Praxiteles
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@pandaz7 wrote:
What’s the problem with having a fixed ambo? It is not a prominent visible sign of the importance of reading the scriptures? Do we need a historical precedent for it?
Having a prominent visible sign for the proclamation of the Word of God is not a problem – as we can see from the Church’s long tradition and also from the examples we have given of the tradition in the Synagogue. [That constitues the historical precedent] As I am sure you will realise, having a fixed Ambo is one such promnent visible sign.
Praxiteles’ question, however, is a different one. Where do we find a liturgico/juridical source for the positioning of a fix Ambo in the sanctuary? As has been pointed out, it is not to be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium nor in the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis? Without such, it cannot/should not be used in the liturgy – remember all those things about requirements!!
@gunter wrote:
The Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue at Bevis Marks near Aldgate in London has the same layout and virtually the same detail as your Dutch example, except the balusters on the Tebah are of the barley-suger variety, characteristic of the 1700 -1 date.
This is most interesting and not at all surprising since the Amsterdam Synagogue, built around 1670 by the architect Elias Bouwman., also belonged to the Portuguese Jews. The interior of the Portuguese Synagogue is of the longitudinal Iberian-Sephardic type. The striking wooden Ark and the Tebah are found at opposite ends of the interior. Seating is divided into two halves facing one another. The women’s gallery is supported by twelve stone columns, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. During service 1000 candles in two enormous brass chandeliers light the synagogue. The deal floor is covered with fine sand, in the old Dutch fashion, to absorb dust, moisture and dirt from shoes and to muffle the noise.
Here is another picture of the tebah.
The inscription over the main door: Psalm 5:8 “In the abundance of Thy lovingkindness will I come into Thy house”
A further eample of the interior of a Synagogue showing the bema (Askenazi) or tabah (Sephardic) positioned in the centre of the “nave” (as the Ambo originally was in early Christian churches – cf. Louis Bouyer on the disposition of early Syrian and North African churches) na dstanding in front of the Ark containing the scrolls of tje law. It does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to see how both the Eastern and Western forms of church disposition grew out of this arrangement:
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
This example of an early Ambo is today conereved in the forecourt of Hagia Sophia. It originally came from one of the churches outside the precinct of Hagia Sophia.
As we know, the Ambo came into use from the 4th, century and were ubiquituous by the 9th century in both East and West. In the West, the Ambo began to disappear from the 14th century to be completely succeeded by the pulpit.
Following the example of the Synagogue, the Ambo was originally placed in the middle of the nave. Later, it was moved to the side -usually to the north side. It was common for the ambo (as in the photograph) to be approached by two sets of steps. When the Gospel was brough in procession, the Ambo was approached by the deacon from the eastern steps (closest the Altar) and, having proclaimed the Gospel, he left via the western steps.
An example of the origin of the Ambo: the tebáh (bema) facing the hekhál (or ark) in teh Synagogue of Amsterdam.And here, as it is used:
It was also not uncommon to have pairs of Ambones – as in San Clemente in Rome. The Ambo on the south side being reserved for the singing of the Epistle (or first reading as it now referred to).
The liturgical importance of the Ambo among the Eastern Chuirches, may be seen from its integral role in some of the oriental Liturgies – e.g. the Liturgy of St James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_St_James) and in the sets of prayers still extant among the Greeks and Russians (the euche opisthambonos prayers in front of the Ambo. It still retains a position in the Pontifical Liturgies of the Russian Orthodox.
Among the Eastern Churches, the Ambo is currently found in the form of a space raised on steps projecting westwards from the Royal Door of the iconostasis. It is considered to be part of the sanctuary and usually not ascended by the Orthodox laity except to receive Holy Communion.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Of course Bishop Duffy is obv (now that he’s retired) in favour or merging Clogher and Armagh dioceses… St. Macartan’s is probably going to become a very large parish chuch.
A final touch to the Cathedral’s gutting and destruction?
To take a small point to illustrate the point of the previous post: Appelles has supplied us with some photographs of a church which has recently been gutted and fitted with some “modern” worship “fittings”. these include a fixed ambo in the sanctuary. Please cf. following pictures:
Where, Praxiteles would ask, does the idea of placing a fixed ambo in a sanctuary come from? It certainly does not come from the Second Vatican Council – and more specifically- it does not come from the Councils Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. Where then does this idea come from? It has nothing to do with the Second Vatican Council.
“That Church leaders have not fully embraced the Second Vatican Council”.
Praxiteles does wish that Irish Bishops would stop talking about the Second Vatican Council. It is demonstarble from their efforts before, during and after the Second Vatican Council that they know next to nothing about it.
This remarkable fact is patently clear when you read through the submissions made by the Irish Bishops to the ante-preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council. Briefly, before the Council met, every Bishop, monastery, major religious superior and Catholic University in the world was asked to make suggestions about what they though were the burderning problems facing the Catholic Church in wake of a devastating world war and a historical context increasingly dominated by the working out of the philosophical madness of the 18 and 19 centuries.
