reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
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?
It 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?
On 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.
Tabernacle in Armagh ended up in the south transept. I think I posted a photo of it earlier in the thread.
Rhabanus!
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.
@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.
Luzarches 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!
This 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!
@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!!
@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?
@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?
[quote=”Rhabanus Does Ireland have access to a World Monuments Fund?
[/QUOTE”]
Does anybody know anything about this?
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
@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 ….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
