Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
And another one of those little Roman peculiarities: the Pantheon on Pentecost Suncay morning when the descent of the Holy Ghost is dramatised by throwing tons of red rose petals through the oculus of the roof:
And here is a picture of the High Altar in St. peter’s with the reliquaires of Sts Peter and Paul set out on it.
Here is another photograph of the statue of St. peter in the Vatican Basilica. Here you can see the brass pins for the hangings taht should have been put out to-day, the feast of the Chair of Peter.
Rest assured that this is the lingering effects of the 1970s iconoclasts. Whatever about the Senatus Romanus and its stripping of the pilasters of the basilica of their ornament, the Romanus Romanus most certainly would not tolerate the stripping of the statue of St. peter in his patronal basilica.
And here is the Chiesa Nuova without its hangings during Lent and Ordinary time.
As I say, the image problem is a case of harsh climate and flint faced puritains!!
Here is the Chiesa Nuova with its 17th century damask hangings
Ceiling by Pietro Cortona;the altar piece by Rubens
@johnglas wrote:
Far be it from me to disagree with either of your venerable selves, but I don’t care how long it’s been done for or the ostensible reason for doing it. Using statues in any way as cult objects, or appearing to use them as cult objects, is treading on very dangerous ground. Statues as a ‘focus for devotion’, just about acceptable; statues as an integral part of the decorative scheme of a church, no problem; statues randomly dotted about the church pandering to ‘popular piety’, whom do you include/exclude or should it be done at all? Dressing statues up is tacky by the standards of propriety and common good taste. A sculpture stands or falls on its artistic merit. Does dressing a statue up add one scintilla to its religious significance? Some things are best consigned to the bin (or put the vestments on a mannequin in a museum if you must). Luther wasn’t all wrong.
I think the problem here is one of osmosis in a climate deeply influenced by Knox, Zwingli and Calvin -at the bottom of which is the recurrent problem of iconoclasm.
Images used for devotional purposes was confirmed at teh Second Coucnil of Nicea and some very clear distinctions made abot them and their use:
– a cultus latriae (or worship) is reserved to God and is properly worship
– b. cultus hyperduliae (or exceptional devotion or veneraton) reserved to the BVM in virtue of her singular role in the history of salvation
–c. cultus duliae (devotion or veneration) reserved for the saints.In the case of St. Peter’s you ahve tor ealise that its interior is mostly a great Baroque interior. If you examine the wall carefully, you will notice hooks and and brass pins inserted into them. these served to hold the damask hangings that used to be hung on the walls during the festive seasons and on the great feast and for the requies. It is what would be called “pomp” – currently out of fashion. If you happen to be in Rome dueing Eastertide, do visit the Chiesa Nuova of the Oratorians where the traditional hangings are still erected and their effect completely transforms the interior of the church.
The dressing of the statue of St. Peter in the Vatican Basilica is the last vestige of erecting the festive hangings on the walls of the basilica the effect of which can only be imagined – for the moment.
@johnglas wrote:
Tacky – why do they do it?
It is a good deal more elegant tack than the rubbish usually seen around the place.
To-day sees the decoration of the Bernini’s Altar of the Chair of Peter and of the Arnolfo da Cambio’s statue of St. Peter in St Peter’s Basilica
@Rhabanus wrote:
@Praxiteles wrote:
Praxiteles laughed and laughed to read a report in the newspapers after Christmas recounting that the great Alwahibi’s sacrosty in Kanturk had been robbed over the holidays. The robbers apparently dismanteled the hyper-sophisticated new alarm system without any bother and broke the loock on the famously abusive new sacristy door erected without planning permission or declaration. However, the robbers did not bother with the sanctuary gates.[/QUOTe
That’s the distressing thing about the new barbarians. They enjoy all manner of technological sophistication, but cannot distinguish art from artifice. Well, I hope that upon apprehension and imprisonment they profited from the lesson!
Was either of them by any coincidence wearing a donkey jacket?
The newspapers did not say. They mearly concentrated on the flattened condition of the Alwahabi that his hyper-sophisticated piece of machienary could have been dismantled at c. 5 am in the morning without the slightest apparent difficulty. He was just dumbfounded by that.
No descriptions of the robbers were given -obviously- in the newspapers. Most of the space was taken up by the Alwahabi’s reaction to his purty things being all broken all over the place. If recollections serves well, the newspaper article ended up with a ritualistic wringing of hands (totally hypocritical of course) about the violation of the sanctuary etc. but completely overlooking the much more serious violation of the sanctuary pracised by the Alwahabi himself. Something doe not quite add up there.
And, I suppose, we have to acknowledge that not only robbers wear donkey jackets – as I think we are in a position to demonstrate.
And, Rhabanus, Praxiteles is not all together certain that it is just or only the robbers in Kanturk should see the klink.
@Rhabanus wrote:
Thanks for pointing out the presence of the gates in Liscarroll.
You are right about the invitation to theft.
Perhaps after all the gates of the Kanturk sanctuary will end up in Judge Judy’s court. At least they would get some use. And they would find the right kind of protection: police surveillance.
Praxiteles laughed and laughed to read a report in the newspapers after Christmas recounting that the great Alwahibi’s sacrosty in Kanturk had been robbed over the holidays. The robbers apparently dismanteled the hyper-sophisticated new alarm system without any bother and broke the loock on the famously abusive new sacristy door erected without planning permission or declaration. However, the robbers did not bother with the sanctuary gates.
