Continuing with thoughts this morning's thoughts and observations, which are not new, I have seen the denial of sins, both venial and mortal, from people who refuse to think outside the psychological box.
One man I know has never comes to grips with his falling away from the Church by his own volition, because he blames his parents.
Another couple blames the bishop for charging for annulments, which he does not in their diocese, for being in an unholy, irregular marriage.
Yet another young woman blames a priest for saying something against contraception, which she did not like, as she was contracepting and did not want to hear the truth--so she blames, still, the Church.
And so on....
The refrain of complaints reveals the lack of truth, the continuation of lies, which cover up the fact that these people, like others, have left the Church by an act of the will, their own wills.
For years, parents have not taught consequences--no time out bench will curb a rebellious spirit, and few parents take away things, such as rights to the TV or own computer, or the use of "grounding", a popular punishment for teens in my day.
I know one parent who literally saved the soul of her girl by refusing to let her to finals in a band competition because of very bad behavior. Yes, for awhile, the teen was angry, but then, she cooled down and recollected that what she had done required a consequence.
I am reminded of the famous scene from the Peter O'Toole version of Good-by Mr. Chips, in which a young lad was not allowed to play in the tennis finals because he had not done his Latin homework.
Where are those adult heroes today?
Too often people think being "strict" with children will harm them when in actuality, in psychological studies. done on adults with problems and parenting styles, children from families with lax parents have more problems than those from strict families.
Boundaries and consequences create maturity.
The blame game has to stop, and adults who are whingers must stop looking to reasons why they sin and stop sinning.
Reading the lives of the saints may help, as the saints are hardest on themselves, as real sinners, realizing that God will not excuse sin.
Is God merciful? Of course, but He is also just, and the two attributes cannot be separated.
Do some people suffer more than others in trying to combat sin? Yes.
Are some people naturally more good than others by grace? Yes.
But, we are not given a pass if we must fight against our natural tendencies towards sin just because we were hurt or even damaged as children or even as adults.
I remind readers of the four heroes of Faith in my own family-three women and a man molested for years and years by a priest in a boarding school. None left the Church, three got married and had as many children as God sent, and all loved God the entire life.
Were their marriages difficult sometimes? Yes. Have they struggled with deep feelings of hurt and rejection? Yes.
Did they forgive the priest, long dead? Yes.
Forgiveness and long-suffering form the two pillars of heroic virtue.
One does not have to walk away from God because of the sins of others. In fact, many times, the gross sins of others can be the means of coming towards God more readily.
Showing posts with label Attributes of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attributes of God. Show all posts
Friday, 24 July 2015
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Sins Which Cry Out to God for Vengeance
Today, I am reminded of these sins, as I have been witnessing PDAs (public displays of affection), right here in suburbia, between lesbians, several who live in this neighborhood.
God will not be mocked. He created us and gave us natural law, which is being spurned by those who accept such lifestyles.
I repeat the CCC on these sins:
1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.14
These are considered the sins which will bring down God's vengeance on all of us.
Those people who are violent---look at the news; those people who are sodomites--look in your own areas; those people who are abandoned to poverty, loneliness, even penury--look here; those who receive unjust wages to we can buy cheap goods--look at most of the stores and name brands and what they pay for goods, as opposed to what they charge; slavery, such as sexual abuse of children, (as in Great Britain), sexual slavery of women, slavery of those who are under tyrannies--look at the news.
God will not ignored these sins much longer. Reparation is needed.
We cannot lose the virtue of being shocked by sin. Complacency deadens the soul. We should be intolerant of our own sin, first, and then not tolerate sin in a society. But, as Fulton J. Sheen stated, intolerance is the only sin most Americans believe in. And, he said and wrote about this two generations ago. God will not be mocked.
http://www.northamericanmartyrs.org/pdf/Plea-for-Intolerance.pdf
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
On Mercy and Justice Again....forced to go to God
We cannot take mercy for granted, as that is the sin of presumption. And, until one goes through the Dark Night, one vacillates between the sins of presumption and despair. One learns what justice really is and what mercy really is.
Mercy is above justice, not in place of...there seems to be confusion as to God's justice being something which is contrary to mercy. It is not, The two, true Attributes go hand in hand.
Summa, First Part, Question 21. The justice and mercy of God
from Thomas Aquinas, a few thoughts...
Now as works of art are related to art, so are works of justice related to the law with which they accord. Therefore God's justice, which establishes things in the order conformable to the rule of His wisdom, which is thelaw of His justice, is suitably called truth. Thus we also in human affairs speak of the truth of justice.
Justice, as to the law that governs, resides in the reason or intellect; but as to the command whereby our actions are governed according to the law, it resides in the will.
The truth of which the Philosopher is speaking in this passage, is that virtue whereby a man shows himself in word and deed such as he really is. Thus it consists in the conformity of the sign with the thing signified; and not in that of the effect with its cause and rule: as has been said regarding the truth of justice.
Justice and mercy appear in the punishment of the just in this world, since by afflictions lesser faults are cleansed in them, and they are the more raised up from earthly affections to God. As to this Gregory says (Moral. xxvi, 9): "The evils that press on us in this world force us to go to God."
Friday, 12 September 2014
The Fifth And Last Art Rant
Well, I think I am almost finished with the subject of true, objective, religious art. But, let me add this. Just because someone can paint a religious subject does not mean that artist has capture the essence of holiness, of virtue.
If I were in the classroom, I would give myriad examples of "religious art" which moves the soul not only into an aesthetic experience, but an experience of God. Excellent art can help the soul, be a tool for the soul to transcend into the spiritual realm. I have experienced this and in the good old days of graduate school, this is a subject we would sit around with coffees and discuss.
Excellent art is meant to be transcendent. It is not meant to draw attention to itself but to lead one on to a higher plane of reality.
I have experienced this in the face of true beauty. This has happened to me through art and music, more so when I was younger than now, as I no longer go to galleries nor do I listen to music. I mostly live in simplicity and silence.
But, the true artist does not want to draw attention to himself or his artwork. He wants the artwork to bring joy, yes, but always move the mind and the soul.
Excellent art is rational.
That is why Bach is superior to Rap. (DUH!)
If a piece of art disturbs the soul and the mind, it has been painted in pure sensuality, in the senses only and not in the spirit. That is why I am objecting to some of the work on EWTN. I have not listed all the paintings which disturb me. Three which are particularly sensual and not spiritual depict Christ in the Garden, in a facial piece stuck in somewhere, and in the Ascension. The artists missed the point and just show a man, not a God-Man. Can it be done? Approximately, yes.
Some of the greatest have done this. But, sadly the appetites have been fed for too many years not to effect even Christian artists. Perhaps, the artists have never met a Godly, righteous man. Perhaps, they do not know what the face of a saint who is a man can look like. Innocence is the first trait, followed by purity and a deep inner peace.
An opportunity for witnessing the Truth has been lost.
I shall not even begin on the music, which is almost totally sensual and not rational and, as the Pope Emeritus would point out, therefore defective for worship. Gregorian Chant would have been the logical choice for the entire series.
Again, the day for true discernment in art may be gone.
If I were in the classroom, I would give myriad examples of "religious art" which moves the soul not only into an aesthetic experience, but an experience of God. Excellent art can help the soul, be a tool for the soul to transcend into the spiritual realm. I have experienced this and in the good old days of graduate school, this is a subject we would sit around with coffees and discuss.
Excellent art is meant to be transcendent. It is not meant to draw attention to itself but to lead one on to a higher plane of reality.
I have experienced this in the face of true beauty. This has happened to me through art and music, more so when I was younger than now, as I no longer go to galleries nor do I listen to music. I mostly live in simplicity and silence.
But, the true artist does not want to draw attention to himself or his artwork. He wants the artwork to bring joy, yes, but always move the mind and the soul.
Excellent art is rational.
That is why Bach is superior to Rap. (DUH!)
If a piece of art disturbs the soul and the mind, it has been painted in pure sensuality, in the senses only and not in the spirit. That is why I am objecting to some of the work on EWTN. I have not listed all the paintings which disturb me. Three which are particularly sensual and not spiritual depict Christ in the Garden, in a facial piece stuck in somewhere, and in the Ascension. The artists missed the point and just show a man, not a God-Man. Can it be done? Approximately, yes.
Some of the greatest have done this. But, sadly the appetites have been fed for too many years not to effect even Christian artists. Perhaps, the artists have never met a Godly, righteous man. Perhaps, they do not know what the face of a saint who is a man can look like. Innocence is the first trait, followed by purity and a deep inner peace.
An opportunity for witnessing the Truth has been lost.
I shall not even begin on the music, which is almost totally sensual and not rational and, as the Pope Emeritus would point out, therefore defective for worship. Gregorian Chant would have been the logical choice for the entire series.
Again, the day for true discernment in art may be gone.
