Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
And another example: the Basilica of San Marco in Venice
The ciborio here dates from the reign of the Emperor Anastasius 491-518.
And as we are at it, note also that the sanctuary of the church is demarcated by a Rood Screen -never forget article 285 of the General Instruction of theRoman Missal 2000.
And another example, the present ciborio in St Paul’s Basilica. Clearly in this case, the altar is quite rectanbular.
And another example, San Lorenzo fuori Mura in the Campo Verano
Again, highly elevated praedella, approached by steps, no square altar, covered by the ciborio. Of course, as we look at these structures to-day, we have to imagine what they would have looked like when properly dressed with curtains on three sides.
And another example: This time the Basilica of San Clement in Rome, the altar and ciborio dating from around 1100. The altar is not square, it is raised considerably above the floor of the nave and approached by steps.
And another example of the same arrangement. This time we see the altar and ciborium of the Basilica of Sant’Athanasio at Castel Sant’Elia near Viterbo in Upper Latium dating from around 1050. Note again that the altar is not square:
And again, article 299 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal 2000:
Note also the absidal altar behind the ambulatory, it too must date from around the year 1100, and as you can see, it is not square.
And this is how the altar functions -as it always has. Just remember the prescriptions of Article 399 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal of 2000.
And here we have another example: the High Altar in the abbey church of Sant’Antimo near Moltalcino in upper Tusacy. It was raise in 1120. Unfortunately, its baldacchino is long gone. BUt, again, the altar, while small, is NOT square and it is not squat on the floor of the nave.
The abbey was suppressed in 1464 and transferred to the Bishop of Montalcino by Pius II.
And here we have a close up of the background altar – the whole arrangement immediately shows the phoney nonsense being pushed by ignorant liturgical architects/consultants with the squat boxes abandoned on the floor of the nave.
Here we the genuine article in the old Lateran -before the 17th century works. As we can see, the altar is not square, but slightly rectangular. It is covered by a canopy. More importantly, it si raised on a praedella which must be about 6 feet high, and is approached by 3 steps behind the altar (required because of the reverse orientation of the Lateran).
Those large grills also dump the communitarian/communal/commie notion promoted by the ingorant liturgical architect/consultant.
To turn to the question of the shape of the altar in the Latin church, Praxiteles wants to begin by commenting on the current awful fad for square blocks that, we are told, are more “authentic” and more “communitarian”.
Well, firstly, square altars are practically unknown in the Latin tradition. In the middle ages, smaller altars were used but they were not square. The medieval Latin altar was elongated at the front and back. And, unlike the phonie things being foisted on the unsuspecting faithful, they were covered by a canopy or baldacchino.
We can illustrate the point by showing a lovely example in Pinturicchio’s (1454-1513) fresco in the sacristy of Siena Cathedral depicting the entry of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) into the Lateran.
Here is the glorious fresco:
@ake wrote:
but what is this item? you say it is a ‘unit’ with a sink in it? behind the altar? a sink behind the altar? how has it been ‘attached’ to the wall?
They really are just determined aren’t they, to mess around with the cathedral.
Perhaps someone should be liable for prosecution for violating planning LAWS.
Basically, it is an enormous storage press landed up against the back wall of the chancel right before the back of the High Altar. If you have ever been in the sanctuary, you will have noticed taht you can circulate right around the altar. The back wall of the chancel is covered in angels and Marian panels. Well, underneath these we have the press. I believe that a prosecution will have to be taken in this case. There is no other answer to this antinominaism.
To revert to St. Colman’s Cathedral for a moment:
Things are now beginning to clarify themselves re the arrival of a large wooden unit thath was recently spirited into the Cathedral when it was though that no one was looking. It has finally been located. It has been positioned BEHIND the High Altar and is attached to the East wall of the chancel. It is roughly 8feet long with a marble top, in the middle of which is a sink -presumably with an outlet that has been sunk once again into the mosaic floor behind the altar. At either side of the sink are two further standing units arriving at a height of approximately 6 feet.
Initial inquiries with the Cobh Urban District Council and with the Conservation Officer for the County of Cork have failed to turn up a planning application or indeed a declaration permitting the introduction of this unit into the sancturay area where it now rests on the mosaic. Clearly, somethingw ill have to be done about this and the Urban District Council will have to be urged to greater vigilance.
It is amazing that a unit of this size should have to be placed behind the High Altar in Cobh -given that the Cathedral has one of the largest sacristies in Ireland. But, with the Christmas crib permanently dumped in the Pieta Chapel and the excess seating from the transepts dumped in the Lady Chapel, why not dump everything else behind the altar and the lazy lumps running the place need not ever have to go into the sacrist for anything.
And just to illustrate that you really can have a fairly prominent altar rail, her is the superbly beautiful Rood Screen of c. 1500 in Sankt Pantaleon in Cologne which mercifully managed to survive the awful bombing of the city during the war:
@Praxiteles wrote:
And as we are at it, here are a few more precepts from the Genral Instruction tot he Roman Missal outlining current liturgical law:
295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be celebrated properly and easily seen.115
[Nothing there about demolishing altar rails]
299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.116 The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.
[Nothing there about the NECESSITY of having a Volksaltar -it is all very open]
303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.
In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is positioned so that it makes the people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to its artistic value, another fixed altar, of artistic merit and duly dedicated, should be erected and sacred rites celebrated on it alone. In order not to distract the attention of the faithful from the new altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.
[Nothing there about demolishing old altars]
Full text here:
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
and original text here:
http://www.binetti.ru/collectio/liturgia/missale_files/igmr3ed.htm
And per completezza, as they say, here is an official interpretation of article 299 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal issued in September 2000:
http://www.adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html
This should help the likes of the overeducated Cloyne HACK realize just how much is REQUIRED in ecclesiastical law when it comes to altars!
@ctesiphon wrote:
Wishful thinking, my troubled prince.
‘And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?’
Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises; and oft it hits
Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits.@hutton wrote:
Ah, Im afraid I cant keep up with you folks and your secondary school Shakespeare quotes 🙂
Anyhow, what an odd montage! That the proposer has managed to include 9 vehicles in the foreground is quite an accomplishment…
The facade is lost in the glazed box. Bizarre that the lampost is left in front with that flag being a further visual obstruction. Why is the facade not presented as being clean and pristine – it is afterall Wicklow granite.
I cant describe this treatment and its relation the facade as an “afterthought”, as the facade predates the proposed glass box; is “a pre-thought” the best description?
All in all, the Greek Revival facade seems to be in the way of the architect; given what’s preposed, maybe the best thing is to carefully take the facade out, and with dev levies, locate it elsewhere – the original context is long since lost anyhow 🙁
Btw am I correct to presume that the giddy brown box further down the street is some sort of military installation?
Ah, fie on it, ’tis a garden grown to rank and seed.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Sadly, all too often I suspect there is a belief that ‘glass = invisible’: All that is solid melts into air, right? :rolleyes:
“Oh, would that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew” .
