reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
This photograph shows what happened to the sacristy window when it was “restored” and clad in thick stormglazing. While some effort was made to reproduce the diamond carrés of the original clear glazing, no explanation is available for the presence of three heraldic devices set into the new glazing.
The effect of the stormglazing is to ensure that the effect of the tracery of the window is never again seen by anyone. Again, all this happens with the spparent tacit nod of Cork County Council which never required a Planning Application to be made and considers this kind of intervention to be “normal” day to day maintenance.
The sacristy was built in 1855 by the Cork architect and antiquarian Richard Brash.
Unfortunately, if Cork County Council permits the dismantling of the adjacent west transept window to go ahead, then we can all expect a result not too dissimilar to what happened to this window.
The second photograph shows the mess made by the stormglazing. Please note the aesthetically pleasing aluminium cross bars. Praxiteles does not know how the tracery manages to support the weight of this thick stormglazing and is wondering what the weight of stormglazing covering an area 20×16 is likely to the tracery of the west transept should the lunacy proceed.
Heraldic devices?
You mean three monograms – or rather two monograms, since one is merely duplicated as is the case with the crosses in the baldachino of Waterford Cathedral (see several frames above on this very thread).
The central monogram elevated higher than the duplicated monogram stands for the Holy Name of Jesus; the second monogram flanking the Holy Name is the labarum of Constantine: the Greek letter ‘chi’ (X) surmounted by the Greek letter ‘rho’ (P): the first two letters of the Greek word XPISTOS or Christos. Constantine used this labarum since the time he saw it in a vision on the night before his famous battle on the Milvian bridge, when he defeated the forces of Maxentius and paganism.The labarum, like the cross (of which it forms a variation) is not some Christian frill or gew-gaw to flank another monogram. What is current arrangement says in iconographic terms is: Christ Jesus Christ. It would have made some sense had the monogram of the Holy Name been flanked on the right by the monogram of the Blessed Virgin Mary (usually an A for AVE superimposing several or all of the letters of MARIA); and on the left the monogram of St Joseph (usually an S superimposed on a J). Then it would have read: Mary Jesus Joseph: the Holy Family. This would make iconographic sense, particularly as the Holy Name of Jesus is elevated higher than the other two monograms. In that case it would more correctly be read as: Jesus – Mary – Joseph.
Rhabanus’ question: why is the Holy Name of Jesus flanked by the Christ monogram? Simply because they are religious-looking and identifiably Christian? What is the rationale? Were they found in a jumble sale or taken from another church or churches? The style of the Holy Name looks different from that of the Christos.
They look quite out of place as exhibited in this photograph. Even their position within the dimensions of the window looks dubious.
This is the kind of arrangement one expects of a four- or five-year old who cuts out pretty symbols for a scrap book and then slaps them together in a way that, to the five-year-old, looks neat and orderly. Who is responsible for this particulary arrangement?
@Praxiteles wrote:
A very sharp comment Chris and dead spot on!!
Here are a couple of more to show the thing right side up -the lfeties woz obviously at it here!!
Is is not that just a stunning piece of Gothick!! A pity the ESB box has not a pointed arch – it would lend street cred to it.
Can’t the word Catch be rendered in Latin? Then we could read Accipite or Capite or even Carpe. If the PP would scrawl the word diem after it, he would form a well-known motto: carpe diem!
I say that the FOSCC ought to follow that motto: Carpe diem!
@Praxiteles wrote:
Yeah, I think he is but in Kanturk he is regarded more as the local liturgical al-Wahaabi!!
However, the real question is why can he do such an extensive make over of Kanturk church without planning permission and everyone else has to go through the whole expensive process to make a minor alteration to the front of the house? Are the al-Wahaabi above the law?
Did Prax not know that “some al-Wahaabis are more equal than others”?
Sacred cows make great cheeseburgers! But they need grilling!
@samuel j wrote:
What is it a Sauna or have Artic Spas & Tubs got a showroom in there…
“protected building and on the list of protected structures drawn up by the Cork County Council” – have some recent experience of so called LIST and damage to a structure…. from my experience of getting any action…I think it is no more than a list…. as no one wants to know…you are bounced from pillar to post… I fear it is no more than a list……
Don’t tell me they have decided to revert to the ancient practice of baptising in the nude!?
Is this merely the cabana, or the actual baptistery which facilitates nuditas?What would St Cyril of Jerusalem say about this mess?
