Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Here are a few links sketching the relevant information on the Roman obelisks:
http://www.initaly.com/regions/classic/obelisks.htm
http://www.romeartlover.it/Obelisks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisks_in_Rome
http://roma.freewebpages.org/roma-co1.htm
This link will take you to Giuseppi Vasi’s vedute of the ancient and modern monuments of Rome published in ten books from 1748 to 1781. It shows the Constantinian obelisk at San Giovanni more or less at it still is. Sixtus V, as the inscription on the pediment tells us, erected the obelisk to commemorate the baptism of the Emperor Constantine.
http://www.romeartlover.it/Vasi34.html
Ammianus’ description of the transportation of the obelisk from Alexandria is to be found in Book xvii.4.13-16:
Sirius wrote:Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’]
Sirius!
Do not forget that Martin Mosebach is talking primarily of the German situation – one that saw the systematic bombing of practically every urban centre in Germany during the last war. This, not surprisingly, brought the concomitant destruction of many churches throughout the country and the development of the so-called Notkirche (or emergency church) idea developed by persons such as R. Schwarz in the immediate aftermath of the war with its shortags ofbuilding materials. These, of course, were not intended as “temporary” and have continued. This was one of the major sources for the vandalism that swept certain parts of the US in the 70 and 80s and, as a result of little conference in Belfast and Dublin in the early 60s, began the rot in Ireland – where there was no tabula rasa because there had been no war – but with the likes of Monaghan, Killarney, Armagh and Longford one could be forgiven for thinking that most of Ireland had been just as heavily bombed as Dresden during WWII..
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius and Chuck ER etc.,
You are shadow boxing.
The appellants won the case.
Yes, indeed. A fact that Sirius seems reluctant to acknowledge. Is he pitting himself against the authority of the State?
@Sirius wrote:
Praxiteles, you have clarified a number of issues raised in the Cobh appeal:
In posting #1359 you recommended reading Martin Mosebach’s article on Iconoclasm and Liturgy which takes as its starting point the fact that “hardly a church remained unscathed in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Councilâ€. This undermines the appellants’ case that reordering had not been implemented in the rest of Europe and remains a peculiarly Irish practice.
In posting #1365 you advised that the pontiff appointed Cardinals Mayer, Medina Estevez and Arinze “to put order on the liturgical chaosâ€. As the Cobh plans were approved by Cardinal Arinze this undermines the appellants case that the proposed reordering does not represent the established liturgical policy of the Vatican.
In posting #1368 you advised that “the Catholic Church is hierarchically structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of People of God”. This undermines the FOSCC claim that the Bishop must have the consent of the parishioners before implementing the plans approved by Cardinal Arinze.
Thank you.
Welcome back Sirius (& Oswald)
As usual, we are a little weak on the detail and a little hazy on the memory.
It was unfortunate that you raise the question of Cardinal Arinze’s “apporval” of the Cobh scheme for this is probably the most embarrassing aspect of the Midleton Hearing and the one which all parties would prefer to forget about for it does no honour to the bishop of Cloyne. Praxiteles raises the matter here to correct your misunderstanding of the matter and hopes that you will not want to return to it.
You will recall thah Bishop Magee claimed in a pastoral letter read at all Masses in July 2005 that his design was submitted to the relevant Congregation [for Divine Worship] in Rome and “received its approval”. In two subsequent sentences of the same circular letter he refers twice to “a letter of approval” having been sent to him by Cardinal Arinze.
Sirius will recall that this correspondence between Bishop Magee and Cardinal Arinze was the subject of an exchange at the Oral Hearing between Mr. Shane Murphy, Barrister for the FOSCC, and the chairman of the Hearing. You will recall that Mr. Collins, for the Trustees, had cross examined Dr. Alan Kershaw on the nature of the “approval” the Bishop of Cloyne had for his project. You will recall that Mr. Murphy pointed out that it was not fair to cross examine his witness on the contents of a letter that he (Dr Kershaw) had never seen. You will recall that Mr Murphy asked the chairman to obtain from the Bishop a copy of the letter from Cardinal Arinze allegedly granting “approval” for his plan. The chairman did request the bishop to provide the letter -which was faxed from the diocesan office to the Midleton Park Hotel and admitted as evidence at the Oral Hearing.
