augustus Welby Pugin: “All I have to implore you is to study the subject of ecclesiastical architecture with true Catholic feeling. Do not consider the restoration of ancient art as a mere matter of taste, but remember that it is most closely connected with the revival of the faith itself.â€
-
October 2, 2006 at 4:43 am #768705
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Praxiteles wrote:
Can anyone confirm that this is a view of Monaghan Cathedral before the drastic destruction wrought by Joe Duffy?
That is not Monaghan
-
October 2, 2006 at 4:57 pm #768706
Praxiteles
ParticipantAttached is a book review from the Antiphon, vol 10. no. 1 [2006] containing a review of Thomas Koick’s book A Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return published by Ignatius Press in 2003. It gives a good idea of current mainstream liturgical debate and interest within the Cathoic Church. I am afraid that all is not as monolithically einverstanden as P. Jones would have us believe.
-
October 2, 2006 at 5:09 pm #768707
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
More guff from Paddy Jones, the Director of the Pastoral Liturgical Institute in the October number of Intercom. We will shortly have to start a guffers corner!
Perhaps Rhabanus would like to walk us over this particular one.
In his recent article for “The Liturgy Page,” Intercom, October 2006, Paddy Jones poses the question, “Did Vatican II require the re-ordering of sanctuaries?” Right from the beginning, Paddy admits that “When you read the Liturgy Constitution [of Vatican II] you will not find any refernce to moving altars, having an ambo, removing altar rails, providing a presider’s chair. But …”
Non “but”s about it. Paddy may have overreached himself at this point. For he proceeds to elaborate a “vision” which allegedly arose from the spirit of Vatican II, one that in fact divorces the period after the Council from that which had preceded it, as though the Council gave rise to a new Church. This is the hermeneutic of discontinuity at work, eating away like acid at the real continuity of the Church’s life and undermining the faith of the anawim. It is an old canard wheeled out during every revolution from the Protestant revolt in the sixteenth-century to the Quiet Revolutioon of Quebec in the 1960s. We all know the tune: Before ___ [fill in date] all was horrid and dim, but ever since _____ [fill in catalytic event} everything is so much better and ‘more meaningful’ or words to that effect. Consider the hubris of the statement with which Paddy concludes his pensee: “from a liturgy often characterised as ‘spectator,’ it is good to live at a time when liturgy is seen as ‘participatory.'” As though the generations that preceded him were benighted by superstition and priestcraft. “I thank Thee, Lord, that I am not like the rest of men ….”
It is useful, on the other hand, to consider the more reasoned view of one who ‘participated’ at the Second Vatican Council as a bright young theologian and who was appointed bishop of a central-European see not long afterwards. I refer, of course, to Joseph Ratzinger, who laboured in the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith for a quarter-century and who now leads the Catholic Church as Benedict XVI. In 1985, twenty years after the close of vatican II, Ratzinger gave an exclusive interview on the satate of the Church to journalist Vittorio Messori. Translated into English by Salvator Attanasio and Greg Harrison, Rapporto sulla Fede was published under the title The Ratzinger Report by Ignatius Press, San Francisco in 1985. On this phenomenon of the hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture, Ratzinger stated at the time: “some demand a greater application of Vatican II, even beyond the texts. Others propose a minor dose of reforms and changes. How to choose? Who is to be declared right?” Insisting that “Vatican II is a realtiy that must be fully accepted,” Ratzinger cautions against a hastiness that get ahead of itself and ends up undermining the Council: “On condition, however, that it must not be viewed as merely a point of departure from which one gets further away by running forward, but as a base on which to build solidly. Today, in fact, we are discovering its ‘prophetic’ funtion: some texts of Vatican II at th emoment oftheir proclamation seemed really to be ahead of the times. Then came the cultural revolutions and the social convulsions that the Fathers inno way could have foreseen but which have shown how their answers – at that time anticipatory – were those that were needed in the future. Hence it is obvious thatreturn to the documents is of special importance at the present time: they give us the right instrument with which to face the problems of our day. We are summoned to reconstruct the Church, not despite, but thanks to the true Council” (p. 34).
Ratzinger then goes on to identify a false “spirit” of the Council which in point of fact is an ‘anti-spirit’ of the Council: “already during its sessions and then increasingly in the subsequent period,” Vatican II “was opposed by a self-styled ‘spirit of the Council’, which in reality is a true ‘anti-spirit’ of the Council. According to this pernicious anti-spirit [Konzils-Ungeist in German], everything that is ‘new’ (or presumed such: how many heresies have surfaced again in recent years that have been presented as something new!) is always and in every case better than what has been or what is. It is the anti-spirit acccording to which the history of the Church would first begin with Vatican II, viewed as a kind of point zero” (pp. 34-35). Just re-read Paddy Jones’ final paragraph for a recent instance.
Ratzinger clarifies the dangers of this dichotomization of history: “This schematization of a before and after in the history of the Church, wholly unjustified by the documents of Vatican II, which do nothing but reaffirm the continuity of Catholicism, must be decidedly opposed. There is no ‘pre-‘ or ‘post-‘ consciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord, ever deepening and ever better understanding the treasure of faith that he himself has entrusted to her. There are no leaps in this history, ther are no fractures, and there is no break in continuity. In no wise did the Council intend to introduce a temporal dichotomy in the Church” (p. 35).
So why, then, does Paddy Jones insist on harranguing the good readers of Intercom on “re-ordering” “our churches”? Can he not read the signs of the times? This in not the time for more wreckovation]vox Dei[/I] as it expressed in the vox populi. It might just be high time to turn “the liturgy page” and spend more time with the pagina sacra. After all, as Paddy himself reminds us, “You will find a renewed emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word.”
He might do well, moreover, after some attention to the Sacred Page, to take a leaf from the tome of the ever-prophetic Ratzinger: “It is time to find again the courage of nonconformism, the capacity to oppose many of the trends of the surrounding culture, renouncing a certain euphoric post-concilar solidarity” (pp. 36-37).
Ratzinger challenges this
-
October 2, 2006 at 5:20 pm #768708
-
October 2, 2006 at 5:37 pm #768709
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Can anyone confirm that this is a view of Monaghan Cathedral before the drastic destruction wrought by Joe Duffy?
Praxiteles,
Is it not the case that the crucifix on this roodbeam is the same (now repainted) as that now hanging in the chancel of St Peter’s Belfast? [See attachment 3046. Are you trying to find the accompanying statues? Is it the same church (St Peter’s Belfast) or do you think that there has been a “transfer of church goods”?
-
October 2, 2006 at 5:55 pm #768710
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Praxiteles,
Is it not the case that the crucifix on this roodbeam is the same (now repainted) as that now hanging in the chancel of St Peter’s Belfast? [See attachment 3046. Are you trying to find the accompanying statues? Is it the same church (St Peter’s Belfast) or do you think that there has been a “transfer of church goods”?
No. The photograph with the Rood Beam had been given to me as a photograph of Monaghan Cathedral before the wreckage. I had my doubts about it and P. Clerkin -quite expert in Monaghan matters – gave a definitive assurance that it is not Monaghan. So we have to resume our search for a photograph of the interior of Managhan before the wreckage – if you are in the way of consulting sources in North America it might prove more successful that efforts throughout the British isles.
I do not know where the Crucifix in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Belfast came from as I believe that it did not originally have a Rood Beam.
-
October 2, 2006 at 6:23 pm #768711
Fearg
ParticipantI’m fairly sure the crucifix in St Peter’s is brand new and was commisioned as part of the recent renovation project.
-
October 2, 2006 at 7:31 pm #768712
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
I’m fairly sure the crucifix in St Peter’s is brand new and was commisioned as part of the recent renovation project.
It’s a dead ringer for the other one in the Praxiteles’ photo. Note the finials at each end of the vertical and horizontal arms.
I do in fact have access to some recent books on Irish churches and cathedrals, so will do some more routling about in search of the mysterious rood.
-
October 2, 2006 at 7:32 pm #768713
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThat church you thought was Monaghan, is actually in Hamilton, Ontario
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=306 -
October 2, 2006 at 8:37 pm #768714
Fearg
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
It’s a dead ringer for the other one in the Praxiteles’ photo. Note the finials at each end of the vertical and horizontal arms.
I do in fact have access to some recent books on Irish churches and cathedrals, so will do some more routling about in search of the mysterious rood.
The crucifix was designed by the architect responsible for the renovation and was made in Madrid (by the same people who made the Tabernacle).
-
October 2, 2006 at 8:49 pm #768715
Praxiteles
ParticipantIn Madrid!! I wonder if it were made by the company I am thinking of. If so, then we are in for a little embarrassment all round!!
-
October 2, 2006 at 8:54 pm #768716
Praxiteles
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
That church you thought was Monaghan, is actually in Hamilton, Ontario
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=306Well, that resolves that problem.
-
October 2, 2006 at 9:31 pm #768717
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterworking on an interior image of Monaghan – i have a lead….
-
October 2, 2006 at 11:03 pm #768718
Rhabanus
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
That church you thought was Monaghan, is actually in Hamilton, Ontario
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=306THANK YOU, Paul, for enlightening our darkness! The article which you kindly attached is most interesting. I must obtain a list of the 40 churches that Joseph Connolly designed for Ontario. If you know where such a list is, I should be glad to get it.
Lovers of churches will be delighted to know that Joseph Connolly’s exquisitely beautiful Church of Our Lady in Guelph, Ontario, was spared the attentions of The Rev. Richard Vosco (priest of the Diocese of Albany, New York who ‘renovates’ churches) owing to the unfailing common sense and indomitable fortitude of the Catholic faithful in the Diocese of Hamilton. The anawim of Guelph rose up mightily to quash the vaunted proposal to wreak “you-know-what” on that gem of Neo-Gothic architecture: The Church of Our Lady.
Read all about the salvation of that lovely church in this article: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/aug1999p9_317.html
Paul Likoudis, in his scintillating article “How a Canadian church was saved from destruction,” writes:
‘Father Richard Vosko, a priest of the American diocese of Albany (New York State), who had proposed the radical plan to remove the church’s marble communion rail, confessionals, high altar and rearrange the pews, was still paid $60,000 for his plan to wreck the church’s interior]Let the Church of Our Lady, Guelph, be a lesson and a guiding star to all the faithful of Cobh. Do not yield to the demagoguery and the truncated syllogisms of the ‘liturgical’ vandals. If they dare to violate the sacred interiors of Gothic churches, there is no limit to their depravity. Pay no attention to their seductive siren-songs about “re-ordering our churches” [cf. Paddy Jones, “The Liturgy Page,” Intercom, October 2006)]. Look to the Star – Look to Mary! Take heart! This madness of wrecovating St Colman’s, too, shall pass. Just don’t give up the ship.
P.S. Paul, I saw an advert for your book on the names of Dublin Streets and intend to order one. Have you published anything on the churches of Joseph Connolly?
-
October 2, 2006 at 11:11 pm #768719
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterOh I have a list of books to write, but unless someone actually pays me to do it, I won’t 🙂
That said, I am planning a first imprint by Archiseek.com
-
October 3, 2006 at 12:10 am #768720
Fearg
ParticipantPaul,
Looking at the floorplan, would I be correct in saying that Monaghan looked very much like St Saviours in Dublin once did?http://www.saintsavioursdublin.ie/churchpictures_large/centralsanctuaryview.jpg
-
October 3, 2006 at 2:42 am #768721
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
The retro-fitted vents in the sanctuary on either side of the throne-like chair do nothing to enhance the ensemble. Che tackezza!
Where is the tabernacle located, anyway? I know that it’s perched parlously on that ridiculous plinth, but where? In some side chapel? The north transept? The south transept? Where is it hiding?
As the Magdalene once famously complained, “They have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have put Him!”
Peek-a-boo! I am sure that He sees us, but where are we to see Him?
Peek-a-boo!
“L’oeil etait dans le tombe – et Il regardait Cain!”
Peek-a-boo!
Thanks to the investigative skills of Fearg, it has been determined that the peek-a-boo tabernacle is located in a northern chapel. In a Gothic shuch this constitutes a solecism at the very least, a gaucherie at least, and perhaps even a blasphemy, if not an outright sacrilege. Follow, for but a moment, the internal logic of a Gothic church, with its liturgical directions firmly in place. The East, whence riseth the morning sun, affords a natural icon of the Risen Christ who is the Sun of Justice. The East conjures up in the Catholic imagination the garden of Eden, Paradise (St Cyril of Jerusalem) and the place from whence shall come the Lord of all who will judge the quick and the dead. (Byzantine and Romaneque churches would depict Christ the Pantocrator in an apsidal fresco or mosaic – for He is Lord of All and will return on the Eighth Day.
Again, in the early Church [St Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Lecture I, St Ambrose of Milan, De Sacramentis], by contrast, the west, as source of darness (the setting sun) was the point most assocoated with the devil. Hence the candidates for baptism would turn westward, the direction ftowards which they would pronounce the apotaxis (renunciation of the devil, his works, and all his pomps)
But in the Gothic churches built in the Middle Ages, it was the north end/transept/side which was regarded as the least favoured place. It was in this direction, toward the north, that the Gospel was proclaimed: in the teeth of the devil. All that was bad and threatening seemed to come from the north (Norsemen, other invaders, ill winds etc.) In Gothic churches, consequently, the north door or transept was the place to display figures of the Old Testament, rather than the New. An exception is the cathedral of Chartres, where St Anne is portrayed in the north transept. This was because Chartres cathedral housed some of her relics (her head). Of course, St Anne would have been somewhat of an Old Testament or at least an Intertestamental figure, hence the north trnsept would not have been an utterly incongruous for her in the iconographic programme of that cathedral, especially since Our Lady would have taken precedence in the cathedral whoch took its name from her.
In the language of Gothic architecture, positioning a tabernacle in the north end of a Gothic building is so utterly tasteless and foolish an act that I daresay it may well constitute an insult to the Blessed Sacrament. Clearly the notion of a squint in the very door of the tabernacle is perhaps the single most egregious gaff of that particular arrangement. Nevertheless, the positioning of a tabernacle on the north side of a Gothic church would never have been perpetrated by serious architects like Pugin, MacCarthy, Ashlin, and Connolly, who were thoroughly conversant with the grammar of Gothic architecture and whose personal dedication to their holy religion would have kept them aloof from such pernicious folly.
I would be most interested to know which ‘liturgical expert’ advised the local bishop to permit the placement of a tabernacle in the north wall of a Gothic church. And people accuse our forebears living in the Dark Ages of quackery!
-
October 3, 2006 at 2:57 am #768722
Rhabanus
ParticipantA final thought for all those dedicated to the Gothic ideal, to the dignity of the sacred Liturgy, to the honour of Holy Mother Church, to the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God, and to the glory of Almighty God:
“Whereas a Doric temple was built by men who had found an escape from the burden of life in a balance between the attainable and the unattainable, a Gothic cathedral was built by rebels who refused to acknowledge the limits of experience set by mundane things.”
Ernest H. Short, The House of God: A History of Religious Architecture and Symbolism (New York: Macmillan, 1926), p. 194. -
October 3, 2006 at 3:36 am #768723
Elipandus
ParticipantRhabanus wrote:Thanks to the investigative skills of Fearg, it has been determined that the peek-a-boo tabernacle is located in a northern chapel. In a Gothic shuch this constitutes a solecism at the very least, a gaucherie at least, and perhaps even a blasphemy, if not an outright sacrilege. Follow, for but a moment, the internal logic of a Gothic church, with its liturgical directions firmly in place. The East, whence riseth the morning sun, affords a natural icon of the Risen Christ who is the Sun of Justice. The East conjures up in the Catholic imagination the garden of Eden, Paradise (St Cyril of Jerusalem) and the place from whence shall come the Lord of all who will judge the quick and the dead. (Byzantine and Romaneque churches would depict Christ the Pantocrator in an apsidal fresco or mosaic – for He is Lord of All and will return on the Eighth Day.Just so. This sacramental awareness of our and the liturgy’s orientation in the worship space was an organic inheritance, appropriated by each new generation that was born into a world in which the sun rose in the east. I am put in mind of the magnificent Gothic Cathedral of Toledo which itself underwent serious renovation in the course of the 18th century. Narciso Tome’s late Baroque (Churrigueresque) “Transparente” skylight violently disrupts the symmetry of the Gothic ambulatory with a gaggle of puti that seem to float unsupported, dancing in the un-stained sunlight. It was considered a monstrosity at the time but today it just about “works.” Why? Because this partial demolition of the ambulatory sought to meet Christ’s presence “in situ,” in the tabernacle toward which the longitudinal nave marches. It was an alteration that sought (even if some feel misguigedly) to serve the cultic functions of the church, rather than to reform them. The Archibishop Don Rodrigo from the 13th century and Narciso Tome in the 18th were both agreed that the faithful come to the heavenly Jerusalem only through the presence of Christ, bathed in the rising sun of the east. The latter only sought to light our way.
-
October 3, 2006 at 5:01 am #768724
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Fearg wrote:
Paul,
Looking at the floorplan, would I be correct in saying that Monaghan looked very much like St Saviours in Dublin once did?http://www.saintsavioursdublin.ie/churchpictures_large/centralsanctuaryview.jpg
In old photos I have seen from the 50s yes, but on a much bigger scale – in my childhood no, changes had already been made
-
October 3, 2006 at 6:17 am #768725
Rhabanus
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
They did something similar at Monaghan and ruined it. And the bishop is still a little sensitive about criticism.5 or 6 years back I said something negative here, and the next thing I get a letter from a dioscesan flunkey asked me to desist.
Diocesan flunkey or no diocesan flunkey, they cannot suppress the truth. The word has long been out. The very stones themselves will cry out!
I draw your kind attention, gentle readers, to a comment on St MacKartan’s Catholic Cathedral, Monaghan in Jeremy Williams, A Companion Guide to Architecture in Ireland[/I], 1837-1921 (Blackrock, Eire and Portland, OR: Irish Academic Press, 1994): “Elaborate Telford organ remains in its intact western gallery. Not so the furnishings at the eastern end. Hague’s altar, baldachino, unconventional throne and pulpit have been replaced by fittings devised by Michael Biggs to conform with liturgical trends of the 1960s following a formula already deployed in Longford Cathedral. But what has been successful in a neo-Classical setting here dispels all sense of the celestial.”
Kudos to Fearg on inaugurating a new thread dedicated to organs, cabinets, and lofts – which survived with far more dignity and respect than the glorious sanctuaries of yesteryear.
Please tell me, Fearg and Paul, that St Saviour’s was spared the ravages of Paddy Jones’ euphemistic boast “We re-ordered our churches!” PLEASE tell me that St Saviour’s survived intact. That spectacular photo in sharp black and white shows off the celestial glory of that pearl of a church. “Tell me, kind Spirit, did Tiny Tim survive? Are these the shadows of things that must be or things that only might be?”
Dare we see a photo of St Saviour’s today? “I see an empty stool beside the hearth, and a little crutch without an owner ….”
-
October 3, 2006 at 9:57 am #768726
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere we are Rhabanus!
The present interior of St. Saviour’s, Dominick St., Dublin. It is the fruit of the labours of one Austin Flannery, OP.
-
October 3, 2006 at 3:43 pm #768727
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here we are Rhabanus!
The present interior of St. Saviour’s, Dominick St., Dublin. It is the fruit of the labours of one Austin Flannery, OP.
A more than shocking indication of how he translated the Vatican II documents, isn’t it?
How gruesome.
-
October 3, 2006 at 9:48 pm #768728
Praxiteles
ParticipantA. Flannery made a complete mess of the translation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. At best, they are patchy and depend largely on who did the translating work. They are worse than useless for any sort of serious work because you cannot rely on the text of the translation and have to check every single reference and, more often than not, you end up having to translate the relevant Latin yourself.
-
October 3, 2006 at 11:13 pm #768729
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
A. Flannery made a complete mess of the translation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. At best, they are patchy and depend largely on who did the translating work. They are worse than useless for any sort of serious work because you cannot rely on the text of the translation and have to check every single reference and, more often than not, you end up having to translate the relevant Latin yourself.
Absolutely, Praxiteles. It is now standard practice in academic circles and in scholarly journals to insist on using Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (2 vols), edited by Norman P. Tanner, S.J., original text established by G. Alberigo, J.A. Dossetti, P.-P. Joannou, C. Leonardi, and P. Prodi, in consultation with H. Jedin (London: Sheed and Ward and Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990). The work presents the conciliar texts from Nicea to Vatican II with the Greek and/or Latin text on one page and English on the other, If you dispute the translator’s efforts, you can see right away what the original text says.
Flannery makes a good door stop or, by times, a useful weapon to settle the cat when he’s harassing the budgey.
I see from the devastation wrought in St Saviour’s that Flannery used the same documents that Paddy Jones did to justify the wreckovation (completed and still intended) of Irish churches: “When you read the Liturgy Constitution you will not find any reference to moving altars, having an ambo, removing altar rails, providing a presider’s chair. But …” So … no document justifies the sackage? Are we dealing, then, with Gnostics who have some internal illumination that the rest of us lack?
Riddle me that one, Praziteles!! And I remember when Catholicism used to be an organised religion!
-
October 3, 2006 at 11:42 pm #768730
Praxiteles
ParticipantSomeone was asking about construction photographs of St. Colman’s Cathedral. Here is a few to hand.
The first comes from an album of photographs of Ireland published by a Canadian (Finnerty, I think) in Chicago in 1898 and probably dates from ante 1894 (the palace, on the left, did not have the second wing added to it which was done by Robert Browne who bcame bishop in 1894)
-
October 3, 2006 at 11:46 pm #768731
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, c.1900.
-
October 3, 2006 at 11:49 pm #768732
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral c. 1900
-
October 3, 2006 at 11:52 pm #768733
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. COlman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork c. 1905
-
October 4, 2006 at 12:22 am #768734
Fearg
ParticipantThanks Prax, on a similar line, here are some pictures of Derry, first one is an unexecuted proposal for a broach spire, looks much taller than what was actually built:
[ATTACH]3093[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3094[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3095[/ATTACH]
-
October 4, 2006 at 12:33 am #768735
Fearg
ParticipantAs a contrast to St Saviours in Dublin, here is St Catherine’s Dominican church in Newry, where a more minimalist approach to reordering took place (sorry about the poor quality photo). It looks similar too, albeit smaller than St Peter’s in Belfast.
[ATTACH]3096[/ATTACH]
-
October 4, 2006 at 1:24 am #768736
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Completion of the spire 1911-1915
-
October 4, 2006 at 1:44 am #768737
Fearg
Participant.
-
October 4, 2006 at 3:26 am #768738
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
As a contrast to St Saviours in Dublin, here is St Catherine’s Dominican church in Newry, where a more minimalist approach to reordering took place (sorry about the poor quality photo). It looks similar too, albeit smaller than St Peter’s in Belfast.
[ATTACH]3096[/ATTACH]
Thank you, Fearg, for reviving me and restoring my waning faith in human nature by displaying St Catherine’s Dominican Church in Newry. I was utterly gob-smacked by Praxiteles’ unholy revelation of Flannery’s neo-brutalist desecration of St Saviour’s, Dublin. The b x w photo of St Saviour’s in younger and happier days had me in ecstasy, so you can imagine my horror when I beheld Flannery’s outrage.
I think that teh Church in Ireland [or at least the anawim] should set aside a day in October or November to do public penance [replete with black ribbons or arm-bands] for the ravages done to Catholic church buildings since 1966. A second day of public penance ought to be held likewise in reparation for all the neo-Pagan and neo-Gnostic edifices which have been erected de novo under Catholic auspices and with the money fleeced from the flock. Paenitemini! Paenitemini!
-
October 4, 2006 at 3:40 am #768739
Rhabanus
ParticipantI meant to add, Fearg, that the sanctuary of St Catherine’s Dominican church in Newry is currently too cluttered with extraneous stuff, eg the pulpit and the ‘ironing-board’ altarette. Certainly it is a blessing that the high altar was not hauled away and desecrated. Nevertheless, the beauty of the sanctuary is compromised by the modified pulpit – which ought to go in its original place – and the ironing-board which could be removed altogether and sent C.O.D. to PJ’s central depot. [“We re-ordered our churches!” “Rawrk! Polly-want-a-cracker? Rawrk!”] Why do the ‘renovators’ always fancy that everything, including the kitchen sink, has to be piled into the sanctuary? High time to get rid of some of the ‘trash and trumpery’ cluttering up St Catherine’s and restore its pure lines. Is there anything wrong with allowing the architecture draw the visitor deeply and reverently into the mystery of Our Lord’s Eucharistic Presence?
-
October 4, 2006 at 8:21 am #768740
Praxiteles
ParticipantHaving given some comparative attention to Armagh before and after its re-orderings, I thought it might be usefu to consider St. Mel’s Cathedral in Longford where a vandalism on Christianity, not seen since the time of Attilla the Hun, was practised by C.B. Daly. Below is the original sanctuary of the Cathedral. We have a shallow differentiation between the nave the presbyterium in which a Choir has been placed. The presbyterium is differentiated again from the sanctuary by another shallow step. The High Altar in the sanctuary is raised on three steps. It is believed that the altar was supposed to have been sored in the basement of the Cathedral as a gesture to the opposition to the destruction.
-
October 4, 2006 at 8:27 am #768741
Elipandus
ParticipantAs Anscar Chupungco or others among the inculturation fraticelli might, let me suggest that a cross-cultural perspective be taken to the wanton destruction of our churches. To this end I suggest a quick virtual tour of the neo-gothic gem of San Lorenzo’s parish, in Gijon, from Spain’s Asturian coast http://www.slorenzo.com/ . You get the full round by scrolling down and clicking on “visita virtual” on the bottom left. Not too bad at first, right, then get a good look at that Ascension sculpture. This church was more or less a total loss at the end of the Civil War (1939), and had to be almost completely re-constructed. The poverty at the time was heartbreaking, yet the parishoners gave more than they probably should have at a time when even staples like milk and eggs were frequently unavailable. Well, come 1966 (if memory serves) one Don Urbano (pious late grandfather) sees statues and pictorial representations of the via crucis being carried out of the Church, the flunkies striking attitudes only slightly less contemptuous than the anarchists that torched it. A few days later he meets the parish priest in the street, “Father what’s this all about? Those are OUR statues, I paid 50 pesetas toward these icons.” “Well” he warbles “I was on vacation during the renovation.” In Gijon it occurred during a dictatorship, what’s the excuse in St. Saviour’s case?
Poor thing, San Lorenzo’s still looks graceful, but imagine how it must have looked before the reorder-ers got their hands on it.
-
October 4, 2006 at 2:55 pm #768742
Praxiteles
ParticipantLet not the name Chupuncgo be mentioned – one of the great disasters of the Liturgical Renewal.
-
October 4, 2006 at 4:21 pm #768743
Rhabanus
ParticipantAnother splendid photograph of a rather handsome cathedral. Love that spacious tabernacle set majestically atop the altar and flanked by the ‘big six.’ Now, Prax, don’t lay me low with another shock to the system. I am still only just recovering from the wound dealt me by that photo of Flannery’s gutting of St Saviour’s.
I just found a photo of Ray Carroll’s “Christ in Majesty” tapestry in Richard Hurley, Irish Church Architecture in the Era of Vatican II (Dublin: Richard Hurley and Dominican Publications, 2001), p. 110. In the photo, the bishop’s or diocese’s coat of arms is flanked by the ‘big six.’ The photo does not take dispaly the full arrangement of the sanctuary. I gather, then, that St Mel’s was razed in much the same way that St Saviour’s Dublin was wasted.
What madness possessed the clergy-in-charge to wreck a beautiful sanctuary like St Mel’s?
I dread to see the complete abomination perpetrated on that serene sanctuary.
-
October 4, 2006 at 4:38 pm #768744
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Let not the name Chupuncgo be mentioned – one of the great disasters of the Liturgical Renewal.
Let that name be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every dyptich and calendar. Stricken from every programme and syllabus. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk of Egypt. Let the name of C be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of liturgists, for all time.
So let it be written.
So let it be done.
-
October 4, 2006 at 5:28 pm #768745
Praxiteles
ParticipantSorry to disappoint Rhabanus, but St. Mel’s is one of the worst disasters to have hit. It was done by the then Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise and subsequently Cardinal Cathal B. Daly.
-
October 4, 2006 at 6:02 pm #768746
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Sorry to disappoint Rhabanus, but St. Mel’s is one of the worst disasters to have hit. It was done by the then Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise and subsequently Cardinal Cathal B. Daly.
An utterly wicked, thoroughgoing foul deed!
You indicated earlier that the high altar may yet be hidden in the bowels of the building. Once a Catholic bishop takes possession, perhaps he will replace it and get on with “ordering our churches!”
Is anything afoot regarding the teaching of art appreciation in whatever Irish seminaries may be left open?
The medieval curriculum of studies required a mastery of the Trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and then the Quadrivium (mathematics, geometry, music, astronomy) BEFORE students advanced to Philosophy and Theology. No one with a modicum of common sense and educated taste would have allowed the travesties now under consideration to have been perpetrated in the house of God.
Tell me, Praxiteles, do the rectories and palaces of Ireland display the same impoverished taste? Or is it a case of “living high on the hog” with dining room tables illuminated by benediction candelabra and patios paved with altar stones and the mensae of marble altars? J.H. Newman remarked in the nineteenth century that there never seemed to be enough money in the till for beautifying or restoring churches, but there was always enough in the kitty to make over the rectory every few years – and always with the best of furniture and fixtures.
-
October 4, 2006 at 6:10 pm #768747
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn the positive side, here we have a development in Farragut, Tennessee that is perhaps a step in the right direction and an indication of where architecture is going in more plugged in Catholic circles. There are, however, elements that I would have reservations about: a day chapel AND an adoration chapel. Why cannot both be comdined into one chapel to be used for daily Mass and thereafter for Adoration thus allowing one the practical ability of renewing the Sacred Species frequently and the theological ability of maintaining a link between the Mass and Eucharistic Adoration. Also, I do not believe that it is appropriate for toilets to be included in the body of a church. These should be located in a sacristy, outside the church, or else in a separate building linked to the main body of the church. Perhaps Rhabanus can tell us more of these domestic habits of the Americans?
-
October 4, 2006 at 6:21 pm #768748
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd another project from HDB/Cram and Ferguson of Boston
-
October 4, 2006 at 7:36 pm #768749
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
On the positive side, here we have a development in Farragut, Tennessee that is perhaps a step in the right direction and an indication of where architecture is going in more plugged in Catholic circles. There are, however, elements that I would have reservations about: a day chapel AND an adoration chapel. Why cannot both be comdined into one chapel to be used for daily Mass and thereafter for Adoration thus allowing one the practical ability of renewing the Sacred Species frequently and the theological ability of maintaining a link between the Mass and Eucharistic Adoration. Also, I do not believe that it is appropriate for toilets to be included in the body of a church. These should be located in a sacristy, outside the church, or else in a separate building linked to the main body of the church. Perhaps Rhabanus can tell us more of these domestic habits of the Americans?
This firm likewise designed the beautiful Church of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston.
See the fair sanctuary here: http://www.walsingham-church.org/
Don’t forget about Thomas Gordon Smith Architects. This is the firm which is erecting the Benedictine monastery at Clear Creek, Oklahoma and building the Seminary of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, Nebraska.
Beauty is not sacrificed for funtion with the firms mentioned above.
As for one chapel serving as both the venue for daily Mass and adoration afterwards, this is the case with many churches where perpetual adoration has been introduced. Nevertheless, I have seen places where both are operative. I agree with Praxiteles that both functions can be accommodated in the one chapel, and this has a good pedagogical effect regarding the Blessed Sacrament as the Fruit of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. [Catholics seem in almost constant need of having this teaching reinforced. Where has the ‘Catholic instinct’ gone?]
As for the installation of washroom facilities, the churches with which I am most familiar provide these off the narthex, either in a corridor leading to the rectory offices or meeting-rooms, or else on the north side of the narthex (a more appropriate direction for the placing of washrooms than the tabernacle). Washrooms in older churches are generally located in the sacristy or in the hall beneath the church. Many of the latter churches are now installing elevators in the narthex for the convenience of the disabled.
Tell me, now, Prax, are there ANY churches in Ireland that were spared the efforts of the liturgical demolition squads? It strikes me as odd that the faithful in Ireland did not rise up in fury to stop the vandals from accomplishing their fiendish work. How did the barbarians make such deep inroads?
-
October 4, 2006 at 8:35 pm #768750
Praxiteles
ParticipantApart from one example that I will post, I will reply to this privately as I do not want to focus unwelcome attention on parishes whose obscurity has been a providential manner of holding on to their churches more or less intact.
-
October 4, 2006 at 10:30 pm #768751
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Apart from one example that I will post, I will reply to this privately as I do not want to focus unwelcome attention on parishes whose obscurity has been a providential manner of holding on to their churches more or less intact.
Good thinking! Like the Magi, we shall keep Herod in the dark and return another way into our country.
I am heartened to learn that not every church succumbed to what JRR Tolkein, in The Lord of the Rings, calls ‘the scouring of the shire.’
It strikes me as odd, though, that prominent Catholics in Ireland did not raise a voice against the wave(s) of liturgical and artistic destruction. I think, for example, of author James Plunkett (1920-2003) – did he ever criticise or comment upon the devastation of beautiful (and historically significant) Irish churches?
Has no one had the courage to tell the Emperor that he’s wearing NO CLOTHES?
“When you read the Liturgy Constitution you will not find any reference to moving altars, having an ambo, removing altar rails, providing a presider’s chair.” Precisely. End of story. If the documents of V2 say nothing of all this, then why was the path of vandalism pursued with such unremitting vigour? Why were precious statues and altars which were hewn and sculpted from Carara marble hauled away and in many cases destroyed, only to be replaced by cheap plywood junk of little or no artistic merit whatsoever?
I know of one family in a metropolitan diocese here in North America who came to their parish church one day and found the well-proportioned marble high altar lying smashed to smitherenes in a heap of rubble. That altar had been donated by their family in honour of their parents. They had not even been consulted about the removal of the altar much less about its destruction in the church itself. The church, originally built in the round, was dept-free at the time of the liturgical assault, but was put into the red by the radical renovations commenced by the new pastor, whose answer to the mounting protest of the parish was: “I prefer wood to marble.” This passes for an answer to the wholesale destruction of a church interior? When pressure increased, he admitted that he had received his ‘marching orders’ from the local chancery office. No documents, no writ from Rome, no instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship or its equivalent at the time, no appeal tothe example of the saints or the Fathers of the Church. Just a simple, feckless excused tossed over an impudent shoulder: “I prefer wood to marble.” Then, the feeble exoneration bleated with tail between the legs: “the chancery made me do it.” Flip Wilson’s female counterpart Geraldine popularised the phrase: “The Devil mad me do it!” Indeed.
Consider, if you will, a conversation I had back in the 1980s with a female religious (we used to call them nuns once upon a time – and this one was a nun, not just a sister) who disparaged the artistic accomplishments of a revered member of her Order, whose works are now being rediscovered and enjoyed by a new generation of Catholics in some parts of North America [her work used to adorn countless Catholic himes across Canada and in many parts of the USA]. I detected hesitation in the nun’s voice when I asked for prints of some of the more famous pieces and asked why she did not approve. Note the answer I received: “Well it’s not really Vatican II art, is it?” I immediately asked her what this meant? “It’s too soft and gentle, and, I don’t want to say ‘too religious,’ but it is. It doesn’t fit in with Vatican II.” This response is revealing. In this nun’s mind, even if only subconsciously, the art that emerged since the Second Vatican Council was the antithesis of anything beautiful, gentle, and distinctly religious. How telling. And, wishing to demonstrate her loyalty to the Chruch and the hierarchy, she distanced herself from art that she recognised was soft, gentle, and religious in orientation.
Time to reclaim our Church, dearly beloved, and our Catholic art, and our Catholic devotions, and the Faith of our Fathers, and the apostolic Tradition, and the Depositum Fidei – in short, the whole Catholic religion! The ‘experts’ and the bureaucrats have been tinkering with it for far too long; and in some cases, now, it is utterly unrecognisable as Catholicism. This is, after all, Christ’s gift to us. This is HIS Church and this is HIS religion and we are here on HIS terms, not our own. So ‘Farewell!’ to the blandishments of the scribbling Pharisees who peddle their tawdry wares in tracts no longer suited to the times.
Let them find documents before they proceed to comment on them and operate under their alledged inspiration. The truth will out!
-
October 4, 2006 at 11:00 pm #768752
Fearg
ParticipantRe Longford. To replace the old altar, surely they could have found something more in keeping with the building that that cheap looking banner? it totally detracts from the architectural coherence of the apse.
-
October 5, 2006 at 1:11 am #768753
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn a historical note re St. mel’s Cathedral, Longford, the following may be of interest:
-
October 5, 2006 at 3:38 am #768754
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Re Longford. To replace the old altar, surely they could have found something more in keeping with the building that that cheap looking banner? it totally detracts from the architectural coherence of the apse.
It qualifies as an unmitigated “nightmare of incongruities” (AWN Pugin). The ‘tapestry’, of distinctly inferior design and rather dubious execution, clashes not only with the architecture of the sanctuary, but especially with the art on the apsidal wall. The saints stencilled in trompe l’oeil fashion really show up the banner for the monster of depravity that it is.
I don’t know what the artist got for it, but the bishop should have got 20 years on bread and water.
It calls to mind a phrase coined by Anne Roche Muggeridge in The Gates of Hell: “With shepherds like these, wolves become superfluous.”
-
October 5, 2006 at 5:32 pm #768755
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
On a historical note re St. mel’s Cathedral, Longford, the following may be of interest:
Thank you. The history of the founding of St Mel’s was of much interest.
The founding bishops are to be commended [and devoutly remembered in prayer] for their solicitude for the worthy worship of God and for their zeal in coming to the aid of the poor. Their sacrifices contributed to an impressive house of worship where all, rich or poor, could find the path to Heaven.Contrast it with an account of the deplorable state to which Catholic worship was reduced in the 1830s:
“Going into Catholic chapels (there were no churches then) what did I see? The very tabernacle a Pagan Temple, the altar a deal sarcophagus, over which a colossal eye within rays looked down from a flat ceiling, artificial flowers under glass shades between the altar candlesticks, costly marble produced in cheap paper, brackets painted with sham shadows supporting nothing]Recollections of A.N. Welby Pugin[/I] (1861) p. 240, as cited in Denis Gwynn, Lord Shrewsbury, Pugin and the Catholic Revival (London: Hollis and Carter, 1946), p. 19Does this seem familiar? Several of the features (‘The very tabernacle a Pagan Temple, the altar a deal sarcophagus, over which a colossal eye within rays looked down …’) seem somewhat akin to the post-Vatican ‘improvements’ to the sanctuaries of St Patrick’s, Armagh (whale-tooth/parabolic tabernacle) and St Peter’s, Belfast (peek-a-boo tabernacle in north-end chapel).
-
October 5, 2006 at 5:45 pm #768756
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Re Longford. To replace the old altar, surely they could have found something more in keeping with the building that that cheap looking banner? it totally detracts from the architectural coherence of the apse.
Has anyone yet received or read Augustus Welby Pugin, Designer of the British Houses of Parliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture (Hardcover) by Christabel Powell? It was due to be published in June 2006. Has anyone’s copy arrived? I thought I read a review in The Literary Review a few months ago, but perhaps I am mistaken. Of course, the reviewers receive advance copies that are still at the galley stage.
Any news of the book?
-
October 6, 2006 at 10:16 am #768757
Praxiteles
ParticipantIf I might destract from the discussion of Longford Cathedral for a moment, I would like to ask Rhabanus what he thinks of the following photograph. This is the interior of St Nicholas’ Church, Killavullen near Malow, Co. Cork. The Norman origin of the parish is evident in its dedication to St Nicholas of Myra whose relics are venerated in Southern Italy at Bari in the other Norman kingdom. The church was built in the early 19th. cenrury by a local architect, Br. Michael Augustine O’Riordan in the classical idiom. Since the parish was the birth place of a certain Richard Hennessey who settled into the brandy trade in Cognac, and since his descendants maintained contact with the parish, funds were available for the building of a fine village church. The interior, up to very recently, conserved its classical altar and typical picture of the crucifixion. Then, the beucholic idyll was ahattered: the altar and retable were demolished; the back wall of the church was partially demolished; the sanctuary was extended backwards by about 5 feet, a new back wall being buiklt and connected to the rest of the church by a glass enclosure. On entering the church to-day, one is greeted by a large well lit blank wall, unrelieved by any feature whatsoever – not even a crucifix. The overall effect is to convey the notion of Bhuddist dissolution of the person or individual into total abstraction by omitting any reference to form, category, substance or material. If Martin Mosebach is looking for the perfect embodiement not only of the denial of the Incarnation but also of its positive anthetesis in architectural term, then this is it. Praxiteles understands that the person responsible for this bit of vandalism is one John Lynch.
-
October 6, 2006 at 5:42 pm #768758
Rhabanus
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:If I might destract from the discussion of Longford Cathedral for a moment, I would like to ask Rhabanus what he thinks of the following photograph. This is the interior of St Nicholas’ Church, Killavullen near Malow, Co. Cork. The Norman origin of the parish is evident in its dedication to St Nicholas of Myra whose relics are venerated in Southern Italy at Bari in the other Norman kingdom. The church was built in the early 19th. cenrury by a local architect, Br. Michael Augustine O’Riordan in the classical idiom. Since the parish was the birth place of a certain Richard Hennessey who settled into the brandy trade in Cognac, and since his descendants maintained contact with the parish, funds were available for the building of a fine village church. The interior, up to very recently, conserved its classical altar and typical picture of the crucifixion. Then, the beucholic idyll was ahattered: the altar and retable were demolished]I suppose my first response to the disaster before my eyes is to prefer the medieval Norman to the postmodern Irish invaders of this parish. Perhaps the building ought to be renamed ‘Cinema Paradiso’ under its new dedication.
The parocco (Italian for ‘Parish Priest’) can sit in the big comfy (?) armchair, greet the customers, and introduce the daily feature to the audience. Reflecting on his vast experience of extensive travel to such cosmopolitan centres of culture as Florida, Malibu, Hollywood, Disneyland, Disneyworld, and Las Vegas (not to mention Cannes, Monte Carlo, Biarritz, and Paris in the Springtime), he can enlighten the hoi polloi (Greek for “the peons who pay for Father’s extensive cultural travels and his importation of the latest architectural and artistic trends to re-order his village church”) about the shadows soon to be cast upon the walls. The introductory commentary substitutes for the first homily of today’s liturgical experience. [Members of the audience (aka hoi polloi) are invited to bring their own bowls and to help themselves, before the filmic liturgy, to the ultra-chic popcorn-stand in the far-right corner of the former sanctuary. [Please, no crunching during Father’s commentary. You may crunch and munch during showtime, once the daily feature begins.] Temperance beverages, refrigerated to perfection, will be provided on the table next to Father’s chair.
Just help yourselves.After the main feature, if the hoi polloi are particularly well-behaved, Father may condescend to bring out from his private vault one of those deathless classics of the silent era, say, Carl Dreyer’s La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc (1928) or The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1919) or Tillie’s Punctured Romance (1914). Mrs Higgins, sitting at the Mighty Wurlitzer, is poised to accompany the special feature with the musical scores of Giuseppe Becce, John Muri, Gaylord Carter, or, in a nod to aggiornamento, Richard Einhorn (with the parish choir mouthing Voices fo Light). Just before the film rolls, Father provides a much more animated, personal commentary (aka the second homily) based on his own rum days in the Theatre of the Absurd and points out the avant-garde approaches of the set designers, costumers, and actors of his day. On days of penitence, he may draw the curtain aside on his brief career in the Theatre of Cruelty, in which case facial tissues will be provided at the entrance for sensitive dispositions.
Once the projector stops rolling, the house lights come up and Mrs Higgins takes her bow, to thunderous applause. Then Father wraps up the day’s liturgy with some scintillating remarks on the skill of his fellow artistes and the need for further developments in the liturgy (now the third homily), then dismisses the audience. See you next time in Killavullen … at … Cinema Paradiso ….
Closing credits.
Stay tuned for Next Week’s Main Feature, Specially Selected to Mark “Irish Church Re-ordering Week”:
Bambi Meets Godzilla[/I (1969) -
October 7, 2006 at 4:21 am #768759
Rhabanus
ParticipantIn the meantime, it might be helpful to consult The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (ICEL trans. 2002), which, regarding the arrangemnt and furnishing of Churches for the Celebration of the Eucharist, states: “Sacred buildings and requisites for divine worship should, moreover, be truly worthy and beautiful and be signs and symbols of heavenly realities” (288).
What, if any, heavenly reality is represented here? The New Jerusalem? Are those puny plants supposed to represent the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life from the original Garden of Paradise?
It is, as Prax points out, a better striving after the Buddhist ideal of Nirvana or the annihilation of self than participation in the Cosmic Liturgy offered before the Throne of God and of the Lamb. Are these latter represented by the obtuse chair and that Jack-in-the-box tabernacle off to the corner?
Read on: “Consequently, the Church constantly seeks the noble assistance of the arts and admits the artistic expressions of all peoples and regions. In fact, just as she is intent on preserving the works of art and the artistic treasures handed down from past centuries and, insofar as necessary, on adapting them to new needs, so also she strives to promote new works of art that are in harmony with the character of each successive age.
On account of this, in commissioning artists and choosing works of art to be admitted into a church, what should be required is that true excellence in art which nourishes faith and devotion and accords authentically with both the meaning and the purpose for which it is intended.” (289)Get it? “… what should be required is that true excellence in art which nourishes faith and devotion and accords authentically with both the meaning and the purpose for which it is intended.” Where is the “excellence of art” evident in this monstrosity? How, I ask, does this desecration nourish faith and devotion? Do you think that that Nora Nagle, foundress of the Presentation nuns and native of Killavullen, would be inspired to deeper faith and more intense devotion by seeing the destruction of a once-handsome sanctuary and its replacement with a blank wall? Can anyone on this thread tell me how the ‘renovation’ at St Nicholas “accords authentically with both the meaning and the purpose for which it is intended”?
Regarding the placement of the Reserved Blessed Sacrament: “In accord with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.” (314)
Is any corner a suitable place for the Blessed Sacrament? It looks like what Archdale A. King once called “a hole-in-corner affair.” Again, as in many other churches under scrutiny on this thread, the connection between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reserved Sacrament is far from obvious.
How about sacred images? How about them? Where are they? Aside from the flagrant violation of the rule that a crucifix be permanently attached to the wall of the sanctuary or permanently suspended, the GIRM states that “images of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Saints, in accordance with the Church’s most ancient tradition, should be displayed for veneration by the faithful in sacred buildings and should be arranged so as to usher the faithful toward the mysteries of faith celebrated there.” (318)
After all, as the Instruction explains, “In the earthly liturgy, the Church participates, by a foretaste, in that heavenly Liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which she journeys as a pilgrim, and where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God; and by venerating the memory of the Saints, she hopes one day to have some part and fellowhip with them.” (318)
It would make sense to elevate the Altar and to place the Tabernacle in the most obvious place of prominence – the centre of that beastly sanctuary denuded of every shred of beauty and dignity. Must beauty always be fated to suffer in these bush-league attempts at ‘liturgical renewal’?
For Heaven’s sake, why not just call it a day, and start all over again from scratch, using Catholic principles of furnishing and decorating a sanctuary?
I am pleased that Praxiteles did NOT post the a photo of the sanctuary of this church before it underwent the devastation that we behold in this shot.
There is little more that can be said about such an outrage. I trust that readers have sufficient common sense and decency to draw logical conclusions when they see an act of sheer stupidity peeping out at them from their computer screens.
NEXT!
-
October 7, 2006 at 4:45 am #768760
Luzarches
ParticipantRe: St Nicholas’ Church, Killavullen.
It’s rather nice though that the laity sit in an entirely untouched nave; traditional, you might say. And the clergy sit in the new and reordered sanctuary; modernist, you might say. Perhaps the architect knew that he had a free hand to indulge all the latest fads in the clerical zone, but knew better that to interfere with the faithful’s?
I hope that this reflects the instincts of the Irish church and that the old pieties will endure.
-
October 7, 2006 at 7:21 pm #768761
Rhabanus
ParticipantLuzarches wrote:Re: St Nicholas’ Church, Killavullen.It’s rather nice though that the laity sit in an entirely untouched nave]
RE: St Nicholas’ Church in Killavullen and other like works of ‘renovation’ and ‘re-ordering’:
Rome will have to address this ridiculous practice of placing the tabernacle on a pillar, a plinth (St Peter’s, Belfast), a whale’s tooth or inverted parabola (St Patrick’s Armagh, two renovations ago), and a jack-in-the-box popcorn dispenser in (Killavullen). The Lord was sacrificed on the altar of the cross; He was mocked and scourged on a pillar.
Two fundamental questions ought to be addressed: first, what is the relationship of the Reserved Blessed Sacrament to the Sacrifice of the Mass? If there is a connection, then this relationship ought to be expressed in architectural terms, either through aligned axes or, more effectively, by ensuring that the repository has enough space for Mass to be celebrated on it, as is the case with the four major basilicas in Rome (as well as many other churches throughout the world).
Second, what effect are these bizarre arrangements having on the faith and devotion of the Church? Is a priest’s reverence deepened by this architectural and theological disconnection? What are these obtuse re-orderings saying, likewise, to the laity who believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharistic Lord, when the Blessed Sacrament is hidden away in a corner or made to look absurd in its architectural surroundings?
Instead of goading architects on from one flight of fancy to the next in some profitless quest to be “on the cutting edge” of post-modern or post-Christian ecclesial architecture, bishops and pastors ought to be zealous in conveying the reality of the Christian sacraments and liturgy when they set about constructing or embellishing Catholic houses of worship.
Finally, the ideal of BEAUTY must be recovered. In an age when tattoos and piercings mar, disfigure, or otherwise obscure the natural beauty of the human body, the Church ought to be especially vigilant in avoiding grotesqueries in the art and architecture employed in her buildings. This seems to me to be a duty of the utmost importance particularly in the teeth of the widespread disfigurement of ‘the image and likeness of God.’ Let the world set its own trends. Let the Church raise her own standards and restore beauty in art and architecture.
-
October 7, 2006 at 7:49 pm #768762
Rhabanus
ParticipantLuzarches wrote:Re: St Nicholas’ Church, Killavullen.It’s rather nice though that the laity sit in an entirely untouched nave]
D’accord, Luzarches! Re St Nicholas’ Church in Killavullen, you wrote:
“the laity sit in an entirely untouched nave; traditional, you might say.
And the clergy sit in the new and reordered sanctuary; modernist, you might say.”Poetic justice, I’d say.
It is to be regretted, however, that the good faithful have to watch the bland proceedings in the bland sanctuary.
If this is not “spectating” at its most bland, tell me how it is not. I would be interested to learn how much the lay faithful “participated” by membership on various committees in bringing about this strange result or in being consulted before the final monstrosity was unveiled (in more ways than one).
-
October 7, 2006 at 7:56 pm #768763
Rhabanus
ParticipantIs it the practice in Ireland, as it is in the United Sates, to employ a “liturgical consultant” when going about the task either of building new churches or of re-ordering older churches? If so, then it certainly would be interesting to learn who were the “professional” liturgists who advised the architects and the pastors on “the re-ordering” of the churches posted thus far, as well as those who were consulted on those churches recently built de novo.
Anyone have an answer to these queries?
-
October 7, 2006 at 11:31 pm #768764
Rhabanus
ParticipantRE: St Nicholas’ Church in Killavullen and other like works of ‘renovation’ and ‘re-ordering’:
Doubtless many of you good readers, whether native patriots or children of Eire abroad, have heard the following poem set to music by Thomas Moore (1779-1852). The song relates the tale that, during the reign of the medieval king, Brien, Ireland was so well governed that ‘a young Lady of great beauty, adorned with jewels and a costly dress, undertook a journey alone, from one end of the Kingdom to the other, with a wand only in her hand, at the top of which was a ring of exceeding great value; and such an impression had the Laws and Government of this Monarch made on the minds of all the people, that no attempt was made upon her honour, nor was she robbed of her clothes or jewels.’
[Hear it on ‘Thomas Moore’s Irish Melodies’ in the original settings by Sir John Stevenson with instrumental music from The Ancient Music of Ireland by Edward Bunting, performed by ‘Invocation’, who are conducted by Timothy Roberts for Hyperion (London, 1995); the excellent notes are prepared in a handsome booklet, compiled by conductor Timothy Roberts, from which the quotation above is taken (it originally comes from Irish Melodies, i, 1807).]It is difficult for those conversant with Christian theology not to think of the Lady in allegorical terms as Holy Church
Rich and rare were the gems she wore,
And bright gold ring on her wand she bore;
But, oh! her beauty was far beyond
Her sparkling gems and snow-white wand.“Lady! didst thou not fear to stray,
So lone and lovely, thro’ this bleak way?
Are Erin’s sons so good or so bold
As not to be tempted by woman or gold?”“Sir Knight! I feel not the least alarm,
No son of Erin will offer me harm;
For tho’ they love woman and golden store,
Sir Knight, they love honour and virtue more!”On she went, and her maiden smile
In safety lighted her round the Green Isle;
And blest for ever is she who relied
Upon Erin’s honour and Erin’s pride! -
October 9, 2006 at 1:34 am #768765
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
RE: St Nicholas’ Church in Killavullen and other like works of ‘renovation’ and ‘re-ordering’:
Doubtless many of you good readers, whether native patriots or children of Eire abroad, have heard the following poem set to music by Thomas Moore (1779-1852). The song relates the tale that, during the reign of the medieval king, Brien, Ireland was so well governed that ‘a young Lady of great beauty, adorned with jewels and a costly dress, undertook a journey alone, from one end of the Kingdom to the other, with a wand only in her hand, at the top of which was a ring of exceeding great value]
It is difficult for those conversant with Christian theology not to think of the Lady in allegorical terms as Holy Church
Rich and rare were the gems she wore,
And bright gold ring on her wand she bore;
But, oh! her beauty was far beyond
Her sparkling gems and snow-white wand.“Lady! didst thou not fear to stray,
So lone and lovely, thro’ this bleak way?
Are Erin’s sons so good or so bold
As not to be tempted by woman or gold?”“Sir Knight! I feel not the least alarm,
No son of Erin will offer me harm;
For tho’ they love woman and golden store,
Sir Knight, they love honour and virtue more!”On she went, and her maiden smile
In safety lighted her round the Green Isle;
And blest for ever is she who relied
Upon Erin’s honour and Erin’s pride!Perhaps of interest to lovers of sacred art and the sacred Liturgy:
The Parish of St John Cantius in Chicago offers a schedule of dignified liturgy according to the current liturgical books approved for use in Catholic churches.
Yesterday’s Mass on the memorial of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary, televised and shown around the world courtesy of Eternal Word Television Network, was celebrated with characteristic aplomb and decorum, the memorial corresponding as it did with the first Saturday of the month of October. The Ordinary parts of the Mass were set to the music of Mozart’s Coronation Mass. A procession in honour of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary followed the Mass.
St John Cantius provides a splendid example of a robust inner-city parish proud of its heritage and eager to meet the challenges of contemporary America. Take a tour of the parish’s art here: http://www.cantius.org/Sacred-Art.htm
Aggiornamento does not mean having to gut a church, or turn it into the theatre of the absurd.
-
October 9, 2006 at 1:51 am #768766
Rhabanus
ParticipantMacLeinin wrote:Or these for that matter.[/QUOTEYou’ve GOT to be kidding! Is this on its way to becoming a ballet school or a theatre?
-
October 9, 2006 at 3:27 pm #768767
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Perhaps of interest to lovers of sacred art and the sacred Liturgy:
The Parish of St John Cantius in Chicago offers a schedule of dignified liturgy according to the current liturgical books approved for use in Catholic churches.
Yesterday’s Mass on the memorial of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary, televised and shown around the world courtesy of Eternal Word Television Network, was celebrated with characteristic aplomb and decorum, the memorial corresponding as it did with the first Saturday of the month of October. The Ordinary parts of the Mass were set to the music of Mozart’s Coronation Mass. A procession in honour of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary followed the Mass.
St John Cantius provides a splendid example of a robust inner-city parish proud of its heritage and eager to meet the challenges of contemporary America. Take a tour of the parish’s art here: http://www.cantius.org/Sacred-Art.htm
Aggiornamento does not mean having to gut a church, or turn it into the theatre of the absurd.
Here is a link to St Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/stpat1.html
Some side altars have been renovated, although with little evidence of real improvement. In fact, they clash with the rest of the building. The side altars most frequented by the faithful are those which have maintained their original arrangement and pristine beauty.
-
October 9, 2006 at 4:49 pm #768768
Rhabanus
ParticipantChuck E R Law wrote:I couldn’t agree more. Now that we are about to embark on the Tenth Crusade let us not worry to much about “]In reviewing the interventions of our comrade on this and related threads, I note a distinct consistency in his displays of acrimony, rancour, and bad manners. The interventions offer little for fruitful consideration, shed no light whatsoever on the architectural or artistic data under consideration, make no contribution toward a deeper appreciation of the relationship between architecture and liturgy or even culture, and all too frequently stoop to prejudice and bigotry – undignified solutions characteristic of persons with few intellectual resources.
Criticism can open up new perspectives and point to lacunae in knowledge or lapses of judgement. This is welcome in any debate or discussion, where the interlocutors seek to discourse with others of varied backgrounds, experiences, and views. It is essential, nevertheless, that the conversation, however challenging, extravagant, and even pointed, remain civil.
I hope that this thread may lead to a renewed dedication to preserving the litugical and cultural heritage of the Church in Ireland by safeguarding those monuments of faith which still maintain their original beauty, and reclaiming those which have been compromised or utterly marred by misguided attempts to “modernise” or “renovate” them with no appreciation of their authentic liturgical and artistic context.
-
October 10, 2006 at 12:44 am #768769
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo return to our discussion of St. Mel’s Cathedral, Longford, I was wondering if anyone had any idea as to the classical prototypes that inspired this incredible building:
-
October 10, 2006 at 6:15 pm #768770
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is an external view:
-
October 10, 2006 at 10:14 pm #768771
Rhabanus
Participant -
October 10, 2006 at 10:26 pm #768772
Rhabanus
Participant -
October 10, 2006 at 10:46 pm #768773
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
To return to our discussion of St. Mel’s Cathedral, Longford, I was wondering if anyone had any idea as to the classical prototypes that inspired this incredible building:
I admire the lunettes which lighten the vaulted ceiling of St Mel’s, Longford.
Here is the Gesu in Montreal, Quebec from the last quarter of the nineteenth century. It is higher than St Mel’s and has a cleerestory instead of lunettes.
Any thoughts?
-
October 10, 2006 at 10:57 pm #768774
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And here is an external view:
The Madeleine in Paris looks like the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, Rome or the Parthenon, Athens:
Clearly a larger budget and a freer hand than the situation that gave rise to St Mel’s.
-
October 11, 2006 at 12:17 pm #768775
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting 1560:
Here is a picture of the inmterior of James Gibbs’ interior of St. Martin in the Fields, London (1726-1729)
-
October 12, 2006 at 12:42 am #768776
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn the subjectof Longford Cathedral, does anyone know whether the present colour scheme, especially the stencilling on the ceiling, is original or not? I was surprised to find that St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral in Dublin also had a similar stencilled decroation of its ceiling and architrave. In the case of the Pro-Cathedral this was extant at lesat until about 1900 but had disappeared by 1940.
-
October 12, 2006 at 9:14 pm #768777
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Has anyone yet received or read Augustus Welby Pugin, Designer of the British Houses of Parliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture (Hardcover) by Christabel Powell? It was due to be published in June 2006. Has anyone’s copy arrived? I thought I read a review in The Literary Review a few months ago, but perhaps I am mistaken. Of course, the reviewers receive advance copies that are still at the galley stage.
Any news of the book?
Christabel Powell’s Augustus Welby Pugin Designer of the British Houses of Parliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture (Lewiston and Queenston and Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006) arrived by yesterday’s post. Brava, Christabel!
In his foreward to the book, Dr Sheridan Gilley congratulates the author on underscoring Pugin’s liturgical imagination. Indeed she does a praiseworthy job of presenting Pugin as “a liturgist who had a liturgical vision” (p. 2). I see from another, related thread on Archiseek.com dedicated to the work of architect Brother Michael Augustine O’Riordan, that his work, like Pugin’s is being radically marred and in some cases utterly destroyed by an outbreak of postmodern philistinism parading under the deceitful banner of “implementing Vatican II” while outraging the sensibilities of worshiping believers and other lovers of art alike. Do those undertaking the daunting task of reconfiguring the work of these brilliant architects and their respective schools possess any liturgical credentials? What have they written on Gothic or Neo-Gothic, or Classical or Neo-Classical architecture? How conversant are they in any of these idioms? “By their fruits ye shall know them!” Just scroll up and down the respective threads and behold their works and pomps!
To surrender the oeuvre of a genius like AWN Pugin or J.J. McCarthy or any of their school to the clutches of our contemporary hacks only too eager to dismantle a rood screen or sweep away a reredos of transcendent beauty [or tinker with tucking a tabernacle into a south corner or a north wall] is to advance vandalism under the law. This destruction of excellence in architecture is the language of violence. Peruse the photos of St Patrick’s, Armagh in 1880, 1904, 1990 and in the final ‘renovation.’ Consider St Peter’s, Belfast, or St Mel’s, Longford, or St MacKartan’s Cathedral, Monaghan – all shown earlier on this thread. As the hymn goes, “Change and decay in all around I see! [O Thou Who changest not, abide with me!]”
Time for Irish Catholics and those conserned with the preservation of liturgical art to do their bit and reclaim their heritage. Just as the Folly Tower was razed during WWII and rebuilt in a later generation, so too can these magnificent cathedrals and great churches be restored to their pristine grandeur by real liturgists and real artists and real architects who know their respective disciplines thoroughly and who behave responsibly in maintaining the reverent atmosphere, dignity, and spiritual profundity of these houses of liturgical and personal worship.
Be sure to get your copy of Augustus Welby Pugin, Designer of the British Houses of Parliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture by Christabel Powell and have your library (if such is still permitted by the ruling barbarians to exist in your local or religious community).
Happy reading, fellow anawim! Non praevalebunt!!
-
October 13, 2006 at 1:30 am #768778
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a picture of the Pro-Cathedral sanctuary from c. 1895 with the contemporary decorative scheme of the apse and ceiling.
Note the beauty of Peter Turnerelli’s High Altar which was viciously demolished and atomized by the wreck practised on this building by Professor Cathal O’Neill. Not even the tabernacle survived: it is now crowned by the disproportionate cupula on which the cross rests.
The High Altar is raised on a predella of 5 steps. The throne (of Archbishop William Walsh) on three.
The first part of the inscription on the left refers to the ascension account and Christ’s promise to remain with us for all time. The central inscription quotes the account of the crucifixioin in which Christ commends Our Lady to St. John.
Immediately below the stucco of the ascension are the medallions of the four evangelists.
A choir of angels is psinted on the metopes.
-
October 13, 2006 at 1:57 am #768779
Seanselon
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And do not forget Richard Hurley’s daft “untervention” in the Augustinian church in Galway!
This link will give an virtual tour of the horror that has been created.
http://www.augustinians.ie/galway/picture_gallery/newvirtual.htmThis is a virtual visit of the church before the Hurley wreckovation:
http://www.augustinians.ie/galway/picture_gallery/virtual.htmBelow will give you view of the church post 1924.
Looking at the 1924 picture it would seem that many features of the church were removed sometime prior to the recent works. There appears to be mosaic work on the arches and several other features which were not in the church before the latest works began. Can anyone enlighten me as to when (and why) these were removed.
BTW the altar rails were not removed but were shifted to the front of the church and are now just inside the entrance.
-
October 13, 2006 at 8:19 am #768780
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Augustinian church, Galway:
@Seanselon wrote:
BTW the altar rails were not removed but were shifted to the front of the church and are now just inside the entrance.
This is another example of the nonsense about altar rails which displays a complete lack of understanding as to their origin and purpose: that of demarking the samnctuary from the nave. Placing them at the entrance of the church suggests that the entire church is a sanctuary -which is a non -Cathoic idea- and as absurd as Brian QUinn’s placing the altar rail of St Mary’s church, Newry, Co. Down, aganst the back wall of the chancel to convey the idea that the sanctuary has leaped into the nave. Both Hurley’s and Quinn’s ideas are radically anti-hierarchial and at variance with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
-
October 13, 2006 at 11:37 pm #768781
descamps
Participant@Seanselon wrote:
BTW the altar rails were not removed but were shifted to the front of the church and are now just inside the entrance.
BTW can some one tell me the difference between removing something from its original position and shifting it?
-
October 15, 2006 at 1:27 am #768782
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe improvised chapel, Concentration Camp Dachau, in Block 26, 1941/1942:
I quote a descripition from a surviving inmate: “Die Kapelle bot ein Bild der Armseligkeit: ein Altar aus Kistenbrettern; ein Kelch aus einem Blechnapf, ein Tabernakel aus Konservendosen”.
Those in the picture marked with red “X”s on their backs are priests.
Before a picture such as this, the shallow guff of the likes of P. Jones, R. Hurley and B. Quinn about “community participation” in the liturgy is clearly exposed in all its glaring fraudelence and reduced to silence.
-
October 15, 2006 at 5:15 am #768783
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
BTW can some one tell me the difference between removing something from its original position and shifting it?
The original quotation distinguished “shifting” from “removing.” Removal means taking something away, i.e. out of the building. Whether it was used in another, external context is beside the point. The point here is that is was taken away out of the church, or discarded. [Praxiteles hinted, for example, that the main altar in St Mel’s was removed, but, as a concession to a pressure group in the parish, is kept, unused, in the basement of the church. This is a case not of shifting, but of removing the altar.
Shifting a piece of furniture means taking it from its original place in the same church and placing it elsewhere within the same church perhaps even integrating it into a different part of the sanctuary or church. In many ‘renovations’, magnificent pulpits with beautiful testers or sounding boards were dismantled and reassembled in severely truncated form. Frequently they were shifted In these altered states from the nave, where they had been close to the ‘the people’, to the sanctuary, often quite unimaginatively plunked down on one side of the altar as though in symmetry with either the presidential chair or the tabernacle. Clutter, clutter,clutter. Pile everything up higglety-pigglety in the sanctuary, and litter it with hymnals, missalettes, and bulletins, and musical intruments, then complain about “confusion of roles.” DUH!
Communion rails that were not utterly destroyed or hauled away to the basement or given to the local pub as a novelty item sometimes were reworked into ambones or even altars. A rip-roaring renovator of a pastor in a southern Ontario parish once claimed that it would be “too labour-intensive” to make an altar out of the communion rail, so, amidst much vocal opposition of the parishioners who had donated the marble rail in honour of one of his most distinguished predecessors, Fr Rip’n’Snort tore out the beautiful marble communion rail and sold the rungs to a LAMP MANUFACTURER in the big city for $100.00 a pop. What a hero and man of the people!
Shall we make any further distinctions, descamps?
-
October 15, 2006 at 10:14 pm #768784
brianq
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:The improvised chapel, Concentration Camp Dachau, in Block 26, 1941/1942:I quote a descripition from a surviving inmate: “Die Kapelle bot ein Bild der Armseligkeit: ein Altar aus Kistenbrettern]
Prax,
i have taken part in many fora in the last few years but this post is an all time low. I can only trust that it is a temporary aberration and that future posts will from you will return to a more scholarly level. Very sad.
BQ
-
October 15, 2006 at 10:33 pm #768785
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrain!
I am afraid that I am not following the point and regard my previous comment as quite reasonable.
No right minded person will deny that those captured in the picture in Block 26 of Dachau – most of whom were facing extermination and were exterminated for no reason whatsoever – are participating actively, consciously and fully in the celebration of the Mass and are able to do it in the most extraordinary of circumstances which still managed to maintain the most rudimentary hierarchical distinction between sanctuary and nave.
The picture posted in # 1569 is a testimony and icon of TRUTH against which the quack theories of charlatain “liturgists”, and of all other comers, are to be tested for authenticity, sincerity (sine cera), and probity (probatus). Those found wanting in the test should hang their heads in shame!
The guff stops here!
Also, it should be noted that those standing up with the red “X”s on their backs are priests trying to say Mass.
-
October 15, 2006 at 11:38 pm #768786
Fearg
Participant@Fearg wrote:
And a similar hypothetical question for Brian Quinn – if the 1904 sanctuary had still been intact in 2002, how would you have proceeded? (Assuming the client gave you complete freedom!).
Thanks,
Fearg.Brian,
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this one.. (its in relation to Armagh Cathedral)Thanks!!
Fearg. -
October 17, 2006 at 1:38 am #768787
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Brian,
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this one.. (its in relation to Armagh Cathedral)Thanks!!
Fearg.Well…….have we any comments?
-
October 17, 2006 at 6:56 am #768788
jmrowland
ParticipantI would be interested in getting people’s read on what is being done with Sacred Heart Church in Peoria – http://sacredheartpeoria.com/index.html – personally, I think that the result is quite beautiful, but I have some reservations! If the link doesn’t work, copy and paste it into your browser. Gallery 1 is before, the others are during and after.
-
October 17, 2006 at 6:07 pm #768789
Rhabanus
Participant@jmrowland wrote:
I would be interested in getting people’s read on what is being done with Sacred Heart Church in Peoria – http://sacredheartpeoria.com/index.html – personally, I think that the result is quite beautiful, but I have some reservations! If the link doesn’t work, copy and paste it into your browser. Gallery 1 is before, the others are during and after.
Thanks, JM, for exposing readers of this thread to the hope-filled proceedings at Sacred Heart in Peoria. Writing in Houston, you undoubtedly know the magnificent church of Our Lady of Walsingham -used by Catholics of the Rome-approved Anglican Use of the Roman Rite.
By the way, the current bishop of Peoria, a priest of Holy Cross, is the man responsible for the splendid restoration of The Basilica of the Sacred Heart on the campus of The University of Notre Dame, Indiana.
Let Brian Quinn and his groupies take note that beautiful churches can be designed and built and in fact ARE being designed and built. Peoria is in full communion with the Apostolic See and is known as an observant and indeed zealous diocese. No shortage of vocations and clearly no shortge of funds to build worthy edifices for divine worship.
Compare Sacred Heart, Peoria with St John the Baptist, Drumaroad or Our Lady of Wayside or any of the other postmodern expressions of unbridled philistinism and ill-considered pastiche under review on this thread. “The proof is in the pudding!”
Ireland is MUCH BEHIND THE TIMES in chasing after the masters of neo-brutalism and iconoclasm.
Just as in the nineteenth century AWN Pugin (and later his son Edward) exercised a most beneficial influence on liturgical life in reland (chiefly through the erection and ornamentation of exquisitely beautiful churches and cathedrals, so Ireland may benefit from the new movements in architecture and art abroad in designing beautiful churches fit for divine worship. The local boys seem stuck in passe pastiche.
Visit Duncan Stroik’s website or that of Thomas Gordon Smith Architects to see the renaissance in church design and building in North America.
-
October 17, 2006 at 6:45 pm #768790
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Let Brian Quinn and his groupies take note that beautiful churches can be designed and built and in fact ARE being designed and built.
Ireland is MUCH BEHIND THE TIMES in chasing after the masters of neo-brutalism and iconoclasm.
The local boys seem stuck in passe pastiche.
Well Rhabanus, the evidene certainly tends in your direction. Rather remarkably, the whole cultural expertise or baggage assembled by Irish architectural firms involved in building churches seems to have been almost totally lost and regaining it is not going to be an easy task. Unfortunately, drawing on the passé elements entrenched in the American scene (e.g. The Theological Union in Chicago) is only going to compound matters rather than help them.
-
October 17, 2006 at 7:04 pm #768791
Rhabanus
Participant@brianq wrote:
Prax,
i have taken part in many fora in the last few years but this post is an all time low. I can only trust that it is a temporary aberration and that future posts will from you will return to a more scholarly level. Very sad.
BQ
Enlighten our darkness, omniscient bq, and give us thy light! Open our minds to the mysteries concealed in St John the Baptist Church, Drumaroad, and the hidden secrets of Our Lady of the Wayside. Dazzle us worthless mortals with thy lofty insights! Despise not our nothingness, but in thine ineffable humility teach us thy wisdom, that we too may comprehend thine architectural idiom and be refreshed by that blessed communion with the fruit of pure genius which is the manifest lot of the holy prelates who have patronised thee.
So, Brian, explain, using explicit (or even oblique) references to St Augustine of Hippo, Amalarius of Metz, Suger of St-Denis, Guillaume Durand, Sicard of Cremona, St Charles Borromeo, or any other liturgists who have contributed to the venerable tradition of sacred architecture over the course of the centuries, how YOUR architectural oeuvre reflects their influence and the wisdom of the ages.
We are eager for you to raise the academic level of this (four-star) conversation/thread by your own brilliant insights into the idiom which best exemplifies your own works and pomps. Which, for example, is your chef d’oeuvre? Which your proudest boast? I await with bated breath the essay which will unfold for us and for future generations your architectural philosophy and the theological perspective that informs your work.
The ball is in your court! This is YOUR moment …..
-
October 17, 2006 at 7:12 pm #768792
Rhabanus
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:Well Rhabanus, the evidene certainly tends in your direction. Rather remarkably, the whole cultural expertise or baggage assembled by Irish architectural firms involved in building churches seems to have been almost totally lost and regaining it is not going to be an easy task. Unfortunately, drawing on the passé]Praxiteles,
I am not recommending “the American scene” or American architects en bloc. I merely suggest that Irish bishops, when their heads stop spinning and they begin paying attention to their primary vocation, are going to have to call on leaders in the field of liturgy and architecture.My earlier remarks about AWN Pugin as a real liturgist as well as a brilliant architect implied that such genius is lacking in Ireland, hence the need to look for expertise from abroad.
There are always tares among the wheat, but when a promising field of wheat begins to manifest itself, it may be worth transplanting some of the best samples. I mention Stroik and Smith, who have completed some excellent houses of worship (churches, monasteries, seminary) and who are being given some impressive commissions.
Consider their work, then have a second look at what your local geniuses have on offer.
Caveat patronus!
-
October 17, 2006 at 8:41 pm #768793
Fearg
Participant@jmrowland wrote:
I would be interested in getting people’s read on what is being done with Sacred Heart Church in Peoria – http://sacredheartpeoria.com/index.html – personally, I think that the result is quite beautiful, but I have some reservations! If the link doesn’t work, copy and paste it into your browser. Gallery 1 is before, the others are during and after.
Superb job..
By means of comparision – here is a recently renovated Church of the Sacred Heart in Co Donegal, Ireland:
-
October 17, 2006 at 11:32 pm #768794
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is an unqualified disaster marked by the same dim-witted lack of imagination. What, might I ask, are those railings doing on the altar rail?
-
October 17, 2006 at 11:40 pm #768795
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Praxiteles,
I am not recommending “the American scene” or American architects en bloc. I merely suggest that Irish bishops, when their heads stop spinning and they begin paying attention to their primary vocation, are going to have to call on leaders in the field of liturgy and architecture.My earlier remarks about AWN Pugin as a real liturgist as well as a brilliant architect implied that such genius is lacking in Ireland, hence the need to look for expertise from abroad.
There are always tares among the wheat, but when a promising field of wheat begins to manifest itself, it may be worth transplanting some of the best samples. I mention Stroik and Smith, who have completed some excellent houses of worship (churches, monasteries, seminary) and who are being given some impressive commissions.
Consider their work, then have a second look at what your local geniuses have on offer.
Caveat patronus!
No need to take a look at the local geniuses. The last posting just indicates the lack of imagination and Wissenshaft. In large part this derives from the fact that archoitecture in Ireland is dominated by the UCD school which is decidedly modern and, up to recently, the bailiwick of the great Professor Cathal O’Neill. A European Union effort to dilute this monopoly by insisting on the foundation of another faculty outside of Dublin only compounded matters. Efforts to have the Notre Dame Indiana school open a school of architecture were scuppered and another branch of the Dublin modern school was opened in Limerick – and that was called “diversification”. Unless and until we see some genuine pluralism in the teaching of architecture in Ireland we are condemned to face the time-warp for the foreseeable future.
-
October 17, 2006 at 11:59 pm #768796
Gianlorenzo
Participant@jmrowland wrote:
I would be interested in getting people’s read on what is being done with Sacred Heart Church in Peoria – http://sacredheartpeoria.com/index.html – personally, I think that the result is quite beautiful, but I have some reservations! If the link doesn’t work, copy and paste it into your browser. Gallery 1 is before, the others are during and after.
Absolutely wonderful renovation. It looks as if Sacred Heart in Peoria had suffered a previous re-ordering similar to the destruction wrought on many Irish Churches. It is heartening to see how wonderfully such devastation can be turned around. It give hope for the many vandalised Irish Churches and Cathedrals we have seen on this thread.
-
October 18, 2006 at 12:31 am #768797
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This is an unqualified disaster marked by the same dim-witted lack of imagination. What, might I ask, are those railings doing on the altar rail?
Not surprising really – if you look at that firm’s portfolio, they specialise in pubs/restaurants and yes dormer bungalows..
-
October 18, 2006 at 12:46 am #768798
Praxiteles
ParticipantWhat was the name of the firm?
-
October 18, 2006 at 1:13 am #768799
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
What was the name of the firm?
MH Associates, Letterkenny – http://www.mhassociates.ie
-
October 18, 2006 at 1:34 am #768800
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a mouthful of self-satisfying guff for you:
Church Of The All Saints
Church Of The All Saints, Newtowncunningham, Co. Donegal.
Designed and based on St. Peter’s Barque, the Church Of The All Saints displays some of the fine stonework that native to Donegal. With a high ceiling interior the church gives a fresh feeling and with various meeting rooms internally the Church was designed to provide a vital amenity for the area, as well as being very aesthetically pleasing.Completed 1999.
This must surely make the short list for horror interiors.
-
October 18, 2006 at 1:43 am #768801
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here is a mouthful of self-satisfying guff for you:
Church Of The All Saints
Church Of The All Saints, Newtowncunningham, Co. Donegal.
Designed and based on St. Peter’s Barque, the Church Of The All Saints displays some of the fine stonework that native to Donegal. With a high ceiling interior the church gives a fresh feeling and with various meeting rooms internally the Church was designed to provide a vital amenity for the area, as well as being very aesthetically pleasing.Completed 1999.
This must surely make the short list for horror interiors.
and they demolished a rather nice old chapel to make way for that.. I think they were trying to do a “St Aengus'” at Burt, which is the next church down the road from Newton..
-
October 18, 2006 at 1:46 am #768802
Praxiteles
ParticipantYou are perfectly correct, Fearg, but this attempt foundered. I must say the port holes are very fetching!
-
October 18, 2006 at 1:50 am #768803
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
You are perfectly correct, Fearg, but this attempt foundered. I must say the port holes are very fetching!
and for those of you who do not know Burt – its quite respectable, defintiely Liam McCormack’s best work.
Link to a couple of photos from Archiseek:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/infobase/riai/riai_gold_medal_winners_staengus.html
And some interior shots:
http://www.lamp.ac.uk/trs/Special_Research_Interests/burt.htm
Definitely works best when seen from outside!
-
October 18, 2006 at 2:10 am #768804
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This is an unqualified disaster marked by the same dim-witted lack of imagination. What, might I ask, are those railings doing on the altar rail?
Sacred Heart Carndonagh, it dominates the town:
[ATTACH]3203[/ATTACH]
-
October 18, 2006 at 5:55 am #768805
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
and for those of you who do not know Burt – its quite respectable, defintiely Liam McCormack’s best work.
Link to a couple of photos from Archiseek:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/infobase/riai/riai_gold_medal_winners_staengus.html
And some interior shots:
http://www.lamp.ac.uk/trs/Special_Research_Interests/burt.htm
Definitely works best when seen from outside!
I read the blurb provided by The Arts Council of Aelion about the “gold medal winner”:
“The eminent Donegal architect Liam McCormick designed St. Aengus’ Church or ‘Burt Chapel’ as it is locally known during the period of 1964-67.McCormicks distinct ability to read a site and produce remarkable buildings from that, sets him apart from any of his Irish church architect peers.”
What, may I ask, is the obsession with circlular churches and circular sanctuaries? Everything is turned in on itself. Seems eerily Freudian to me – too much narcissism and self-absorption being transmitted through the architectural idiom. Then consider what Ireland has been through ecclesiastically over the last forty years ….
Long rectangular naves conducting substantial processions of clergy into an apse glittering with mosaics seem far more vigorous, assertive, and virile than these round mounds. In churches built with cruciformity one expereinces movement rather than stasis, engagement rather than introspection, leadership rather than withdrawal and detachment. As I have stated more than once on this thread, liturgical architecture betrays the state of the church in a given place.
I hope that Rome is taking due notice of what has transpired in Ireland over the last forty years. The architectural disasters have left abundant hieroglyphs and petraglyphs. Time to read the writing on the wall: “Counted, weighed, and found wanting.”
-
October 18, 2006 at 10:15 am #768806
Fearg
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
I read the blurb provided by The Arts Council of Aelion about the “gold medal winner”:
“The eminent Donegal architect Liam McCormick designed St. Aengus’ Church or ‘Burt Chapel’ as it is locally known during the period of 1964-67.McCormicks distinct ability to read a site and produce remarkable buildings from that, sets him apart from any of his Irish church architect peers.”
What, may I ask, is the obsession with circlular churches and circular sanctuaries? Everything is turned in on itself. Seems eerily Freudian to me – too much narcissism and self-absorption being transmitted through the architectural idiom. Then consider what Ireland has been through ecclesiastically over the last forty years ….
Long rectangular naves conducting substantial processions of clergy into an apse glittering with mosaics seem far more vigorous, assertive, and virile than these round mounds. In churches built with cruciformity one expereinces movement rather than stasis, engagement rather than introspection, leadership rather than withdrawal and detachment. As I have stated more than once on this thread, liturgical architecture betrays the state of the church in a given place.
I hope that Rome is taking due notice of what has transpired in Ireland over the last forty years. The architectural disasters have left abundant hieroglyphs and petraglyphs. Time to read the writing on the wall: “Counted, weighed, and found wanting.”
Rhabanus,
I would normally agree, however I think we need to make an exception for Burt! Its built close to one of the most important prehistoric sites in Ireland, the Grianan of Aileach, the church design is influenced by that (and, I know, strictly speaking it probably shouldn’t have been). Its an iconic building though and it works very well in its setting – photos really don’t do it justice. The clever idea of building a smaller circle inside a larger one, gives you the ability to have recessed baptistry, confessionals, sacristy etc, integrated into the main building whilst creating a very “clean” exterior. The only real problem I have with Burt, is that it was probably the first circular church in Ireland and many have tried (and failed) to imitate it since. The interior furnishings could be better though.Link to some information about the building which inspired the church:
http://www.stonepages.com/ireland/grianan.html -
October 18, 2006 at 5:26 pm #768807
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Superb job..
By means of comparision – here is a recently renovated Church of the Sacred Heart in Co Donegal, Ireland:
Fearg,
Thanks for the pics of Sacred Heart, Carndonagh, Co. Donegal. The screen erected on the communion rail looks like the framework of an iconostasis]de novo[/I] on the basis of a pagan temple, whether Celtic or Germanic, Greek or Roman, is ill-advised because of the messgae conveyed by the architecture.
The earliest public churches were modelled on the basilica, not the Temple in Jerusalem, nor the pagan temples of the Roman Empire. Imitating a pagan mound suggests to me a mistaken direction. Much earlier in hte thread, around p. 53 or 54, Praxiteles pointed out the disturbing parallels between Our Lady of the Wayside and an ancient druidic mound, one which has been rather well preserved.
The Christian church should draw on distinctly Christian sources and resources when designed or constructed de novo. After all, what is most worthy of imitation?
-
October 18, 2006 at 9:53 pm #768808
Fearg
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Fearg,
Thanks for the pics of Sacred Heart, Carndonagh, Co. Donegal. The screen erected on the communion rail looks like the framework of an iconostasis]de novo[/I] on the basis of a pagan temple, whether Celtic or Germanic, Greek or Roman, is ill-advised because of the messgae conveyed by the architecture.
The earliest public churches were modelled on the basilica, not the Temple in Jerusalem, nor the pagan temples of the Roman Empire. Imitating a pagan mound suggests to me a mistaken direction. Much earlier in hte thread, around p. 53 or 54, Praxiteles pointed out the disturbing parallels between Our Lady of the Wayside and an ancient druidic mound, one which has been rather well preserved.
The Christian church should draw on distinctly Christian sources and resources when designed or constructed de novo. After all, what is most worthy of imitation?
Having said all that, IMHO Burt is a much better building than Our Lady of the Wayward, both in concept and execution. I can also guarantee that if it were suggested to the local community that Burt should be replaced with a more traditional building, there would be uproar!
-
October 18, 2006 at 10:46 pm #768809
Praxiteles
ParticipantNothing better illustrates the slump of Irish ecclesiastical architecture into introspective eccentricity than the contarst between the Church of the Sacred Heart in Carndonagh, Co. Donegal, which was consecrated in 1945 and the dreadful effort of MH Associates of Letterkenny and Derry who extructed All Saints in Newtowncunningham in 1999. In the short space of 54 years, the decline has been so thorough and far reaching that not even a Cross was infixed on the highest point a church. It is perhaps telling that the website of MH Associates of Letterkenny and Derry who built All Saints does not even have a category of “church” or “ecclesiastical” in its projects’ list. All Saints is listed under “community” and could just as easliy be a hall or a dispensery. The multi-functionality of the building is a further reason for unease. It would seem that this particular set of practitioners are not too farmiliar with the meaning of the term “consecration” (con-sacratio), that is to say a setting aside or a cutting off of something which is made over exclusively to the service of God. Clearly, we are here dealing with …hay-barn builders!
-
October 19, 2006 at 6:48 am #768810
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Nothing better illustrates the slump of Irish ecclesiastical architecture into introspective eccentricity than the contarst between the Church of the Sacred Heart in Carndonagh, Co. Donegal, which was consecrated in 1945 and the dreadful effort of MH Associates of Letterkenny and Derry who extructed All Saints in Newtowncunningham in 1999. In the short space of 54 years, the decline has been so thorough and far reaching that not even a Cross was infixed on the highest point a church. It is perhaps telling that the website of MH Associates of Letterkenny and Derry who built All Saints does not even have a category of “church” or “ecclesiastical” in its projects’ list. All Saints is listed under “community” and could just as easliy be a hall or a dispensery. The multi-functionality of the building is a further reason for unease. It would seem that this particular set of practitioners are not too farmiliar with the meaning of the term “consecration” (con-sacratio), that is to say a setting aside or a cutting off of something which is made over exclusively to the service of God. Clearly, we are here dealing with …hay-barn builders!
Come, now, Praxiteles, God has had the Kingdom for far too long, now. Time for the Celtic Tiger to take God’s place and get a piece of the action. No more ‘wasting’ good resources on ‘religion and all that stuff.’
The good christian entrepreneur likes multi-purpose buildings in order to ensure the flow of all things bright and beautiful, especially $$$$$. After all, we ARE community, so let’s be broad-minded and keep all our options open. Let the old folks have their altars and statues, then fold them up and roll them (altar and statues, not necessarily the old folks) out of the way as the building is transformed into a school by day and a pub-casino by night. That way EVERYBODY gets some benefit from the community ‘centre.’ God gets His cut of the pie, and we get all the rest. Fair and square.
Seriously, though, Ireland seems to have reached a spiritual nadir in the past twenty years of temporal prosperity. What the Irish faithful refused to abandon through twelve hundred years of oppression and affliction, they have tossed away with unmitigated zeal within a single generation.
The great Gothic Revivalist Augustus Welby Pugin was not merely a clever or even a brilliant architect]Early Victorian Architecture in Britain [/I](London: Trewin Copplestone, 1954), vol. I, p. 13, Pugin’s was an “essentially religious crusade deeply imbued with values both ethical and sacramental.” John Betjeman actually deplored Pugin’s Gothic Revival because it evidently was “all mixed up with social morality and religion” Ghastly Good Taste (London: Anthony Blond Ltd, 1933), p. 31. Both quotations are cited in Christabel Powell, Augustus Welby Pugin Designer of the British Houses of Parliament (Lewiston NY and Queenston ON and Lampeter UK: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2006), pp. 24 and 25.
On that note, has anyone heard tell of bq’s Statement of Vision or Apologia pro opere suo or Summa of Liturgical Architecture or Exposition of Architecture in the Service of Sacred Liturgy? Might he be putting the final touches on it? Could he be having it proofread by Paddy J? We are all awaiting Argus-eyed its illustrious advent either on this thread or in local bookstores. It is doubtless bound to raise the academic level of this thread when it finally hits the proverbial fan.
By the way, be sure to get your copy of Christabel Powell, Augustus Welby Pugin Designer of the British Houses of Parliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture (Lewiston NY and Queenston ON and Lampeter UK: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2006). Have your local library order a copy, too, so your less affluent neighbours can avail themselves of this fascinating tome.
-
October 19, 2006 at 4:25 pm #768811
Rhabanus
ParticipantA key to AWN Pugin’s vast influence on the Church and on other architects was the fact that he left an intellectual and spiritual testament of his vision. Christabel Powell [Augustus Welby Pugin Designer of the Houses of Parliament: The Victorian Quest for a Liturgical Architecture (Pellen Press, 2006), pp. 25-26, cites John Betjeman, Collins Guide to English Parish Churches (London: Collins, 1958), p. 69: It is not in his buildings but in his writing that Pugin had so great an influence on the men of his time.” Pugin himself wrote to John Hardman in 1851: “My writings more than what I have been able to do have revolutionised the Taste of England” (cited by Powell, p. 26)
Still eager to read bq’s Manifesto on Liturgical Architecture ….
-
October 19, 2006 at 11:41 pm #768812
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
I am posting these two images of the mosaic on the wall of the sanctuary which are probably by Ludwig Oppenheimer. Note the combination of a byzantine style with ats and crafts movement. Unfortunately, sections of the mosaci have blistered and are about to fall off of the wall due to water ingress. So far, nothing has been done to arrest the deterioration of this important work of art.
-
October 21, 2006 at 10:06 pm #768813
Praxiteles
ParticipantWhile on the subject of Holy Cross Church, Charleville, Co. Cork Praxiteles recently came across this picture of the main street which was taken about 1899 and shows the scaffolding erected for the building of the spire of the new church (upper left side of the street):
-
October 21, 2006 at 11:01 pm #768814
kite
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am posting these two images of the mosaic on the wall of the sanctuary which are probably by Ludwig Oppenheimer. Note the combination of a byzantine style with ats and crafts movement. Unfortunately, sections of the mosaci have blistered and are about to fall off of the wall due to water ingress. So far, nothing has been done to arrest the deterioration of this important work of art.
😮 There may have been an excuse for this type of utter neglect in the past.
Ireland is now supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world; we can give 1000 euro per child to workers from abroad, put up all and sundry in 4 star luxury despite breaking the European Union Dublin agreement (point of first entry to Europe), yet we allow our heritage to fall into the sewer on a daily basis like you mention….Hope it stay’s fine for us Irish??Fighting for GAMA, remember the PARC workers who went to build Iraq.
Who fought for our workers when we did not get the 750 Irish pounds that would have been the weekly wage for scratching one’s ass in that Country in the 1970’s, Mohammad Joe Higgins, where were you then??:rolleyes: -
October 21, 2006 at 11:24 pm #768815
Praxiteles
ParticipantHoly Cross Church, Charleville, Co. Cork
Here are some shots of the lower ranges of the chancel wall:
-
October 21, 2006 at 11:38 pm #768816
Praxiteles
ParticipantHoly Cross Church, Charleville, Co. Cork.
The lateral walls of the chancel with further mosaic work by Ludwig Oppenheimer
-
October 22, 2006 at 7:16 am #768817
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Holy Cross Church, Charleville, Co. Cork.
The lateral walls of the chancel with further mosaic work by Ludwig Oppenheimer
One would have thought that the local bishop, or at least the pastor of the church, would have launched an appeal to secure these works of ecclesiastical art. After all, preserving the artistic, cultural, spiritual, and liturgical patrimony of the Church falls under the pastoral responsibilities of a bishop. Money spent on building new churches in the shape of boats and Buddhas would be better spent shoring up the resources that already exist.
There is something wrong with this picture, as kite points out.
Connect the dots …..
-
October 22, 2006 at 9:13 pm #768818
Praxiteles
ParticipantHoly Cross Church, Charleville, Co. Cork
The remaining outer sections of the lateral walls of the sanctuary.
The first, shows the arch connecting to the Lady Chapel (still intact by some miracle):
The other shows the arch connceting to the Sacred Heart Chapel (needlessly vandalized) and beyond the sacristy door: -
October 23, 2006 at 7:51 am #768819
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Well…….have we any comments?
Praxiteles,
Whilst the world awaits the Liturgical Testament of bq, you and others concerned about the relationship between the earthly and the cosmic liturgy, with particular reference to architecture, may be interested in the work of a scholar, David Clayton, who is currently addressing the issue of liturgical architecture from a variety of interesting perspectives, including number. He is fully conversant with St Augustine’s understanding of the symbolism of numbers. Explore Clayton’s forthcoming article in Second Spring:
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/clayton2.htm.
A pleasure to read such well-articulated insights.
-
October 24, 2006 at 12:36 am #768820
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
Two further pictures of the Sacred Heart Chapel.
The first shows the lateral wall of the chapel with the door tot he sacristy:
The other shows the position of the altar which was needlessly vandalized and the gaping hole in the wall filled up by sheets of limestone – completely out of place in this highly decorated interior. AFter the vandalism subsided, the statue of the Sacred Heart was returned. No longer having an altar on which to lace it, it remains standing on the floor, parked against the wall. -
October 24, 2006 at 5:07 pm #768821
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
Two further pictures of the Sacred Heart Chapel.
The first shows the lateral wall of the chapel with the door to the sacristy:
The other shows the position of the altar which was needlessly vandalized and the gaping hole in the wall filled up by sheets of limestone – completely out of place in this highly decorated interior. AFter the vandalism subsided, the statue of the Sacred Heart was returned. No longer having an altar on which to lace it, it remains standing on the floor, parked against the wall.What cretin would pull a stunt like this? Take another look at the photograph. The Sacred Heart, gazing downward, stands like a lawn ornament on the floor of this chapel . Obviously the statue was designed for a higher placement, say, on an altar of the Sacred Heart in a chapel dedicated to the Sacred Heart, so that the statue could look down upon the faithful praying before it. Is this too difficult to comprehend? Even children and those who lack full cognition can picture the dynamic originally intended. They, too, would object, correctly, to the current (mis)arrangement.
The drudge who plunked down the Sacred Heart on the floor must consider the Pope Our Lord’s special and cool buddy, as the juxtaposition of the portrait of His Holiness with the statue makes little sense otherwise. Pope Benedict XVI and the Sacred Heart stand at eye-level one with the other (with the Pope given the dignity of an easel) and the proportions of each contrast with the other.
The papal portrait belongs in the vestibule of the church, not sidling up to the statue of the Sacred Heart in the chapel of the Sacred Heart.
The dreary spider plants merely underscore the depressing nature of this scene. At least the plants are arranged symmetrically on either side of the statue. [Note that the flower-arranger has better taste than the cretin who wrecked this chapel.] This symmetrical placement of the plants, however, emphasises the unsuitability of the papal portrait on an easel beside the Sacred Heart on the floor.
Perhaps St Patrick’s, Maynooth ought to offer a few courses on art and architecture as well as a few dedicated to theories of aesthetic. This tasteless menage could be featured on a page in the textbook of horrors to be avoided.
Deformity, grotesquery, and an unhealthy attraction to the bizarre seem to dominate religious ‘art’ and ‘architecture’ in today’s Ireland. Will somebody bring the Irish clergy to their senses? The Emperor is wearing NO CLOTHES. And the Sacred Heart is missing a plinth.
-
October 24, 2006 at 8:58 pm #768822
Rhabanus
ParticipantIs there no accountability when a cleric takes a notion to wreckovate a church in Ireland? Are there no courses in the seminaries (ahem, seminary) where the responsibilities of a pastor toward the artistic and cultural patrimony of the church’s fabric are discussed even cursorily?
Just in terms of the cura animarum or care of souls, how is authorising a travesty such as this pathetic betise even remotely helpful to the piety of the faithful or the proclamation of the Gospel?
This kind of nonsense should be denounced for what it is. No wonder the churches in Ireland are being emptied. What reasonable soul could stand by and tolerate such blithering idiocy – then be asked in a dunning sermon to pay for such brutality?
Do these wreckovators think they are immortalising themselves by such degradation? History will look upon the generation that undid the stunning artistry of the beautiful churches of the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and will laugh it to scorn.
Puts one in mind of Shelley’s Ozymandias:
“Two vast trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ….and on the pedestal of the statue were inscribed the words:
“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
-
October 24, 2006 at 9:50 pm #768823
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Is there no accountability when a cleric takes a notion to wreckovate a church in Ireland? Are there no courses in the seminaries (ahem, seminary) where the responsibilities of a pastor toward the artistic and cultural patrimony of the church’s fabric are discussed even cursorily?
Just in terms of the cura animarum or care of souls, how is authorising a travesty such as this pathetic betise even remotely helpful to the piety of the faithful or the proclamation of the Gospel?
This kind of nonsense should be denounced for what it is. No wonder the churches in Ireland are being emptied. What reasonable soul could stand by and tolerate such blithering idiocy – then be asked in a dunning sermon to pay for such brutality?
Do these wreckovators think they are immortalising themselves by such degradation? History will look upon the generation that undid the stunning artistry of the beautiful churches of the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and will laugh it to scorn.
Puts one in mind of Shelley’s Ozymandias:
“Two vast trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ….and on the pedestal of the statue were inscribed the words:
“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
According to Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium ch. 7.122:
“The fine arts are very rightly reckoned among the most noble expressions of human creativity – and especially religious art, together with its highest form, namely the art of worship. By their nature, they are oriented to the infinite divine beauty, which is in some way to be expressed through works done by human beings. Insofar as their only purpose is to do as much as possible to turn human minds and hearts towards a right relationship with God, they are thought of as God’s, and as praising him, extending his glory.”
How is lowering the Sacred Heart to the floor so that worshippers have to look down on Him, instead of the other way round, “do[ing] as much as possible to turn himan minds and hearts towards a right relationship with God?” Think again, whoever dethroned the Sacred Heart from His proper shrine! Think again!
Now, mark the next line: “Thus the Church has always been the friend of the fine arts.” [122] Is this true in Ireland today? Scroll back, O Reader, over the works and pomps captured in photographs and displayed for the scrutiny of all on this thread. Is the Church the friend of the arts in Drumaroad, Killavullen, St Saviour’s Dublin, Armagh? And who can forget the scheme to set loose the ball and crane in the sanctuary of St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh? Friend of the fine arts, is it? With friends like these, enemies become superfluous.
Read on:
[122] “It [the Church] has never ceased to seek after the noble service they provide and to train artists and craftspeople.” Is any of this happening in Ireland?How about this line? [122] “In permitting the alterations in material, design or decoration which have come as a result of the advance of artistic technique through the course of time, the church has been especially careful to see that sacral furnishings contribute to teh decorum of worship by being dignified and beautiful.” Do you suppose this means deposing the Sacred Heart and flanking Him with spider plants and a portrait of the reigning ppontiff just to let Him know who’s in charge, lest He forget?
Get this line:
[124] “… Bishops should see that works done by artists which clash with faith, and with the religious attitude appropriate to Christianity, and which are offensive to a true religious sense, be kept well and truly out of the house of God and out of other places of worship – whether this is because of the decadence of the forms, or because the art is below standard, mediocre and pretentious.”“All artists and craftspeople, who, led by their creativity, want to give service to God’s glory in the church, should always remember that they are dealing with a kind of worshiping imitation of God the creator, as well as with works of art set aside for catholic worship, for the spiritual growth of believers, and for their devotion and religious formation.” [127]
And finally,
[129] “While they are doing their studies in philosophy and theology, clerics should also be trained in the history of the art of worship and its development, together with the sound principles on which works of worship should be based. They will thus appreciate and preserve the hallowed monuments of the church, and be able to give suitable advice to artists and craftspeople as they bring their works into being.”Instead, the Church in some quarters is now afflicted with monstrosities of elaborate pastiche and other atrocities of the most outrageous kind, a clergy devoid of taste and sense, not to mention learning, and a cadre of ill-prepared artisans only too eager to leave behind monuments to extravangant decadence. O tempora! O mores!
-
October 25, 2006 at 12:18 am #768824
Praxiteles
ParticipantTo complete the views of the sanctuary of the church of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork, here is a picture of the main window depicting the apotheosis of the Cross:
-
October 25, 2006 at 5:46 am #768825
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
To complete the views of the sanctuary of the church of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork, here is a picture of the main window depicting the apotheosis of the Cross:
Ave Crux, spes unica!
I’d like to see a close-up of that apotheosis of the Holy Cross. The window looks magnificent even from a distance.
Is there any accountability for stewardship of ecclesiastical buildings in Cork or the rest of Ireland?
It is a disgrace to let a sumptuous church such as this fall to ruin.
is there no -get-up-and-go left in the faithful there? Why is such a beautiful church allowed to fall down about itself?
-
October 26, 2006 at 6:57 pm #768826
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Praxiteles,
Whilst the world awaits the Liturgical Testament of bq, you and others concerned about the relationship between the earthly and the cosmic liturgy, with particular reference to architecture, may be interested in the work of a scholar, David Clayton, who is currently addressing the issue of liturgical architecture from a variety of interesting perspectives, including number. He is fully conversant with St Augustine’s understanding of the symbolism of numbers. Explore Clayton’s forthcoming article in Second Spring:
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/clayton2.htm.
A pleasure to read such well-articulated insights.
In complete agreement, Rhabanus.
-
October 27, 2006 at 12:13 am #768827
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
Much of the glass comes from the Clarke studio and was installed between 1902 and 1920.
The Transept windows feature the Coronation of Our Lady and the Resurrection:
-
October 28, 2006 at 12:07 am #768828
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. Cork
Rhabanus!
Here is a picture of the famous chancel window in Charleville. Top range is Christ in his gloriy; second range angels with thuribles incensing the the Corss, in lower range the angles and the saints with the Archangel Micahel in the central foreground.
-
October 28, 2006 at 8:47 pm #768829
Fearg
ParticipantNorth Cathedral Cork..
Some Images of the current interior:
[ATTACH]3265[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3266[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3267[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3268[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3269[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3270[/ATTACH]
-
October 28, 2006 at 9:26 pm #768830
Praxiteles
ParticipantCathedral of St. Mary and St.Anne’s, Cork
Here is a link to the party guff preceding the gutting of the Cathedral:
http://corkandross.org/jsp/newsandevents/newsdisplay.jsp?newsID=174
-
October 28, 2006 at 9:34 pm #768831
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cathedral of St. Mary and St. Anne’s, Cork
The first photograph shows the interior of the Cathedral in late 19th/early 20th century. Note the position of the pulpit on the right hand side fot he main aisle. To-day it is atomized and dumped against a wall. From a previous posting, you can judge the quality of the craftsmanship.
The second picture shows the interior of the Cathedral following the completion of the new chancel built in the late 1950s.
-
October 29, 2006 at 5:24 am #768832
Rhabanus
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Charleville, Co. CorkRhabanus!
Here is a picture of the famous chancel window in Charleville. Top range is Christ in his gloriy]
Thanks, Praxiteles!
Note the differentiation among the choirs of angels signified by the colour of their wings. Those with red wings are the Seraphim, the angels of the highest order or choir. Those with the blue wings are the Cherubim and they are of the second choir. And so forth.
The window is exquisite! Something substantial to meditate upon during the ‘sermon’ or the ‘homily’ or ‘the thought for the day’ or whatever ill-prepared palaver is on offer in the bawling tub. We’ve all heard it before: “Let me tell you a wee story about x, y, or z.” Some days it pays to leave the hearing aids (deaf-aids) at home.
Why has this remarkable church been left to fall down? Doesn’t anyone besides Praxiteles see the value in preserving this stunning gem? Where is the accountability?
-
October 30, 2006 at 2:43 pm #768833
Praxiteles
Participant -
October 30, 2006 at 11:15 pm #768834
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
I thought you might like to puruse this link:
It would help if people consulted Church documents before they put pen to paper and wrote a tissue of inaccuracies regarding liturgical norms and guidelines.
Again, I ask, where is any kind of accountability or responsibility to present things accurately or precisely?
-
October 31, 2006 at 1:35 am #768835
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Honan Chapel, Cork
James Cronin of UCC has kindly reminded us that the 90th. anniversary of the consecration of the Honan Chapel will recur on 5th. November 2006.
It looks as though some further work has been carried out o the chapel and I am glad to report that the great silver sanctuary lamp has been re-instated in the sanctuary of the chapel. It was needlessly removed during
a silly reordering of the chapel carried out in 1983. ALso removed at that time was the magnificent grille on the west door and the altar rail. It is to be hoped that both of these items can still be located so taht they too can be restored to their original positions from which no liturgical provision of the post-COnciliar reform required their destruction or removal. -
November 1, 2006 at 3:51 am #768836
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Honan Chapel, Cork
James Cronin of UCC has kindly reminded us that the 90th. anniversary of the consecration of the Honan Chapel will recur on 5th. November 2006.
It looks as though some further work has been carried out o the chapel and I am glad to report that the great silver sanctuary lamp has been re-instated in the sanctuary of the chapel. It was needlessly removed during
a silly reordering of the chapel carried out in 1983. ALso removed at that time was the magnificent grille on the west door and the altar rail. It is to be hoped that both of these items can still be located so taht they too can be restored to their original positions from which no liturgical provision of the post-COnciliar reform required their destruction or removal.I hope that All Saints Day is still marked with due solemnity in Ireland. Are any particular customs observed in the various regions? Is there a single church in Ireland especially famous for celebrating All Saints?
In St Peter’s-in-the-Vatican, all the relics of the saints contained in the treasury are placed on the high altar for the veneration of the faithful. At San Marco in the Piazza Venezia, Rome, a splendid display of relics in their exquisite reliquaries takes place on All Saints Day as well as on the feast of St Mark I (the pope and martyr – NOT the evangelist Mark).
Since the pontificate of Benedict XV (1914-22), all priests throughout the world are permitted to celebrate three Masses on All Souls Day (2 November). According to current liturgical legislation, the vestments for Mass on All Souls may be black, violet, or white.
Recall that a plenary indulgence applicable only to the souls of the faithful departed may be obtained once a day from 1 – 8 November by those who devoutly visit a cemetery and there pray for the repose of souls of the faithful departed, and for the intentions of the Pope. Sacramental confession and Holy Communion are also required at least two weeks before or two weeks after the visit to the cemetery. In order to obtain the indulgence, one must have no attachment to sin, even venial sin.
Happy Feast of All Saints!
I am aware that 6 November is the Feast of All Saints of Ireland. Is there a church with that dedication in Ireland?
-
November 2, 2006 at 11:44 am #768837
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantRe. #1608
Perhaps St Patrick’s, Maynooth ought to offer a few courses on art and architecture as well as a few dedicated to theories of aesthetic. This tasteless menage could be featured on a page in the textbook of horrors to be avoided.Deformity, grotesquery, and an unhealthy attraction to the bizarre seem to dominate religious ‘art’ and ‘architecture’ in today’s Ireland. Will somebody bring the Irish clergy to their senses? The Emperor is wearing NO CLOTHES. And the Sacred Heart is missing a plinth.
Rhabanus,
Where do you think the cretins learned all this stuff in the first place – St. Patrick’s Maynooth, of course!!! -
November 2, 2006 at 8:24 pm #768838
Rhabanus
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Re. #1608
Perhaps St Patrick’s, Maynooth ought to offer a few courses on art and architecture as well as a few dedicated to theories of aesthetic. This tasteless menage could be featured on a page in the textbook of horrors to be avoided.Deformity, grotesquery, and an unhealthy attraction to the bizarre seem to dominate religious ‘art’ and ‘architecture’ in today’s Ireland. Will somebody bring the Irish clergy to their senses? The Emperor is wearing NO CLOTHES. And the Sacred Heart is missing a plinth.
Rhabanus,
Where do you think the cretins learned all this stuff in the first place – St. Patrick’s Maynooth, of course!!!Gianlorenzo,
The logical response to this situation, then, ought to be a close reckoning of accounts. It is the very definition of corruption that a body cannot heal itself.
I note, incidentally, that much of the chapel at St Patrick’s Maynooth looks to be in pretty good shape – at least according to the images featured earlier on this thread.
The seminary seems the ideal place to start to introduce a spiritual, liturgical, ecclesial renewal. The potential is there. It requires authentic leadership, however, to bring potency into act.
Of course if believing, observant, and articulate layfolk merely sit in the pews nodding approval at every new erosion of their religious, artistic, and cultural patrimony, then authentic renewal will take that much longer to come to fruition. Perhaps, as in the case of the classic alcoholic, one has to reach ‘rock bottom’ before any serious change comes about. The seminary, though, ought to be the seedbed of new hope.
-
November 4, 2006 at 2:15 pm #768839
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThe chapel in Maynooth is still in good shape, but have you seen what they have done to St. Mary’s Oratory?
Take a look at #271 on page 11 of this thread.
Concerning believing observant articulate layfolk – they are around and they are trying, but many have found it impossible to get a sympathetic hearing from their clergy many of whom appear to consider obedience to the local liturgical clique more important than obedience to the norms of Catholic liturgy. Some of us are now trying to get these articulate layfolk to go directly to the Vatican with their complaints, but it will take time to get the word around. -
November 4, 2006 at 7:12 pm #768840
Rhabanus
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
The chapel in Maynooth is still in good shape, but have you seen what they have done to St. Mary’s Oratory?
Take a look at #271 on page 11 of this thread.
Concerning believing observant articulate layfolk – they are around and they are trying, but many have found it impossible to get a sympathetic hearing from their clergy many of whom appear to consider obedience to the local liturgical clique more important than obedience to the norms of Catholic liturgy. Some of us are now trying to get these articulate layfolk to go directly to the Vatican with their complaints, but it will take time to get the word around.I shouldn’t be surprised that they have found it impossible to get a sympathetic hearing from the source of the problem! They ought not seek ‘a sympathetic hearing’ but rather inform the local clique that ‘enough is enough,’ that they [said clique] have overdrawn their credit, and that forthwith ALL financial support will be withdrawn and shall resume upon evidence that monies will be spent more judiciously. This does not violate the precept of the Church to contribute to the support of her pastors. [You may be amazed at how such talk immediately commands the attention of the administrative elite.] No precept of the Church, it should be remembered, compels Catholics to contribute to their own demise or to the alienation or destruction of Church property. Send the money to the best bishop, or else send it directly to Rome.
Take a leaf from Australia’s tome. How do you think that the relentlessly self-destructive trends prevalent for decades Downunder were reversed virtually overnight? How do you think George Pell was appointed to Melbourne, then to Sydney? How do you think that Australia won the bid for World Youth Day in Sydney? It didn’t happen by unvarnished insouciance, nor by the nervous twiddling of thumbs, nor the frenetic gnashing of teeth over bountiful cups of tea. It took place by sheer steely determination on the part of a handful of astute Australian laity who had had ENOUGH and who finally decided to blow the whistle and call the question.
It can (and should) be done in Ireland, too. Complacency gets one nowhere, as anyone plugged into the Celtic Tiger will tell you straight up. The Gospel tells us, “Where your treasure is, there also is your heart.”
-
November 4, 2006 at 8:01 pm #768841
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re Richard Hurley’s “job” on St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth, one can say that the standard milking-stool-inspired tuffets have mercifully been replaced by a more conventional chair redolent of influences ranging from provincial English regency dining chair to the more domestic kitchen chair. As for the “president’s” chair and its accompanying stools, it is not clear to me where the inspiration for this amalgam comes from – though I think I saw something reminiscent of it in an animated version of Walt Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. It is very interesting to note in this picture that none of the chairs has a kneeler to accomodate anyone who might wish to kneel down. It was perhaps to this phenomenon that Kieron Wood was referring to in an article published on 4 November 2005 in the Sunday Business Post. Apparently, unlawful disciplinary measures are taken against those in the Maynooth Menge who refuse to be socialized into Volk by resorting to such anti-social and psychotic behaviour as kneeling down. Clearly, it is no accident that the chapel is designed and laid out in a fashiion that is contrary to the current (post Vatican II) liturgical norms for the celebration of the Mass and disturbing because of some of the underlying concepts of liturgy as socialization whose sinister origins are to be found in German writers of the inter-war period – which should immediately counsel caution. How far is it from Volksgeist to corporate or aggragate or communal liturgy – none of which concepts makes even a fleeting appearance in Vatican II’s Sacroscantum Concilium ?
The reason for the enormous organ case in St. Mary’s Oratory, a relatively small space, is beyond me. ALso, placing the organ against the east wall obscures one of the more charming archictectural elements of the original chapel – namely, an enormous, simple, plain wall pierced only once by a tiny squat doorway.
Attachment 1 is a view of the Chapel as originally dcorated.
Attachment 2 is a view of the Chapel following the 1966 reordering (note the size of the organ)Thank you, Praxiteles, for providing the photos from #271 on page 11 of this thread, and to Gianlorenzo for bringing them to our notice. If this is how the future clergy of Ireland are being forced to worship and to think liturgically, then all I can say, folks is, “You got trouble … in River City ….”
By the way, I came across this statement on one of the pages of the website of the Diocese of Cloyne:
“Professor Cathal O’Neill is highly regarded in his profession. As Head of the School of Architecture in UCD, he had educated a whole generation of architects. His work in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin is regarded as having been done with great sensitivity in keeping with the requirements of a more communal liturgical celebration.”
So, you have a whole generation (or more) of seminarians herded into the spartan IBM waiting room titled “St Mary’s Oratory” and a whole generation of architects emerging from the tutelage of Cathal O’Neill. God Save Ireland!
-
November 6, 2006 at 12:27 am #768842
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Thank you, Praxiteles, for providing the photos from #271 on page 11 of this thread, and to Gianlorenzo for bringing them to our notice. If this is how the future clergy of Ireland are being forced to worship and to think liturgically, then all I can say, folks is, “You got trouble … in River City ….”
By the way, I came across this statement on one of the pages of the website of the Diocese of Cloyne:
“Professor Cathal O’Neill is highly regarded in his profession. As Head of the School of Architecture in UCD, he had educated a whole generation of architects. His work in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin is regarded as having been done with great sensitivity in keeping with the requirements of a more communal liturgical celebration.”
So, you have a whole generation (or more) of seminarians herded into the spartan IBM waiting room titled “St Mary’s Oratory” and a whole generation of architects emerging from the tutelage of Cathal O’Neill. God Save Ireland!
Rhabanus!
In contarst to the modern interior inflicted by Richard Hurley on St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth, I would like you to take a look at the attached image: the classical elegance of the interior of the church in Dunmanway, Co. Cork:
-
November 6, 2006 at 6:50 am #768843
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
In contarst to the modern interior inflicted by Richard Hurley on St. Mary’s Oratory in Maynooth, I would like you to take a look at the attached image: the classical elegance of the interior of the church in Dunmanway, Co. Cork:
The first image makes sense. Beautiful play of light from the north window on the sanctuary. Marble is most worthy of the altars. I admire the graceful sanctuary lamp hanging directly in front of the tabernacle. The statues of the Sacred Heart and Our Lady, each in its static pose, fit the classical architecture.
Not pleased, however, about the stations of the cross running along the galleries. In my view they ought to go along the walls, not the balconies. I find them rather distracting in the first image and downright silly running along the choir loft in the second image.
Why was the organ case not arranged in such a way as to admit the light from the window in the west wall?
Are plans afoot to massacre this lovely house of God, too, and replace it with an Abomination of Desolation like St Mary’s Oratory for Embalmed Shakers?
I could pray in Dunmanway, but more fervently without the distraction of the stations of the cross hanging off the balconies. I’ll wager that the original stations were oil paintings that fit harmoniously on the walls of the church.
Have a chat with the rector there, will you?
-
November 6, 2006 at 2:52 pm #768844
Rhabanus
ParticipantColour scheme is not bad, but the retro-fitted speakers hanging off the walls are tacky. There must be a more effective and aesthetical way to transmit sound. The arrangement of the lectern and chair could do with some sprucing up. I suspect that a pulpit must have graced this church at one time. Poke around in the basement and see if it’s still there. The chair can easily be moved over to the epistle side with the celebrant facing liturgical north – towards the current podium. The altar would go very nicely back up near the tabernacle, so the priest could pray without distractions as he leads God’s pilgrim people in prayer eastward toward the New Jerusalem our Mother. The reredos is a real treat for the eyes: graceful and elegant.
A far cry from the arrangement of the St Mary’s Oratory which resembles a Quaker Meeting Hall that could easily substitute for an Alcoholic Anonymous hall.
-
November 6, 2006 at 5:45 pm #768845
Praxiteles
ParticipantA book not to be missed, although some of the photographs could be better:
http://www.four-courts-press.ie/cgi/bookshow.cgi?file=highVictorian.xml
-
November 6, 2006 at 8:57 pm #768846
Fearg
ParticipantMore Info on the 2002/2003 Restoration/ Reordering of Armagh Cathedral.
According to a new book (by Jack O’Hare) published this year to commemorate the restoration, the original intention of the work was simply to restore the fabric of the building and that the 1982 McCormack sanctuary was to have been reinstated. It was only during the course of the work that a decision was made to install a new sanctuary. A brief chronology is as follows:
January 2002 – Cathedral Closes for major structural repairs/restoration. All interior fittings are removed to storage at this time. The granite floor of the sanctuary was included in this removal, revealing the remains of the 1904 mosaic floor, however this was deemed irrepairable.
Spring 2002, growing desire to re-order the sancutary, Architectural firms asked to submit their proposals for a “fresh approach”.
May 2002 – Rooney and McConville design chosen.
Summer 2002 – consultation meetings held.
September 2002 – Desicion made to go ahead with the reordering.
May 25th 2003 – Cathedral reopened.Comments please!