Saturday, 23 August 2014
The Crux of The Matter
And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
In our times, the time of the New Testament, the New Covenant, millions of people have been given grace through baptism to hear God daily. We hear God in the daily Scriptures, at daily Mass if we are lucky enough to get to one, through other Catholic, orthodox, praying friends, through Mr. Voris, Father Z, EWTN, Salt and Light, Internet sources, through reading and studying, by being silent and reflecting.
We can hear God because we are in sanctifying grace. Some listen.
In the Old Testament times, not all people heard the Lord, which is why the People of God had the prophets, teachers and leaders who did.
From Abraham down through John the Baptist, the Patriarchs and Prophets shared the Word of God with the people. Some listened.
In a time of tribulation, God allows the world to be covered in a darkness, in order to purify the elect and save many who otherwise are not paying attention.
Pay attention now.
If you are too busy to pray and reflect, you are too busy.
Soon, many if not all of us will find ourselves in a terrible state of not being able to hear God.
Christ warned Jerusalem of its destruction because the inhabitants refused to acknowledge Him as the Messiah.
Some left, most did not.
Hear the Lord while you can.
Pray to respond quickly to His Voice and to know when He is calling, speaking, nudging.
Soon, all human voices which share God's word will be stopped. You must learn to rely on Him alone.
Monday, 18 August 2014
Incarnational Theology, Beauty, and Art: Perfection IV: Part Three
Thinking about the problem with art today, and so-called religious art, I have been pondering the problem of utilitarianism and ugliness. Years ago, I wrote an essay on this point when Shrek came out, showing how dangerous this movie and the sequels were to the modern child's mind.
The fact that the princess became ugly is a complete inversion not only of Western mythology, but the truth of Catholic teaching. We become more beautiful in goodness, in virtue and love transforms one into beauty, not into ugliness.
Many people objected to my article, stating I was against "ugly" people. No. Where ugliness is chosen, beauty is misunderstood. Where ugliness is chosen, the soul is dead or dying. Monsters redeemed would become beautiful in stories for a reason. Love transforms.
The inversion of choosing ugliness over beauty is an undermining of two pillars of our Catholic Faith-revelation and reason. Tradition flows from both.
God inspired the Greeks to define harmony and create an aesthetic of beauty which has lasted until modern times. Throughout the history of the West, the ideals of symmetry and order in architecture and art dominated society and were the basis of the greatest artistic achievements made by men.
It was not until the totalitarian ideal of utilitarianism that we saw ugly buildings honoring those who had lost their souls. The monumental structures of the tyrants, such as Hitler and Stalin ruined the concept of beauty, as both fascism and communism do not care about beauty, only power.
Those of us who were fortunate enough to have Classical Education in the liberal arts, the arts which free the mind to think, learned the great heritage of the Greeks regarding beauty, and when those of us who studied our Jewish roots, we saw in the Old Testament, the theme of beauty as well.
In Psalm 25, David shows us the insights into beauty from the Illuminative State.
[1] Unto the end, a psalm for David. Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my innocence: and I have put my trust in the Lord, and shall not be weakened. [2] Prove me, O Lord, and try me; burn my reins and my heart. [3] For thy mercy is before my eyes; and I am well pleased with thy truth. [4] I have not sat with the council of vanity: neither will I go in with the doers of unjust things. [5] I have hated the assembly of the malignant; and with the wicked I will not sit.
[6] I will wash my hands among the innocent; and will compass thy altar, O Lord: [7] That I may hear the voice of thy praise: and tell of all thy wondrous works. [8] I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house; and the place where thy glory dwelleth. [9] Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men: [10] In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts.
[11] But as for me, I have walked in my innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me. [12] My foot hath stood in the direct way: in the churches I will bless thee, O Lord.
Some modern commentators have written that the Hebrew tradition, the creation by God in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, eschewed beauty.
Not at all. Many of the woman were described as beautiful, but more than that, the Hebrews knew that Beauty was an Attribute of God.
Looking at David's psalm, one sees several indications that the Illuminative State allows one to begin to glimpse God's Beauty.
The Greeks did not have Revelation, but they had Reason. And these two great pillars uphold our Faith.
First of all, innocence underlies beauty, which is why I had so many rants about the bad art on the famous television network. If a person is innocence, the beauty of the soul shrines forth, not in a sensual manner, but in a clear simplicity. Both the Hebrew writers and the Greeks understood simplicity are revealing innocence.
David claims his innocence, having been purified by God. David is the man in the Old Testament "whose heart was most like God's" or "a man after God's own heart." Love in him was purified so that he could experience what we are all called to experience, a renewed innocence which reveals a beauty of the soul, mind, and heart.
David is referring not to the temple, which was not built yet, but to the Tent of Glory, the place of the Ark of the Covenant. But he was also referring to his own soul.
It is not until the Incarnation that most men, not the chosen few prophets of the Old Testament, understood the complete renewal of the mind and body, the heart and soul, through Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
If you have friends who hate beauty, beware.
Second, to confuse beauty with ugliness is a sign of the decadence of our times. So much music, clothing, architecture, art is glorifying ugliness and not God, who is Beauty.
When I visited England in 2011, after being gone many years, I was shocked at one thing. The women had stopped wearing skirts and dresses and were dressing like American women in trousers and those jackets I call "athletic wear". I had a strange experience in Walsingham that summer of watching hundreds of women pilgrims getting out of coaches with their spouses and I could not tell who was a woman and who was a man.
Now, in Europe, skirts and dresses and "being feminine" are "in" again. God created women to grace the world with beauty. Our Lady is the epitome of grace and beauty.
The soul is reflected in the body. And, David, in the Illuminative State, sees the connection between grace, beauty, innocence and God's glory.
Third, those who are on the path to perfection re-discover beauty if they have lost it. I have seen women change in their walk to God and perfection. They set aside "pants" and begin to wear women's clothing. They are not obsessed with make-up but with pleasing God in every way-in their minds, their bodies, their hearts, their souls. Every woman I know who harbored self-hatred in some way, or did not have a loving relationship with God dressed like a man. They were and are denying their call to be women, to be someone beautiful. When the ego is subdued and the predominant fault faced and conquered, a new beauty is set free in the soul, the Beauty of the Indwelling of the Trinity.
It is said of St. Bernard of Clairvaux that he was an exceedingly handsome man. God chose him to renew an order which went back to the basics. Stephen Harding's Cistercians moved away from the excesses of Cluny. But, beauty was not thrown out in minimalism. The beauty of the chant and the words of the Divine Office, the beauty of the Rule of St. Benedictine all came to fruition in Bernard's sermons on the Song of Songs, proof of his Unitive State.
Like the Greeks, the Benedictine Rule, and, by extension, the Cistercian Rule, show us beauty in order.
David understood this order as well. Go back and read the section of the psalm above.
and I am well pleased with thy truth.
My foot hath stood in the direct way: in the churches I will bless thee, O Lord.
A people who do not value or see the ideal of beauty as from God are a people with shriveled hearts. Catholics whose lives do not reflect order in their day cannot be pursuing God, but themselves and the maker of disorder. Remember that the maker of disorder, the first disobedient creature, perverts and lies and cheats to get a soul. And, he horribly rejoices in ugliness and sin.
Those who pursue perfection will become more beautiful.
Look at Psalm 44:
[1] Unto the end, for them that shall be changed, for the sons of Core, for understanding. A canticle for the Beloved. [2] My heart hath uttered a good word I speak my works to the king; My tongue is the pen of a scrivener that writeth swiftly. [3] Thou art beautiful above the sons of men: grace is poured abroad in thy lips; therefore hath God blessed thee for ever. [4] Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O thou most mighty. [5] With thy comeliness and thy beauty set out, proceed prosperously, and reign. Because of truth and meekness and justice: and thy right hand shall conduct thee wonderfully.
This is a prophetic psalm referring to Christ. He is the Beloved. The psalmist experienced Beauty, in God. Grace and beauty, blessing and reign, through truth, meekness and justice. These are clearly words of one in the Illuminative State.
[6] Thy arrows are sharp: under thee shall people fall, into the hearts of the king' s enemies. [7] Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. [8] Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. [9] Myrrh and stacte and cassia perfume thy garments, from the ivory houses: out of which [10] The daughters of kings have delighted thee in thy glory. The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety.
So, one is reminded strongly of the Songs of Songs, the great love song of God's love for each person.
[11] Hearken, O daughter, and see, and incline thy ear: and forget thy people and thy father' s house. [12] And the king shall greatly desire thy beauty; for he is the Lord thy God, and him they shall adore. [13] And the daughters of Tyre with gifts, yea, all the rich among the people, shall entreat thy countenance. [14] All the glory of the king' s daughter is within in golden borders, [15] Clothed round about with varieties. After her shall virgins be brought to the king: her neighbours shall be brought to thee.
We must all forget our "father's house", which is the heritage of Adam, the sin of the old man in us, and for some, it literally means leaving home and finding God outside the family. It does mean detachment, which is learned in the Dark Night. It means an objectivity, and a total following of Christ.
[16] They shall be brought with gladness and rejoicing: they shall be brought into the temple of the king. [17] Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee: thou shalt make them princes over all the earth. [18] They shall remember thy name throughout all generations. Therefore shall people praise thee for ever; yea, for ever and ever.
A sign of the Illuminative State is joy. One is now centered on Christ and not on the self. The ego is gone.
For those who have settled for sensuality instead of beauty, this path is not found. For those who follow Christ into the desert and out again, into the temple of the king, from the Dark Night to the Illuminative State, these words belong to them as well as to David.
If one is confused about beauty, look to Mary. Look to the fact that the soul is the form of the body.
Why have women and men chosen ugliness? Because they are trapped in some type of sin.
Why have some artists succumbed to a sort of political correctness regarding the avoidance of depicting beauty? Because they do not understand the route of perfection and the goal of perfection.
to be continued...
Saturday, 16 August 2014
When We Saw The Faces of Saints
I have studied art all my life. In grade school, I had fantastic nuns who taught us art appreciated from Fourth Grade on up and Introduction to Basic Art. My family visited art galleries regularly, and I took art lessons at the local gallery as a young girl. In college, I was an art minor until I discovered philosophy and switched minors. I have sketched and painted off and on, when I could afford the art supplies. I just gave away two of my easels.
I have taught Art Appreciation and Art History both in high school and in college, as I was asked to do so, even though my main areas are history, theology and philosophy. I loved it. I created an introduction to art class at a high school for bored seniors. Most were guys and they loved it, after some initial murmuring. Art is part of the true Montessori Method, and I had art in my own Montessori school.
Teaching the History of Art at the college level proved to be a treat! I loved every minute of a Humanities Course I taught which included Art History and Music History. Can one imagine getting paid to study and present such fun courses?
One thing I have noticed when studying and and teaching art has been the change in faces painted by the masters.
In the earliest days of portraiture or iconography, in depictions of the saints and the Holy Family, in Crucifixion paintings and paintings of the Scourging and the Crowning of Thrones, one can see a progression of facial expressions in the good and the bad "characters" of those paintings.
One of the things I noticed was that even the secular painters, those doing it for patrons or money, had insights into the soul which have been lost in modern times.
Yes, in our years of psychology and analysis, we have lost the insights into how to portray holiness and sheer evil.
Even Caravaggio, perhaps my favorite painter, understood the good, the bad and the lukewarm. Not a saint himself, and pained by an intemperate personality, this genius still could capture the holiness in the face of Christ, St. John and others. How is it that we have lost this sensitivity, this discernment?
We have, as artists, had to face to unfortunate truths in the past 200 years of painting. One is the demise of the person as a topic of interest, even Christ, and the other is the emphasis on the artist's feelings rather than those of the subject matter.
When I lived in Canada, I followed the Toronto International Art Show on the radio, as much of it, at that time, was followed by a certain station. In one interview, a young female artist shared her theory of art. It was this. That art was the expression of the feelings of the artist. Period.
The highly intelligent interviewer pushed this relativistic and subjective philosophy until the young woman finally said that even if she put a splotch of mud on a wooden board, that was art and worthy to be hung in the Toronto Show.
Like the interviewer, I gasped. Mud on a board.
Well, I knew from years of art stalking that the pursuit of beauty was out the window, that political statement art was "in" and that art was practically anything a so-called artist wanted it to be. I remember the students at Notre Dame when I was there making fun of a Christo exhibit by wrapping up the statue of the founder, Father Edward Sorin. Such is art criticism. It was hysterically funny, but the administration was not amused.
Art became propaganda under the Tudors and that idea spread throughout Europe, coming to America way before Stalin and Hitler magnified the problem. Propagandist art became popular again in the sixties, as did pop-art and all kinds of manifestations of the decadence of the modern artistic brain.
We had a respite with the excellent Sister Wendy, who was not afraid to call rubbish rubbish and who could beauty in certain paintings which baffled some critics.
But, in recent times, the purpose of art has been to shock, to "reveal" whatever, and not to praise God or show the dignity of man.
Sadly, the artists did lose their way be separating religion from art and philosophy from the pencil and paintbrush.
Not that I want artists to be philosophers, but an artist has a duty to think as well as feel and the best did: da Vinci, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, and so forth. Artists who are anti-intellectual usually create sentimentality, which, sadly in the Christian world, sells too well.
But the hay-day of sentimental Christian art may be waning, at last. The eighties saw the worst of it, with Evangelical artists taking the pencil and paintbrush into the realm of emotive art, which only appeals to the appetites and not to the intellect. In a way, we have been through the worst of emo Christian art.
But, not EWTN in the 2013 re-do of the mysteries of the rosary.
To whom and to what are they appealing on the staff? Excellent Christian art must appeal to reason and not merely the emotions. It must transcend and be universal and not "subjective" or "personal".
I had the hunch that some of the models for Mary were someone's daughter or wife. Not every model can be a "Mary". Only someone who understands the face of holiness can paint a convincing Mary, Jesus, Joseph.
And, some of the portraits of those people are not exhibiting holiness but sensuality.
It is hard to find an innocent to paint. The elders of our tradition manage. Why? I think more saints walked the earth.
Even young people, even children lose their innocence so early now because, mainly, of television and computer games. Women have been so brainwashed by the feminist lie that few have truly female faces. The face of a woman can capture some of the purity of a saint, if that woman "has it in her".
I am not sure we shall see great Catholic art ever again. Perhaps there is a reason for this. We have lost the time when we saw the faces of saints and could discern holiness.
A beautiful woman, indeed, has a beautiful soul. There are objective standards for beauty in the West. The relativists and subjectivists have destroyed objective female beauty in art. But, God knows what it is and He has shown it to us in the person of His Mother.
I have taught Art Appreciation and Art History both in high school and in college, as I was asked to do so, even though my main areas are history, theology and philosophy. I loved it. I created an introduction to art class at a high school for bored seniors. Most were guys and they loved it, after some initial murmuring. Art is part of the true Montessori Method, and I had art in my own Montessori school.
Teaching the History of Art at the college level proved to be a treat! I loved every minute of a Humanities Course I taught which included Art History and Music History. Can one imagine getting paid to study and present such fun courses?
One thing I have noticed when studying and and teaching art has been the change in faces painted by the masters.
In the earliest days of portraiture or iconography, in depictions of the saints and the Holy Family, in Crucifixion paintings and paintings of the Scourging and the Crowning of Thrones, one can see a progression of facial expressions in the good and the bad "characters" of those paintings.
One of the things I noticed was that even the secular painters, those doing it for patrons or money, had insights into the soul which have been lost in modern times.
Yes, in our years of psychology and analysis, we have lost the insights into how to portray holiness and sheer evil.
Even Caravaggio, perhaps my favorite painter, understood the good, the bad and the lukewarm. Not a saint himself, and pained by an intemperate personality, this genius still could capture the holiness in the face of Christ, St. John and others. How is it that we have lost this sensitivity, this discernment?
We have, as artists, had to face to unfortunate truths in the past 200 years of painting. One is the demise of the person as a topic of interest, even Christ, and the other is the emphasis on the artist's feelings rather than those of the subject matter.
When I lived in Canada, I followed the Toronto International Art Show on the radio, as much of it, at that time, was followed by a certain station. In one interview, a young female artist shared her theory of art. It was this. That art was the expression of the feelings of the artist. Period.
The highly intelligent interviewer pushed this relativistic and subjective philosophy until the young woman finally said that even if she put a splotch of mud on a wooden board, that was art and worthy to be hung in the Toronto Show.
Like the interviewer, I gasped. Mud on a board.
Well, I knew from years of art stalking that the pursuit of beauty was out the window, that political statement art was "in" and that art was practically anything a so-called artist wanted it to be. I remember the students at Notre Dame when I was there making fun of a Christo exhibit by wrapping up the statue of the founder, Father Edward Sorin. Such is art criticism. It was hysterically funny, but the administration was not amused.
Art became propaganda under the Tudors and that idea spread throughout Europe, coming to America way before Stalin and Hitler magnified the problem. Propagandist art became popular again in the sixties, as did pop-art and all kinds of manifestations of the decadence of the modern artistic brain.
We had a respite with the excellent Sister Wendy, who was not afraid to call rubbish rubbish and who could beauty in certain paintings which baffled some critics.
But, in recent times, the purpose of art has been to shock, to "reveal" whatever, and not to praise God or show the dignity of man.
Sadly, the artists did lose their way be separating religion from art and philosophy from the pencil and paintbrush.
Not that I want artists to be philosophers, but an artist has a duty to think as well as feel and the best did: da Vinci, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, and so forth. Artists who are anti-intellectual usually create sentimentality, which, sadly in the Christian world, sells too well.
But the hay-day of sentimental Christian art may be waning, at last. The eighties saw the worst of it, with Evangelical artists taking the pencil and paintbrush into the realm of emotive art, which only appeals to the appetites and not to the intellect. In a way, we have been through the worst of emo Christian art.
But, not EWTN in the 2013 re-do of the mysteries of the rosary.
To whom and to what are they appealing on the staff? Excellent Christian art must appeal to reason and not merely the emotions. It must transcend and be universal and not "subjective" or "personal".
I had the hunch that some of the models for Mary were someone's daughter or wife. Not every model can be a "Mary". Only someone who understands the face of holiness can paint a convincing Mary, Jesus, Joseph.
And, some of the portraits of those people are not exhibiting holiness but sensuality.
It is hard to find an innocent to paint. The elders of our tradition manage. Why? I think more saints walked the earth.
Even young people, even children lose their innocence so early now because, mainly, of television and computer games. Women have been so brainwashed by the feminist lie that few have truly female faces. The face of a woman can capture some of the purity of a saint, if that woman "has it in her".
I am not sure we shall see great Catholic art ever again. Perhaps there is a reason for this. We have lost the time when we saw the faces of saints and could discern holiness.
A beautiful woman, indeed, has a beautiful soul. There are objective standards for beauty in the West. The relativists and subjectivists have destroyed objective female beauty in art. But, God knows what it is and He has shown it to us in the person of His Mother.
Continuing Art Critiques
Years ago, I was tutoring a tweenie in religion in her home. Her mother was home schooling. WE did a section on Our Lady and I told her about the customs of the Jewish women at the time of Christ. We talked about the Circumcision of Christ as part of the Presentation of the Temple. We discussed the two Passovers in John. She was ahead of most children her age and loved Bible History.
After one class, the mother of the house came to me and told me I was fired as a tutor. I was shocked at the abruptness of the announcement. She told me that I had taught her daughter that Jesus and Mary were Jews. The woman's husband was racist and he never wanted his daughter to discuss Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the apostles as being Jewish.
I left with a sad heart. I had known the mother for years, but I never knew her husband's deep seated antisemitism until then. The denial of the truth won the day.
Sadly, some of the new paintings used for the mysteries on EWTN have dropped the Jewishness of both Jesus and Mary. I do not understand this.
Because of time, I have only two more criticisms. There may be cause for more, but I can only state these two today.
One of the most disturbing image is that of Christ is shown "crawling" out of the tomb at the Resurrection in that Glorious Mystery in a modern depiction. The artist has made no attempt to understand or portray a glorified body. In fact, the body is not beautiful, but contorted, ugly. The body reminds one of paintings of Sisyphus, not Christ. All art should be in context, the cultural context of centuries of art to some extent. Some of the new art reveals ignorance of Catholic symbolism and pagan symbolism. Distortion is not from God, as it purposefully deceives. I do not think the artists I am criticizing want to deceive, but they do distort.
Now, the revelation of the glorified body is hard for us to understand, but we must take St. Paul's words on the glorification of the body, and the fact that the disciples did not recognize Christ on the road to Emmaus until the breaking of the bread.
Christ is not to be depicted merely as some superhero who has overcome a fight, but as far as possible, as the God-Man in a glorified body; yes, with the scars of the Crucifixion, but not as a human looks normally. The Transfiguration scared the apostles and that episode prefigured the Resurrection.
I paint and some of the artists who are doing the new interpretations have great talent, but some do not understand Christ or Christology.
Here are some passages from the greatest Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm
But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (XP, 82, 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection."
Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power." Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food.
And
I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply to Objection 1. Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
To not try and show Christ in the splendor of glory is to misrepresent the Resurrection. That event was not a "resuscitation" but a resurrection.
I shall continue with the second one in the next post...
After one class, the mother of the house came to me and told me I was fired as a tutor. I was shocked at the abruptness of the announcement. She told me that I had taught her daughter that Jesus and Mary were Jews. The woman's husband was racist and he never wanted his daughter to discuss Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the apostles as being Jewish.
I left with a sad heart. I had known the mother for years, but I never knew her husband's deep seated antisemitism until then. The denial of the truth won the day.
Sadly, some of the new paintings used for the mysteries on EWTN have dropped the Jewishness of both Jesus and Mary. I do not understand this.
Because of time, I have only two more criticisms. There may be cause for more, but I can only state these two today.
One of the most disturbing image is that of Christ is shown "crawling" out of the tomb at the Resurrection in that Glorious Mystery in a modern depiction. The artist has made no attempt to understand or portray a glorified body. In fact, the body is not beautiful, but contorted, ugly. The body reminds one of paintings of Sisyphus, not Christ. All art should be in context, the cultural context of centuries of art to some extent. Some of the new art reveals ignorance of Catholic symbolism and pagan symbolism. Distortion is not from God, as it purposefully deceives. I do not think the artists I am criticizing want to deceive, but they do distort.
Now, the revelation of the glorified body is hard for us to understand, but we must take St. Paul's words on the glorification of the body, and the fact that the disciples did not recognize Christ on the road to Emmaus until the breaking of the bread.
Christ is not to be depicted merely as some superhero who has overcome a fight, but as far as possible, as the God-Man in a glorified body; yes, with the scars of the Crucifixion, but not as a human looks normally. The Transfiguration scared the apostles and that episode prefigured the Resurrection.
I paint and some of the artists who are doing the new interpretations have great talent, but some do not understand Christ or Christology.
Here are some passages from the greatest Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm
But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later (XP, 82, 1), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection."
Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power." Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food.
And
I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply to Objection 1. Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
To not try and show Christ in the splendor of glory is to misrepresent the Resurrection. That event was not a "resuscitation" but a resurrection.
I shall continue with the second one in the next post...
Friday, 15 August 2014
Art Critique, Again
All of us who paint, paint in a context. We either paint in Western traditions, or Eastern traditions, Oriental or African traditions, and so on.
We do not paint in a vacuum. We may choose to depart from centuries of symbolism, but we cannot entirely do that without destroying history, symbolism and imagery. The desconstructionists and post-deconstructionists do this in philosophy and linguistics-destroy the meaning of word and, therefore, destroy context and the search for meaning.
There is no artist who can create something "new" as only God can create out of nothing (poesis), while artists only imitate (mimesis). We, creatures ourselves, "make" art which is already in the mind of God.
Now, there is demonic art, as well as good art. There is art which is pornographic, violent, and prurient. There has been in my lifetime many examples of blasphemous art. One thinks of the horrible statue of the Holy Virgin Mary with elephant dung as part of the depiction. It was rightly declaimed as rude and an insult to Catholics. The use of fetuses in art in England when I was there almost thirty years ago was another example of "statement art" which was horrible and most likely satanic.
But, Christian artists can make mistakes, gross errors of judgement, by ignoring the symbolism and imagery of the last two millennia. David Jones wrote of "The Break", the time in the early Twentieth Century, when art was separated from Western symbolism.
I found this to be true when I was teaching a class on the literature of the Holy Grail. Some students did not know what a chalice was, what the word meant. They knew only the word "cup".
The great symbolism of the Holy Grail cannot be taught without context and the same is true of reading Dante, or Eliot or Jones and many others.
When an artist paints Christ or Mary, there are hundreds of clues which one can read which are like shorthand, telling us the meaning in a painting. Icons are full of these clues. To ignore or purposefully distort these ancient images and symbols indicates a Protestant or secular mindset.
Why show the Wedding Feast at Cana with customs which were not known at the time, or without the traditional symbolism? Why attempt something new just to seem trendy or to supposedly "appeal" to modern, contemporary life? We do not learn anything about Christ and Mary out of context. The Scriptures give us the context. They were Jews, living in a very ordered and stratified culture, plus enduring Roman civilization and conquest.
For example, to depict Our Lady as controlling the entire event of the changing of the water into wine misses the entire point of the event. "Do whatever HE tells you"....Not, "Do whatever I tell you." Mary would have not be prominent after Christ entered into the action, and the older paintings which show her in the background or off to the side make this point.
Small hints in a painting or drawing point to truths and realities of the mind, heart and spirit.
I can tell a modern Protestant painting of the Baptism of Christ, done by someone who believes in the heresy of Christ not knowing He was God until that moment, from a Catholic one, which depicts the humility of Christ in the Presence of the Trinity from all time. All types of hints show us the beliefs of painters.
To show Christ as an Arab is absolutely wrong. He was a Jew and still is as Man of that ethnic group. There is no such thing as a "cosmic Christ" or a Chinese Christ. That Mary has appeared to some as a member of an ethnic group has to do with God allowing Mary to appear to the senses of the person who is witnessing the apparition. So, Our Lady of Guadalupe reveals Mary as an Aztec princess, with many symbols and images to show she is the Mother of God.
But for a Western painter to show Christ as someone other than He is begs the question of whether this artist actually has a relationship with Christ.
Now, missionaries may show Christ as an Inuit Baby in the Manger, but at some point, they would teach Christ as in the line of David, of the Royal House, with a genealogy which includes some Gentiles, like Ruth the Moabitess.
To deny Christ's Jewishness is racist at worst and mythology at best.
For artists to take chances or push the envelope regarding the depictions of Christ and His Mother seems not to be the reason for painting. Painting is an act of prayer, or adoration. Those who paint icons know this. One goes to Mass, Adoration, prays and fasts before "writing" an icon.
Sadly, EWTN missed a great opportunity for teaching about the God-Man, about the Incarnation and the truths of the New Testament times in the series of new paintings in the mysteries.
I hope never to see them again. Some are actually disturbing in their falsity. Some are misguided attempts to be inclusive. Some are just not "good" art and many have left the 2,000 year heritage of images and symbols at our command, our shorthand in painting.
Father Z. just highlighted a magnificent print depicting the Wedding Feast at Cana in Japanese terms. But, the real symbolism is still there. The artist has not changed the role of Mary or Christ. There are six wine amphorae, shown as beautiful Ming-like ware. But, the spirit of the work is that of the Scripture passage. There is Christian imagery on the screen. Inculuration is not the same as distortion.
EWTN is an American company. It ministers around the world, but mostly to the English speaking world. I could bet that most of those who watch EWTN are Americans.
I cannot understand dropping centuries of richness for the sake of appeal. It does not work.
We do not paint in a vacuum. We may choose to depart from centuries of symbolism, but we cannot entirely do that without destroying history, symbolism and imagery. The desconstructionists and post-deconstructionists do this in philosophy and linguistics-destroy the meaning of word and, therefore, destroy context and the search for meaning.
There is no artist who can create something "new" as only God can create out of nothing (poesis), while artists only imitate (mimesis). We, creatures ourselves, "make" art which is already in the mind of God.
Now, there is demonic art, as well as good art. There is art which is pornographic, violent, and prurient. There has been in my lifetime many examples of blasphemous art. One thinks of the horrible statue of the Holy Virgin Mary with elephant dung as part of the depiction. It was rightly declaimed as rude and an insult to Catholics. The use of fetuses in art in England when I was there almost thirty years ago was another example of "statement art" which was horrible and most likely satanic.
But, Christian artists can make mistakes, gross errors of judgement, by ignoring the symbolism and imagery of the last two millennia. David Jones wrote of "The Break", the time in the early Twentieth Century, when art was separated from Western symbolism.
I found this to be true when I was teaching a class on the literature of the Holy Grail. Some students did not know what a chalice was, what the word meant. They knew only the word "cup".
The great symbolism of the Holy Grail cannot be taught without context and the same is true of reading Dante, or Eliot or Jones and many others.
When an artist paints Christ or Mary, there are hundreds of clues which one can read which are like shorthand, telling us the meaning in a painting. Icons are full of these clues. To ignore or purposefully distort these ancient images and symbols indicates a Protestant or secular mindset.
Why show the Wedding Feast at Cana with customs which were not known at the time, or without the traditional symbolism? Why attempt something new just to seem trendy or to supposedly "appeal" to modern, contemporary life? We do not learn anything about Christ and Mary out of context. The Scriptures give us the context. They were Jews, living in a very ordered and stratified culture, plus enduring Roman civilization and conquest.
For example, to depict Our Lady as controlling the entire event of the changing of the water into wine misses the entire point of the event. "Do whatever HE tells you"....Not, "Do whatever I tell you." Mary would have not be prominent after Christ entered into the action, and the older paintings which show her in the background or off to the side make this point.
Small hints in a painting or drawing point to truths and realities of the mind, heart and spirit.
I can tell a modern Protestant painting of the Baptism of Christ, done by someone who believes in the heresy of Christ not knowing He was God until that moment, from a Catholic one, which depicts the humility of Christ in the Presence of the Trinity from all time. All types of hints show us the beliefs of painters.
To show Christ as an Arab is absolutely wrong. He was a Jew and still is as Man of that ethnic group. There is no such thing as a "cosmic Christ" or a Chinese Christ. That Mary has appeared to some as a member of an ethnic group has to do with God allowing Mary to appear to the senses of the person who is witnessing the apparition. So, Our Lady of Guadalupe reveals Mary as an Aztec princess, with many symbols and images to show she is the Mother of God.
But for a Western painter to show Christ as someone other than He is begs the question of whether this artist actually has a relationship with Christ.
Now, missionaries may show Christ as an Inuit Baby in the Manger, but at some point, they would teach Christ as in the line of David, of the Royal House, with a genealogy which includes some Gentiles, like Ruth the Moabitess.
To deny Christ's Jewishness is racist at worst and mythology at best.
For artists to take chances or push the envelope regarding the depictions of Christ and His Mother seems not to be the reason for painting. Painting is an act of prayer, or adoration. Those who paint icons know this. One goes to Mass, Adoration, prays and fasts before "writing" an icon.
Sadly, EWTN missed a great opportunity for teaching about the God-Man, about the Incarnation and the truths of the New Testament times in the series of new paintings in the mysteries.
I hope never to see them again. Some are actually disturbing in their falsity. Some are misguided attempts to be inclusive. Some are just not "good" art and many have left the 2,000 year heritage of images and symbols at our command, our shorthand in painting.
Father Z. just highlighted a magnificent print depicting the Wedding Feast at Cana in Japanese terms. But, the real symbolism is still there. The artist has not changed the role of Mary or Christ. There are six wine amphorae, shown as beautiful Ming-like ware. But, the spirit of the work is that of the Scripture passage. There is Christian imagery on the screen. Inculuration is not the same as distortion.
EWTN is an American company. It ministers around the world, but mostly to the English speaking world. I could bet that most of those who watch EWTN are Americans.
I cannot understand dropping centuries of richness for the sake of appeal. It does not work.
Truth And Heresy in Art And A Plea to EWTN
Read today's Gospel again on Christ saying that those who have faith in Him are more blessed than the physical bearing in His Mother's Womb. But, think differently on this. Think like St. Augustine, whose sermon on this passage reminds us that Mary bore Christ through Faith, not through the physical relationship with a man. Christ, the Word of God, entered Mary, and all who listened are blessed, though not in the degree Mary is. Mary's obedience in faith at the Annunciation brought forth the "yes" to the Incarnation. St. John Paul II echoes this in Redemptoris Mater.
43. The Church "becomes herself a mother by accepting God's word with fidelity."122 Like Mary, who first believed by accepting the word of God revealed to her at the Annunciation and by remaining faithful to that word in all her trials even unto the Cross, so too the Church becomes a mother when, accepting with fidelity the word of God, "by her preaching and by baptism she brings forth to a new and immortal life children who are conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God."123 This "maternal" characteristic of the Church was expressed in a particularly vivid way by the Apostle to the Gentiles when he wrote: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19) These words of Saint Paul contain an interesting sign of the early Church's awareness of her own motherhood, linked to her apostolic service to mankind. This awareness enabled and still enables the Church to see the mystery of her life and mission modelled upon the example of the Mother of the Son, who is "the first-born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29
Mary's relationship with Christ is of the order of perfection, the unitive state to the utmost degree. As fully perfect from her Incarnation, Mary had no sin, no concupiscence and no effects of Original Sin.
I make a plea to EWTN, which in view of the Teaching Magisterium, depicts Mary as not perfect and not Ever-Virgin.
I was visiting someone who has EWTN on their cable television. When the rosary came on, I was asked to join the woman and I said, of course, yes.
However, by the end of the rosary, I was saddened and disturbed to the point where I have to write this post.
Some of the art used to depict some of the mysteries include heretical references. In other words, the paintings are "Protestant".
Now, a Catholic knows the Gospel and the teaching of the Church regarding Mary. I want to clarify and argue against some of the depictions of Mary in the art used by EWTN.
First of all, I shall start with the most obvious and the least complicated. In all of the apparitions of Mary, the saints who saw her said over and over that she was the most beautiful woman they had ever seen. Some of the artwork in the EWTN mysteries shows Mary not only as not beautiful, but plain and even ugly.
This is contrary to almost 2,000 years of iconography and paintings, sculptures and friezes of Our Lady. To depict her as ugly or plain is not in keeping with tradition with a small t, nor with the wisdom handed down within the Catholic culture. Nor are the paintings in keeping with the approved apparitions, even Fatima and Lourdes, where the saints said that the Woman was beautiful.
Here is St. John Paul II on the art pertaining to Mary from Redemptoris Mater:
33. This year there occurs the twelfth centenary of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787). Putting an end to the wellknown controversy about the cult of sacred images, this Council defined that, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers and the universal tradition of the Church, there could be exposed for the veneration of the faithful, together with the Cross, also images of the Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, in churches and houses and at the roadside.84 This custom has been maintained in the whole of the East and also in the West. Images of the Virgin have a place of honor in churches and houses. In them Mary is represented in a number of ways: as the throne of God carrying the Lord and giving him to humanity (Theotokos); as the way that leads to Christ and manifests him (Hodegetria); as a praying figure in an attitude of intercession and as a sign of the divine presence on the journey of the faithful until the day of the Lord (Deesis); as the protectress who stretches out her mantle over the peoples (Pokrov), or as the merciful Virgin of tenderness (Eleousa). She is usually represented with her Son, the child Jesus, in her arms: it is the relationship with the Son which glorifies the Mother. Sometimes she embraces him with tenderness (Glykophilousa); at other times she is a hieratic figure, apparently rapt in contemplation of him who is the Lord of history (cf. Rev. 5:9-14).85
It is also appropriate to mention the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir, which continually accompanied the pilgrimage of faith of the peoples of ancient Rus'. The first Millennium of the conversion of those noble lands to Christianity is approaching: lands of humble folk, of thinkers and of saints. The Icons are still venerated in the Ukraine, in Byelorussia and in Russia under various titles. They are images which witness to the faith and spirit of prayer of that people, who sense the presence and protection of the Mother of God. In these Icons the Virgin shines as the image of divine beauty, the abode of Eternal Wisdom, the figure of the one who prays, the prototype of contemplation, the image of glory: she who even in her earthly life possessed the spiritual knowledge inaccessible to human reasoning and who attained through faith the most sublime knowledge. I also recall the Icon of the Virgin of the Cenacle, praying with the Apostles as they awaited the Holy Spirit: could she not become the sign of hope for all those who, in fraternal dialogue, wish to deepen their obedience of faith?
