johnglas
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I suppose we’re left to reflect on the muscularity of this vernacular style compared to the later decadence of Churrigueresque; on the other hand, the interior is so plain (especially in the sanctuary area) that it loses any real numinous feel. But a beautiful little gem on the exterior. The benches are crude beyond belief and just stuck in front of the altar (chairs better?).
It’s interesting reading some of the comments about the NYC chapel; clearly ‘ugliness’ is in the eye of the beholder and in the end what seems to be dooming this building is not its aesthetics, but the ravenous maw of mammon, in the shape of the redeveloper.
This may not be the prettiest building in the world (should it be anyway?), but it does have a solidity and a presence externally; internally (apart from the Christ/Cross figure) it looks quite rational and underplayed.Prax: the problem remains with such a magnificent piece as Maynooth College Chapel that mass can be celebrated only ad orientem at this altar; I presume another ‘temporary’ altar is normally located in front of it, but at a lower level – does this have any pretension to dignity at all?
I have come to the view that, while the current lturgy needs drastic revision and improvement, reverting to the Tridentine form is not the answer. So a ‘solution’ to the location and design of a suitable ‘forward-facing’ altar needs to be found in such a sensitive location as this. In addition, the ‘Tridentine’ vestments shown in the pictures just look skimped and out of place in such a wonderful setting.Since when were ‘adult’ shops a problem? Too much like shopping for grown-ups (as opposed to the infantile notion of ‘retail therapy’)?
A couple of observations here: the altar is obviously an amazingly restrained piece of rococo (a contradiction in terms?) which is not attempting to overwhelm the sanctuary in typical ‘Look at me!’ fashion; why the candlesticks are so studiously avoiding the predella defeats me.
The other point is that if there is a ‘central’ or ‘forward’ altar (as one presumes there is), then the chairs could have been arranged ‘choir-wise’ or ‘antiphonally’ instead of so blatantly ignoring the high altar.
‘O tempora, O mores!’Stunning pictures of Beauvais; and on the topic of God working in mysterious ways… When Ryanair started flying to ‘Paris’ when they were actually going to Beauvais, a mere 50-minute coach-ride away, it meant that you could get there a little bit earlier on the way back and discover… Beauvais, not least this attenuated masterpiece of a cathedral. Thanks for the reminder, Prax!
kefu: not wishing to be argumentative (indeed, not like me), but I wish people in Ireland would stop copying Pat Kenny in claiming that ‘Manchester’ has a greater population than ‘the entire country’ of Ireland. The last time I looked, Greater Manchester had a population of c. 2.5m; Ireland (Republic) has c.4.5m; Ireland (island) has c.6.3m. Indeed, Ireland has a greater population than the mighty Manchester and Liverpool combined (i.e. c. 2.5m + 1.5m = c.4.0m), but so what? There are many small countries of around 4-5m. Do I detect a colonial cringe, kefu?
A very accomplished interior at Fermoy; I hope there is no question of this being sold off or ‘deconsecrated’. With a minimum of intervention, this could easily be restored to virtually its original state.
Incidentally, I’ve now come to the conclusion that the flimsy ‘second altar’ in this kind of situation is best left as just that, to make clear what is still the ‘high altar’ (although an antipendium would give it a dignity it currently lacks). It also seems to me an irony that while some uber-trendy ‘liturgists’ seem obsessed with an ‘antiphonal’ layout, it is not implemented here, where the seats college-wise would be very appropriate!PS Any images of the gothicised parish church?
A very accomplished interior at Fermoy; I hope there is no question of this being sold off or ‘deconsecrated’. With a minimum of intervention, this could easily be restored to virtually its original state.
Incidentally, I’ve now come to the conclusion that the flimsy ‘second altar’ in this kind of situation is best left as just that, to make clear what is still the ‘high altar’ (although an antipendium would give it a dignity it currently lacks). It also seems to me an irony that while some uber-trendy ‘liturgists’ seem obsessed with an ‘antiphonal’ layout, it is not implemented here, where the seats college-wise would be very appropriate!PS Any images of the gothicised parish church?
Prax: Thanks for the correction (I should have known) – no link shown, however.
I think St Gall had a strong Bangor connection (as a disciple of St Comgall); the so-called Abbey Church is still there, after a fashion. It’s a decent enough 20thC reworking of a 17thC ‘restoration’ of fragments of a 12th/13thC (?)Augustinian priory on the site of St Comgall’s monastery! As you can imagine, there’s not a lot of the monastic ambience left – and it’s low-church CoI.Wonderful, sinuous and opulent interiors; an incentive to plainness of life and an inducement to holy poverty? Perhaps not, but then you can’t win them all!
PS All those plain little chairs beside those glorious concave (mahogany?) choir-stalls? A case for the style police – and in Switzerland of all places!
apelles; When I was (much) younger and visited Dublin only very occasionally, I recall that St Saviour’s was always one of my favourite stopping points. On a more recent visit, I wondered why I had liked it but found it all so soulless now. Well, now I know.
Why don’t most religious orders and PPs just move out of their churches and just rent barns or warehouse units on anonymous industrial estates more suited to their aesthetic understanding?‘It is frustrating to see such an arrogantly scaled, blob of darkness steal the limelight from a distinguished set piece that has graciously served this street for 150 years. Smaller and simpler, it could and should have been better.’
Ah, Graham, passion and erudition – other bloggers please note. And excellent pics to boot!
onq: I just became so frustrated reading your responses to Praxiteles (which never seemed to rise above the literalist reposte of the girls’ upper Fourth) that I have to respond in turn.
As gunter says, there is an unanswerable case for the replacement of removed altar rails in historic (i.e. pre-Vat II) churches. Whether a contemporary church should or should not have a rail is a matter of liturgical taste, but that the sanctuary should be separate and distinct is not an issue. True, you don’t need a church for worship, but 1700 years of tradition cannot be lightly set aside. (All the churches of the Reformation still required some places of assembly, which oddly enough over the years have come to look very like churches – sort of odd, that.)
The ultimate in separation between the nave (earth) and sanctuary (heaven) is the iconostasis of the Orthodox tradition – perhaps they could all be demolished and burnt in the interests of suppressing ‘vanity’. As for equating special clothes (vestments?) and ‘setting oneself apart’ (as one having a special function) with paganism, well that is pat on the head time.The problem with many contemporary and reordered churches is that they are simply not numinous enough, they are not ‘set apart’, they are not ‘special’. I have strong reservations about the architectural form of Stroik, but I have none about his intentions.
You just have to face up to the fact you have a naff planning department; I’d love to hear one of them defending their record. ‘Temporary’ should mean about six weeks.
DOR: What you seem to be saying is that ‘if we hadn’t done skateboarding, we’d have done drugs’ – quite a statement and totally unprovable, not to say daft. As far as urban squares are concerned, skateboarders and cyclists are both the bane of Jo(e) Public.
You may have a problem, but you don’t solve it by wrecking the public realm.Oh yawn, not more ‘secret’ codes; the medieval free masons were not freemasons; if the triple gate motif is virtually universal and its origins are unknown, how can it be ‘masonic’? As for the two towers, weren’t medieval cathedrals supposed to have towers at all the cardinal points, i.e. 8 or even 9 in a cruciform church. And what of the twin towers (‘Jachin and Boaz’) that actually became steeples?
However, the papacy’s condemnation of masonry has as much to do with power games as theology; plus ca change…
