Rhabanus
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Fearg wrote:
St John the Baptist Drumaroad:
[ATTACH]3052[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3053[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3054[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3055[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3056[/ATTACH]
All I can say about this is: WEIRD! Re the penultimate photo, I think Aunt Minnie left her dustcloth on a plinth in front of the weapon rack. Guest (tradesman?) must have rung the doorbell.
@Fearg wrote:
Some more shots of St Peter’s Belfast:
A superb job has been done on repairing the fabric – as can be seen if you compare with those at this link: http://www.simonknott.co.uk/northbelfastcathrc.htm
[ATTACH]3041[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3042[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3048[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3043[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3046[/ATTACH]The rood (crucifix), now suspended with fishing wire and utterly detached from its original rood beam and its flanking statues of Our Lady and St John, seems to me to be too low. It blocks the view of the East window. I’m in favour of raising it to its original height and replacing the beam with the accompanying statues as much for liturgical and theological as for aesthetic reasons.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus,
This is the effort made at re-reordering St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast.
I am not sure who the architect was but I am inclined to suspect Brian Quinnof Rooney and McConville -currently advertising themselves in the clerical directory of the diocese of Down and Connor as “liturgical consultants” – but those glossy tiles tell a tale.
Here is a rather novel ecclesiastical eccentricity: a tabernacle door equippe with spy-hole to facilitate “perpetual adoration” -though, I do know what is done when persons are present who are not intent on adoration, for the bishop of Down and Connor must surely realize that perpetual adoration is the same thing as having the Sacred Species exposed to the scoffing multitude 24/7.
The lack of proportion in the tabernacle and plinth is most striking and reminds one of the pathetic effort of re-assembling lego done by Prof. Cathal O’Neill in the Pro-Cathedral after he wrecked that building. Also, the lack of any connection between this tabernacle and an altar is telling of the theologically unacceptable disjoining of Eucharistic Adoration from the Mass.
Consider the admonition of Pius XII that the fruit of the Eucharistic Sacrifice ought never to be separated from the altar. In arrangements where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a separate chapel, the tabernacle is always to be reserved on an altar sufficiently large for Mass to be celebrated upon it. This is upheld in the new liturgical legislation in teh GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Furthermore, the architect would do well to return to a study of proportion and aesthetic. I refer kind readers to an essay by Douglis Richard Beck which discusses St Thomas Aquinas’ theory of aesthetic. St Thomas’ theory influenced (for better or worse) the Irish author James Joyce. Mr Beck’s essay is titled “A PORTRAIT OF ART AS IT SHOULD BE THE AESTHETIC THEORY OF JAMES JOYCE.”
“Examining the indebtedness of Joyce’s aesthetic theory to Aquinas, Maurice Beebe asserts that:
‘Joyce draws three main principles from two statements by Aquinas; thus, there is some overlapping. An outline of the entire theory may therefore serve as a useful point of reference for discussion of the parts:
I. Art is a stasis brought about by the formal rhythm of beauty. . . .
II. Art or beauty, divorced from good and evil, is akin to truth; therefore, if truth can best be approached through intellection, beauty or art is best approached through the three stages of apprehension. . . .
III. The three qualities of beauty which correspond to the three stages of apprehension are, in the terms of Aquinas, integritas, consonantia, and claritas. . . .’ (21-22).A sense of proportion, please, How is it that an architect today cannot find the wherewithal to design a Sacrament Shrine in proportion to an apse or a chapel? This example seems dwarfed and isolated, lost in the vast expanse of a Neo-Gothic church demanding a much stronger, clearer, more-well-defined and well-proportioned structure.
Isolated as it is, this peek-a-boo tabernacle seems to me to reify the Eucharist rather than to establish a personal relationship between the Eucharistic Lamb of God sacrificed and slain for me and for all the Church. Recall that in the Apocalypse the Throne of the Lamb is on the Altar from which flows the River of Life streaming out through the sacraments of the New Covenant sealed in the Blood of the Lamb. That relationship is established immediately in the 1900 arrangement of St Peter’s Belfast. Note too that the Lamb is surrounded by the saints in the niches of the reredos and that saints (likely the apostles, although I cannot tell with certainty owing to the faintness of the photo) line up down the nave where the arches begin to soar from the columns.