The letter is dated 9 December 2003. The word “approval” does not appear in this letter. In fact Cardinal Arinze wrote: …the Congregation does not wish to take a position regardinag the details of the project. It also pointed out that any presentation of the project should avoid mentioning the Council which in fact did not legislate in detail on these matters and suggested that Bishop Magee refer instead to the requirements of the subsequent legislation, including in particular the current text of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. I am afraid that the so called “approval” for the project was a figment of Bishop Magee’s imagination.
From this letter of 9 December 2003, it emerged that a previous correspondence has transpired between the Bishop and Cardinal Arinze in October 2003. The letter from the Cardinal dated 9 December 2003 was in fact a reply to a letter sent to the Cardinal by Bishop Magee on 12 October 2003. That letter was also requisioned by the Oral Hearing, faxed from the diocesan office and admitted as evidence and is on public record. In this letter, Bishop Magee says that he was in a position “to present the fnal design project”. He then writes the Cardinal: I would be grateful to receive from Your Eminence a word of encouragement so that I can convey it to all those many people who have worked on this project now for many years. Having asked Cardinal Arinze for a word of encouragement for those who worked on the project, that is precisely what Bishop Magee got as the letter of 9 December 2003 concluded: The Congregation wishes to congratulate Your Excellency once more on the zeal shown by many in the drafting of this project . Please note, that there is no mention of “approval” and certainly nothing of the kind to be conveyed to the population of the diocese.
From the above, Sirius, you should be able to see that it is better for the Bishop’s sake to leave this unfortunate matter drop.
With friends like Sirius (& Oswald) …..
Copies of all of the relevant documentation are available in the book published by the FOSCC Conserving Cobh Cathedral: The Case Stated. There should not be any difficulty in obtaining a copy as there appears to be thousands of them flying around Cobh. For convenience, however, I have scanned and will now post the pages containing the documentation referred to above:
Scan 1: The introduction from the FOSCC book, p.5, n.2 is the relevant section
Scan 2: Bishop Magee’s letter of 12 October 2003
Scan 3: Photocopy of Cardinal Arinze’s reply of 9 December 2003
Scan 4: Transcription of Cardinal Arinze’s letter and a copy of the Pastoral Letter of July 2005Returning to the subject of the design of Our Lady of the Wayside, Jenkinstown, Co. Louth, I forgot to include this image of the interior about which it would be useful to have the cmments of Rhabanus
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
You don’t practice what you preach. When it suits your cause you insist that Bishop Magee is obliged to have the consent of Adrian O Donovan. You are so intent on pursuing a nasty personal vendetta that you have no regard to the long term damage you might inflict on the structures of authority and leadership within the church.
Praxiteles has only insisted on observance of the norms established by lawful ecclesiastical authority. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing personal in that… and publicly to impute the contrary will expose you to a libel action, dear Chuck, to whose challenge Praxiteles is gladly willing to rise! Qui aures audiendi habet, audiat, quia nil molitur inepte Praxiteles
How about this from today’s quondam Cork Examiner:
18 September 2006
‘Magic circle’ not a traffic solution
AFTER reading about the impact of a slip-road on Watergrasshill, north of Cork city, and the proposal of a roundabout as the solution (Irish Examiner, September 14), I feel this is not the answer to the village’s problems.
Why spend millions of taxpayers’ money on a new motorway and then effectively scupper it by interrupting the flow of traffic with a roundabout in the middle.
This would create bottlenecks on a road designed to eliminate them and increase the likelihood of accidents as fast-moving traffic must slow down and merge with other traffic at the roundabout. Anyway, most Irish drivers seem totally incapable of correctly negotiating roundabouts anywhere.
Putting one in the motorway at Watergrasshill would also increase environmental costs as vehicles must accelerate to cruising speed after they have gone through, using significantly more fuel. This is a ‘solution’ most people, and especially the motorists paying for it, would not want.
Take, for example, the roundabouts on the South Link road in Cork city. Surely people have learned by now how poorly they cope with traffic. Their only real function is to impede traffic flow. It was implied in your report that Watergrasshill community council was consulted on the initial bypass.
If this was the case, then it seems a little short-sighted of those involved in that consultation to have accepted the slip-road in the first place.
It would not have taken much to realise that if local traffic was going to grow significantly, and if they were worried about its effect on residents, they should either have objected to the location of the slip-road in first place or not allowed a new estate to be built right beside it. Doing neither, and then complaining about motorists using a road they have funded through road tax, seems like them wanting to have their cake and eat it.
May I suggest that instead of campaigning for the construction of a roundabout at taxpayers’ expense, would if not be better to concentrate on abolishing the toll that will drive all those extra vehicles into the village?
The people of Watergrasshill are also taxpayers, and I’m sure many would agree they have already paid in taxes — direct and indirect, over and over again — for roads such as this.
The only people really to benefit from the tolls are the private individuals operating them.
Even if the removal of the toll gates is not feasible, the construction of a second slip-road to join up with the old road on the northside of the village would be preferable to the building of yet another ‘circle of pain’ on the main highway.
Having had for many years the questionable claim to the country’s only ‘magic roundabout’ at the Kinsale Road intersection, and the subsequent dumbfounding attempts to copy its inanities at Wilton and Bishopstown, the people of Cork truly deserve better.
Kieran Donnelly
Lr Beechwood Avenue
Ranelagh
Dublin 6Hallelujia!!!
The ecclesiological problem underlying poor old Chuck’s outbursts, like those of another contributor to this thread, is that he does not seem to realize that the Catholic Church is hierarchially structured and is not an amorphous mass understood in terms of a social-democratic eisogesis of the theological concept of “People of God”. If dear Churck ever takes the time to open the documents of the Second Vatican Council he will fail to find even the slighest suggestion that the charism to rule the Church is given to the hierarchy by the people. What he will find repeated again and again is that this charism is given by God in the Sacrament of Orders. You see, Rhebanus was correct when he fingered the ecclesiological problem and Luzarches has rightly pointed out why that fingering was so sore with Chuck.
Well, here it is ! The famous baptismal font Dieter referred to yesterday. Dumped out in a “re-ordering”, it found shelter in the local Heimatmuseum until it had to be put back into the parish church before someone came to visit.
Read all about it here: http://www.marktl.de/en/papst_taufbecken.php
Chuck E R Law wrote:I couldn’t agree more. Now that we are about to embark on the Tenth Crusade let us not worry to much about “]Anyone is entitled to an opinion about the Council and its work. Indeed, many people do offer opinions on this subject. The problem arises in trying sift the wheat from the chaff; the informed from the ignorant; the sensible from the insane; the good from the guff. One criterion to assist that process is to seek the view of one who was an intelligent de visu witness. After that, we have to hear what those who have studied the subject have to say and take on board their scientific findings. It seems to me that Chuck was neither present in the Aula of St. Pete’s (which never had a Rood Screen) for the scessions of the Council nor outside among those of good faith and hope. As for Wissenshaft or even basic knowledge about the Council, I believe there is absolutely no need for me to emphasize the obvious dirth under which Chuck labours. Neither I, nor anyone else for that matter, is denying him the ability to comment on the Council. I am simply saying that he disqualifys himself from making either an informed or, indeed, a sensible comment about the Council.
That said, I do regard it as worrying that anyone would seriously advocate dismissing scientific knowledge on any subject, and its exponents, in favour of what……the mob? If this is what we are talking about, then I am afraid that we are hearing echos of Berlin in 1933 and implicit (and that is all, I hope) advocacy of a mind set calculated to create truth for itself and to eliminate anyone else who might have the scientific means of demonstrating that that truth, or reality, might be different from what is actually out there.
Thirdly, it seem to me highly improbable that some one who spent five years of his life or more working on a project of such importance as an Oecumenical Council would be likely to turn around and dismantle it. That said, however, Chuck needs to distinguisg what the council dcuments say from the various -and often contradictory – interpretations given to those documents. A clear example of this was in the field of liturgy. What the Council wanted and the principles it set out to achieve that were hijacked by every liturgical charlatan trapsing the streets. There is no doubt that the present Pontiff has for a long time been sorting that situation out: but he was not alone. In 1989, the last Pope effectively signalled that die Schone liturgische Zeiten waren leider ausgelaufen and that the time had come to put order on things. If you do not believe me, then simply read Vigesimus quintus annus. That led to the appointment of a number of interesting Prefects of the Congregation for the Sacraments among them Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer and the revered Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez (who was also a member of the central docrtinal commission of the Council from 1962) and Cardinal Francis Arinze. The work of putting order on the chaos outlined by John Paul II continues and is likely to gain momentum.
I find it risable that Chuch should espouse the virtue of historicity in view of previous postings and contemptible that he should seek to sully the charcated of one who lived under the experience of the kind of political system which Chuch seems to promote. If you read what the man has written the one thing you will be struck by is his consistency from beginning to end. A little book will be published on this subject by Ignatius Press next Spring and I will be happy to furnish a copy – if it will at all, help.
