Talk:St Peter's Church, Phibsborough, Dublin

The building
This is the description:


 * converted the top floor of the school into a chapel. In 1843, new schools were built to house the growing number of students. The second floor of the old school building was removed and the chapels length was augmented, leaving it 123 feet long and 35 feet high. It then became known as a church. Over time, more and more additions, augmentations and improvements were made to the church.

When I look at the photos of this building, what I am seeing is an architect-designed church. This is a church with nave, aisles, clerestory, transept etc. This is not a converted schoolhouse as is implied here.

OK! I tracked down the website that describes the building. Here are the problems.
 * The above description misquotes the source by saying that the "second floor" was removed. The term "second floor" carries the meaning of "second storey". In fact, the "second storey" was not removed. It was precisely as stated: the upper floor was removed. When the floor was taken out, the interior space was 35 feet high, because the space extended from the schoolroom below the chapel to the space previously occupied by the chapel.
 * The above quote then sums up the building of a substantial church of chancel, nave, aisles and transepts as "Over time more and more additions etc... This doesn't describe the events. The present church was not built "piecemeal".

My reading of the available online description is:
 * that there was one major extension to the "chapel/church" in 1843 which considerably extended its length.
 * that in the 1860s an architect was called in who designed (in the Neo-Gothic style) a chancel and transepts which extended the old building, and a tower (controversial and demolished)
 * that in 1902 the old chapel/church was replaced (leaving the Neo-Gothic chancel and transept intact) with a new nave with columns, aisles and clerestory, all in the Neo-Gothic style, with the tower and spire complete by 1911.

So, who was the architect of the chancel and transept in the 1860s? And who was the architect of the nave and spire of 1902? Did they leave any portion of the old school/chapel/church? Amandajm (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Identification of the figures in the stained glass
While Margaret Mary and John Eudes were both devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the two main figures within the stained glass window do not depict them. Willie King has it wrong, but he's probably quoting some other source. Perhaps some smaller figures in the window depict these people.


 * St. Margaret Mary was a nun. She would not be shown without her habit. This figure holds a vessel which is the symbol of Mary Magdalene.
 * St. John Eudes was a Jesuit. The man shown here has the poisoned chalice and eagle of John the Evangelist.

I'll just add here that these two, Mary Magdalene and John, are often associated with the Suffering Christ.

Amandajm (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Moran and the Spire
The implication here is that they built it at Moran's suggestion. This is obviously not the case, as the tower has plainly been designed to take that spire. It needs to be made more clear that because of Moran's statement, a large donation was made, enabling the spire to be completed.

I must also tell you that the spires on Moran's cathedral in Sydney were not finished until 2000, and even then were not up in time for the Sydney Olympics. See St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney. Amandajm (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)