Note the dignity of the pulpit in the 1900 photo.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
As we are on the subject of St. Peter’s in Belfast, perhaps you might like to comment liturgically on this arrangement of things there?
The retro-fitted vents in the sanctuary on either side of the throne-like chair do nothing to enhance the ensemble. Che tackezza!
Where is the tabernacle located, anyway? I know that it’s perched parlously on that ridiculous plinth, but where? In some side chapel? The north transept? The south transept? Where is it hiding?
As the Magdalene once famously complained, “They have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have put Him!”
Peek-a-boo! I am sure that He sees us, but where are we to see Him?
Peek-a-boo!
“L’oeil etait dans le tombe – et Il regardait Cain!”
Peek-a-boo!
@Praxiteles wrote:
And, here we have a closer look at the Baptismal Font, placed awkwardly before the main door, calculate to impede ingression and egression of every procession. The floor lighting before the main features is also not very very inspiring of any great confidence.
Help me to understand this better, Praxiteles. Either the water is too cold or too forceful for Our Lord, or else the iconography is really portraying Al Jolson performing “Mammy!” to a hostile audience.
In any case, the structure certainly impedes liturgical processions. But then such ordered movements of clergy in hierarchical array are not preferred (or rather are openly opposed) by the anti-hierarchical factions in militant circles.
Keep it all horizontal, flat, and straight. No imagination, no exuberance, no effort to rise above this sublunary world to a higher, nobler life in the New Jerusalem above, our Mother. Ignore that Gothic architecture at all costs. It’s pulling us upward and we must resist its siren-song to rise above ourselve in God-ward flight. Keep focused on that BIG chair up front. You’ll take your marching orders from there, you will – and you’ll thank His Lordship for it! Or else he’ll send that fascist eagle after you, all the way home.
@Praxiteles wrote:
And here is another snap of the ambo – it looks somewhat American bald eagle:
Dig those crazy talons!! This is definitely the Roman Eagle which surmounted Musso in WWII. I think Cecil B. DeMille mimicked it in Ben Hur or The Sign of the Cross.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
As we are on the subject of St. Peter’s in Belfast, perhaps you might like to comment liturgically on this arrangement of things there?
Whatever happened to the Francis Bigg tapestries, the central one of which portrayed a broken Host with a kindof triple-lightning-bolt pointing towards the episcopal chair? Fire? Jumble sale? Surely, no self-respecting thief would have made off with those ‘tapestries.’
I suppose the arrangement portrayed in this photo celebrates liturgical knavery at its cheekiest: three potentates for the price of one. Liturgically inept parish priests frequently have themselves flanked by altar boys (a cheap substitute for deacon and subdeacon). Liturgically inept ordinaries may like to have themselves flanked by their auxiliaries. But look who is always front-and-center: ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! Look Ma, no taste!! 😀
I suppose after consulting with his episcopal underlings, His Lordship may CONDESCEND to the altar for whatever it is the hoi polloi are expecting of his graciousness today.
By the way, has anyone figured out why the website fo Armagh cathedral still offers a tour of the cathdral in its whale-tooth stage of aggiornamento? And how come the tour comes with a rendition of Luther’s anti-papal “A Might Fortress”? I should have though that a robust recording of John McCormack or Frank Petterson singing Faith of Our Fathers would have been far more appropriate for the primatial see of All Ireland. Perhaps the episcopoi get a bit nervous when they hear those stirring words of Fr Faber: “How truly blest would be our fate/ If we, like them, should die for Thee!”
Perhaps the renovations committee at Belfast could install a television on the reverse side of the altar so that the episcopal trio can follow the soaps during the liturgy of the Word proclaimed from the ambo of the Roman Eagle. “Our response to today’s psalm will be: Giovanezza!“
@Fearg wrote:
As always, for the purposes of comparison – here is St Peter’s as it was in the early 1900’s
[ATTACH]3033[/ATTACH]
Thank you, Fearg! What a beauty St Peter’s, Belfast, was in the early twentieth century. Note the fulfilment of the aesthetic canons of integritas, consonantia, and claritas. Everything fits together so harmoniously and proportionately. The effect is immediately pleasing without any need to analyse or explore the details. Upon closer, scrutiny, however, each detail brings one back to the glory of the whole. The entire ensemble works perfectly.
The later jiggery-pokery merely exposes the charlatanism of the architectural fakirs and the gullibility, idleness, and fecklessness of the sponsoring prelates.
