Praxiteles

On the Dutch Gothic Revival, this is taken from posting no. 788:

The Gothic Revival in Holland:

Carl E.M.H. Weber (1820-1908)

Although Weber was born and raised in Cologne, it is almost certain that he did not learn his skill at the completion of the cathedral in that city. Where he did, remains unknown. What is known, is that in secondary school Weber was a classmate of Vincenz Statz, who later became one of the leading neo-Gothic architects of the German speaking part of Europe. As the archbishop of Cologne’s advisor on church architecture Statz gained a position in which he could either make or break an architect’s career, although he often was commisioned himself. Not a healthy climate for an ambitious architect to work in, and this could well have been be the reason for Weber to find his luck somewhere else, although until 1858 he stayed a resident of Cologne, at least officially.
Webers career in Germany is a mystery. The only known building he may possibly have been responsible for is a chapel for a monastery in his hometown, which was designed by a Weber, and which happened to be at just a few meters from Carl’s house.
His career in the Netherlands started with the designing of several churches in the province of Limburg. In 1857 he married his second wife (his first wife died in 1850), and moved to her hometown Roermond permanently.
Confusingly, he changed his first name a few times since. Until c. 1860 he called himself both Karl and Carl. Once integrated into Roermonds French-oriented society he started calling himself Charles. Later he used the Dutch equivalent Karel until his death. All these names have been used in the scarce literature that has been published about him.
Weber was one of the major church-architects in the south of The Netherlands; he built 33 churches, many of which in the ‘s-Hertogenbosch diocese, although he was also quite active in Limburg early in his career.
In Roermond Weber became fascinated by the Munsterkerk, a large church in the late Romanesque style of the Rhineland. It became his biggest wish to restore this church, and he began an extensive study of the church. But it’s another ambitious architect from Roermond who was commissioned for this prestigious project. Weber sharply criticized P.J.H. Cuypers’ plans for the restoration, which in many ways were historically incorrect and lacked respect for the original building, after they had been made public in 1863. Although the restoration started in 1870, it was this sort of reaction that prompted Cuypers to trade Roermond for Amsterdam. Weber himself after the conflict mostly concentrated on building churches in Noord-Brabant, and ultimately developed a style that derived much from the Munsterkerk, ironically including the changes made by Cuypers. It’s worth noting that in a book from 1953 on the subject of catholic church-architecture, which is extremely positive about Cuypers, Weber does not even get mentioned. The rivalry apparently lasted until well after both architects had died.
Weber’s career can be divided in two periods: in the first period (until the late 1870’s) his designs were inspired mainly by late Rhineland Gothicism. In this period his work can be regarded as a bridge between early decorative and later, more historically correct, neo-Gothicism. Churches are often of the Stufenhalle-type, a type of hall-church typical for Westphalia, with three aisles under one roof and the side-aisles being narrower than the central aisle. He continues to use early neo-Gothic ornamenture and plaster vaults especially in his interiors for a long period. In the second period influences from Romanesque architecture dominate, making Weber one of the first architects in the Netherlands to break the neo-Gothic monopoly. Weber’s most monumental works are from this second period, and are often notable for the presence of a tall dome at the crossing.
Besides designing new churches, Weber was also responsible for the restoration of many older examples.
The last years of his life he suffered from a disease to the eyes, which made it impossible for him to work.

@apelles wrote:

I took this little excerpt from here….. http://www.francisdesales.com/consecration/amberg

The Bishop then anoints the twelve crosses on the wall of the church with chrism, incensing each. These crosses are signs the church has been consecrated and must always remain there.

I’ve been in many a church were there’s none of these crosses to be seen as they have obviously been wiped out while decorating.. Is this a problem…are the church’s somehow deconsecrated when this occurs?

The twelve crosses, of course, represent the twelve apostles who are the foundations of the church.

The consecration crosses should never be removed for the walls of a church. In the absence of any documentary proof, their presence alone is proof that a church was at one stage consecrated. Their removal, however, does not constitute a “de-consecration” of the church. That only happens with the removal of the walls and the dispersal of their material (cf. Peitro de Gasparri’s tract De Sanctissima Eucharistia published in Paris in 1897).

@johnglas wrote:

Prax: fascinating and interesting posts on St Willibord’s in Utrecht – this is not the only instance of this in the Netherlands. One of the most well-known is the church of St Franciscus Xavierus (De Krijtberg), built in the site of three houses on the Singel canal in the centre of Amsterdam; note how the transepts overlap the adjoining houses! The interior is immensely tall and graceful, and very much still decorated in the original style. Fans of 19thC Dutch Gothic should not miss it in any visit to A’dam.

