reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

@Praxiteles wrote:

It is indeed a great survivor. The Stations of the Cross look interesting. Any closer shots?

Note alos that the gas lamps along the sides have been converted to electricity. Similar ones were in Cobh Cathedral but they disappeared and then the wooden partitions disappeared during the “restoration”.

Found one on Wiki – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Stations-of-the-cross-lk-cath.jpg

What looks like a positive note from Cork City Council:

St. Mary’s Dominican Church on Pope’s Quay doe not look like ending up squashed up against a horrible glass box with a multicolour metal facade!

Scroll to the end here to view the planner’s report:

http://planning.corkcity.ie/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=0732315

@ake wrote:

UGH!!

idiots.

What stone are the nave piers of?

Here we are:

“Mountcharles Sandstone was used and the work carried out under the direction of the late P. Dawson.”

@Praxiteles wrote:

Gianfrancesco Penni’s depiction of the Baptism of Constantine in 326. The fresco is located in the Sala di Constantino in the Apostolic Palace and forms part of Raphael’s cicle of frescoes in the Stanze. It was completed by Penni bewteen 1517 and 1524 following Raphael’s death. The scene is set in the Baptiestery of the Lateran. Pope St Sylvester is depicted as Pope Clement VII.

The Baptism of Constantine marked the definitive emergence of Christanity from the catacombs and the infusion of late antique culture with a new vigour.

Not much water in that font! The fresco depicts Constantine being baptised by affusion rather than immersion.
Having celebrated yesterday the Dedication of the Basilica of the Most Holy Saviour, it was difficult to avoid recognising the reference in the first lesson (Ezekiel 47) to water flowing from the East Gate of the Temple as an allusion to the saving waters of baptism.

The Lateran basilca was the first Christian church to be dedicated in a public ritual. On the cornerstone of this magnificent edifice, one reads in Latin: “Mother and Head of all the churches of the City [of Rome] and of the world.” The statues on the facade measure 23 feet tall – the tallest outdoor statues in Rome.

The baptistery is adorned with doors taken from the ancient Roman Senate. If one purchases the cooperation of the sacristan by means of a small coin, one can have the senatorial doors opened. The sound produced by this movement resembles the groaning of a pipe organ or the rushing of great waters.

The name St John Lateran derives from the patron saint of the baptistery – St John the Baptist. The term Lateran refers to property that came to Constantine from the family of his wife Fausta.

St Augustine of Canterbury named his cathedral in Canterbury “Christ Church” in honour of the Lateran basilica (Most Holy Saviour). He named the monastery he founded after Sts Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles.

Obviously St Saviour’s in Dublin was named after the Basilica of the Most Holy Saviour, Rome. Too bad it still suffers the effects of the wreckovation wrought by Austin Flannery.

It was begun in 1891 to designs drawn by William Hague and completed in 1902 by T.F. Mcnamara. The High Altar, the altar rail, throne and pulpit are all by the Pearse brothers. The external sculpture was mostlly provided by Purdya dn Millard of Belfast. the mosaic of the sanctuary is by Willicroft of Hanley,. The Lady Chapel was decorated by the Amici brothers of Rome. The glazing is by Mayer of Munich, Michael Healy and Harry Clarke.

@Rhabanus wrote:

I know the Four Evangelists.

Who are the Four Masters who figure on the pulpit?

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_the_Four_Masters

@ake wrote:

I hope there are some people keeping a close eye on the Cathedral- have plans for wreckage been proposed to date?

The opportunities for wreckage are shrinking. Take a look at this little contribution:

http://www.courts.ie/80256F2B00356A6B/0/1B724E102A29F9B980257341002D25CA?Open&Highlight=0,sherwin,~language_en~

Let us summarizes matters as follows:

1. The Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December, 2004 provided for PAs to issue DECLARATIONS of EXEMPTION permitting development in protected structures used as places of worship EVEN if that development materially affected the character of the ctructure OR any element of it that contributed to its special interest etc.

2. Howvever, s. 57(1) of Planning and Development Act 2000 is a stand alone provision and crystal clear in its terms. It provides that the carrying out of works to a protected structure shall be exempted development ONLY if those works would NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT the character of the structure OR any element of the structure which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest.

3. The Planning Authority, and indeed An Bord Pleanála, were perfectly entitled, and perhaps even obliged, in the context of a s. 5 reference, to respect liturgical requirements, in considering the question as to whether or not the works would materially affect the character of the structure or a relevant element of the structure. BUT once they had decided that the proposed development WOULD MATERIALLY AFFECT the character of the structure OR a relevant element of the structure, they were NOT ENTITLED to have further regard to the liturgical requirements of worship. In particular, they were not entitled effectively to imply AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION not provided for in the legislation on the grounds that the works in question were necessitated by the liturgical requirements of worship.

4. It is clear that An Bord Pleanála took into account the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December, 2004 in arriving at the decision that it did. HOWEVER, section 5.2 of those Guidelines which section is entitled “Respecting Liturgical Requirements”, MISSTATES THE LAW in para. 5.2.3 thereof.

5. While it is legitimate, and indeed appropriate, to take into account liturgical requirements in deciding whether or not the character of the structure is materially affected by works, once a view is taken that the character of the structure is in fact materially affected by works, the planning authority has no choice but to apply s. 57(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which is clear and unequivocal in its terms.

6. Consequently, the High Court took the view that the sentence in paragraph 5.2.3 of the Minister’s 2004 guidelines with regard to respecting liturgical requirements to the effect that “In relation to declarations, this may mean that some works which are necessitated by liturgical requirements and which have a material affect on the character of the structure do not require planning permission” IS INCORRECT IN LAW and the law must be upheld and applied as it is

The long and the short of this is that there will fewer Declarations granted by PAs and for works like gutting a sanctuaruy to install a new altar, Planning Permission must be sought!!

thanks!

But doesn’t that mean, by s.57, of the 2000 act, there must be a virtual moratorium on all re-ordering? What was the law before this?

Excellent news and thks for making it known via your postings…..