The destruction of the pulpit is telling: out goes the Word of God proclaimed in Scripture]Dum vivimus, speramus[/I].
@Praxiteles wrote:
Sorry for the confusion Luzarches!
Below is a photograph of the state of St. Peter’s in Belfast after the boot-boy’s outing:
A shrine to Episkopos – the most important ornament in the whole church. Even God takes a lower place to the enthroned potentate. Lo how the mighty have fallen!
The later arrangement with the auxiliaries cosily flanking Lord High-and-Mighty seems inspired by American talk shows, though rather overdone with the ornate gothic thronettes. Recall that on the cross Christ was flanked by two thieves.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus,
This is the effort made at re-reordering St. Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast.
I am not sure who the architect was but I am inclined to suspect Brian Quinnof Rooney and McConville -currently advertising themselves in the clerical directory of the diocese of Down and Connor as “liturgical consultants” – but those glossy tiles tell a tale.
Here is a rather novel ecclesiastical eccentricity: a tabernacle door equippe with spy-hole to facilitate “perpetual adoration” -though, I do know what is done when persons are present who are not intent on adoration, for the bishop of Down and Connor must surely realize that perpetual adoration is the same thing as having the Sacred Species exposed to the scoffing multitude 24/7.
The lack of proportion in the tabernacle and plinth is most striking and reminds one of the pathetic effort of re-assembling lego done by Prof. Cathal O’Neill in the Pro-Cathedral after he wrecked that building. Also, the lack of any connection between this tabernacle and an altar is telling of the theologically unacceptable disjoining of Eucharistic Adoration from the Mass.
No sense of proportion whatsoever! And no understanding of the concept of either a Sacrament House or the purpose of the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. Perhaps this was perpetrated at the insistence of an indolent cleric too lazy to bother coming out to expose and then repose the Blessed Sacrament.
Peek-a-boo to you, too, Brian!
@goldiefish wrote:
I still don’t see what all the fuss is about St Colmans Cathedral. Its not as if they are knocking the spire and replacing the roof tiles with red slate. Much of this “protest” is merely a means of venting dislike of Bishop Magee.
The church mouse that roared.
The French Revolution, as Luzarches wisely points out, had its own unique approach to church renovation. Perhaps its most characteristic touch was the enthronement of a harlot on the high altar of Notre Dame de Paris. The femme de nuit was crowned ‘the goddess Reason.’ The rest of the sanctuary, however, was not rearranged. No addition of a whale’s tooth or installation of the Eye of Osiris [see Praxiteles’ posting of the peek-a-boo tabernacle mounted on a plinth far-removed from any altar].
At least at Paris during the Terror, an attempt, however crude, was made to acknowledge ‘reason.’ The antinomian erection of the whale-tooth in Armagh surpassed the French-revolutionary crowning of the goddess Reason and reached much further back beyond a classical framework into the pagan irrationality of cthonic worship. That any Catholic priest, canon, bishop, or primate would not just allow that abomination to be perpetrated, but actually patronise and reward it, beggars all belief.
If the Mighty Pipsqueak would care to review the thread in greater detail, it would become obvious fairly soon that the opposition to the desecration and destruction of churches in Ireland is much broader and deeper than any dislike of the bishop fo Cloyne. Is the Pipsqueak suggesting that somehow Cloyne was in on the other vandalizations too? Dic nobis, Maria, quid vidisti in via ….
@Luzarches wrote:
It seems astonishing, for all the expertise and pooled resources of this thread, that only one good picture seems to be available of Armagh 1904-’82. Could there be some way of finding more? Many photographs must have been taken during various liturgies so surely close-ups of the sanctuary for first Holy Communions and Confirmations exist?
As for the absence of documentary photos, it only serves to underline a discussion we had in the office today: Catholics have only just got around to thinking of their own churches as ‘historical’ and objectively meritorious. This attitude to a largely Victorian stock of buildings would have been unthinkable in the ‘mainstream’ even 10 or 15 years ago. When I grew up, not so long ago, I never used to consider the Victorian as historical at all, but as near modern and therefore, I suppose, still ours to possess, mutate and change in a fairly abitrary way. With the change of century I think that we have suddely all woken up to the fact that these are now venerable buildings, worthy of the respect that we would unthinkingly accord to buildings of the eighteenth century and earlier.