34. Such a wealth of praise, built up by the different forms of the Church's great tradition, could help us to hasten the day when the Church can begin once more to breathe fully with her "two lungs," the East and the West. As I have often said, this is more than ever necessary today. It would be an effective aid in furthering the progress of the dialogue already taking place between the Catholic Church and the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the West.86 It would also be the way for the pilgrim Church to sing and to live more perfectly her "Magnificat."
My second point of contention, which is much more serious to consider, is that Mary is an Ever-Virgin, before, during and after the Birth of Christ. In some of the paintings on EWTN, Mary is seen doing the breathing exercises for birth and has a midwife. There was no midwife and Mary did not experience a natural Birth of Christ, but a supernatural Birth. I was shocked, and so was the older woman, in her eighties, sitting next to me. She said, "I was taught Mary was in ecstasy". I agreed, and said that was the teaching I received as well. These several depictions of the midwife are scandalous, as is the specific on showing Mary doing the birth-exercises for breathing. This is a Protestant view of the Virgin Birth. Protestants do not understand the way of perfection on this earth, which is why they do not honor Mary or other saints. They do not understand the Mystical Marriage.
As I was taught in school and in theology class, through the long teaching of the Church, Mary's hymen was never broken. Christ miraculously was born, and Mary was in ecstasy when the Incarnate God came into the world. Many taught pre-Vatican II heard this in grade-school and in high school, if not college. Catholics always understood her as the new-Eve, not experiencing the curse of Genesis 3:16, To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband' s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
The earliest painting, and most in the Medieval and Renaissance show Mary in contemplation at the Birth of Christ. She did not need pain management techniques. The Birth of Christ was miraculous.
Mary was free of Original Sin and all its consequences. That is one reason we celebrate today, the Assumption. She was freed from corruption in any way.
And, the Popes back us up. Here are a few references, which I found through the Catechism of the Catholic Church entry on the Virgin Birth:
from Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII.
110. Venerable Brethren, may the Virgin Mother of God hear the prayers of Our paternal heart - which are yours also - and obtain for all a true love of the Church - she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who "in the name of the whole human race" gave her consent "for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature."[216] Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him newly born, as Prophet, King and Priest to those who, from among Jews and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him. Furthermore, her only Son, condescending to His mother's prayer in "Cana of Galilee," performed the miracle by which "his disciples believed in Him."[217] It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church";[218] and she continues to have for the Mystical Body of Christ, born of the pierced Heart of the Savior,[219] the same motherly care and ardent love with which she cherished and fed the Infant Jesus in the crib.
from Ineffabilis Deus, from Pope Pius IX, on Mary's body being inviolate.
In like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.
The Annunciation
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]
Mary Compared with Eve
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.
Biblical Figures
Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life -- not of death -- the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.
Explicit Affirmation . . .
As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."[25]-unmistakable evidence that she was crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.
. . . Of a Super Eminent Sanctity
To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel[26] made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.
from Redemptoris Mater of St. John Paul II
The Coptic and Ethiopian traditions were introduced to this contemplation of the mystery of Mary by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and in their turn they have celebrated it with a profuse poetic blossoming.81 The poetic genius of St. Ephrem the Syrian, called "the lyre of the Holy Spirit," tirelessly sang of Mary, leaving a still living mark on the whole tradition of the Syriac Church.82 In his panegyric of the Theotókos, St. Gregory of Narek, one of the outstanding glories of Armenia, with powerful poetic inspiration ponders the different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation, and each of them is for him an occasion to sing and extol the extraordinary dignity and magnificent beauty of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Word made flesh.83
It does not surprise us therefore that Mary occupies a privileged place in the worship or the ancient Oriental Churches with an incomparable abundance of feasts and hymns.
32. In the Byzantine liturgy, in all the hours of the Divine Office, praise of the Mother is linked with praise of her Son and with the praise which, through the Son, is offered up to the Father in the Holy Spirit. In the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom, immediately after the epiclesis the assembled community sings in honor of the Mother of God: "It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God."
from Pope Emeritus, then Benedict XVI, from a General Audience, January 2, 2008:
All other titles attributed to Our Lady are based on her vocation to be the Mother of the Redeemer, the human creature chosen by God to bring about the plan of salvation, centred on the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word. In these days of festivity we have paused to contemplate the depiction of the Nativity in the crib. At the centre of this scene we find the Virgin Mother, who offers the Baby Jesus for the contemplation of all those who come to adore the Saviour: the shepherds, the poor people of Bethlehem, the Magi from the East. Later, on the Feast of the "Presentation" which we celebrate on 2 February, it will be the elderly Simeon and the prophetess Anna who receive the tiny Infant from the hands of his Mother and worship him. The devotion of the Christian people has always considered the Birth of Jesus and the divine motherhood of Mary as two aspects of the same mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, so it has never thought of the Nativity as a thing of the past. We are "contemporaries" of the shepherds, the Magi, of Simeon and of Anna, and as we go with them we are filled with joy, because God wanted to be the God-with-us and has a mother who is our mother.
43. The Church "becomes herself a mother by accepting God's word with fidelity."122 Like Mary, who first believed by accepting the word of God revealed to her at the Annunciation and by remaining faithful to that word in all her trials even unto the Cross, so too the Church becomes a mother when, accepting with fidelity the word of God, "by her preaching and by baptism she brings forth to a new and immortal life children who are conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God."123 This "maternal" characteristic of the Church was expressed in a particularly vivid way by the Apostle to the Gentiles when he wrote: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19) These words of Saint Paul contain an interesting sign of the early Church's awareness of her own motherhood, linked to her apostolic service to mankind. This awareness enabled and still enables the Church to see the mystery of her life and mission modelled upon the example of the Mother of the Son, who is "the first-born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29
Mary's relationship with Christ is of the order of perfection, the unitive state to the utmost degree. As fully perfect from her Incarnation, Mary had no sin, no concupiscence and no effects of Original Sin.
I make a plea to EWTN, which in view of the Teaching Magisterium, depicts Mary as not perfect and not Ever-Virgin.
I was visiting someone who has EWTN on their cable television. When the rosary came on, I was asked to join the woman and I said, of course, yes.
However, by the end of the rosary, I was saddened and disturbed to the point where I have to write this post.
Some of the art used to depict some of the mysteries include heretical references. In other words, the paintings are "Protestant".
Now, a Catholic knows the Gospel and the teaching of the Church regarding Mary. I want to clarify and argue against some of the depictions of Mary in the art used by EWTN.
First of all, I shall start with the most obvious and the least complicated. In all of the apparitions of Mary, the saints who saw her said over and over that she was the most beautiful woman they had ever seen. Some of the artwork in the EWTN mysteries shows Mary not only as not beautiful, but plain and even ugly.
This is contrary to almost 2,000 years of iconography and paintings, sculptures and friezes of Our Lady. To depict her as ugly or plain is not in keeping with tradition with a small t, nor with the wisdom handed down within the Catholic culture. Nor are the paintings in keeping with the approved apparitions, even Fatima and Lourdes, where the saints said that the Woman was beautiful.