-
November 6, 2006 at 9:12 pm #768847
Praxiteles
ParticipantWho, other than our corresponding fiend Brian Quinn, tendered a project for the re-reordering (it is beginning to sound a bit like regicideicide) ?
Were submissions judged by a committee?
What august personages sat on that committee -if there were one?
What criteria were used to access the submissions made?
[can we have the publishing details of this latest book?]
-
November 6, 2006 at 9:29 pm #768848
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Who, other than our corresponding fiend Brian Quinn, tendered a project for the re-reordering (it is beginning to sound a bit like regicideicide) ?
Were submissions judged by a committee?
What august personages sat on that committee -if there were one?
What criteria were used to access the submissions made?
[can we have the publishing details of this latest book?]
Book mentions the following firms:
P&B Gregory’s, Tracey McCormack & Mullarkey, Rooney McConvilleCommittee is listed in the appendices.
Interestingly, Bill Early was responsible for restoring the ceiling. Some spelling mistakes were found in the latin inscruiptions discussed earlier in the thread. Bill also restored the murals in the synod hall and using artistic license, replaced the head on one of the central figures with that of Archbishop Brady!
The book also makes apparent that the former auxilliary – Bishop Lennon was perhaps the main champion of the 1982 changes, he delivered the homily at the rededication, rather than Cardinal O’Fiach.
“the story of St patrick’s Cathedral Armagh and its Prelates” jack O’Hare – printed by Trimprint Ltd, Armagh. No ISBN #
-
November 6, 2006 at 9:51 pm #768849
Praxiteles
ParticipantI really wonder whether someone working in the early 21st. century is in a position to recognise spelling mistakes in the Lain inscriptions of the late 19th century. Put the other way around, is someone in the late 19th century working on Latin inscriptions likely to have made mistakes? I also wonder whether their 21st. century successors are aware of the complex transmission history of several texts of even the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate from which these inscriptions are almst certainly taken? However, we shall see.
As to caboshing poor Archbishop Brady, I should have thought it more than enough to leave him without the galero!
-
November 6, 2006 at 11:01 pm #768850
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I really wonder whether someone working in the early 21st. century is in a position to recognise spelling mistakes in the Lain inscriptions of the late 19th century. Put the other way around, is someone in the late 19th century working on Latin inscriptions likely to have made mistakes? I also wonder whether their 21st. century successors are aware of the complex transmission history of several texts of even the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate from which these inscriptions are almst certainly taken? However, we shall see.
As to caboshing poor Archbishop Brady, I should have thought it more than enough to leave him without the galero!
Book makes out that the 19th century artists must “not have been educated men”.. I would be sceptical as well..
-
November 6, 2006 at 11:17 pm #768851
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Book makes out that the 19th century artists must “not have been educated men”.. I would be sceptical as well..
Cabosh the dim dope who wrote that bit of crap!
-
November 7, 2006 at 12:53 am #768852
Praxiteles
ParticipantAttached is a picture of the front panel depicting the Last Supper from the original High Altar of the Cathedral of St. Mary and St. Anne’s in Cork. The panel is by John Hogan and is currentlyon exhibit in the Crawford Gallery.
-
November 7, 2006 at 1:45 am #768853
Praxiteles
ParticipantA further note on John Hogan:
-
November 7, 2006 at 6:51 am #768854
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Book makes out that the 19th century artists must “not have been educated men”.. I would be sceptical as well..
Agreed, Fearg! The 19th century artist had more erudition and talent than these twenty-first-century popinjays. The proof, of course, is in the pudding. The rector of St Mary and St Anne’s was sold a bill of goods.
Birds of a feather flock together.
-
November 8, 2006 at 10:50 am #768855
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
The first image makes sense. Beautiful play of light from the north window on the sanctuary. Marble is most worthy of the altars. I admire the graceful sanctuary lamp hanging directly in front of the tabernacle. The statues of the Sacred Heart and Our Lady, each in its static pose, fit the classical architecture.
Not pleased, however, about the stations of the cross running along the galleries. In my view they ought to go along the walls, not the balconies. I find them rather distracting in the first image and downright silly running along the choir loft in the second image.
Why was the organ case not arranged in such a way as to admit the light from the window in the west wall?
Are plans afoot to massacre this lovely house of God, too, and replace it with an Abomination of Desolation like St Mary’s Oratory for Embalmed Shakers?
I could pray in Dunmanway, but more fervently without the distraction of the stations of the cross hanging off the balconies. I’ll wager that the original stations were oil paintings that fit harmoniously on the walls of the church.
Have a chat with the rector there, will you?
I agree that the stations of the Cross look odd hanging from the gallery rails. they could easily be distributed throughout the available wall-space in the church.
-
November 8, 2006 at 1:11 pm #768856
Anonymous
InactiveHi,
It is bad enough having to contend with internal destructive developments to historical buildings.
In Tallaght village we now have this complete lack of sympathetic design or application of appropriate design styles to buildings in historical areas on the exterior.Here is what SDCC have aloowed happen directly across from the medieval St Maelruain’s church in Tallaght villlage…..
Is there any legal remedy to enforce a retrospective redesign in these cases?
-
November 8, 2006 at 1:30 pm #768857
Praxiteles
ParticipantThat is just unforgivable! Do we have any such thing as compulsory demolition?
-
November 8, 2006 at 2:45 pm #768858
Anonymous
InactiveI really wish so !
Given this building is less than one year old, and has already been taken down because it lacked insallation it seems unbelievable that professional planners could not insist on protecting this rare streetscape in the suburbs in Dublin.
Our pleas are falling on deaf ears so far… any ideas of how to raise awareness to get support to have something done with the facade of this building to try and retrocspectively have its facade aligned with where it sits and how it relates to its neighbouring buildings??
-
November 8, 2006 at 11:12 pm #768859
Rhabanus
Participant@tamhlacht wrote:
I really wish so !
Given this building is less than one year old, and has already been taken down because it lacked insallation it seems unbelievable that professional planners could not insist on protecting this rare streetscape in the suburbs in Dublin.
Our pleas are falling on deaf ears so far… any ideas of how to raise awareness to get support to have something done with the facade of this building to try and retrocspectively have its facade aligned with where it sits and how it relates to its neighbouring buildings??
When is the next municipal election? Make city planning an issue – with plenty of photos to strengthen your case. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease – the local architects, planners, and bureaucrats WANT SILENCE. Don’t give it to them – that would be letting them off and giving in. Instead, make a regular royal ruckus AND MAKE THE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE.
Write your municipal representative and ORGANISE yourselves. With the high number of people turning to this thread, my impression is that the Irish are fed up with UGLY architecture and want a return to pleasing aesthetic and common sense.
The inexcusable brutalist block inflicted on your community must go. Rally the troops and present yourselves to the town councillor in charge of this district – and don’t be fobbed off with a bland smile and a rubber handshake. MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE!
-
November 9, 2006 at 12:24 pm #768860
Anonymous
InactiveThanks for the advice – we have been organising ourselves and trying to get public profile for our campaign. An umbrella group has now been formed with website etc. This site is proving a help on that front. It would be great to have a local professional who could offer technical support on the ground to us. Any offers ???
The Priory just a short distance down the village street in Tallaght village is too now under threat from a garage site. The Esso site is now at pre planning stages for a retail and residential. Judging by the designs implemented alreay in the illage this too will be ultra modern which will not sit comfortably beside the medieval Priory in Tallaght.
See the images of where the new development will be in relatino to the historicla Priory site which houses the old Bancroft castle, St Marys house and parts of the Pale wall.
-
November 9, 2006 at 12:51 pm #768861
Anonymous
Inactivemore images
-
November 9, 2006 at 5:40 pm #768862
Rhabanus
Participant@tamhlacht wrote:
more images
Pretty shocking! It shouldn’t surprise me to learn that the Celtic Tiger would raze the Priory and related medieval buildings in a trice. Forces get mighty aggressive when launched against the Church.
Congratulations on getting organised and in establishing the website.
Your ultimate goal, as you succeed in winning the annoying skirmishes, is to draft legislation that protects air space around these buildings and also to force any new structures to conform to the medieval architecture. The monstrosities recently erected and in the process of being erected will come down before long since they are made on the cheap. But get in there with draconian legislation on all buildings in the environs of the medieval sites.
International attention focused on the proposed blights is also a good idea, though I fully understand your urgency regarding immediate movement on the ground locally.
I hope that capable Irish readers (and leaders) respond with alacrity to your plight. Keep up the valiant effort!!
-
November 9, 2006 at 10:46 pm #768863
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am posting a picture of the statue of Our Lady on the facade of St. Mary’s, Pope’s Quay, Cork.
Can anyone help in identifying the sculptor? I believe he was a Dublin sculptor.
-
November 9, 2006 at 10:53 pm #768864
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantTamhlacht.
Can you give us the website address? -
November 10, 2006 at 7:39 am #768865
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am posting a picture of the statue of Our Lady on the facade of St. Mary’s, Pope’s Quay, Cork.
Can anyone help in identifying the sculptor? I believe he was a Dublin sculptor.
Can’t tell you the name of the sculptor, but will comment on the model. This statue is a copy of the Immaculate Conception which stands atop a column at the Piazza di Spagna, Rome. It commemorates the definition and proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Blessed Pius IX in 1854. Each year on 8 December the Pope comes to pray before the statue and presents a wreath, which the chief fireman in Rome takes up to the statue and places on the right hand held aloft by Our Lady.
The statue and column so impressed Cardinal George Mundelein of Chicago, Illinois that he reportedly tried to persuade the Italian government to sell it to him, so that he might transport it to his seminary north of Chicago. Upon the rejection of his proposal by the Italian government, he commissioned a replica of the column and statue (to a slightly larger dimension) which dominates the lovely campus of The University of Our Lady of the Lake and Mundelein Seminary.
The statue likewise served as the model for the image of the Blessed Virgin atop the famous Golden Dome of The University of Notre Dame at South Bend, Indiana. Fr Edward Sorin, like Cardinal Mundelein, commissioned a replica of this statue of the Immaculate Conception to dominate the campus of The University of Notre Dame (du Lac). Instead of surmounting a column, Our Lady’s statue gleams from the top of the Golden Dome of the main building. Dome and statue were regilded just last year (the process of cleaning and regilding takes place every five years). It is to be regretted that the halo of lights was removed either during the last or penultimate cleaning/gilding. Glad to see the halo of lights on the statue in Dublin.
-
November 10, 2006 at 9:29 am #768866
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
Thanks very much for that informative commentary on the statue of Our Lady a top the portico of St. Mary’s, Pope’s Quay, in Cork.
Clearly, when you mention it, the source is quite obviously the statue atop the column in the Piazza di Spagna in Rome. This was inaugerated on the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady (8 September) 1857 by B. Pope Pius IX to commemorate the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which had been proclaimed in 1854. The architect for the work was Luigi Poletti. The column is an antique one of cippolino marble discovered in the Campo Marzo in 1777. It seems that it had never been used since it was discovered in the remains of a marble workshop dating to classical times.
While St. Mary’s was built in the 1830s, the Portico was not added until the 1860s.
Sorry to hear that the copy at Notre Dame has lost its crown of 12 stars, the Corona Stellarum Duodecim, which is taken directly from the famous passage of St. John’s Book of the Apocalypse, chapter 12:
“12 1 Et signum magnum apparuit in c
-
November 10, 2006 at 2:10 pm #768867
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is the Immacolata Column at Our Lady of the Lake, Mundelein, Chicago:
-
November 10, 2006 at 2:16 pm #768868
Praxiteles
ParticipantAn here is the Immaculata statue at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana:
-
November 10, 2006 at 4:55 pm #768869
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn the morning of 8 December every year, a large floral tribute is placed on the arm of the Immacolata by the Firemen of Rome. The attached image shows Ivano Procacci doing the honours on the 150th. anniversary of the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on the 8 December 2000:
-
November 10, 2006 at 11:01 pm #768870
Paul Clerkin
Keymastersome old photos of various churchs
SACRED HEART CHURCH, LIMERICK
ST. ALPHONSUS’ CHURCH, LIMERICK
Pro-Cathedral, Dublin
Maynooth College Chapel -
November 10, 2006 at 11:09 pm #768871
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterOld photographs of Tuam
-
November 11, 2006 at 12:05 am #768872
Praxiteles
ParticipantI understand from a reliale source that the marbel panels from the High Altar in Tuam (seen in the last picture posted above) are in a shed at the back of the archiepiscopal palace in Tuam while the columns are now supporting a vulgar Southfork-type ranch house in a rural part of Co. Cork.
Worst of all, the iconaclasts when they got to work on Tuam demolished the crypt underlying the sanctuary and filled it with rubble and concrete paying no attention to the fact (indeed probably egged on by it) that it contains the mortal remains of Archbishop John McHale, arguably one of the most important figures in 19th. century Irish history. The scenario has something of the macabre ghoulism of the revolutionary attack on the tombs of the Kings of France in the Basilique of St. Denis!
-
November 11, 2006 at 9:51 pm #768873
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Can’t tell you the name of the sculptor, but will comment on the model. This statue is a copy of the Immaculate Conception which stands atop a column at the Piazza di Spagna, Rome. It commemorates the definition and proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Blessed Pius IX in 1854. Each year on 8 December the Pope comes to pray before the statue and presents a wreath, which the chief fireman in Rome takes up to the statue and places on the right hand held aloft by Our Lady.
The statue and column so impressed Cardinal George Mundelein of Chicago, Illinois that he reportedly tried to persuade the Italian government to sell it to him, so that he might transport it to his seminary north of Chicago. Upon the rejection of his proposal by the Italian government, he commissioned a replica of the column and statue (to a slightly larger dimension) which dominates the lovely campus of The University of Our Lady of the Lake and Mundelein Seminary.
The statue likewise served as the model for the image of the Blessed Virgin atop the famous Golden Dome of The University of Notre Dame at South Bend, Indiana. Fr Edward Sorin, like Cardinal Mundelein, commissioned a replica of this statue of the Immaculate Conception to dominate the campus of The University of Notre Dame (du Lac). Instead of surmounting a column, Our Lady’s statue gleams from the top of the Golden Dome of the main building. Dome and statue were regilded just last year (the process of cleaning and regilding takes place every five years). It is to be regretted that the halo of lights was removed either during the last or penultimate cleaning/gilding. Glad to see the halo of lights on the statue in Dublin.
Rhabanus!
Do you know of any other examples in North America or perhaps in Latin America?
-
November 11, 2006 at 11:49 pm #768874
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantGreat photos, Paul, Thanks.
G. -
November 12, 2006 at 10:33 pm #768875
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere are two views of the Mariensaule in Munich, erected in 1648 to mark the end of the thrity years war.
-
November 12, 2006 at 11:15 pm #768876
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
Do you know of any other examples in North America or perhaps in Latin America?
Not aware of any more in North America, but do recall one atop a column in Lucca. The Luchese statue of the Immaculata, however, is modelled not on the Immaculata of the Piazza di Spagna, Rome, but the much more more common portrayal of the Immaculata with both hands crossed over Our Lady’s breast – along the lines of Our Lady of Humility (S. Maria dell’ umilta). The Luchese Immaculata, as I recall it from a visit there a decade ago, resembles this latter kind of Madonna. It was this kind of model beside which Pius IX is sometimes portrayed or photographed. A splendid example is found in the church of the XII Apostoli (Dodici Apostoli) where each year, from 30 Nov to 8 Dec, the Conventual Friars who administer the church conduct a famous Novena to the Immaculate Conception and the image dominates the sanctuary of the church.
A comparison of the two types of Immaculata will indicate that the Piazza di Spagna type shows Our Lady with her head facing heavenward, her right hand held aloft, while her left hand points earthward. The standard Immaculata faces downward in humility and crosses both hands over her breast. An example of this can be found in the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Rome, administered by the Capuchin Fathers (also known vulgarly in Rome as “the bone church”).
Yet another model of the Immaculate Conception is also known as Our Lady of Grace. An example of this kind of Immaculata is found on the Miraculous Medal (1830). A painting of this Immaculata is venerated in the Church of Sant’ Andrea delle frati, Rome. It was before this painting of the Immaculata before which the scoffer and skeptic Alphonse Ratisbonne was converted to Catholicism. It is a common feature of Catholic households and churches, far more so than the Pian Immaculata and that in the Piazza di Spagna.
-
November 12, 2006 at 11:23 pm #768877
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Not aware of any more in North America, but do recall one atop a column in Lucca. The Luchese statue of the Immaculata, however, is modelled not on the Immaculata of the Piazza di Spagna, Rome, but the much more more common portrayal of the Immaculata with both hands crossed over Our Lady’s breast – along the lines of Our Lady of Humility (S. Maria dell’ umilta). The Luchese Immaculata, as I recall it from a visit there a decade ago, resembles this latter kind of Madonna. It was this kind of model beside which Pius IX is sometimes portrayed or photographed. A splendid example is found in the church of the XII Apostoli (Dodici Apostoli) where each year, from 30 Nov to 8 Dec, the Conventual Friars who administer the church conduct a famous Novena to the Immaculate Conception and the image dominates the sanctuary of the church.
A comparison of the two types of Immaculata will indicate that the Piazza di Spagna type shows Our Lady with her head facing heavenward, her right hand held aloft, while her left hand points earthward. The standard Immaculata faces downward in humility and crosses both hands over her breast. An example of this can be found in the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Rome, administered by the Capuchin Fathers (also known vulgarly in Rome as “the bone church”).
Yet another model of the Immaculate Conception is also known as Our Lady of Grace. An example of this kind of Immaculata is found on the Miraculous Medal (1830). A painting of this Immaculata is venerated in the Church of Sant’ Andrea delle frati, Rome. It was before this painting of the Immaculata before which the scoffer and skeptic Alphonse Ratisbonne was converted to Catholicism. It is a common feature of Catholic households and churches, far more so than the Pian Immaculata and that in the Piazza di Spagna.
Here is a copy of the Immaculata usually associated with Pius IX. It is from the Czech Republic:
-
November 13, 2006 at 12:19 am #768878
Praxiteles
ParticipantTry this by way of historical development:
-
November 13, 2006 at 12:55 am #768879
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here a picture of the prototype for these marian columns: the marian column of Paul V erected in front of Santa Maria Maggiore in 1613. The statue sits atop the sole surviving column of the Basilica of Maxentius. The architect was Carlo Maderno. The bronze statue is by Guglielmo B
-
November 13, 2006 at 1:18 am #768880
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here we have Giovanni Paolo Panini’s 1744 veduta of Paul V’s Colonna della Pace and of Fuga’s loggia of Santa Maria Maggiore built in 1741 and the arrival (on the left steps) of Pope Clememt XII:
-
November 13, 2006 at 5:33 pm #768881
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And here a picture of the prototype for these marian columns: the marian column of Paul V erected in front of Santa Maria Maggiore in 1613. The statue sits atop the sole surviving column of the Basilica of Maxentius. The architect was Carlo Maderno. The bronze statue is by Guglielmo Bérthelot.
So, the statue of Our Lady on the column overlooking the piazza and basilica of S. Maria Maggiore has been standing there since the year before the publication by Paul V of the Rituale Romanum (1614) – the last of the liturgical books issued in accordance with the mandate of the Council of Trent (1545-63).
She has seen it all since then!
By the way, on a much more mundane note, the pasticceria/bar directly behind the column, and visible in the photograph, used to prepare the best doughnuts and pastries in all of the Eternal City. On my last visit, I discovered that they had removed the lowered ceiling to reveal the medieval beams of the original palazzo and some stucco work. Very nice indeed. The menu was rather more ambitious than I had hitherto recalled. Perhaps a legacy of the late great Canon of M&M’s, Dilwyn Lewis?
-
November 13, 2006 at 6:45 pm #768882
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Mariensaeule before the Piaristenkirche in Vienna. It was erected in 1711 to commemorate the end of an outbreak of plague:
-
November 13, 2006 at 7:12 pm #768883
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Magna Mater Bavariae (the Mother and Protectress of Bavaria) as drawn by Raphael Saedler c. 1620 with the Archangel Michael hold a map of Bavaria, the towers of the Frauenkirche in Munich clearly seen in the drawing of the city of Munich in the lower left hand corner. The ingraving is titled: “RELIGIO PRINCIPUMTUTELA REGNORUM”
-
November 14, 2006 at 6:19 am #768884
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am posting a picture of the statue of Our Lady on the facade of St. Mary’s, Pope’s Quay, Cork.
Can anyone help in identifying the sculptor? I believe he was a Dublin sculptor.
Cork is privileged indeed to have this particular version of the Immaculata atop a column at Pope’s Quay. Its correspondence with the Immaculata of the Piazza di Spagna Rome ought to be a source of pride and devotion to all who pass by.
The famous Madonna atop the roof of ‘The Sailors’ Church’ (l’Eglise Notre Dame de Bonsecours), Montreal, Canada welcomes sailors into the harbour and blesses those outward bound. The statue depicts Our Lady extending her arms in protection over the harbour. The statue, though striking and quite beautiful, is not the Immaculata of Piazza di Spagna, Cork, Mundelein, or Notre Dame Indiana.
lg_notredame
http://www.limousinemontreal.com/Tourism%20Montreal%20Limo_files/lg_notredame.jpg
-
November 14, 2006 at 6:25 am #768885
Rhabanus
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Great photos, Paul, Thanks.
G.Yes, Paul, many thanks for the splendid photos. The churches photographed are exquisitely beautiful! How they could have been defiled and gutted – in Ireland of all places! – remains part of the mystery of evil. It just goes to show that ‘Satan never sleeps.’
By the way, I am enjoying immensely your book on Dublin street names. Excellent work!
-
November 14, 2006 at 11:27 am #768886
archangel
ParticipantThis is an excellent thread, inspiring, informative and has given ordinary parishioners the courage to question what is happening to some of our beautiful churches in Ireland today. Our Parish church St.Gabriels Dollymount is due for ‘reordering’ of the sanctuary in early January. This entails,inter alia, removing exquisite marble and brass altar rails. St. Gabriels was opened in 1956and at the time considered one of the finest churches in the diocese.The architect we believe was Louis Peppard and any information on his work would be welcome. St. Gabriels is not a listed building so any dissension to the plans does not carry the weight of the Cobh cathedral case. The reordering is going ahead, with diocesan approval, despite the wishes of a substantial number of parishioners. A survey of a representative sample in the parish found that 72% of parishioners did not agree with the removal of the present altar rails. Will St. Gabriels be just another casualty in the reorganisation and destruction of Irish Catholic churches?
-
November 14, 2006 at 11:36 am #768887
Fearg
ParticipantHi Archangel,
I know St Gabriels, its a fine church – I heard a rumour that a fair proportion of the pews were sold off a few years ago – to create a “gathering space”? Can you confirm this?Thanks,
Fearg. -
November 14, 2006 at 2:16 pm #768888
archangel
ParticipantSome of the seating at the rear of the church was removed a few years ago. I don’t know about a ‘gathering space’ being created. It seems that the purpose was to make a very large nave appear less empty by removing seats at the back with the effect of having people sit further up the church.
-
November 14, 2006 at 3:27 pm #768889
descamps
Participant@archangel wrote:
This is an excellent thread, inspiring, informative and has given ordinary parishioners the courage to question what is happening to some of our beautiful churches in Ireland today. Our Parish church St.Gabriels Dollymount is due for ‘reordering’ of the sanctuary in early January. This entails,inter alia, removing exquisite marble and brass altar rails. St. Gabriels was opened in 1956and at the time considered one of the finest churches in the diocese.The architect we believe was Louis Peppard and any information on his work would be welcome. St. Gabriels is not a listed building so any dissension to the plans does not carry the weight of the Cobh cathedral case. The reordering is going ahead, with diocesan approval, despite the wishes of a substantial number of parishioners. A survey of a representative sample in the parish found that 72% of parishioners did not agree with the removal of the present altar rails. Will St. Gabriels be just another casualty in the reorganisation and destruction of Irish Catholic churches?
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
-
November 14, 2006 at 4:46 pm #768890
samuel j
ParticipantIf in the high profile case of St. Colman’s it emerged (and correct me if I’m wring) that Re-ordering
was not required by any stretch of the liturgucal requirements of the Catholic Church, why were and are, so many hell bent on continuing with this destruction.Is there some naive belief by these parishes/church elders that it will bring about some new found interest
in the church and stem the dwindling church attendances.From reading some of the old threads on Cobh debacle and the FOSCC website, it seems to have had the reverse reaction and if anything was a road to alienating even more Catholics…lapsed and otherwise.
Is is purely down to the egoes of individuals within these parishes to leave some mark of their being…. some mark…. what is the logic behind it..
It would appear in any of the cases I seen that the majority (Catholics, non catholics, practising, not practising…the people) are against such re-ordering
undoubtedly all for their varying reasons, but regardless a majority….. it would appear that such re-ordering is not a given under any liturgucal requirement, so why does it continue…. Dollymount being a case in fact, recently posted on this thread…. -
November 14, 2006 at 5:45 pm #768895
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Rhabanus smells corruption – and bullyism – and they stink the high heavens!
Cheers to descamps for advising the good Archangel to initiate the due process. No time to waste, Archangel! Use that angelic gift of agility to start the ball rolling.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though, if the wrecking ball slipped into gear before the process got off the ground. When dealing with Iconoclasts, one can never be up too early in the morning – literally! They like to get in before cock-crow so that when the faithful arrive for early Mass, the dirty deed is done and then suddenly no funds are available to repair the damage. But just watch the improvements added to the rectory or parish house. The Ven. J.H. Newman pointed out in the 19th century that funds were scarce for improvements to the church but readily available for improvements to the rectory. What a coincidence!!
Move with all due speed, Archangel, and keep us all informed as to the progress of St Gabriel’s iconodules. The good folk in Guelph Ontario were successful in warding off the wreckovator-priest Vasco, though the silly pastor had to pay him his 56,000.00 USD ‘architect’s fee’ to be rid of him. ‘A
-
November 14, 2006 at 5:45 pm #768891
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Rhabanus smells corruption – and bullyism – and they stink the high heavens!
Cheers to descamps for advising the good Archangel to initiate the due process. No time to waste, Archangel! Use that angelic gift of agility to start the ball rolling.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though, if the wrecking ball slipped into gear before the process got off the ground. When dealing with Iconoclasts, one can never be up too early in the morning – literally! They like to get in before cock-crow so that when the faithful arrive for early Mass, the dirty deed is done and then suddenly no funds are available to repair the damage. But just watch the improvements added to the rectory or parish house. The Ven. J.H. Newman pointed out in the 19th century that funds were scarce for improvements to the church but readily available for improvements to the rectory. What a coincidence!!
Move with all due speed, Archangel, and keep us all informed as to the progress of St Gabriel’s iconodules. The good folk in Guelph Ontario were successful in warding off the wreckovator-priest Vasco, though the silly pastor had to pay him his 56,000.00 USD ‘architect’s fee’ to be rid of him. ‘A
-
November 14, 2006 at 5:46 pm #768896
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Rhabanus smells corruption – and bullyism – and they stink the high heavens!
Cheers to descamps for advising the good Archangel to initiate the due process. No time to waste, Archangel! Use that angelic gift of agility to start the ball rolling.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though, if the wrecking ball slipped into gear before the process got off the ground. When dealing with Iconoclasts, one can never be up too early in the morning – literally! They like to get in before cock-crow so that when the faithful arrive for early Mass, the dirty deed is done and then suddenly no funds are available to repair the damage. But just watch the improvements added to the rectory or parish house. The Ven. J.H. Newman pointed out in the 19th century that funds were scarce for improvements to the church but readily available for improvements to the rectory. What a coincidence!!
Move with all due speed, Archangel, and keep us all informed as to the progress of St Gabriel’s iconodules. The good folk in Guelph Ontario were successful in warding off the wreckovator-priest Vasco, though the silly pastor had to pay him his 56,000.00 USD ‘architect’s fee’ to be rid of him. ‘A
-
November 14, 2006 at 5:46 pm #768892
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Rhabanus smells corruption – and bullyism – and they stink the high heavens!
Cheers to descamps for advising the good Archangel to initiate the due process. No time to waste, Archangel! Use that angelic gift of agility to start the ball rolling.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though, if the wrecking ball slipped into gear before the process got off the ground. When dealing with Iconoclasts, one can never be up too early in the morning – literally! They like to get in before cock-crow so that when the faithful arrive for early Mass, the dirty deed is done and then suddenly no funds are available to repair the damage. But just watch the improvements added to the rectory or parish house. The Ven. J.H. Newman pointed out in the 19th century that funds were scarce for improvements to the church but readily available for improvements to the rectory. What a coincidence!!
Move with all due speed, Archangel, and keep us all informed as to the progress of St Gabriel’s iconodules. The good folk in Guelph Ontario were successful in warding off the wreckovator-priest Vasco, though the silly pastor had to pay him his 56,000.00 USD ‘architect’s fee’ to be rid of him. ‘A
-
November 14, 2006 at 5:46 pm #768893
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Rhabanus smells corruption – and bullyism – and they stink the high heavens!
Cheers to descamps for advising the good Archangel to initiate the due process. No time to waste, Archangel! Use that angelic gift of agility to start the ball rolling.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though, if the wrecking ball slipped into gear before the process got off the ground. When dealing with Iconoclasts, one can never be up too early in the morning – literally! They like to get in before cock-crow so that when the faithful arrive for early Mass, the dirty deed is done and then suddenly no funds are available to repair the damage. But just watch the improvements added to the rectory or parish house. The Ven. J.H. Newman pointed out in the 19th century that funds were scarce for improvements to the church but readily available for improvements to the rectory. What a coincidence!!
Move with all due speed, Archangel, and keep us all informed as to the progress of St Gabriel’s iconodules. The good folk in Guelph Ontario were successful in warding off the wreckovator-priest Vasco, though the silly pastor had to pay him his 56,000.00 USD ‘architect’s fee’ to be rid of him. ‘A
-
November 14, 2006 at 5:46 pm #768894
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Hi Archangel and welcome to the thread.
Just because St. Gabriel’s is not a listed building does not mean that you have no options to prevent an unwanted and and unwelcome redevelopment of its interior. Not being listed mearly means that you have not the same range of options available to you as the Friends of St. Colman’s had.
1. An ecclesiastical recourse should be taken by the parishioners or a group of parishioners against the parish priest and Archbishop Martin at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline fo the Sacraments in Rome. The procedure is straight forward enough but would be more securely followed had you the guidance and expertise of a canonist available to you. Simply write to the parish priest and Archbishop Martin asking them to rescind or amend the decrees that were issued (if issued at all) authorising the development of the interior of the church. If they agree to do so well and good. If not, and you do not hear from them within 28 days (and register your letters with a form of registration requiring signature for delivery) then you can place your case directly before the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as a recourse and ask him to decide the merits of the case. Of course, while this is going on no work can or should take place.
2. Just as a precautionary measure, while your recopurse is going on you could approach the High Court seeking an order to prohibit development of the interior of the church until a decision is given in the ecclesiastical forum i.e. by the Congregation for Divine Worship adn the Discipline of the Sacraments.
3. It would also be useful to engage the services of a good company of solicitors. The Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral were very well served by Arthur Cox and Co., Earlsford Terrace, Dublin 2.
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Is it true that the great open minded Dirmuid Martin shafted the local curate when he came out in support of the parishioners opposed to the development of the church interior?
Rhabanus smells corruption – and bullyism – and they stink the high heavens!
Cheers to descamps for advising the good Archangel to initiate the due process. No time to waste, Archangel! Use that angelic gift of agility to start the ball rolling.
I shouldn’t be surprised, though, if the wrecking ball slipped into gear before the process got off the ground. When dealing with Iconoclasts, one can never be up too early in the morning – literally! They like to get in before cock-crow so that when the faithful arrive for early Mass, the dirty deed is done and then suddenly no funds are available to repair the damage. But just watch the improvements added to the rectory or parish house. The Ven. J.H. Newman pointed out in the 19th century that funds were scarce for improvements to the church but readily available for improvements to the rectory. What a coincidence!!
Move with all due speed, Archangel, and keep us all informed as to the progress of St Gabriel’s iconodules. The good folk in Guelph Ontario were successful in warding off the wreckovator-priest Vasco, though the silly pastor had to pay him his 56,000.00 USD ‘architect’s fee’ to be rid of him. ‘A fool and his money are soon parted.’
May the Archangel ward off the angel of death from the precincts of St Gabriel’s!
-
November 14, 2006 at 6:14 pm #768897
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Is is purely down to the egoes of individuals within these parishes to leave some mark of their being…. some mark…. what is the logic behind it..
Now we are on to something…MEGALOMANIA. That was the driving force in the Cobh debacle.
-
November 14, 2006 at 6:19 pm #768898
Praxiteles
ParticipantCourtesy of Alan, a young photographer in Cobh, here are some views of St. Colman’s Cathedral from where it is best seen – a boat on the harbour:
-
November 14, 2006 at 11:45 pm #768899
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome more marian columns, this time from Bohemia and Moravia:
Here we see a model of the Marian Column erected by the Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague in thanksgiving for the delivernce of the city from the armies of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and from the plague. At noon its shadow marked the meridian for the cirty of Prague.
On 3 November 1918 the column was vandalized by a mob of iconaclasts who demolished it – similar to the mob intent on demolishing the interior of Cobh Cathedral.
And, finally, the replica of the statue erected in 1993.
-
November 15, 2006 at 1:06 am #768900
Praxiteles
ParticipantOlomuc in Moravia: the marian Column
-
November 15, 2006 at 1:12 am #768901
Praxiteles
ParticipantPardubice in Moravia (where semtex used to be manufactured).
-
November 15, 2006 at 1:19 am #768902
Praxiteles
ParticipantProstejove (or Prossnitz in German) in Moravia, the Marian cloumn of 1714
Prossnitz was birth place of Edmund Husserl
-
November 15, 2006 at 2:16 am #768903
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Prostejove (or Prossnitz in German) in Moravia, the Marian cloumn of 1714
Prossnitz was birth place of Edmund Husserl
The Marian columns are stunningly beautiful. Thanks, Praxiteles. I could not find a photo of the one in Lucca, but there is one in that gracious, walled town.
As the shot from 1918 suggests, iconoclasts skulk in the shadows awaiting their opportunity, then after the devilish deed of destruction is done, they stand around gloating and grinning and having their photographs taken for posterity.
The Marian column in Prossnitz must have been regilt recently. The gold in the statue really gleams.
The columns which you have kindly presented are quite breath-taking. I hope that someone decides to write a book on them. They make a most worthy subject.
-
November 15, 2006 at 3:08 am #768904
Luzarches
ParticipantCourtesy of the very excellent website The New Liturgical Movement: http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/ comes news of this story in England, concerning the reordering of the cathedral in Leeds which is the church of Bishop Roche.
http://www.dioceseofleeds.org.uk/fullstory.php?newsid=455
If you are very patient, the slide show at the bottom of the window, once it has gone through interminable pictures of various dignitaries, shows some details of the new sanctuary.
It commits one of Prax’s favourite liturgical sins of having the bishop descend from his cathedra to an altar placed at the same general level of the sanctuary, not having a footpace of its own.
Also one of mine: Having an axial cathedra in a neo-Gothic church…
I would urge all visitors here to check out The New Liturgical Movement which is a serious minded site dedicated to the very necessary ‘reform of the reform’ of the sacred liturgy and also to the wider provision of the Classical Rite. It has features on architecture, sacred chant and polyphony and scholarly articles on liturgical issues. These range from the conservative to the ‘traditional’ spectrum; many are, however, very suitable for consideration for those mythical dwellers on the sun-lit uplands; The ‘mainstream’.
-
November 15, 2006 at 11:08 am #768905
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is the link to the New Liturgical Movement:
-
November 15, 2006 at 9:17 pm #768906
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Marian Column, erected in 1695, in Pilsen, western Bohemia
-
November 15, 2006 at 9:34 pm #768907
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Marian Column in Kutna Hora, central Bohemia, erected 1711-1713
-
November 15, 2006 at 10:43 pm #768908
Praxiteles
ParticipantCourtesy of Alan, another rather unusual view of Cobh Cathedral taken from the harbour:
-
November 15, 2006 at 11:33 pm #768909
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Marian Column in Kutna Hora, central Bohemia, erected 1711-1713
http://www.christendom.edu/images/library/column_blessing.jpg
Archbishop O’Brien blesses the Marian column in the piazza in front of the libary of Christendom College, Virginia. -
November 17, 2006 at 1:54 am #768910
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
http://www.christendom.edu/images/library/column_blessing.jpg
Archbishop O’Brien blesses the Marian column in the piazza in front of the libary of Christendom College, Virginia.What occasioned this monument?
-
November 17, 2006 at 8:50 pm #768911
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Church, Pope’s Quay, Cork
Thanks to the friend who informs me that the statue of Our Lady on the portico of St. Mary’s, Pope’s Quay, Cork is the work of the Dublin sculptor James Cahill. Can anyone provide some biographical details for him?
-
November 17, 2006 at 9:05 pm #768912
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The liturgical guffer is back:
-
November 18, 2006 at 2:37 am #768913
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The liturgical guffer is back:
“… some of the most loyal of Catholics are the strongest opponents of the bishop’s desire to bring about changes in his cathedral.” A wise man would take this a sign not lightly to be dismissed. What might this tell the local bishop or even the most inept journalist?
And who is campaigning avidly to bring about all these high falutin’ changes anyway? Are they storming the streets? Are they rallying in the town square? Are they exercised about not being state-of-the-art? The silence is DEAFENING! Perhaps the episcopal palace and the chancery are a-twitter with hopes for sweeping changes to St Colman’s, but your average Joe Catholic prefers that NO NOVELTY be introduced. And your most deeply committed and ardent Catholics absolutely abominate the very notion of modernising, transforming, or in any way desacralising this great House of God.
Read the signs of the times, Gentlefolk!!
-
November 18, 2006 at 8:28 am #768914
samuel j
ParticipantWell said…..Novelties not the way to go….. never were and never will be…..
-
November 18, 2006 at 4:19 pm #768915
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Well said…..Novelties not the way to go….. never were and never will be…..
Some folk wouldn’t get the drift though standing in a blizzard!
It is a shocking state of affairs when a bishop and his curia are so far out of touch not only with the immemorial custom of their own liturgical tradition but also with the very flock entrusted to their care that they continue to flog rocks and scorpions instead of nourishing the faith of their people and giving them the unfiltered patrimony that is their due as members of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The old saw of “pray, pay, and obey!” has spent itself in Ireland.
Instead of afflicting the People of God with more ideology (or ‘guff’ as Prax so eloquently puts it), it would behove ecclesiastical authorities to protect the Church’s patrimony and to educate the faithful in the truths of Catholicism. Benedict XVI actively encourages the Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is this being used in the institutions of Catholic education in Ireland?
Is there a bishop anywhere in the Emerald Isle with sufficient instincts of leadership to found a liturgical institute that would teach authentic liturgical science and frame it in relationship to all the other branches in theology? Such an institute would provide education as well in liturgical art and architecture – and not just the various schools of such but provide a deep understanding of the historical development of liturgical art and architeture. After all, how can a tradition be maintained if it is not understood and appreciated?
Given the kind of concerted effort made in the nineteenth century to educate and form clergy and laity in the liturgy, Ireland would see a return to the practice of the Catholic religion. Perhaps, though, the very fear of this lies at the heart of the current ecclesial paralysis.
How many ad limina visits must it take before the penny finally drops?
ACCOUNTABILITY???
-
November 18, 2006 at 7:16 pm #768916
Rhabanus
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Some folk wouldn’t get the drift though standing in a blizzard!
It is a shocking state of affairs when a bishop and his curia are so far out of touch not only with the immemorial custom of their own liturgical tradition but also with the very flock entrusted to their care that they continue to flog rocks and scorpions instead of nourishing the faith of their people and giving them the unfiltered patrimony that is their due as members of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The old saw of “pray, pay, and obey!” has spent itself in Ireland.
Instead of afflicting the People of God with more ideology (or ‘guff’ as Prax so eloquently puts it), it would behove ecclesiastical authorities to protect the Church’s patrimony and to educate the faithful in the truths of Catholicism. Benedict XVI actively encourages the Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is this being used in the institutions of Catholic education in Ireland?
Is there a bishop anywhere in the Emerald Isle with sufficient instincts of leadership to found a liturgical institute that would teach authentic liturgical science and frame it in relationship to all the other branches in theology? Such an institute would provide education as well in liturgical art and architecture – and not just the various schools of such but provide a deep understanding of the historical development of liturgical art and architeture. After all, how can a tradition be maintained if it is not understood and appreciated?
Given the kind of concerted effort made in the nineteenth century to educate and form clergy and laity in the liturgy, Ireland would see a return to the practice of the Catholic religion. Perhaps, though, the very fear of this lies at the heart of the current ecclesial paralysis.
How many ad limina visits must it take before the penny finally drops?
ACCOUNTABILITY???
AND HOW ABOUT THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY???
-
November 18, 2006 at 7:29 pm #768917
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Now we are on to something…MEGALOMANIA. That was the driving force in the Cobh debacle.
That and unbridled clerical ambition lie behind most of the ecclesial wreckage witnessed unremittingly over the past 40 years. Just notice who were rewarded (and quite handsomely, too) for their efforts at iconoclasm and desacralisation, and who were punished for their perceived recalcitrance in upholding and preserving the Church’s teachings.
If those in positions of responsibility are rewarded for their misfeasance, then more of the same can be expected. If, on the other hand, they are made to face correction and the just desserts of their miscreance, then a corner will have been turned.
Pope Leo X dismissed the budding reformation in Germany as “a mere quarrel among friars” and would continue to feed with his own hand his pet elephant, Hanno (gift of the King of Portugal). He also liked to erect bridges (as a good pontifex ought to do). Now, I like elephants up to a point, and I use bridges whenever possible, but, really, they find a place somewhat lower on my list of priorities than the depositum fidei and the unity of Christendom.
The question arises inexorably: WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY??
-
November 18, 2006 at 7:46 pm #768918
Praxiteles
ParticipantOh! I think you do Leo X an injustice. Have you never seen the frescos on the ceiling of the Sala Leonina in the Vatican Library depicting him, among other things, as the castagator hereticorum?
-
November 19, 2006 at 2:34 am #768919
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Oh! I think you do Leo X an injustice. Have you never seen the frescos on the ceiling of the Sala Leonina in the Vatican Library depicting him, among other things, as the castagator hereticorum?
Self-praise is no recommendation. I suppose, too, that the current episcopate of Ireland think they are on the cutting edge of all things theological and liturgical. When you pay your diocesan news staff, as Leo paid Raphael, you tend to get the desired result rather than the unvarnished truth.
Leo’s motto was: “God has granted Us the papacy – and We intend to enjoy it.” Had the Lutheran fracas erupted in the pontificate of Alexander VI (no rose of budding virtue by any means, but not one to suffer fools gladly), Luther would likely have ended up as Savonarola did – a crackly crisp dipped into the Arno.
Leo bears his share of responsibility for the reformation through sheer insouciance and lack of zeal for the honour of God and the good of the Church.
My point remains. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY??
-
November 19, 2006 at 9:09 am #768920
-
November 19, 2006 at 12:59 pm #768921
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is the man himself: Leo X with his nephews Giuglio de’ Medici (the future Clement VII) and Giovanni Rosi painted in 1518 by Raphael, who had become the architect for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s following the death of Bramante in 1514. Here we see the myopic Leo X with his magnifying glass as he reads from the opening page of St. John’s Gospel -an oblique reference to his own baptismal name, Giovanni. The bronze bell in the foreground is quite exquisite and a hint at the troubled times of his reign is to be seen in the distorted image on the ball of the chair-back. It should not be missed that both of his nephews are placed behind the throne indicating their influence on the pontificate.
This portrait of aphael’s set the iconographic scheme for all subsequent papal portraiture. Some PR man that!
-
November 19, 2006 at 5:07 pm #768922
Praxiteles
ParticipantANd the next great papal portrait was Titian’s 1546 picture of Pope Paul III (who did decide to do something to sort out the mess by calling the Council of Trent in 1546) and his nephews Alessandro and Ottavio Farnese:
-
November 19, 2006 at 5:07 pm #768923
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe next great portrait is Valazquez’s portrait of Innocent X painted in 1650.
-
November 19, 2006 at 6:32 pm #768924
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnton Raphael Meng’s portrait of Clement XIII painted in 1760:
-
November 19, 2006 at 6:32 pm #768925
Praxiteles
ParticipantThen comes Sir Thomas Lawrence’s portrait of Pope Pius VII painted in 1819:
-
November 20, 2006 at 2:44 am #768926
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The next great portrait is Valazquez’s portrait of Innocent X painted in 1650.
Don’t forget the other compelling portrait of Innocent X, and I am not referring here to that by El Greco, but to that by Guido Reni. It is found in the last lateral chapel on the Epistle side of the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Rome. St Michael battles the devil. Reni searched for months and months for the model of the Archangel – a face that combined virility with angelic purity, courage and humility, valour and self-effacement. For the face of Satan, he had no trouble whatsoever finding the model – he gave the fallen angel the face of Innocent X (Pamphili), who refused to patronise Reni.
A lesson here: let churchmen great and small alike exercise wisdom and generosity in the selection of artists. They often have the last word in historical terms.
The famous painting of St Michael the Archangel in the Church of the Immaculate Conception figures in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Roman novel,The Marble Faun.
-
November 20, 2006 at 2:49 am #768927
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here is the man himself: Leo X with his nephews Giuglio de’ Medici (the future Clement VII) and Giovanni Rosi painted in 1518 by Raphael, who had become the architect for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s following the death of Bramante in 1514. Here we see the myopic Leo X with his magnifying glass as he reads from the opening page of St. John’s Gospel -an oblique reference to his own baptismal name, Giovanni. The bronze bell in the foreground is quite exquisite and a hint at the troubled times of his reign is to be seen in the distorted image on the ball of the chair-back. It should not be missed that both of his nephews are placed behind the throne indicating their influence on the pontificate.
This portrait of aphael’s set the iconographic scheme for all subsequent papal portraiture. Some PR man that!
Note that Pope Benedict XVI has revived the camauro (the papal red cap trimmed in fur) and the velvet mozetta likewise trimmed in ermine. Leo’s tailor did a better job than the current papal haberdasher – observe that the items actually fit the sixteenth-century pontiff.
Again, churchmen do well to patronise worthy artists and artisans, as well as competent tailors and craftsmen.
-
November 20, 2006 at 12:07 pm #768928
Peter Parler
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Note that Pope Benedict XVI has revived the camauro (the papal red cap trimmed in fur) and the velvet mozetta likewise trimmed in ermine. Leo’s tailor did a better job than the current papal haberdasher – observe that the items actually fit the sixteenth-century pontiff.
Again, churchmen do well to patronise worthy artists and artisans, as well as competent tailors and craftsmen.
😎 There was no lack of master tailoring or craftsmanship in Pope Benedict’s recent address to the Irish Bishops. Indeed it hit the headlines in Italy and elsewhere – but emerged in the Irish media as nothing more than a cosy and pious little chat. Now how did they manage that, one wonders….
-
November 20, 2006 at 12:15 pm #768929
descamps
ParticipantGood point Pete-
If you did not see it, here’s the link:
-
November 20, 2006 at 8:41 pm #768930
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Don’t forget the other compelling portrait of Innocent X, and I am not referring here to that by El Greco, but to that by Guido Reni. It is found in the last lateral chapel on the Epistle side of the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Rome. St Michael battles the devil. Reni searched for months and months for the model of the Archangel – a face that combined virility with angelic purity, courage and humility, valour and self-effacement. For the face of Satan, he had no trouble whatsoever finding the model – he gave the fallen angel the face of Innocent X (Pamphili), who refused to patronise Reni.
A lesson here: let churchmen great and small alike exercise wisdom and generosity in the selection of artists. They often have the last word in historical terms.
The famous painting of St Michael the Archangel in the Church of the Immaculate Conception figures in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Roman novel,The Marble Faun.
Well, I would not be too inclined to take Guido Reni’s attitute as typical towards an undoubtedly great patron. Take for instance the the case of El Greco and Philip II of Spain. Philip II did not like El Greco’s work and he systematically excluded him from the decoration of the Escorial preferring oftertimes third rate Genovese painters instead. Clearly, El Greco did not like Philip II’s attitude to his work. But that did not prevent his including Philip among the Apostles in Heaven in his great work: the Burial of the Count of Orgaz in the church of San Tom
-
November 20, 2006 at 11:24 pm #768931
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Good point Pete-
If you did not see it, here’s the link:
“Yet above all, it falls to you, the Bishops, and to your clergy to offer young people an inspiring and attractive vision of the ordained priesthood. Our prayer for vocations “must lead to action so that from our praying heart a spark of our joy in God and in the Gospel may arise, enkindling in the hearts of others a readiness to say ‘yes’” (Address to Priests and Permanent Deacons, Freising, 14 September 2006). Even if Christian commitment is considered unfashionable in some circles, there is a real spiritual hunger and a generous desire to serve others among the young people of Ireland. A vocation to the priesthood or the religious life offers an opportunity to respond to this desire in a way that brings deep joy and personal fulfilment.”
Young people easily detect pretension and hypocrisy (as well as guff) in their elders . They are inspired, on the other hand, by authentic apostolic witness in the proclamation of the Gospel, dedication to carrying out the demands of the Gospel in union with the Apostolic See, and coherence in conducting liturgical worship.
-
November 20, 2006 at 11:28 pm #768932
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Well, I would not be too inclined to take Guido Reni’s attitute as typical towards an undoubtedly great patron. Take for instance the the case of El Greco and Philip II of Spain. Philip II did not like El Greco’s work and he systematically excluded him from the decoration of the Escorial preferring oftertimes third rate Genovese painters instead. Clearly, El Greco did not like Philip II’s attitude to his work. But that did not prevent his including Philip among the Apostles in Heaven in his great work: the Burial of the Count of Orgaz in the church of San Tomé in Toledo:
Is it an honour to appear in any painting by El Greco (whether in heaven or in hell)?
-
November 20, 2006 at 11:49 pm #768933
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
“Yet above all, it falls to you, the Bishops, and to your clergy to offer young people an inspiring and attractive vision of the ordained priesthood. Our prayer for vocations “must lead to action so that from our praying heart a spark of our joy in God and in the Gospel may arise, enkindling in the hearts of others a readiness to say ‘yes’†(Address to Priests and Permanent Deacons, Freising, 14 September 2006). Even if Christian commitment is considered unfashionable in some circles, there is a real spiritual hunger and a generous desire to serve others among the young people of Ireland. A vocation to the priesthood or the religious life offers an opportunity to respond to this desire in a way that brings deep joy and personal fulfilment.”
Young people easily detect pretension and hypocrisy (as well as guff) in their elders . They are inspired, on the other hand, by authentic apostolic witness in the proclamation of the Gospel, dedication to carrying out the demands of the Gospel in union with the Apostolic See, and coherence in conducting liturgical worship.
Rhabane!
Bene de me scripsisti!!
-
November 21, 2006 at 6:19 am #768934
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabane!
Bene de me scripsisti!!
Te cognoscere, Te amare.
Nos omnes Te amamus, Praxiteles!
Ad multos annos! -
November 21, 2006 at 11:18 am #768935
samuel j
ParticipantAh lads you’re making it very hard for us…… I’m mininmising and maximising windows here to beat the band trying to get translations….. not my fault the wise owls took Latin off the curiculum 2 years before I went to secondary school……
-
November 21, 2006 at 7:46 pm #768936
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Ah lads you’re making it very hard for us…… I’m mininmising and maximising windows here to beat the band trying to get translations….. not my fault the wise owls took Latin off the curiculum 2 years before I went to secondary school……
Standard Translation:
“To know you is to love you.
We all love you, Praxiteles.
Many years to you!”
______Cranmerian translation:
“To know Thee is to love Thee.
Thee we love, O Praxiteles!
Long life!”ICEL translation [following the principle of dynamic equivalence advocated by Comme le prevoit]:
“Hey, Prax, you’re the dude;
cool man! real cool!
High five, dude!”
At this point the interlocutor does The Splits, then turns about three times whilst thrusting the palms of his hands into the air in the general direction of Praxiteles. It helps considerably if strobe lights are used during this greeting. -
November 21, 2006 at 7:50 pm #768937
samuel j
ParticipantOh you’re on form tonight RB…..Very good…. like it…..
-
November 22, 2006 at 1:03 am #768938
Praxiteles
ParticipantHas anybody heard anything of the state ofthings at St. Gabriel’s in Clontarf?
-
November 22, 2006 at 1:10 am #768939
samuel j
ParticipantDid I see you were looking for photos of church in cloyne itself…..know lad living in the area, could ask him to get for me,…..
-
November 22, 2006 at 1:49 am #768940
Praxiteles
ParticipantThat would be excellent: external and internal,especially of the altar. Thanks.
-
November 22, 2006 at 5:15 am #768941
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Has anybody heard anything of the state ofthings at St. Gabriel’s in Clontarf?
Rhabanus has heard nothing. He hopes that the Archangel’s wings haven’t been clipped by the local clergy or his angelic person tasered by the diocesan thought police. Check the basements in Clontarf, and report any foul play.
When do we send out the search party? Sammy and Fearg, take a few cameras and leave a trail for the rest of us in case you are ambushed.
Are you out there, Archangel? Send us a sign. Give us an Angelic Salutation.
-
November 23, 2006 at 12:05 am #768942
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Rhabanus has heard nothing. He hopes that the Archangel’s wings haven’t been clipped by the local clergy or his angelic person tasered by the diocesan thought police. Check the basements in Clontarf, and report any foul play.
When do we send out the search party? Sammy and Fearg, take a few cameras and leave a trail for the rest of us in case you are ambushed.
Are you out there, Archangel? Send us a sign. Give us an Angelic Salutation.
I am afraid that poor old Archangel hseems to have disappeared.
-
November 23, 2006 at 1:14 am #768943
descamps
ParticipantDescamps was in Cork to-day and quite unexpectedly ran into a group of clergy from the diocese of Cloyne who were having a liturgy meeting with Fr. Danny Murphy, Fr. Sean Terry, Fr. Denis Reidy and architect Alex White. Bishop Magee was also there and spoke to the group.
He told them that he had been to Rome and had spoken to the Pope. He said that he had shown a new set of plans and photographs for Cobh Cathedral to the Pope. He insinuated that the Pope told him to go ahead with them – though he allowed himself sufficient room to back out of this should awkward questions be asked at a later date (Readers will remember that at the Midleton hearing he was badly caught telling fibbs on a similar heading).
More interestingly, he said that when he had spoken to the Local Planning Authority (Cobh Town Council) and he was given to understand that they would be “cooperative” and try to help in any way possible with whatever he might want to do. They told him to bring back a new set of plans to them, he said.
The driving force in this initiative seems to be Fr. Denny Reidy of Carrigtwohill. Curiously, there was no sign of Tom Cavanagh from Fermoy who was a staunch supporter of the last project.
The bold bishop announced that he was going ahead with another reordering scheme to gut the interior of Cobh Cathedral no matter what the people of Cobh or the diocese of Cloyne think.
Has the FOSCC heard of this?
-
November 23, 2006 at 8:09 am #768944
Rhabanus
Participant@descamps wrote:
Descamps was in Cork to-day and quite unexpectedly ran into a group of clergy from the diocese of Cloyne who were having a liturgy meeting with Fr. Danny Murphy, Fr. Sean Terry, Fr. Denis Reidy and architect Alex White. Bishop Magee was also there and spoke to the group.
He told them that he had been to Rome and had spoken to the Pope. He said that he had shown a new set of plans and photographs for Cobh Cathedral to the Pope. He insinuated that the Pope told him to go ahead with them – though he allowed himself sufficient room to back out of this should awkward questions be asked at a later date (Readers will remember that at the Midleton hearing he was badly caught telling fibbs on a similar heading).
More interestingly, he said that when he had spoken to the Local Planning Authority (Cobh Town Council) and he was given to understand that they would be “cooperative” and try to help in any way possible with whatever he might want to do. They told him to bring back a new set of plans to them, he said.
The driving force in this initiative seems to be Fr. Denny Reidy of Carrigtwohill. Curiously, there was no sign of Tom Cavanagh from Fermoy who was a staunch supporter of the last project.
The bold bishop announced that he was going ahead with another reordering scheme to gut the interior of Cobh Cathedral no matter what the people of Cobh or the diocese of Cloyne think.
Has the FOSCC heard of this?
Can’t answer the last question. No news either about the Archangel, though it shouldn’t surprise me if he were lying bound and gagged in the bowels of a secret liturgical depot, wriggling between the remains of a dismantled rood screen and an oil painting of the Fifth Station of the Cross.
So … a clandestine meeting of the Sanhedrin, is it? Good work on the qui vive, descamps! Non praevalebunt! Note the usual schemes and feints at work. [Rather cliche, if you asked me.] Claim, or at least imply that you have had intense negotiations with the Pope and that the very plans themselves were blessed by the hand of His Holiness. The appeal to papal authority in this case is risible. As if the Holy Father in Rome has nothing better to do with either his time or energy than meddle in the business of the Planning Board of Cork and redecorate a Pugin-Ashlin masterpiece. As if the Pope tinkers with any of the multifarious churches in his very own Eternal City. I hope HH doesn’t lose much sleep rethinking the lighting system in St Colman’s or considering how to go about the most cost-effective way of tearing up the mosaic floor of the nave.
Quite a sight, that: His Lordship and His Holiness spending a good afternoon’s merenda in the Apostolic Palace sipping tea and dunking biscotti over THE NEWLY REVISED PLANS FOR ST COLMAN”S. (‘If at first you don’t succeed, run with your tail between your legs to the Pope, and everything will be resolved!”) Do you think the Pope favours pastels over primary colours? Hmmmmmmm. I really don’t know how His Holiness can tear himself away from such a gripping dilemma for the sake of an approaching apostolic visit to Istanbul.
Never mind. It may serve bishops and other CEOs well to consider Julius II’s grandiose scheme to make his tomb the centrepiece of the new St Peter’s-in-the-Vatican. Great plans! Poor Julius, though, lost so much money on his campaigns of war, that he could not afford to pay for his magnificent project. The central part of the tomb is now in the Roman church of S. Pietro-in-Vincoli, and a few slaves unfinished by Michelngelo are in the Accademia in Florence. The body of Julius, however, lies neither in S. Pietro-in-Vincoli nor in the Accademia, but in an obscure spot beneath St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican while a small brass inscription, hidden by barricades and stacks of chairs near the organ in the north transept, indicates this fact. Sic transit gloria mundi!
-
November 23, 2006 at 8:34 am #768945
Praxiteles
Participant@descamps wrote:
Descamps was in Cork to-day and quite unexpectedly ran into a group of clergy from the diocese of Cloyne who were having a liturgy meeting with Fr. Danny Murphy, Fr. Sean Terry, Fr. Denis Reidy and architect Alex White. Bishop Magee was also there and spoke to the group.
He told them that he had been to Rome and had spoken to the Pope. He said that he had shown a new set of plans and photographs for Cobh Cathedral to the Pope. He insinuated that the Pope told him to go ahead with them – though he allowed himself sufficient room to back out of this should awkward questions be asked at a later date (Readers will remember that at the Midleton hearing he was badly caught telling fibbs on a similar heading).
