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
Re: Baptismal Font in St. Aidan’s Cathedral, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford
I wonder has the font always been here and has the plinth always been pitched at this hight? The use of the blue encaustic tile in the inner octagon of the floor seems to suggest a a later infill, for a now disappeared lower step to the plinth?
At least, it has a cover!
Wexford:
Great Photos Ake.. Well preserved as it is, it has been hacked around with,, looks as though the central throne of the Reredos has been tampered with and that ambo looks terribly out of place. Also, why have they placed that nasty carpet in the most innapropriate of places?
Do you have any shots of the other twin church?
Here is some historical information form the parish website:
http://www.wexfordparish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=46
The church above, which is The Church of the Immaculate Conception, has not survived untouched, but there’s little to complain about in comparison to it’s sister over in Bride Street, The Church of the Assumption. Here, the interior is painted a repulsive plain orange with blue(!) stripes running along the nave arches to match with the glossy blue carpet in the sanctuary. It’s very instructive to be able to compare an appropriately coloured church with an almost identical church coated in frankly idiotic colours just two streets away. The effect is quite devastating, and remember that most churches in the country are painted like this. All of the altars in the church have apparently disappeared and been replaced mostly with plant life. In the chancel, where the high altar would have been is a chair mounted on steps! The beautiful screens separating out the side altars have survived, somehow. Strangely, the altar rails have survived, except for a bit of the arcades in the center and the central gates. But, unfortunately, they are really quite poor. In fact bizarre. I assume they must be the originals, but am surprised at their quality if they are. It’s a great shame it didn’t escape mostly unscathed like it’s twin as they’re beautiful churches in design and construction and it would have been quite unique and fascinating to be able to compare them, especially being so close to each other. Oh well. 1 out of 2’s not bad right?
[ATTACH]6164[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6165[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6166[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6168[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6167[/ATTACH]Notice the even more idiotic Amrican flag-flying-bit! Not very consistent with St. Paul and his Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free men etc…..
And those pampas grass…well they remind me Buenos Aires!!
Is there a baptismal font here?
@Praxiteles wrote:
The Stations of the Cross above look as though they were supplied by Mayer’s of Munich and would have cost approximately 10 guineas each (including the painted plaques under them).
And indeed it turns out that they are!
Link to a very interesting site, check out the section on Irish Buildings in particular.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Are the sacreens in marble or Portland stone?
The screens are of basically the same type as those in St.Aidan’s Cathedral, Enniscorthy]6179[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6180[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6181[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6182[/ATTACH]There are alot more of them here. As you can see St.Aidan’s is essentially just a larger version of the Twin churches, with transepts and a longer chancel; same simple, satisfying granite columns, nave arches, windows, etc. I thought the stained glass in the twin churches was actually better. The 1994 restoration of St.Aidans was quite good, but left alot that could’ve been done. And even with all the positive aspects, the stencilling and so on, the effect of the altar moved into the crossing on a modern stone platform is totally devestating to the church, as it is in every church.
As for the screens, the leaflet in St.Aidan’s says the screens and the fine reredos are in Caen stone, But as you can see they’re coated in bright white paint- why on earth would they paint over pierre de caen?!
I don’t know if the twin churches’ screens are also in that stone- they’re painted the same white…so?
@Fearg wrote:
As for the screens, the leaflet in St.Aidan’s says the screens and the fine reredos are in Caen stone, But as you can see they’re coated in bright white paint- why on earth would they paint over pierre de caen?!
I don’t know if the twin churches’ screens are also in that stone- they’re painted the same white…so?
I thought it looked a little odd! The creamy caen stone would look so much better…
Wonder if they painted it white, to match the modern marble of the new altar?
@Fearg wrote:
Link to a very interesting site, check out the section on Irish Buildings in particular.
great site
finally,a photograph of monaghan abefore the deluge.
note the pulpit, would one be right in suggesting prototypes in Pisa
@ake wrote:
great site
This is a wonderful site and very useful. Perhaps the wreckers of St. Joseph’s Church Liscarroll will notice this site and perhaps they may learn something from it.
@Fearg wrote:
Monaghan:
[ATTACH]6185[/ATTACH]
wow! absolutely beautiful! where did you find the picture? do you know what year it is?
@ake wrote:
wow! absolutely beautiful! where did you find the picture? do you know what year it is?
Shame on Joe Duffy, eternal shame on him for the wreckage done to ST Mcacartsn’s
Good point, Prax! The American practice of standing flags in the sanctuary, as though in a court room, dates only to the Second World War. Seems it was done as a [misguided] patriotic gesture.
Flags or pennants (whether captured or preserved in war) were given to churches and HUNG there as ex-votos.
Don Juan of Austria, for example, presented Pope St Pius V with the Sultan’s flag. The holy pontiff sent the flag to St Mary Major, where it was kept just off the Blessed Sacrament (or Sixtine) Chapel until Pope Paul VI in the 1970s gave it away to Turkey as a gesture.Historic churches in Britain, Canada, and the USA all display flags and pennants wrested from the foe or preserved by their own forces.
This business, however, of standing flags in a sanctuary is tasteless, and suggests an undue incursion of the state into the Church’s sanctuaries.
If flags must be introduced into church buildings, then why can they not be hung either in the vestibule/narthex or on the interior of the west wall up by the gallery? Or at least in a votive chapel? Flags are meant to be unfurled and flying, preferably only on flag-flying days, in order to mark significant anniversaries, not on every.day that ends in the letter “y”.
By the way, the wretched pampas grass looks rather weedy. I should think that it constitutes a fire trap as well as an eyesore. I suppose that someone in authority fancies himself (herself?) an artiste. I can just hear the rejoinder, “Well, I don’t claim to be an artist, but I know what I like.” Indeed! NEXT!!!
@Praxiteles wrote:
Notice the even more idiotic Amrican flag-flying-bit! Not very consistent with St. Paul and his Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free men etc…..
And those pampas grass…well they remind me Buenos Aires!!
Is there a baptismal font here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