Here is St. John Paul II on the art pertaining to Mary from Redemptoris Mater:
33. This year there occurs the twelfth centenary of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787). Putting an end to the wellknown controversy about the cult of sacred images, this Council defined that, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers and the universal tradition of the Church, there could be exposed for the veneration of the faithful, together with the Cross, also images of the Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, in churches and houses and at the roadside.84 This custom has been maintained in the whole of the East and also in the West. Images of the Virgin have a place of honor in churches and houses. In them Mary is represented in a number of ways: as the throne of God carrying the Lord and giving him to humanity (Theotokos); as the way that leads to Christ and manifests him (Hodegetria); as a praying figure in an attitude of intercession and as a sign of the divine presence on the journey of the faithful until the day of the Lord (Deesis); as the protectress who stretches out her mantle over the peoples (Pokrov), or as the merciful Virgin of tenderness (Eleousa). She is usually represented with her Son, the child Jesus, in her arms: it is the relationship with the Son which glorifies the Mother. Sometimes she embraces him with tenderness (Glykophilousa); at other times she is a hieratic figure, apparently rapt in contemplation of him who is the Lord of history (cf. Rev. 5:9-14).85
It is also appropriate to mention the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir, which continually accompanied the pilgrimage of faith of the peoples of ancient Rus'. The first Millennium of the conversion of those noble lands to Christianity is approaching: lands of humble folk, of thinkers and of saints. The Icons are still venerated in the Ukraine, in Byelorussia and in Russia under various titles. They are images which witness to the faith and spirit of prayer of that people, who sense the presence and protection of the Mother of God. In these Icons the Virgin shines as the image of divine beauty, the abode of Eternal Wisdom, the figure of the one who prays, the prototype of contemplation, the image of glory: she who even in her earthly life possessed the spiritual knowledge inaccessible to human reasoning and who attained through faith the most sublime knowledge. I also recall the Icon of the Virgin of the Cenacle, praying with the Apostles as they awaited the Holy Spirit: could she not become the sign of hope for all those who, in fraternal dialogue, wish to deepen their obedience of faith?
34. Such a wealth of praise, built up by the different forms of the Church's great tradition, could help us to hasten the day when the Church can begin once more to breathe fully with her "two lungs," the East and the West. As I have often said, this is more than ever necessary today. It would be an effective aid in furthering the progress of the dialogue already taking place between the Catholic Church and the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the West.86 It would also be the way for the pilgrim Church to sing and to live more perfectly her "Magnificat."
My second point of contention, which is much more serious to consider, is that Mary is an Ever-Virgin, before, during and after the Birth of Christ. In some of the paintings on EWTN, Mary is seen doing the breathing exercises for birth and has a midwife. There was no midwife and Mary did not experience a natural Birth of Christ, but a supernatural Birth. I was shocked, and so was the older woman, in her eighties, sitting next to me. She said, "I was taught Mary was in ecstasy". I agreed, and said that was the teaching I received as well. These several depictions of the midwife are scandalous, as is the specific on showing Mary doing the birth-exercises for breathing. This is a Protestant view of the Virgin Birth. Protestants do not understand the way of perfection on this earth, which is why they do not honor Mary or other saints. They do not understand the Mystical Marriage.
As I was taught in school and in theology class, through the long teaching of the Church, Mary's hymen was never broken. Christ miraculously was born, and Mary was in ecstasy when the Incarnate God came into the world. Many taught pre-Vatican II heard this in grade-school and in high school, if not college. Catholics always understood her as the new-Eve, not experiencing the curse of Genesis 3:16, To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband' s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
The earliest painting, and most in the Medieval and Renaissance show Mary in contemplation at the Birth of Christ. She did not need pain management techniques. The Birth of Christ was miraculous.
Mary was free of Original Sin and all its consequences. That is one reason we celebrate today, the Assumption. She was freed from corruption in any way.
And, the Popes back us up. Here are a few references, which I found through the Catechism of the Catholic Church entry on the Virgin Birth:
from Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII.
110. Venerable Brethren, may the Virgin Mother of God hear the prayers of Our paternal heart - which are yours also - and obtain for all a true love of the Church - she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who "in the name of the whole human race" gave her consent "for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature."[216] Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him newly born, as Prophet, King and Priest to those who, from among Jews and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him. Furthermore, her only Son, condescending to His mother's prayer in "Cana of Galilee," performed the miracle by which "his disciples believed in Him."[217] It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church";[218] and she continues to have for the Mystical Body of Christ, born of the pierced Heart of the Savior,[219] the same motherly care and ardent love with which she cherished and fed the Infant Jesus in the crib.
from Ineffabilis Deus, from Pope Pius IX, on Mary's body being inviolate.
In like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.
The Annunciation
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]
Mary Compared with Eve
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.
Biblical Figures
Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life -- not of death -- the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.
Explicit Affirmation . . .
As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."[25]-unmistakable evidence that she was crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.
. . . Of a Super Eminent Sanctity
To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel[26] made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.
from Redemptoris Mater of St. John Paul II
The Coptic and Ethiopian traditions were introduced to this contemplation of the mystery of Mary by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and in their turn they have celebrated it with a profuse poetic blossoming.81 The poetic genius of St. Ephrem the Syrian, called "the lyre of the Holy Spirit," tirelessly sang of Mary, leaving a still living mark on the whole tradition of the Syriac Church.82 In his panegyric of the Theotókos, St. Gregory of Narek, one of the outstanding glories of Armenia, with powerful poetic inspiration ponders the different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation, and each of them is for him an occasion to sing and extol the extraordinary dignity and magnificent beauty of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Word made flesh.83
It does not surprise us therefore that Mary occupies a privileged place in the worship or the ancient Oriental Churches with an incomparable abundance of feasts and hymns.
32. In the Byzantine liturgy, in all the hours of the Divine Office, praise of the Mother is linked with praise of her Son and with the praise which, through the Son, is offered up to the Father in the Holy Spirit. In the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer of St. John Chrysostom, immediately after the epiclesis the assembled community sings in honor of the Mother of God: "It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God."
from Pope Emeritus, then Benedict XVI, from a General Audience, January 2, 2008:
All other titles attributed to Our Lady are based on her vocation to be the Mother of the Redeemer, the human creature chosen by God to bring about the plan of salvation, centred on the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word. In these days of festivity we have paused to contemplate the depiction of the Nativity in the crib. At the centre of this scene we find the Virgin Mother, who offers the Baby Jesus for the contemplation of all those who come to adore the Saviour: the shepherds, the poor people of Bethlehem, the Magi from the East. Later, on the Feast of the "Presentation" which we celebrate on 2 February, it will be the elderly Simeon and the prophetess Anna who receive the tiny Infant from the hands of his Mother and worship him. The devotion of the Christian people has always considered the Birth of Jesus and the divine motherhood of Mary as two aspects of the same mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, so it has never thought of the Nativity as a thing of the past. We are "contemporaries" of the shepherds, the Magi, of Simeon and of Anna, and as we go with them we are filled with joy, because God wanted to be the God-with-us and has a mother who is our mother.
All the other titles with which the Church honours Our
Lady then derive from the title "Mother of God", but this one is
fundamental.
Let us think of the privilege of the "Immaculate Conception", that is,
of Mary being immune to sin from conception: she was preserved from any
stain of sin because she was to be the Mother of the Redeemer. The same
applies to the title "Our Lady of the Assumption": the One who had
brought forth the Saviour could not be subject to the corruption that
derives from original sin.
And we know that all these privileges were not granted in order to
distance Mary from us but, on the contrary, to bring her close; indeed,
since she was totally with God, this woman is very close to us and helps
us as a mother and a sister.
The unique and unrepeatable position that Mary occupies in the Community
of Believers also stems from her fundamental vocation to being Mother
of the Redeemer.
Precisely as such, Mary is also Mother of the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church. Rightly, therefore, on 21 November 1964 during the
Second Vatican Council, Paul VI solemnly attributed to Mary the title
"Mother of the Church".
One may also look at the Councils of Ephesus and Lateran.
Here is the CCC section to look up. I read footnotes.
I appeal to EWTN to remove the artwork which contradicts the teaching of the Church on Mary's complete virginity and the depictions of her as anything but beautiful.
to be continued...there are other issues as well with some of the other mysteries.
Sunday, 10 August 2014
Still Confusion on Prayer
I have written many times on the confusion in some circles as to the terms "meditation" and
"contemplation". Sadly, even some priests and nuns or sisters, who mean well, and are teaching about prayer, get these types of prayer confused.
I shall outline the differences one more time here. Look at the perfection series and tags marked as below for more posts.
The reason why the distinctions are important is not academic, but rooted in the reality of where a person is in the walk with God.
First of all, meditation is the taking of a Scripture passage and using the active imagination to enter into the Life of Christ. St. Ignatius and other saints taught this method. Meditation for the Catholic must be centered on the Incarnation, and not on anything else, above all, not one's self.
Second, there are two types of contemplation, which can be examined in greater depth through the tags.
The first type is "active contemplation", where one puts one's self in the Presence of God, such as before the Eucharist in the Monstrance and one becomes quiet and focused. In active contemplation, one may contemplate on the Attributes of God, and not on the Scriptures. One is reflecting without the aid of anything else. Again, one can follow the tags to the posts on the Attributes of God.
I do not recommend setting a stage for active contemplation, as one should move beyond the externals.
For example, some teachers insist on active contemplation being done with candles or other symbols.
I strongly recommend only the Crucifix if anything. Why? Because when one practiced active contemplation, one can do it anywhere...in a bus station, or in a train.
One merely needs to go into one's little cell of the mind and heart.
The third type of prayer is "infused contemplation" or "passive contemplation", which is totally a gift from God. One cannot "do" this by will. God comes to the person, either in a very short period of time, or longer times. This is not the same as ecstasy, which is the complete taking over of all the senses and soul in God. Infused contemplation would be happening in the unitive state, or in the later stages of the illuminative state.