@ake wrote:
actually, if you look closely I think you can see the gates un-hinged, resting against the railings on the inside of the sanctuary on either side of the entrance. I’ve frequently seen this in churches, for example, in the Wexford twin churches discussed earlier.
Yes, this is the latest fad adn I recall you photographs of one of the twin churches in Wexford. This is exactly what was the case in Kanturk. It has all the signs of an invitation to theft. Again, I suspect that soemwhere at the back of the Kanturk effort lukrs the likes of Hurley.
By the way, has that lecture of Richard Hurley come off yet? If not, do not forget to take the cabbages with you.
@Rhabanus wrote:
Absolutely correct!! What happened to those gates? Where are they now? When are they to be returned? Who is responsible for their removal?
I notice that Judge Judy’s court has gates on its rails – and they certainly swing!!
The Liscarroll gates are still in situ – you can see them if your look carefully through the arch at either side of the gate.
The missing gates are in Kanturk – these disappeared without a declaration and without planning permission. Up to quite recently, they were still awal.
Well, here is an example of Judge Judy in full swing, the famous phrase is at the end:
@johnglas wrote:
Prax; Your dedication to his as usual can merit only admiration. As a planner I’m bemused by the attitude of the council, although I do remember an old colleague of mine advising that ‘you never argue with the church’ (in this case the C of S), or words to that effect. But there seems little excuse for that here – it looks like a perfectly decent vernacular church which deserves conservation, i.e. neither preservation (as in aspic) nor wreckovation. Any pics of the interior?
Yes, conservation is the word -just let it alone and carry out the necessary maintemance. Am working on some interior photographs. Will post them as soon as they are scanned.
St. Joesph’s Church, Liscarroll, Co. Cork
Reading through the file which has now ben made available, some extraordinary little bits and pieces are already beginning to fall out of the tree:
1. Cork County Council granted a declaration to repair the doors of the church. WIthout declaration or planning permission, the main doors have disappeared and have been replaced by a pair of new doors. So far, no prosecution has been taken by the indolent enforcement officer of Cork County Council.
2. Extensive “repair” works are currently going on at the church. The exterior walls have all be beautifully re-pointed with gorgeous raised straps or bands. The re-pointing material is in the hardest available cement to ensure that no water will get into the church – and, more importantly, to ensure that no water will every get OUT either. A beautiful conservation move taht -why bother with lime mortar when there loads of cement about. Again, no complaint from Cork County Council -after all, it is just another old protected structure.
3. Cork County Coucnil was very willing to oblige the powers taht be here. Not only have they granted declarations and turned blind eyes to blatant breaches of the Planninga and Development Act, but IN ADDITION to the present grant of permission to wreck the interior, Cork County Council again rushed out at break-neck deference to grant another permission last year to build a meeting hall in the curtilege of the church and to connect the meeting hall to the church by DEMOLISHING the entie south gable of the sacristy – an original part of an original structure that happens to be a protected structure. Needless to say, the Council was not too concerned to establish the exceptionality of the circumstances that permitted it to grant planning permission for demolition of part of a protected structure.
Given all this, Cork County Council seems bent on ensuring that precious little will be left of this protected structure either inside or outside by the time it is finished.
St. Joseph’s Church Liscarroll, Co. Cork
Readers will be aware that this little country church has been the object of the vandalistic intentions of the Cloyne HACK for almost two years now. Not in the least deterred by the trouncing meated out to the HACK at the Midleton Oral Hearing on Cobh Cathedral, the HACK was back in form to propose a series of wreckovative measures for the interior of this church.
Danny Murphy produced another document. This was hyper-imaginatively called Liturgical Requirements St Joseph’s Church Liscarroll, Co. Cork: Context and Text. In the middle of the extraordinary compilation there is an even more extraordinary declaration: In view of the liturgical requirements of the Catholic Church for the purposes of a more informed, participative and fruitful celebration of its Liturgy, judgement is made for the reordering of St. Joseph’s Church, Liscarroll, Co. Cork in the following terms. Praxiteles was at a total loss to know what this was all about…it was practically the presage of an execution warrant and ensuing death sentence. However, while mentioning the expression in conversation, Praxiteles was enlighted: it apparently comes from a soap opera called Judge Judy, an American live court series dealing with petty claims. It seems she concludes her hearings with a cant phrase to the same tenor. Well, this came as a relief! It appears that the oevreducated liturgists on the Cloyne HACK spend a lot of their time watching Judge Judy on the television -and they have all the signs of it.
Cork County Council granted permission with only one major condition -that a covered skip be used to ferry away the interior of the church. It looks as if the Council was in a bit of rush to have this planning application off of its hands. Again, as with Cobh Cathedral, who should not crawl out from under the stones but our old feinds from that debacle McCutcheon and Mulcahy.
Help is to hand. An appeal has been lodged with An Bord Pleanala no. 227722. This promises to be Cobh all over again in a scaled down version. Watch this spot!!
Perhaps a solution could be found here:
Do not forget the architect responsible for the Classical Revival in the United States of America.
http://www.thomasgordonsmitharchitects.com/
Thomas Gordon Smith has designed exquisite churches, a major seminary, and a monastery, plus he has groomed leading lights in the Classical Revival. Thomas Gordon Smith has remodelled the American Neo-Classical wing at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Absolutely first-rate! And what a sterling gentleman!!
With the Celtic Tiger roaring in full pride, Thomas Gordon Smith ought to be getting calls galore to assist in the restoration and revival of Georgian Architecture. He brings joy and vitality as well as erudition and expertise to all his projects. Floreat!!
Another one of the alternative architectural practices currently involved in ecclesiastical architecture:
