Posted on 03/05/2005 7:15:51 AM PST by AAABEST
I have no intention of diverting the discussion of this thread to that of international politics - or political systems........nor to lecture you or anybody in re political realities, but..........
You would seem to be saying that what happened to teh various countries in Latin America, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Phillipines was ....."good"? What scares me is the thought that you might be serious about this.
".....come to think of it, the post V2 church has been more an agent for positive political change than the pre-V2 church."
I am sorry, but that statement is a result of grossly uninformed thinking. A lot of what happened to the nations which you mentioned were the result of the machinations of thoroughly Marxised clergy who actively worked with the various military juntas/regimes via the mesmerizing hold of Liberation theology over the citizenry, to guarantee the success of "the revolution". This is particularly and patheticly true south of the border.
As to any involvement/credit ascribed to the Church behind the Iron Curtain for helping to bring about the "fall of Communism" - that is all due to the pre-V2 Church, which in essense is what ruled the hearts of those various countrymen prior to 1989.
It was not "liturgy in the worship space"....."gathering"........"praxis", or any other post V2 concept which held sway in the minds of those people. Indeed, rather it was the concept of "Polonia Sacra", and "Mary, Queen of Poland", and the like which brought fire and strength to their minds and hearts.
I agree with that assessment Chuck, buy your cynicism is also rude. For example:
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".
Who exactly are you referring to? Certainly not Caravaggio, Bellini, Rafael, Tintoretto or even Rembrandt because they don't have a vegetable or greek theme for every Biblical theme. Their secular works are few and far between while their religious works are vast. Probably 8 or 10 to 1 if I was forced to guess.
Caravaggio's greatest works were not done while the Church "dictated what to paint", but while he was on the run being wanted by the Church for murder. Have fun with Rembrandt, but despite any perceived flaws such masterpieces would have been impossible without deep inspiration. He also suffered a great deal throuhout his life. 'The Prodigal Son' was completed just after the last of his four children died, shortly before his own death.
Do you suppose Rafael is buried at the Pantheon because he did as he was told when the Church "dictated what to paint"?
I could go on, but perhaps you could point out these secular based, greek-inspired artists who merely created what the Church instructed.
Howdie A!
***Have fun with Rembrandt, but despite any perceived flaws such masterpieces would have been impossible without deep inspiration.***
It is true. And many of the works of the great masters still reach out to hearts and glorify God to this day.
But big picture wise, the Jews did not "do art". IMHO the making of renaissance art was not "inspired" by theology (though the subject surly was). The art of the renaissance is a reflourishment of Greek philosophy and the Greek search for beauty. This is why it falls on the heals of the Crusades when it was rediscovered.
*** I could go on, but perhaps you could point out these secular based, greek-inspired artists who merely created what the Church instructed.***
In the day, hardly anyone painted without a patron. The biggest patron was, of course, the Church. Patrons do dictate what is painted. The free-flowing artistic sentement is a product of a later period.
You'll have to pardon my schadenfreude at your malaise over the fin-de-siecle paradigm. Time to think outside the box.
Sure the Church was showing signs of vulnerability, even at its strongest point. But the preconciliar popes knew this and warned about it. They knew there were modernist dangers ready to wreck everything. Hence the Syllabus of Errors. The constant refrain of the preconciliar popes was--vigilance, vigilance, vigilance. Once our guard was dropped with Vatican II, the knockout blow was struck.
Think of the Israelites, when they chose to stray from worship of God in the way He desired, He withdrew His protection from them, like saying, "you want to have things your way instead of mine go ahead". He allowed them to be conquered by pagan people, He allowed them to suffer because of their own choices. That's what is happening now. Just look at all the statistics. Why is it that the most faithful dioceses have higher numbers of vocations than less faithful dioceses, within the same country? It cannot be due to the effects of the culture because those effects are the same for both.
He's not going to force Himself on us. He'll let us have our own way, but that has consequences, denial of grace.
But it's not necessary. A crude fish on the wall is enough for an icon. But what the Church did was point to the successful aesthetic pracitices of the pagans and the natural uplifting quality they have and focus them on the right teaching of the Church. Any painting of a crucifixion is fine for an icon or altarpiece but that doesn't make it good art. Conversely all good art is not appropriate for altarpieces. But the Church put both to their highest function. So, if you want good art and you want to know about it, you'll be treated to a good sermon in stone or paint by default.
Nonetheless, a sculpture like David is idealized man (Platonic).