[pic from Wikipedia (again), although the parish does have its own website.]

This is typical of Dutch Catholic churches built after 1829 in the Netherlands. When expelled from the medieval churrhces in the 17th century, Catholics resorted to “house” worship which continued until Catholic emancipation. At that point, while they realised they need proper churches, there was not infrequently a reluctance to abandon the sites in whcih they had worshiped for nearly 200 years. So, we have soaring churches in awkward sites used to best possible advantage.

And here we have an example of the consecration of the walls which explains what all those little golden crosses painted onto the walls of church are all about – for they mark the places in which the walls were consecrated by chrism.

St. Willibord’s church, Utrecht in the Netherlands.

The upkeep of the church as now become the responsibility of the Dutch Society for the Latin Liturgy – which promotes the use of Latin not only in the old rite but also in the new rite.

The reconsecration yesterday took place in the new Roman Rite but in Latin. YOu will also notice that the original arrangement of the church is used for the new Roman rite – proving a point often made by the FOSCC that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to stop the liturgical use of the original arragement of Cobh Cathedral. Clearly, when you see that this can be done and when you see that the Dutch are doing it, then there is no reason why se should not be doing it.

Likewise, this use of the original liturgical disposition of ST WIlibord’s for the modern Roman rite underlines once again the mendacious assertions of the ignorat HACK who would have you believe that the modern Roman Rite requires an internal church disposition to facilitate something like a Woodstock love-in of the 1960s! What rubbish!

One of the best bell founders thta Praxiteles has ever encountered is Perner at Passau in Germany. Here is what they have to say about bell founding:

http://www.glocke.com/PDF/Broschur_englisch.pdf

ANd a word to the Administrator in Limerick: bells are best hung from a wooden bell-frame. Steel or iron tends to lend a tinny sound to the bell-ring.

@johnglas wrote:

If the bells are rung as a carillon in the Belgian or Dutch manner, they could provide a lovely backdrop to the noise of the city, especially of an evening. However, they need to do more than just ring out the Angelus; in the Low Countries carillons ring out the hours and quarters accompanied by appropriate tunes. Let’s hope the bells don’t just rust because the Administrator (suitably prosaic title) can’t be bothered organising a programme for them after a while.
Yes, it’s a great pity it’s not a peal of bells; evensong and change-ringing: Anglicanism’s contribution to civilisation (amongst other things).
A recording of the new carillon in action would be good.

Such is done in Cobh!

All the hours and quarters; the angelus at mid-day and evening; Mass bells and sacring bells; death knells and tolls; as well as seasons are marked every day on the Carillion in Cobh -which is the largest in the British Isles. At Christmas and Easter the bells play well known seasonal hymns; and throughout ordinary time a marian hymn is played.

Here is the Cobh Carillion webpage:

http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eadriangebruers/index.html

No, Apelles, Monreale Cathedral was built by the Norman King of Sicily, WIlliam II in 1174. What I am saying is that in the building of contemporary churches we have to put aside the cow-barn approach -so beautifully exhibited in Donoughmore by John “I should have been a liturgist” Lynch and adopt the mind-set that produced the likes of Monreale. While the approach in Donoghurmore is clearly of a sub-Leonardine standard, it just will not do in the building of churches which requires a broad theological, artistic, historical, anthropological, historical, and, above all, humane vision – all of which qualities are not to be found in the Donoughmore cow-shed.

Indeed, the fundamental approach to any church building must be a thorough understanding of the implications of the docrtine of the Incarnation – and not some prizzie dotage about gathering or urinating for that matter.

Here is some info on Monreale:

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

In the building of new churches, Praxiteles believes that we should aim for something of the forma mentis that inspired and brought into being the Cathedral of Monreale in Sicily. Praxiteles, while accepting that hay-barn builders such as those responsible for the disaster at Donoughmore are also directed by clerics and others who know little or nothing about ecclesiastical architecture, at the same time, it has to understood that when approached even by the most ignorant cleric they hay-barmn builders offered nothing and no alternative but the crap they usually produce. As for the forma mentis or Gestalt underlying what they usually produce, Praxiteles fears that it is a very long way form Monreale:

St. Lacteen’s Church, Donoughmore, Co. Cork