However, an eighteenth century style clerical dilettante-ism with respect to the Gothic style still exists in pockets. I think that this is still evident in BQ’s recent renovation, though it is still a great improvement of the scandalous paganism of the previous ‘sanctuary’. I mean that I think it is odd to treat the floor with a nod to the Gothic, but then, in another design mentality altogether, to erect an altar and ambo that are still aesthetically incongruous. It reminds me of one of those reordering projects where the poor old architect gets to design the sanctuary steps and the new disabled lavs whilst the parish priest, fancying himself a Maecenas of the arts, commisions some New Age artist to come up with the liturgical furniture.
Reminds me of Cobh, where the good folks at An Bord were being asked to approve a new sanctuary without seeing detailed designs of the most important things in it (aka that ‘worship space for the 21st century), because ‘an artist’ was going to get to do it. Anyone for blobs?
“Catholics have only just got around to thinking of their own churches as ‘historical’ and objectively meritorious. This attitude to a largely Victorian stock of buildings would have been unthinkable in the ‘mainstream’ even 10 or 15 years ago. When I grew up, not so long ago, I never used to consider the Victorian as historical at all, but as near modern and therefore, I suppose, still ours to possess, mutate and change in a fairly abitrary way. With the change of century I think that we have suddely all woken up to the fact that these are now venerable buildings, worthy of the respect that we would unthinkingly accord to buildings of the eighteenth century and earlier.”
You make an excellent point, Luzarches! In fact, a number of these Neo-Gothic Irish churches, particularly Armagh and Cobh, deserve to be recognised officially and listed as World Heritage Sites, particularly in view of their relationship to the myriads of emigrants from Ireland to North America, Australia, and elsewhere. In many cases, St Colman’s, Cobh, was the last bit of Ireland the emigrants saw on their peregrinations to other parts of the world, Armagh rates significantly, too, as the primatial see of All Ireland and owing to its connection to St Patrick himself. Does Ireland have access to a World Monuments Fund?
As for the baldachino or ciborium I proposed for Armagh earlier, I accept Praxiteles’ point about blocking a view of the apsidal window. I shall have to consider Rheims more carefully. You will recall that Rheims was the site of the coronation of the kings of France, so its liturgical tradition would have been richer than that of ND-Paris. Incidentally, Rebecca Baltzer has published (ca 2001) an interesting study of the iconographic programme of ND-Paris (with its emphasis on the Incarnation through the lens of the Blessed VirginMary) and that of the Sainte Chapelle (with its focus on the Passion of Our Lord – particularly the Crown of Thorns, which it housed), constructed by St Louis as an highly privileged royal rival to the diocesan cathedral.
To return to your earlier point, Luzarches, the deconstructional experiments perpetrated at Armagh in the 1980s were abominable by any standards and on the grounds of common sense alone, ought never to have been allowed to leave the drawing board. Where is the offending primate now?
On second thought, the rood figures could surmount a baldachino or ciborium over the main altar. A baldachino covers the old high altar in St Patrick’s, New York City, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, and, of course, St Peter’s-in-the-Vatican and the other four major basilicas in Rome.
It prompts the question: Whatever happened to common sense?
Odd, indeed, that it was the floor that received the most respectful treatment of all the parts that came in for ‘renovation.’Someone ought to inform the webmasters of the cathedral of Armagh that their website still features a virtual tour of the whale-tooth/Star Trek furnishings. [I assume that the concrete monstrosities have now been removed and replaced by the less offensive but still inapt altar and ambo. Where did the tabernacle finally end up?
As far as the new arrangement is concerned, could the architect not tell that the main altar is far too small for the space? It is all a matter of proportion, isn’t it? After all, the current altar ought to be at least four or five times longer than it is. Moreover, the little engravings on it are lost on the average viewer. Inlaid marble of appropriate size and colour could have featured a striking labarum in the centre or the chi-rho flanked by pendant alpha and mega – something easily visible from the entrance of the church.
