Posted on 03/05/2005 7:15:51 AM PST by AAABEST
No doubt, the artists' patrons were Churchmen when the Church wielded an enormous amount of wealth and temporal power. So their subjects reflect that. It seems entirely appropriate to produce Christian art for places of worship. Nonetheless, a sculpture like David is idealized man (Platonic).
Which Baroque artists are you talking about?
You brought up El Greco and Tintoretto.I put them after the rennaisance. I bring up baroque to represent how the times change and the subject matter and style change as well. And the prchasers of art change. Certainly you would agree that the artists of today aren't following the church by any stretch of the imagination. Their patrons are young men who like to see action movies and libidinous teenyboppers obsessed with anything sexual. Artists have to eat. But I already conceded that the Church was the art consumer at a particular time in history.
You are looking at the post-Vatican II world.
Am not. Marx and Lenin preceded V2, as did the concept of a government sans Church, as in our constitution. V2 has nothing to do with a lot of things that grip the world right now, and a lot of things that grip it preceded V2.
I will grant that Germany had unique problems stemming from World War I, but I would hardly call it the center of Christianity nor of the Church at that time. In any case, it was the abruptness of the collapse of the Church after the Council that is so startling and noticeable--the precipitousness of the decline that is so stunning. No one doubts that the twentieth century was a furious cauldron of mutual hatreds and vice as you indicate--but the Church was in the thick of the fray every step of the way, not giving an inch either to Communism or Nazism. Vocations rose exponentially during this period. Mass attendance held steady somewhere in the high 70 percentile. Missions flourished. Even the popular culture reflected a respect that today would amaze young people--Fulton Sheen was a television star who was more popular than Milton Berle. On the Waterfront was a distinctly Catholic movie--and it was a critical and popular success, winning many oscars. Nor was it an isolated phenomenon. Sound of Music, the Cardinal, The Ten Commandments--all were big hits at the time. So I don't buy any of what you say. It was the Council that caused the abrupt declines in the Church--and at an expedited rate. And the collapse was systemic and in every single category measuring institutional health. All this happened within ten years of the close of Vatican II. There is no getting around it.
***Read Aquinas. He was as apt to cite Aristotle as Scripture. And without scholastic philosophy, you would never have had the flowering of the great universities of Europe.***
Interesting. Paul was able to build his theology without them.
"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom (READ "PHILOSOPHY"), lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (READ "CHRISTIANITY + PHILOSOPHY = POWERLESS CHRISTIANITY")
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise (READ "PHILOSOPHERS"), and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
Where is the one who is wise? (READ PHILOSOPHER) Where is the scribe? Where is the DEBATER of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (READ "... MADE FOOLISH PHILOSOPHY") For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, (READ "THOUGH PHILOSOPHY") it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
For Jews demand signs and GREEKS seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, (READ "PHILOSOPHERS") not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being[c] might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom (READ "CHRIST HIMSELF IS OUR PHILOSOPHY") and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
Thoughts?
You certainly have a rude way of joining a conversation, but I appreciate your interest anyway.
As if all of our greatest artists were of a monolithic, uninspired and secular mind.
Didn't imply that at all. I'm just saying that the great rennaisance artists were neo-classicists and Platonists. The Church didn't teach them how to paint. It merely dictated what to paint-to an extent-for every religious theme there was also a "School of Athens" or "Primavera".
Would you mind explaining how the philosophy of Plato has anything whatsoever do with with the works of Rembrandt?
I never brought up Rembrandt, can't say I'm too familiar with him, but I think it highly unlikely that the Church had anything to do with inspiring his most common subject----himself.
***I will grant that Germany had unique problems stemming from World War I***
As did France...
***it was the abruptness of the collapse of the Church after the Council that is so startling and noticeable***
Agreed. It is very noticable.
***Even the popular culture reflected a respect that today would amaze young people--Fulton Sheen was a television star who was more popular than Milton Berle.***
America is a WHOLE different story. I was addressing Eurpoe.
***All this happened within ten years of the close of Vatican II. There is no getting around it.***
As far as I can see it VII was the RCC's under-the-radar acceptance of the ideas first forged by liberal German theology. This is what I strongly picked up from my readings of Hans Kung.
German theological liberalism eventually gave us amoral Nihilism of the Nazi flavor.
It took about 70 to 100 years. What fruit will VII bear? I don't know.
***Would you mind explaining how the philosophy of Plato has anything whatsoever do with with the works of Rembrandt?
I never brought up Rembrandt,***
Well, Rembrandt was seeking to answer Plato's question, "What is beauty?"
And well after.....you should trumpet the Church's efforts and contributions to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 80's and the rise of democracy in Latin America. Let's not forget Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Phillipines.....come to think of it, the post V2 church has been more an agent for positive political change than the pre-V2 church.
LOL So he kept painting himself.
***So he kept painting himself.****
HA!