Pius XII would surely have pointed an accusing finger at this ridiculous archaising tendency.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde:
Canon Chasuble: Both the precept and the practice of the early church was disinctly in favour of nudity at baptism.
Miss Prism: Clearly that is why the early church is no longer with us!Or is the shrine to the Elephant in the living room?
Re: St Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
On the connection between the transept windows of St. Mary’s, Buttevant and the west window at Winchester Cathedral the following:
“The design of the west window is singularly simple, reducing itself to the merest stone grating. Divided into three great vertical compartments by principal monials, each of these is again split into three by secondary monials. Seven transoms divide the space into eight horizontal compartments. But the door in the centre and the arch-heads of the lights disturb the regularity of those at the top and bottom of the window. The window sill coincides with the second transom from the bottom, consequently we have panels below it and lights above it; then we find four rows of nine lights each, all alike, and above these the arch-head, which can scarcely be said to be filled with tracery, so completely does the grating-like character pervade it. In fact, in the central group of lights the grating extends to the very top, as well as in the middle of each great lateral division, the only attempt at curvilinear tracery being the filling up of the two side subordinate compartments of each great lateral division; and this, as it happen-, to coincide with the similar parts of Wykeham’s aisle and clerestory windows, has been thought by some writers enough to identify the two as the works of the same person”.
The great west window at Winchester was built by William Edington who was Bishop of Winchester from 1346-1366. The window was glazed by his successor William of Wykeham, Bishoop of Winchester from 1388-1404. Wykeham was Chancellor of England and responsible for the re-building of Windsor Castle for Edward III. Originally the stained glass represented prophets and saints, but it was destroyed by parliamentary troops during the civil war in 1642. It was re-assembled randomly in 1660 when the monarchy was restored, so the present windows are constructed from 14th century glass, but with no particular pattern.
Interestingly, the west window at Winchester has no stormglazing and seems to be able to get aling witout it.
The great east window at York Minster (which is the portotype for the transept windows of St. Mary’s, Buttevant, Co. Cork) was built between 1360 and 1405. The tracery was designed and built by John Thornton from 1405-1408. It is one of the largest areas of medieval stained glass in the world, its measurements close to those of a tennis court. It was the gift of Walter Skirlaw, Bishop of Durham, and cost £58.
In the top tracery light God the Father, Alpha and Omega presides over a rank of saints and angels. Below the tracery are 117 panels in rows of nine, illustrating various Biblical scenes.
Because of its vast area, the window is supported by extra stonework which forms an internal screen. Within this are two walkways across the face of the window. From the higher of these the choir sang during the service of re-dedication following the last cleaning of the window. This restoration took ten years to complete.
Notably, the cleaning and restoration of the East window in York did not include the positioning of stormglazing in front of the tracery of the window.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Praxiteles regards this as a piece of shoddy work which was encouraged by Cork Conty Concil and never submitted tot he planning process. It was carried out under the terms of a “Delaration”
How in gods name how did they get away with this…..
According to : http://www.corkcity.ie/ourservices/developmentplanning/declarations-ageneralguide/ on
Section 57 Declarations :
Depending on the individual circumstances, the following could require planning permission:Changes to the exterior appearance
Works which materially alter the exterior appearance of the building. These could involve the following:Walls: repointing, refacing in an applied layer of masonry, brick, wood, plaster or paint, cleaning, damp-proofing, to any wall surface, front, sides or back
Roof: replacement of existing covering materials or rainwater goods, removal of chimneys or chimney pots, alteration of coping stones, gable or eaves parapets
Openings: replacement of windows, repair of windows, painting of stone cills, replacement of doors, replacement or alterations to fanlights, replacement of letterboxes or door ironmongery
where such work would result in a material change of character.Changes to internal layout
Insertion of any fixed partitions, breaking out of new openings between significant rooms or spaces, insertion of new door openings, formation of ramps and the provision of universal access where such work would result in a material change to the special architectural or other interest of the structure.
Changes to the internal surfaces, finishes or linings
Replacement of internal joinery items which contribute to the special character of an interior (e.g. windows, doors, skirting boards, dado rails, panelling), replacement of integral floor coverings or structures, work materially affecting traditional or historic plasterwork ceilings including cornices.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Monaghan Cathedral
After nearly two years of searcing this is about as much as Praxiteles has been able (so far) to unearth of the original sanctuary. It does however give a good idea of what it was like. Note the floor of the sanctuary – is is quite similar to that in Cobh Cathedral (the one they wanted to hack out).