Once a handsome rectangular altar of highly polished marble was elevated by three steps in the sanctuary, an impressively grand rood loft could be mounted over it. A clever designer could arrange for the Crucifix flanked by the Blessed Virgin Mary and St John to be mounted high above the altar. The figures, of course, would have to be large enough to be distinct. Their base would start at the end of the columns and the beginning of the arches themselves. The fogures ought to be polychromed. The pillars of the cathedral, likewise, would be brightly coloured and variegated to reinforce the vitality of the Gothic architecture and to complement the stencilling in the ceiling. If the walls suffered any whitewashing in any of the previous renovations, a team of Polish artisans could easily be commissioned to remove th eoffending coats of whitewash an drestore the original Victorian ornamentation.
An elevated ambo for the proclamation of the Old Testament readings and Apostolic books on the Epistle side would face a higher and more ornate pulpit on the Gospel side. From there the Gospel would be proclaimed, the homily delivered, and the Exultet sung at the Paschal Vigil. A large marble cereostasis decorated sumptuously with mosaics would be erected beside this more ornate ambo/pulpit.
The episcopal throne/chair would be slightly elevated but not as high as the higher ambo or the main altar.
In fact, in terms of gradual elevation, three steps symbolising faith, hope, and charity, would lead to the communion rail, then after a suitable distance, three further steps, each representing the three Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity would lead to the presbyterium proper; finally a series of three steps, each representing one of the falls of Christ on the via crucis, would lead to the altar of sacrifice (properly lengthened in proportion to the rest of the sanctuary and the church). This hierarchisation would distinguish each part of the sanctuary from the nave and each part from the others. The Eucharistic Sacrifice would be offered directly beneath the Rood, depicting in dramatic terms the Sacrifice of Calvary and highlighting its vital significance for the Church (Blessed Virgin Mary) and for the individal disciple (St John).
Does this not make slightly more sense in liturgical and architectural terms than the current arrangement?
I suppose that the speakers on the pillars of the 1904 Armagh cathedral would have to be removed and an alternate sound system installed discreetly without attracting attention to it.
Lighting might be impoved, although there is much to be said for subdued illumination. On the other hand, the Gothic is displayed to great advantage with effective spotlighting, particularly during ceremonies.
AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am still reeling from the shock. I had just gone to the site of the Armagh cathedral, http://www.armagharchdiocese.org/html/PlanofCathedral.htm, and decided to take the virtual tour.The very moment that the interior of the cathedral appeared on my screen, a tinny rendition of Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” blared forth from the speakers of my computer. That anti-papal dirge heralded the destruction wrought in this once-magnificent House of God. Don’t tell me that the coordinator of the website had no idea of the origins and significance of that tune. It fit perfectly with the display which it accompanies. Seems pretty carefully calculated to me.
I was viewing the sanctuary furnishings and the exaggerated sanctuary floor supporting its army of faldstools when I noticed the hideous altarling. My biggest shock, however, came when I was touring around the Lady chapel portion and the camera turned its gaze on a vast inverted parabola with a stone block in it. This concrete tuning fork, thrusting its tines into the air, was the tabernacle. How can anyone in his right mind justify the incursion of the “altar”ling, the “ambo,” and that “tabernacle” into such a magnificent church? Who is the Emperor standing buck naked before the multitude and presiding over these rites of spring?
Was a national day of mourning declared for the entire Irish Church after this?
John Paul II had been calling for a second spring, not a second reformation ala Cranmer, Calvin, and O. Cromwell.
How can this be justified??In answer to your question about renovating de novo, Praxiteles, I suppose I would start by mounting the majestic pulpit of the 1904 Ashlin church and expelling the moneychangers from the Temple. Then, I would lay down the principle that the interior of this exquisitely beautiful church would not be marred in any way. ANY attempt at renewal or renotaion would have to cohere with the neoGothic architecture of the cathedral.
Next, an international search would commence to find an architect of sufficient education and training to handle such an important project. Once a competent architect convinced me of his theological, liturgical, and artistic expertise, I would proceed in the following way.
A thorough cleaning and restoration of the cathedral would take place. New sets of vestments and vessels matching the architecture of the church would be ordered from Luzar in Oxford, UK. A copy of the Missale Romanum editio typica tertia (2002) would be purchased and a Te Deum commissioned of Domenico Bartolucci and sung by the cathedral choir to celebrate the rededication of the renovated cathedral. The carollon would be played twelve hours a day for an entire octave and, voila, the cathedral would be restored and ready for worship.
This is basically what the Archbishop of Ottawa, Canada, did to renovate his cathedral. You must see it:
http://www.notredame.ottawa.on.ca/.
Absolutely glorious. It is a national treasure.
You can take the tour in French or in English. Of course, he did not go as far as I would go. He did not order a new set of vestments and vessels from Luzar in Oxford, UK. Then, again, one learns not to expect radical behaviour from seniores leaning towards a happy retirement. [Some wag remarked that His Grace actually contemplated building a teepee-like structure behind the cathedral to satisfy th eliturgical aspirations of those who favoured a complete modernization (aka destruction) of the cathedral interior. A dramatic waste of good parking space, wouldn’t you agree?]Amazing what modern lighting can do to show off the glorious splendour of Gothic architecture. It can highlight the intersection between the cosmic and the historical: the heavenly liturgy being offered in t he new Jerusalem above and the great events of salvation history being rendered present in the celebration of the sacraments in the Church below.
Hierarchy, transcendence, beauty, harmony, splendour and glory are all preserved in the Ottawa cathedral. Pity the “eclipse of the transcendent” [U.M. Lang, Turning towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004), p. 103] in so many Irish churches.
If you want another excample of a successful renovation, consult the website of Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal: http://www.basiliquenddm.org/
With the purchase of a Missale Romanum editio typica tertia and a new set of vestments and vessels, plus the aid of a lighting expert, you, too, can renovate a Catholic house of worship without shaking th efoundations of the Temple.
I look forward to seeing the “before” and “after” photos of 1970 and 1990 and can refer to the pre-1904 photo. In the coloured photos provided by Fearg, the remodelling of the sanctuary was not shown. I did, however, quite enjoy the magnificent stencilling of the ceiling and the triumphal arch.
I suppose what strikes me most about the postmodern efforts displayed thus far on the thread is the avoidance of any distinctly Christian (much less Catholic) iconography or architectural language. I find it quite ironic that in Ireland, of all places, the trefoil makes absolutely no appearance. It has, of course splendid possibilities for a really creative approach to church design and ornamentation. It would certainly make sense to incorporate it into a baptistery or at least the font itslef. Does it not, after all, have some connection to the great founding figure of Christianity in Ireland?
And what of cruciformity? Has the cross been ellided from Catholicism in Ireland? The crucifix scarcely claims any focus whatsoever in the models seen thus far. At leas the architects and artists of the nineteenth century made a conscious connection bewteen the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of Calvary, and did a rather clever job of communicating it to others – in architectural and iconographi language.
Given that architecture and art constitute highly privileged forms of communication even to the non-literate, it seems a shame that so many opportunities for proclaiming the Gospel and attracting people to the beauty of Catholicism have been wasted in favour of iconoclastic, sterile, and unremittingly grim waiting rooms. Perhaps there is a message there after all, but it’s not one that I associate with the faith of the Church.
One may find consolation in the speculation that, given the hostility toward Catholicism and Christianity now increasingly evident in the Celtic Tiger, these structures can be converted with little effort into mini-putt golf courses (for leisured bureaucrats), or ballet schools (for their offspring), or pubs.
A colleague, stopping at a Bread and Breakfast in the west of Ireland, spied an ornately-wrought chalice veil from the nineteenth century hanging on the wall. When he inquired of the mistress of the household where she had found such a treasure, she replied, “A chalice veil, is it? So that’s what it is! I had no idea. We found it in a jumble sale and picked it up for a pittance. Looks nice, doesn’t it?” It may be the case now that residences and businesses in Ireland may display more Christian iconography than its churches. Pity, that!
@Praxiteles wrote:
Rhabanus!
I think you are probably referring to the controversy some years ago when the Board of Works decided to take away the statue of St. Patrick from the Hill of Tara and replace it with something not in the least religious and which could be perceived as a piece of hum drum ding dong. The locals in the village of Slane kicked up stink and the result was that the less than religiously minded Board of Works withdrew their “innovative” plan and were supposed to return the restored statue that had been there. Of the abomination, I know not what happened – perhaps a reader might.
I am posting a photograph of the old statue with someting like -if not what was proposed for Tara – which is currently being advertised on the official website of the Archdiocese of Armagh.
As you will see, the iconographic crisis merely gives expression to a much deeper identity crisis!
(P.S. What an interesting use of the term “shift”. I had not seen or heard of for years!!).
Holy Horrors! Put a bright, clear, yellow banana on a table, then place beside it a spotty, shrivelling, blackened banana]Caveat emptor[/I]!
