Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
A print from June 1852showing ST. Mary’s Pope’s Quay as built by Kearns Deane and before the addition of the Portico. Note that the twoer of St. Mary’s Shandon has the cenopic urns at all three stages.
Some notes published by A.W. N. Pugin on Baptismal fonts in the Dublin Review of May 1841. Clearly, somethings never change….
“Plastered and cemented assembly rooms” is what he called them then…and it is true now too.
The Baptistery of St. Peter’s Basilica designed by Carlo Fontana and installed in 1692.
The Baptistery is located in the first chapel on the left entering St. Peter’s.
The cover is by Giovanni Giardoni, the chapel is dominated by a mosaic reproduction of Carlo Maratta’s Baptism in the Jordan executed in 1722, the frescoeos in the dome are by Francesco Trevisani.
The font is of porphyry and originally served as a sarcophagus for the emperor Otto II and was located in the atrium of old St. Peter’s. Some believe taht it was also used as the sarcophagus for the emperor Hadrian.
For more pictures see here: http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Altars/Baptistery/Baptistery.htm
Waterford Cathedral
This must surely rank as one of the worst Baptisteries ina ny Cathedral in Ireland and one that clearly attributes little if any significance to the Sacrament of Baptism. It is doubtful that it is in its original position and of course lacks its monumental cover and plinth.
The font at St. Botolph’s in Norfolk
The font is octagonal and dates from about 1350. The hexagonal canopy dates from c. 1490 and originally contained the cover of the font.
ANd here we have some medieval English examples:
The font at Edington priory -with which we are familiar from our survey of prime examples of English Perpendicular churches.
On Irish Baptismal Fonts:
And here is a description of the Clonard Font. Praxiteles is unsure as to its present whereabouts and would be grateful were anyone able to confirm that it is still in CLonard:
This medieval stone font was brought to this church in 1991 when the local Church of Ireland was closed to public worship. This vessel has been noted by historians as far back as the 18th century. The font is octagonal in shape with deeply chamfered under panels depicting episodes of our Lord’s life. The basin is circular and has a centre drain.
Beginning the very obvious Flight into Egypt and proceeding from left to right, we see the Blessed Virgin holding the Infant Jesus while seated on a donkey, with Joseph walking along side. Next panel is known as a ‘filler’ and shows an angel holding a book. The Baptism of Jesus in the river Jordan comes next. The upper part of St John the Baptist shown standing on the river bank is obliterated by damage.
To the right is a tree with opposed leaves and two berries on top of the stem growing out of the vase. This too could be a ‘filler’. Next come six angels, five having blank shields and the sixth one holds an open book. The following panel shows an angel pointing to what was originally written on an open scroll. Then comes St Peter, seated, and holding in his left hand his emblem – the key and in his right hand a spear.
The eight panel has a Bishop and angel with an open book. The former holds a Crozier and is locally thought to be St Finian. The lower part of the font has four panels of shield-bearing angels some not fully carved and four panels of foliate motifs-wine and grapes, oak leaves and acorns. The base represents eight oak panels. The date is thought to be around 15th/16th centuries.
And here we have a rare survivor: the Baptismal Font from the medieval Cathedral of Clonard in Co. Meath.
It has an iconographic and decorative scheme wholly consonant with what one would expect to find in any part of Christendom.
It is octagonal, with the panels representing the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt, the Baptism in the Jordan, St. Peter, St. Finian and a number of angels. the panels of the plinth depict flora and fauna (probably of the Jordan as in the mosaics in the Baptistery of the Basilica at Mount Nebo).
Carlow Cathedral
This photograph shows that the Baptistery seems to have succumbed to what looks like another Richard Hurley creation.
Here is teh font. Make what you will of it!!
And here we have an iconic statement of the decline of religious faith in Carlow. I wonder if these people usually walk on the kitchen table at home?
And here we have the famous font from Marktl-am-Inn in Bavaria.
IN the 1970s, it was dumped out of the parish church and used as a bird bath in the presbytery garden. It was subsequently rescued by the local museum which took it in and gave it shelter until last year when the parish priest had to go cap in hand to get it back in time to re-install it before the Pope arrived in Marktl-am-Inn. And, of course, he managed to get it wrong, he installed it in the Sanctuary in front of the High Altar (which seems to have been shorne of its steps). We have seen enough of Baptisteries to realize that this positioning is a theological absurdity.
Here we have a picture of the font of the internal Baptistery of Siena Cathedral. It certainly puts Dromaroad in its place!
On the subject of Baptismal fonts, here is William Burgess’ drawings for the font in St. Fin Barre’s in Cork and the font as realized. Fortunately, it has fared better than most of its Catholic contemporaries though one could question the suitibility for this red stone for a Baptismal font We shall not, of course, be surprised to see that Burgess raised the font on an octagonal plinth.