More interestingly, he said that when he had spoken to the Local Planning Authority (Cobh Town Council) and he was given to understand that they would be “cooperative” and try to help in any way possible with whatever he might want to do. They told him to bring back a new set of plans to them, he said.
The driving force in this initiative seems to be Fr. Denny Reidy of Carrigtwohill. Curiously, there was no sign of Tom Cavanagh from Fermoy who was a staunch supporter of the last project.
The bold bishop announced that he was going ahead with another reordering scheme to gut the interior of Cobh Cathedral no matter what the people of Cobh or the diocese of Cloyne think.
Has the FOSCC heard of this?
Well, well…is not this an interesting piece of news. It looks as though we do not know when to stop digging the hole. By now now we must not be able to see the light any more. One thing is certain: if the bishop of Cloyne is stupid enough to go ahead with such a project, he will face the unabated opposition of the people of Cobh and the diocese of Cloyne. So far, he has gotten off lightly. But, if it proves true that he intends to do another mad project, then he will just have to be taught a lesson.
-
November 23, 2006 at 11:08 am #768946
samuel j
Participant@descamps wrote:
He told them that he had been to Rome and had spoken to the Pope. He said that he had shown a new set of plans and photographs for Cobh Cathedral to the Pope. He insinuated that the Pope told him to go ahead with them – though he allowed himself sufficient room to back out of this should awkward questions be asked at a later date
More interestingly, he said that when he had spoken to the Local Planning Authority (Cobh Town Council) and he was given to understand that they would be “cooperative” and try to help in any way possible with whatever he might want to do. They told him to bring back a new set of plans to them, he said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Magee_(bishop)
On 26 October 2006, Pope Benedict XVI met Bishop Magee in a private audience that, surprisingly, lasted only eight minutes.
If we take out 2 minutes for the formal hello and goodbye…. he must have got alot done in 6 minutes…“Cooperative”, thats nice of them…. looks like the bold Bishop and the OPW are in some unique little club here as when it comes to planning issues can guarantee you most mortals in Cobh only dream about a cooperative planner
-
November 23, 2006 at 12:04 pm #768947
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Magee_(bishop)
On 26 October 2006, Pope Benedict XVI met Bishop Magee in a private audience that, surprisingly, lasted only eight minutes.
If we take out 2 minutes for the formal hello and goodbye…. he must have got alot done in 6 minutes…“Cooperative”, thats nice of them…. looks like the bold Bishop and the OPW are in some unique little club here as when it comes to planning issues can guarantee you most mortals in Cobh only dream about a cooperative planner
It was more than obvious that Cobh Urban District Council was in close cahoots with the bold bishop the last time around going out of their way to ensure that he had all the permission he wanted to wreck the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral – even to the extent of allowing him to install new furnishings and fittings for whioch no plans had been submitted or furnished to the Cobh UDC. That further “cooperation” is going on will come as no surprise and may well explain the business of denizens in the UDC trying to keep the new Italian town architect out of the Cathedral business and to keep the holiday-making Denis Deasey in the Cathedral business. He was particularly “cooperative” the last time around and saw no difficulties about a crowd of hoodlums digging out the floor of the sanctuary in the middle of the night. He was so cooperatibe that he came close enough to saying that he could not have done a better job himself!! Of course this “expert” did not seem to know that the floor has been valued at around
-
November 23, 2006 at 4:33 pm #768948
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Magee_(bishop)
On 26 October 2006, Pope Benedict XVI met Bishop Magee in a private audience that, surprisingly, lasted only eight minutes.
If we take out 2 minutes for the formal hello and goodbye…. he must have got alot done in 6 minutes…“Cooperative”, thats nice of them…. looks like the bold Bishop and the OPW are in some unique little club here as when it comes to planning issues can guarantee you most mortals in Cobh only dream about a cooperative planner
According to the Vatican Gazzette, bishop Magee was received by the Pope on 20 October 2006:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/19055.php?index=19055&po_date=20.10.2006&lang=en
He was one of 6 bishops received that morning. The Pope receives bewteen 11.am and 1pm. That gives a maximum amount of time of some two hours or 120 minutes. Since 6 people were received that morning the maximum amount of time available for each one was some 20 minutes. But, since you have to allow for intervals between the departure of one person and the arrival of the next, that maximum amount of time is considerably reduced. If we allow 5 minutes minimum for arrivals and departures, we automatically lose 30 minutes, So, we can reckon that some 90 minutes of audience time was available on the morning of 20 October 2006. That would allow a maximum average time of 15 minutes per person. Even if we allow the full 15 minutes for the bold bishop, that does not allow for a very in depth conversation about the state of St. Colman’s Cathedral and presupposes that he did not raise more important issues such as his age, his knee, the collapse of vocations in the diocese of Cloyne and sharp decline in practice levels to say nothing of other urgent pastoral issues. Can we seriously believe that the bold bihsop would omit mention of such pressing pastoral concerns to waste time showing the Pope his latest snap-shots? Given this forensic approach to the question of audience time, I am inclined to think that the bold bishop is exaggerating again and likely to be halluncinating a would-be converstaion with the Pope that he might have liked to have had.
-
November 23, 2006 at 5:21 pm #768949
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHe was one of 7 bishops received that morning which cuts the time down even more.
-
November 23, 2006 at 5:33 pm #768950
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
He was one of 7 bishops received that morning which cuts the time down even more.
Thanks Gianlorenzo for that. It means that the emboldended bishop had, at max, all of 12.85 minutes to cover the ground.
We are quickly approaching levels of velocity last seen when the Lady Mary O’Halloran, Cobh Town Manageress, managed to read 214 objections in 4 hours which must have been a record of 1.12 minutes per objection.
-
November 23, 2006 at 6:25 pm #768951
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Thanks Gianlorenzo for that. It means that the emboldended bishop had, at max, all of 12.85 minutes to cover the ground.
We are quickly approaching levels of velocity last seen when the Lady Mary O’Halloran, Cobh Town Manageress, managed to read 214 objections in 4 hours which must have been a record of 1.12 minutes per objection.
Gianlorenzo!
It strikes me that we will have to revise that figure again. I forgot to reckon going/coming for 7 people. Thus the figure now is :
120 divided by (7 x 5), all divided by 7
So, that should be 85 minutes divided by 7 which now leaves everybod with an average maximum of 12.14 minutes with the Pope.
I have also checked the Vatican Gazzette for the following two weeks and no further Audience was granted to our bold bishop. So, after nearly a month in Rome he had the Pope’s ear for all of 12.14 minutes max. That, I suppose, was generous when you consider that Prime Ministers get a max of 30 minutes.
The point is clear from the Gazzette of the Audience of 30 October 2006 when the Pope received the Prime Minister of East Timor who would have had 30 minutes.
Then he received the Ambassador of Pakistan who would have had 15 minutes.
Then he received only 4 Irish bishops that morning, each getting circa. 10 minutes.
That adds up to 85 minutes. The remaining time was spent greeting a group.
So, clearly, there was no long term conversation with the Pope about St. Colman’s Cathedral.
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/19118.php?index=19118&po_date=27.10.2006&lang=en
-
November 23, 2006 at 7:13 pm #768952
samuel j
ParticipantSo excluding a superfast Palmtop running Powerpoint with a neck breaking slideshow, its fairly safe to assume very little on St. Colmans was discussed. Lets keep this high on mental notes when more of his delusions are relayed to the trusting flock as fact….
-
November 23, 2006 at 7:36 pm #768953
Praxiteles
ParticipantBut what is the Cobh Urban District Council up to….I wonder?
-
November 23, 2006 at 8:08 pm #768954
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterDoes anyone have a tame journalist to get a speculative story into the local press?
-
November 23, 2006 at 8:22 pm #768955
samuel j
ParticipantThats the question…..
Will they standover the alleged comment he made “he had spoken to the Local Planning Authority (Cobh Town Council) and he was given to understand that they would be “cooperative” and try to help in any way possible with whatever he might want to do.” or are we to take this as their greenlight to anything he comes up with once a “new plan”. Does this mean approval in their minds is a foregone conclusion…. or they believe the church and the OPW come under the same umbrella and OPW stands for Override Planning Wisdom -
November 23, 2006 at 8:52 pm #768956
Fearg
ParticipantAny idea as to what these new plans entail? Are they really new?
-
November 23, 2006 at 9:14 pm #768957
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Any idea as to what these new plans entail? Are they really new?
No one has been consulted. Everything appears to have been done behind closed doors. We have yet to see plans – probably not earlier than when/if they will be lodged for a planning application.
-
November 24, 2006 at 12:47 am #768958
descamps
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Gianlorenzo!
It strikes me that we will have to revise that figure again. I forgot to reckon going/coming for 7 people. Thus the figure now is :
120 divided by (7 x 5), all divided by 7
So, that should be 85 minutes divided by 7 which now leaves everybod with an average maximum of 12.14 minutes with the Pope.
I have also checked the Vatican Gazzette for the following two weeks and no further Audience was granted to our bold bishop. So, after nearly a month in Rome he had the Pope’s ear for all of 12.14 minutes max. That, I suppose, was generous when you consider that Prime Ministers get a max of 30 minutes.
The point is clear from the Gazzette of the Audience of 30 October 2006 when the Pope received the Prime Minister of East Timor who would have had 30 minutes.
Then he received the Ambassador of Pakistan who would have had 15 minutes.
Then he received only 4 Irish bishops that morning, each getting circa. 10 minutes.
That adds up to 85 minutes. The remaining time was spent greeting a group.
So, clearly, there was no long term conversation with the Pope about St. Colman’s Cathedral.
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/19118.php?index=19118&po_date=27.10.2006&lang=en
Does that mean we are lying again?
-
November 24, 2006 at 12:49 am #768959
Praxiteles
Participant -
November 24, 2006 at 2:32 am #768960
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
No one has been consulted. Everything appears to have been done behind closed doors. We have yet to see plans – probably not earlier than when/if they will be lodged for a planning application.
Again, I raise the ticklish issue of accountability – which no one on this thread seems able to answer.
Perhaps he thinks that by dragging the plans into an audience with the Pope and presenting them in the 12.14-minute timeslot available, he is being ‘accountable,’ but it certainly suggests a backroom approach to a serious issue that involves the faithful flock in Cobh. Besides, it would serve as a rather pathetic distraction from the myriad other pastoral issues now afflicting the local church of Cloyne.
Praxiteles earlier wrote: “By now now we must not be able to see the light any more.” I give him much more credit. It’s light that he sees – just the other train coming from the other end of the tunnel.
-
November 24, 2006 at 11:09 am #768961
-
November 24, 2006 at 12:00 pm #768962
Praxiteles
ParticipantAh, that is what they call it!
-
November 24, 2006 at 1:42 pm #768963
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is something we missed!
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/07/21/ihead_27.htm
It gives a good insight into the level we are dealing with: “kind of harmony”, “blend in with”….
-
November 24, 2006 at 1:51 pm #768964
Gianlorenzo
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Whats the term so often used in Dail Eireann…”disingenuous”
By any chance were you able to earwig any snippets of what the New plan might entail….
There is no information as yet about any plans or who drew them up. The local council knows nothing about ‘new plans’ or ‘meetings’ – it is all very odd. Likewise the Heritage office of Cork Co. Council.
-
November 24, 2006 at 1:52 pm #768965
samuel j
ParticipantPerhaps the bold Bishop had his laptop with him when he met the Pontiff running their “The hi tech computer display which allows visitors a 3D view of what the new interior will look like”
or perhaps the whole discussion too was only virtual reality….
-
November 24, 2006 at 2:59 pm #768966
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
There is no information as yet about any plans or who drew them up. The local council knows nothing about ‘new plans’ or ‘meetings’ – it is all very odd. Likewise the Heritage office of Cork Co. Council.
What about Denis Deasey, does he know anything about plans?
-
November 24, 2006 at 4:27 pm #768967
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Perhaps the bold Bishop had his laptop with him when he met the Pontiff running their “The hi tech computer display which allows visitors a 3D view of what the new interior will look like”
or perhaps the whole discussion too was only virtual reality….
“only virtual reality”
Now that beats even “disingenuous”! So the Pope virtually approved the virtual plans for the virtual renovation of St Colman’s.
Does virtual retirement ever arise in virtual conversations?
-
November 24, 2006 at 8:46 pm #768968
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt looks as though Irish vandalism and ignorance are now being exported. While looking for a photograph of the Chapel of the Irish College in Louvain to illustrate the arrangement of a sanctuary with three altars – a feature of churches built by Br. M.A. O’Riordan – I was aghast to find that the 17th. century interior of the chapel of St. Anthony’s College in Louvain has only recently been compkletely demolished by the governments of Northern Ireland and of the Irish Republic to provide a 200 seater auditorium for an Irish “cultural” centre in Louvain. Can you credit that?
-
November 24, 2006 at 9:35 pm #768969
Fearg
ParticipantModern Ulster Architecture: New Book
New thread was started on this subject today – what might be of interest to regulars on this thread, is that the book contains articles on many of Liam McCormick’s churches from the 60s and 70s, many of which have been discussed here. Including Burt, Steelstown (tent) and Glenties..
-
November 26, 2006 at 1:52 am #768970
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Modern Ulster Architecture: New Book
New thread was started on this subject today – what might be of interest to regulars on this thread, is that the book contains articles on many of Liam McCormick’s churches from the 60s and 70s, many of which have been discussed here. Including Burt, Steelstown (tent) and Glenties..
Ferg!
Do we have any publishing details to hand on this work?
-
November 26, 2006 at 11:04 am #768971
kite
ParticipantPope backs Bishop’s Cathedral plans
Form the Evening Echo 25-11-06
By: Ronan BagnallTHE BISHOP Of Cloyne Dr John Magee will put forward new proposals to change St. Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh in the coming weeks.
Bishop Magee said his new plans for the cathedral were endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI on a recent trip to Rome.
He called a meeting of all priests in the Diocese earlier this week to inform them of his latest proposal.
Bishop Magee’s previous attempt to re-order the church caused a “storm of controversy in Cobh earlier this year and a group of local objectors campaigned against the plan.
The trustees of St Colman’s Cathedral, which includes Bishop Magee, had planned to relocate the altar rails and extend the sanctuary to the nave, which would have involved disturbing the mosaic floor.
However, An Bord Pleanala rejected the planning application because St Colman’s was “a most important example of 19-century Gothic architecture.â€
In July, Bishop Magee decided against pursuing the matter to the High Court, but insisted the present state of the church did not meet the proper liturgical requirements.
His latest plan to change the cathedral is likely to be met with similar opposition from the. Friends of St Cohman’s Cathedral (FOSCC), the group who strongly fought against his initial proposal.
FOSCC spokesman, Adrian O’Donovan said: “We will strongly object to any plan that will lead to the destruction of our Catherdal.
Any planning application to Cobh Town Council will be thoroughly considered before we decide to take action.â€
The FOSCC are demanding written evidence that Pope Benedict has endorsed the new plan. -
November 26, 2006 at 12:26 pm #768972
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantWhat ever happened to accurate reporting?
The headline should read ” Bishopy SAYS Pope Backs Cathedral Plans.
So far the Bishop has said that:
he had backing from Cardinal Arinze – not true,
that the changes were required under Vatican II – not true
that he has spoken to the Local Planning Authority – not true
and now
that he has the backing of the Pope – ??????? -
November 26, 2006 at 1:10 pm #768973
Praxiteles
Participantkite wrote:Pope backs Bishop’s Cathedral plansForm the Evening Echo 25-11-06
By: Ronan BagnallTHE BISHOP Of Cloyne Dr John Magee will put forward new proposals to change St. Colman’]
Bishop Magee has a credibility problem in the wake of his previous dealings both with the FOSCC, the People of Cobh, and with the public authorities in Cobh Urban District Council and in An Bord Pleanala. At the outset of the Cathedral controvrsy the bishop made a solemn promise at public meeting in the Commodore Hotel in Cobh that nothing would be done to the Cathedral until he came back and consulted the people again. He tried to get out of that by ensuring that he never again appeared a public meeting in Cobh and tried to fob the populace off by sending the local clergy to tell them what he had in mind during the station Masses. In October 2003, he was writing to Rome telling them that he had completed his plans and wanted the famous “word of encouragement” for those who drew them up. In April 2004 he told the FOSCC in writing that no plans had been finalised. He told Cobh UDC and An Bord Planala that that the changes he was proposing for the Cathedral were “required” by the liturgical norms when they most certainly are not (and sufficient professional evidence was brought forward in the Midleton Oral Hearing to make that clear). What are we to make of a claim that the Pope approved his plans during the recent trip to Rome? At best, it must have been a very superficial conversation given that after nearly a month’s stay in Rome Bishop Magee had the Pope’s ear for all of 12.14 minutes on 20 October 2006. At worst, the bishop is either on a mushroom or two or esle we are fibbing again.
I would say the FOSCC is very wise to ask to see the alleged “approval” in writing – they are probably on to a winner there!
-
November 26, 2006 at 5:29 pm #768974
Luzarches
ParticipantRegarding the possibly unsurprising on-going efforts to radically reorder Cobh, I thought I’d point out an example in a spirit of helpfulness.
(As has probably been clear from my previous posts, I regard the practice of the priest deliberately ‘facing the people’ as a very regretable innovation in the liturgy of the church. I believe that it will gradually fade away as the authentic organic understanding of the western liturgical rites becomes more widespread; alongside this process there will be a reclamation of the Council texts via a dissemination of the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’. The observations that men like Bouyer and Ratzinger made in the late 1960s will come to be more widely known and shared.)
I’ve heard it said in this thread that the model for the last Cobh project was the duomo in Milan. This was a disgraceful ‘adeguamento’ that thoroughly subverted the sixteenth century sanctuary. It is also irreversible. Given the conservation angle at Cobh, it would seem that any solution that is ‘irreversible’ is profoundly unsuitable. Whilst I question the aesthetic content of this reordering of Turin Cathedral, if the bishop is adamant that something has to be done at Cobh prior to his having to write the letter why not take a look at the approach adopted here?
The new furniture gives the necessary impression of permanence, but clearly only rests on the pavement.
-
November 26, 2006 at 5:53 pm #768975
samuel j
Participant“The new furniture gives the necessary impression of permanence, but clearly only rests on the pavement”
Good point about no permanency…at best a face saving exercise for some… but would fear it a horrdenous waste of money just to appease a few egoes…..
what do you think of the altar above…. I know I have the flu and a high temperature but it gives me the hebbie jebbies…looking at it….. like a bad temperature induced nightmare…. sorry if I offend.. but thats what I see…
-
November 26, 2006 at 6:06 pm #768976
Luzarches
ParticipantOh, Samuel, I think that it’s pretty ghastly! No offence taken.
The only reason I post it is because I imagine that there are similar laws in Italy regarding permitted developement in historical churches, probably more stringent than Ireland I imagine. I think that the chancery in Cobh isn’t really interested in compromise: The unstated motivating factor is not merely that there ought to be a permanent forward-facing altar but that it should never be possible to go back to the old arrangement should the wind change in Rome ten, twenty years hence… It is intended to be an aggresive act towards the historic fabric. Regardless of the weird, inappropriate and frankly tasteless additions in Turin it would only take four burley men five minutes to re-reorder the church back to how it was…
-
November 26, 2006 at 6:14 pm #768977
kite
Participant😮 What a Country we have become since been “awash with money”, “the richest Country in Europe”, ‘the third richest Country in the WORLD”, “needing workers from all over the world to come here to serve in our hotels and restaurants, work as builders laborers” etc…:mad: (pity the fat bitch that proposed this nonsense did not allow lawyers, accountants, doctors, dentists, politicians come here to stop the Irish MAFIA (Dail Eireann) selling us down the river?
Now they want to destroy our heritage such as St. Colmans??
Call me a racist if that’s what is needed, but the sooner we wake up and say “This is OUR culture, OUR Country, if you don’t like it, or you want to sell us down the Swanney then F.OFF back to Muslim Land the better!!:mad: -
November 26, 2006 at 6:48 pm #768978
samuel j
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
Oh, Samuel, I think that it’s pretty ghastly! No offence taken.
The only reason I post it is because I imagine that there are similar laws in Italy regarding permitted developement in historical churches, probably more stringent than Ireland I imagine. I think that the chancery in Cobh isn’t really interested in compromise: The unstated motivating factor is not merely that there ought to be a permanent forward-facing altar but that it should never be possible to go back to the old arrangement should the wind change in Rome ten, twenty years hence… It is intended to be an aggresive act towards the historic fabric. Regardless of the weird, inappropriate and frankly tasteless additions in Turin it would only take four burley men five minutes to re-reorder the church back to how it was…
Thats good….
Would think you are right about Compromise is not on cards for Cobh…..
Glad at least Turin example (besides the inspiration for tonights flu induced nightmare) can be put back to the way it SHOULD be easily…..Alasd…Cobh egoes on a more permanent statement of their tenure……
-
November 26, 2006 at 8:03 pm #768979
descamps
ParticipantBishop held another meeting last Friday with the canons of the cathedral. It went on for a long time but they were not discussing the cathedral. When bishop did get to talk about it he had some interesting things to say about his recent (short) meeting with BXVI, by what the birdies in Cobh are singing. He gave away one vital piece of information: he did not bring up the subject of the cathedral with BXVI — BXVI BROUGHT IT UP WITH HIM and said that he knew Cobh and the view over the harbour from the cathedral, he knew the beautiful cathedral, he had been having LOTS and LOTS of letters of complaint from the troops on the ground in Cobh. Bish. also told the canons that BXVI had asked him about the high altar, the tabernacle, the reredos, and more importantly, the ALTAR RAILS, and the schoold boy had to answer his questions as best he could from an unprepared text and without the help of Brian McCutcheon and Denny Reidy. Sounds like he was up the creek without the proverbial…. It does not take much to figure out that a bishop would not want to be attracting notice or attention for himself when the one noticing and attending is BXVI. The message in all of that to anyone with eyes and ears in their head is to leave well enough alone.
-
November 26, 2006 at 8:22 pm #768980
samuel j
ParticipantThe message in all of that to anyone with eyes and ears in their head is to leave well enough alone.
Exactly but does not look he took it that way or yes men on his return did either, muppets are already giving
stories to Evening Echo that spproval aok…. -
November 26, 2006 at 8:36 pm #768981
Praxiteles
Participant@descamps wrote:
Bishop held another meeting last Friday with the canons of the cathedral. It went on for a long time but they were not discussing the cathedral. When bishop did get to talk about it he had some interesting things to say about his recent (short) meeting with BXVI, by what the birdies in Cobh are singing. He gave away one vital piece of information: he did not bring up the subject of the cathedral with BXVI — BXVI BROUGHT IT UP WITH HIM and said that he knew Cobh and the view over the harbour from the cathedral, he knew the beautiful cathedral, he had been having LOTS and LOTS of letters of complaint from the troops on the ground in Cobh. Bish. also told the canons that BXVI had asked him about the high altar, the tabernacle, the reredos, and more importantly, the ALTAR RAILS, and the schoold boy had to answer his questions as best he could from an unprepared text and without the help of Brian McCutcheon and Denny Reidy. Sounds like he was up the creek without the proverbial…. It does not take much to figure out that a bishop would not want to be attracting notice or attention for himself when the one noticing and attending is BXVI. The message in all of that to anyone with eyes and ears in their head is to leave well enough alone.
By the sound of that the “approval” is even more tenuous than the “approval” given by Cardinal Arinze. In fact, I am inclined to think that some one must have misheard the word “approval”. Can the Pope be expected to hand out lollypops to people who generate such large quanrtities of protest mail – that merely shows that we are not up to the job.
-
November 27, 2006 at 5:40 am #768982
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
By the sound of that the “approval” is even more tenuous than the “approval” given by Cardinal Arinze. In fact, I am inclined to think that some one must have misheard the word “approval”. Can the Pope be expected to hand out lollypops to people who generate such large quanrtities of protest mail – that merely shows that we are not up to the job.
Plenty of prelates are still licking and relishing their lollypops all over the world, Prax]Ascende superius![/I] And the beat goes on….
Check your Annuario Pontificio carefully. When the civil authorities intervene, usually to call a halt to criminal activity, then corrective action ensues (grudgingly for the most part). Otherwise, “It’s business as usual.” Recipe: Push the envelope always, and when confronted with Church documents, canon law, even pointed remarks from the Supreme Pontiff himself, claim exemption (in true Gallican fashion) from “Roman documents” (ie magisterial teaching), and wait for the lollypop. It always comes to the defiant. Name your flavour, baby!!
I’d love to see the minutes from this year’s ad limina visits! Must I live another 75 years before reading them in the archives? Or ar they tossed into the shredder after five years?
-
November 27, 2006 at 5:49 am #768983
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
It looks as though Irish vandalism and ignorance are now being exported. While looking for a photograph of the Chapel of the Irish College in Louvain to illustrate the arrangement of a sanctuary with three altars – a feature of churches built by Br. M.A. O’Riordan – I was aghast to find that the 17th. century interior of the chapel of St. Anthony’s College in Louvain has only recently been compkletely demolished by the governments of Northern Ireland and of the Irish Republic to provide a 200 seater auditorium for an Irish “cultural” centre in Louvain. Can you credit that?
So St Anthony’s is now a Theatre, rather than a chapel. Would you call it Theatre of the Absurd or Theatre of Cruelty?
It actually reminds me of an insane asylum. Perhaps a fitting denouement after all. All you need to start an asylum is a big room and the right kind of people ….
-
November 27, 2006 at 3:46 pm #768984
Rhabanus
Participant@kite wrote:
Pope backs Bishop’s Cathedral plans
Form the Evening Echo 25-11-06
By: Ronan BagnallTHE BISHOP Of Cloyne Dr John Magee will put forward new proposals to change St. Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh in the coming weeks.
Bishop Magee said his new plans for the cathedral were endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI on a recent trip to Rome.
He called a meeting of all priests in the Diocese earlier this week to inform them of his latest proposal.
Bishop Magee’s previous attempt to re-order the church caused a “storm of controversy in Cobh earlier this year and a group of local objectors campaigned against the plan.
The trustees of St Colman’s Cathedral, which includes Bishop Magee, had planned to relocate the altar rails and extend the sanctuary to the nave, which would have involved disturbing the mosaic floor.
However, An Bord Pleanala rejected the planning application because St Colman’s was “a most important example of 19-century Gothic architecture.â€
In July, Bishop Magee decided against pursuing the matter to the High Court, but insisted the present state of the church did not meet the proper liturgical requirements.
His latest plan to change the cathedral is likely to be met with similar opposition from the. Friends of St Cohman’s Cathedral (FOSCC), the group who strongly fought against his initial proposal.
FOSCC spokesman, Adrian O’Donovan said: “We will strongly object to any plan that will lead to the destruction of our Catherdal.
Any planning application to Cobh Town Council will be thoroughly considered before we decide to take action.â€
The FOSCC are demanding written evidence that Pope Benedict has endorsed the new plan.Keep in mind, gentle readers, that each new batch of plans costs a pretty penny. Architects and engineers are cashing in on St Colman’s cow. They aren’t operating on the model of the St Vincent de Paul Society.
One can scarcely help concluding that the diocese of Cloyne must be pretty flush these days, with all the cash doled out on plans, plans, plans, and more plans. Julius II, despite his waste of resources on wars, paid for only one set of plans for his tomb.
Unusual, too, that this amount of money is being thrown away on something like liturgy, generally the last grape on the ecclesiastical bunch despite its designation as “the summit and source” of the Church’s life and mission. Too bad the money is not being used to improve the level of liturgical education of clergy and laity there. Then there would be fewer resources wasted on unnecessary battles and conflict.
To paraphrase an American aphorism: look after the nickels and dimes, and the dullards will take care of themselves!
-
November 27, 2006 at 5:43 pm #768985
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Plenty of prelates are still licking and relishing their lollypops all over the world, Prax]Ascende superius![/I] And the beat goes on….
Check your Annuario Pontificio carefully. When the civil authorities intervene, usually to call a halt to criminal activity, then corrective action ensues (grudgingly for the most part). Otherwise, “It’s business as usual.” Recipe: Push the envelope always, and when confronted with Church documents, canon law, even pointed remarks from the Supreme Pontiff himself, claim exemption (in true Gallican fashion) from “Roman documents” (ie magisterial teaching), and wait for the lollypop. It always comes to the defiant. Name your flavour, baby!!
I’d love to see the minutes from this year’s ad limina visits! Must I live another 75 years before reading them in the archives? Or ar they tossed into the shredder after five years?
Yes, by the looks of things and the Franciscans who compiled the Annals of the Four Masters lie buried in the cloister in graves whose markers were desecrated by Napoleone! Such is Irish “culture”!!
-
November 27, 2006 at 7:24 pm #768986
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Yes, by the looks of things and the Franciscans who compiled the Annals of the Four Masters lie buried in the cloister in graves whose markers were desecrated by Napoleone! Such is Irish “culture”!!
Sic transit gloria mundi!
-
November 27, 2006 at 7:59 pm #768987
samuel j
ParticipantI going to have to get one of these to keep up….heeeheeee
-
November 27, 2006 at 8:38 pm #768988
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
I going to have to get one of these to keep up….heeeheeee
A great read that !!
-
November 28, 2006 at 1:27 am #768989
Praxiteles
Participant -
November 28, 2006 at 6:05 am #768990
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
I going to have to get one of these to keep up….heeeheeee
Buy Wheelock (6th ed. by Richard Lafleur) instead, Sam. There is something spiritually purifying about grammar, and his corny jokes are also an exercise in ascetism.
-
November 28, 2006 at 3:45 pm #768991
samuel j
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Buy Wheelock (6th ed. by Richard Lafleur) instead, Sam. There is something spiritually purifying about grammar, and his corny jokes are also an exercise in ascetism.
The amazon xmas wishlist….. must drop hints to the kids….. would beat the usual presents of socks
-
November 28, 2006 at 6:07 pm #768992
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
The amazon xmas wishlist….. must drop hints to the kids….. would beat the usual presents of socks
Excellent idea! Wheelock wrote his Latin Grammar for American GIs returning to studies after action in WW2, hence a Latin grammar designed for adult learners rather than for high-school-age boys. Wheelock’s daughters assisted him in the compilation of his text.
Richard LaFleur of the University of Georgia took the fourth edition in hand to produce the fifth, and then the sixth edition. He added a number of silly jokes supposedly to lighten the tone of the text and to raise the spirits of his students.
It’s not a bad start. It takes a distinctly grammatical approach to the language. It is VASTLY superior to O’Collins’ A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin, a product of defective pedagogy.
Real lovers of Latin grammar will be sure to secure their own copy of “Bradley’s Arnold” or Latin Composition by the famous Dr Arnold and revised by Bradley, one of his former students.
-
November 28, 2006 at 6:44 pm #768993
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Excellent idea! Wheelock wrote his Latin Grammar for American GIs returning to studies after action in WW2, hence a Latin grammar designed for adult learners rather than for high-school-age boys. Wheelock’s daughters assisted him in the compilation of his text.
Richard LaFleur of the University of Georgia took the fourth edition in hand to produce the fifth, and then the sixth edition. He added a number of silly jokes supposedly to lighten the tone of the text and to raise the spirits of his students.
It’s not a bad start. It takes a distinctly grammatical approach to the language. It is VASTLY superior to O’Collins’ A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin, a product of defective pedagogy.
Real lovers of Latin grammar will be sure to secure their own copy of “Bradley’s Arnold” or Latin Composition by the famous Dr Arnold and revised by Bradley, one of his former students.
And what about poor Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar to say nothing of Longman’s – over which we all toiled!
-
November 29, 2006 at 6:08 am #768994
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And what about poor Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar to say nothing of Longman’s – over which we all toiled!
Our Latin Legacy offered a first-rate course in Latin for high-schoolers.
It may be of interest to readers in Ireland that there is actually a shortage of Latin teachers in North America. The demand for Latin is quite highat all levels from elementary school to university, I am pleased to report, but not, I regret to mention, in ecclesiastical circles. This is where the Church ought to be in the vanguard; after all, Latin is the official language of the Church and of the western liturgy.
As the Anglican Dean Inge put it, if the Church marries the spirit of the times, it should come as no surprise for her to find herself soon widowed.
Classics of language, art, and architecture are the way to go – not fads and trends! My impression is that the folks in Cloyne understand this very well. Too bad the top brass there are utterly out of touch with the grass roots and their own Christian roots. So much for “the organic development of the liturgy.”
Henna rinse, anyone?
-
November 29, 2006 at 1:42 pm #768995
Praxiteles
ParticipantOn the subject of Latin, I am afraid its decline in the present degenerate state of the Church in Ireland is plane and evident for every one to see in the recent habit of doing inscriptions in demotic English. Even the bIblical texts so inscribed are taken from the lowest grade Englist texts that certainly are rather distant from the sense of the Sacra Pagina.
On the other hand, just to show that not all is goom in the garden, try this treat:
-
November 29, 2006 at 4:10 pm #768996
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
On the subject of Latin, I am afraid its decline in the present degenerate state of the Church in Ireland is plane and evident for every one to see in the recent habit of doing inscriptions in demotic English. Even the bIblical texts so inscribed are taken from the lowest grade Englist texts that certainly are rather distant from the sense of the Sacra Pagina.
On the other hand, just to show that not all is goom in the garden, try this treat:
Is there no bishop in the Emerald Isle who so values classical learning and the access which it affords to the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that he would establish a school or institute to transmit this inestimable patrimony to the next generations?
Too much preoccupation with cosmetic changes in church fabric and insufficient attention to the inculcation and preservation of authentic Catholic culture.
Although such dilettantism is deplorable, it is probably better, all things considered, that they not stick their oar into the enterprise of real education. Imagine, if you will, the mindset that wrecked the Catholic cathedral of Armagh set loose in the classroom or the lecture hall. Fabric at least can be salvaged; not so the human soul when entrusted to the tutelage of such destructive beggars.
Thanks for the link, Prax. I am confident that the good readers of this thread will recognise something truly worthwhile in the many good things offered by Fr Coulter and his associates.
One of the blessings of high technology is that people in the cultural and religious wasteland can enjoy access to the blessings of education, culture, and the spiritual life through electronic contacts.
-
November 29, 2006 at 4:23 pm #768997
-
November 30, 2006 at 12:19 pm #768998
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Very true….
Indeed…
And were anyone to have a spare moment they might like to try this:
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginaldus_Foster
or this
-
December 1, 2006 at 7:38 am #768999
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Indeed…
And were anyone to have a spare moment they might like to try this:
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginaldus_Foster
or this
Huzzah for Reggie! How he is able to maintain his rigorous schedule is beyond me. He is one of the most dedicated teachers I have ever known. I hope that he has groomed a worthy successor to carry on his apostolate of language and culture.
In a dark age, he has kept aloft the torch of learning. Vivat in aeternum!
-
December 1, 2006 at 9:41 pm #769000
ake
ParticipantI was in kilkenny recently and visited the stunning catholic cathedral there (st. peter’s is it?) -at least I managed to form some idea of how beautiful it must have been before the scarcely credible vandalism of the reoerdering which has moved the altar into the crossing and introduced new furnishings, a name they don’t deserve. Back in Dublin I visited the truly wonderful neo-Byzantine church in clonskeagh (of the miraculous medal?!) which has also been re-ordered but infinitely more sympathetically. Still the coherent (well thought out!) design is interrupted. I understand that Ireland is in fact the only country that has been engaging in this orgy of desecration- am I correct in this? That makes me marvel at how singularly unlucky we seem to be, in a european context as far as artistic and architectural heritage goes- in fact, our bad fortune is of an amusing scale and continuity: We enjoy no Roman ruins, since they never reached Ireland, the vast body of churches, cathedrals and monasteries, as well as perhaps secular buildings which we know to have existed (and been great works of art) constructed of wood in the dark and middle ages have left not a single sorry trace! The Romanesque did not penetrate until a century after it could have. Just two or three great (only by Irish standards) gothic churches or cathedrals were built- These were ruthlessly ‘restored’ by the victorians. We missed out entirely on the Renaissance. Then our nonetheless considerable medieval heritage of churches, monasteries and castles was near obliterated by Protestantism, Tudor Wars, Cromwell…etc . Next huge numbers of our country houses and mansions, and the rest of our Georgian heritage is carelessly demolished by nationalists and now the only corpus of architecture in Ireland comparable to that of any other country in europe or almost so – our great post-emancipation churches – are being almost as badly despoiled as the original churches were 500 years ago by the zealots! (It makes for sorely ironic reading.)
Is there any end in sight?
-
December 1, 2006 at 10:11 pm #769001
Praxiteles
ParticipantIt does make for sorrowful reading what you have to say about our built heritage but it is unfortunately true. We seem to have been at the receiving end of barbarism since the first Vikings showed up off of our coasts. Their modern counterparts are the ideologised liturgists currently bent on wrecking the last vestiges of the 19th. corpus of churches – all not unconnected with what is termed (in “polite” circles) as the de-Cullenization of the Irish Church where Cullenization is understood as the fruits of Paul Cullen’s efforts to restore normality to the Catholic Church in Ireland after its emergence from the catacombs. The substitute is often a famciful “retour” to a “celtic” church and spirituality that are as historically credible as Fianna.
For much of the 1980s and 1990s there was a period of respite in the devastation of Irish churches. This was imposed by lack of funds. Unfortunately, one downside fot he Celtic Tigre has been the abundance of funds available for “renovations” and “restorations” in practically every church in the country. The most outrageous effort was the attempt to vandalize Cobh Cathedral but no village church is safe in ireland. As for the heritage authorities, well, we can see just how “reliable” they were in case of Cobh Urban District Council – a bit like Diarmiad MacMurrough and Strongbow.
-
December 1, 2006 at 10:20 pm #769002
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Mary’s Cathedral, Kilkenny, designed by WIlliam Deane Butler, was begun in 1843 and completed in 1857. Its neo-Gothic style is heavily Norman in inspiration and can be easily compared with St. Jean de Malte in Aix-en-Provence, St-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume in Provence or indeed with many of the pure creations of the Norman displacement in central and southern Italy – such as the abbatial church at Fossanova in Latium, Sant’Eligio in Naples, and San Lorenzo Maggiore in Naples. The decoration of the interior of Kilkenny’s St. Mary’s is by Earley and Powell and was brought to completion in 1865. This firm was responsible for the ceiling painting of the chancel, the glass, the high altar fittings and lightings. The mosaic work is by Bourke of London and the chancel murals by Westlake. In the 1970s, the socially minded Bishop Birch instigated, in the diocese of Ossory, an iconoclasm worthy of the emperor Leo III, a martial pesant from the mountains of Isouria whose hatred of images was largely inspired by an incomparable ignorance of both sacred and profane letters. Kilkenny cathedral, fortunately, escaped the worst ravages and retains its (albeit redundant) High Altar which was purchased in Italy. The altar rails (alas no more) and the altar of the Sacred Heart were the work of James Pearce. A diminuitive and out of scale altar was placad under the crossing and a new cathedra -redolent of Star trek – installed. The contour of this impianto is remarkably similar to the one now proposed for Cobh cathedral. Perhaps the greatest thing that can be said for this “reordering” is that it can (and will) eventually be removed leaving the building more or less as concieved by none too mean an architect.
So far, nobody wishes to claim responsibility for the effort.
Here is an earlier posting re- St. Mary’s Cathedral, Kilkenny
-
December 1, 2006 at 11:42 pm #769003
Rhabanus
Participant@ake wrote:
I was in kilkenny recently and visited the stunning catholic cathedral there (st. peter’s is it?) -at least I managed to form some idea of how beautiful it must have been before the scarcely credible vandalism of the reoerdering which has moved the altar into the crossing and introduced new furnishings, a name they don’t deserve. Back in Dublin I visited the truly wonderful neo-Byzantine church in clonskeagh (of the miraculous medal?!) which has also been re-ordered but infinitely more sympathetically. Still the coherent (well thought out!) design is interrupted. I understand that Ireland is in fact the only country that has been engaging in this orgy of desecration- am I correct in this? That makes me marvel at how singularly unlucky we seem to be, in a european context as far as artistic and architectural heritage goes- in fact, our bad fortune is of an amusing scale and continuity: We enjoy no Roman ruins, since they never reached Ireland, the vast body of churches, cathedrals and monasteries, as well as perhaps secular buildings which we know to have existed (and been great works of art) constructed of wood in the dark and middle ages have left not a single sorry trace! The Romanesque did not penetrate until a century after it could have. Just two or three great (only by Irish standards) gothic churches or cathedrals were built- These were ruthlessly ‘restored’ by the victorians. We missed out entirely on the Renaissance. Then our nonetheless considerable medieval heritage of churches, monasteries and castles was near obliterated by Protestantism, Tudor Wars, Cromwell…etc . Next huge numbers of our country houses and mansions, and the rest of our Georgian heritage is carelessly demolished by nationalists and now the only corpus of architecture in Ireland comparable to that of any other country in europe or almost so – our great post-emancipation churches – are being almost as badly despoiled as the original churches were 500 years ago by the zealots! (It makes for sorely ironic reading.)
Is there any end in sight?
Hail, AKE! May I recommend that you and other kind readers delve into a great work by Augustus Welby Pugin, Contrasts: or, a Parallel between the Noble Edifices of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, and Corresponding Buildings of the Present Day], The Pugin Society edition, with introductions by Timothy Brittain-Catlin (Reading, UK: Spire Books, 2003).
The book under consideration is a combination of two of Pugin’s great works: Contrasts, and True Principles. A MUST READ for all who are dedicated to the beauty of Catholic architecture.
I realise that our esteemed colleague, Praxiteles, has an appreciation for the architectural work of Brother Michael Augustine O’Riordan. This is easily understandable on account of Brother O’Riordan’s contribution to the life and worship of the Church in Regency Ireland. Nevertheless, his work cannot hold a candle to AWN Pugin and his school.
Bibliophiles ought to put this on their wish-list for Christmas in hopes that St Nicholas will be pleased to present them with their own copies of this fascinating tome.
“Contrasts” juxtaposes gothic buildings (chiefly ecclesiastical) with their neo-classical (neo-pagan) counterparts. He points out the significance of these telling contrasts.
If you cannot afford this work and are on the outs with St Nicholas this year, urge your local librarian to make a copy available and encourage your friends and associates to dig into this beautiful tome.
No one in Ireland today ought to stand by while the national and religious patrimony is being pillaged and impoverished by ninnyhammers and popinjays. Stand up and reclaim The Church for Christ and His Mystical Body. As Pope John Paul II used to say: “Become what you are!”
Happy reading! Would love to hear your responses to this magnificent book by Pugin.
-
December 2, 2006 at 2:33 am #769004
Luzarches
ParticipantI’d thought I’d bring to attention a book on British Catholic churches that was launched last night. My boss came in to the office today with a copy.
It’s not available yet on Amazon, is much longer than 96 pages, has great and rich illustrations, including of many chapels and churches I’d never knew existed, many that are well-known and a decent text containing a few barbs directed against some of the more egregious reorderings. It puts all the buildings into some sort of context. I wholeheartedly endorse it, for what it’s worth.
-
December 2, 2006 at 8:32 am #769005
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Luzarches for the tip re this book. It looks very interesting and well worth a read. This is one for St Nicholas…..
-
December 2, 2006 at 12:43 pm #769006
samuel j
ParticipantI happened to by in St.Colmans ,Cobh last week, nasty day with wind/rain howling but I noticed on many seats on the right hand side of the aisle bits of small plaster , dust….. definately somewhere must have got water damage as bits of plaster crumbling away. Could not see where it was coming from but feel it would be more in Bishop Magoos interest to look after whats there and not go off on ill advised re-ordering campaigns
Once again being in the building just reinforces how it should not be changed under any circumstances… -
December 2, 2006 at 1:51 pm #769007
Praxiteles
ParticipantSam!
I am glad you raise th question of maintenance in Cobh Catedral. I cannot get over how the place has degenerated in the last couple of years into a complete kip. No one would ever imagine that millions have been spent on a restoration. Rubbish is scattered all over the building and a general untidyness is more than evident throughout. Basic repiars have been done and an overall neglect is evident – despite all the guff coming for the Trustees about the wonderful heritage building they are responsible for. I do not know whetehr others have noticed this?
-
December 2, 2006 at 3:55 pm #769008
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Sam!
I am glad you raise th question of maintenance in Cobh Catedral. I cannot get over how the place has degenerated in the last couple of years into a complete kip. No one would ever imagine that millions have been spent on a restoration. Rubbish is scattered all over the building and a general untidyness is more than evident throughout. Basic repiars have been done and an overall neglect is evident – despite all the guff coming for the Trustees about the wonderful heritage building they are responsible for. I do not know whetehr others have noticed this?
First thing they need to do is clear away all the junk they have propped against the windows in the chamber above the baptistry – gives a very untidy first impression. I also saw the dust Sam speaks of, when I was there in October.
You can just about see some of the junk I’m talking about in the following photo, look at the window to left of shot.
[ATTACH]3601[/ATTACH] -
December 2, 2006 at 4:02 pm #769009
-
December 2, 2006 at 6:16 pm #769010
Praxiteles
ParticipantCould this be coming from a water ingress that is after hitting the bath-stone? In that case, it is not coming fro the ceiling but from the walls or from the vaults of the side-aisles arcades. If this is now drying out, what does it mean for the fabric that has been affected?
-
December 2, 2006 at 6:22 pm #769011
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
First thing they need to do is clear away all the junk they have propped against the windows in the chamber above the baptistry – gives a very untidy first impression. I also saw the dust Sam speaks of, when I was there in October.
You can just about see some of the junk I’m talking about in the following photo, look at the window to left of shot.
[ATTACH]3601[/ATTACH]I wondr if the “junk” in here might not be the pine beams used to divide the side aisles from the nave? These were removed during the so called “restoration” when a new floor was laid buit they have never returned. Their disappearance was another one of the “knock on” effects of the Professor Cathal O’Neill’s lunacy for the interior of the building and was supposed to help create a square-looking “space” in the narrrow rectangular form of the building. Why has Cobh Urban District Council not insisted on their re-installation and on the re-installation of the brass light fittings that were attached to them?
-
December 2, 2006 at 6:33 pm #769012
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis photograph taken c. 1920 shows the rail dividing the nave from the side aisles and also shows the brass light fittings mounted on them. These survided into the late 1990s but disappeared when the floor was re-done and have not yet been returned. They were the first casulties in the preparations for the star ship enterprise being prepared quietly by Denny Reidy, the parish priest of Carrigtwohill and the principal beste-magline behind the attempt to wreck the interior of Cobh Cathedral.
-
December 2, 2006 at 8:00 pm #769013
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Could this be coming from a water ingress that is after hitting the bath-stone? In that case, it is not coming fro the ceiling but from the walls or from the vaults of the side-aisles arcades. If this is now drying out, what does it mean for the fabric that has been affected?
Would think you are right. Wind was blowing hard from South the day I was there. Cathedral is on an East/West line and it was right side of main aisle seating that bits of plaster etc. were ,so all adds up.
Don’t think it is the ceiling as location of dust/small cunks were directy on seating under the side-aisle arcades.
-
December 2, 2006 at 8:33 pm #769014
Gianlorenzo
Participant“At the AGM of the St. Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Project Steering Committee held on 24th October 2001, a decision was taken not to proceed with any further cleaning and restoration of the interior [of the Cathedral] until a budget cost for the re-ordering was available to it for the re-ordering and any other outstanding works” – Chairman’s Report for St. Colman’s Roman Catholic Trust Ltd. 31st December 2001
To the best of my knowledge this decision still stands and the results can be seen in St. Colman’s today. The exterior doors are in a disgraceful condition; mosaic tiles are lifting all over the nave; two marble pillers are missing from the Baptistry rails; and much more. It is now six months since An Bord Pleanala rejected the plans for the re-ordering and still nothing has happened. Will they wait another five years in case the Trustees manage to get another plan accepted before they will consider spending money on the upkeep and restoration of the Cathedral? Money that was donated in good faith by the people of Cobh and Cloyne Diocese for just that purpose.
-
December 2, 2006 at 8:55 pm #769015
Praxiteles
ParticipantAccording to the Trustees’ Act of 1896, Trustees have a fiduciary duty to maintain the property and goods they hold in trust in good order. Perhaps the bold bishop and Tom Cavanagh and Fr. Tim Fouhy do not realize that an action can be taken against them for failure to discharge their fiduciary duties? Perhaps someone should initiate proceedings to have the necessary maintenance work done to the Cathedral in Cobh. It is unbelievable that no money has been spent on general maintenance and repairs for the last five years – and the place is showing all the signs of it. I will post some photographs shortly!!
-
December 2, 2006 at 10:39 pm #769016
Rhabanus
Participant@Luzarches wrote:
I’d thought I’d bring to attention a book on British Catholic churches that was launched last night. My boss came in to the office today with a copy.
It’s not available yet on Amazon, is much longer than 96 pages, has great and rich illustrations, including of many chapels and churches I’d never knew existed, many that are well-known and a decent text containing a few barbs directed against some of the more egregious reorderings. It puts all the buildings into some sort of context. I wholeheartedly endorse it, for what it’s worth.
Thanks for the tip, Luzarches! I look forward to St Nicholas’ visit this year.
-
December 3, 2006 at 3:28 am #769017
Luzarches
ParticipantOn the subject of Christmas book recommendations, I also bring to general attention (again) this wonderful book on Sir Ninian Comper by the Jesuit Anthony Symondson.
Comper represents, for me, the consumation of the mastery of appropriating traditions and of making these his own, making an unmistakably individual language of Catholic architecture. (If that’s not a ham-fisted way of putting it.)
Buy it, buy copies for your friends!
-
December 3, 2006 at 5:31 am #769018
Anonymous
Inactive@Praxiteles wrote:
The text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to Bishop Ryan of Kildare and Leighlin (12 June 1996) was published in the Carlow Nationalist on 10 January 1997 – having been requisitioned by the High Court. The full text is available on the internet at]
Cardinal Ratzinger: the Church does not require dismantled high altars
Bernard CaesarContents – Oct 1998 –
Pope John Paul II: the impact of his twenty-year pontificate – Peter Westmore
Perth Archdiocese vocations: an ‘optimistic picture’ – Archbishop Barry J. Hickey
Cardinal Ratzinger: the Church does not require dismantled high altars – Bernard Caesar
Teresa-Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein): new Carmelite Saint – Tracey Rowland
An Irish ‘AD2000’ reader – Bernard Caesar, a member of the group, Friends of Carlow Cathedral – has forwarded the following account of how Cardinal Ratzinger became involved over the question of whether the Church required the Carlow Cathedral high altar to be dismantled in line with the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.
Many of the faithful of Carlow, here in Ireland, were horrified at the end of 1994 to learn that our Bishop, Msgr Laurence Ryan, was planning radical renovations to the interior of the Cathedral. The exquisitely beautiful high altar was to be removed, the Blessed Sacrament demoted to the side altar of Our Lady and the marble altar rails, the most magnificent in Ireland, removed.Bishop Ryan insisted that these changes were mandated by the teaching of Vatican II and the post-Vatican legislation, and that: “We are all part of a living, evolving Church and a living, evolving liturgy.” Six thousand members of the faithful in Carlow, an overwhelming majority, signed a petition protesting against the desecration of their Cathedral, built with the pennies of their poor ancestors in the days following Catholic emancipation.
Michael Davies, President of Una Voce International, was invited to Carlow to address a public meeting on the Bishop’s claim that the changes he proposed were mandatory. Msgr Ryan was invited to the meeting, but declined the offer. Mr Davies made it clear that there is no mandatory Church legislation requiring a single change in a single sanctuary anywhere in the world. A vote was taken on the Bishop’s proposals and the 400 plus faithful who packed the hall voted unanimously against the changes.
In a subsequent letter to a Carlow newspaper, Mr Davies mentioned that he had asked His Eminence, Cardinal Ratzinger, during a meeting in October 1995, whether the proposed changes in Carlow were mandatory, and the Cardinal confirmed that they were not. In his letter Mr Davies stated that: “Where a bishop orders such changes, he does so because he wishes to, and not because he has to.” Bishop Ryan, apparently doubtful of Mr Davies’ claim, wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger himself to see if this was the case.
When the Cardinal’s reply was received, the Bishop gave the impression that His Eminence had endorsed his plans, but despite repeated requests refused to make the letter public. Those opposed to the Cathedral renovations then asked the High Court to prevent implementation of the renovations. During the hearing the judge asked the Bishop to produce Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter. This was then published in full in The Nationalist of 10 January 1997. The letter of 12 June 1996, which fully vindicates Mr Davies’ interpretation of Church teaching, reads as follows:
“Thank you for your letter of April 18th in which you ask for a clarification of certain observations attributed to me by Mr Michael Davies in a letter recently published by a local newspaper in your diocese.
“The context of these comments was a discussion of the Church’s liturgical legislation in the period after the Second Vatican Council. I could not but acknowledge that in this legislation there exists no mandate, in the primary sense of the term as a command or order, to move the tabernacle from the high altar to another position in the church.
“With respect to the placement of the tabernacle, the instruction Inter oecumenici (26.9.1964) par 95, which implemented the decisions of Sacrosanctum concilium, states quite clearly that the Blessed Sacrament be reserved on the high altar, a possibility envisaged also by Eucharisticum mysterium (25.5.67) par 54.
“The fact that the postconciliar legislation of the Church does not impose architectural changes, while at the same time not excluding them, provides the diocesan bishop with the necessary latitude for making decisions in the light of the pastoral needs of his particular Church, taking into account also the situation in neighbouring dioceses.
“It is certainly true that a great number of churches since the Second Vatican Council have been re-arranged; such changes, while inspired by the liturgical reform, cannot however be said to have been required by the legislation of the Church.
“In conclusion, it is the right and duty of the local bishop to decide on these questions and, having done so, to help the faithful to come to an understanding of the reasons for his decision.
“Trusting that this explanation proves helpful to you in your particular circumstances and with an assurance of kind regards, I remain sincerely yours in Christ – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.”
Bishop Ryan has since relented in relation to the high altar, the tabernacle and the side altars. He has, however, removed the altar rails and made several other changes opposed by the vast majority of Carlow’s faithful. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Ireland to order the Bishop to reverse these changes and restore the sanctuary to its original state will be heard shortly.
Very illuminating indeed
-
December 3, 2006 at 7:26 pm #769019
samuel j
ParticipantGianlorenzo wrote:“At the AGM of the St. Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Project Steering Committee held on 24th October 2001, a decision was taken not to proceed with any further cleaning and restoration of the interior [of the Cathedral] until a budget cost for the re-ordering was available to it for the re-ordering and any other outstanding works” – Chairman’s Report for St. Colman’s Roman Catholic Trust Ltd. 31st December 2001To the best of my knowledge this decision still stands and the results can be seen in St. Colman’s today. The exterior doors are in a disgraceful condition]
This information that no funds were/are being used to maintain St.Colmans is scandalous……. How dare they seek monies from the people each week and leave this go on…. to my mind that borders on fraudIsn’t this collection of funds under false pretences……….
-
December 4, 2006 at 6:23 am #769020
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantThe weekly collection is for the upkeep of the Cathedral- lighting; heating; cleaning; etc. The Station collections are for the priests – ie thier wages.
Saying that if you look at the returns for the company St. Colman’s Catholic Trust Ltd. they show monies coming from the parish of Cobh even though the enevelope collection stopped a few years ago. I do not know where that contribution is coming from. Whatever its origin it is not being donated by the people of Cobh knowingly.
The scandal in this situation is that the people of Cobh have contributed over 1.3 million to the restoration project and still the Cathedral is in a disgraceful condition with no end in sight. -
December 4, 2006 at 12:54 pm #769021
Praxiteles
ParticipantHas nobody in Cobh Urban District Council noticed the presence of some seven to ten heavy-weigh benches that have been dumped into the Lady Chapel where they are calculated to break the ornamantal mosaic floor that was never intended to have anything placed on it? Neither was there anything on this floor until recently when the benches in the transcepts were re-arranged to face South and North rather than East and the several of them could not be “fitted” in. Hoow long will it take the Cork Heritage Officer or the over-active town clerk in Cobh to have the chapel cleared ? Or, must we wait for the fl
-
December 4, 2006 at 6:19 pm #769022
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust a couple of photographs to show what you can expect after the multi-million euro “restoration” of CObh Cathedral. These show two examples of the present state of the mosaic work at the main door and in front of the communion rail. What has Cobh Urban District Council done about this? Are we to take that Mr Deasey, Mr. Lynch and the hot footed Mrs. O’Halloran regard this as “normal” for a major national and international monument?
-
December 5, 2006 at 1:34 am #769023
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd this is the condition into which the Baptistry has been allowed deteriorate and decay while supposedly being a protected structure under the care of the Cobh Urban District Council and the Heritage Officer of Co. Cork.
-
December 5, 2006 at 6:24 pm #769024
ake
Participant1. Does anyone have pictures of St.Saviours, Dominic street (Dublin) before the re-ordering?
2.Does anyone have, or know of a complete or partial list of Irish churches re-ordered, not re-ordered or pending re-orderment?
If such a list does not exist, is there any way to incorporate one into this thread, to which everyone could contribute á la wiki?
-
December 5, 2006 at 6:53 pm #769025
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And this is the condition into which the Baptistry has been allowed deteriorate and decay while supposedly being a protected structure under the care of the Cobh Urban District Council and the Heritage Officer of Co. Cork.
Holy Horrors, Prax! Neglect of the baptistery has far exceeded the point of ‘reprehensible’ and is now passing ‘heinous.’ It seems that the bold bishop has overreached himself with highminded plans for ‘modernising’ when the place is clearly going to take a bundle of dollars and pounds (not to mention a dollop of common sense) to bring it up merely to ‘standard.’ I am aghast at the devastation wrought upon the marble revetment.
It is long past time for the faithful in Cobh to seek accountability. Must it always be recourse to the civil law that brings some prelates to their senses?
Even the most witless oaf can see how a beautifully restored St Colman’s would attract an increase in international interest and traffic. A sensible shepherd would restore it to pristine glory and welcome the countless pilgrims who would make St Colman’s the destination of their next peregrination.
By the way, the recently unveiled renovation of the ex-cathedral (now Basilica) of Baltimore, Maryland has awakened interest in visiting the equivalent of the primatial see of the United States.
The photos of poor St Colman’s Cobh betray disfunctionality at the highest levels. I’ve always known they were a few tiles short of a full mosaic, but this does illustrate it rather drastically.
How many further displays of his shortcomings will it take to get the chief pastor back in touch with his flock? Personally I should be ashamed to have mine flaunted in such a shriekworthy way.
As I have stated before on this thread, “The Emperoror is wearing no clothes!” Someone tell the poor soul he’s standing ‘buck naked’ before a leering multitude. Exit, stage left, bucko!
-
December 5, 2006 at 7:12 pm #769026
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
1. Does anyone have pictures of St.Saviours, Dominic street (Dublin) before the re-ordering?
2.Does anyone have, or know of a complete or partial list of Irish churches re-ordered, not re-ordered or pending re-orderment?
If such a list does not exist, is there any way to incorporate one into this thread, to which everyone could contribute á la wiki?
Yes, there is a whole set of interior pictures of St. Saviour’s, Dominic Street available earlier in this thread. I shall try to re-post some of them.
-
December 5, 2006 at 7:48 pm #769027
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Yes, there is a whole set of interior pictures of St. Saviour’s, Dominic Street available earlier in this thread. I shall try to re-post some of them.
