reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

BTW:
Take note of this phrase: “or a relevant element of the structure”! That could indeed have interesting consequences and knock on affects.

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.

For instances, Cork County Council gave a grant of planning permission in 2006 [Pl no. 05/7851] permitting the demolition of part of the sacristy of St. Joseph’s Church, Liscarroll, Co. Cork seemingly contrary to the tenor of Section 57.10.b of the Planning and Development Act which prohibita any loacl authority and ABP on appeal from granting permission for the demolition [partial or otherwise] of a protected structure. Now, how come Cork County Council thought nothing of granting permission for the partial demolition of the Liscarroll sacristy when such was going to have an obvious affect on the character and other relevant elements of a protected structure?

@Rhabanus wrote:

Thanks, Prax, for the reference to the Four Masters.

Now two questions arise from the most recent correspondence above. What is a GUBU and what is a sliveen? My Gaelic is non-existent, except for a few expletives reserved for only the rarest occasions. Are these terms, GUBU and sliveen worthy of addition to the Index sententiarum prohibitarum?

Praxiteles will have to send a private message to explicitate these prhases so as not to offend sensitive ears/eyes!

If I am not mistaken, this church originally had a magnificent reredos whch obviously has been sdismanled and scattered about.

We have already seen all the reasond rendering the location of the baptismal font next tot he altar a idiculous arrangement.

@ake wrote:

Shame, but at least they didn’t paint over the mosaics. We wouldn’t have been surprised.

The Protestant Old St.Mary’s church in Clonmel, the original, medieval church of Clonmel, but with the interior largely rebuilt. Two, magnificent windows however are original, or semi-original at least. The font looks to me like a 15th/16th c. original? Am I wrong?
[ATTACH]6290[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]6291[/ATTACH]

I would not think so!

@ake wrote:

But still, it has that lovely ancient limestone glisten…

No. The “I would not think so” = “I think you are right. It does look original”.

@Praxiteles wrote:

No. The “I would not think so” = “I think you are right. It does look original”.

don’t you think those designs are a bit unusual though? even a bit uncharacteristic?

@ake wrote:

St.Andrew’s, Dublin; One of the side altars is now a backdrop for the quite beautiful font.
[ATTACH]6293[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6292[/ATTACH]

This church has a fine mortuary chapel and also a very fine nuptial chapel. I can’t remember if it had a separate baptistry…
This is the little nuptial chapel, which has a small dome-light, as does the mortuary chapel.

[ATTACH]6294[/ATTACH][ATTACH]6295[/ATTACH]

Note the wreck-up of the former Marian chapel, now being posed as a baptistery.

Notice, in particular, the Latin words of the Angelic Salutation, “Ave gratia plena, Dominus tecum” inscribed over the side altar in question. My guess would be that the copy of Sassoferrato’s Madonna of the Rosary, currently hanging over the main altar, once hung in this side chapel. The shape of the frame and canvas would have fit perfectly here.

As it stands now, the Madonna of the Rosary is disproportionate with the main altar, and the painting of the Baptism of the Lord is entirely the wrong shape and dimension for that wall. The baptismal font, in any case, ought to be removed to its proper place, i.e. the baptistery, and the tabernacle on the opposite side altar translated to its original place in the sanctuary.

An administrator with most elementary modicum of an exposure to art and architecture [not to mention liturgy] would have known better than to have proposed the current arrangement, and would certainly have disallowed it.

Any photos of the original arrangement of this once-beautiful church?

@Praxiteles wrote:

It is not the Madonna of the Roasry. It is a copy of Ruben’s Taking down from the Cross in Antwerp Cathedral. This picture originally hung over High ALtar of the the 18th. penal Chapel in Liffy Street which was replaced by this church. WHen they moved from it, they brough their pictures with them. The Ruben’s copy is in a beautiful Roccoco frame. This history explains the problem of proportion bewteen the pictures -from an earlier and smaller altar – and the present altar piece. I agree that the Baptism picyure is likely to have been in the original Baptistery and more than likely a picture of Our Lady hung in this location.

Thanks for the correction. I could make out only shapes from the distance at which the photo was taken and the less-than-idel resolution on my screen chez moi; hence the picture had looked to me like a reproduction of Sassoferrato’s Madonna of the Rosay, the original of which hangs in the Dominican church of Santa Sabina on the lovely Aventine Hill.

To whom had the other side altar been dedicated? I presume it was dedicated to Our Lord under the title of the Sacred Heart or some other dominical mystery. I speculate on this because the Lady Altar in this church is on the Epistle rather than the Gospel side of the main sanctuary.

Any clues?

Here is the organ gallery in St Andrew’s:

And here is the original from the Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp. The central panel was finished in September 1612 and is regarded as one of Ruben’s finest pictures.

The side panels depict (l) the Visitation of Our Lady; and (r) Simeon holding the Child Jesus at his presentation in the Temple. The centre panel depicts St. John holding the Body of Christ as it is taken down from the cross. All three scenes have been read as a reference to St. Christopher – Christopher meaning the “Christ bearer” – and to the Guild of Arquebusiers which commissioned this Altar Piece. Thhe theme of Christ bearing connects all three panels.