But Paul was trained as a Pharisee and was intent on preaching the Gospel of salvation, not on elaborating a theology for the contemplation of scholarly minds. But there is much in Greek thought nevertheless that helped great minds such as Augustine and later Aquinas penetrate theological mysteries which might otherwise have been even more inaccessible than they now are. Classical metaphysics and ontology, for instance, helped Church theologians formulate queries into the nature of the soul, of Christ's personhood, of the Triune God, of Transubstantiation. All of these profound lessons derive from Christ himself and are mentioned in some way in Scripture--but Greek thought allows us to penetrate their mysteries more deeply.
I've never heard the rennaisance artists described as Thomists. I think I will not rethink anything, just stick to the truth.
It's true the Pope helped bring down Communism in Poland--but I'd hardly call the collapse in Eastern Europe the work of the Church. It was Reagan who did the heavy lifting. As for the rise of democracies in Latin America--the Church played no part. Just the opposite, it was friendly with the socialists, not those who pushed for democracy.
***not on elaborating a theology for the contemplation of scholarly minds.***
Scholarly minds not, but Romans is rather elaborate.
Being from the cosmopolitian Tarsus, he would be well aquainted with the Greeks.
***But there is much in Greek thought nevertheless that helped great minds such as Augustine and later Aquinas penetrate theological mysteries which might otherwise have been even more inaccessible than they now are.***
Though I agree in some part, I believe it is the Holy Spirit that illuminates minds and truth. He can do so without the aid of the Philosophers. No NT writer made any major use of them. (And let's not forget, most of them were buggerers of young boys).
***--but Greek thought allows us to penetrate their mysteries more deeply.***
I think the one who penetrates the mysteries of God is the submitted believer who faithfully studies the Word of God and who is helped and aided by the Holy Spirit.
All that being said, you have to admit that Paul ws rather dismissive of philosophers and philosophy in the previousley cited passage.
***Just the opposite, it was friendly with the socialists, not those who pushed for democracy.***
Liberation Theology 101
I described Renaissance artists as Thomists? I don't think so. I spoke of the popes encouraging art and LEARNING. The last I heard, Thomism would be classified as the latter. The time-frames were different--the universities rose during the Middle Ages, the arts flower centuries later. But the Church inspired both.
Here's a passage from Seneca, Nero's tutor (Nero later ordered him to commit suicide), a stoic philosopher and a contemporary of Paul. He is writing to a young Roman:
"God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucullus--a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God. He it is that gives noble and upright counsel. In each good man 'a god doth dwell, but what god know we not.'"
This was Epistle XLI. Doesn't it strike you in some ways as rather remarkably similar to what any Christian might think--except for the final line? And you'd be right. Much of what was later common Christian thought and morality was derived from stoicism. Seneca opposed slavery, he warned young men against gladiator shows and other spectacles, he condemned abortion and contraception. There was a lot that Christians learned from the stoics.
Reagan's role is exaggerated. What took place in Poland was a non-violent uprising that had been fostered by Cardinals Wyszynski and Wojtyla for decades. They had nurtured the intellegentsia clubs and underground publications that inspired the peaceful dissent for many, many years, and had even helped spread those kind of efforts to Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine, and Hungary. There can never be enough attribution given to the Polish Church for the miraculous overthrow of their Soviet oppressors.
Just the opposite, it was friendly with the socialists, not those who pushed for democracy.
Socialist and democratic are not negating terms. Needless to say, the brutal military dictators were removed with the encouragement and help of the church. There are plenty of Catholic martyrs for the cause of freedom to attest to that fact.
Fostered for decades, my eye. JPII was a catalyst, that was all. There was no planned agenda. The huge crowds that showed up for his speeches tipped the scales--much as they did recently in Ukraine and are now doing in Lebanon. Reagan, on the other hand, out-maneuvered Gorbachev and broke the Soviet economy with the arms race.
Ich weise was deise "Zeitgeist" ist.
I certainly cannot argue with the statistics which you have presented........but neither can I retract what I said regarding the attempted destruction of Christendom/European Christian society, and the slaughter of millions of Catholics.
But let me say this - to which you may agree.......prior to 1962 the Church showed great strengths and growth in some quarters. Yet is had also been showing signs of petentially fatal weaknesses for quite some time.
In turn, secular society was engrossed with a growing materialism, consumerism, humanism, socialism.......and every other kind of "ism".......except the "ism" of Christ. This was due to increasingly powerful liberal thought stormtroopers in schools and government, who spoke a very new "gospel" to the people.
By the early 60s the stage was set for either a continued growth in number and strength, or a sharp and precipitous decline.
There was, at that point, great zeal and fervor. Yet there was also the lingering malaise of Modernism, which had merely been driven underground - where it festered for a few generations & grew stronger, and plotted for a resurgence.
So what happened? Pope John XXII refused to obey the requests of Our LAdy at Fatima, and started.....make that lurched into the most disasterous and ill prepared for Council in Church history which has done more damage then I can possibly describe.
"......by 1960 things will be clearer".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.