Similarly, has anyone had any luck in finding some pictures of Monaghan Cathedral in its pristine state?
-
December 5, 2006 at 7:56 pm #769028
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Similarly, has anyone had any luck in finding some pictures of Monaghan Cathedral in its pristine state?
After a year of searching, the best efforts have failed – so far!
-
December 5, 2006 at 8:00 pm #769029
-
December 5, 2006 at 8:43 pm #769030
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede
Sic, Sam bene dixisti, sed mus non uni fidit antro !!
-
December 5, 2006 at 9:13 pm #769031
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
1. Does anyone have pictures of St.Saviours, Dominic street (Dublin) before the re-ordering?
Here we are Ake, some shots of St. Savour’s avant:
-
December 5, 2006 at 9:54 pm #769032
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here we are Ake, some shots of St. Savour’s avant:
Such a shame – it was magnificent…
-
December 5, 2006 at 11:24 pm #769033
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is a picture of the Lady Chapel in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork. Cleraly visible are the discarded benches which have been stored in the chapel and which are gradually causing the ornamental floor to disintegrate into shreds:
-
December 5, 2006 at 11:27 pm #769034
Praxiteles
ParticipantA further view of the mosaic in front of the altar rail in Cobh Cathedral. Note that since the benches in the transepts have been turned to face N and S -rather than their original E – they no longer fit and are now resting on the verge of the mosaic causing its complete dieintegration. Again, Cobh Urban District Council and the Heritage Officer of Cork County Council do not seem to be one bit bothered about this dilapidation. Please write your protests to Mrs Mary O’Halloran, Town Manager, Cobh, Co. Cork, Mr Pat Lynch, Town Clerk, Cobh, Co. Cork, Ms Louise Harrington, Heritage Officer, Cork County Hall, Cork, or to Mr. Denis Deasey, Architect, Town Hall, Cobh, Co. Cork. :
-
December 6, 2006 at 12:04 am #769035
Fearg
Participant[attach]3623[/attach]
There are lots of little details on the exterior of Cobh which were not completed – however, I’m suspicious about the empty plinth on the parapet of the North Transept, does anyone know if there was ever a statue on it? note that the corresponding plinth on the south side is occupied..
-
December 6, 2006 at 12:04 am #769036
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Such a shame – it was magnificent…
It certainly was magnificent! The destruction of that church alone will call down the upon the perpetrators sccourges of divine wrath, if it has not already done so.
Consider the words of Pope St Pius X in his Instruction on Sacred Music Tra le sollecitudini[the full text of which may be found on the Vatican website or at adoremus.org]. They apply equally to architecture as to music:
“Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God.”
In this motu proprio [a decree issued “on his own initiative”] promulgated on the feast of St Cecilia (22 Nov) 1903, the Holy Pontiff identified among the cares of his pastoral office “a leading one … without question that of maintaining and promoting the decorum of the House of God in which the august mysteries of religion are celebrated, and where the Christian people assemble to receive the grace of the Sacraments, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, to adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and to unite in the common prayer of the Church in the public and solemn liturgical offices.”
In preparing to address the liturgical abuses of his day, which pale considerably in comparison with the sacrilegious atrocities perpetrated by the ordained in our own dark age, the beloved Pope gave full credit to those who erected such beautiful structures as St Saviour’s, praising them for “the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendour and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers.” To quote a silly ditty from the 1960s, “Where have all the flowers gone?” Where indeed?
Note the God-loving zeal with which the sainted Pontiff so ardently burned:
“Filled as We are with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the faithful, We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensible font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly uppon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple.”How much more direct does a Supreme Pontiff have to get?
Must the good people of Cobh again rise up, ablaze with the ardour of renewed zeal, to dispel with the scourges of divine and human justice the profaners of that sumptuous temple?
Rorate caeli desuper et nubes pluant Justum!
-
December 6, 2006 at 12:09 am #769037
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
[attach]3623[/attach]
There are lots of little details on the exterior of Cobh which were not completed – however I’m suspicious about the emty plinth on the parapet of the North Transept, does anyone know if there was ever a statue on it? note that the corresponding plinth on the south side is occupied..
Perhaps His Boldness is planning to put his own likeness on that empty plinth on the north transept. The direction would be all too significant, wouldn’t it?
-
December 6, 2006 at 12:25 am #769038
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
A further view of the mosaic in front of the altar rail in Cobh Cathedral. Note that since the benches in the transepts have been turned to face N and S -rather than their original E – they no longer fit and are now resting on the verge of the mosaic causing its complete dieintegration. Again, Cobh Urban District Council and the Heritage Officer of Cork County Council do not seem to be one bit bothered about this dilapidation. Please write your protests to Mrs Mary O’Halloran, Town Manager, Cobh, Co. Cork, Mr Pat Lynch, Town Clerk, Cobh, Co. Cork, Ms Louise Harrington, Heritage Officer, Cork County Hall, Cork, or to Mr. Denis Deasey, Architect, Town Hall, Cobh, Co. Cork. :
Thanks for the photos, Prax. What incredible ineptitude turned the pews, and with such results!
I hope that the good people of Cobh get off their duffs and down to those offices fortified with their letters to the proper authorities.
Such delapidation is intolerable!
DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY OF YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!
STOP THE BARBARISM!!
-
December 6, 2006 at 1:21 am #769039
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
[attach]3623[/attach]
There are lots of little details on the exterior of Cobh which were not completed – however, I’m suspicious about the empty plinth on the parapet of the North Transept, does anyone know if there was ever a statue on it? note that the corresponding plinth on the south side is occupied..
In fact several of the plinths for the statues have never been filled. Most of the empty ones are on the North side; many but not all of the plinths on the South side have been filled; the original wooden Christ the King on the apex of the Chancel was blown down in a storm and replaced by a modern hollow bronze figure – of indifferent and somewhat eccentric design.
Two candidates have been waiting for over 10 years for addition to the heavenly host surrounding the Cathedral: Blessed Dominic Collins (1566-1602), a Jesuit lay-brother martyred in Youghal for the faith and beatified in 1992; and Br. Edmond Ignatius Rice (1762-1844), founder of the Presentation Order (which has had connections with the parish of Cobh since its inception) and of the Christian Brothers, beatified in 1996.
I am not certain whether a statue of Blessed Thadeus McCarthy /died in Ivrea in 1492) has been installed on the external parapet.
Other candiates awaiting installation (as they will hopefully be beatified in the near furture) are the Venerable Edel Quinn (1907-1944), a lay missionary with the Legion of Mary in East Africa who was born in the diocese of Cloyne and buried in Nairobi; the Servant of God Nano Nagle (1718-1784), foundress of the Presentation Sisters who was born in the diocese; the Servant of God Bishop Boethius MacEgan, martyred for the faith at Carrigadrohid in 1650 by Ireton.
Also awaiting beatification and installation on the parapet are: Edmond Tanner, SJ, Bishop of Cork and Cloyne martyred in Cork on 4 June 1579; and the Franciscan Daniel O’Neilan, hanged in Youghal in 1588.
-
December 6, 2006 at 1:56 am #769040
Praxiteles
ParticipantBy accident, I discovered the enclosed piece of creative writing – probably the most entertaining since Finnegan’s Wake – called The Heritage Plan for the County of Cork.
Looking at this piece of public nonsense, we can begin to understand why it is that St. Colman’s Cathedral has been -and is – in such mortal danger. Despite long lists of public pen pushers and political quandgo riders, I do not believe that any person on the committee responsible for this contribution to creative writing has ever heard of, let alone read, the works of A.N. Didron or Viollet-le-Duc. Just as the Duke of Cumberland said to Edward Gibbon about his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “…words, words, words, all words…Mr. Gibbon……”
-
December 6, 2006 at 2:07 am #769041
Fearg
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:In fact several of the plinths for the statues have never been filled. Most of the empty ones are on the North side]Prax, thanks for that! As usual, I should have done a little more research before posting – looks like both the north and south sides are mostly empty – strange how the least visible one of all is occupied – tucked away beside the tower…
[ATTACH]3627[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3628[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3629[/ATTACH]
-
December 6, 2006 at 2:25 am #769042
Praxiteles
ParticipantThat is the Saint Empress Helena commemorating the invention of the True Cross. Why she was place there has always excaped me!
-
December 6, 2006 at 2:31 am #769043
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
By accident, I discovered the enclosed piece of creative writing – probably the most entertaining since Finnegan’s Wake – called The Heritage Plan for the County of Cork.
And I guess there are dozens of expensive printed copies of these lying in boxes somewhere
Its backwards we’re going…..
By the way anyone know why the floodlights off all the time on St.Colmans… winter break….?Hada closer look at outr doors….they crying out for a sand and varnish…
-
December 6, 2006 at 2:43 am #769044
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
And I guess there are dozens of expensive printed copies of these lying in boxes somewhere
Its backwards we’re going…..
By the way anyone know why the floodlights off all the time on St.Colmans… winter break….?Hada closer look at outr doors….they crying out for a sand and varnish…
Could we see some photographs of the doors? Two years ago, they were in a deplorable state and I could not help noticing that there is a sort of cancerour rust under the black paint on the hinges and strap work of the doors. All signs of great disater….
As to glossies….I am sure that some county councillor has a crate or tow stacked away for distribution at the enxt election. Did you ever in all you life see such roll call of idiodcy?
-
December 6, 2006 at 2:58 am #769045
Fearg
ParticipantSome more shots of Cobh.. Baptistry seems to be one of the few areas which did not receive a stone vaulted ceiling..
[ATTACH]3630[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3631[/ATTACH]
Looking up in the mortuary:
[ATTACH]3632[/ATTACH] -
December 6, 2006 at 3:07 am #769046
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Could we see some photographs of the doors? Two years ago, they were in a deplorable state and I could not help noticing that there is a sort of cancerour rust under the black paint on the hinges and strap work of the doors. All signs of great disater….
As to glossies….I am sure that some county councillor has a crate or tow stacked away for distribution at the enxt election. Did you ever in all you life see such roll call of idiodcy?
will got some door shots, will revert.
as to roll call…….. daft……
-
December 6, 2006 at 3:10 am #769047
Praxiteles
ParticipantYes, it looks as though we have had a lot of water ingress and very little done to address the problem other than closing the door and wating for the ceilings to fall in!!
-
December 6, 2006 at 6:15 am #769048
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Yes, it looks as though we have had a lot of water ingress and very little done to address the problem other than closing the door and wating for the ceilings to fall in!!
“Come day … go day … God send Sunday!”
Trusteeship rather than trusteeism is the way to go, provided you have an astute team which comprises your board. Fiduciary responsibility ought to be taken much more seriously than the photos indicate has hitherto been the case.
Perhaps the board needs some fresh blood, or any blood for that matter. The cathedral is a disgrace and what are the trustees doing to execute their fiduciary obligations to the fabric? Precious little, according to the evidence.
Sounds like the whole diocese needs a thorough sweeping out. Amazing how it has gone this far on mere fumes (and plenty of hot air to boot!) A good shakedown, or shakeup, in Cloyne would do the place a world of good. A younger man with ideas more in keeping with the classic aspirations of the Catholic faithful and in harmony with the whole ‘hermenutic of continuity’ would inject much-needed vitality into the Church there. A really zealous pastor would rise to the occasion by founding some key institutes for catechetics and liturgical arts. It has been done before, and, given the right personnel, it can be done again!
Where there’s a will ….
-
December 6, 2006 at 3:29 pm #769049
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is a picture of the Mortuary door. Clearly, it has not been cleaned or varnished for almost a decade. The Varnish has already peeled away leaving the wood exposed to the elements. The hinges and strap work show the same signs of some form of cancerous oxidization under the last paint applied to them. Needless to say, none of the hot-fotted denizans of the Cobh Urban District Council ever noticed this problem:
-
December 6, 2006 at 4:47 pm #769050
samuel j
Participanthot-fotted denizans of the Cobh Urban District Council ever noticed this problem
Cum tacent, clamant
-
December 6, 2006 at 5:10 pm #769051
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And here is a picture of the Mortuary door. Clearly, it has not been cleaned or varnished for almost a decade. The Varnish has already peeled away leaving the wood exposed to the elements. The hinges and strap work show the same signs of some form of cancerous oxidization under the last paint applied to them. Needless to say, none of the hot-fotted denizans of the Cobh Urban District Council ever noticed this problem:
“Needless to say, none of the hot-footed denizens of the Cobh Urban District Council ever noticed this problem.” Is this lot receiving a stipend for being on the Cobh Urban District Council? If so, how much do they receive per annum? Or do they operate on the basis of the St Vincent-de-Paul Society – for charity only?
Note the bottom of the door of the Mortuary Chapel – the wood there is beginning to fall apart.
So, enlighten me: Is the CUDC an oligarchy of highminded citizens, a clique driven by self-interested agendas, a Kibuki theatre venting the long-suppressed aspirations of the newly unleashed Irish bourgeoisie/’Celtic Tigers’, a glorified Bridge and Kanasta club, a self-help society, a cabal of badinage and baksheesh? What? I am trying to get a handle on the precise nature of this body, the qualifications for membership, and its most recent accomplishments.
Someone, please enlighten my darkness. I merely want to know.
-
December 6, 2006 at 7:10 pm #769052
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe posting # 1836:
That is Cobh Urban District Council for you: tam facti quam animi…tam interna quam externa…tam Marte quam Minerva…aut quam Mercurio…..tanquam in speculo!!
-
December 6, 2006 at 9:26 pm #769053
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting # 1836:
That is Cobh Urban District Council for you: tam facti quam animi…tam interna quam externa…tam Marte quam Minerva…aut quam Mercurio…..tanquam in speculo!!
damnant quodnon intelligunt
-
December 7, 2006 at 12:30 am #769054
descamps
ParticipantBishop Magee will be in a stronger position to encourage Greencore to honour its committments to its workforce at Mallow factory when he honours his very own committements and solemn promises to the people of Cobh concerning St. Colman’s Cathedral – otherwise, he runs the risk of sounding HOLLOW and it certainly is a bit rye for one of the most pig headed men in the country to call Greencore “intransigent”:
“Bishop intervenes on behalf of redundant sugar workers
Wednesday, December 6thThe Bishop of Cloyne, Dr John Magee, has called on Greencore to pay redundancy to its former workers according to the agreement it entered into in 2004.
In a statement issued from the Cloyne Diocesan Office yesterday, Bishop Magee said that he had recently met with a delegation of former workers from the Irish Sugar factory in Mallow, and had fully understood the facts of the case.
“I strongly endorse the Taoiseach’s statement in the D
-
December 7, 2006 at 12:43 am #769055
Praxiteles
Participantdescamps wrote:Bishop Magee will be in a stronger position to encourage Greencore to honour its committments to its workforce at Mallow factory when he honours his very own committements and solemn promises to the people of Cobh concerning St. Colman’s Cathedral – otherwise, he runs the risk of sounding HOLLOW and it certainly is a bit rye for one of the most pig headed men in the country to call Greencore “intransigent”:“Bishop intervenes on behalf of redundant sugar workers
Wednesday, December 6thThe Bishop of Cloyne, Dr John Magee, has called on Greencore to pay redundancy to its former workers according to the agreement it entered into in 2004.
In a statement issued from the Cloyne Diocesan Office yesterday, Bishop Magee said that he had recently met with a delegation of former workers from the Irish Sugar factory in Mallow, and had fully understood the facts of the case.
“]
I sometimes wonder about the moral justification of the bishop’s irreconcilable statements about plans for the interior of Cobh Cathedral which were documented at the Midleton oral hearing? Anyone attempting to occupy the high moral ground must be squeeky clean or else he runs the risk of being boomeranged by his own mouth!! Come to think of it, the bold bishop was not very interested in any form of “just and acceptable” conclusion to the Cobh Cathedral business as far as the FOSCC was concerned.
-
December 7, 2006 at 6:46 pm #769056
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I sometimes wonder about the moral justification of the bishop’s irreconcilable statements about plans for the interior of Cobh Cathedral which were documented at the Midleton oral hearing? Anyone attempting to occupy the high moral ground must be squeeky clean or else he runs the risk of being boomeranged by his own mouth!! Come to think of it, the bold bishop was not very interested in any form of “just and acceptable” conclusion to the Cobh Cathedral business as far as the FOSCC was concerned.
Come, now, Prax. The old routine is summed up pithily in the phrase, “The law is interpreted for our friends and applied to our enemies.” The bb likely knows this quite well and seems to have been playing the game for years, with varying degrees of success.
The plight of the families affected clearly must be redressed and full moral pressure brought to bear to convince the company to render them a proper settlement. Nevertheless, one may well question the choice of arbiters in this case. It would seem reasonable to tend someone else’s backyard only after you’ve put your own in order. And baptisteries, furthermore, seem to be rather a bishop’s front than his back yard.
-
December 7, 2006 at 7:46 pm #769057
samuel j
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
The plight of the families affected clearly must be redressed and full moral pressure brought to bear to convince the company to render them a proper settlement. Nevertheless, one may well question the choice of arbiters in this case..
Fully agree pressure should be brought to bear on Greencore but willingness of Magoo to get involved
could well be used down the line as an excuse for a man so busy with the plight of his parishioners , he had little time left for trivial matters like the organising of sanding and varnishing of the cathedral doors.Does create a convenient diversion for his talents……. meanwhile it is still not answered how he intends
to pay for the 200k or so wasted on his church plans….Meanwhile no money is spent on maintenance…..as presumably no money left….
-
December 7, 2006 at 7:57 pm #769058
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Come, now, Prax.
The plight of the families affected clearly must be redressed and full moral pressure brought to bear to convince the company to render them a proper settlement. Nevertheless, one may well question the choice of arbiters in this case. It would seem reasonable to tend someone else’s backyard only after you’ve put your own in order. And baptisteries, furthermore, seem to be rather a bishop’s front than his back yard.I am in perfect agreement that these people must have a just and proper settlement. All I was pointing out was that they were unlikely to advance that objective by having the bold bishop plead their cause.
-
December 7, 2006 at 8:01 pm #769059
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Fully agree pressure should be brought to bear on Greencore but willingness of Magoo to get involved
could well be used down the line as an excuse for a man so busy with the plight of his parishioners , he had little time left for trivial matters like the organising of sanding and varnishing of the cathedral doors.Does create a convenient diversion for his talents……. meanwhile it is still not answered how he intends
to pay for the 200k or so wasted on his church plans….Meanwhile no money is spent on maintenance…..as presumably no money left….
“…he had little time left for trivial matters like the organising of sanding and varnishing of the cathedral doors.”
That is why rectors are appointed, at least in North America. I thought that in Europe the chapter of canons often attends to the fabric. Is there no chapter in Cloyne? Should the chapter not be involved in identifying competent architects, engineers and artisans who can maintain the fabric of the cathedral whilst the bishop immerses himself in feeding his flock on the meat of sound doctrine supplemented by the pastoral milk of human kindess?
Who has been looking after the loaves and fishes in Cloyne? The precedent tends in the direction of multiplying rather than dividing these.
Is the bishop not covering his own assets?
-
December 7, 2006 at 8:10 pm #769060
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
“…he had little time left for trivial matters like the organising of sanding and varnishing of the cathedral doors.”
That is why rectors are appointed, at least in North America. I thought that in Europe the chapter of canons often attends to the fabric. Is there no chapter in Cloyne? Should the chapter not be involved in identifying competent architects, engineers and artisans who can maintain the fabric of the cathedral whilst the bishop immerses himself in feeding his flock on the meat of sound doctrine supplemented by the pastoral milk of human kindess?
Who has been looking after the loaves and fishes in Cloyne? The precedent tends in the direction of multiplying rather than dividing these.
Is the bishop not covering his own assets?
The present administrator in Cobh has done nothing about the fabric of the Cathedral. The last one was had some very strange ideas: such as nailing a brass bar to the sedilia and substituting for it a William IV dining chair of indifferent design -thinking, like Pucini’s little list, that it would not be missed. The one before that, Denis Reidy (current PP of Carrigtwohill) did maintian the fabric but was the main driving force behind the proposed wreckage of the interior. The last administrator to carry out the job properly was the one before him. Effectively, nothing has been done to maintain the fabric since the early 1990s.
As for the bold bishop covering assets……suffice it monosyllabically to pose the question!
-
December 7, 2006 at 8:43 pm #769061
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am in perfect agreement that these people must have a just and proper settlement. All I was pointing out was that they were unlikely to advance that objective by having the bold bishop plead their cause.
And thats the reality of it, his intervention if anything will antagonise many in business…… there was time in Ireland when interventioin of a Bishop would have been feared by many but those days are long gone and he will only open himself up to ridicule…..
Get your own house in order before you dare comment on others…. I have heard mentioned already…..
Be it on his own head……
-
December 7, 2006 at 8:55 pm #769062
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere are some more examples of the deplorable state of the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork.
The first picture shows part of the ornamental mosaic floor in the Lady Chapel on top of which several benches have been dumped since the Easterly orientation of the benches in the transepts was changed. Another example fo a knock on effect.
The second picture shows the ornamental mosaci floor of the corresponding chapel of the Sacred Heart which is also used as a dumping ground for bencehes, clutter and general rubbish.
-
December 7, 2006 at 9:02 pm #769063
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here are some more examples of the deplorable state of the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork.
The first picture shows part of the ornamental mosaic floor in the Lady Chapel on top of which several benches have been dumped since the Easterly orientation of the benches in the transepts was changed. Another example fo a knock on effect.
The second picture shows the ornamental mosaci floor of the corresponding chapel of the Sacred Heart which is also used as a dumping ground for bencehes, clutter and general rubbish.
You’d think they could at least put that stuff out of sight up in the triforum or other non public areas.. if they got the dividers up there, I’m sure they could do same with benches. i suppose they should really just reinstate them where intended!
-
December 7, 2006 at 9:10 pm #769064
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
You’d think they could at least put that stuff out of sight up in the triforum or other non public areas.. if they got the dividers up there, I’m sure they could do same with benches. i suppose they should really just reinstate them where intended!
The solution for the benches is quite simple: put them the way they were intended to be and in the places for which they were custom made!
-
December 7, 2006 at 10:39 pm #769065
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I am in perfect agreement that these people must have a just and proper settlement. All I was pointing out was that they were unlikely to advance that objective by having the bold bishop plead their cause.
Precisely my point! If you reread my statement in toto, there can be no doubt that we are in perfect agreement.
Who can take seriously a public figure who meddles in the affairs of others whilst leaving himself wide open to such obvious criticism?
My remark was not even remotely intended to criticise any recent contributor(s) to this thread. It was meant, on the other hand, to point out the sheer incongruity of appointing a known figure to play a role in adjudicating justice when his own responsibilities are lying in shambles.
And it doesn’t take much creativity or originality to rearrange furniture and toss out the trash and trumpery.
Has anyone considered freezing his assets and cutting off his fringe benefits??
-
December 7, 2006 at 10:44 pm #769066
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Has anyone considered freezing his assets and cutting off his fringe benefits??
No. I would prefer to freeze his phylacteries !
-
December 7, 2006 at 10:48 pm #769067
ake
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here we are Ake, some shots of St. Savour’s avant:
!!!!!!!!!!!
Sacred Jesus!!!!!!! How could that be?!!! Makes me sick.sick sick sick. That must have been the finest church in Dublin. If only somebody could be punished. -
December 7, 2006 at 10:51 pm #769068
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
!!!!!!!!!!!
Sacred Jesus!!!!!!! How could that be?!!! Makes me sick.sick sick sick. That must have been the finest church in Dublin. If only somebody could be punished.The person to punish for the destruction of St. Saviour’s in Dominc Street, Dublin is the great guru Austin Flannery, OP.
-
December 7, 2006 at 10:59 pm #769069
samuel j
Participant[
-
December 7, 2006 at 11:00 pm #769071
samuel j
Participantb
-
December 7, 2006 at 11:00 pm #769070
samuel j
Participant@ake wrote:
!!!!!!!!!!!
Sacred Jesus!!!!!!! How could that be?!!! Makes me sick.sick sick sick. That must have been the finest church in Dublin. If only somebody could be punished.Now i hope thread readers can understand why so many (practising Catholics, non practising, non Catholics, all walks of like)are not willing to go along with Bishop Magoo and Denis the Menace in their madcap plans for St. Colmans
-
December 7, 2006 at 11:49 pm #769072
Rhabanus
Participant@ake wrote:
!!!!!!!!!!!
Sacred Jesus!!!!!!! How could that be?!!! Makes me sick.sick sick sick. That must have been the finest church in Dublin. If only somebody could be punished.Ake, this was roughly my reaction to the debacle, as indicated much earlier on this thread. It took me a full week to recover from that revelation of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos of St Saviour’s Dominic Street. What a heart-breaker.
As for punishment, Prax informs us that this was the handiwork of Austin Flannery, O.P. (in)famous for his alleged translation of the Vatican II Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents. He flourished like the grass of the field in his day, as this type generally does.
But there is eternity to consider. St Alphonsus Liguori teaches that God in His mercy often gives the wicked a long and prosperous life in this world, because, knowing they will spend eternity away from His presence and suffering the everlasting torments of Hell, He postpones their misery and accords them much consolation in this life.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to resist your initial instinct to bring the knave to more immediate justice in this life as well.
As you can see from the results of St Saviour’s wreckovation, St Peter’s Belfast, the Catholic Cathedral of Armagh and other photos featured earlier on this thread, not to mention the current stirrings in Cobh, there is such a thing as UTTER SHAMELESSNESS. You have witnessed it.
Now you understand why the folks in Cobh prefer to apply PREVENTIVE medicine, providing of course that the cathedral there doesn’t collapse from the sheer insouciance of its administrators.
-
December 7, 2006 at 11:56 pm #769073
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
No. I would prefer to freeze his phylacteries !
ROAST his phylacteries, along with his other perishables. Then display his shortcomings on the facade of his palace!
-
December 8, 2006 at 12:10 am #769074
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis is what has happened to the sedilia in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The sedilia is used for the priest clebrant of the Mass. It is situated in the Southn screen of the sanctuary, opposite the throne, and is raised on two steps. The sedilia is flanked by two other seats, one for the deacon, the other for the subdeacon. The arrangement is according to the Roman Rite: i.e. the priest sits in the middle with the deacon on his right and the sub-daecon on his left. The places are clearly marked by the carved panels on the screen above them.
The sedilia is in the form of a classical fald-stool which was taken by the Roman Pro-Consuls on their missions outside of Rome and indicated thier jurisdiction and authority when they sat in judgement.
The last administrator of the Cathedral, Fr. Gerry Casey, present PP of Doneraile, hit on the bright idea of taking the sedilia from the screen, nailing a brass band on to the back of it and using it as a seat for the someone presiding at Mass. The gap left in the original position of the Sedilia was filled by a WIlliam IV dining chair brought from the sacristy and re-upholstered to give the impression taht it had always been where it now is: the punters won’t notice sort of attitude.
How this vandalism goes on without the intervention of the Trustees of the Cathedral or that of the Cobh Urban District COuncil is just stunning!
-
December 8, 2006 at 12:12 am #769075
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe previous posting: note all the junk wiring strewn all over the place and the chairs are not even properly arranged on the platform of the sedilia!
-
December 8, 2006 at 12:28 am #769076
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Re previous posting: note all the junk wiring strewn all over the place and the chairs are not even properly arranged on the platform of the sedilia!
It makes even shantytown look upscale. Though I imagine that his living quarters are ‘state of the art.’ Everything just so.
-
December 8, 2006 at 12:39 am #769077
Praxiteles
ParticipantA few imags of Bartolomé Esteban de Murillo’s development of the form of the Purissima:
1. The Purissima of 1670
2. The urissima of 1665
3. The Purissima of 1678
4. His final version, that of the Venerables Sacerdotes
-
December 8, 2006 at 1:06 am #769078
Praxiteles
ParticipantFor the benefit of our increasing number of Latinists, I thought the following might be of interest:
INEFFABILIS DEUS, cuius viae miscricordia et veritas, cuius voluntas omnipotentia, et cuius sapientia attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter, cum ab omni aeternitate praeviderit luctuosissimam totius humani generis ruinam ex Adami transgressione derivandam, atque in mysterio a saeculis abscondito primum suae bonitatis opus decreverit per Verbi incarnationem sacramento occultiore complere, ut contra misericors suum propositum homo diabolicae iniquitatis versutia actus in culpam non periret, et quod in primo Adamo casurum erat, in secundo felicius erigeretur, ab initio et ante saecula Unigenito Filio suo Matrem, ex qua caro factus in beata temporum plenitudine nasceretur, elegit atque ordinavit, tantoque prae creaturis universis est prosecutus amore, ut in illa una sibi propensissima voluntate complacuerit. Quapropter illam longe ante omnes angelicos spiritus cunctosque Sanctos caelestium omnium charismatum copia de thesauro divinitatis deprompta ita mirifice cumulavit, ut ipsa ab omni prorsus peccatilabe semper libera, ac tota pulchra et perfecta eam innocentiae et sanctitatis plenitudinem prae se ferret, qua maior sub Deo nullatenus intellegitur, et quam praeter Deum nemo assequi cogitando potest.
Et quidem decebat omnino, ut perfectissimae sanctitatis splendoribus semper ornata fulgeret, ac vel ab ipsa originalis culpae labe plane immunis amplissimum de antiquo serpente triumphum referret tam venerabilis Mater, cui Deus Pater unicum Filium suum, quem de corde suo aequalem sibi genitum tamquam seipsum diligit, ita dare disposuit, ut naturaliter esset unus idemque communis Dei Patris et Virginis Filius, et quam ipse Filius substantialiter facere sibi matrem elegit, et de qua Spiritus Sanctus voluit et operatus est, ut conciperetur et nasceretur ille, de quo ipse procedit.
Quam originalem augustae Virginis innocentiam cum admirabili eiusdem sanctitate, praecelsaque Dei Matris dignitate omnino cohaerentem catholica Ecclesia, quae Sancto semper edocta Spiritu columna est ac firmamentum veritatis, tamquam doctrinam possidens divinitus acceptam, et caelestis revelationis deposito comprehensam multiplici continenter ratione, splendidisque factis magis in dies explicare, proponere ac fovere numquam destitit. Hanc enim doctrinam ab antiquissimis temporibus vigentem, ac fidelium animis penitus insitam, et sacrorum antistitum curis studiisque per catholicum orbem mirifice propagatam ipsa Ecclesia luculentissime significavit, cum eiusdem Virginis Conceptionem publico fidelium cultui ac venerationi proponere non dubitavit. Quo illustri quidem facto ipsius Virginis Conceptionem veluti singularem, miram et a reliquorum hominum primordiis longissime secretam, et omnino sanctam colendam extibuit, cum Ecclesia nonnisi de Sanctis dies festos concelebret. Atque idcirco vel ipsissima verba, quibus divinae Scripturae de increata Sapientia loquuntur, eiusque sempiternas origines repraesentant, consuevit, tum in ecclesiasticis officiis, tum in sacrosancta Liturgia adhibere et ad illius Virginis primordia transferre, qnae uno eodemque decreto cum divinae Sapientiae incarnatione fuerant praestituta.
Quamvis autem haec omnia penes fideles ubique prope recepta ostendant,. quo studio eiusmodi de Immaculata Virginis Conceptione doctrinam ipsa quoque romana Ecclesia omnium Ecclesiarum mater et magistra fuerit prosecuta, tamen illustria huius Ecclesiae facta digna plane sunt, quae nominatim recenseantur, cum tanta sit eiusdem Ecclesiae dignitas atque auctoritas, quanta illi omnino debetur, quae est catholicae veritatis et unitatis centrum, in qua solum inviolabiliter fuit custodita religio, et ex qua traducem fidei reliquae omnes Ecclesiae mutuentur oportet. Itaque eadem romana Ecclesia nihil potius habuit, quam eloquentissimis quibusque modis Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem, eiusque cultum et doctrinam asserere, tueri, promovere et vindicare.
Quod apertissime planissimeque testantur et declarant tot insignia sane acta Romanorum Pontificum Decessorum Nostrorum, quibus in persona Apostolorum Principis ab ipso Christo Domino divinitus fuit commissa suprema cura atque potestas pascendi agnos et oves, confirmandi fratres, et universam regendi et gubernandi Ecclesiam.
Enimvero Praedeccssores Nostri vehementer gloriati sunt Apostolica sua auctoritate festum Conceptionis in romana Ecclesia instituere, ac proprio Officio, propriaque Missa, quibus praerogativa immunitatis ab hereditaria labe manifestissime asserebatur, augere, honestare et cultum iam institutum omni ope promovere, amplificare, sive crogatis Indulgentiis, sive facultate tributa civitatibus, provinciis, regnisque, ut Deiparam sub tilulo Immaculatae Conceptionis patronam sibi deligerent, sive comprobatis Sodalitatibus, Congregationibus Religiosisqiue Familiis ad Immaculatae Conceplionis honorem institutis, sive laudibus corum pietati delatis, qui monasteria, xenodochia, altaria, templa sub Immaculati Conceptus titulo erexerint, aut sacramenti religione interposita Immaculatam Deiparae Conceptionem strenue propugnare spoponderint. Insuper summopere laetati sunt decernere Conceptionis festum ab omni Ecclesia esse habendum eodem censu ac numero, quo festum Nativitalis, idemque Conceptionis festum cum octava ab universa Ecclesia celebraudum et ab omnibus inter ca, quae praeccpta sunt, sancte colendum, ac Pontificiam Cappellam in Patriarchali Nostra Liberiana Basilica die Virginis Conceptionis sacro quotannis esse peragendam. Atque exoptantes in fidelium animis quotidie magis fovere hanc de Immaculata Deiparae Conceptione doctrinam, eorumque pietatem excitare ad ipsam Virginetn sine labe originali conceptam colendam et venerandam, gavisi sunt quam libentissime facultatem tribuere, ut in Lauretanis Litaniis, et in ipsa Missae Praefatione Immaculatus eiusdem Virginis proclamaretur Conceptus, atque adeo lex credendi ipsa supplicandi lege statueretur. Nos porro tantorum Praedecessorum vestigiis inhaerentes non solum quae ab ipsis pientissime sapientissimeque fuerant constituta probavimus et recepimus, verum etiam memores institutionis Sixti IV proprium de lmmaculata Conceptione Officium auctoritate Nostra munivimus, illiusque usum universae Ecclesiae laetissimo prorsus animo concessimus.
Quoniam vero quae ad cultum pertinent, intimo plane vinculo cum eiusdem obiecto conserta sunt, neque rata et fixa manere possunt, si illud anceps sit et in ambiquo versetur, idcirco Decessores Nostri Romani Pontifices omni cura Conceptionis cultum amplificantes, illius etiam obiectum. ac doctrinam declarare et inculcare impensissime sludueruiit. Etenim clare aperteque docuere, festum agi de Virginis Conceptione, atque uti falsam et ab Ecclesiae mente alienissimam iproscripserunt illorum opinionem qui non Conceptionem ipsam, sed sanctificationem ab Ecclesia coli arbitrarentur et affirmarent. Neque mitius cum iis agendum esse existimarunt, qui ad labefactandam de Immaculata Virginis Conceptione doctrinam excogitato inter primum atque alterum Conceptionis instans et momentum discrimine, asserebant, celebrari quidem Conceptionem, sed non pro primo instanti atque momento. Ipsi namque Praedecessores Nostri suarum partium esse duxerunt, et beatissimae Virginis Conceptionis festum, et Conceptionem pro primo instanti tamquam verum cultus obiectum omni studio tueri ac propugnare. Hinc decretoria plane verba, quibus Alexander VII Decessor Noster sinceram Ecclesiae mentem declaravit, inquiens: Sane vetus est christifidelium erga eius beatissimam Matrem Virginem Mariam pietas sentientium eius animam in primo instanti creationis atque infusions in corpus fuisse speciali Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Iesu Christi eius Filii humani generis Redemptoris, a macula peccati originalis praeservatam immunem, atque in hoc sensu eins Conceptionis festivitatem sollemni ritu colentium et celebrantium.
Atque illud in primis sollemne quoque fuit iisdem Decessoribus Nostris, doctrinam de Immaculata Dei Matris Conceptione sartam tectamque omni cura, studio et contentione tueri. Etenim non solum nullatenus passi sunt, ipsam doctrinam quovis modo a quopiam notari atque traduci, verum etiam longe ulterius progressi, perspicuis declarationibus iteratisque vicibus edixerunt, doctrinam, qua Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem profitemur, esse suoque merito haberi cum ecclesiastico cultu plane consonam, eamque veterem ac prope universalem, et eiusmodi, quam romana Ecclesia sibi fovendam tuendamque susceperit, atque omnino dignam, quae in sacra ipsa Liturgia sollemnibusque precibus usurparetur.
Neque his contenti, ut ipsa de Immaculato Virginis Conceptu doctrina inviolata persisteret, opinionem huic doctrinae adversam, sive publice, sive privatim defendi posse severissime prohibuere, eamque multiplici veluti vulnere confectam esse voluerunt.
Quibus repetitis luculentissimisque declarationibus, ne inanes viderentur, adiecere sanctionem: quae omnia laudatus Praedecessor Noster Alexander VII his verbis est complexus: “Nos considerantes, quod sancta romana Ecclesia de Intemeratae semper Virginis Mariae Conceptione festum sollemniter celebrat, et speciale ac proprium super hoc Officium olim ordinavit iuxto piam, devotiam et landabilem institutionem, quae a Sixto IV Prae decessore Nostro tunc emanavit; volentesque laudabili huic pietati et devotioni, et festo, ac cultui secundum illam exhibito, in Ecclesia romana post ipsius cultus institutionem numquam immutato, Romanorum Pontificum Praedecessorum Nostrorum exemplo, favere, nec non tueri pietatem, et devotionem hanc colendi et celebrandi beatissimam Virginem praeveniente scilicet Spiritus Sancti gratia, a peccato originali praeservatam; cupientesque in Christi grege unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis, sedatis offensionibus et iurgiis amotisque scandalis conservare: ad praefatorum episcoporum cum ecclesiarum suarum Capitulis ac Philippi regis, eiusque regnorun oblatam Nobis instantiam, ac preces; Constitutiones et Decreta, a Romanis Ponti ficibus Praedecessoribus Nostris, et praecipue a Sixto IV, Paullo V et Gregorio XV edita in favorem sententiae asserentis, animam beatae Mariae Virginis in sui creatione, et in corptu infusione, Spiritus Sancti gratia donatam, et a peccato originali praeservatam fuisse, nec non et in favorem festi et cultus Conceptionis eiusdem Virginis Deiparae, secundum piam istam sententiam, ut praefertur, exhibiti, innovamus, et sub censuris, et poenis in eisdem Constitutionibus contentis observari mandamus. Et insuper omnes et singulos, qui praefatas Constitutiones, seu Decreta ita pergent interpretari, ut favorem per illas dictae sententiae, et festo seu cultui secundum illam exhibito, frustrentur vel qui hanc eandem sententiam, festum seu cultum in disputationem revocare, aut contra ea quoquo modo directe vel indirecte aut quovis praetextu, etiam definibilitatis eius examinandae sive sacram Scripturam, aut sanctos Patres, sive Doctores glossandi vel interpretandi, denique alio quovis praetextu seu occasione, scripto sen voce loqui, concinari, tractare, disputare, contra ea quidquam determinando aut asserendo, vel argumenta contra ea afferendo, et insoluta relinquendo, aut alio quoovis inexcogitabili modo disserendo ausi fuerint; praeter poenas et censuras in Constitutionibus Sixti IV contentas, quibus illos subiacere volumus, et per praesentes subicimus, etiam concionandi, publice legendi, seu docendi, et interpretandi facultate, ac voce activa et passiva in quibuscumque electionibus, eo ipso absque alia declaratione privatos esse volumus; nec non ad concionandum, publice legendum, doceandum, et interpretandum perpetuae inhabilitatis poenas ipso facto incurrere absque alia declaratione; a quibus poenis nonnisi o Nobis ipsis, vel a Successoribus Nostris Romanis Pontificibus absolvi, auit super iis dispensari possint; nec non eosdem aliis poenis. Nostro, et eorumdem Romanorum Pontificum Successorum Nostrorum arbitrio infligendis, pariter subiacere volumus, prout subicimus per praesentes, innovantes Pauli V et Gregorii XV superius memoratas Constitutiones sive Decreta.
Ac libros, in quibus praefata sententia, festum, seu cultus secundum illam in dubium revocatur, aut contra ea quomodocumque, ut supra, aliquid scribitur aut legitur, seu locutiones, conciones, tractatus, et disputationes contra eadem continentur; post Pauli V supra laudatum Decretum edita, aut in posterum quomodolibet edenda, prohibemus sub poenis et censuris in Indice librorum prohibitorum contentis, et ipso facto absque alia declaratione pro expresse prohibitis haberi volumus et mandamus.
Omnes autem norunt quanto studio haec de Immaculata Deiparae Virginis Conceptione doctrina a spectatissimis Religiosis Familiis et celebrioribus theologicis academiis, ac praestantissimis divinarum rerum scientia Doctoribus fuerit tradita, asserta ac propugnata. Omnes pariter norunt quantopere solliciti fuerint sacrorum antistites vel in ipsis ecclesiasticis conventibus palam publiceque profiteri, sanctissimam Dei Genetricem Virginem Mariam, ob praevisa Christi Domini Redemptoris merita numquam originali subiacuisse peccato, sed praeservatam omnino fuissc ab originis labe et idcirco sublimiori modo redemptam.
Quibus illud profecto gravissimum et omnino maximum accedit ipsam quoque Tridentinam Synodum cum dogmaticum de peccato originali ederet decretum, quo iuxta sacrarum Scripturum sanctorumque Patrum ac probatissimorum Conciliorum testimonia statuit ac definivit, homines nasci originali culpa infectos, tamen sollemniter declarasse, non esse suae intentionis in decreto ipso, tantaque definitionis amplitudine comprehendere beatam et Immaculatam Virginem Dei Genetricem Mariam. Hac enim declaratione Tridentini Patres, ipsam beatissimam Virginem ab originali labe solutam, pro rerum temporumque adiunctis, satis innuerunt, atque adeo perspicue significarunt, nihil ex divinis litteris, nihil ex traditione, Patrumque auctoritate rite afferri posse, quod tantae Virginis praerogativae quovis modo refragetur.
Et re quidem vera hanc de Immaculata beatissimae Virginis Conceptione doctrinam quotidie magis gravissimo Ecclesiae sensu, magisterio, studio, scientia ac sapientia tam splendide explicatam, declaratam, confirmatam, et apud omnes catholici orbis populos ac nationes mirandum in modum propagatam, in ipsa Ecclesia semper exstitisse veluti a maioribus acceptam, ac revelatae doctrinae charactere insignitam illustria venerandae antiquitatis Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis monumenta validissime testantur.
Christi enim Ecclesia, sedula depositorum apud se dogmatum custos et vindex nihil in his umquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit, sed omni industria vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando si qua antiquitus informata sunt, et Patrum fides sevit, ita limare, expolire, student, ut prisca illa caelestis doctrinae dogmata accipiant evidentiam, lucem, distinctionem, sed retineant plenitudinem, integritatem, proprietatem, ac in suo tantum genere crescant, in codem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia.
Equidem Patres Ecclesiaeque scriptores, caelestibus edocti eloquiis, nihil antiquius habuere, quam in libris ad explicandas Scripturas, vindicanda dogmata, erudiendosque fideles elucubratis summam Virginis sanctitatem, dignitatem, atque ab omni peccati labe integritatem, eiusque praeclaram de teterrimo humani generis hoste victoriam multis mirisque modis certatim praedicare atque efferre. Quapropter enarrantes verba, quibus Deus praeparata renovandis mortalibus suae pietatis remedia inter ipsa mundi primordia praenuntians, et deceptoris serpentis retudit audaciam, et nostri generis spem mirifice erexit, inquiens: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius, docuere, divino hoc oraculo clare aperteque praemonstratum fuisse misericordem humani generis Redemptorem, scilicet Unigenitum Dei Filium Christum Iesum, ac designatam beatissimam eius Matrem Virginem Mariam, ac simul ipsissimas utriusque contra diabolum inimicitias insigniter expressas. Quocirca sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decreti, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic sanctissima Virgo, artissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum eo coniuncta, una cum illo et per illum sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illius caput immaculato pede contrivit.
Hunc eximium singularemque Virginis triumphum, excellentissimamque innocentiam, puritatem, sanctitatem, eiusque ab omni peccati labe integritatem, atque ineffabilem caelestium omnium gratiarum, virtutum, ac privilegiorum copiam, et magnitudinem iidem Patres viderunt tum in arca illa Noe, quae divinitus constituta a communi totius mundi naufragio plane salva et incolumis evasit; tum in scala illa, quam de terra ad caelum usque pertingere vidit Iacob, cuius gradibus Angeli Dei ascendebant et descendebant, cuiusque vertici ipse initebatur Dominus, tum in rubo illo, quem in loco sancto Moyses undique ardere ac inter crepitantes ignis flammas non iam comburi aut iacturam vel minimam pati, sed pulchre virescere ac florescere conspexit; tum in illa inexpugnabili turre a facie inimici, ex qua mille clypei pendent, omnisque armatura fortium; tum in horto concluso, qui nescit violari neque corrumpi ullis insidiarum fraudibus; tum in corusca illa Dei civitate, cuius fundamenta in montibus sanctis; tum in augustissimo illo Dei templo, quod divinis refulgens splendoribus plenum est gloria Domini; tum in aliis eiusdem generis omnino plurimis, quibus excelsa in Deiparae dignitatem, eiusque illibatam innocentiam, et nulli umquam naevo obnoxiam sanctitatem insigniter praenunciatam fuisse Patres tradiderunt.
Ad hanc candem divinorum munerum veluti summam, originalemque Virginis, de qua natus est Iesus, integritatem describendam iidem Prophetarum adhibentes eloquia non aliter ipsam augustam Virginem concelebrarunt ac uti columbam mundam, et sanctam Ierusalem, et excelsum Dei thronum, et arcam sanctificationis et domum, quam sibi aeterna aedificavit Sapientia, et Reginam illam, quae deliciis affluens et innixa super Dilectum suum, ex ore Altissimi providit omnino perfecta, speciosa ao penitus cara Deo, et nullo umquam labis naevo maculata.
Cum vero ipsi Patres, Ecclesiaeque scriptores animo menteque reputarent, beatissimam Virgincm ab Angelo Giabriele sublimissimam Dei Matris dignitatem ei nuntiante, ipsius Dei nomine et iussu gratia plenam fuisse nuncupatam, docuerunt hac singulari sollemnique salutatione numquam alias audita ostendi, Deiparam fuisse omnium divinarum gratiarum sedem, omnibusque divini Spiritus charismatibus exornatam, immo eorundem charismatum infinitum prope thesaurum, abyssumque inexhaustam, adeo ut numquam maledicto obnoxia, et una cum Filio perpetuae benedictionis particeps ab Elisabeth divino acta Sipiritu audire meruerit benedicta tu inter mulieres, et benedictus fructus ventris tui.
Hinc non luculenta minus quam concors eorumdem sententia, gloriosissimam Virginem, cui fecit magna qui potens est, ea caclestium omnium ineffabile Dei miraculum, immo omnium miraculorum apex, ac digna Dei mater exstiterit, et ad Deum ipsum, pro ratione creatae naturae, quam proxime accedens omnibus, qua humanis, qua angelicis praeconiis celsior evaserit.
Atque idcirco ad originalem Dei Genetricis innocentiam, iustitiamque vindicandam, non eam modo cum Heva adhuc virgine, adhuc innocente, adhuc incorrupta, et nondum mortiferis fraudulentissimi serpentis insidiis decepta saepissime contulerunt, verum etiam mira quadam verborum, sententiarumque varietate praetulerunt. Heva enim serpenti misere obsecuta et ab originali excidit innocentia, et illius mancipium evasit, sed beatissima Virgo originale donum iugiter augens, quin serpenti aures numquam praebuerit, illius vim potestatemque virtute divinitus accepta funditus labefactavit.
Quapropter numquam cessarunt Deiparam appellare vel lilium inter spinas, vel terram omnino intactam, virgineam, illibatam, immaculatam, semper benedictam, et ab omni peccati contagione liberam, ex qua novus formatus est Adam vel irreprehensibilem, lucidissimum, amoenissimumque innocentiae, immortalitatis, ac deliciarum paradisum a Deo ipso consitum, et ab omnibus venenosi serpentis insidiis defensum, vel lignum immarcessibile, quod peccati vermis numquam corruperit, vel fontem semper illimem, et Spiritus Sancti virtute signatum, vel divinissimum templum, vel immortalitatis thesaurum, vel unam et solam non mortis sed vitae filiam, non irae sed gratiae germen, quod semper virens ex corrupta infectaque radice singulari Dei providentia praeter statas communesque leges effloruerit.
Sed quasi haec, licet splendidissima, satis non forent, propriis definitisque sententiis edixerunt, nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, habendam esse quaestionem de sancta Virgine Maria, cui plus gratiae collatum fuit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum; tum professi sunt, gloriosissimam Virginem fuisse parentum reparatricem, posterorum vivificatricem a saeculo electam, ab Altissimo sibi praeparatam, a Deo, quando ad serpentem ait: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, praedictam, quae procul dubio venena tum eiusdem serpentis caput contrivit; ac propterea affirmarunt, eandem beatissimam Virginem fuisse per gratiam ab omni peccati labe integram ac liberam ab omni contagione et corporis, et animae, et intellectus, ac semper cum Deo conversatam, et sempiterno foedere cum illo coniunctam, numquam fuisse in tenebris, sed semper in luce, et idcirco idoneum plane exstitisse Christo habitaculum non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratia originali.
Accedunt nobilissima effata, quibus de Virginis Conceptione loquentes testati sunt, naturam gratiae cessisse ac stetisse tremulam pergere non sustinentem; nam futurum erat, ut Dei Genetrix Virgo non antea ex Anna conciperetur, quam gratia fructum ederet: concipi siquidem primogenitam oportebat, ex qua concipiendus, esset omnis creaturae primogenitus.Testati sunt carnem Virginis ex Adam sumptam maculas Adae non admisisse, ac proterea beatissimam Virginem tabernaculum esse ab ipso Deo creatum, Spiritu Sancto formatum, et purpureae revera operae, quod novus ille Beseleel auro intextum variumque effinxit, eandemque esse meritoque celebrari ut illam, quae proprium Dei opus primum exstiterit, ignitis maligni telis latuerit, et pulcra natura, ac labis prorsus omnis nescia, tamquam aurora undequaque rutilans in mundum prodiverit in sua Conceptione Immaculata. Non enim decebat, ut illud vas electionis communibus lacesseretur iniuriis, quoniam plurimum a ceteris differens, natura communicavit non culpa. Immo prorsus decebat, ut sicut Unigenitus in Caelis Patrem habuit, quem Seraphim ter sanctum extollunt, ita Matrem haberet in terris, quae nitore sanctitatis numquam caruerit.
Atque haec quidem doctrina adeo maiorum mentes, animosque occupavit, ut singularis et omnino mirus penes illos invaluerit loquendi usus, quo Deiparam saepissime compellarunt immaculatam, omnique ex parte immaculatam, innocentem et innocentissimam, illibatam et undequaque illibatam, sanctam et ab omni peccati sorde alienissimam, totam puram, totam intemeratam, ac ipsam prope puritatis et innocentiae formam, pulchritudine pulchriorem, venustate venustiorem, sanctiorem sanctitate, solamque sanctam, purissimamque anima et corpore, quae supergressa est omnem integritatem et virginitatem, ac sola tota facta domicilium universarum gratiarum Sanctissimi Spiritus, et quae, solo Deo excepto exstitit cunctis superior, et ipsis Cherubim et Seraphim, et omni exercitu Angelorum natura pulchrior, formosior et sanctior, cui praedicandae caelestes et terrenae linguae minime sufficiunt. Quem usum ad sanctissimae quoque Liturgiae monumenta atque ecclesiastica Officia sua veluti sponte fuisse traductum, et in illis passim recurrere, ampliterque dominari nemo ignorat, cum in illis Deipara invocetur et praedicetur veluti una incorrupta pulchritudinis columba, veluti rosa semper vigens; et undequaque purissima, et semper immaculata semperque beata, ac celebretur uti innocentia, quae numquam fuit laesa, et altera Heva, quae Emmanuelem peperit.
Nil igitur mirum si de Immaculata Deiparae Virginis Conceptione, doctrinam iudicio Patrum divinis litteris consignatam, tot gravissimis eorumdem testimoniis traditam, tot illustribus venerandae antiquitatis monumentis expressam et celebratam, ac maximo gravissimoque Ecclesiae iudicio propositam et confirmatam tanta pietate, religione et amore ipsius Ecclesiae Pastores, populique fideles quotidie magis profiteri sint gloriati, ut nihil iisdem dulcius, nihil carius, quam ferveantissimo affectu Deiparam Virginem absque labe originali conceptam ubique colere, venerari, invocare, et praedicare. Quamobrem ab antiquis temporibus sacrorum antistites, ecclesiastici viri, regulares Ordines, ac vel ipsi imperatores et reges ab hac Apostolica Sede enixe efflagitarunt, ut Immaculata sanctissimae Dei Genetricis Conceptio veluti catholicae fidei dogma definiretur. Quae postulationes hac nostra quoque aetate iteratae fuerunt ac potissimum felicis recordationis Gregorio decimosexto Praedecessori Nostro, ac Nobis ipsis oblatae sunt tum ab episcopis, tum a clero saeculari, tum a Religiosis Familiis, ac sumimis principibus et fidelibus populis.
Nos itaque singulari animi Nostri gaudio haec omnia probe noscentes, ac serio considerantes, vix dum licet immeriti arcano divinae Providentiae consilio ad hanc sublimem Petri Cathedram evecti totius Ecclesiae gubernacula tractanda suscepimus, nihil certe antiquius habuimus, quam pro summa Nostra vel a teneris annis erga sanctissimam Dei Genetricem Virginem Mariam veneratione, pietate et affectu ea omnia peragere, quae adhuc in Ecclesiae votis esse poterant, ut beatissimae Virginis honor augeretur, eiusque praerogativae uberiori luce niterent.
Omnem autem maturitatem adhibere volentes constituimus peculiarem VV. FF. NN. S. R. E. cardinalium religione, consilio, ac divinarum rerum scientia illustrium Congregationem, et viros ex clero tum saeculari tum regulari theologicis disciplinis apprime excultos selegimus, ut ea omnia, quae Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem respiciunt, accuratissime perpenderent, propriamque sententiam ad Nos deferrent.
Quamvis autem Nobis ex receptis postulationibus de definienda tandem aliquando Immaculata Virginis Conceptione perspectus esset plurimorum sacrorum antistitum sensus, tamen encyclicas Litteras die 2 februarii anno 1849 Caietae datas ad omnes, Venerabiles Fratres totius catholici orbis sacrorum antistites misimus, ut, adhibitis ad Deum precibus, Nobis scripto etiam significarent, quae esset suorum fidelium erga Immaculatam Deiparae Conceptionem pietas, ac devotio, et quid ipsi praesertim antistites de hac ipsa definitione ferenda sentirent, quidve exoptarent, ut quo fieri sollemnius posset, supremum Nostrum iudicium proferremus.
Non mediocri certe solatio affecti fuimus ubi eorumdem Venerabilium Fratrum ad Nos responsa venerunt. Nam iidem incredibili quadam iucunditate, laetitia, ac studio Nobis rescribentes non solum singularem suam, et proprii cuiusque cleri, populique fidelis erga Immaculatum beatissimae Virginis Conceptum pietatem, mentemque denuo confirmarunt, verum etiam communi veluti voto a Nobis expostularunt, ut lmmaculata ipsius Virginis Conceptio supremo Nostro iudicio et auctoritate defineretur. Nec minori certe interim gaudio perfusi sumus, cum VV. FF. NN. S. R. E. cardinales commemoratae peculiaris Congregationis, et praedicti theologi consultores a Nobis electi pari alacritate et studio post examen diligenter adhibitum hanc de lmmaculata Deipaiae Conceptione definitionem a Nobis efflagitaverint.
Post haec illustribus Praedecessorum Nostrorum vestigiis inhaerentes, ac rite recteque procedere optantes, indiximus et habuimus Consistorium, in quo Venerabiles Fratres Nostros sanctae romanae Ecclesiae cardinales allocuti sumus, eosque summa animi Nostri consolatione audivimus a Nobis exposcere, ut dogmaticam de Immaculata Deiparae Virginis Conceptione definitionem emittere vellemus.
Itaque plurimum in Domino confisi advenisse temporum opportunitatem pro Immaculata sanctissimae Dei Genetricis Virginis Mariae Conceptione definienda, quam divina eloquia, veneranda traditio, perpetuus Ecclesiae sensus, singularis catholicorum antistitum, ac fidelium conspiratio et insignia Praedecessorum nostrorum acta, constitutiones mirifice illustrant atque declarant; rebus omnibus diligentissime perpensis, et assiduis, fervidisque ad Deum precibus effusis, minime cunctandum Nobis esse censuimus supremo Nostro iudicio Immaculatam ipsius Virginis Conceptionem sancire, definire, atque ita pientissimis catholici orbis desideriis, Nostraeque in ipsam sanctissimam Virginem pietati satisfacere, ac simul in ipsa Unigenitum Filium suum Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum magis atque magis honorificare, cum in Filium redundet quidquid honoris et laudis in Matrem impenditur.
Quare postquam numquam intermisimus in humilitate et ieiunio privatas Nostras et publicas Ecclesiae preces Deo Patri per Filium eius offerre, ut Spiritus Sancti virtute mentem Nostram dirigere, et confirmare dignaretur, implorato universae caelestis Curiae praesidio, et advocato cum geminibus Paraclito Spiritu, eoque sic adspirante, ad honorem sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, ad decus et ornamentum Virginis Deiparae, ad exaltationem fidei catholicae, et christianae religionis augmentum, auctoritate Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri, et Pauli, ac Nostra declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi lesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam. Quapropter si qui secus ac a Nobis definitum est, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserint corde sentire, ii noverint, ac porro sciant se proprio iudicio condemnatos, naufragium circa fidem passos esse, et ab unitate Ecclesiae defecisse, ac praeterea facto ipso suo semet poenis a iure, statutis subicere si quod corde sentiunt, verbo aut scripto,vel alio quovis externo modo significare ausi fuerint.
Repletum quidem est gaudio os Nostrum et lingua Nostra exsultalione, atque humillimas maximasque Christo Iesu Domino Nostro agimus et semper agemus gratias, quod singulari suo beneficio Nobis licet immerentibus concesserit hunc honorem atque hanc gloriam et laudem sanctissimae suae Matri offerre et decernere. Certissima vero spe et omni prorsus fiducia nitimur fore, ut ipsa beatissima Virgo, quae tota pulchra et Immaculata venenosum crudelissimi serpentis caput contrivit, et salutem attulit mundo, quaeque Prophetarum Apostolorumque praeconium, et honor Martyrum, omniumquo Sanctorum laetitia et corona, quaeque tutissimum cunctorum periclitantium perfugium, et fidissima auxiliatrix, ac totius terrarum orbis potentissima apud Unigenitum Filium suum mediatrix et conciliatrix, ac praeclarissimum Ecclesiae sanctae decus et ornamentum, firmissimumque praesidium cunctas semper interemit haereses, et fideles populos, gentesque a maximis omnis generis calamitatibus eripuit, ac Nos ipsos a tot ingruentibus periculis liberavit; velit validissimo suo patrocinio efficere, ut sancta Mater catholica Ecclesia, cunctis amotis difficultatibus, cunctisque profligatis erroribus, ubicumque gentium, ubicumque locorum quotidie magis vigeat, floreat, ac regnet o mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum, omnique pace tranquillitate, ac libertate fruatur, ut rei veniam, aegri medelam, pusilli corde robur, aflicti consolationem, periclitantes adiutorium obtineant, et omnes errantes discussa mentis caligine ad veritatis ac iustitiae semitam redeant, ac fiat unum ovile, et unus pastor.