I am still concerned, after years of addressing this, that there is confusion. One must follow the stages in the normal course of events. Can God intervene and lead someone directly to infused contemplation? Of course, but that person would be one of extreme purity of heart, mind, and soul.
Do not use these terms in a lax manner. Some priests and nuns or sisters confuse those who come to prayer workshops, or at retreats by mixing up the terms. In the Catholic Church, we have been given a long history of spiritual writings back to the Gospels and Epistles on these types of prayer.
Be careful not to be deceived about these types of prayer. The purity of the pray-er determines the type of prayer. If one is a beginner, meditation grounds one in the Incarnation, which is good.
If one is involved in active contemplation, one has learned how to get rid of extraneous noises and thoughts and focus on Christ and the goodness of God. Contemplation finally leads to the Prayer of Quiet, another misunderstood level, which, if one looks at the posts against Quietism, is not that, but the taking over of the senses and spirit by God, when one is led into the quiet garden of His love.
It is the interior life of the person which determines the level of prayer. In other words, the exterior follows the interior.
Too many people still are confused on the terms, which is why I prefer Garrigou-Lagrange and St. John of the Cross, who are, in my opinion, the clearest on these levels.
In passive contemplation, Christ takes over, even for a few minutes. One knows the difference once one has experienced this.
Some people are brought into passive contemplation when reading, or even listening to music, but it is the Will and action of God, not one's self.
Infused knowledge of the Scriptures can come at all three stages: meditation, active contemplation, and passive contemplation.
Those young saints who were pure of heart, body and soul experienced the higher levels of prayer. Age has nothing to do with it. There are some older people, even elderly, who are still beginners, only saying vocal prayers and not attempting meditation. Sadly, they have been taught, incorrectly, that only nuns, sister, monks and priests do this sort of thing.
So, there are two extremes of faulty teaching: one that the laity should not attempt the levels of prayer, which is against the teaching of the Church; and, two, the sloppiness of definitions which not only confuse people but can lead to deceit.
The devil disguised as an angel of light and watching us daily, carefully, can make one deceived as to the real level of prayer one is attaining. Without the corresponding purification, one is not "otr" to the higher levels or prayer.
And, God wants all to finally come without intermediaries-without other saints or writers, but in the intimate relationship He desires us all to come into through the seeking of perfection.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Attributes continued...
Attributes Continued….
Simplicity must be sought. For some, it comes “naturally,”
or at least, it seems like that. Saints like St. John Vianney or Our Lady Mary
seem to have “natural” simplicity. But, this focus on God is a great grace. It
is not only the grace of humility but the grace of focusing on love.
Love is the answer, as both Julian of Norwich and T. S.
Eliot, who repeats her ideas, note. Love is the answer to all pride and
negativity. Those who complain focus only on themselves and their own grievances.
They have fallen into habits of selfishness, either repeating past hurts or
dwelling on a lack of forgiveness. Love forgives and forgets.
Sometimes such negativity is a sign of depression, or some
mental illness, but mostly, it is a sign of a lack of understanding of the love
of God.
Garrigou-Lagrange states something important: “In us temperament is determined in one
particular direction inclining us either to indulgence or to severity, to a
broad and comprehensive view of things, or to practical details, but never both
ways at once. If, then, the soul with perfect simplicity practices at one and
the same time virtues that are apparently extreme opposites, it is because
almighty God is very intimately present in the soul, impressing His likeness
upon it.”
I pray for these graces.
I think of St. Paul
Can we all desire this gift of freedom, of simplicity in
Christ? Simplicity is one of the
Attributes of God, which is most difficult to understand. Sometimes it is
easier to understand something by looking at the opposite. See my attribute
series.
When I am really old, I want to be peaceful with whatever
comes: greater poverty, illness, weakness, loneliness, whatever.
One does not wait until old age to practice peace. One finds
it early so that it can become a habit, a way of life, the life of being
humble.
To be continued…
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Attributes: Continuation Using St. Angela
Earlier this year, I wrote a bit on the Attributes of God.
As I am finishing up The Book of Divine
Consolation Of The Blessed Angela of Foligno (now saint), I can return to
this theme, using some of her great insights given to her as infused knowledge
from God in her Illuminative and Unitive States.
God revealed Himself to her after her purgation is
extraordinary ways. Like Julian of Norwich, Angela experienced the universe as
God’s creation and the earth as very small. She experienced the great love and
mercy of God, thereby given infused knowledge into His attributes.
So she learned of God as All Goodness, first. Then, she
experienced God as Pure Love and Mercy.
God revealed Himself to her as Beauty. After that, God
showed Himself to her as Invincible Omnipotence, followed by God as
Humility.
What is clear up to this point in her visions and times of
union with God is that she perceived God are pure objectivity.
God then revealed Himself to her as Power. And, then, as the
Trinity in the Eucharist, making her worthy to receive the Trinity, God came to
her.
These are but the beginnings of her consolations and this
pattern fits that of other saints, as well as the listing of stages from
Garrigou-Lagrange. One meditates first, on the Life of Christ, particularly His
Passion. Then, from meditation, one is led to experiencing the Passion in a
deep purgation followed by the sharing of Christ’s own pain.
Following the acceptance of the experience of the sufferings
of Christ, contemplation of the attributes of God occurs. One moves in this
pattern for a reason-purity of heart and complete rejection of all sin happen
before infused contemplation.
By this time, St. Angela
had seen only three visions, but these seem to be long and intense.
Part of these visions is the incomplete revelation of God as
Bridegroom to His Bride, and God told Angela this. He wanted her to hunger and
thirst for Him, so He withheld some of His Love. In later visions, to which I
shall refer in another post to come, God revealed more of His Love. He also
revealed specifics about His Passion.
How wonderful it is that St.
Angela is called “The Teacher of The Theologians” as what she experienced is
what logically, rationally others came to through reason and revelation, rather
than direct experience.
To be continued…
Monday, 5 May 2014
Newman on Some of The Attributes of God
VIII. God All-Sufficient from Meditations
http://www.newmanreader.org/Works/meditations/meditations10.html#doctrine8
Ostende nobis Patrem et sufficit nobis …
Philippe, qui videt Me, videt et Patrem.
Show us the Father, and it is enough for us …
Philip, he that seeth Me, seeth the Father also.
1. THE Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. O adorable mystery which has been from eternity! I adore Thee, O my incomprehensible Creator, before whom I am an atom, a being of yesterday or an hour ago! Go back a few years and I simply did not exist; I was not in being, and things went on without me: but Thou art from eternity; and nothing whatever for one moment could go on without Thee. And from eternity too Thou hast possessed Thy Nature; Thou hast been—this awful glorious mystery—the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Whether we be in existence, or whether we be not, Thou art one and the same always, the Son sufficient for the Father, the Father for the Son—and all other things, in themselves, but vanity. All things once were not, all things might not be, but it would be enough for the Father that He had begotten His co-equal consubstantial Son, and for the Son that He was embraced {367} in the Bosom of the Eternal Father. O adorable mystery! Human reason has not conducted me to it, but I believe. I believe, because Thou hast spoken, O Lord. I joyfully accept Thy word about Thyself. Thou must know what Thou art—and who else? Not I surely, dust and ashes, except so far as Thou tellest me. I take then Thy own witness, O my Creator! and I believe firmly, I repeat after Thee, what I do not understand, because I wish to live a life of faith; and I prefer faith in Thee to trust in myself.
2. O my great God, from eternity Thou wast sufficient for Thyself! The Father was sufficient for the Son, and the Son for the Father; art Thou not then sufficient for me, a poor creature, Thou so great, I so little! I have a double all-sufficiency in the Father and the Son. I will take then St. Philip's word and say, Show us the Father, and it suffices us. It suffices us, for then are we full to overflowing, when we have Thee. O mighty God, strengthen me with Thy strength, console me with Thy everlasting peace, soothe me with the beauty of Thy countenance; enlighten me with Thy uncreated brightness; purify me with the fragrance of Thy ineffable holiness. Bathe me in Thyself, and give me to drink, as far as mortal man may ask, of the rivers of grace which flow from the Father and the Son, the grace of Thy consubstantial, co-eternal Love.
3. O my God, let me never forget this truth—that not only art Thou my Life, but my only Life! Thou art the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Thou {368} art my Life, and the Life of all who live. All men, all I know, all I meet, all I see and hear of, live not unless they live by Thee. They live in Thee, or else they live not at all. No one can be saved out of Thee. Let me never forget this in the business of the day. O give me a true love of souls, of those souls for whom Thou didst die. Teach me to pray for their conversion, to do my part towards effecting it. However able they are, however amiable, however high and distinguished, they cannot be saved unless they have Thee. O my all-sufficient Lord, Thou only sufficest! Thy blood is sufficient for the whole world. As Thou art sufficient for me, so Thou art sufficient for the entire race of Adam. O my Lord Jesus, let Thy Cross be more than sufficient for them, let it be effectual! Let it be effectual for me more than all, lest I "have all and abound," yet bring no fruit to perfection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)