One would have expected that the Irish Bishops -being still a significant proportion of the world hierarch in 1956- would have had something “relevant” to say. This expectation would, of course, have been heightened by the key role played by the Irish bishops (and cardinal Cullen of Dublin) at the First Vatican Council which had closed barely 90 years before. No such thing however. When you read through the submissions of the Irish bishops to the ante preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council -with a few exceptions- their contributions are a cringing embarassment to any theologically educated person. Far from playing a central role at the Second Vatican Council, the Irish bishops were a completely isolate group who had no realization of the theological issues surrounding them both in the Aula of the Council and in any of the conciliar commission on which, through some mishap of Italian efficiency, they happened to find themselves.
Worse again is to compare what the Irish bishops had to propose as subjects for the Second Vatican Council with their counterparts in France and Germany – who were the ones who determined the subjects and outcome of the Council. While the French hierarch were intent on the need to develop a theological method that drew directly on the sources of Christian theology -especially the patristic sources – in order to be able to provide some form of intellectual response to the various philsosphical “isms” that were about to engulf them in France; and while the German hierarchy was grappeling with the need to address such issues as the “God question” in the light of the effects of 18 Enlightenment and 19 century atheism; the Irish bishops could think of nothing more crucial than matters such as the provision of a specific definition of unnecessary servile work on Sundays!! It is no secret that special classes had to be organised for the Irish bishops while in Rome for the Second Vatican Council so as to queue them in, at least schematically, to what was going on theologically in the Catholic world and to try and explain (in so far as that was possible) to them why they were attending this particular council. It is a startling fact that NO Irish bishop made any significant contribution on any debate during any of the sessions of the Second Vatican Council.
For the avid reader, Praxiteles would point out that all of this documentation has been published and is readily available for the general public to consult. Also, if anyone wants to check the significance already attributed by historians to the “Irish contribution” to the Second Vatican Council, all they have to do is flick through the index of Giuseppe Alberigo’s Breve Storia del Concilio Vaticano Secondo
Praxiteles regrets having to say that the least qualified person to speak about the Second Vatican Council, its purpose, vonvocation, composition, proceedure, outcome and (non) application is an Irish bishop – and even more so the generation of those who succeeded those who were present at its sessions – which includes the former bishop of Clogher.
Praxiteles subjoins the relevant bibliography for anyone wishing to take it to the beach over the holidays for superb piece of intellectual amusement:
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria (4/3/2)
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria (4/3/1)
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria (4/2)
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_4.1]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_3.2]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_3.1]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_2.3]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_2.4]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_2.2]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_2.1]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series praeparatoria [vol_1]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus [vol_4]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus [vol_3]
Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Schemata constitutionum et decretorum… Ordo Concilii oecumenici Vaticani II celebrandi
Documenta inde a Concilio Vaticano secundo expleto edita
All of these volumes are published by the Libereria Editrice Vaticana
Praxiteles is aware of moulded plaster relief sets produced by Mayer of Munich from at least 1885. One set is to be found in one of the twin churches in Wexford – which still has the original wooden donor plaques on them.
Not sure about painted canvas sets but will investigate with them in Munich.
Otto Georg von Simson on Geometry, Music and Gothic Architecture:
http://www.danielmitsui.com/hieronymus/index.blog/1850497/geometry-music-and-gothic-architecture/
Also on proportion, see the Nurenberg goldsmith Hans Schmuttermayer’s Filialenbuchelin published at Nurenberg in 1489:
http://forschung.gnm.de/ressourcen/bibliothek/01_htm/inc36045.htm
The photograph above of the Baptistery is a clear example of just how badly wrong things can go when elements are introduced into a Gothic context without knowing or applying or indeed in complete oblivion to(which is to be suspected in this case) the laws of proportion and harmony not only of the building itself but of all its parts and in their interrelationship.
The Stations of the Cross in the older photographs appear to be of type produced by Mayer of Munich.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Nope…. it lasted longest from the 80s reno with a statue of the virgin instead of the font, even the railings lasted until the 21st century.. but now it looks like this
actually I think I was baptised there
I have drawings from the mid 80s i did of the interior details including fonts, railings etc… must find them
Truly awful!!
The one thing that still stands out for me in the cathedral is the wonderful tones of the pine benches and the ceiling, and the contrast with the stonework. The roof is simply fantastic.
It is a wonder that the ceiling did survive and that some of the more zealous vandals did not take pot-shots at it – as Will Dowsing’s mobs did in many of the churches of Cambridgeshire in an effort to shoot off the angles holding the hammer-beams.
A set of statues of the 12 Apostles made in bronze and about 7 feet high whcih are copies of the famous late baroque set commissioned for the Lateran Basilica and completed in 1719.
– Camillo Rusconi
Andrew
Matthew
James the Greater
John the Evangelist– Francesco Moratti
Simon the Zealot– Angelo de’ Rossi
James the Less
Giuseppe Mazzuoli
Philip– Lorenzo Ottoni
Thaddeus– Pierre-Étienne Monnot
Peter
Paul– Pierre Le Gros the Younger
Bartholomew
Thomas
Copies of these statues were also produced by the Meissen porcelan works from the early 18th. century down to the 1950s. Some of the oulds are extant and examples of some of the statues are still available.