Audiant haec Nostra verba omnes Nobis carissimi catholicae Ecclesiae filii, et ardentiori usque pietatis religionis, et amoris studio pergant colere, invocare, exorare beatissimam Dei Genetricem Virginem Mariam sine labe originali conceptam, atque ad hanc dulcissimam misericordiae et gratiae Matrem in omnibus periculis, angustiis, necessitatibus, rebusque dubiis ac trepidis cum omni fiducia confugiant. Nihil enim timendum, nihilque desperandum ipsa duce, ipsa auspice, ipsa propitia, ipsa protegente, quae maternum sane in nos gerens animum, nostraeque salutis negotia tractans de universo humano genere est sollicita, caeli terraeque Regina a Domino constituta, ac super omnes Angelorum choros Sanctorumque ordines exaltata astans a dextris Unigeniti Filii sui Domini Nostri Iesu Christi maternis suis precibus validissime impetrat, et quod quaerit invenit, ac frustrari non potest.
Denique ut ad universalis Ecclesiae notitiam haec Nostra de Immaculata Conceptione beatissimae Virginis Mariae definitio deducatur, has Apostolicas Nostras Litteras, ad perpetuam rei memoriam exstare voluimus; mandantes ut harum transumptis, seu exemplis etiam impressis, manu alicuius notarii publici subscriptis, et sigillo personae in ecclesiastica dignitate constitutae munitis eadem prorsus fides ab omnibus adhibeatur, quae ipsis praesentibus adhiberetur, si forent exhibitae, vel ostensae.
Nulli ergo hominum liceat paginam hanc Nostrae declarationis, pronuntiationis, ac definitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario adversari et contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.
-
December 8, 2006 at 1:06 am #769079
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is a picture of the man himself, Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Feretti) 1792-1878
-
December 8, 2006 at 1:06 am #769080
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd another version of the same photograph
-
December 8, 2006 at 2:08 am #769081
Fearg
ParticipantAnother bland application of the same recycled concepts at Schull Co Cork:
[ATTACH]3645[/ATTACH]
-
December 8, 2006 at 2:30 am #769082
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This is what has happened to the sedilia in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The sedilia is used for the priest clebrant of the Mass. It is situated in the Southn screen of the sanctuary, opposite the throne, and is raised on two steps. The sedilia is flanked by two other seats, one for the deacon, the other for the subdeacon. The arrangement is according to the Roman Rite: i.e. the priest sits in the middle with the deacon on his right and the sub-daecon on his left. The places are clearly marked by the carved panels on the screen above them.
The sedilia is in the form of a classical fald-stool which was taken by the Roman Pro-Consuls on their missions outside of Rome and indicated thier jurisdiction and authority when they sat in judgement.
The last administrator of the Cathedral, Fr. Gerry Casey, present PP of Doneraile, hit on the bright idea of taking the sedilia from the screen, nailing a brass band on to the back of it and using it as a seat for the someone presiding at Mass. The gap left in the original position of the Sedilia was filled by a WIlliam IV dining chair brought from the sacristy and re-upholstered to give the impression taht it had always been where it now is: the punters won’t notice sort of attitude.
How this vandalism goes on without the intervention of the Trustees of the Cathedral or that of the Cobh Urban District COuncil is just stunning!
Surely the dining chair would have been more comforable for the predider than that brass band! Why go to the trouble?? the mind simply boggles!
-
December 8, 2006 at 2:35 am #769083
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Surely the dining chair would have been more comforable for the presider than that brass band! Why go to the trouble?? the mind simply boggles!
The answer to that question is very simple: SELF-IMPORTANCE
-
December 8, 2006 at 5:23 am #769084
corcaighboy
ParticipantFearg – I recall when the ‘alterations’ to Schull church were in progress (never remember a consultation period!) and even then (being a young lad) I was quite surprised. I did have the gumption to question someone in authority on it and I was told that the awful pebble-dash plaster job on the exterior of the church was necessary as the stonework was ‘porous’. Naturally, I assumed this to be the case, although I also recall asking why it was that all other churches of its ilk did not require the same treatment. Every time I pass that church, I cringe with regret given that it now resembles a pretty ordinary modern bungalow. It was a pretty imposing church, and viewable from almost anywhere in the harbour. Now it looks like a giant carbuncle.
-
December 8, 2006 at 12:07 pm #769085
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantRe. Scull – Whatever about the exterior, the interior is an unbalanced mess.:eek:
Do you know who is responsible for this travesty?
-
December 8, 2006 at 2:58 pm #769086
samuel j
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
ROAST his phylacteries, along with his other perishables. Then display his shortcomings on the facade of his palace!
The word “phylactery” derived from the Greek phylakterion also known by the Aramaic word tefillin, is the name given in rabbinic sources to two black leather boxes containing scriptural passages which are worn on the forehead and left arm
Aramaic word tefillin – sounds like how they pronounce TEFLON in some parts of Cork…..
Maybe they are right as nothing seems to stick to this Bishop…when it comes to accountibilty….
-
December 8, 2006 at 5:07 pm #769087
samuel j
ParticipantINEFFABILIS DEUS – Was thinking that was my weekend shot to … thank god for the web and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffabilis_DeusHistoria est vitae magistra….
One snag with Ex cathedra is that the odd Bishop thinks it applies to him too……
-
December 8, 2006 at 5:14 pm #769088
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This is what has happened to the sedilia in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The sedilia is used for the priest clebrant of the Mass. It is situated in the Southn screen of the sanctuary, opposite the throne, and is raised on two steps. The sedilia is flanked by two other seats, one for the deacon, the other for the subdeacon. The arrangement is according to the Roman Rite: i.e. the priest sits in the middle with the deacon on his right and the sub-daecon on his left. The places are clearly marked by the carved panels on the screen above them.
The sedilia is in the form of a classical fald-stool which was taken by the Roman Pro-Consuls on their missions outside of Rome and indicated thier jurisdiction and authority when they sat in judgement.
The last administrator of the Cathedral, Fr. Gerry Casey, present PP of Doneraile, hit on the bright idea of taking the sedilia from the screen, nailing a brass band on to the back of it and using it as a seat for the someone presiding at Mass. The gap left in the original position of the Sedilia was filled by a WIlliam IV dining chair brought from the sacristy and re-upholstered to give the impression taht it had always been where it now is: the punters won’t notice sort of attitude.
How this vandalism goes on without the intervention of the Trustees of the Cathedral or that of the Cobh Urban District COuncil is just stunning!
What kind of a muppet did this….. being a seafarer always love to see a bit of brass used wisely…as its not cheap/ even a band…but this….stupid…. what was the man thinking….he has destroyed the Sedilia…
Is this more of the mentaility of lets get closer to the congregation gimmickery…. the congregation are and have been quite happy where they are thank you very much… -
December 8, 2006 at 5:31 pm #769089
-
December 8, 2006 at 6:15 pm #769090
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
INEFFABILIS DEUS – Was thinking that was my weekend shot to … thank god for the web and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffabilis_DeusHistoria est vitae magistra….
One snag with Ex cathedra is that the odd Bishop thinks it applies to him too……
Pius IX made the front page of Wikipedia to-day. Not bad for someone born in 1792!
-
December 8, 2006 at 10:43 pm #769091
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Pius IX made the front page of Wikipedia to-day. Not bad for someone born in 1792!
Beato Pio Nono cut quite a dashing figure as a young pope, not unlike the youthful John Paul II. Hailed as a ‘liberal’ upon his election in 1846 to the See of St Peter, it was just a few years before he was being attacked for ‘conservatism.’ A study of his life and times shows how meaningless such terms are in reference to the Church and to the papacy.
Menaced by the anticlerical forces of freemasonry, Gallicanism, republicanism, secularism, atheism, and other expressions of aggressive radicalism, Blessed Pius IX fled to Gaeta in 1848 (the year of revolutions) but returned to Rome, as St Peter himself had done in AD 64, to carry the cross as a worthy successor of that Prince of the Apostles. During his pontificate, the longest in history, Pius IX founded a number of national colleges in Rome, so that seminarians and priests from around the world might enjoy a personal rapport with the Pope.
Pius IX is responsible for two major events: the definition and proclamation in 1854 of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the convocation of the First Vatican Council (1870) during which the Infallibility of the Pope was defined and proclaimed.
The council disbanded with the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. Upon the confiscation by Garibaldi of the Papal States, Pius IX fled from the Quirinal Palace to the Vatican where he remained a voluntary ‘prisoner of the Vatican’ until his death in 1878.
Pilgrims to St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican will have noticed directly above the impressive bronze statue of St Peter Enthroned (the toe of which is kissed by millions of pilgrims each year), there hangs a mosaic portrait of Bd Pope Pius IX framed in gold. Pio Nono placed it there as an ex-voto on the thirtieth anniversary of his pontificate. Until his time, a legend maintained that no pope would reign beyond 25 years (the supposed length of St Peter’s own Roman pontifcate [he had left the see of Antioch for Rome by divine call]). Well, Pio Nono not only exceeded the 25th year but went on to live another seven years, extending his pontificate to 32 years! His successor, Leo XIII, reigned for 25 years (1878-1903) and held the pontifical longevity record of ‘second place’ until beaten out by John Paul (1978-2005).
For an unusual, rather insightful, look into the day-to-day life of Rome in the pontificate of Pius IX, see the autobiography of Archbishop Robert Seton (eldest grandson of St Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton), Memories of Many Years (New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1923). The book describes Rome under Pio Nono, then describes life in the Eternal City after the Risorgimento, in the pontificate of Leo XIII, and afterwards. Educated as a seminarian in Rome, Robert Seton laboured as a priest in the USA, then retired to Rome after fifty years of pastoral service. What a stark contrast he vividly draws of the Rome before and after the Risorgimento. A ‘must read’ for anyone interested in the history of the papacy, the Risorgimento, or the 19th century.
-
December 9, 2006 at 12:15 am #769092
Praxiteles
ParticipantAlong with introducing the railroads and the telegraph to the Papal States, Pius IX was also responsible for one of the great feats on 19th.century Italian engineering: the building of the viaduct linking Ariccia to the Via Appia:
-
December 9, 2006 at 1:44 am #769093
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Along with introducing the railroads and the telegraph to the Papal States, Pius IX was also responsible for one of the great feats on 19th.century Italian engineering: the building of the viaduct linking Ariccia to the Via Appia:
He likewise introduced gas lighting into Rome and the Papal States.
When the Pontiff of blessed memory was threatened with expulsion from the Italian penninsula, Queen Victoria was prepared to receive him in England. After all, he was a reigning monarch and was to be afforded all that was due to him in the temporal realm.
-
December 9, 2006 at 2:15 am #769094
Praxiteles
ParticipantShe may have been prepared to receive him in England -and this was considered politically necessary to keep the Irish in their place – but Odo Russell, the unofficial Bristish Diplomatic Agent in Rome, made a formal offer of Malta to the Secretary of State, cardinal Antonelli. Antonelli, in a famous reply, thanked her Britannic majesty for her generosity and solicitude for the security of the person of His Holiness but assured Russell that there was little prospect of His Holiness being able to avail of the offer as he suffered greatly from sea-sickness!!
-
December 9, 2006 at 3:43 am #769095
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantJust heard that part of the south facing clock face on the tower of St. Colman’s has been damaged in the recent high winds. This has been brought to the notice of the church authorities. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Seemingly one can see part of the workings of the clock through the new aperture.
It is also reported that the door in the north transept is now ‘bleached’ it is so weather beaten.
-
December 9, 2006 at 5:02 pm #769096
THE_Chris
ParticipantI have photos of the entire inner workings of that clock, the actual timekeeping thing itself is tiny. Will post when I’m at home for Christmas 😀
Will probobly take awhile to fix, as its hard to get at and a lot of these styles of repair need Bord Pleanala approval, or some crazy planning thing.
Some places even need permission from the planning folk to fix terribly leaking roofs.
-
December 9, 2006 at 6:31 pm #769097
Praxiteles
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
I have photos of the entire inner workings of that clock, the actual timekeeping thing itself is tiny. Will post when I’m at home for Christmas 😀
Will probobly take awhile to fix, as its hard to get at and a lot of these styles of repair need Bord Pleanala approval, or some crazy planning thing.
Some places even need permission from the planning folk to fix terribly leaking roofs.
Oh good1 I am looking forward to this. I believe the mechanisms were “updated” since last I saw them. I only hope that several more tons of water are not going to cascade onto the vault of the mortuary ceiling – as that would surely bring it down!!
-
December 9, 2006 at 7:12 pm #769098
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
She may have been prepared to receive him in England -and this was considered politically necessary to keep the Irish in their place – but Odo Russell, the unofficial Bristish Diplomatic Agent in Rome, made a formal offer of Malta to the Secretary of State, cardinal Antonelli. Antonelli, in a famous reply, thanked her Britannic majesty for her generosity and solicitude for the security of the person of His Holiness but assured Russell that there was little prospect of His Holiness being able to avail of the offer as he suffered greatly from sea-sickness!!
My point remains that, despite the several hundred years during which England had severed religious ties with the papacy, and in spite, too, of the anti-Catholicism that had become a salient feature of English public life, Queen Victoria was nonetheless prepared both to acknowledge the temporal claims of the papacy and to receive the Pope in a manner much more benign than was the attitude of HIS OWN PEOPLE! Give credit where itis due.
It is also to the credit of George III, the Prince Regent, and various ministers of state within the British govt of an earlier date in the nineteenth century that all but two shiploads of priceless booty plundered by Napoleon from the Vatican musea and art galleries were restored by Britain after 1814. [Apparently two ships sank. so perhaps some day part of the treasure may be recovered.]
The papacy had Cardinal Consalvi to thank for this arrangement. His diplomatic skills were quite remarkable. It was he who, when Napoleon in a fit of rage threatened to destroy the Catholic Church ‘overnight’, coolly replied to the Little Emperor that if 1800 years of priests could not destroy the Church, his army scarcely stood much of a chance. The British govt and people were charmed by Consalvi, who found a surprisingly welcome reception at the Court of St James’s.
When Pope Pius VII [over whose election in Vienna Cardinal Consalvi presided as Camerlengo] died, Consalvi assigned a Protestant to design the monumental tomb of Pius VII. It is the only monument in St Peter’s Basilica to have been designed and executed by a Protestant. This before the ‘age of ecumenism’. The figures of the Pope flanked by St Peter and St Paul, in classical style, are rather too static for my taste. Perhaps, Prax, you might add a photo of it on this thread and on the Brother Michael Augustine O’Riordan thread.
I assume that it was Consalvi and Pius VII who placed the kneeling statue of Pius VI in the crypt/confessio. The pontiff is portrayed gazing upwards in an attitude of prayer from the floor of the confessio to the Holy Spirit in the underside of Bernini’s great bronze baldachino. I regret to mention that that satue (which I much prefer to that of Pius VII) has been displaced by the modern Cristo Re altar and has been relegated to the last place in the chapel of the popes in the crypt of St Peter’s Basilica. Pius VI, who reigned as Supreme Pontiff during the carnage of the French Revolution, was later abducted by Napoleon and brought in a carriage across the Alps and eastwards to Vienna. The Pope was not granted even rest stops, even though he was suffering intensely from kidney stones. The rickety ride alone up the Italian penninsula and across the alps was a living martyrdom for the old man. He died in humiliation north of the Alps. His was the longest pontificate after Leo XIII.
The placement of the statue of Pope PIus VI at the base of the confessio of St Peter’s Basilica was itself a tribute to the faithful witness of this successor of St Peter and his close link to the Prince of the Apostles.
So … viewed in the historical context of the temporal humiliation of the papacy in the 19th century, Queen Victoria comes out of this mess looking rather good!
-
December 9, 2006 at 7:35 pm #769099
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
When Pope Pius VII [over whose election in Vienna Cardinal Consalvi presided as Camerlengo] died, Consalvi assigned a Protestant to design the monumental tomb of Pius VII. It is the only monument in St Peter’s Basilica to have been designed and executed by a Protestant. This before the ‘age of ecumenism’. The figures of the Pope flanked by St Peter and St Paul, in classical style, are rather too static for my taste. Perhaps, Prax, you might add a photo of it on this thread and on the Brother Michael Augustine O’Riordan thread.
Forgive me, Rhabanus, but I used to think that Pius VII was elected in the monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice and that the Conclave of 1799/1800 was presided over by Henry Benedict Casimir Cardinal Duke of York nuncupatus, and Vice Cancellairus of the Holy Roman Church, with Mons. Consalvi acting as Secretary to the Conclave. It was only subsequent to the the election of Pius VII, and in accord with tradition, that he was admitted to the Sacred College for having acted as Secretary to the Conclave?
For what its is worth, I am adding the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ercole_Cardinal_Consalvi#Biography -
December 9, 2006 at 7:44 pm #769100
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is Berthel Thornvaldsen’s monument to Pius VII in the south transept of St. Peter’s Basilica. It was completed by the Danish artist -and pupil of Canova’s – in 1832.
-
December 9, 2006 at 7:52 pm #769101
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
When Pope Pius VII [over whose election in Vienna Cardinal Consalvi presided as Camerlengo] died, Consalvi assigned a Protestant to design the monumental tomb of Pius VII. It is the only monument in St Peter’s Basilica to have been designed and executed by a Protestant. This before the ‘age of ecumenism’. The figures of the Pope flanked by St Peter and St Paul, in classical style, are rather too static for my taste. Perhaps, Prax, you might add a photo of it on this thread and on the Brother Michael Augustine O’Riordan thread.
I wonder whether we are not mixing up monuments here: is it not Tenerani’s (1866) monument to Pius VIII at the door to the sacristy of St. Peter’s , also in the South transept, that has the figures of the Apostles Peter and Paul?
-
December 9, 2006 at 8:06 pm #769102
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is Canova’s monument to Pius VI, placed in the Confessio of St. Peter’s. Pius VI died at Valence in France in 1799 but his remains were not returned to the Basilica of St. Peter’s until the reign of Pius XII in 1949.
-
December 9, 2006 at 11:04 pm #769103
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Forgive me, Rhabanus, but I used to think that Pius VII was elected in the monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice and that the Conclave of 1799/1800 was presided over by Henry Benedict Casimir Cardinal Duke of York nuncupatus, and Vice Cancellairus of the Holy Roman Church, with Mons. Consalvi acting as Secretary to the Conclave. It was only subsequent to the the election of Pius VII, and in accord with tradition, that he was admitted to the Sacred College for having acted as Secretary to the Conclave?
For what its is worth, I am adding the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ercole_Cardinal_Consalvi#BiographyOf course, you are correct, Praxiteles. Mea maxima culpa!!! I wrote the previous message on the fly. YES, YES! The conclave took place in VENICE not VIENNA!
I had been so eager to make another point that I stumbled in via.
Rhabanus begs pardon of all kind readers and shall be clothed in sack cloth and ashes for the rest of Advent.
Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum!
-
December 9, 2006 at 11:19 pm #769104
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
I wonder whether we are not mixing up monuments here: is it not Tenerani’s (1866) monument to Pius VIII at the door to the sacristy of St. Peter’s , also in the South transept, that has the figures of the Apostles Peter and Paul?
Zapped again, Prax! Touche!
I had dashed off the earlier message nowhere near my usual site, on my way to another place. Indeed there was a confusion of monuments. For what it’s worth, I find both monuments somewhat static, though the statues of Sts Peter and Paul seem to me even more static than the figures on the monument of Pius VII.
Thanks for the photos. And for the corrections.
The statue of Pius VI which used to be in the confessio of St Peter’s was moved, was it not? I thought that it was repositioned at the end of the crypt near the exit. The upward gaze is less effective in its current location than it was when in the confessio. Of course, the statue may now be back in its original spot. I stand to be corrected.
-
December 9, 2006 at 11:43 pm #769105
Praxiteles
Participant -
December 10, 2006 at 12:00 am #769106
Praxiteles
ParticipantCanova’s monument for Clement XIII on which he worked from 1783-1792. This monument marks the arrival of the neo-classical ididom into the basilica.
-
December 10, 2006 at 12:04 am #769107
Praxiteles
ParticipantWhat is probably the best modern piece in St. Peter’s Basilica, Francesco Messina’s bronze monument for Pius XII erected in 1963
-
December 10, 2006 at 12:34 am #769108
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd, what is probably the most famous monument in St. peter’s Basilica, Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s monument of 1678 for Pope Alexander VII – who built the colonnade in St. Peter’s Square
-
December 10, 2006 at 12:51 am #769109
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And here is Canova’s monument to Pius VI, placed in the Confessio of St. Peter’s. Pius VI died at Valence in France in 1799 but his remains were not returned to the Basilica of St. Peter’s until the reign of Pius XII in 1949.
This raises an interesting point, Prax. The monuments of the popes on the main floor of St Peter’s Basilica are precisely that – monuments. Most of those commemorated on the main floor are buried in the crypt and their tombs can be visited on that level. Several of those raised to the honour of the altars (declared saints or at least blessed) are on display on the main level of the basilica. I am thinking here of St Pius X at the Altar of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Bd John XXIII at the Altar of St Jerome, and Bd Innocent XI at the Altar of St Sebastian. The bodies of St Leo I (the Great) and St Gregory I (the Great) rest beneath the altars dedicated to them, although one can see only the sepulchral urns containing their remains rather than the actual bodies lying clothed in papal vesture.
Are not some of the monuments on the main floor also tombs? I am thinking here of Urban VIII and Paul III. I was under the impression that these were their (highly monumental) tombs. I thought that Pius VII was entombed within the monument by Thornvaldsen. So the remains of at least some of the pontiffs who chose to be entombed on the main floor of St Peter’s are to be found there.
Where, then, are the remains of Pius VI? As you point out, Canova’s statue of Pius VI was kneeling in the confessio while his remains were in France. Where were his remains interred in 1949? Where are they now? I do not recall ever having seen them in the crypt. Please shed what light you can on this point.
Thank you.
-
December 10, 2006 at 12:57 am #769110
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And, what is probably the most famous monument in St. peter’s Basilica, Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s monument of 1678 for Pope Alexander VII – who built the colonnade in St. Peter’s Square
Note the movement of this piece. The colourful marble cloth covers the head of winged Death as the Grim Reaper extends the hour glass, for none of us knows the day or the hour when the Son of Man shall come.
-
December 10, 2006 at 1:03 am #769111
Praxiteles
ParticipantMy recollection is that they are in the crypt, on the right hand side of the covered part of the confessio. If you imagine facing the tomb of Paul VI, to the left, in the end corner. Strange that his body having returned from exile after 150 years should arrive in time to see his monument exiled from the confessio?
-
December 10, 2006 at 1:05 am #769112
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Note the movement of this piece. The colourful marble cloth covers the head of winged Death as the Grim Reaper extends the hour glass, for none of us knows the day or the hour when the Son of Man shall come.
Note too that Alexander is not in the least perturbed by that greatest misfortune of all – sudden death! NOte too that the statue of Truth has her foot placed firmly on England!
-
December 10, 2006 at 7:40 pm #769113
Fearg
ParticipantSome recent shots of St Saviours in Dublin.
[ATTACH]3659[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3660[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3661[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3662[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3663[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3664[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3665[/ATTACH]
-
December 10, 2006 at 11:16 pm #769114
Rhabanus
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Some recent shots of St Saviours in Dublin.
[ATTACH]3659[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3660[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3661[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3662[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3663[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3664[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3665[/ATTACH]
The interior is a wretched contrast with the original. The tabernacle atop a pillar looks utterly ridiculous. Can someone identify the altarpiece in the background of that photo? The sculpted relief at the bottom looks like Christ being laid in the sepulchre. Was this a mortuary chapel or does it commemorate Our Lady of Sorrows or the Death of St Joseph?
What is all that trash atop the altar in the ‘chapel’ of the Blessed Sacrament? It looks like a heap of dead flower stalks.
Thank you, Austin Flannery, wherever you are, for having destroyed the interior of a once-magnificent church. For shame!
-
December 10, 2006 at 11:29 pm #769115
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
The interior is a wretched contrast with the original. The tabernacle atop a pillar looks utterly ridiculous. Can someone identify the altarpiece in the background of that photo? The sculpted relief at the bottom looks like Christ being laid in the sepulchre. Was this a mortuary chapel or does it commemorate Our Lady of Sorrows or the Death of St Joseph?
Thank you, Austin Flannery, wherever you are, for having destroyed the interior of a once-magnificent church. For shame!
This was the altar before it wrecked and demolished by Austin Flannery. I think that the relief depicts a version of the compianto sul Cristo morto very similar to John Hogan’s versions in Douglas CHurch in Cork, the Car,melite Church in Clarendon Street, Dublin and in the Cathedral of S. John’s in Nova Scotia.
What ever was gained by ripping off the raredos of this altar is quite beyond me – apart form vandalism of isaurian proportions.
-
December 10, 2006 at 11:45 pm #769116
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This was the altar before it wrecked and demolished by Austin Flannery. I think that the relief depicts a version of the compianto sul Cristo morto very similar to John Hogan’s versions in Douglas CHurch in Cork, the Car,melite Church in Clarendon Street, Dublin and in the Cathedral of S. John’s in Nova Scotia.
What ever was gained by ripping off the raredos of this altar is quite beyond me – apart form vandalism of isaurian proportions.
Its got to be up there with Monaghan and Killarney in the top 3 worst reorderings in the country. The ceiling looks to be similar in concept to that of the chapel in maynooth – oil on canvas attached to the plaster – it would need a good cleaning though, its so grimy you can barely make out any detail at all.
-
December 11, 2006 at 12:25 am #769117
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Its got to be up there with Monaghan and Killarney in the top 3 worst reorderings in the country. The ceiling looks to be similar in concept to that of the chapel in maynooth – oil on canvas attached to the plaster – it would need a good cleaning though, its so grimy you can barely make out any detail at all.
Once you move out of the category of wrecked Cathedrals in Ireland, St. Savour’s in Dublin is undoubtedly one of the VERY VERY VERY worst examples of sheer gratitutious iconoclastic vandalism – all perpetrated by Austin Flannery.
-
December 11, 2006 at 1:19 pm #769118
Praxiteles
ParticipantDevelopments across the pond:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9768
-
December 11, 2006 at 5:44 pm #769119
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Once you move out of the category of wrecked Cathedrals in Ireland, St. Savour’s in Dublin is undoubtedly one of the VERY VERY VERY worst examples of sheer gratitutious iconoclastic vandalism – all perpetrated by Austin Flannery.
Plenty room now for “squatting on the floor” for Taize Masses and that kind of Jazz…. as once described to me by a wise owl….
Flannery et al must have been squatting, smoking some dodgy substances and have been in a psychedelic trance not to see the vandanism they were committing.
-
December 11, 2006 at 5:49 pm #769120
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Plenty room now for “squatting on the floor” for Taize Masses and that kind of Jazz…. as once described to me by a wise owl….
Flannery et al must have been squatting, smoking some dodgy substances and have been in a psychedelic trance not to see the vandanism they were committing.
Indeed, all very much part of the Irish Catholic Church’s response to Woodstock!!
-
December 11, 2006 at 9:04 pm #769121
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Indeed, all very much part of the Irish Catholic Church’s response to Woodstock!!
There are very few benches left alright, I’m sure the nave seating capacity was reduced by half in the reordering. The aisles are also mostly empty now. As for sitting on the floor, the bare stone of the reordered sanctuary has now been covered in a very comfy looking thick pile carpet! Makes me mad, its probably one of the best McCarthy churches around, the nave arcade is magnificent – and the double aisles, surely they must be unique in Ireland?
-
December 11, 2006 at 10:46 pm #769122
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Plenty room now for “squatting on the floor” for Taize Masses and that kind of Jazz…. as once described to me by a wise owl….
Flannery et al must have been squatting, smoking some dodgy substances and have been in a psychedelic trance not to see the vandanism they were committing.
Sam, you’ve put your finger on it!! There! Behind the tabernacle on the side altar with the recumbent Christ underneath it! All their pipes and smoking implements. I was trying to figure out what the deuce they could be. They look like the detritus of Bob Marley and the Whalers. I suppose, in that case, they might qualify as third- or even second-class relics in the pantheon of Liturgically Reordered Ireland [LRI].
After a few drags and a couple of puffs on those, you too would be singing ditties and snatchets from “Joseph and the Amazing Technicoloured Dream Coat.” ‘Any dream WILL do, baby!’ I can see Austin in my mind’s eye, sashaying round the tabernacle in his amazing technicoloured dream-habit, treading out barefoot the merry measure with his throng of liturgical ‘experts’ (= “drips under pressure”) and sycophants in tow. Rarely had Ireland seen such leapin’ about and gnashing of teeth as the night “they drove ole Dixie down – and the reredos with it!” They jumped about madly like fleas on a cow’s back and cackled like the devil in springtime.
And that is how liturgical dance came to the Emerald Isle.
Care to share your favourite recollections of The Liturgical Movement in dear old Erin?
-
December 11, 2006 at 11:35 pm #769123
samuel j
Participant“What is all that trash atop the altar in the ‘chapel’ of the Blessed Sacrament? It looks like a heap of dead flower stalks”
Joss sticks after the Restoration Committees final planning meeting…….
“And that is how liturgical dance came to the Emerald Isle.
Care to share your favourite recollections of The Liturgical Movement in dear old Erin?”ah now don’t start me on the singing priest 70s/80s phenomenon
.. I dont want to wake up tonight with cringe nightmares watching Michael Cleary and Brian Darcy on the Late Late Show….oh no not going down in that abyss.. -
December 12, 2006 at 12:22 am #769124
Praxiteles
ParticipantJust to change the abyss: after a trip to St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork earlier to-day, Praxiteles is able to bring you some interesting photographs of the present state and condition of this internationally significant monument. On a board, we are told that some
-
December 12, 2006 at 12:30 am #769125
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd these are the neglected main porch doors, just inside the West portal
-
December 12, 2006 at 12:39 am #769126
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd the is the bit that is enough to make you weep: the doors into the transepts and into the baptistery.
-
December 12, 2006 at 12:43 am #769127
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Just to change the abyss: after a trip to St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork earlier to-day, Praxiteles is able to bring you some interesting photographs of the present state and condition of this internationally significant monument. On a board, we are told that some £3,200,000 have been spend on the “restoration” of Cobh Cathedral. WHat have we to show for it? I will leave the readers to judge for themselves.
Let us start with a tour of the doors of the Cathedral. They are in a most deplorable state of neglect, nay abandonment. While the main doors are not as visibly effected by decay, they are nevertheless in need of attention especially the hinges and strapwork which appears to have some form of cancerous oxidization which is eating away at the metalwork underneath the paint. To my knowledge, nothing has been done to address this problem.
The main porch doors are all in a state of sad neglect, dirt, broken panels, and hinges that need repairs. Again noithing done.
The lesser doors leading into the Northa dn South transepts are beyond description – so shoking is their state of neglect. At this point the timers of the door are exposed to the elements and, as everybody knows, this is not the thing to do on a costal location. The same is truie of the lesser doors to the mortuary, and to the main door to the baptistry.
I publicly call on Denis Deasey, the former town architect of Cobh -who has stuill not cut his connections with St. Colman’s Cathedral- to explain why he allowede this state of affairs to develop and why he never lifted a finger to anything to remedy it? To quote someone else: je t’accuse!!
Je m’excuse un moment, s’il vous plait … mais qu’est-ce qu’ il y a sur la porte interieure?
Is it a note to the milkman?
Perhaps a calling card from the demolition squad [or reordering committee]?
Could it be His Lordship’s letter of resignation? “Gone north; please say the 10 am.”Did you manage to read the note, Prax? We are all eager to know its contents!
-
December 12, 2006 at 12:45 am #769128
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And the is the bit that is enough to make you weep: the doors into the transepts and into the baptistery.
These are utterly disgusting! DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!!!
-
December 12, 2006 at 2:33 am #769129
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here is a close up of one of the main West doors giving some idea of the disintegration of the wrought iron strap work
-
December 12, 2006 at 6:15 pm #769130
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
And here is a close up of one of the main West doors giving some idea of the disintegration of the wrought iron strap work
With the Salt Air and continous gales we’ve been having, if something isn’t done soon there will be little wrought iron left and/or the finer detail will be rusted away
Has the Bishop gone into some form of a sulk seeing the ‘people’ spoke and would not let him get away with destroying the inside…… is this some form of silent protest by him to let St.Colmans rot…. if so it makes a mockery of collections for the restoration if not a penny is being spent on maintenance….
-
December 12, 2006 at 6:40 pm #769131
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
With the Salt Air and continous gales we’ve been having, if something isn’t done soon there will be little wrought iron left and/or the finer detail will be rusted away
Has the Bishop gone into some form of a sulk seeing the ‘people’ spoke and would not let him get away with destroying the inside…… is this some form of silent protest by him to let St.Colmans rot…. if so it makes a mockery of collections for the restoration if not a penny is being spent on maintenance….
I think the psychological term for it is “passive-aggressive behaviour.” ‘Tis an ill bird that befouls its own nest.
-
December 12, 2006 at 7:31 pm #769132
Fearg
Participant@samuel j wrote:
With the Salt Air and continous gales we’ve been having, if something isn’t done soon there will be little wrought iron left and/or the finer detail will be rusted away
Has the Bishop gone into some form of a sulk seeing the ‘people’ spoke and would not let him get away with destroying the inside…… is this some form of silent protest by him to let St.Colmans rot…. if so it makes a mockery of collections for the restoration if not a penny is being spent on maintenance….
Its enough to make me want to go down there with a tin of hamerite myself!
At least the original ironwork is still there – on one of the side doors in Derry, it was replaced with some fake victoriana picked up at the local DIY store… -
December 12, 2006 at 7:41 pm #769133
samuel j
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Its enough to make me want to go down there with a tin of hamerite myself!
At least the original ironwork is still there – on one of the side doors in Derry, it was replaced with some fake victoriana picked up at the local DIY store!Unlike some famous Paint Manufactruers advertisements…
The Collection Can in St. Colmans
DOES NOT DO AS IT SAYS ON THE TIN………..
-
December 12, 2006 at 7:44 pm #769134
Fearg
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Unlike some famous Paint Manufactruers advertisements…
The Collection Can in St. Colmans
DOES NOT DO AS IT SAYS ON THE TIN………..
Certainly not on “old iron, old iron” to quote the aforementioned manufacturers add 😉
-
December 12, 2006 at 8:04 pm #769135
-
December 12, 2006 at 8:46 pm #769136
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
And perhaps a little bit of :
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!
No, I am inclined to think that its is more a case of qualis artifex pereo !!
-
December 12, 2006 at 9:09 pm #769137
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
No, I am inclined to think that its is more a case of qualis artifex pereo !!
Ozymandias of Cloyne?
OZYMANDIAS of EGYPT
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.— Percy Bysshe Shelley
Perhaps the bold bishop will be immortalised as the patron saint of fallen arches?
-
December 12, 2006 at 9:21 pm #769138
Rhabanus
ParticipantDavid Lawrence and Ann Wilson’s book, The Cathedral of Saint Fin Barre at Cork: William Burges in Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006) arrived by post today. A handsome tome indeed. This is the kind of book that ought to be done on St Colman’s, Cobh before it collapses of neglect.
The Introduction mentions that Cork was elected European Capital of Culture in 2005.
-
December 12, 2006 at 9:43 pm #769139
samuel j
ParticipantSomeone should tell him “Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
-
December 12, 2006 at 11:08 pm #769140
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
No, I am inclined to think that its is more a case of qualis artifex pereo !!
Plus artifex quam pontifex pereo!
Fortasse etiam: Plus pompadex quam artifex pereo!
-
December 12, 2006 at 11:44 pm #769141
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
David Lawrence and Ann Wilson’s book, The Cathedral of Saint Fin Barre at Cork: William Burges in Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006) arrived by post today. A handsome tome indeed. This is the kind of book that ought to be done on St Colman’s, Cobh before it collapses of neglect.
The Introduction mentions that Cork was elected European Capital of Culture in 2005.
Could not agree more with you. Anne WIlson is a superb person and under a heavy dogging from the bold bishop’s bould barrister she put up a might defence at the Midelton Hearing. Mre than anyone else, she knows the whole building history of St. Colman’s. Currently she is writing a book on the Cork sculptor Seamus Murphy. As soon as she is finished I think that we shoud get up a public subscription to fund her to write a proper history of ST. Colman’s Cathedral.
Forget the European Capital of Culture bit – it was a complete farce. There were only two useful things: an Exhibition of Cork Silver (for which there is a very good catalogue in circulation -pick it up for it will soon be a collector’s item) and an Exhibition of the Paintings of James Barry.
-
December 12, 2006 at 11:47 pm #769142
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Someone should tell him “Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
Well as the man himself said to the ship’s captain in the storm: Caesarem vehis Caesarisque fortunam
-
December 13, 2006 at 12:20 am #769143
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Well as the man himself said to the ship’s captain in the storm: Caesarem vehis Caesarisque fortunam
Very apt….. like it…
-
December 13, 2006 at 12:38 am #769144
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Very apt….. like it…
Even more apt is the admonition of Quintus Arrius to Ben Hur and his mates chained to the oars in the galley:
“So row well – and live!” -
December 13, 2006 at 11:49 am #769145
samuel j
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Even more apt is the admonition of Quintus Arrius to Ben Hur and his mates chained to the oars in the galley:
“So row well – and live!”Excellent, know a few weekend skippers who still run their boats like this….
But on St. Colmans, I wonder… Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes
-
December 13, 2006 at 2:02 pm #769146
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Excellent, know a few weekend skippers who still run their boats like this….
But on St. Colmans, I wonder… Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes
Asinus asino sus sui pulcher
-
December 13, 2006 at 6:39 pm #769147
Rhabanus
ParticipantFlagellum equo et camus asino et virga dorso inprudentium!
-
December 13, 2006 at 6:45 pm #769148
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Asinus asino sus sui pulcher
Flagellum equo et camus asino et virga dorso inprudentium! (Prv 26:3)
Qui cogitat malefacere stultus vocabitur. (Prv 24:9)
-
December 13, 2006 at 8:07 pm #769149
Praxiteles
ParticipantAt the risk of appearing pseudo-intellectual for it, Praxiteles wishes to raise the question of slime – ecological slime that is!
WHen St. Colman’s Cathedral. Cobh, Co. Cork was “restored” some 15 years ago, the external walls were power -hosed and cleaned to a very white colour. Since then however the white hue has disappeared and been replaced by noticeable streks of what appears to be green slime on the West and South elevations of the building. On the North elevation a seemingly black slime has appeared and now covers extensives portons of the walls.
Can anyone explain what this is? What is the cause? And what remedies should be applied?
The architect in charge of the external restoration of Cobh Cathedral was Mr. David Slattery.
-
December 13, 2006 at 8:13 pm #769150
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here are some more examples of the slime:
-
December 13, 2006 at 8:23 pm #769151
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
At the risk of appearing pseudo-intellectual for it, Praxiteles wishes to raise the question of slime – ecological slime that is!
The architect in charge of the external restoration of Cobh Cathedral was Mr. Denis Slattery.
Some interesting bits fomr the heritgecouncils website
“Stone Work in Irish Churches
David Slattery
Introduction
There is no doubt that the church buildings in this country embody the finest collection of carved stone that any group of buildings does and that collection of stone doesn’t simply only extend to the exteriors of the buildings but to the interiors as well. The quality of the carving in many areas is so fine and so particular that even if money were available it would be very difficult to match it today and the costs involved now in attempting to complete repairs or replacement to the standards which were achieved in eighteenth and nineteenth century church buildings is extremely difficult.Structural Problems
The first and most important thing in addressing any sort of stone problems in a building is to ascertain whether they are structural and whether there is likely to be some form of structural failure before you attempt to go and repair the building. If it is going to fall down there isn’t much point in spending a lot of money carrying out repairs. If there is structural movement and if that structural movement appears to be active and dynamic, the first priority to investigate. It is worth noting that in looking at a church, particularly a church with a spiral tower, that the level of damage which you see at ground level may not in any way reflect the level of damage which occurs at higher levels and particularly the level that occurs on the areas where the prevailing wind and rain is hitting the building. It is very unwise to make assumptions from the ground as to the condition of the building.Problems Caused by Atmospheric Pollution
All types of stone can be severely affected by atmospheric pollution, causing the stone to deteriorate.St. John’s Church in Sandymount Dublin was built is the nineteenth century in local granite and an imported limestone from France. The limestone is used in all the areas of carving as softer stones are often used where the areas are going to be highly carved. This stone has undergone massive deterioration and is simply crumbling away. In the rubble granite walls the pointing had eroded around these stones. Many of them are very small and as a result of the erosion the actual stones themselves were dropping out of the wall.
One of the most famous Georgian churches in Dublin is St. George’s, Hardwicke Place, which was constructed of a mixed granite, Portland stone and imported limestone. The Portland stone has been used in all of the areas of carvings, the capitals, the columns. There have been enormous problems with the tower and they relate to the methods of construction with the use of ferrous metal and also atmospheric pollution. Even the granite has eroded significantly and the level of erosion of pointing and bedding has led to settlement in the stone and has caused structural failure.
St. Catherine’s Church, Dublin is constructed almost entirely in granite. As a result of atmospheric pollution and lack of maintenance, this very fine exterior is now in a very seriously eroded condition.
Statuary on church buildings is also affected by atmospheric pollution. With the costs involved in attempting to repair statues or recarve them, statues are being removed from the parapets and the cornices of church buildings. However, these statues are important and if they can possibly be left in place, they should be. Often when visiting a church, a statue is found that was on the roof, and is taken down and simply left in decayed condition.
Cleaning of Stone
There is a lot of talk about the pros and cons of cleaning buildings, but there is no doubt that in the case of certain types of stone, the crust of dirt that has built up on the surface, inhibits the porosity and breathing capacity of the stone, thus causing a hard skin to form on the surface. As a result the stone deteriorates further, so in situations like this it is very important to clean buildings.On St. Coleman’s Cathedral, Cobh we used nebula sprays to clean the limestone and it was a very successful method, as it caused no damage to the stone and the only thing that had to be watched very carefully was that saturation did not occur. This limestone has a very low porousity, so it has the ability to take the water through the joints and not absorb it into the body of the stone as most porous materials have. So care must be taken to ensure that the building itself doesn’t become saturated as part of the cleaning process. We also used nebula sprays in St. Coleman’s on the statuary and on the King’s Inns in Dublin to break down the heavy crusts on the stone. These were just nebula sprays of water used on timers which were immensely successful and it is not a costly way of cleaning buildings.
The other methodology which we have used quite extensively in cleaning stone is poultice cleaning. Again it is a method which does not cause any damage to stonework and is appropriate where statuary or highly carved stone is involved, so it was used on the entrance to University Church in Dublin.
Repairs
In many instances it is not simply a case of dealing with the problems which a building has by its nature, its location and the materials which are contained in it, but also dealing with repairs that were carried out in the past, and attempting to repair repairs.Cleaning trials should be carried out to match new stone with old because it is very difficult to carry out repairs to a building which has not been not cleaned. In St. Catherine’s Church, Thomas Street in Dublin, where granite has been replaced with new stone, the window sill has been replaced, but unfortunately whoever went to the trouble of working the stone, shaping it and getting it into place, omitted to attempt to try match it with the surrounding material.
There have been examples here and many examples in Britain in recent years where slating was seen to show signs of deterioration within a matter of years of its replacement. St. Coleman’s Cathedral had a lovely greenish slate on the roof which was replaced with a Vermont Evergreen slate which is a very beautiful and a very good slate and so far so good, nothing has happened to it, and it has a very good geological pedigree. The other important consideration is that as a green slate it is comparatively inexpensive when you compare it to Westmoon slate which is probably the best known green slate and is an expensive building material which is also very difficult to obtain.
Problems Caused by Ferrous Metal
The other great problem with many nineteenth century church buildings is the use of ferrous metal to tie the stones together. The main problem with St. George’s Church itself is caused by this. The stone work itself is in fairly good condition, but the ferrous cramps and ties which were used to tie the building together are rusting and expanding. Ferrous metal can expand to seven times its original volume during a rusting process so the level of damage can be very considerable. This is one of the major problems that we faced in the restoration of the Custom House. A further example is the Rates Office in Dublin, which has recently undergone repair work and again the presence of cramps and dowels within the stone has caused the major problem with the building rather than the actual decay of the stone. Ferrous metal decay is an insidious problem: it’s almost like saying your teeth are fine but your gums will have to come out, because if the iron is there, it’s going to continue to cause the damage but it has a structural role.Problems Found in the Interiors of Churches
The problems with deterioration of stone don’t simply extend to the exteriors of the churches, they can be found in the interiors, for example, the marble panelling in the apse of St. Coleman’s where there is a great problem with rising ground water which has salts in it. As the salts crystallise on the surface of the stone work, they can cause astonishing damage and the Cathedral has some very fine marble and alabaster. This salt formation is doing very considerable levels of damage to it, and it is a very difficult and complex problem to remedy. A large quantity of alabaster in the upper regions is suffering from the salt damage. In the baptistery the build-up of salt behind marble which has a lower porosity is actually forcing the pieces of marble off the walls and you can see the edges of the marble there which are being pushed off the wall by the build up of salt behind.Contractors
It is vitally important to employ well informed people to carry out work, and that certainly carries as far as the contractors and specialist contractors who are involved in work to churches.David Slattery
David Slattery is an architect, historic buildings consultant and a Council Member of the RIAI. He works in conservation, restoration and evaluation of eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings in Ireland. He lectures in conservation procedures at schools of architecture and institutions involved in conservation training in Ireland and the United Kingdom. His particular area of expertise is in conservation of stonework and masonry walling. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Architecture of the Heritage Council.” -
December 13, 2006 at 8:44 pm #769152
samuel j
ParticipantA covering of green algae or moss and occasionally the presence of biological growths may be thought undesirable. They can obscure and cause deterioration of inscriptions and carvings. Some organisms have sticky surfaces which can trap dust particles from the atmosphere, increasing the rate of soiling of the building surface and aiding the establishment of higher plants. These in their turn may increase water retention and block gutters and downpipes, leading to further defects
A body of opinion exists which contends that the cleaning of sandstone buildings and monuments helps to promote the development of biological growths on masonry, especially algae, with the consequent aesthetic deterioration of the stone surface. It has been observed that algae can colonise cleaned stone within a few months of cleaning.
-
December 13, 2006 at 8:46 pm #769153
Praxiteles
ParticipantBUt the exterior of the Cathedral is mainly granite and lime-stone
-
December 13, 2006 at 8:56 pm #769154
samuel j
Participant“At the risk of appearing pseudo-intellectual “
Nemo propheta in patria sua ……. heeeheeeee
-
December 13, 2006 at 9:04 pm #769155
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
BUt the exterior of the Cathedral is mainly granite and lime-stone
Yes he mentions Limestone but does not refer to Granite
On St. Coleman’s Cathedral, Cobh we used nebula sprays to clean the limestone and it was a very successful method, as it caused no damage to the stone and the only thing that had to be watched very carefully was that saturation did not occur. This limestone has a very low porousity, so it has the ability to take the water through the joints and not absorb it into the body of the stone as most porous materials have. So care must be taken to ensure that the building itself doesn’t become saturated as part of the cleaning process. We also used nebula sprays in St. Coleman’s on the statuary and on the King’s Inns in Dublin to break down the heavy crusts on the stone. These were just nebula sprays of water used on timers which were immensely successful and it is not a costly way of cleaning buildings.
-
December 13, 2006 at 9:20 pm #769156
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
At the risk of appearing pseudo-intellectual for it, Praxiteles wishes to raise the question of slime – ecological slime that is!
WHen St. Colman’s Cathedral. Cobh, Co. Cork was “restored” some 15 years ago, the external walls were power -hosed and cleaned to a very white colour. Since then however the white hue has disappeared and been replaced by noticeable streks of what appears to be green slime on the West and South elevations of the building. On the North elevation a seemingly black slime has appeared and now covers extensives portons of the walls.
Can anyone explain what this is? What is the cause? And what remedies should be applied?
The architect in charge of the external restoration of Cobh Cathedral was Mr. David Slattery.
Talk to those in charge of Mundelein Seminary north of Chicago. Several years ago, the exterior walls and niches were cleaned. One of the chemicals used was so corrosive that it wiped the faces off several statues and left horrid marks on others.
New chemicals added in ferocious concentrations to salt and dirt in order to melt snow are eating away paths, walkways, and church squares in parishes throughout the northern regions of North America.
-
December 13, 2006 at 9:34 pm #769157
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Asinus asino sus sui pulcher
Lupus pilum mutat sed non mores. (Suetonius citing a much older axiom)
Literal, pedestrian, unimaginative but accurate translation:
The wolf changes his fur, but not his character.Ye olde ICEL translacion (1970), using ye former principle of ‘dynamic equivalence:
The leopard does not change its spots.Al Gore: A zebra does not change its spots
-
December 13, 2006 at 9:46 pm #769158
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
BUt the exterior of the Cathedral is mainly granite and lime-stone
Today I passed the Cathredral and with the dampness of today the algae growth (if that is what it is) is much more pronounced. The North does not get much light so it looks very bad. I cannot say what was or wasn’t used as a cleaning agent in the Granite but it is far to say that much of what was thought in granite being tougher and less prone to cleaning damage, is now found to not be exactly true. The cleaning in past may now have the effect of patchy re-soiling. The whole area is quite complex
some interesting bumf from Scotland on web : http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/schools/mcrg/migran.htm
and http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/stone98/stone98.htm
-
December 13, 2006 at 10:00 pm #769159
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
At the risk of appearing pseudo-intellectual for it, Praxiteles wishes to raise the question of slime – ecological slime that is!
When St. Colman’s Cathedral. Cobh, Co. Cork was “restored” some 15 years ago, the external walls were power -hosed and cleaned to a very white colour. Since then however the white hue has disappeared and been replaced by noticeable streks of what appears to be green slime on the West and South elevations of the building. On the North elevation a seemingly black slime has appeared and now covers extensives portons of the walls.
Can anyone explain what this is? What is the cause? And what remedies should be applied?
The architect in charge of the external restoration of Cobh Cathedral was Mr. David Slattery.
How could Rhabanus ever accuse Praxiteles of pseudo-intellectualism? Would you believe that I just recently came across a reference to slime in a quotation from Matt Walker’s Moths that Drink Elephant Tears and Other Zoological Curiosities (London: Portrait, 2006): ‘hagfish (Eptratetus stoutii) produce substantial amounts of slime when harassed’.
In reply to your query, then, Prax: have you been harassing the local hagfish in Cobh?
-
December 13, 2006 at 10:02 pm #769160
samuel j
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Lupus pilum mutat sed non mores. (Suetonius citing a much older axiom)
Literal, pedestrian, unimaginative but accurate translation:
The wolf changes his fur, but not his character.Ye olde ICEL translacion (1970), using ye former principal of ‘dynamic equivalence:
The leopard does not change its spots.Al Gore: A zebra does not change its spots
Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores
-
December 14, 2006 at 12:51 am #769161
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
“At the risk of appearing pseudo-intellectual “
Nemo propheta in patria sua ……. heeeheeeee
Feels more like Cassandra….
-
December 14, 2006 at 12:58 am #769162
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
How could Rhabanus ever accuse Praxiteles of pseudo-intellectualism? Would you believe that I just recently came across a reference to slime in a quotation from Matt Walker’s Moths that Drink Elephant Tears and Other Zoological Curiosities (London: Portrait, 2006): ‘hagfish (Eptratetus stoutii) produce substantial amounts of slime when harassed’.
In reply to your query, then, Prax: have you been harassing the local hagfish in Cobh?
No. Just a few awfully serious piper smokers in Cork!!
-
December 14, 2006 at 11:30 am #769163
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Feels more like Cassandra….
Excellent….
I know where I can get my hands on a wooden boat but horse..not so readily available.. so maybe you’ll be okay… have done many a voyage around the coast but to call it an Odyssey would be stretching it….
there again if Magoo takes up boating and starts wearing a toga we could be in deep water. -
December 14, 2006 at 11:42 am #769164
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Excellent….
I know where I can get my hands on a wooden boat but horse..not so readily available.. so maybe you’ll be okay… have done many a voyage around the coast but to call it an Odyssey would be stretching it….
there again if Magoo takes up boating and starts wearing a toga we could be in deep water.La Guerre de Troie…and all that…but, where is the face that launched the thousand ships that hid in the statio mala fide carinis ?
-
December 14, 2006 at 12:24 pm #769165
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
La Guerre de Troie…and all that…but, where is the face that launched the thousand ships that hid in the statio mala fide carinis ?
A few more marinas and we might be able to really claim “statio bene fide carinis”
Have had a hand in the launching of about 5 ships…..
-
December 14, 2006 at 12:59 pm #769166
descamps
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
La Guerre de Troie…and all that…but, where is the face that launched the thousand ships that hid in the statio mala fide carinis ?
That kisser is over in Carrigtwohill.
-
December 14, 2006 at 1:40 pm #769167
samuel j
Participantdescamps wrote:That kisser is over in Carrigtwohill.[/QUOTE
Very true -
December 14, 2006 at 3:43 pm #769168
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome further examples of the slime problem affecting the exterior stone work of St. COlman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork. The architect responsible for the restoration of the external stone work of the Carhedral was Mr. David Slattery.
-
December 14, 2006 at 3:49 pm #769169
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Some further examples of the slime problem affecting the exterior stone work of St. COlman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork. The architect responsible for the restoration of the external stone work of the Carhedral was Mr. David Slattery.
Ah – you can also see very clearly there the mess in the room above the baptistry..
-
December 14, 2006 at 4:22 pm #769170
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome more shots of the slime on the exterior stone-work at St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
-
December 14, 2006 at 5:02 pm #769171
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Some more shots of the slime on the exterior stone-work at St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
I note from the last photo that Cobh needs a resident hawk to decimate the pigeon population. That should keep at least the statues clean.
-
December 14, 2006 at 5:30 pm #769172
-
December 14, 2006 at 6:55 pm #769173
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome more close-ups of the slime situation at St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
-
December 14, 2006 at 7:03 pm #769174
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
Ah – you can also see very clearly there the mess in the room above the baptistry..
Ferg!
Just take another look at this picture.
Would you not say that the upright piece on the right is one of the timber pillars used to support the divisions between the nave and the aisles? The shape seems right.
-
December 14, 2006 at 7:04 pm #769175
samuel j
ParticipantReaction from the Palace to complaints about lack of Maintenance !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
December 14, 2006 at 7:16 pm #769176
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is a close up of the wrought iron strapwork on the main door of St. COlman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Am I to be believe that it requires no maintenance?
-
December 14, 2006 at 8:33 pm #769177
Praxiteles
ParticipantRhabanus!
Here are some more shots of those pidgeon infested Apostles on the chevet of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
-
December 15, 2006 at 1:15 am #769178
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe other significant problem with St. Colman’s Catheral, Cobh, Co. Cork, is the internal mosaic work. When the timber floor was recently replaced in the nave, no proper edging was installed to protect the edges of the mosaic on the walkways. The result of this has been an alarming decay of the mosaics, especially their edges which are constantly chipped by bences which have been place on to of the mosaic edges. Professor Cathal O’Neill proposed resolving the mosaic problem by ripping out about 50% of it -after which the remaining 50% would not be that noticeable.
-
December 15, 2006 at 1:22 am #769179
Praxiteles
ParticipantOne of the great mosaic treasures in Cobh Cathedral is the floor of the Sacred Heart Chapel. It is a tour -de- force of a representation of the medieval bestiary and of the symbolic depiction of the triumph of the Lamb over sin, evil and death where each is represented by one of the fabulous beasts.
The present custodians of the Cathedral have little or no understanding of this language and are quite content to use the chapel as a dumping ground for rubbish and other bits and pieces of junk. Of course, Professor Cathal O’Neill would not have given a second thought to digging out the entire floor.
-
December 15, 2006 at 1:51 am #769180
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Next to the Sacred Heart chapel is the Chapel of the Piet
-
December 15, 2006 at 1:54 am #769181
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Ferg!
Just take another look at this picture.
Would you not say that the upright piece on the right is one of the timber pillars used to support the divisions between the nave and the aisles? The shape seems right.
It more than likely is – in fact more than one of them! On the equivalent window on the north side, a large crucifix was also very visible from outside. It looks a bit damp up there as well, is that more slime on the INSIDE of that glass.. tell me, was there ever diamond glazing in that window? I find it hard to believe that is the original glass..
-
December 15, 2006 at 2:02 am #769182
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Cork
The Lady Chapel in the North Transept.
Again, the floor of this chapel is a masterpiece of the mosaic master craftsman and contains depictions of several mystical subjects taken from the Canticle of Canticle referring to Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.
The altar and statue are of flawless Carrara marble.
Unfortunately, this chapel has been converted into a store room for benches taht have been displaced by stupidly rearranging their orientation. Their weight is causing grave damage to what is essentially an ornamental floor. Again, it is perfectly clear that none of these benches was made for this chapel.
-
December 15, 2006 at 2:14 am #769183
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The Chapel of the Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy
This chapel again has a fine ornamental floor into which odd bits of stray furniture have been dumped.
The altar has been stripped of its furnishings and cloths and little or no notice is given to the casket underneath the altar containing the relics of Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy brought from Ivrea in 1895.
-
December 15, 2006 at 4:12 pm #769184
samuel j
ParticipantThe Phantom Cartoonist has been at it again…
-
December 15, 2006 at 6:28 pm #769185
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh Co. Cork
The fifth significent chapel in the Cathedral is the general Mortuary Chapel located in the base of the spire.
The altar has been stripped of its cloths and ornaments and is generally treated with an appaling disrespect.
The Mrtuary itself is used as a general dump with all sorts of junk pitched into it. Inded, Cobh Urban District Council could well have reason to investigate it as an unlicensed dumping area.
The walls and ceiling vault are stained by heavy water ingress taht would seem to be ongoing for years and nothing has been done about it.
-
December 15, 2006 at 10:19 pm #769186
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The Baptistery
This must surely be one of the most neglected parts of the Cathedral interior. Again, this space is full of rubbish and clutter and generally untidy.
Until reently, the brass cover for the baptismal font was left suspended from the wall where it was certain to bring te mechanism for lifting it away from the wall. WHile the brass cover is now on the font, it is still not sitting on it.
The back wall has had several pieces of the marble wainscott hacked off the wall. SOmeone has knocked out two of the pillars from the rail and one seems to have been stolen. The rail itself has been damaged for some reason. Indeed, the entire space gives the appearance of having been vandalized and nobody is too worried about it and no remedial action is being taken.