At last!! When compared to the sketch I posted back in April, the pieces are much smaller than I expected they would be (In fact, I wonder if they were intended for this location?). I think Monaghan would be a superb blank canvas to reinstate something more along the lines of what McCarthy intended!
@Fearg wrote:
At last!! When compared to the sketch I posted back in April, the pieces are much smaller than I expected they would be (In fact, I wonder if they were intended for this location?). I think Monaghan would be a superb blank canvas to reinstate something more along the lines of what McCarthy intended!
I agree that Monaghan is the place to start. No one will shed anybtears for the junk currently scattered around its sanctuary. It can (and will) easily be bulldozed and in its replacement, the general lines illuistrated fro has to happen up and down the country sooner rather than later.
And here is an even more interesting comment from Cork City Council on section 57 Declarations:
“In most cases, the following works do not require planning permission, unless stated otherwise in a particular declaration:
Routine maintenance
Modest repairs to keep a building weather-tight, securing of existing elements of windows (but not replacement of windows original to the structure), the clearing of gutters and downpipes, gardening activities which do not disturb the sub-soil”.
Well the modest repairs in Kanturk are said to cost over a million Euro!!
As for gardening without disturbing the sub-soil: well do not be surprised if some morning you do not discover that the al-Wahaabi has not put up a minaret over night!
.
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
An internal view of the west transept window glazed by Watsons of Youghal c. 1910. The upper central panel depicts the Assumption of Our Lady.
The main sanctuary window was designed, glazed and installed by Mayer of Munich in 1886. The upper reaches depict the choir of cherubim and seraphim; the middle range shows St. Colman, Our Lady, the Sacred Heart, St. Joseph, and St. Francis. The third range is now obscured by wall built in front of it with several of the panels salvaged from the demolition of the fine pulpit that once stood in the church. The third section contains a large inscription extending the length of the window in memory of the generosity of the donor. The tracery and iconography closely resemble another window done by Mayers for St. Patrick’s Church, Fermoy, at about the same time. As at Fermoy, the window was concieved as a backdrop to the High Altar and reredos and its dimensions were measured in reference to the High Altar. However, with the seventies vandalism and horrendous poor taste, the window is now abandoned in suspended isolation.
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
And here we have a picture showing the present whereabout of a good portion of the grill that has been removed from the west transept window.
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
And here we have a shot of a door in the east transept. It is very doubtful that a door of this kind was ever intended to accompany the historicized early English pointed arches to be found on this side of the church. Even more anachronistic is the glass pane in the tympan of the door.
It should be noted that the east side of this church differs significantly from the west side in that it is an example of a deliberate historicization. Unlike the west side, it is not built in large regular ashlar blocks but in smaller irregular stone (some of which were taken from the ruins of the cloister of the adjacent Franciscan friary (founded c. 1250). This side of the church is built to imitate the masonary of the tower on its east side – which was part of a genuine medieval town house dating from the late thirteenth century. Indeed, this incorporation and historicization is a quite deliberate assertion of religious and historical continuity.
While the English gothic prototypes for the west and south sides of the church all date from c. 1350, the pointed arches used on the east transept for the windows and doors belong to an earlier period of c. 1250, indicating that Mr. Cottrell, the architect, was more than slightly conversant with the development of English gothic and may well have had some connection with the Payne brothers. His architectural offices were in Hanover Street in Cork City.
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
These two photographs help illustrate the architectural complexity of the east side of St. Mary’s Church.
The mouldings on the recessed tomb in the adjacent friary are in all probably the prototypes for the mouldings used on the windows and doors of north face of the east transept.
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
The following link provides a wealth of detail about the church and has some fantastic pictures:
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
These three photographs allow us to evaluate the “positive” effects of stornglazing on the tracery of the south window. The first photograph dates from c. 1900 and the others from c. 1995.
And, it also affords the opportunity to contrast the effects on the architectural composition and massing of the church deriving from the inversion of the crosses on the west and south gables.
@Praxiteles wrote:
St. Mary’s Church, Buttevant, Co. Cork
An internal view of the west transept window glazed by Watsons of Youghal c. 1910. The upper central panel depicts the Assumption of Our Lady.
Another unstencilled mess. Lovely stained glass. Any old photographs of the interior?
@ake wrote:
Another unstencilled mess. Lovely stained glass. Any old photographs of the interior?
The stencil work disappeared here in the early 1960s. They were obviously too expensive to reproduce.
Still looking for older pictures.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