@Praxiteles wrote:
Here is an article from the Irish Independent. 17 March 1999
Should St Patrick stand again on Tara?
Our most famous statue of St Patrick now lies forgotten, broken and battered in a yard in Co. Meath. Cian Molloy tracks down the statue of St Patrick that once stood on the Hill of Tara and follows the row over finding a replacement
As you drown the shamrock today, spare a thought for the most important statue of St Patrick, Ireland’s patron saint, that once stood proudly on the Hill of Tara.
The whereabouts of the statue, once one of the best known landmarks in the country, has been a mystery for some time. But now the Irish Independent has tracked it down. And we have found that our most famous statue of St Patrick now lies forgotten, broken and battered in the corner of a government depot.
The statue, erected in Tara shortly after Catholic emancipation in 1829, commemorated the events of 433AD when St. Patrick lit a bonfire on the nearby hill of Slane on the eve of Easter Sunday.
Lighting such a fire was contrary to the pagan laws of the time which dictated that the first fire lit that night be in Tara. Observing St. Patrick’s bonfire from afar, the chief druid of the ancient Gaelic capital predicted that if the flame were not extinguished that night, Christianity would never be extinguished in Ireland.
The saint’s bonfire continued burning and the next morning, Easter Sunday, St. Patrick entered Tara to convert the king and his followers to Christianity.
Now the statue commemorating that event lies abandoned in a remote Co. Meath depot owned by Dúchas, the heritage service formally known as the Office of Public Works (OPW). St. Patrick’s once fine form now resembles the victim of a gangland killing.
The body is pockmarked by bullet-holes, its hands are missing and the statue has been decapitated the statue is almost a metaphor for the standing of the Church in Celtic Tiger Ireland.
It was removed from Tara in 1992 for refurbishment by the then OPW but in the removal the statue was damaged beyond repair. It was taken to a depot in Trim where it lay for a while, before being moved to another depot in Athcarn, when it was damaged again.
At some point it was also used for “target practice” according to a Dúchas spokesman. The spokesman couldn’t say who took pot shots at our patron saint or when the statue suffered the gunshot damage.
Following reports that the OPW were not planning to replace the statue, because Tara was a “pagan” site, an angry meeting of locals was held at the local Skryne Parish Hall.
At that meeting the local Rathfeigh Historical Society formed the Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara and pressure was put on then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht Michael D. Higgins, who was responsible for the OPW.
Following a two-year campaign, Minister Higgins agreed that a competition would be held for a new replacement. But, instead of standing at Rath na RÃ, the highest point in the Tara complex, it would stand between the entrance to Tara and the site’s new interpretative centre.
“This was the ideal solution, we thought,” said Dr. Leo Curran, chairman of the Rathfeigh Historical Society. “St. Patrick would be there to give a Céad MÃle Fáilte to visitors and he would be the last thing they saw as they left the site.”
But when the five member judging panel, which had only one local representative,announced the competition’s winner in 1997 there was further uproar among locals.
The competition rules had specified that the statue should incorporate traditional features which one would expect to include shamrocks, a harp, a mitre, a crozier and perhaps fleeing snakes. But the winning entry, by sculptor Annette Hennessy, instead was of a shaven headed teenage boy, wearing a short mini-skirt-like kilt and carrying a handbag-shaped bell. She agreed hers was “not a traditional style statue” saying it “acknowledges our Pagan Celtic history”.
Dr. Curran said: “This was a statue of a young boy, It would have been appropriate for Slemish, (a hill in Co Antrim) where St. Patrick was a slave and a swineherd. But when he arrived in Tara he would have been an older man, dressed as a bishop or priest. You would need an interpreter to know that this design is a statue of St. Patrick.”
According to expert opinion, St. Patrick was a middle-aged man when he entered Tara in the first half of the 5th century. There is some debate about whether he would have worn a mitre, with some historians saying mitres are an invention of the Middle Ages and others arguing that they date back close to the time of the apostles.
But Gerald Parry, secretary Committee to Restore St. Patrick to Tara, said: “Even if this is St. Patrick as a boy on Slemish mountain, in that outfit he would have frozen during the winter, he would have been paralysed from the knees down.”