-
December 15, 2006 at 10:46 pm #769187
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The Altar of the Crucifixion in the South transept
This altar has been stripped of its cloths and fittings. Professor Cathal O’Neill proposed hacking the predella from in front of the altar and stacking a dozen benches in front of it.
-
December 16, 2006 at 1:17 am #769188
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork.
The Altar of the Holy Family, located in the North transept, again has been stripped of its cloths and ornamenta. As with its counterpart in the South transept, Professor O’Neill proposed hacking out the predella of the altar and stacking benches in front of the altar.
The prototype for the central panel of the rerdos of the Altar is Raphael’s picture of the Marriage of the Virgin of 1504 now in the Brera in Milan.
-
December 16, 2006 at 7:38 am #769189
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork.
The Altar of the Holy Family, located in the North transept, again has been stripped of its cloths and ornamenta. As with its counterpart in the South transept, Professor O’Neill proposed hacking out the predella of the altar and stacking benches in front of the altar.
The prototype for the central panel of the rerdos of the Altar is Raphael’s picture of the Marriage of the Virgin of 1504 now in the Brera in Milan.
I note from the photo provided of the chapel of the Holy Family that although the cathedral is crumbling away with each passing hour, someone has hung a false wreath on a pillar. More frippery! If the cathedral cannot afford a real wreath, then it is more prudent to do without until a real one can be obtained. Silken flowers and phony wreathes are tatty in the extreme and have no place in a house of worship.
The place needs a thorough cleaning. An industial-size dumpster parked outside could catch all the junk.
I gather from various remarks on the previous several photos that Cathal was some sort of local architectural guru before whom the regional prelates rolled over so as to let him scratch their bellies. How did he, with all his ill-conceived iconoclasm, rise to such prominence in Irish ecclesiolitics? Is he a relative of some archbishop or prince of the Church over there? Is his wife th esister of a bishop?
Why are some groups of people so eager to feed the dragon that promises to consume them? The right idea is to conquer the dragon, or at least banish the dragon lest it succeed in its malevolent designs. It’s pretty pathetic to think that no one in Ireland stood up to the old puffer and showed him the pointy side of a lance backing him inexorably toward the egress.
The thing about dragons is there’s more of fumery and puffery than of real substance to them.
Has no one advanced Cathal to the Order of the Boot?
-
December 16, 2006 at 10:42 am #769190
kite
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The Altar of the Crucifixion in the South transept
This altar has been stripped of its cloths and fittings. Professor Cathal O’Neill proposed hacking the predella from in front of the altar and stacking a dozen benches in front of it.
😡 Good God, the violation of or culture just goes from bad to worse.
What would happen if some joker suggested;
Replacing the cape on the Statute of Liberty with a track suit?
Welded the “gaps†in the Eiffel Tower?
Replaced Tower Bridge with a Motorway flyover?
Repainted the Sistine Chapel?
Replaced the stars of the U.S. flag with smiley faces?Ropes and trees spring to mind.
Here in Ireland we appoint such jokers to town councils. -
December 16, 2006 at 6:37 pm #769191
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The South Arcade
The Sout arcade has been exposed to prolonged water ingress about which nothing has been done until perhaps very recently. It would now seem that a process of drying out is taking place which is causing the bath stone in ceiling of the arcades to crumble with the result that a fine white dust and larger flakes of material continually fall onto the seating in the arcade. This has been reported tot he Cathedral authoirites on several occasions by a number of people but nothing happens.
-
December 16, 2006 at 6:51 pm #769192
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The North Arcade
Like the South Arcade, the North Arcade also suffers from the long term effects of water ingress which has never been properly addressed.
-
December 16, 2006 at 8:31 pm #769193
samuel j
ParticipantI just have to wonder….what kind of eejits spend millions on renovation and then let it fall into disrepair… or do they think the congregation will fork out again in 8 or 10 years by which time another major renovation will be needed. Its senseless….I can recall people donating, sponsoring a slate..you name name and for what to let it all go downhill thereafter……
There are times I would reckon the OPW would do a better job of maintaining it than these so called guardians…
-
December 17, 2006 at 12:20 am #769194
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here we have a snap of the smashing and dashing young Italian architect (on the left) who has become the architect for Cobh Town Council: Signor Architetto Don Pierangelo Cacciotti.
Welcome to Cobh. We look forward to a close and proficuous working relationship with you in addressing the the awful state of repairs of St. Colman’s Cathedral, Co. Co. Cork
-
December 17, 2006 at 12:41 am #769195
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The other significant problem with St. Colman’s Catheral, Cobh, Co. Cork, is the internal mosaic work. When the timber floor was recently replaced in the nave, no proper edging was installed to protect the edges of the mosaic on the walkways. The result of this has been an alarming decay of the mosaics, especially their edges which are constantly chipped by bences which have been place on to of the mosaic edges. Professor Cathal O’Neill proposed resolving the mosaic problem by ripping out about 50% of it -after which the remaining 50% would not be that noticeable.
What you are looking at on the floor are not the original mosaic tiles. The dark brown/red tiles which framed the original wooden floor in the Cathedral were lifted at the time of the installation of the underfloor heating. The original floor was a wood block floor made of oak, I think. This was claimed by the builder, who mounted a guard on it until he could take it away – it now graces some pubs in Kerry I think. A new floor of much inferior quality was then laid.
The original framing tiles were also thrown out. New tiles were laid and it is these which are now lifting all over the Cathedral.
This vandalism was carried out before the 2000 Planning Act and therefore no permission was needed. Unfortunately nothing will be done about the floor now as I would think that the cost of replacing the wood block floor with a modern equivalent would be prohibitive and this would be well down on the list of what needs to be done.
Regarding the mosaic on the floor, there must be experts somewhere you can lay mosaic flooring that will stay in place. They managed it all over the world for thousands of years.
-
December 17, 2006 at 1:28 am #769196
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
What you are looking at on the floor are not the original mosaic tiles. The dark brown/red tiles which framed the original wooden floor in the Cathedral were lifted at the time of the installation of the underfloor heating. The original floor was a wood block floor made of oak, I think. This was claimed by the builder, who mounted a guard on it until he could take it away – it now graces some pubs in Kerry I think. A new floor of much inferior quality was then laid.
Unfortunately nothing will be done about the floor now as I would think that the cost of replacing the wood block floor with a modern equivalent would be prohibitive and this would be well down on the list of what needs to be done.
If a new floor is needed then the Cathedral will have a new floor and to a standard commensurate with the quality craftsmanship of the rest of the building.
-
December 17, 2006 at 1:32 am #769197
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Regarding the mosaic on the floor, there must be experts somewhere you can lay mosaic flooring that will stay in place. They managed it all over the world for thousands of years.
Please let us be careful about mosaic workers – especially those from the Cliveden “Restoration” Workshops in Maidenhead, Berkshire – it seems more like a knackers yard for mosaics. Remember Guy Edwards contribution to the MIdleton Oral Hearing:
http://www.foscc.com/downloads/oh/21.%20Guy%20Edwards%20Submission.pdf
-
December 17, 2006 at 6:56 pm #769198
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
If a new floor is needed then the Cathedral will have a new floor and to a standard commensurate with the quality craftsmanship of the rest of the building.
I sincerely hope that you are right.:)
-
December 18, 2006 at 2:06 am #769199
Praxiteles
ParticipantLet us hope our young Italian friend will indeed bring a broom to sweep away some of the cobwebs !!
-
December 18, 2006 at 3:18 am #769200
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHe can hardly be worse than the last incumbent.
Ciao BELLO 😀
-
December 18, 2006 at 6:42 pm #769201
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd here are some more problems with the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral that our young Italian friend might like to note: the interior stone work all nedds to be cleaned and the accumulated dust removed. This work wasoriginally planned as a stage in the “restoration” work on the Cathedral but was suspended in order to concentrate funds on the wrecking proposed by Professor Cathal O’Neill:
-
December 18, 2006 at 9:40 pm #769202
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Let us hope our young Italian friend will indeed bring a broom to sweep away some of the cobwebs !!
Quite literaly, sweep away the cobwebs, restore the “junk” to its rightful place…etc.
As town architect for Cobh, I hope he takes a positive interest in the finest building in the town.. the great cathedral chruch of St Colman! -
December 19, 2006 at 11:29 pm #769203
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantA bit of local news. Some local ladies recently asked for volunteers to help in cleaning the Baptistry and the Mortuary Chapel and the responses ranged from:
That is the priests’ job to ‘I wouldn’t like to step on anyone’s toes’.
The people of Cobh do love their Cathedral but like everything else here, it is a matter of “someone else’s business”. They have supported the Restoration project very generously, and since the proposed re-ordering they have transferred that support to the Friends of St. Colmans and have been more than generous, but when it comes to actually doing something it is an attitude of “hands off”.
Donations by their nature are anonymous, showing up in the Cathedral and tidying up, is a little too public!!!!!
What a shame.:( -
December 20, 2006 at 12:00 am #769204
samuel j
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
A bit of local news. Some local ladies recently asked for volunteers to help in cleaning the Baptistry and the Mortuary Chapel and the responses ranged from:
That is the priests’ job to ‘I wouldn’t like to step on anyone’s toes’.
The people of Cobh do love their Cathedral but like everything else here, it is a matter of “someone else’s business”. They have supported the Restoration project very generously, and since the proposed re-ordering they have transferred that support to the Friends of St. Colmans and have been more than generous, but when it comes to actually doing something it is an attitude of “hands off”.
Donations by their nature are anonymous, showing up in the Cathedral and tidying up, is a little too public!!!!!
What a shame.:(I don’t agree, for more years than i wish to remember, the weekly collections are gathered and correct me if i’m wrong, were well supported or at least until the congregation learned of the non listening bishops intentions.
If the bishop is up to his arse in debt due to his grandiose schemes and now has little will or funds left for maintenance, cleaning and lighting… you cannot blame the people of Cobh.
do you now want people to pay or have paid willingly to the upkeep of the church and now by way of no harm clean it themselves too…… no it is not the prients job, but it is his job to manage it and administer publically donated funds correctly.
Don’t come blaming the people of Cobh, blame the management. If they can’t manage move on…piss or get off the pot……
-
December 20, 2006 at 12:24 am #769205
Gianlorenzo
Participant@samuel j wrote:
I don’t agree, for more years than i wish to remember, the weekly collections are gathered and correct me if i’m wrong, were well supported or at least until the congregation learned of the non listening bishops intentions.
If the bishop is up to his arse in debt due to his grandiose schemes and now has little will or funds left for maintenance, cleaning and lighting… you cannot blame the people of Cobh.
do you now want people to pay or have paid willingly to the upkeep of the church and now by way of no harm clean it themselves too…… no it is not the prients job, but it is his job to manage it and administer publically donated funds correctly.
Don’t come blaming the people of Cobh, blame the management. If they can’t manage move on…piss or get off the pot……
No argument. The people of Cobh have been outstanding in their moral and financial support for the campaign against the re-ordering.
My point was that when it comes to the simple things like tidying up the Cathedral and taking the initiative re. cleaning etc. then it is hard to find volunteers.
The problem is that the Steering Committee took a decision in 2001 to defer any further payments for restoration/maintenance until the ‘great’ re-ordering was in progress (they were so sure that they would win the day). And now we have a buiding in desperate need of major repair.
My quibble was with the small minded attitude as reiterated above which says that it is always someone elses job.
There are things that those who care can undertake in the Cathedral without recourse to architects; planners;
conservations experts; etc.
I love St. Colman’s and I will be cleaning it and getting rid of the extraneous debrit before Christmas. -
December 20, 2006 at 12:43 am #769206
samuel j
ParticipantGianlorenzo wrote:No argument. The people of Cobh have been outstanding in their moral and financial support for the campaign against the re-ordering.
My point was that when it comes to the simple things like tidying up the Cathedral and taking the initiative re. cleaning etc. then it is hard to find volunteers.
The problem is that the Steering Committee took a decision in 2001 to defer any further payments for restoration/maintenance until the ‘great’ re-ordering was in progress (they were so sure that they would win the day). And now we have a buiding in desperate need of major repair.
My quibble was with the small minded attitude as reiterated above which says that it is always someone elses job.
There are things that those who care can undertake in the Cathedral without recourse to architects]I take your point that it is hard to get volunteers and probably something more symptomatic of the times we live in and not any unique to cleaning the cathedral. However I do strongly feel that the Bishop has alienated so many with his total disregard to the voice of the people of cobh that it will be hard to recover this trust. His methodology in the re-ordering was so heavy handed, it gave the distinct impression that the congragation should have no say and should not interfere in his chruch matters.
The damage he has done was not just physical…. and I share you’re concerns at state of repair of the cathedral… but should someone not be held responsible for this mess…… And I don’t think the people of Cobh should be first in line in the sacrificial lamb queue….
-
December 20, 2006 at 1:04 am #769207
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Diocese of Cloyne has just published its Diocesan Directory for 2007 and provides the list of those serving on the Cloyne Historic Churches Advisory Committee. We are told that this committee has been established in “compliance with Planning Act 2000 (sic) without mentioning section or number of the act.
The following are those presently sitting on the Cloyne HACK:
1. Canon S
-
December 20, 2006 at 2:03 am #769208
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Diocese of Cloyne has just published its Diocesan Directory for 2007 and provides the list of those serving on the Cloyne Historic Churches Advisory Committee. We are told that this committee has been established in “compliance with Planning Act 2000 (sic) without mentioning section or number of the act.
The following are those presently sitting on the Cloyne HACK:
1. Canon Séan Cotter, aged c.70 parish priest of Charleville.
2. Sr. Cabrini Delahunty, aged c. 80, retired lecturer in psychology at UCC.
3. Rev. Robert Forde, aged 82, retired parish priest of Milford.
4. Mr. Dick Haslam, aged c. 80, retired County manager for Limerick (1970-1988).
5. Mr. John Lynch, an architect based in Donoughmore and responsible for the wreckage of the interior and the palladian sancturay of Killavullen church and for its refitting in a style of blank buddhist anonymity.
6. Fr. Daniel Murphy, aged c.38, a liturgical “expert” who recommended the whole scale destruction of the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral in a discredited document entitled Liturgical Requirements.
7. Mr. Peter Murray, aged 51,director of the Crawford Art Gallery in Cork.
8. Mons. Denis Reidy, aged 71, parish priest of Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork, and eminence grise behind the whole escapade to wreck Cobh Cathedral .
9. Canon John Terry, aged 72, parish priest of Kanturk, Co. Cork who is not known for his regular contributions to Appollo but acts as “chairperson” of the Cloyne HACK.
10. Mr. Alex White, aged c. 70, an architect better known for having built, among other things, some holiday cottages in West Cork.Apart from Sr. Cabrini Delahunty and Mr. Peter Murray, none of these people lives in Cobh.
Mr. Dick Haslam and Mr. Alex White live in Cork -outside of the diocese of Cloyne.Clearly, with a very singular exception, we are dealing with a committee that would have rivalled the gerentocracy of post Maoist China!
A few elder lemons there alright, no wonder they unanimously endorsed the plan for the Cathedral wreckage as they may well have been in dotage. Are you sure its not the Cloyne Pre-historic Derisory Committee
-
December 20, 2006 at 2:25 am #769209
Gianlorenzo
Participant@samuel j wrote:
I take your point that it is hard to get volunteers and probably something more symptomatic of the times we live in and not any unique to cleaning the cathedral. However I do strongly feel that the Bishop has alienated so many with his total disregard to the voice of the people of cobh that it will be hard to recover this trust. His methodology in the re-ordering was so heavy handed, it gave the distinct impression that the congragation should have no say and should not interfere in his chruch matters.
The damage he has done was not just physical…. and I share you’re concerns at state of repair of the cathedral… but should someone not be held responsible for this mess…… And I don’t think the people of Cobh should be first in line in the sacrificial lamb queue….
Please read again what I said. The people of Cobh are not responsible for the current state of the Cathedral. They have donated over 1.3 million Euros to the Restoration Fund. The Steering Committee and the Trustees are the ones responsible. Full Stop….
What my original point was that despite all that there are times that people have to take things into their own hands. People cannot, unforunately, decide how their money is spent, but we can just go in and do what we can, when we see a need.
My great wish is that the people of Cobh would become very very angry regarding the money they have donated and how it is not being spent. -
December 20, 2006 at 2:33 am #769210
samuel j
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Please read again what I said. The people of Cobh are not responsible for the current state of the Cathedral. They have donated over 1.3 million Euros to the Restoration Fund. The Steering Committee and the Trustees are the ones responsible. Full Stop….
What my original point was that despite all that there are times that people have to take things into their own hands. People cannot, unforunately, decide how their money is spent, but we can just go in and do what we can, when we see a need.
My great wish is that the people of Cobh would become very very angry regarding the money they have donated and how it is not being spent.Take your point….. and fully agree on your comment on how it is not being spent
The Steering Committee and the Trustees are the ones responsible. Full Stop….Oh yes
People cannot, unforunately, decide how their money is spent, – and why not….okay I know what you mean in this case but what can people do formally to ask why …… we see from todays news on Charlie Haughey what happens when no ones asks…..
-
December 20, 2006 at 4:20 am #769211
Rhabanus
ParticipantSo that’s the kisser in Carrigtwohill! Mirabile visu!
-
December 20, 2006 at 4:29 am #769212
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Take your point….. and fully agree on your comment on how it is not being spent
The Steering Committee and the Trustees are the ones responsible. Full Stop….Oh yes
People cannot, unforunately, decide how their money is spent, – and why not….okay I know what you mean in this case but what can people do formally to ask why …… we see from todays news on Charlie Haughey what happens when no ones asks…..
The good people of Cobh have been heroic in their financial giving, as well as in their moral support for the reclamation, preservation, and conservation of their fair cathedral. The vigorous defence of the cathedral by the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral was another outstanding witness to the Faith and a vindication of the generations who built and worshipped in that worthy dwelling of the Most High.
This next remark may seem naive at first glance, but please consider it carefully, for it comes from experience (school of hard knocks). The good folk who, as a rule, would be more than willing to roll up their sleeves and pitch into some heavy-duty cleaning may well have a mighty good reason for holding back until someone in authority officially indicates a particular direction. You see, volunteer cleaning crews, despite their best intentions and meticulous care for the fabric, are rarely up to the kind of professional cleaning job that really ought to be done.
The extent of the neglect and incipient decay, evident in the splendid photographs provided earlier, suggests to me that even a superficial cleaning of the walls, windows, floors, etcetera, really requires the services of a fully-licensed (and insured) professional cleaning crew. In the case of at least one beautiful but neglected Victorian-Gothic church (on this side of the pond) that received a cleaning from its willing volunteers, they could reach only so high on extension ladders. Consequently a line of contrast went all round the church. Below the line, the wall was nice and clean]the proper kind of insurance[/I] is the correct solution to the cleaning problem.
The cathedral clergy [and that quorum hircorum antiquorum] ought to be hounded to get this necessary reparation under way.
The collection of anziani on that board posted by Prax is a real hoot! Is it actually the case that a committee of dotards with one 38-year-old loose cannon (canon-in-the-making??) constitutes the pride of Cloyne? Heavens to Murgatroyd!!!
Time for a good stiff wind to blow through the diocese of Clyone and take out the flotsam and jetsam of Carrigtwohill as well as the other timeservers.
What a reflection of the bishop’s judgement.
-
December 20, 2006 at 5:11 am #769213
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantA thorough profession cleaning, much as it might be needed, is not going to happen in the short term.
What I was speaking about was a dusting down and cleaning of the Baptistry and Mortuary Chapels (which do not seem to be included in the regular cleaning rota) for Christmas, i.e. getting rid of some of the junk.
We have done similar work in the other chapels in the Cathedral over the years. The administrator has no problems with us undertaking this work.
The only reason I mentioned it at all is that I was somewhat taken aback with the reaction I got from some of the most supportive and loyal members of the congregation when we asked for help in this undertaking.
It really is a minor point, but disheartening in that even though there is great support for the campaign to preserve the Cathedral, that doesn’t necessarily translate in willingness to do anything positive. -
December 20, 2006 at 1:03 pm #769214
THE_Chris
ParticipantIt a general thing everywhere. People dont like cleaning churches. They say its either the priests or sacristans job.
In a small country parish I was in recently, there were 100 people on average going to church. The First Holy Communion was coming up so they asked for some volunteers (out of the 100 normal churchgoers and the 50-60 extra for the first communion) to help clean up the church one night.
Four people turned up.
People say “The priests & sacristans are being paid, they should do it”. When in reality its neither the priests nor sacristans JOB to do it. Even though those two usually end up doing it. Sometimes a priest turns up, sometimes not, leaving the entire job to the sacristan and the 4-odd people.
IIRC the sacristans job is officially to do with the altar and the sacristy. Even in a small church, they arent officially required to clean and tidy the main part of the church, even thoug they usually do.
Maybe things in Cobh will jostle round a bit after the usual ‘Inter-Parish-Priestly-shuffle” thats going on there soon!
-
December 20, 2006 at 4:56 pm #769215
samuel j
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
It a general thing everywhere. People dont like cleaning churches. They say its either the priests or sacristans job.
In a small country parish I was in recently, there were 100 people on average going to church. The First Holy Communion was coming up so they asked for some volunteers (out of the 100 normal churchgoers and the 50-60 extra for the first communion) to help clean up the church one night.
Four people turned up.
People say “The priests & sacristans are being paid, they should do it”. When in reality its neither the priests nor sacristans JOB to do it. Even though those two usually end up doing it. Sometimes a priest turns up, sometimes not, leaving the entire job to the sacristan and the 4-odd people.
IIRC the sacristans job is officially to do with the altar and the sacristy. Even in a small church, they arent officially required to clean and tidy the main part of the church, even thoug they usually do.
Maybe things in Cobh will jostle round a bit after the usual ‘Inter-Parish-Priestly-shuffle” thats going on there soon!
You are right to is hard to get volunteers and with dwindling mass attendees, this will most likely get worse.
We could talk forever on the reasons but fair to say if you cannot get people even attending masses then chances of getting volunteers will be 10 times worse. In Cobhs case, I feel that much of this apparent apathy is only symtomatic of the general feeling and mis-trust the people have of those in office. They have after all been lied to, cheated (in that funds they donate are not/have not been wisely..to put it mildly) etc.
Now combine these factors with the overall Churchs handling of various scandals throughout Ireland and you are on a very slippery sloop. Its sad, its unfortunate but its reality….
Over the last few years when every day another scandal hit the papers, it most certainly was not a time
for a bull headed Bishop to blast away at plans that the majority were against and many for that matter were looking closely at their own relationship with the Church as a whole. What is did suggest was a Diocese and the powers therein, totally out of touch with reality. You may not agree but all of these events were of course going to have fallout….. and alas those in office have exasberated this fallout with their ill advised plans.
Now we see the early results…. The Cathedral crying out for maintenance and/or basic cleaning, a mangement team that have steered the whole process aground, no money being released and a laity just fed up. -
December 20, 2006 at 5:40 pm #769216
Praxiteles
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
It a general thing everywhere. People dont like cleaning churches. They say its either the priests or sacristans job.
In a small country parish I was in recently, there were 100 people on average going to church. The First Holy Communion was coming up so they asked for some volunteers (out of the 100 normal churchgoers and the 50-60 extra for the first communion) to help clean up the church one night.
Four people turned up.
People say “The priests & sacristans are being paid, they should do it”. When in reality its neither the priests nor sacristans JOB to do it. Even though those two usually end up doing it. Sometimes a priest turns up, sometimes not, leaving the entire job to the sacristan and the 4-odd people.
IIRC the sacristans job is officially to do with the altar and the sacristy. Even in a small church, they arent officially required to clean and tidy the main part of the church, even thoug they usually do.
Maybe things in Cobh will jostle round a bit after the usual ‘Inter-Parish-Priestly-shuffle” thats going on there soon!
A well organised parish will have an altar society part of whose job is to ensure that the parish church is kept clean and tidy by attending to ordinary general maintenance. I do not know whether the Cobh altar society is still running or not. It was a example of practical -if not glamorous – lay involvement in the life of the Church. Should it no longer function, then we are dealing with a clear neglect at thelevel of parochial administration.
In the case of Cobh Cathedral it is quite extraordinary that no institutional arrangement exists to ensure the onging attention a building of such importance requires. Cologne Cathedral has its Domverein (if we can still use a teuton word) which houses its building archive]Reverendissima Fabbrica[/I] of Milan Cathedral which carries out the same functions on a professional basis and still owns the quarries in Switzerland from which much of the stone for the Cathedral was (and still is) drawn. Until such exists in Cobh, the maintenance of this building will continue to be done on an unprofessional hand-to-mouth basis by people like denis reidy who, ultimately, know little or nothing about the building, and seem to care less.
As for Cobh Urban District Council ever being expected to fulfill its duties under the planning act, or indeed to enforce the act,I am afraid that we can look forward to white blackbirds.
-
December 20, 2006 at 5:55 pm #769217
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
In the case of Cobh Cathedral it is quite extraordinary that no institutional arrangement exists to ensure the onging attention a building of such importance requires.
Until such exists in Cobh, the maintenance of this building will continue to be done on an unprofessional hand-to-mouth basis by people like denis reidy who, ultimately, know little or nothing about the building.I too find it very strange that the custodians of such a building, of international fame, not to mind its importance within Ireland, have no formal and professional arrangements in place. Incredible is all I can say….
-
December 20, 2006 at 6:02 pm #769218
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
I too find it very strange that the custodians of such a building, of international fame, not to mind its importance within Ireland, have no formal and professional arrangements in place. Incredible is all I can say….
Not at all surprising. It just what you can expect from the gerontocracy that long ago should have moved over to the Cobh Senior Citizens Club! Some of these are so backward in their outlook that it is surprising they use electricity!!
-
December 20, 2006 at 6:36 pm #769219
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Not at all surprising. It just what you can expect from the gerontocracy that long ago should have moved over to the Cobh Senior Citizens Club! Some of these are so backward in their outlook that it is surprising they use electricity!!
Take your point
-
December 20, 2006 at 8:26 pm #769220
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Diocese of Cloyne has just published its Diocesan Directory for 2007 and provides the list of those serving on the Cloyne Historic Churches Advisory Committee. We are told that this committee has been established in “compliance with Planning Act 2000 (sic) without mentioning section or number of the act.
The following are those presently sitting on the Cloyne HACK:
1. Canon S
-
December 21, 2006 at 1:26 am #769221
THE_Chris
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
As for Cobh Urban District Council ever being expected to fulfill its duties under the planning act, or indeed to enforce the act,I am afraid that we can look forward to white blackbirds.
I saw a white crow a few years ago 😀
Will be interested to see if anything changes with Cobhs new administrator in a months time. The New Guy doesnt look like he’s going to take any shit. Whether thats good or bad I’ll leave open to debate.
-
December 21, 2006 at 1:29 am #769222
THE_Chris
ParticipantDanny Murphy and Denis Reidy were both priests in Cobh a number of years ago. I used to know Danny, he was a great laugh. Will be interesting to see if this Church Advisory Commitee will do anything useful, or if they’re just a pointless bit of red tape.
Im home for Christmas now. Hopefully I can find those Cathedral bell pics and that magazine of Ballymore interior before its ruination 🙂
Edit: Jackpot 😀 Got loads of pics of the clock workings, the insides of the clock faces and pics from up the top of the main spire. Will post over the next few days when I have a chance 😀
-
December 21, 2006 at 1:58 am #769223
Praxiteles
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
Will be interesting to see if this Church Advisory Commitee will do anything useful, or if they’re just a pointless bit of red tape.
Im home for Christmas now. Hopefully I can find those Cathedral bell pics and that magazine of Ballymore interior before its ruination 🙂
Edit: Jackpot 😀 Got loads of pics of the clock workings, the insides of the clock faces and pics from up the top of the main spire. Will post over the next few days when I have a chance 😀
This little gereatric soviet is very dangerous. Note that after the last advice they gave (it was all right to wreck the interior) none of them has resigned or even tendered a resignation. You would imagine that a body which caused major embarrassment to its boss would have enough sense to know that it cannot continue and must go. But, in this case, no such civic sense. The only explanation I can think of is that a number of the members must not have sufficiently clear faculties to be able to tender a valid resignation!!
The actions of this little soviet have been highlighted in relation to Cobh Cathedral. But, nobody notices their pernicioous influence on the many small and insignificant churches in the diocese of Cloyne. ONe could cite the example of St. Joseph’s Church in Liscarroll, Co. Cork. The cultural revolutionists have been busy on this project and will no doubt have unanimously recommended a major wreck job on this mid 19th century village church.
-
December 21, 2006 at 2:00 am #769224
Praxiteles
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
I saw a white crow a few years ago 😀
Must be the Italian influence on Cobh Urban District Council!!!
-
December 21, 2006 at 7:04 am #769225
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
This little gereatric soviet is very dangerous. Note that after the last advice they gave (it was all right to wreck the interior) none of them has resigned or even tendered a resignation. You would imagine that a body which caused major embarrassment to its boss would have enough sense to know that it cannot continue and must go. But, in this case, no such civic sense. The only explanation I can think of is that a number of the members must not have sufficiently clear faculties to be able to tender a valid resignation!!
The actions of this little soviet have been highlighted in relation to Cobh Cathedral. But, nobody notices their pernicioous influence on the many small and insignificant churches in the diocese of Cloyne. ONe could cite the example of St. Joseph’s Church in Liscarroll, Co. Cork. The cultural revolutionists have been busy on this project and will no doubt have unanimously recommended a major wreck job on this mid 19th century village church.
In North America those who show similar symptoms are declared ‘incapable’.
Roll the calendar back 40 years (“Vatican II and all that …”), friends, and consider that the vast majority of these time-servers were in their prime (mid-30s and 40s) ripping and snorting through the local houses of worship in ‘the spirit of Vatican 2’. These artful codgers have been in office for far too long. Problem with self-proclaimed or publicly-acclaimed ‘liberals’ is that they are liberal with most things except their own money and their power. You will find them fairly illiberal, too, when it comes to tolerating views at variance with their own.
At any rate, it ought to have dawned on the local Ordinary that his committee has long been in need of rejuvenation. Or is he expecting a plenary indulgence for stalking (stocking??) the gilded boneyard?
Question: Does His Lordship use a gavel, a crozier, or a scythe when he presides over their meetings?
-
December 21, 2006 at 3:57 pm #769226
samuel j
Participant90k plus viewers to this thread……
-
December 21, 2006 at 6:49 pm #769227
Gianlorenzo
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
I saw a white crow a few years ago 😀
Will be interested to see if anything changes with Cobhs new administrator in a months time. The New Guy doesnt look like he’s going to take any shit. Whether thats good or bad I’ll leave open to debate.
Don’t hold your breath – things are only likely to get worse.
The New Guy recently presided at a meeting for the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and his buddy from Cork Diocese, who he had invited to the meeting, told the people that St. Colmans was completely unsuitable for the Liturgy in its present state. The ‘New Guy’ didn’t raise an eyebrow so it must be presumed that he agrees with this stupidity. He also has a problem with kneeling, in that he refuses to do it even at the Consecration when he is obliged to do it. So all in all don’t expect too much in the coming months.:eek:
BTW I noticed today that Baptisty and Mortuary Chapels have been cleaned – well done ladies.:) Also when I visited the Cathedral the flower ladies were hard at it so we can expect the usual wonderful display for Christmas.:D
Heard they had a large screen on the altar on Tuesday night during the Carol Service. Seems that people have to be looking at something all the time nowadays. Gone are the days when one could just sit and listen without visual stimulii.:(
-
December 21, 2006 at 8:34 pm #769228
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
BTW I noticed today that Baptisty and Mortuary Chapels have been cleaned – well done ladies.:) Also when I visited the Cathedral the flower ladies were hard at it so we can expect the usual wonderful display for Christmas.:D (
Well, that is some bit of progress. Can we assume that Archiseek had anything to do with it?
-
December 21, 2006 at 10:08 pm #769229
samuel j
ParticipantGianlorenzo wrote:Don’t hold your breath – things are only likely to get worse.The New Guy recently presided at a meeting for the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and his buddy from Cork Diocese, who he had invited to the meeting, told the people that St. Colmans was completely unsuitable for the Liturgy in its present state. The ‘New Guy’ didn’t raise an eyebrow so it must be presumed that he agrees with this stupidity.
Still low on the learning curve then……… has anyone there the balls to say no to the Bishop…. seems like lie he still surrounded by a bunch of Yes-men… a shame….. based on initial lack of eye brow movment would thing you are absolutely right ….things are only likely to get worseBTW I noticed today that Baptisty and Mortuary Chapels have been cleaned – well done ladies.:) Also when I visited the Cathedral the flower ladies were hard at it so we can expect the usual wonderful display for Christmas.:Glad to hear this, well done indeed
-
December 21, 2006 at 11:33 pm #769230
THE_Chris
ParticipantAbout three years ago I went up to the top of the spire of Cobh Cathedral on a beautiful day. Decided to share the good pics with you lot – it’ll let you see parts of the Cathedral you’d never usually see.
I’ll post them over the next few days, cos you’ll miss some if I post them in bulk 😀
Bear in mind they were taken in 2003, but I dont think much has changed since then.
View of main part of Cathedral from choir/organ balcony at the back ->
One of the two chapels from above (bit dark) ->
The main timekeeping device that powers the clock faces. This is located very far down the spire and links to the clock faces by an elaborate series of cogs and wheels.
Same again, you can see the vertical tube thing that transfers the movements to the faces –
Further up, where the tube meets the clock faces –
This was further down – I THINK it was the original organ like device for playing the bells.
26 more pics to come 🙂
-
December 21, 2006 at 11:41 pm #769231
samuel j
ParticipantExcellent work THE_Chris…. keep them coming. Was up their (boys choir no less) years ago and can still recall the specatular view we had whilst singing our hearts out and bit of mischief we got up to…..the odd lollipop stick flicking to the un-suspecting congregation below when it all got a bit too much for us wee lads…..
-
December 21, 2006 at 11:52 pm #769232
Fearg
ParticipantThis was further down – I THINK it was the original organ like device for playing the bells.
I think the correct term is simpy “console” – the following link shows its replacement and the original when it was in working order: http://homepage.eircom.net/~adriangebruers/carillonneur.html
Superb pictures – looking forward to seeing the rest 🙂 In particular, you really get to appreciate those mosaic floors, high up in the triforum!
-
December 21, 2006 at 11:53 pm #769233
ake
ParticipantJust a few questions concerning the management of churches, if anyone knows:
Today I was in the recently refurbished and re-opened RC cathedral in Waterford (designed by John Roberts who also designed the COI cathedral in the same city, which they say makes Waterford the only city in Europe whose Protestant and Catholic cathedrals had the same architect) begun 1793 making it a very much Georgian Catholic cathedral. It is so magnificent and has been so well restored I almost don’t want to say anything negative, however I’m going to. The problem is the paint job- it could be argued that the colour of the paint does not affect the appearance of the interior significantly, but while the architecture and ornament are still appreciable, I think an innappropriate colouring does reduce the aesthetic, potentially seriously. In the cathedral the side walls (south and north) are a perfect, soft, unobtrusive light yellow which goes splendidly with the dark woodwork (which is truly the most extensive and beautiful I’ve seen in an Irish RC church), but the east end and the many columns are painted a light baby blue! (Before the recent work it was an even darker blue) the effect is truly awful, and the blue should so obviously be the same yellow as the rest! Another church (also wonderful) in Waterford suffers from the same misfortune- the Franciscan church. This is also a light yellow, perhaps the very same one, but the chancel is painted a gaudy red and the crossing ceiling an absurd orangy yellow- contiguous with the light yellow and clashing with it dreadfully. Many Irish churches in fact are badly coloured. Now I noticed both of the above churches have been re-ordered ( however extremely sympathetically- so much so in fact, it is hardly re-ordering in the usual, destructive sense. That’s not to condone it -it shouldn’t have been done) and I’m wondering
1. Is a new colour scheme ever, or usually a part of the re-ordering carried out by the priests or bishops?
2. Even ignoring re-orderment- is the colour for a church interior usually specified in it’s design, and intentionally retained- or is it under the fancy of the parish priest every 5 years or so, depending on what mood he’s in?
3. Has anyone between the Irish Archbishops and the Pope expressed even an acknowledgement of what has happened to the churches in Ireland, not to even speak of regret?
4. Can anyone with a good knowledge of Catholic bureaucracy please answer me this: Are the Catholic churches in Ireland owned directly by the Holy See- if they are, is there not an official in charge of them, someone qualified and knowledgeable about the vast heritage/property of the Church, whose job is to protect and preserve them?
If anyone in the know could answer any of these for me I’m really grateful.
-
December 21, 2006 at 11:56 pm #769234
THE_Chris
ParticipantOnce I post the Ballymore hack-job pictures (gimme a day or two) your entire ideas on painting churches will be destroyed forever 🙁
-
December 22, 2006 at 12:27 am #769235
Praxiteles
ParticipantBrilliant photographs and a wonderful glimpse at aspects of St. Colman’s Cathedral practically never seen. I especially like the photograph of the Sacred Heart Chapel and the Piet
-
December 22, 2006 at 12:45 am #769236
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Brilliant photographs and a wonderful glimpse at aspects of St. Colman’s Cathedral practically never seen. I especially like the photograph of the Sacred Heart Chapel and the Pietà Chapel taken from the tribune over the southern arcade. This really is the place from which to photograph the Sacred Heart Chapel to get a view of the breathtaking floor in that chapel. I am not sure what that temporary tabernacle on the Altar is: there is a perfectly good tabernacle on that Altar – do not tell me that some clown has lost the keys to it?
A reliable informant told me that for some of the big occasions, his lordship’s throne is moved from the screen to a position in front of the high altar.. hence the need for a temporary tabernacle..
-
December 22, 2006 at 1:36 am #769237
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
Just a few questions concerning the management of churches, if anyone knows:
Today I was in the recently refurbished and re-opened RC cathedral in Waterford (designed by John Roberts who also designed the COI cathedral in the same city, which they say makes Waterford the only city in Europe whose Protestant and Catholic cathedrals had the same architect) begun 1793 making it a very much Georgian Catholic cathedral. It is so magnificent and has been so well restored I almost don’t want to say anything negative, however I’m going to. The problem is the paint job- it could be argued that the colour of the paint does not affect the appearance of the interior significantly, but while the architecture and ornament are still appreciable, I think an innappropriate colouring does reduce the aesthetic, potentially seriously. In the cathedral the side walls (south and north) are a perfect, soft, unobtrusive light yellow which goes splendidly with the dark woodwork (which is truly the most extensive and beautiful I’ve seen in an Irish RC church), but the east end and the many columns are painted a light baby blue! (Before the recent work it was an even darker blue) the effect is truly awful, and the blue should so obviously be the same yellow as the rest! Another church (also wonderful) in Waterford suffers from the same misfortune- the Franciscan church. This is also a light yellow, perhaps the very same one, but the chancel is painted a gaudy red and the crossing ceiling an absurd orangy yellow- contiguous with the light yellow and clashing with it dreadfully. Many Irish churches in fact are badly coloured. Now I noticed both of the above churches have been re-ordered ( however extremely sympathetically- so much so in fact, it is hardly re-ordering in the usual, destructive sense. That’s not to condone it -it shouldn’t have been done) and I’m wondering
1. Is a new colour scheme ever, or usually a part of the re-ordering carried out by the priests or bishops?
2. Even ignoring re-orderment- is the colour for a church interior usually specified in it’s design, and intentionally retained- or is it under the fancy of the parish priest every 5 years or so, depending on what mood he’s in?
3. Has anyone between the Irish Archbishops and the Pope expressed even an acknowledgement of what has happened to the churches in Ireland, not to even speak of regret?
4. Can anyone with a good knowledge of Catholic bureaucracy please answer me this: Are the Catholic churches in Ireland owned directly by the Holy See- if they are, is there not an official in charge of them, someone qualified and knowledgeable about the vast heritage/property of the Church, whose job is to protect and preserve them?
If anyone in the know could answer any of these for me I’m really grateful.
Colour schemes usually are included in so called “reordering” schemes. One of the worst in the country must surely be the abbey chapel of the Benedictines at Glenstal. The main walls are covered in the most awful psycodyllic wavy bands -enough to induce mal de mer and cause the congregation to take refuge in the side aisles. Usually, the forward architects and the backward liturgists come up with fanciful ideas that somehow or other suddenly become “liturgically” required.
I believe that all colour schemes SHOULD fall under the preservation of protected interiors. I cannot imagine anyone disputing that in the case of a georgian country house.
As far as acknowledging a problem is concerned, most of the Irish hierarchy are not even aware taht one exists. Just look at their statement of “solidarity” with the bishop of Cloyne condemning an Bord Pleannala for its decision in relation to Cobh Cathedral.
Who protects the heritage of the Church: that is indeed a good question. Up to lately, any PP in the country could be relied on to do his bit in a fairly competent fashion. But, at present, well….this thread says it all.
-
December 22, 2006 at 3:52 am #769238
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:Brilliant photographs and a wonderful glimpse at aspects of St. Colman’s Cathedral practically never seen. I especially like the photograph of the Sacred Heart Chapel and the Pietà]It could be between Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil. The Sacred Heart Chapel is used at that time for reservation of the Hosts and the covering you see is put in place at that time.
On other occasions when the Sacred Heart Chapel is used that particular structure is not used. So I am guessing that the photos were taken at Easter. THE_Chris can confirm. -
December 22, 2006 at 2:27 pm #769239
Praxiteles
Participant[/I] @Gianlorenzo wrote:
It could be between Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil. The Sacred Heart Chapel is used at that time for reservation of the Hosts and the covering you see is put in place at that time.
On other occasions when the Sacred Heart Chapel is used that particular structure is not used. So I am guessing that the photos were taken at Easter. THE_Chris can confirm.If this is used as a tabernacle, even at Easter time, I am afraid that it must be contrary to the present liturgical norms governing tabernacles. A tabernacle must be immoveable ans the case shown in the picture of the Sacred Heart Chapel in Cobh Cathedral cannnot be such – unless they bored a bolt into the mensa of the altar,-on which, by the way, nothing is supposed to be placed. This is truly very edifying coming from the powers that be in Cobh Cathedral with all their guff about liturgical appropriateness. If they are interested, or indeed able, gthey might like to check the provisions of theInstitutio generalis Missalis Romani , article 314 on the fixture and security of the tabernacle; and article 306 in relation to what is to be placed on an altar. Indeed, the original tabernacle on the altar of the Sacred Heart is in perfect conformity with the present legislation on tabernacles in that it is fixed to the reredos, of solid material, and is not placed on the altar but on the gradine of the reredos – and they tell us that Cobh Cathedral is not suitable for the modern liturgy!!
-
December 22, 2006 at 7:44 pm #769240
THE_Chris
ParticipantEarly May 2003 was when these were taken 🙂
Heres 5 more ->
A newer version of the bell playing thing. Not sure if its the one in use at the moment –
About halfway up, looking out over the edge. You can see the empty plinths talked about a few pages ago –
More of same. You can easily see the plinths –
Another pic of the inside of a clock face –
The biggest of the bells –
Plenty more bell pics to come 🙂
-
December 22, 2006 at 8:39 pm #769241
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:[/I]If this is used as a tabernacle, even at Easter time, I am afraid that it must be contrary to the present liturgical norms governing tabernacles. A tabernacle must be immoveable ans the case shown in the picture of the Sacred Heart Chapel in Cobh Cathedral cannnot be such – unless they bored a bolt into the mensa of the altar,-on which, by the way, nothing is supposed to be placed. This is truly very edifying coming from the powers that be in Cobh Cathedral with all their guff about liturgical appropriateness. If they are interested, or indeed able, gthey might like to check the provisions of theInstitutio generalis Missalis Romani , article 314 on the fixture and security of the tabernacle]
What you see is not a tabernacle but a superstructure put in front of the tabernacle. It is made of wood and has a small curtain arrangement, which I think is the point. It sits on the altar but the Hosts are reserved in the actual Sacred Heart Tabernacle behind. Hope that clears things up.
-
December 22, 2006 at 9:02 pm #769242
THE_Chris
ParticipantBallymore Church, Cobh, Co. Cork.
Prax you’re gonna have a heart attack 😉
All the emphasis in this thread seems to revolve around Cobh Cathedral. Well heres an example of a gloriously bad hack job that was done in Ballymore, Cobh, back in the 1960s (I think). IMO this is far, far worse than what they’re planning on doing in the Cathedral.
This is a magazine scan, I knew I had this, but thought the picture was better, unfortunately this is all I have for now of how it was. Working on getting better photos though.
Bigger version – http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/THE_Chris533976/Cathedral%20Pics/ballymoreoldbig.jpg
Note the four statues – two in the background and two in the foreground, the extremely elaborate paint job on the back and side altar walls and the large wooden structure (dont know the official name) standing behind the altar. The two dark objects to the right and left are flower plinths. If you look closely at the top of the picture, you can see five dark objects in a semicircle, noticing those will help with the rest of the pics.
In the 1960s hack job, a reordering took place. I’m not sure of the exact details, having only this pic to go on and local info, but this is what I know happened.
1) Most of the back and sides of the altar were repainted, up to the level of the five dark objects (pics of angels). IIRC the back was repainted a horrible dark red, and the sides white.
2) The alcoves for the statues were filled in and plastered over. Two of the four statues disappeared, one to Cuskinny Court, I dont know about the other. Two statues remain in the foreground, one is the same, the other is one of the two from the alcoves.
3) The wooden structure was removed and probably destroyed.
4) I dont know what happened to the altar, as I cant see in the pic above. But part of either the altar or the wooden structure was torn off and put as the fronting to the readers Ambo, see below on the very right.
5) Recently, the red paint was covered in a (nicer) light blue, which I show here –
The church as it is today (couple of days ago, anyway. And ignore the green, thats my Photoshop filters)
You can see the five angels, imagine what the original paint job would have looked like all the way down to the level of the floor.
I dont know if the alcoves to the rear of the altar were filled with brick and plaster or just covered, but in any case, you can still see their outlines. This pic looks weird as I’ve hacked the colors to make it look more obvious.
Right side –
Left side (with reflection from sanctuary lamp)
So theres the crime. Back in the 60s.
Originally I thought that the altar was raised meaning the paint didn’t line up, so they trashed it. But looking at the old pic, Im not so sure.
This is conjecture, but its what I **think** happened.
Vatican II says there are to be no statues in the sanctuary, so the four (two in alcoves, two at the front) must go.
They remove the statues and cant do anything with the alcoves. Too high for flowers to go in, looks silly empty.
They fill in the alcoves and it looks awful and out of place, so a crazy decision is made to paint over the lovely paintwork and rework the altar area. Local rumors say the old paintwork was too expensive to maintain, also. The wooden structure is removed and probably destroyed, the ambo is created. The sacristy door is changed, requiring some plastering and wall removal around it.
Over time, the two remaining statues sneak back into the sanctuary in the foreground, where they remain to this day.
The funny thing about all this is they only painted over it. Under the paint at the rear of the altar is the original paintwork. Same with the left hand side. I don’t know about the right hand side, I think that might be lost, possibly all replastered but I dont know for sure. You see, when the red paint that I mentioned above was about 20 years old, it was flaking and peeling. Around the sacristy door especially, it was coming off and you could see the original paintwork underneath, surprisingly well preserved. Its high quality stuff, a lot of the cross shapes you see in the old pic above are done in expensive gold leaf paint and are highly detailed.
If you’re in Cobh, go into Ballymore Church on a morning when theres condensation on your windows. Often you can see some of the outlines of the cross shapes through the current blue paint, due to the different properties of the underlying paints. My guess is that whatevers left underneath is well preserved, the five angels at the top are in reasonable nick, they could do with a clean though.
Im going to be meeting with the new administrator fairly soon, and I will make sure to tell him about all this, and to give him very strict instructions never to let a painter put an ounce of paint stripper to these walls. The chances of getting this restored are almost zero due to the Cathedral debacle and all thats going on there, but the old paint is still underneath and even though we cant see it, it shouldn’t be stripped.
Im also gonna see if I can get better pics of the old setup from someone I know that lives nearby. And any more details if I can.
Thoughts, Cobh people?? 🙂
Merry Christmas —
-
December 22, 2006 at 9:02 pm #769243
Praxiteles
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
What you see is not a tabernacle but a superstructure put in front of the tabernacle. It is made of wood and has a small curtain arrangement, which I think is the point. It sits on the altar but the Hosts are reserved in the actual Sacred Heart Tabernacle behind. Hope that clears things up.
A superstructure sitting on the altar in front of the tabernacle makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is completey eccentric!!
-
December 22, 2006 at 9:22 pm #769244
samuel j
ParticipantBallymore Church, Cobh, Co. Cork.
What an utter shame… that original carved wood altar must have been a stunning bit of workmanshipPrax you’re gonna have a heart attack … Hello , Prax…are you there …
-
December 22, 2006 at 9:48 pm #769245
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Ballymore Church, Cobh, Co. Cork.
What an utter shame… that original carved wood altar must have been a stunning bit of workmanshipPrax you’re gonna have a heart attack … Hello , Prax…are you there …
It is a spectacular piece of bad taste more than anything else. In fact, I know the exact identity of the person responsible for the wrecking of the sanctuary in Ballymore – he also was responsible for Rushbrooke. Indeed, he exerted an undue influence on many of the first wave of “re-orderings” that took place in the diocese of Cloyne during the 1970s. The most serious piece of destruction that can be directly attributable to this person was the destruction of the sanctuary in Fermoy church – and especially of its pulpit which was an early work of the Cork sculptor Seamus Murphy. That work was important in that it showed Murphy’s ability in a medium (marble) other than limestone. He has a description of it in his book Stone Mad. The person responsible for utter destruction once told Praxiteles, who had questioned him rather awkwardly about it, that although the pulpit in Fermoy was by Murphy it was of little significance for it was in marble!!!! I understand that the fragments of the pulpit are still in the possession of the family who donated it – when they discovered what had happened, they came and took away the pieces to store them themselves -it all sounds like a mirror reflection of something out of Eamonn Duffy’s book on the brutalism of the reformation in England The Stripping of the Altars. For the moment, de mortuis nihil nisi bonum
I would not despair of Ballymore. The stincil work is quite likely to be underneath the horrible paint which can be taken off and what ever is there can fairly easily be restored. In those places where the patterns have not survived, new stincils can easily made. I will bet that the niches have been covered over with bit of board that can easily be thrown out.
Let us be claer about things: Vatican II did not say that statues were not to be in sannctuaries. Post conciliar legislation insisted that they there in reasonable numbers -which is quite a different thing. It insisted that if there were four statues of the BVM in the sanctuary they were to be reduced to one – in most cases, that would be reasonable.
However, the iconoclasts used this to begin their work of destruction. After Xmas, I will search out the exact piece of legislation and post it.
The choir of angels on the attic of the East wall in Ballymore was a common feature. A lovely example in mosaic is to be found on the attic of sanctuary wall in Charleville church – and in Midleton, as far as I can recall.
-
December 23, 2006 at 3:19 am #769246
Praxiteles
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Ballymore Church, Cobh, Co. Cork.
What an utter shame… that original carved wood altar must have been a stunning bit of workmanshipPrax you’re gonna have a heart attack … Hello , Prax…are you there …
Yes, I am still here…what do want?
-
December 23, 2006 at 4:25 am #769247
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Yes, I am still here…what do want?
Can’t say what Sam wants, but upon viewing the last several photos of that chapel ‘before’ and ‘after’ the brutalism perpetrated upon it, Rhabanus wants more than a good stiff drink. Rhabanus wants the formation of a “liturgical-revolution crimes” council not unlike a war crimes council, with public trials for these iconoclasts.
They ought to be denounced (no use discreetly covering up for the vandal, there, Prax!) and made to do penance and make restitution for their crime of sacrilege and iconoclasm. Problem is the old pendards are probably neither clever nor strong enough to scrape their handiwork off the walls and restore the sanctuaries to their former glory, but at least they could be made to scrape off the undersides of pews and, upon gazing into the filled pails, consider their own many and grievous sins of iconoclasm.
Of course the impact of restoration would go much farther if the drive were to be guided and accompanied by a campaign of evangelisation and catechesis. When Our Lord from the Crucifix bade St Francis of Assisi “Restore my Church!” the saint initially took the words literally and commenced the restoration of San Damiano church. He leventually came to understand the command to have meant much, much more: the restoration of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ through a campaign of evangelisation through preaching and the ascetic life.
This could trigger a revival of faith, hope, and love throughout Ireland, if only a leader even remotely touched by the spirit of evangelical zeal would exercise some much-needed leadership. Instead of hirelings, the Church is in serious need of real pastors.
The original (and restored) beauty of these Irish churches could win many people of good will back to the practice of the Faith of Our Fathers. “How long, O Lord, how long?”
-
December 23, 2006 at 1:09 pm #769248
Praxiteles
ParticipantThis beautiful window by Early and Powell of Dublin in St. Mary’s Chapel, Maynooth College, appeared on the Irish Times this morning. Best seen in inthe late afternoon in June/July. Unfortunately, St. Mary’s Chapel has been wrecked beyond recognition and the windows (2 windows) have survived only because they are inserted into the walls. The first make over was done in 1970 by Michael Harty, subsequently bishop of Killaloe and was truly awful. The last make over was carried out about three years ago by Richard Hurley advised by Paddy Jones, a so called liturgist.
Happy Christmas to all posters and viewers. Joyeux Noel
-
December 23, 2006 at 2:11 pm #769249
Praxiteles
ParticipantWE certainly know when to pick our moments! It seems that the bishop of Cloyne is intent on wrecking the usual seasonal truce from controversy by issuing a senseless statement to the Evening Echo in Cork. Presumably, its publication on 22 December 2006 is to preclude a response from the FOSCC. However, in this he is quite silly for the FOSCC will deal with this after Christmas with some other matters. As a note of interest, does the bishop of Cloyne think or intend working with An Bord Pleannala to arrive at his new set of plans before he leaves office in four years time? There could be some legal issues there that An Bord Pleannala might like to look at. From what we can gather this isthe third version of the bold bishop’s conversation with the Pope. If he describes as “absolute nonsense” claims that plans are afoot to reorder the Cathedral, thenn why might we not ask was he himself talking this same “absolute nonsense” to his priests and to the Cathedral chapter as we gather from reports in the papers? Here is the article published in the Evening Echo:
Evening Echo 22nd Dec. 2006.
THE Bishop of Cloyne has vowed to complete the re-ordering of St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh before he leaves office.
Speaking to the Evening Echo, Bishop John Magee said: “I started the work of the restoration of the cathedral in Cobh in 1992 and I would wish, before leaving this diocese at the end of my term of office that I would have completed the work that I set out to do.”
This includes the liturgical re-ordering of the Sacristy, which has caused 1 considerable controversy in Cobh.
The 70-year-old bishop met with strong opposition from the Friends of St Colman’s Cathedral group, which claimed that the changes originally proposed were not in keeping with the design of the cathedral.
An Bord Pleanala was in agreement re with the objectors,
Bishop Magee said that there are currently no new plans in place for the re-ordering of the Sacristy.
Describing as “absolute nonsense” reports that there are plans in place approved by the Pope, Bishop Magee said that he had publicly acknowledged An Bord Pleanala’s rejection of the original plans for re-ordering of the cathedral.
“We shall be working together with the planning authority to see how we can move forward, so as to make sure that the liturgical requirements are respected,” he added.
The bishop also intends to consult widely in relation to any new plans and it is hoped that a proposal can be reached which is acceptable to all.
On his recent .visit to Rome, Bishop – Magee spoke with Pope Benedict XVI in relation to the cathedral, and His Holiness said: “It is a beautiful cathedral. I have not seen its interior but I imagine that it is beautiful.
“I encourage you to do what you can to preserve the beauty of that cathedral for the generations to come said the Pope.It also seems strange that the bishop of Cloyne is unaware of the protocol that one does not repeat the contents of a conversation with the Pope. If the Pope wishes to say something in public, does he not usually do so through his press spokesperson – and bishop Magee certainly is not that!!
-
December 23, 2006 at 4:26 pm #769250
samuel j
Participant“the bishop of Cloyne is intent on wrecking the usual seasonal truce from controversy by issuing a senseless statement to the Evening Echo in Cork. Presumably, its publication on 22 December 2006”
What the articles does show, is that once again it is the mans ego we’re really dealing with and not as he tries to make out a vital liturgical re-ordering of the Sacristy etc.
He quotes the Pope “I encourage you to do what you can to preserve the beauty of that cathedral for the generations to come”….did he listen to this words of wisdom at all… sounds like a very strong hint to me to leave well alone.
If his ego manifests itself as a man with time and energy to spend, he would be well advised to use them both to concentrate on restoration and not destruction. 4 years…if the man wants to end with any element of decorum…do repairs and make it the shining light for generations to come, put proper planned maintenance programmes in place, have it pristine with plans in place to keep it that way…. Now thats what the people of Cobh and beyond would view as a job well done..the choice is yours Bishop. -
December 23, 2006 at 5:08 pm #769251
Praxiteles
ParticipantWell, well, I think the the bold bishop has scored an own goal here. Sending presss releases around just before Christmas is a tricky business and he dpes not seem to have the hang of it. Here we have a clear example of the bold bishop serving up and own goal. He tell us that the Pope wishes him to preserve the interior of the Cobh Cathedral and at the same time he is ttrying to tell us that the present interior does not meet “liturgical requirements”. But, the forgetful bishop has forgotten the letter published in the Carow Nationalist from the Joseph Ratzinger from which we can see quite clearly that the nonsense push forward by the bold bishop is nowhere required by the Second Vatican Council nor by the current liturgical legislation of the Church. Just what do you need that get that point into a thick head? I agree with Sam! He seems to have been given a fairly sharp instruction to leave St. Colman’s as it is: This is what to-day’s Irish Independent has to say and the FOSCC are bound to have a glory day on this one:
Papal call to preserve cathedral
‘Beautiful’ building should be protected, Benedict tells local bishop
THE Pope has urged the preservation of an Irish cathedral that has been at the centre of a bitter planning wrangle for almost a decade.
The Bishop of Cloyne, Dr John Magee, revealed Pope Benedict’s plea that St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh, Co Cork would be preserved as he dismissed suggestions that there would be any attempt to force through controversial changes to the church’s interior.
Last summer, An Bord Pleanala rejected plans for a ‘re-ordering’ of the interior of the cathedral, which is one of Ireland’s most famous neo-Gothic structures.
The board warned that the changes could jeopardise the entire ethos of the 19th century building.
Dr Magee has now said that the current situation “needs to be resolved” – and that the Pope told him, in a private audience earlier this year, that he too wants to see the beauty of St Colman’s preserved. “(The Pope said) it is a beautiful cathedral and I have not seen its interior but I can only imagine that it is beautiful.
“I encourage you to do what you can to preserve the beauty of that cathedral for the generations to come,” Dr Magee said.
The bishop insisted that while he would like to see the refurbishment of St Colman’s completed with the interior re-ordering, any works will be conducted in consultation with the planning board.
Earlier this year, the diocese ruled out a judicial challenge to the planning board’s decision which was taken by a six-to-two majority – and came after An Bord Plealala rejected the recommendation of their own inspector.