And for a bit of fin-de-siècle from the Tablet:
(scroll down to Letter from Rome)
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/pdfs/1533/bookmarks/#pagemode=bookmarks
Of all the fonts we have seen so far, this is by far the most serious travesty of the Sacrament of Baptism that we have come acorss.
You have guessed accurately, it is from the now infanous Dromaroad Church, and is a product of Brian Quinn’s Tablet inspired approach to liturgy.
As can be seen from our tour of Baptisteries, this has no connection at all with anything Christian. It is merely a joke in bad taste.
St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast
The Baptismal font here is again an eccentric mish-mash of Baptismal font and holy water stoop.
Again, it is wrongly located in the central nave inside the main door. It lacks a hood or cover and, as we have come to expect, a plinth.
The bandy floor design is reminiscent of Rihcard Hurleys efforts in Cork and equally eccentric.
The figure depicted on the font is a novelty as far as Christian iconography is concerned.
Has anyone got a shot of the original Baptistery or what is it used for?
While browsing thorugh Rooney and McConville’s webpage, Praxiteles happened upon this hilarious news piece which unfortunately must be reckoned as guff and comes, ultimately, from the guffers-box for weak and wet intellects that is The Tablet:
News
This page is a drawing together of events that impinge upon liturgy and its realisation in the built environment. In our opinion the events referred to here have a longer term implication for the way our church buildings and worship spaces should look.15 November 2005 – resounding affirmation of Vatican II reforms.
The recent synod of bishops in Rome had as its second proposition that the reform of the liturgy instigated by the Second Vatican Council be reaffirmed. ‘The Tablet’ reports that this proposition was passed with a resounding 236 votes for, 2 against and 4 abstentions. The author, Robert Mickens, goes on to observe that the proposition on extending the use of latin attracted the least number of positive votes (170), and the most objections (56) of any of the total of 50 propositions.
The Catholic news paper ‘The Universe’ reported in its 30 October 2005 edition: “The synod of bishops ……… endorsed the Reform of the Liturgy enacted after Vatican II and made clear there would be no rolling back.”
The actual wording of the proposition is as follows:
THE LITURGICAL REFORM OF VATICAN COUNCIL II (Proposition no. 2)
“The synodal assembly gratefully recalled the beneficial influence that the liturgical reform implemented following Vatican Council II has had for the life of the Church. This reform has highlighted the beauty of Eucharistic action, which shines out in the liturgical rite. Abuses have occurred in the past, nor are they lacking today though they have to some extent diminished. However, such episodes cannot darken the beauty and validity of the reform which still contains unexplored riches, rather they call for greater attention to ‘ars celebrandi,’ in which a privileged place must be given to ‘actuosa participatio’.”Reading the above helps to explain the problem about Evangelium. We appear to know not even the basic vocabulary of liturgical Latin.
Praxiteles also believes that selecting this proposition displays a particular mens clausus to evidently what is the unknown.
Praxiteles also wonders why the final outcome of the Synod of Bishops, the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis is not mentioned on this page. It would help to alleviate the Pill pangs!
Here is the text of article 62 in the ipsissima verba:
“The Latin language
62. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)”.
The full text is available here:
Then of course there is this:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.htmlIs Brian pusing a line or something?
From the above the following is certainly true but is likely to work out a good deal more differently than Brian realizes:
“In our opinion the events referred to here have a longer term implication for the way our church buildings and worship spaces should look.”
Brian is showing his age!!
Oh, and BTW:Vota ponderantur non numerantur
Look at Rooney and McConville’s sebpage to-day, Praxiteles was struck with what appears to be a new invention – basically, a bookstand got up as a wall bracket. Presumably, to function as a support while someone, facing the wall, reads the contents.
Praxiteles, however, was momentarily disorientated when reading the description of the item. It reads thus: “Evangelarium by Chris Ryan, St Patrick’s Church, Belfast”.
Praxiteles has not the foggiest notion as to what this might be.
Then, could it be E-V-A-N-G-E-L-I-A-R-I-U-M ? Could it be trying to suggest a connection with E-V-A-N-G-E-L-I-U-M meaning Gospel?
But, an Evangeliarium is usually a ornate book cover!
Tut,tut we expect more of professionally qualified liturgical advisors!
Newry Cathedral
This font is cleraly out of place. The iconographic surroundings are clearly not related to Baptism and in fact have no apparent connection with the font.
Again, we have the open hood problem -derived as we pointed out from the American “Green Book” rather from any authentic document of the Church. The hood, just hanging from the ceiling like that looks ridiculous. The modern cover could just as well be used for kitchen pantry.
Again, the font has been shorn of its plinth.
Presumably, it has been re-located into the Sanctuary -which is theologically and sacramentally aberrant.