The idea that "David" is an idealized man as some Platonic statement is purely subjective. You are reading that into a sculpture that intrinsically cannot make that statement. Objectively a sculpture like David is an intelligently designed sculpture in terms of the flow of line and the play of light along with the textures represented in the Stone. It successfully serves it's aesthetic purpose. As iconography, the subject matter of David is certainly referring to something that is taught in the context of the Church as a whole. The quality of the craftsmanship of the Greeks reaches a higher level of meaning when the natural aesthetic value can be tied to the supernatural subject matter that the Church supplies.
You brought up El Greco and Tintoretto.I put them after the rennaisance.
Well since, Tintoretto lived between 1518 and 1594, I'd say he was in the mix. And also El Greco since he lived between 1541-1614. His real name was Domenico Theotokopoulos I would say that the Church had a strong influence on him, his art and those who came before and after him.
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.
. 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.
What you are missing is the fact that Vatican II should have been the defense against those things which grip the world and it wasn't because Vatican II was a bust. In fact 500 Fathers put together a document at Vatican II to condemn Communism and Marxism but John XXIII nuked the idea.
Actually it was more than a bust, it wrecked the Church's defenses against modernism. Now, instead of the Church conquering and purifying all of the old cultural attachments, the Church's culture is now being paganized and corrupted by the pagan cultures that it is supposed to be catering to.
Three final points:
One, You keep referencing Rembrandt as being some kind of ego maniac for the self portraits that he did. Simultaneously you say you don't know that much about him. Which is it? I've seen hundreds of Rembrandts right in front of me. There are few self portraits in proportion to his entire output and those of his apprentices.
Two: Some clarification of terms. Subject Matter is the matter that is being painted. Portrait, still life, landscape etc. Subject is the point of the work of art. An example since you referenced it is "David" The subject matter is the character of David, his sling, the other characteristic traits showing the illustrative aspect of the work.
The subject of the statue is defined in terms of broad aesthetic qualities: Power, forms in space, balance, texture, the play of light and line, the colors of the stone.
Three. The discussion is about the massive influence for morality that the Church provides. As I posted earlier, most people do not even realize how much of how we live has an origin in the teaching of the Church, "Goodbye" being a truncated version of "God be with you." The Pretzel being the product of monks shaping the extra dough into a shape reminiscent of children's hands folded in prayer, along with Art and music, etc. The Church had always up to Vatican II provided an ever stronger resistance to the evil let loose in the world. If the Church decides to exert her full weight on the culture of the World. The gates of that Culture will not prevail against it. Instead Vatican II eased up on that pressure. Now the pressure is on the gates of the Church and they are and have collapsed severely.
UR,
One of the truest examples of real development of doctrine is that of understanding the Eucharist. Paul obviously had much in the way of infused knowledge. Nobody as far as I can tell in Church history had God made it so known that he was going to win over.
Paul knew from faith and his zeal probably spread that faith in the Eucharist. All he could explain was the need to know about it and know how to partake worthily.
By the time Augustine rolls around, he's got to explain that Our Lord's flesh is real flesh and not a metaphor for some lofty spiritual ideal. He (amazingly) knew just to take it on faith that "somehow" God made it possible for Man to partake of his flesh while appearing as bread and wine. He described this as a "latent mystery"
Along comes Aquinas. He's dealing with Muslims who don't have the Jewish tradition as the Jews knew it. So, he unravels this "latent" mystery by providing a model based on reason alone, that combined with divine revelation allows one to grab hold of the faith against the testimony of the senses.
Aquinas on an Intellectual level did what Paul did when he addressed the people to the temple of the "unknown God" That was a Latent mystery to the people of Paul's day. He unwrapped it. Aquinas then did the same to the "hard saying" of Our Lord. Transubstantiation is no more or less mysterious or miraculous for Aquinas as it is for Augustine, or Paul. But Aquinas provides the argument that refutes the Lutheran heresy of "consubstantiation" or "transignification" which Paul was never questioned about.
Agreed
***Paul knew from faith and his zeal probably spread that faith in the Eucharist.***
I believe you are reading that into the historical material. Though Paul addressed the communion and held it in the highest regard, Paul was all about PREACHING the message of the Gospel.
***Along comes Aquinas. He's dealing with Muslims who don't have the Jewish tradition as the Jews knew it. So, he unravels this "latent" mystery by providing a model based on reason alone,****
Never the less, Paul, who was much closer to living Greek philosophy than Aquinas, cut the knees out from under the Greeks in 1st Corinthians. There is no such thing as reason alone. Christianity is a revealed religion.
***Aquinas on an Intellectual level did what Paul did when he addressed the people to the temple of the "unknown God" That was a Latent mystery to the people of Paul's day. He unwrapped it. Aquinas then did the same to the "hard saying" of Our Lord.***
Bad analogy. The Greeks were just guessing about the unknown God. Had God needed philosophy to unwrap Gospel mysteries He would have given us a Greek apostle. (Besides, how much unwraping does "Take up your cross" or "Love you neighbor" need anyway???)