Finally, I am not sure that Chuck is not one of those persons who make a living gripping onto the coat-tails of Holy Mother Church. In view of some of his opinions, not only in relation to the Pontiff but also to the institution in itself, does it ever occur to him that he might not be a wee little bit hypocritical?
Dear Chuck!
Leaving aside the problem of pronouns, it is perhaps more important that we concentrate on your historical perception of the Second Vatican Council. Clearly, you seem to be unaware that present Pope is one of the major influences on the Council and every document promulgated by it (including Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy) had to go thourgh him in one way or another since he was one of the big theological guns on the Council’s doctrinal commission. He was appoined to that position in 1962 and continued in it until the final session of the Council in 1965. I, or indeed any other fair-minded person, could not possibly go along with the a-historical rant that would have him undo the work of the Council. Bishop Connie Lucey, when once challenged by a hot-headed student about the Council, explained the matter on which he was questioned and added that he should know since he had been there. I suspect that Chuck is in a similar position: just hot-headed guffing about something he knows little or nothing about: I am inclined to think that Joseph Ratzinger is likely to know a good deal more about the subject – like Connie Lucey, he was there.
St. Raphael in Neuenheim comes a close second to Monaghan Cathedral for sheer totality of its iconoclastic devastation. You would hardly ever imagine that it managed to survive the war:
It is nice to know that the popular movement to save the interior of St. Colman’s Cathedral can draw on the writings of no less a personality than Martin Mosebach. The link leads to the translation of a very interesting article by him on the subject of iconoclasm and its inherent denial of the Incarnation:
http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2006/08/iconoclasm-and-liturgy.html
http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=8545
http://www.single-generation.de/kohorten/78er/martin_mosebach.htm#neu
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
On mature reflection I may have been a little hasty in praising Rubheranus. Having read through his postings again I find that beneath the extravagant prose lies an ultramontanist toady.
His idol, who he refers to as “Ratzinger”, has shown that he is not immune to solipsism himself.
I think that should be a “whom” in the last sentence. Tut tut tut chuck chuck….!
To return to the subject of painted neo-gothic ceilings, I have another example to post, this time from the Cathedral of St. Peter in London, Ontario. Note the difference of style and motif to demarcate the sanctuary from the nave. The architect for St. Pter’s, London, Ontario was Joseph Connelly, a pupil of JJ. McCarthy. The same technique of differentiating the nave from the sanctuary by changing the motifs and colours of the ceiling is also employed by JJ. McCarthy in Sts. Peter and Paul, Killmallock, Co. Limerick.
Re: Posting # 1350
Well, I think the penny has finally dropped. Sorry for the delay….getting older! Do not tell me that the sun or moon is not calculated to enter the round aperture on a particluar day of the year.
Returning to matters of form and symbolism in the wake of our discussion re. the present interior of Armagh and of Drumaroad, I am now posting this picture of a church at Jenkinstown, Co. Meath sporting the very curious title of “Our Lady of the Wayside”.
Looking at this picture strongly recalls something for me but I cannot quite put my finger on it – just yet. Perhaps Rhabanus, or indeed anybody else, might have something to say?
@Fearg wrote:
DETAILS OF THE CEILINGS
Moving from the sanctuary towards the organ gallery on the South side:
1 The apparition of the Angel to St Patrick.
2 St Martin of Tours gives St Patrick the religious habit.
3 St Patrick receives the mission from Pope Celestine.
4 His dispute with the Druids.
5 The vocation of St Benignus.
6 St Benignus recalling to life the daughter of King Daire.
7 St Brigid blessing her monastery at Kildare.
8 St Brigid giving sight to sister Dara.
9 St Columcille receiving the cranes from Ireland.
10 Prophecy of St Columcille to Eman.
11 St Columbanus founding his monastery at Bobbio.
12 St Ita and her companions guided by an angel.On the North side, beginning at the organ gallery:
1 Death of St Dympna.
2 St Brendan sails on his voyage
3 St Aidan blessing the hands of Gobban.
4 St Colman teaching at Lismore.
5 St Adamnan writing the life of St Columcille.
6 The Pope blessing St Alban and his brothers.
7 St Virgil founding the cathedral at Salzburg.
8 St Celsus dying, sends his crozier to St ~Malachy.
9 St Malachy chosen as Primate of Armagh.
10 St Malachy helping the plague victims at Armagh.
11 Gelasius consecrates St Laurence O’Toole.
12 St Laurence O’Toole before Henry II of England.Ferg very kindly posted this list of the scenes depicting the history of the Irish Church in Armagh Cathedral. Cobh Cathedral has no major painted works in its internal conception and organisation. It does have a similar variant history which is depicted on carved panels placed in the spandrels of the nave. The history starts at the east end of the nave and runs as follows:
1. St Patrick captured by Niall
2. St. Patrick instructed by St Germain
3. St. P. calls the synod of Cruchan
4. St Fiachs school at Sletty
5. St Brigid founds Kildare
6. St. Columchille preaches to the Picts
7. Synod of Dromceat
8. Sts. Brendan and Ita meet
9- Saran persents a church to Finbarr
10. Comgall founds Bangor
11. St Cumian
12. St. Dympna
13. St Fergal (Virgilius) of Salzburg
14. Synod of KellsSouth side beginning at the west end
1. Rory O’Connor, last High King dies at Cong
2. The founding of Youghal Abbey (by Maurice Fitzgerald for the Franciscans in 1220)
3. Unification of Cloyne and Cork under Bishop Jordan Purcell
4. The trial of Archbishop Hedian of Cashel
5. The Martyrdom of Archbishop Hurley of Cashel
6. Bishop Creagh of Cloyne (and subsequently of Dublin) dies in the tower of London
7. The martyrdom of Br. Dominic Collins S.J. at Youghal
8. The martyrdom of Bishop terence Albert O’Brien of Emly
9. Bishop heber McMahon
10. The nartrrdom of Bishop Boethius McEgan at Clondrohid bridge
11.Rined churchyard
12. Mass in penal times
13. Bishop de Burgo with his book Hibernia Dominicana; Bishop Coppinger flees Youghal
14. Daniel O’Connell wins Catholic Emancipation
15. Bishop Rober Brown presents Cobh Cathedral to God.A second historica series is depicted on the capitals of the nave. beginning on the nrth side, east end they are:
1. Patrick receives his mission from Pope Celestine
2. Patrick preaches at Tara
3. Patrick baptises the king of Cashel
4. Brigid receives the veil from St Mel
5. Brigid cures a leprous boy
6. Columbcille writes the Book of Kells
7. Columcille leaves Ireland
8. St. Colman the bard of Cashel
9. Colombanus instructed by St, Comgall
10. Colombanus and Gall convert Switzerland
11. Killian rebuks the DUke of Wurzburg
12. Killian and the lunatic woman Geilana
13. Malachy visits Pope Innocent IIThe series continues on the south side, west end:
1. The dean and chapter of Cloyne trample on a presumptious warrant of Henry III
2. Blessed Thaddeus McCarthy dies in Ivrea
3. The Blessed Thaddeus appears tot he bihop of Ivrea
4. The legate David WOulfe hears confessions
5. The burning of Our Lady of Tuam and of the Bachall Iosa
6. Bishop Macraidhe dies in hiding in teh Galtees
7. Bishop McRaidhe ordains
8. Luke Wadding writes the Annals of th Four Masters
9. The martyrdom of St Oliver Plunkett at Tyburn
10. Bishop John Baptist Sleyne imprisoned in Cork
11. Bishop Slyne sentenced to transportation to Portugal
12. The Sermon on the mount
13. St. John the Baptist preaches penance
14. The institution of the Blessed EucharistAn eample of the spandril panels: no.15 SouthSide; Bishop Browne presents Cobh Cathedral to God:
In the light of the conversation that we have been having on the present liturgical arrangement of Armagh Cathedral, I was wondering if perhaps Brian Quinn had anything to say on the subject.
To return to the question of the present floor in the crossing in Armagh, and on the use of tiles, and of kinds of tines that might be used in these circumstances, I am posting the ling to the article Dallage from E. Viollet-le-Duc’s Dictionnaire Raisonné:
If tiles have to be used rather than mosaic, then A.W.N. Pugin’s superb masterpuiece, St. Giles at Cheadle, illustrates what we should expect to see in a neo-gothic church:
Note the inscriptions on the steps. These are psalm versicles taken from Psalm 42 used at the beginning of Mass before the priest ascended to the Altar: Introibo ad Altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat iuventutem meam. Judica me Deus et discerne causam meam. E gente non sancta; ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Quia tu es Deus fortitudo mea; quare me repulisti etc.. Clearly, this is no place for frivolity and there are no acres squiggles all over the place.
[for more information on St Giles see here:http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tilesoc.org.uk/images/wpe11650.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.tilesoc.org.uk/dpagecheadle.htm&h=426&w=276&sz=108&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=DmLNBAV7KrPvrM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dst%2Bgiles%2Bcheadle%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN ]