Following a two-day oral hearing in Midleton last March, he ruled that the board did not have the right to reject the changes to the cathedral on the basis it would be an interference with liturgical matters.
However, the board rejected that recommendation – insisting that they did have the right to rule on the interior changes to St Colman’s.
The changes were rejected as unduly interfering with the character and historical significance of the cathedral.
St Colman’s – which boasts breathtaking views over Cork harbour -is regarded by many as a masterpiece by the Victorian architect, AW Pugin.
The interior redesign proposed removing a number of the cathedral’s front aisles, lifting floor mosaics and extending the altar. The existing rails would be removed and the Bishop’s Chair would be located forward, towards the congregation.
Dr Magee, and the Diocese of Cloyne insisted the changes would not alter the ethos of the cathedral but, rather, would bring it into line with Vatican II guidelines.
Critics, however, claim that the proposed changes threatened the very fabric of the cathedral – and local opponents warned that, if the changes went ahead despite opposition, the diocese could face a boycott.
Ralph Riegel
-
December 23, 2006 at 10:40 pm #769252
Gianlorenzo
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Well, well, I think the the bold bishop has scored an own goal here. Sending presss releases around just before Christmas is a tricky business and he dpes not seem to have the hang of it. Here we have a clear example of the bold bishop serving up and own goal. He tell us that the Pope wishes him to preserve the interior of the Cobh Cathedral and at the same time he is ttrying to tell us that the present interior does not meet “liturgical requirements”. But, the forgetful bishop has forgotten the letter published in the Carow Nationalist from the Joseph Ratzinger from which we can see quite clearly that the nonsense push forward by the bold bishop is nowhere required by the Second Vatican Council nor by the current liturgical legislation of the Church. Just what do you need that get that point into a thick head? I agree with Sam! He seems to have been given a fairly sharp instruction to leave St. Colman’s as it is: This is what to-day’s Irish Independent has to say and the FOSCC are bound to have a glory day on this one:
Papal call to preserve cathedral
‘Beautiful’ building should be protected, Benedict tells local bishop
THE Pope has urged the preservation of an Irish cathedral that has been at the centre of a bitter planning wrangle for almost a decade.
The Bishop of Cloyne, Dr John Magee, revealed Pope Benedict’s plea that St Colman’s Cathedral in Cobh, Co Cork would be preserved as he dismissed suggestions that there would be any attempt to force through controversial changes to the church’s interior.
Last summer, An Bord Pleanala rejected plans for a ‘re-ordering’ of the interior of the cathedral, which is one of Ireland’s most famous neo-Gothic structures.
The board warned that the changes could jeopardise the entire ethos of the 19th century building.
Dr Magee has now said that the current situation “needs to be resolved” – and that the Pope told him, in a private audience earlier this year, that he too wants to see the beauty of St Colman’s preserved. “(The Pope said) it is a beautiful cathedral and I have not seen its interior but I can only imagine that it is beautiful.
“I encourage you to do what you can to preserve the beauty of that cathedral for the generations to come,” Dr Magee said.
The bishop insisted that while he would like to see the refurbishment of St Colman’s completed with the interior re-ordering, any works will be conducted in consultation with the planning board.
Earlier this year, the diocese ruled out a judicial challenge to the planning board’s decision which was taken by a six-to-two majority – and came after An Bord Plealala rejected the recommendation of their own inspector.
Following a two-day oral hearing in Midleton last March, he ruled that the board did not have the right to reject the changes to the cathedral on the basis it would be an interference with liturgical matters.
However, the board rejected that recommendation – insisting that they did have the right to rule on the interior changes to St Colman’s.
The changes were rejected as unduly interfering with the character and historical significance of the cathedral.
St Colman’s – which boasts breathtaking views over Cork harbour -is regarded by many as a masterpiece by the Victorian architect, AW Pugin.
The interior redesign proposed removing a number of the cathedral’s front aisles, lifting floor mosaics and extending the altar. The existing rails would be removed and the Bishop’s Chair would be located forward, towards the congregation.
Dr Magee, and the Diocese of Cloyne insisted the changes would not alter the ethos of the cathedral but, rather, would bring it into line with Vatican II guidelines.
Critics, however, claim that the proposed changes threatened the very fabric of the cathedral – and local opponents warned that, if the changes went ahead despite opposition, the diocese could face a boycott.
Ralph Riegel
While I am delighted with the tone of this article I have to say I find it astounding that journalist are so ignorant. They seen to write off the top of their heads without checking anything.
“masterpiece of AW Pugin” – is he confusing Cobh with Killarney? (E.W. Pugin and G. Ashlin were the architects in Cobh.)
“removing a number of the cathedrals front aisles” ??????
What the hell does that mean?
I could go on but no matter.
As I say the tone was in the right vein, so why quibble. -
December 24, 2006 at 6:16 pm #769253
Praxiteles
ParticipantQuite so Gianlorenzo!!!
-
December 24, 2006 at 7:30 pm #769254
THE_Chris
ParticipantHeres some more of my Cathedral trip 😀
Some of the larger bells –
At the highest point you can climb to INSIDE the spire, heres a look straight up to the top –
Outside of this area, some of the details near the top –
Looking down over a statue –
Height –
-
December 24, 2006 at 11:31 pm #769255
Rhabanus
Participant“I encourage you to do what you can to preserve the beauty of that cathedral for the generations to come.”
Thank you, Holy Father, for your mandate to preserve the magnificence and integrity of Cobh cathedral.
Thank you, Your Lordship, for spilling the beans and revealing the Pope’s real sentiments about St Colman’s Cathedral.
Thank you, Irish Independent, for spreading the good news far and wide. Even though you confused one of the architects, Edward Pugin, with his father, Augustus Welby Pugin, your heart was in the right place.
Thank you, FOSCC, for your valiant efforts to keep St Colman’s a world heritage site of inestimable value.
Thank you, Fearg, Sam, THE_Chris, and Prax for the splendid photos of so many churches great and small, defiled and undefiled, and for your steadfast witness to Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
Thank you, all contributers and readers of this thread, who have made it a five-star site and a source of consolation in the trying times in which we find ourselves.
God grant you a Blessed Christmas and a New Year filled with Peace and Pleasing Architectural Aesthetic!
And to all a good night!
-
December 25, 2006 at 11:46 am #769256
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantA Happy and Peaceful Christmas to you all.:D 😀 😀 😀
G. -
December 27, 2006 at 6:56 pm #769257
Praxiteles
ParticipantChris!
Those photographs just get better and better. To quote a seasonal character – may we please have some more?
-
December 27, 2006 at 7:34 pm #769258
samuel j
ParticipantThe bishop insisted that while he would like to see the refurbishment of St Colman’s completed with the interior re-ordering, any works will be conducted in consultation with the planning board.
I wonder will that extend to his parishioners…… as if history is anything to go on the ‘planning board’ can not be trusted …. or perhaps Mr. Cacciotti might be involved and surprise us all.
Again comment from the Pope freely admitted by the Bishop
“I encourage you to do what you can to preserve the beauty of that cathedral for the generations to come”
What part of preserve does the Bishop not understand……
-
December 28, 2006 at 7:50 pm #769259
THE_Chris
ParticipantSome more 😀
Pics of the gargoyle type things near the top (noone ever sees these from the street, its cool that they’re up there)
Looking over the side – see the plinths and the two holes to fit the statues in 😀
Posted this view in the Cobh thread, but theres more Cathedral in this one –
Looking down through the metal grilled floor, notice the wires controlling the bells –
And heres a better view. Was in a hurry to get these, lets just say you dont want to be nearby when these things start ringing 😀
-
December 29, 2006 at 12:06 am #769260
samuel j
ParticipantWell done again The_Chris, rare shots indeed
-
December 31, 2006 at 5:50 am #769261
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantTHE-Chris.
Thank you for the wonderful images. I am experiencing vertigo when viewing some of them.
I have just being looking at your first contribution to this thread and given your obvious love of the cathedral I do not understand how you could view efforts to preserve it as sinister.Again going back to your original postings – what the media says about anything or anybody should be treated with the contempt that it deserves. Jouralists are the laziest morons one could ever encounter. It was not always this way and the present crop are trading on their predecessors authenticity and thereby fooling most of the people. But if you happen to know anything about a particular subject you will see who ignorant they are. Therefore, reverting back to your first postings, do not judge the people of Cobh, or the FOSCC for that matter, on what you might read in the newspapers. Be assured that the media do not have a clue what this is about.
For your information it is not about attacking the Church or Bishop Magee personally. it is about our Cathedral and our liturgy and the inate feeling in the people in Cobh that the masterpiece that is their cathedral should not be touched. For too long have they been castigated and treated with a contempt they do not deserve. It is so sad that we have come to this in Cobh.
Saying that, spare a thought for the people in all the various parishes and diocese in Ireland who have experience the destruction of their churches – for no good reason- on a whim. They have no voice. When they do raise their voice they are treated with ridicule and contemp and being faithful Catholics they subside and accept with broken hearts what is put before them. And what they have been told is not the truth
That is one of the great tragedies of the Church in Ireland. Not the only one, but a significant one. Because when the church building is destroyed is tears into the heart of the Church itself.The media will tell us that the crisis in the Irish Church is the child abuse issue – no argument, but while the numbers of priests involved in this can be counted on two hands the numbers who have been involved in the destruction of our churches can be numbered in the hundreds. I grant you that the evil perpetrated by a priest who abuses children cannot be compared with an iconoclast the effect of the latter has in general a much more profound effect on the local scene. It is very personal.
-
December 31, 2006 at 1:18 pm #769262
samuel j
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
For your information it is not about attacking the Church or Bishop Magee personally. it is about our Cathedral and our liturgy and the inate feeling in the people in Cobh that the masterpiece that is their cathedral should not be touched. For too long have they been castigated and treated with a contempt they do not deserve. It is so sad that we have come to this in Cobh. .
You are right, it is not but I fear that contempt does end up be treated with contempt and as long as he/they continue with this arrogant/we know better attitude, it will be neccessary to get stronger with no holds barred. If thats what it takes to stop further iconoclasm, then so be it.
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
The media will tell us that the crisis in the Irish Church is the child abuse issue – no argument, but while the numbers of priests involved in this can be counted on two hands the numbers who have been involved in the destruction of our churches can be numbered in the hundreds. I grant you that the evil perpetrated by a priest who abuses children cannot be compared with an iconoclast the effect of the latter has in general a much more profound effect on the local scene. It is very personal
.And would not think in these trying times for the Church, when many have had to take a closer look at their faith or at least what the current church elders profess as faith, is not a time for the Bishop et al to go off on schemes of destruction. He is just backing himself further and further into a corner…. if he/they want to make a mark in his last 4 years, they should as I’ve suggested before, concentrate on restoration and not destruction.Do repairs and make it the shining light for generations to come, put proper planned maintenance programmes in place, have it pristine with plans in place to keep it that way….
-
December 31, 2006 at 2:26 pm #769263
THE_Chris
ParticipantA few more 😀 This is on the way back down again, so its pretty much the last of them 🙂
Some bells from the side –
Closeup –
Small bells –
Near the bottom, there are the ‘builders little things’, bits that they put in as their own little mark when they were building the cathedral. They take the form of lizards climbing up one of the windows.
The other –
-
December 31, 2006 at 2:30 pm #769264
samuel j
ParticipantPrax was on about these lads but so long since I was up there I could not remember them.
-
January 1, 2007 at 2:55 pm #769265
THE_Chris
ParticipantOther sculpture thing on the way down –
These ones are from outside. Just interesting if anyone wants to look for how the green stuff has changed or anything like that. 3 1/2 years ago these were.
And thats that folks, thats the lot. Hope you enjoyed 😀
-
January 1, 2007 at 5:05 pm #769266
Rhabanus
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
Other sculpture thing on the way down –
These ones are from outside. Just interesting if anyone wants to look for how the green stuff has changed or anything like that. 3 1/2 years ago these were.
And thats that folks, thats the lot. Hope you enjoyed 😀
A Feast for the Eyes! Many thanks, Chris!
I particularly appreciated the shot of the main entrance featuring Our Lady, Porta Coeli, flanked by St Joseph and St John the Baptist.
A Happy New Year to all! -
January 1, 2007 at 7:48 pm #769267
Praxiteles
ParticipantChris!
What a fantastic and unusual album of picctures of aspects of Cobh Cathedral rarely seen by the public. As far as I am aware, this is the first time much of this material has been shown in public. Again, one can see the unrelenting high standard of craftsmanship employed thorughout the fabric of Cobh Cathedral. Although no one ever sees the gargoyles because they are so high up, novertheless they are of a standard of excellence that would render them immediately capable of being collocated at the main door!!
As a matter of curiosity Chris, do you have any shots of the West, North and South rose windows?
Thanks again for a great set of pictures.
-
January 2, 2007 at 1:23 am #769268
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHappy New Year to all.
Thank you to THE-Chris for the wonderful treat he has given us this Christmas. Please come back again on this or the Cobh site with any further images you might have.
Are you a photographer by profession?
Samuel J., I equally enjoy your contributions.
I had thought at one stage of making a photographic inventory of St. Colmans. Perhaps we could combine our efforts?“Chinese proverb. One picture is worth ten thousand words.”
-
January 2, 2007 at 6:08 pm #769269
ake
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
re 376:
The 1974 restoration was carried out by Percy leClerc. The roof of Irish oak is certainly praiseworthy and authentic. I am not sure that lifting the plaster from the walls can be described as a “restoration”. It is much more likely that they had plastering which was either white washed or frescoed. The removal of the plaster in 1974 smacks of the horrible fashion set by the sack and pillage of Killarney Cathedral. I think that we can take it that if A.W. N. Pugin believed that the Salisbury interior should inspire Killarney, then it should have been white washed and stencilled.
Sorry for going so far back.. I was wondering myself about the way all restored medieval interiors are whitewashed right onto the rubblework-is there even a scrap of historical evidence to suggest that this was ever the practice? On many ruins, for example the cathedral on the Rock of Cashel I’ve noticed what appears to me like fragments of plaster, often quite extensive. Now I’m not an expert, and maybe such plaster, if that’s even what it is, dates back only a couple of centuries, but you say ‘removal of plaster in 1974’ – was this plaster first used in the restoration or original plaster? For example, I notice the practice in all of the restored French Cistercian houses is smooth white plaster, with the decorative stone-work or the fine ashlar masonry left bare, untouched, which works to great effect. The visibility of the rubble texture in Irish buildings gives a look of primitivism and roughness, which although it has a certain charm of it’s own, may not do justice to the original buildings, or the intentions of a restoration. And yet in every book, or guide book (even the Duchas books) I’ve seen that touches the subject, whitewashing is unhesitantly declared as matter of fact. Surely they must know something..I’d love to know the truth of the matter.
P.S. It has just occured to me that whether or not there is evidence for medieval whitewashing, there is positive evidence for plastering, in Cormac’s chapel, in St.Audeons, and on Clare island, I think.
-
January 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm #769270
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
Sorry for going so far back.. I was wondering myself about the way all restored medieval interiors are whitewashed right onto the rubblework-is there even a scrap of historical evidence to suggest that this was ever the practice? On many ruins, for example the cathedral on the Rock of Cashel I’ve noticed what appears to me like fragments of plaster, often quite extensive. Now I’m not an expert, and maybe such plaster, if that’s even what it is, dates back only a couple of centuries, but you say ‘removal of plaster in 1974’ – was this plaster first used in the restoration or original plaster? For example, I notice the practice in all of the restored French Cistercian houses is smooth white plaster, with the decorative stone-work or the fine ashlar masonry left bare, untouched, which works to great effect. The visibility of the rubble texture in Irish buildings gives a look of primitivism and roughness, which although it has a certain charm of it’s own, may not do justice to the original buildings, or the intentions of a restoration. And yet in every book, or guide book (even the Duchas books) I’ve seen that touches the subject, whitewashing is unhesitantly declared as matter of fact. Surely they must know something..I’d love to know the truth of the matter.
P.S. It has just occured to me that whether or not there is evidence for medieval whitewashing, there is positive evidence for plastering, in Cormac’s chapel, in St.Audeons, and on Clare island, I think.
Are we talking about Holy Cross?
The idea of stri[[ing [laster from walls is the girt to us of Emonn Casey and of his sackage of Killarney Cathedral. It is clear that the 19th century gothic revivalist architects working in Ireland intended that that interior rubble walls be plastered and whitewashed or decorated in stencils.
Whitewashing rubble is a practice reserved for stables – then Eamonn Casey may have taken the back to the stable approach just a little too far.
-
January 4, 2007 at 9:05 pm #769271
Praxiteles
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Are we talking about Holy Cross?
The idea of stri[[ing [laster from walls is the girt to us of Emonn Casey and of his sackage of Killarney Cathedral. It is clear that the 19th century gothic revivalist architects working in Ireland intended that that interior rubble walls be plastered and whitewashed or decorated in stencils.
Whitewashing rubble is a practice reserved for stables – then Eamonn Casey may have taken the back to the stable approach just a little too far.
Another church (by JJ McCarthy) to suffer from the plaster stripping rage was St. John’s in Tralee. The result was a disaster. If Monaghan Cathedral has one advantage after its vandalization it is that it can be said that the walls were not stripped down to the rubble.
-
January 5, 2007 at 12:17 am #769272
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Another church (by JJ McCarthy) to suffer from the plaster stripping rage was St. John’s in Tralee. The result was a disaster. If Monaghan Cathedral has one advantage after its vandalization it is that it can be said that the walls were not stripped down to the rubble.
Any pics of St John’s interior? According to Williams, it sounds as though at least some of the original fittings have survived (He also hints that this was the inspiration behind the plaster being removed at Killarney).
-
January 5, 2007 at 5:44 pm #769273
Istigh
ParticipantSome more photos of the dreaded green slime on the outside of St.Colmans post “treatment”.
It is interesting to note, the wall across from the Cathedral which obviously has never been “treated” exhibits the same growth as seen on the Cathedral which has been “Cleaned and Treated” at much expense to the parishioners of the local diocese.
Below is perhaps how the Cathedral should look after the cleaning process.
This building which has been thoroughly cleaned by rainwater and salty air since construction.
-
January 5, 2007 at 10:13 pm #769274
Praxiteles
ParticipantFailte isteach, istigh!!
Re the slime question and the “treatment” of the Cathedral during the recent restoration programme, I have a question for Istigh: how do you think the present problem might best be approached?
I am not sure the building opposite the Cathedral (the Bon Secours Convent) is the most helpful example of what might or might not have been before D. Slattery unleashed the power hoses on the Cathedral fabric. It was built much later than the Cathedral exterior which was finished by 1879. The Bons Convent was built in the 1930s, I believe.
-
January 5, 2007 at 11:54 pm #769275
Istigh
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Failte isteach, istigh!!
Re the slime question and the “treatment” of the Cathedral during the recent restoration programme, I have a question for Istigh: how do you think the present problem might best be approached?
I am not sure the building opposite the Cathedral (the Bon Secours Convent) is the most helpful example of what might or might not have been before D. Slattery unleashed the power hoses on the Cathedral fabric. It was built much later than the Cathedral exterior which was finished by 1879. The Bons Convent was built in the 1930s, I believe.
Go raibh maith agat Prax,
I suggest the present situation is one we can and have to live with Prax, the town would burst a blood vessel if they were asked to submit funds to clean the Cathedral again.
I post the pictures to highlight how short lived the cleaned surface was.
Perhaps the notorious heineken bottle photo of the Cathedral covered in the green screen and scaffolding was an indication of things to come.
Hopefully it is a lesson those responsible can learn from, instead of wasting donated funds and grants battling the people through hearings, money should be focused on seeking out experts in there fields with the relevant experience.
There has been too much bodging going on. -
January 6, 2007 at 12:10 am #769276
samuel j
Participant@Istigh wrote:
Go raibh maith agat Prax,
Hopefully it is a lesson those responsible can learn from, instead of wasting donated funds and grants battling the people through hearings, money should be focused on seeking out experts in there fields with the relevant experience.
There has been too much bodging going on.I agree and what I being saying many a time..a scandal wasting dontated funds and he/they have the gall to continue with this carry on.
I’ve said it before and will continue saying it
The Bishop has 4 years before retiring…if the man wants to end with any element of decorum…do repairs and make it the shining light for generations to come, put proper planned maintenance programmes in place, have it pristine with plans in place to keep it that way…. Now thats what the people of Cobh and beyond would view as a job well done..the choice is yours Bishop -
January 6, 2007 at 12:24 am #769277
Istigh
Participant@samuel j wrote:
I agree and what I being saying many a time..a scandal wasting dontated funds and he/they have the gall to continue with this carry on.
I’ve said it before and will continue saying it
The Bishop has 4 years before retiring…if the man wants to end with any element of decorum…do repairs and make it the shining light for generations to come, put proper planned maintenance programmes in place, have it pristine with plans in place to keep it that way…. Now thats what the people of Cobh and beyond would view as a job well done..the choice is yours BishopI thought it was 2 years left. Surely we dont have to suffer him for 4.
I remember when he first came, he was the popes chosen one, and they would be building a heli-pad over at “the pallace” for the popes iminent arrival.
Where did it all go wrong. -
January 6, 2007 at 2:52 am #769278
samuel j
Participant@Istigh wrote:
I thought it was 2 years left. Surely we dont have to suffer him for 4.
I remember when he first came, he was the popes chosen one, and they would be building a heli-pad over at “the pallace” for the popes iminent arrival.
Where did it all go wrong.Sept 2011 I think……
Yeah remember the locals wags had many a theory…..on heli pads ..the works..The iffy window replacements in the palace were the first signs……..of the quick fix mentality….
-
January 6, 2007 at 3:42 pm #769279
Gianlorenzo
ParticipantHe has 5 years left. He turned 70 recently and the official retirement age is 75.
Therefore he has the opportunity to begin to put things right or, as is much more likely, he can continue wasting time and money on his ill conceived schemes. Any guesses ???? -
January 6, 2007 at 8:11 pm #769280
samuel j
Participant@Gianlorenzo wrote:
He has 5 years left. He turned 70 recently and the official retirement age is 75.
Therefore he has the opportunity to begin to put things right or, as is much more likely, he can continue wasting time and money on his ill conceived schemes. Any guesses ????5..oh dear God…. well does give him time to do the decent thing and sort out St.Colmans maintenance wise, which is what people willingly contributed to and expected to do done in a professional manner.
If he wants to be remembered as the Bishop that collected funds under false pretences he is going about it the right way…… very simple just get your house in order, get rid of the Yes men around you and make St.Colmans pristine and a shining example to Churches around the country as to what they should strive for.
If he cannot do that, then move on and make room for someone that can….
-
January 6, 2007 at 11:23 pm #769281
Praxiteles
Participant@Istigh wrote:
I suggest the present situation is one we can and have to live with Prax, the town would burst a blood vessel if they were asked to submit funds to clean the Cathedral again.
I post the pictures to highlight how short lived the cleaned surface was.
Perhaps the notorious heineken bottle photo of the Cathedral covered in the green screen and scaffolding was an indication of things to come.
Hopefully it is a lesson those responsible can learn from, instead of wasting donated funds and grants battling the people through hearings, money should be focused on seeking out experts in there fields with the relevant experience.
There has been too much bodging going on.Absolutely out of the question! Stupidity of this magnitude must be addressed, corrected and those responsible for it kept out of anything further to do with Cobh Cathedral.
If the Cathedral had a proper institutional structure to attend to its maintenance and if this functioned as it should, then curative action would already be underway. A bishop is supposed to be a bishop not an engineer or an architect.
-
January 7, 2007 at 3:48 am #769282
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Immaculate Conception, Clonakilty, Co. Cork, built by George Ashlin (1869).
The church is a scaled down version of Cobh Cathedral and exhibits many of the characteristics found in Sts Peter and Paul’s in Cork and in Cobh Cathedral.
The West facade is a reversed image of the West facade at Cobh with the spire on the North side and the lower tower on the North side.
The vaulting of the nave and side aisles is in stained timber -reflecting prototypes such as the Cathedral at Saintes in France.
Clonakilty, as at Cobh, has three Rose Windows in the usual positions: North, South and West facades.
Again, like Cobh Cathedral, the Altar Rail -still mostly intact- runs from the wall of the North Transept across the nave to the wall of the South transept. This is an important element and one common to churches built by EW Pugin and GC Ashlin viz. Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Succor in Boston. During the Midelton Oral Hearing Professor O’Neill claimed that such an arrangement (spanning completely N to S) was an abbaration and could not have been built by an architect!!
The polycrome Apse ceiling further differentiates the sanctuary from the Nave, as do the the ascending floor levels. The back wall of the Apse is covered in a mosaic of a heavenly choir of angels. In the spandrels of the arches leading into the sanctuary from the North and South side chapels are two fine mosaics depicting Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia (1512-1514) and the Sixtine Madonna (1513-1514′).
The High Altar of 1897 is by G. O’Connor. The glass is by Mayer.
Unfortunately, the church is swamped by a very ungainly and ill-kept car park reaching even to the pavis of the main door.
-
January 7, 2007 at 3:41 pm #769283
ake
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Another church (by JJ McCarthy) to suffer from the plaster stripping rage was St. John’s in Tralee. The result was a disaster. If Monaghan Cathedral has one advantage after its vandalization it is that it can be said that the walls were not stripped down to the rubble.
Tintern abbey, Wexford, part of the reclaimed south transept: the vaulting has been nicely plastered. The walls however are whitewashed.
[ATTACH]3956[/ATTACH]
Some of the fine stonework found around the abbey
[ATTACH]3957[/ATTACH] -
January 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm #769284
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
Tintern abbey, Wexford, part of the reclaimed south transept: the vaulting has been nicely plastered. The walls however are whitewashed.
[ATTACH]3956[/ATTACH]
Some of the fine stonework found around the abbey
[ATTACH]3957[/ATTACH]Just imagine what you would have were the walls properly plastered and then whitewashed and stenciled.
-
January 7, 2007 at 6:36 pm #769285
Praxiteles
ParticipantAs an example of how the internal walls of medieval churches looked like -plastered and/or whitewashed or stenciled, then we could well look at surviving examples in the German world. Here is a link to to the pilgrimage and parish church of St. Wolfgang in St-Wolfgang-am-Wolfgangsee in Upper Austria.
-
January 7, 2007 at 10:26 pm #769286
Praxiteles
ParticipantSankt Stephan in Mainz
Another example of the walls plastered and whitewashed
-
January 8, 2007 at 10:27 pm #769287
Praxiteles
ParticipantDid anyone see Nationwide on RTE this evening?
I believe that The Chris’ photographs of the interior of the spire of Cobh Cathedral may well have given someone in Nationwide an idea for a programme broadcast this evening. Congratulations Chris!!
Try this link:
-
January 8, 2007 at 11:53 pm #769288
kite
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Did anyone see Nationwide on RTE this evening?
I believe that The Chris’ photographs of the interior of the spire of Cobh Cathedral may well have given someone in Nationwide an idea for a programme broadcast this evening. Congratulations Chris!!
Try this link:
😎 Thanks for that link Praxiteles, great views of Cobh on that RTE clip.
How did they omit the modern “GEMS†:rolleyes: that our planners allowed in the recent past?, the Garda station, the SW office, could it be they would be utterly embarrassed to show such vandalism?
Also the shot of the mosaic walkway did not show the destruction carried out in the name of progress. -
January 9, 2007 at 12:23 am #769289
samuel j
Participant@kite wrote:
😎 Thanks for that link Praxiteles, great views of Cobh on that RTE clip.
How did they omit the modern “GEMS†:rolleyes: that our planners allowed in the recent past?, the Garda station, the SW office, could it be they would be utterly embarrassed to show such vandalism?
Also the shot of the mosaic walkway did not show the destruction carried out in the name of progress.Think this was fimed in Sept or early Oct. Swansea-Cork Ferry in Background and she was sold in Oct.
I think Sept as it is since then most thr greenslime has got worse/built up on building -
January 9, 2007 at 12:37 am #769290
Fearg
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Think this was fimed in Sept or early Oct. Swansea-Cork Ferry in Background and she was sold in Oct.
I think Sept as it is since then most thr greenslime has got worse/built up on buildingThere is your answer to the recent build up of slime – the toxic looking stuff coming out of the funnel of that old rust bucket, must surely have kept it at bay!! 😉
-
January 9, 2007 at 12:37 am #769291
Praxiteles
Participantkite wrote:😎 Thanks for that link Praxiteles, great views of Cobh on that RTE clip.
How did they omit the modern “]As far as I can see Kite the most obvious thing kept out of photographic-frame in this nice RTE production are the usual guffers – none was present. Where have they gone to, I wonder?
As to dating the shooting, is Irish Steel still there in the backbround or can we see Fr. Ted’s crematorium on Rocky Island?
-
January 9, 2007 at 12:53 am #769292
kite
ParticipantPraxiteles wrote:As far as I can see Kite the most obvious thing kept out of photographic-frame in this nice RTE production are the usual guffers – none was present. Where have they gone to, I wonder?😮 Most likely still on Christmas holidays, as they seem to be in the city.
Called to the environment section today at 4.45 but nobody was available to deal with my query…â€maybe tomorrowâ€
When leaving the city hall I nearly broke my neck by slipping on the cheap leftover paving from Patrick St. that our “chosen one†decided to lay (disposing of the historic paving that was there for decades) -
January 9, 2007 at 1:17 am #769293
Praxiteles
ParticipantKite!
Did you see what Eason’s on Patrick were selling in their Christmas book sale? Large quantities of something called Mein Kampf !!!
-
January 9, 2007 at 1:25 am #769294
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Kite!
Did you see what Eason’s on Patrick were selling in their Christmas book sale? Large quantities of something called Mein Kampf !!!
And there was I thinking it was Jamie Olivers latest Christmas Cooking Recipes
-
January 9, 2007 at 2:02 am #769295
Praxiteles
ParticipantChurch of the Immaculate Conception, Conakilty, Co. Cork by G.C. Ashlin (1869)
1. The South Rose Window. Note thes sensitively placed lamp over the door and the red alarm light on the right.
2. The Apse showing influences more common to JJ. McCarthy as per Maynooth College Chapel (without the radial chapels) and of his pupil Connolly’s Basilica of the Immaculate Conception at Guelph, Ontario. I am not sure what he would think of the sensitively inserted boiler house and flew.
3. the North Rose WIndow -
January 9, 2007 at 2:12 am #769296
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Immaculate Conception, Clonakilty, Co. Cork, G.C. Ashlin (1869)
The spire and West elevation.
-
January 9, 2007 at 6:32 am #769297
Rhabanus
ParticipantThanks for the shots of Klonakilty.
I do not wish to be awkward, but why is the niche over the West window devoid of a statue? Was a statue originally designed for it subsequently removed (and destroyed) or perhaps not seen to completion in the first place?
Few features of ecclesiastical architecture bother me more than vacant niches. I can scarcely believe that Ashlin had no plan for that niche. It pleads for a statue!
The lamp and alarm bulb constitute a dual atrocity. The lack of space in front of the door ruins the visual impact of this beautiful church. Are those in charge of the fabric deliberately trying to give offence or are they just plain stupid?
-
January 10, 2007 at 2:21 am #769298
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The South Rose WIndow: this consists of eight cusped oculi radiatng around a large central cusped oculus. The radiating oculi are separated by colonettes the bases of wich support the central oculus and capitals of which support the radius of the outer oculi. The circular window is integrated into the pointed arch by the use of a fillet with a central trefoil inserted above the circumference of the Rose, and by two quadrifoils at the base of the Rose. The Rose is set above seven lancet windows the colums of which stand proud to the tracery of the windows.
The basic composition of a central oculus surrounded by eight smaller oculi is derived from the North Rose of Laon Cathedral which was installedd c. 1180-1190. The superimposed fillet derives from the the transept Roses of Rheims Cathedral which date from c.1230, themseles based on the windows of St, Nicaise in Rheims (demolished in the 19th.century) where it first made its appearance. The feature of proud standing colums in the lancets derives from the West facade of Strassburg Cathedral dating from 1277-1318. The prototype for this arcade of columns may well derive from the arcade found above the Rose window on the North facade of Laon Cathedral.
The entire composition is recessed into a single triumphal arch rising throuh the entire facade. This feature derives from the West facade of Laon Cathedral which was completed around 1200. The same treatment is more pronounded on the West facade of Cobh Cathedral which had to integrate the West Portal below the lancets windows supporting the Rose.
-
January 10, 2007 at 10:53 am #769299
Praxiteles
ParticipantSome further information on the North Rose at Laon may be viewed here:
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/documentation/memoire/VISITES/laoncath.htmThe Rose (c. 1180) in the North Transept at Laon Cathedral:
-
January 10, 2007 at 12:20 pm #769300
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnother view of the North facade of Laon Cathedral:
<a href="
]
-
January 10, 2007 at 9:34 pm #769301
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Mary’s Church, Mallow, Co. Cork
And here is another evrsion of the same Rose Window installed in the new facade of Mallow Church,built by G.C: Ashlin in 1900. In this case, a single cusped oculus surrounded by eight radial oculi; the fillet at the top was unnecessary because of the rounded arch; and the colonettes seen in Cobh window have been omitted; the quadrifoils in the lower corners are blamk; the Rose surmounts seven blank lancets; blow which is the Main Portal; the entire composition is massed and recessed within a triumphal arch. Curiously, although this style is referred to as neo-Lombardic Romanesque, the Rose window here is derived from Laon and completely integrated into the facade.
-
January 11, 2007 at 12:54 am #769302
THE_Chris
ParticipantHeh.. is it just me or does the spire on the right look like its leaning? 😉
-
January 11, 2007 at 1:20 am #769303
Praxiteles
ParticipantNo such luck… I think it is just the angle.
-
January 11, 2007 at 1:34 am #769304
Fearg
ParticipantGood website about rose windows:
-
January 11, 2007 at 1:54 am #769305
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks for that Ferg. It is an excellent resources grouping together examples of all the most important Roses. It will be helpful when dealing with the other two Rose Windows in Cobh Cathedral – the West Window which depicts the Apocalypse of St. John, chapter 4; and the North Rose which is depicts the Holy Family and St. Joseph.
-
January 12, 2007 at 12:56 am #769306
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The glazing scheme of the South Rose Window is as follows:
The central cuspe depicts Our LAdy, Star of the Sea
The radial cusps, from the lower middle left:
a. Annunciation
b. Visitation
c. Nativity of Our Lord
d. Jesus at Nazareth
c. Magnificat
e. Sailors look tot he Star of the Sea
f. Sailors praying
g. Men praying at shrine of Our Lady in a storm -
January 12, 2007 at 1:02 am #769307
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
e. Sailors look tot he Star of the Sea
f. Sailors praying
g. Men praying at shrine of Our Lady in a stormCan attest to e, f and g …..
-
January 12, 2007 at 1:40 am #769308
Rhabanus
Participant@samuel j wrote:
Can attest to e, f and g …..
What about the empty niche above the rose window? Any clue as to the original design? Was it supposed to contain an image of Our Lord? the Blessed Virgin? St Colman? St Patrick? The Blessed Trinity? Surely there must have been a plan to fill that niche. The other niches on lower levels are beautifully filled with statues of the saints.
Seems odd to me that this niche was left empty. Anyopne have a plan of the iconographical and hagiographical programme of the caathedral’s facade?
-
January 12, 2007 at 1:48 am #769309
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
What about the empty niche above the rose window? Any clue as to the original design? Was it supposed to contain an image of Our Lord? the Blessed Virgin? St Colman? St Patrick? The Blessed Trinity? Surely there must have been a plan to fill that niche. The other niches on lower levels are beautifully filled with statues of the saints.
Seems odd to me that this niche was left empty. Anyopne have a plan of the iconographical and hagiographical programme of the caathedral’s facade?
The niche above the South Rose window (exterior) contains a marble roundel depicting the Coronation of Our Lady as Queen of Heavan.
It would be great if the camera confraternity in Cobh could supply some images of these details! Hint….
-
January 12, 2007 at 7:08 am #769310
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The niche above the South Rose window (exterior) contains a marble roundel depicting the Coronation of Our Lady as Queen of Heavan.
It would be great if the camera confraternity in Cobh could supply some images of these details! Hint….
Shouldn’t be surprised to learn that it was or is The Annunciation, given that the niche on the south transept is the Coronation. Bet that on the North wall was/is The Assumption. If there is one on the East wall, perhaps it is/was the Nativity or the Crucifixion.
A relief makes sense, given the size of the niche in relation to the others lower down on the building.
Many thanks in advance for whatever the camera crew can muster!
-
January 12, 2007 at 9:38 am #769311
samuel j
ParticipantSt Peter and Paul’s
-
January 12, 2007 at 10:59 am #769312
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Peter and Paul’s in Cork City.
This and the Immaculate Conception in Clonakilty are the forerunners of Pugin and Ashlin’s Cobh Cathedral. Many of the characteristic features of these architects found in Cobh Cathedral are also to be seen in both of these churches.
Note the altar rail which spans the entire with of the church, as in Cobh and Clonakilty and in the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Succor in Roxboro in Boston, Professor Cathal O’Neill was unaware of this characteristic feature of Pugin and Ashlin churches and regarded the Cobh example as a crude exercise that was probably not due to the work any architect.
As at Clonakilty, in the absence of a Porta Coeli arch (which is tobe found in Cobh), the sanctuary is emphasized and demarkated by the polycrome ceiling (cfr- posting 2069, p. 83).
As at Clonakilty, the spandrils in the nave are occupied by canopied statues of the Apostles raised on brackets (Clonakilty) or columns (St. Peter and Paul’s).
A third church that needs to be looked at in conjunction with Clonakilty and St. Peter and Paul’s is St. John and St. Augustine’s in Dublin. It would be great boon were some of the camera fraternity in Dublin able to provide some photographs of the interior as they are almost impossible to locate.
-
January 12, 2007 at 6:22 pm #769313
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Augustine and St John’s, Thomas Street, Dublin.
To start the ball rolling, here are a couple of shots of the exterior of this church designed by Pugin and Ashlin in 1860. The iron work is by McGloughlin, the mosaic by Oppenheimer, the stone work by Pearce -all of whom were employed in Cobh Cathedral.
The triumphal arch into which portal and nave window are recessed is evident here. It would later be repeated in Cobh Cathedral.
The Nave window, with an inset smaller Rose (closely resembling the South Rose in Cobh) is closer to St. Peter amnd Paul’s in Cork.
-
January 12, 2007 at 6:41 pm #769314
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Monastery of St. Francis, Gorton, Manchester by E.W. Pugin (1863-1867)
Some news concerni g Gorton Monastery, another church to be viewed in relation to Cobh, St. Peter and Paul’s, Clonakilty and St, Augustine and John’s:
-
January 12, 2007 at 8:57 pm #769315
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Augustine and St John’s, Thomas Street, Dublin.
To start the ball rolling, here are a couple of shots of the exterior of this church designed by Pugin and Ashlin in 1860. The iron work is by McGloughlin, the mosaic by Oppenheimer, the stone work by Pearce -all of whom were employed in Cobh Cathedral.
The triumphal arch into which portal and nave window are recessed is evident here. It would later be repeated in Cobh Cathedral.
The Nave window, with an inset smaller Rose (closely resembling the South Rose in Cobh) is closer to St. Peter amnd Paul’s in Cork.
Couple of shots of the interior available at the following link:
St. Augustine and St John’s, Thomas Street, Dublin
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2146879290082721655LGvizeWould I be correct in thinking that the church is almost as lofty as Cobh, but that the triforium has been sacraficed for a larger scaled nave arcade?
-
January 12, 2007 at 9:09 pm #769316
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Monastery of St. Francis, Gorton, Manchester by E.W. Pugin (1863-1867)
Some news concerni g Gorton Monastery, another church to be viewed in relation to Cobh, St. Peter and Paul’s, Clonakilty and St, Augustine and John’s:
The high altar and reredos at Gorton seem very different to those in the other churches currently being discussed. In Gorton, I do not think the mensa of the altar was ever attached to the reredos.. so had teh churtch not closed, it would not have required any tampering! I do hope the drawing is made available on the net.
-
January 12, 2007 at 10:55 pm #769317
Praxiteles
ParticipantThanks Ferg for those pictures of the interior of Sts. Augustine and John’s. They give a good idea of just how striking it is and, fortunately, still fairly well in tact.
-
January 12, 2007 at 11:15 pm #769318
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Pilgrimage Church of Our Lady of Dadizele, Belgium
The foundation stone was laid by Monsigneur Malou on 8th. September 1859. The church was consecrated in 1880. Heavily shelled during the World War I, it was re-built by Monsigneur Waffelaert between 1920 and 1924. It was further damaged during Wordl War II and again restored. A full scale restoration of the Basilica began in 1998.
The other great church built by E.W. Pugin and which was built on a par with Cobh Cathedral was the pilgrimage church of Our Lady at Dadizele in Belgium. Unfortunately, it was bombed during the First World War. The church was rebuilt after the war but not as splendidly as when originally built. Just start counting the similarities with Cobh, St. Peter and Paul’s in Cork, St. Augustine and St. John in Dublin, Gorton in Manchester, and also E.W. Pugin’s church at Barton on Irwill also near Manchester.
-
January 12, 2007 at 11:19 pm #769319
Fearg
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Thanks Ferg for those pictures of the interior of Sts. Augustine and John’s. They give a good idea of just how striking it is and, fortunately, still fairly well in tact.
The absence of a pulpit seems to be the main loss, along with the altar gates..
-
January 12, 2007 at 11:31 pm #769320
Praxiteles
Participant@Fearg wrote:
The absence of a pulpit seems to be the main loss, along with the altar gates..
As at Clonakilty.
-
January 13, 2007 at 12:01 am #769321
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
As at Clonakilty.
How about that small niche above the rose window? I note that it is filled with a statue. Is it Our Lady? Our Lady as a child? I cannot see it very well.
What are the particular iconographic attributes of the Madonna to whom the church is dedicated?
-
January 13, 2007 at 12:05 am #769322
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
How about that small niche above the rose window? I note that it is filled with a statue. Is it Our Lady? Our Lady as a child? I cannot see it very well.
What are the particular iconographic attributes of the Madonna to whom the church is dedicated?
That must be Our Lady although I cannot be sure as the photograph is not too clear.
-
January 13, 2007 at 1:32 am #769323
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
That must be Our Lady although I cannot be sure as the photograph is not too clear.
At first I thought it was St Anne and the Blessed Virgin, but the statue seems to represent a single figure. It doesn’t seem to fit the niche with the precision of the statues on the lower rank.
-
January 13, 2007 at 1:36 am #769324
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Basilica of Our Lady of Dadizele in West Flanders in Belgium
-
January 13, 2007 at 8:27 pm #769325
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Some views of the glass in the Rose and lancets of the South Window:
-
January 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm #769326
ake
ParticipantIs it ok to post pictures of irish churches with nothing to do with cobh or pugin?
@Fearg wrote:
Couple of shots of the interior available at the following link:
St. Augustine and St John’s, Thomas Street, Dublin
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2146879290082721655LGvizeWould I be correct in thinking that the church is almost as lofty as Cobh, but that the triforium has been sacraficed for a larger scaled nave arcade?
Another nave spoiled by idiotic colors
-
January 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm #769327
Rhabanus
ParticipantThank you, Prax, for the excellent photo-tour of Our Lady Dadizele in Belgium. Have you noticed that in spite of the dominance of the Gothic arch on the West facade and on the South walls and clerestory, the arch enshrining the gorgeous rose window of the South transept is actually Roman, not Gothic? I wonder what the architect was saying by this. Is it a nod, for example, to an earlier church in Romanesque style that eventually yielded to a Gothic or Neo-Gothic successor? Perhaps a melange resulting from reconstruction after The Great War?
Am I incorrect in suspecting that the same Roman arch over a rose window, which we see on the South facade of OL Dadizele, Belgium, bears a striking resemblance to that on the main facade of the parish church in Mallow Co., Cork? Do any of you architects out there understand what E.W.Pugin was communicating through this arrangement?
-
January 14, 2007 at 2:55 am #769328
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe: St Mary’s Church, Mallow, Co. Cork
There is no doubt whatsoever that both the arch on the facade in Mallow and that on the South facade in Dadizele are very similar.
-
January 14, 2007 at 2:57 am #769329
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
Is it ok to post pictures of irish churches with nothing to do with cobh or pugin?
Another nave spoiled by idiotic colorsI for one would welcome material from churches throughout the country. Indeed, there are some particular horrors in the Waterford/Kilkenny area due to a fellow called Costello. Work right ahead…
-
January 14, 2007 at 3:09 am #769330
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Some more shots of the glass in the South Rose and Lancets:
-
January 14, 2007 at 3:15 am #769331
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Some shots of the present condition of the external doors to the North and South transepts.
After spending £4 million we are left with nothing but decay and degredation.
-
January 14, 2007 at 5:36 am #769332
Rhabanus
ParticipantUtterly disgraceful! No need for such shameful neglect. Pure passive aggression.
How long, O Lord, how long???
-
January 14, 2007 at 7:48 pm #769333
ake
ParticipantThis is the parish church in Clonskeagh, Dublin. I was amazed that such quality, traditional building was still being done in the 1950’s.
[ATTACH]3999[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]4000[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4001[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]4002[/ATTACH] -
January 14, 2007 at 7:52 pm #769334
ake
ParticipantTwo kilkenny churches: the very intact looking capuchin friary, and the gothic church near the train station
[ATTACH]4003[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4004[/ATTACH]Is that red good or bad?
-
January 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm #769335
Praxiteles
ParticipantNice posting, Ake, but there is no need for the amazement concerning the quality of Irish church building up to the 60s: just take a look at St. Francis in Liberty Street in Cork or The Descent of the Holy Ghost at Dennehy’s Cross in Cork etc.
WHat is amazing that this whole tradition seems to have evaporsted over night in the 1970s.
-
January 14, 2007 at 9:09 pm #769336
kite
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Nice posting, Ake, but there is no need for the amazement concerning the quality of Irish church building up to the 60s: just take a look at St. Francis in Liberty Street in Cork or The Descent of the Holy Ghost at Dennehy’s Cross in Cork etc.
WHat is amazing that this whole tradition seems to have evaporsted over night in the 1970s.
…and despite most of these Churches being listed buildings, unelected officials, (Mr. Joe springs to mind) insist on “linier views†from one or two angles same taken from a 80 ft. cherry picker to justify surrounding beautiful buildings by slum flats to maximize development levies (and their “performance†related bonuses + future employment prospects) :rolleyes:
-
January 14, 2007 at 9:43 pm #769337
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
…. kilkenny churche: …the gothic church near the train station
Is that red good or bad?
That red all over the ceiling is MOST unfortunate and in very bad taste.
1. The colour scheme of the ceiling should differentiate the apse from the sanctuary. The same colour should not be used on both. In this case, you would expect the apse to be painted in alternating blue and red panels with stencils or inserted painted panels or angels or saints or indeed of stars.
In the neave you would expect to find alternating panels of blue and red; or torquise green and pink.
2. In the attic of the Porta Coeli arch, facing into the nave, you would expect to find a fresco, possibly of the resurrection or the ascension or assumption and a similar counterpart on the other side facing into the apse.
3. Those banners are utterly absurd and serve no useful purpose.
-
January 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm #769338
Praxiteles
ParticipantHere is an example of what you might expect to find in this church had its original paint work been preserved. The example is taken from St. Peter’s Cathedral in London, Ontario, Canada.
-
January 14, 2007 at 10:45 pm #769339
ake
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
Here is an example of what you might expect to find in this church had its original paint work been preserved. The example is taken from St. Peter’s Cathedral in London, Ontario, Canada.
Is it the case do you know, that whenever you see a church with large monochrome areas like that, it was always originally painted, like the above mentioned, meaning like the chancel of Kilkenny Cathedral, or St.Finbars COI, you know with patterns and illustrations etc- at least if the church is 19th century?
I seem to talk about paint alot, but I have another question on it-
Do you believe modern methods of painting are inferior to original methods? Are they even different? The reason I ask is because in alot of churches the paint job seems somewhat crude to me, I don’t know exactly in what way, but for example in St.Teresa’s in Dublin (the one off grafton street), where I was recently, the colours seemed very harsh, almost cartoonish, and even seemed to obscure the plasterwork occasionally. In contrast is St.Audeon’s RC which I understand has not been repainted in the last 35 years:[ATTACH]4008[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4009[/ATTACH]Am I imagining things?
-
January 14, 2007 at 10:57 pm #769340
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Francis, Liberty Street, Cork
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:02 pm #769341
ake
Participantbefore I forget, does anyone have any information and pictures on modern Irish cloisters, if they exist? I believe there is one in the Cistercian house in Waterford, Mount Melleray, maybe I’m wrong
Prax, that looks like it could be the very same design as clonskeagh, with one dome less
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:03 pm #769342
Praxiteles
ParticipantCan anyone find some shots of the interior of ST. Francis’ in Cork?
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:04 pm #769343
Praxiteles
Participant@ake wrote:
before I forget, does anyone have any information and pictures on modern Irish cloisters, if they exist? I believe there is one in the Cistercian house in Waterford, Mount Melleray, maybe I’m wrong
Take a look at the areal picture of St. Francis in Cork. You can see the cloister on the North side of the Church.
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:15 pm #769344
Praxiteles
ParticipantRe Painting:
You can take it that when money was available and painting had to be done, elaborate schemse covered the entire church.
When money was available but limited, then most was spent on the Apse and a reduced scheme in the nave.
When funds did not allow this, then what was available was spent on the Apse with whitewash used in the nave usually relieved with scrolls over the arches quoting lines from the New Testament.
In Ireland, the unfortunate 1970s saw much of this work simply painted over in nice glossy paint. As time progressed, the colours became lighter and lighter until we now have bland pastels all over the place.
The interior of St Mary’s in Mallow was re-painted not so long ago. the pinters employed were competent and some of the scagliola work is very good. I suppose it all depends on what you are prepared to spend!!
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:24 pm #769345
Praxiteles
ParticipantMount Melleray Cistercian Abbey, Cappaquin, Co. Waterford
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:29 pm #769346
samuel j
Participant“I suppose it all depends on what you are prepared to spend!!”
Or spend on graniose unwanted schemes..whilst the church around you crumbles….. ….Bishop Magee comes to mind for some strange reason……
-
January 14, 2007 at 11:30 pm #769347
Praxiteles
ParticipantMount St. Joseph’s Cistercian Abbey, Roscrea, Co. Tipperary
You should be able to find an example of a cloister here
-
January 15, 2007 at 12:35 am #769348
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare – St. Mary’s Cloister
The monstrosity in the middle of the cloister was never envisaged by A.W.N. Pugin!!
-
January 15, 2007 at 12:47 am #769349
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Cistercian Abbey at Portglenone, Co. Antrim
-
January 15, 2007 at 12:59 am #769350
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Cistercian Abbey at Portglenone, Co. Antrim
Too sterile for my taste. Much prefer the other cloisters. Thanks for the photos, Prax!
What “nature-boy” got his talons into the cloister at Maynooth? Reminds me somewhat of that “artiste” who littered the gutted nave of St John the Baptist Drumacree Rd with his El Greco lawn gnomes.
Was good taste driven out of Ireland on 1 Jan 1970, like the snakes in St Patrick”s day (5th century)?
-
January 15, 2007 at 2:15 am #769351
Praxiteles
Participant@Rhabanus wrote:
Too sterile for my taste. Much prefer the other cloisters. Thanks for the photos, Prax!
What “nature-boy” got his talons into the cloister at Maynooth? Reminds me somewhat of that “artiste” who littered the gutted nave of St John the Baptist Drumacree Rd with his El Greco lawn gnomes.
Was good taste driven out of Ireland on 1 Jan 1970, like the snakes in St Patrick”s day (5th century)?
For modesty sake, let us not ask anythig about the introduction of the New Age garden into St. Mary’s Cloister in Maynooth!!
-
January 15, 2007 at 2:30 am #769352
ake
ParticipantSt.Mary’s cloister- obscene
Is the cloister in St.Francis, Cork a proper cloister with four walks?is it public?
By the way on the topic of cistercians, does anyone have the book “Cistercian abbeys of Europe”, with photographs by Henri Gaud?
I really think cloisters are a sad absence in modern churches, notwithstanding their monastic function. For example in the medieval cathedrals of England, it is truly sublime to wander around a quiet cloiser garth when visiting the church… I believe there is a similar survival in Adare but I’ve never been
St.Audeon’s: Damn Christmas tree was blocking the altar. I really don’t agree with trees in churches, call me scrooge
[ATTACH]4016[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4017[/ATTACH] -
January 15, 2007 at 2:33 am #769353
Praxiteles
ParticipantAnd of course, we cannot forget our good friend Brian Quinn’s effort at Rosstrevor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/yourplaceandmine/down/rostrevor_monastery.shtml
-
January 15, 2007 at 2:36 am #769354
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe statue of Our Lady in St Audeon’s is interesting. There was an article in 2000 in the Irish Arts review by Eileen Kane of UCD about it. It is an Italian work sculpted in Rome in 1848.
The statue is by Pietro Bonanni and was commissioned from the artist by Paul Cardinal Cullen while still Rector of the Irish College in Rome on behalf of the Parish Priest of St. Auseon’s. The contarct was signed 8 September 1844. The statue is based on Raphael’s Madonna del Granduca of 1504. The Parish Priest was Fr. James Monks but it was his curate Fr. James Corr who had recently returned to Dublin after ordination in Rome. According to the contract the statue was to be 6′ 9inches and the pedastal2′ 8inches and was to be executed within two years. The statue arrived in the port of Dublin from Leghorn on 14 August 1848 and was dedicated on Sunday, 20 August 1848. The statue is signed by Bonnani.
It is of course a major miracle that she did not end up in a junk shop in Francis Street!!
(See Eileen Kane, “From Rome to Dublin in 1848. A Madonna for St Audeon’s” in Irish Arts Review Yearbook, vol. vol 16 [2000], pp. 151-156)
-
January 15, 2007 at 6:00 am #769355
Rhabanus
Participant@ake wrote:
St.Mary’s cloister- obscene
Is the cloister in St.Francis, Cork a proper cloister with four walks?is it public?
By the way on the topic of cistercians, does anyone have the book “Cistercian abbeys of Europe”, with photographs by Henri Gaud?
I really think cloisters are a sad absence in modern churches, notwithstanding their monastic function. For example in the medieval cathedrals of England, it is truly sublime to wander around a quiet cloiser garth when visiting the church… I believe there is a similar survival in Adare but I’ve never been
St.Audeon’s: Damn Christmas tree was blocking the altar. I really don’t agree with trees in churches, call me scrooge
[ATTACH]4016[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]4017[/ATTACH]Che bella Madonna! Assolutamente spaventosa.
-
January 15, 2007 at 6:22 am #769356
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Francis, Liberty Street, Cork
I particularly appreciate the symbolism of the facade of St Francis, Liberty Street.
The main portal is divided by five Roman arches – each representative of the five wounds of the stigmata borne by St Francis. Note the seven arches above these: the seven sacraments of the New Law – those outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace and participation in His Paschal Mystery. The Paschal Mystery itself is proclaimed strikingly near the top of the facade in the form of the Cross of San Damiano. This is the crucifix before which St Francis was praying when he heard the voice of Christ bid him “Francis, restore my Church.” Thinking that the voice meant for him to restore the crumbling church of san Damiano, Francis at once set about gathering stones to repair the church building. He came to understand, however, that the invitation was more daunting: Francis was to play a crucial role, along with St Dominic, in the revival of Catholic practice in thirteenth-century Europe and beyond.
I need not mention that Francis, although a genuine lover of God’s creatures, did not mar his architectural surroundings by designing and planting weird gardens with odd-looking lawn gnomes and other pests. He had the work of the Church to do: preaching the Gospel in season and out of season, living the ascetic life, practising penance, engaging in works of charity. In other words Francis built up the Church by caring for the living stones who comprise the Church. The pope of the day, Innocent III (reigned 1198-1216), had the wisdom and grace to recognise in Dominic and Francis the zeal of true Catholic Christian working under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
The facade of the Church of St Francis, Liberty Street, is an eloquent sermon in brick and mortar. It delivers a compelling catechesis before the visitor even sets foot inside the door.
-
January 15, 2007 at 7:07 pm #769357
Praxiteles
ParticipantThe Church of the Descent of the Holy Ghost, Dennehy’s Cross, Cork, built in 1957.
-
January 15, 2007 at 9:41 pm #769358
Rhabanus
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
The Church of the Descent of the Holy Ghost, Dennehy’s Cross, Cork, built in 1957.
Not sure I like the figure of the Blessed Virgin Mary being off-centre in the apsidal mosaic. In the Pentecost, as elsewhere, Mary stands as the figure and Mother of the Church. The graces showered on her who is ‘full of grace’ overflow onto the apostles, disciples, and early members of the Church. According to the vision of John in Revelation (Apocalypse) 12, the Woman is surrounded by twelve stars – generally taken to mean the Twelve Apostles. Perhaps my vision is waning, but it looks to me as though Our Lady is off centre.
In the second photo of the nave, I note quite a bit of chit-chat going on. Is that usual now in Ireland before Mass? If so, it must be distracting to those who wish to pray quietly before celebrating the Sacred Mysteries.
-
January 15, 2007 at 9:46 pm #769359
Rhabanus
ParticipantPardon, me – on closer inspection, it seems clear that Our Lady IS in the dead centre of the picture. I had not taken into account the angle.
How could I have suspected such a thing in the first place, one may ask? It comes from having witnessed firsthand the relief of Our Lady Mother of the Church on the West gallery of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington DC, where Our Lady is clearly off centre. One would scarcely get the impression that she exercises any important role in the life of the Church. She seems almost incidental to the life of the Church and not much of a conduit of grace.
Once you see something like that, you’re on your guard. Again, my apologies!
-
January 16, 2007 at 1:36 am #769360
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt, Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
We have seen some examples of the decay of the interior of the building but here is a view which shows how the sprawl creeping over the Great Island is now impinging on the exterior and general setting of the Cathedral:
-
January 16, 2007 at 1:51 am #769361
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
The North Rose:
-
January 16, 2007 at 2:01 am #769362
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
View of the North Transept
The gallery of statues under the window represents figures from the Old Testament. St Joseph, the last of the Patriarchs, David, Isaiah, Elias, Eliseus, Ruth, Esther Zachary, Elizabeth and St. John th Baptist -the last of the Old Testament Prophets.
-
January 16, 2007 at 2:09 am #769363
samuel j
Participant@Praxiteles wrote:
St, Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
We have seen some examples of the decay of the interior of the building but here is a view which shows how the sprawl creeping over the Great Island is now impinging on the exterior and general setting of the Cathedral:
And its not over yet…. you can from this shot see cleared areas to NW. alot more sprawl to come here and all along this line going West and East. New sewerage schemes in progress to open all these areas for further housing. Lets hope the Bible gardens by Mount on NE of St. Colmans stay that way and church elders don’t get tempted ot sell off pockets ……
-
January 16, 2007 at 12:51 pm #769364
Praxiteles
ParticipantI am just wondering how the famous restoration Steering Committee can spend £ 4 million and at the end leave us with a dump. Just how is that possible? And are those responsible going to be held to account?
-
January 16, 2007 at 6:07 pm #769365
Praxiteles
ParticipantSt. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork
Some further examples of the decay of the mosaic floors in the Cathedral.
-