It may be that Medieval Scolasticism was more isogesis than exogesis - reading Greek ideas into the Scriptures.
***God is near you, he is with you, he is within you.***
But ultimatley Seneca was wrong. Paul describe the state of pre Christian pagans...
"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and WITHOUT GOD in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."
***XLI. Doesn't it strike you in some ways as rather remarkably similar to what any Christian might think--except for the final line?****
I can see that. But I can see the same words on the lips of any New Ager! An outside observer might find alot of similarities between Christianity and New Ageism - but we know they are literally worlds apart. The devil's in the details.
Christianity, ultimatley, is not defined in terms of morality but of relationship - relationship to the person of Christ. Very moral people can still be very lost and on their way to hell.
***There was a lot that Christians learned from the stoics***
I have to admit it's been a while since I've studied the Stoics. It's relationship to Pauline theology was, at one time, a very "hot" theological topic.
Of course ultimately he was wrong--he was a pagan. But the Church has never denied the debt it owes to human reason by way of Greek and Roman thought. Do you think there could have been an Augustine without a Plato? That was the point I was making. She would never have been able to penetrate the mystery of the Trinity as far as she did, for instance, without Plato and then Plotinus. Later St. Thomas would build his Summa on Aristotelian logic and metaphysics. Not only this, but Church morality was based on the Natural Law which had been the foundation for Roman Law long before the Church even existed. The Church has always affirmed this linkage between faith and reason. There is really no need to denigrate the contributions of classical thought as if it took something away from the faith. It only added to the depth of our understanding of the faith.
I'm referring to Michelangelo, Botticelli, and Raphael, but especially to the de Medici's who founded the Neoplatonic Academy and whose patronage was largely responsible for many of these guys' careers. The ceiling of the Sistine chapel is a depiction of Platonic metaphysics. Even in a religious painting such as Botticelli's "Adoration of the Magi" the de Medici clan are pictured as the worshipping kings. So, is the artist painting from Christian inspiration or secular flattery? Raphael's "School of Athens" is an overt depiction of the ideas that were influencing the culture's art. But since the mural was painted in the Vatican, the Church approved of it.
Of course these ideas and the novelties they led to were probably responsible in large part to the reformation when folks recognized that the Church was not completely espousing Christian ideals. The counter-reformation made religious art much more....Christian, thus Caraveggio, Bellini, and Tintoretto were not as pagan-influenced as their earlier counterparts.
As for Rembrandt, he couldn't possibly have been influenced and inspired by the Church, as he was brought up in a strict Anabaptist family and if anything his religious art is noteworthy for the lack of Catholic iconography it contained. He's most famous for his paintings of guild members and landscapes...and his 62 self-portraits. I don't know how or why he got brought into the discussion.
What I'm arguing against is the belief that the church had such a hold on people in previous eras that everything that they thought and did originated in the piety that the Church instilled. While perhaps true in some eras, like the high middle ages, and while true in some individuals no matter in what era, the Italian renaissance was not one of them, because of the abundance of other ideas; namely neoplatonism, neoclassicism, and humanism. Plus, there are varying eras within a man's lfetime as well. Will future generations view Mel Gibson's life's work as divinely inspired through the influence of his faith, because of one film, or will it rightly see him as reflecting the obsession with pictorial violence because of most of his films?
Another point is that we don't know what these heroes painted all the time. That their religous work was preserved in churches doesn't mean that they were exclusively religious artists, just that their religious art was better preserved.
A nekkid young male. Given the scandals of recent years , this sentence takes on a whole different meaning. :o)
You make the blunderous mistake that Aquinas and Augustine are using unpurified philosophy. Thomistic philosophy takes Paul very much into account and man's ability to reason using divinely revealed knowledge. So, you are actually reading a condemnation of Aquinas in Paul that is not correct.
Christianity is divinely revealed. The existence of God is not.
Uh. God just may have given us a Greek. Luke. Also known as Lucianus and Lucius. He traveled with Paul. Was the best of the disciples (the 72) who handled the Greek Language.
The statue of David is as it is. The sex scandals of recent years do nothing whatsoever to alter it's artistic merit or its iconographic value. I don't even pay attention to David's doodle.
Actually, those sayings are not the ones that require unwrapping. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood. His flesh being real meat and blood real drink and being wine and bread. That does require an Aquinas to explain.
***That does require an Aquinas to explain.***
So what happened?
Did we loose the explaination along the way, or did folks just sit around in the dark for 1200 years?
***Uh. God just may have given us a Greek.***
May have.
I don't see much Greek philosophy in Luke. The closest you'll get is the "logos" in John.
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.