The new statue was due to be unveiled on St. Patrick’s Day two years ago, but local opposition has prevented this. With the arrival of a new government, the Rathfeigh Historical Society started to lobby SÃle de Valera, the Minister of thenewly-named Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, but so farlittle has been achieved. Following a meeting with the minister, Dúchas were ordered to search Ireland to see if a suitable statue of St. Patrick was available elsewhere.
But on Tuesday of last week, eight days before St. Patrick’s Day, the historical society were told that “nationwide trawl” has failed. Dr. Curran said: “For the last 12 months we have been getting nowhere. The Minister has told us nothing new in the last 12 months.”
Dr. Curran now believes there will be no statue of St. Patrick at Tara by the dawn of the new Millennium marking 2,000 years of Christianity. He said: “I believe that the OPW are just waiting for local opposition to die off. I believe the permanent removal of St. Patrick’s statue from Tara was pre-planned six years ago by the OPW. Decisions on what is appropriate and inappropriate are being made by bureaucrats.
“I want to know are we living in a bureaucracy or a democracy? We agreed that most of the monuments in Tara are from the pre-Christian era, but St. Patrick should be at the uppermost layer, representing Christian tradition extinguishing paganism.”
Fr. Declan Hurley, secretary of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Meath, said: “The bishop did intervene at one stage, but we haven’t heard anything since. I hope that we would see a statue there before the end of the millennium. A statue of Saint Patrick that would do justice to the man himself and his legacy. We would love to see that.”
* Cian Molloy is news editor of the Irish Catholic
Thanks, Praxiteles, this was the very statue I had in mind. The prompt was just what I needed. I now recall much more vividly the ultra-modern and paganising statue of the adolescent druid gussied up for a night on the town. Imagine replacing the venerable statue of St Patrick with that will-o-the-wispy tart. Good grief!
I am disappointed to read in the article above that the well-proportioned and attractive statue of St Patrick that once stood on Tara hill was used as target practice by gunslingers. What a crude, pathetic statement about national pride and self-respect.
Perhaps God in His mercy will raise up a worthy successor to the glorious St Patrick who will revive the Christian Faith in the Emerald Isle.
In the meantime, look for the images of the dreadful statuette of Paddy-in-a-kilt and compare it with the similarly hideous image of the druid with a stag on his shoulders provided in the previous submission (juxtaposed with the earlier majestic statue of St Patrick). Note the pharaonic headress (mitre?) and the quasi-masonic apron over the tunic. Priest of Isis? Osiris? Worse?
The posture of the druid carrying a deer contrasts (mocks?) the renowned classical sculpted-marble statue of the clean-shaven, Romanised Christ with a sheep on His shoulders. The inspiration for the latter is Psalm 22 (23) Dominus regit me (The Lord is my Shepherd). This motif is present over the baptismal font in Dura-Europas, the earliest extant domus Ecclesiae (house of the Church) in the Roman garrison town on the Euphrates destroyed in 251 (?) by the Sassanians and preserved intact for nearly two millennia. The image of Christ as Shepherd is among the earliest depictions of the Saviour.
The contrast between that noble, correctly-proportioned, classical marble statue of the Lord Jesus and the pokey, ‘oxidised’ bronze of the bow-legged druid sporting a deer is risible.
I suppose one must frankly raise the question: What is the purpose of this kind of ugly statuary? Is it to adorn a Christian church/basilica, or is it to haunt a house? Perhaps to blight the landscape?
Too bad some people’s taste is all in their mouths.
@Praxiteles wrote:
In terms of the inspiration fro Our Lady of the Wayside in Jenkinstown, I am attaching a link to the Newgrange neolithic complex. As far as I remember, Brian QUinn has not positvely excluded Newgrange as a typos for his Jenkinstown church:
The resemblence between the ‘fairy-mound’ and Wayside in Jenkinstown is chilling, though I wonder whether the mysterious builders of the ancient heathen burial site weren’t much more prescient and competent than their ‘post-modern’ heirs:
“Within the mound, a long passage, only going in one third of the length of the mound, leads to a cruciform (cross-shaped) chamber. The passage itself is over 60 feet (18m). The burial chamber has a corbelled roof which rises steeply upwards to a height of nearly 20 feet (6m). A tribute to its builders, the roof has remained essentially intact and waterproof for over 5,000 years.”
Can the moderns take any credit for cruciformity, corbels, and waterproof rooves?
