Cardinal Ratzinger on the Contemplation of Beauty

Zenit ^ | 05/03/05 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[ninenot]

A 'think piece' which will help you understand R's approach to the Liturgy, for openers.

[CasearianDaoist]

No wonder the left hates him: he turns their language and their works back opon them. He has such a deep understanding of the modern world.

Makes me want to get my German back.

[livius]

Our situation today shows that beauty demands for itself at least as much courage as do truth and goodness, and she will not allow herself to be separated and banned from her two sisters without taking them along with herself in an act of mysterious vengeance. Whoever sneers at her name as if she were an ornament of the beourgeois past...can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.

- Hans Urs von Balthasar

The Glory of the Lord

I believe that B16 is also a fan of von Balthasar. I like the above quote because I have always felt that it explains a lot about the general ugliness of the post VatII Church (which is, in general, often lacking in truth and, as we have seen with the homosexual scandals, has sometimes even abandoned goodness). In some mysterious way, the true, the beautiful and the good are inseparably linked.

[Miss Marple]

Pope Benedict is not only briiliant; he has the soul of a poet.

[ninenot]

Ummmnhhh...

I've always maintained that the 'truth/beauty/goodness' triangle is inextricably linked to the self-definition Christ offered: 'I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life,' making Life and Way (Hebrew meant 'Commandments' as well) equivalent to Beauty and Goodness.

It's that old 'perfections' stuff, and R. does a better job of this than anyone I've read, particularly when he brings it down to discussion on the real nature of music in the Liturgy.

He's awesome, and as mentioned above, the intellectualoid lefty-wonks cannot defeat his argumentation.

Heh, heh, heh....

[ninenot]

His capacity to link concepts is inspiring. Every paragraph makes you think of another logical conclusion, or of another application.

His works are tours-de-force.

[Kolokotronis]

The Bridegroom

This is the icon of which His Holiness speaks. The first three days of Holy Week in Orthodoxy we celebrate the "Nymphios" or Bridegroom, devotions. They are among the most beautiful, meaningful and didactic of all the devotions of Orthodoxy. The juxtaposition of the words, prayers and chants of these services with this icon of Christ as he was tormented and mocked drives home forcefully for the Orthodox just what +Benedict XVI is speaking of. To my own way of thinking, it seems to me that His Holiness is speaking of a far more profound and transcendent matter than simply the beauty of the Mass. Please continue to post his writings. They will demonstrate why so many Orthodox are so enthusiastic about his election. Imagine a Pope of Rome quoting a post schism Orthodox theologian. I'll ping the Orthodox list with this this evening when I get home from the office.

[ninenot]

You are absolutely correct that 'this is not just about the Mass'--but his discussion of Beauty above is reflected in his discussions of liturgy, particularly of liturgical music.

R.'s quote of Orthodox theologian should not be surprising; the O'dox icons have a great deal to teach the RC's, which have always been more 'loosey-goosey' in liturgy and art norms.

[ELS]

A(nother) wonderful piece by Cardinal Ratzinger. Thank you for posting it.

This paragraph in particular touched me:

Being struck and overcome by the beauty of Christ is a more real, more profound knowledge than mere rational deduction. Of course we must not underrate the importance of theological reflection, of exact and precise theological thought; it remains absolutely necessary. But to move from here to disdain or to reject the impact produced by the response of the heart in the encounter with beauty as a true form of knowledge would impoverish us and dry up our faith and our theology. We must rediscover this form of knowledge; it is a pressing need of our time.

[Kolokotronis]

"You are absolutely correct that 'this is not just about the Mass'--but his discussion of Beauty above is reflected in his discussions of liturgy, particularly of liturgical music."

Please understand that my comment, or rather observation, was in no way intended to reflect negatively on the Mass. It is rather that the Pope's comments on the beauty of the Bridegroom reflect a profound and sublime Christian Truth continually preached by The Fathers. All of our devotions and Liturgies in The Church, and most assuredly our Icons, have at base both a salvific and a didactic effect which are inextricably intertwined. Every prayer, chant or motion in our Liturgies have a purpose to advance us in theosis. Nothing is left to chance and nothing is meaningless. Their very beauty, as the world defines beauty, reminds us that when we pray as a Liturgical people, as the People of God, we are not at all in this world, but rather praising and supplicating our Lord and our God in communion with the saints who have gone before us. Our Icons, the devotion to which the whole Church proclaims, both call us and allow us to enter into the ultimate reality of existence, of Eternal Life, in Christ as partakers of His divine nature.

[Kolokotronis]

Ping

[okokie]

"Mystical" Poet

[Lady In Blue]

This thread reminds me of a book by then Cardinal Ratzinger-"Spirit of the Liturgy"(title?).I'm going to buy it when I can afford to buy it. I've already sent for-"Milestones"-his autobiography. Thanks for the thread.

[Lady In Blue]

ping

[Agrarian]

Kolokotronis, thanks for the ping. I am, as you know, one of those Orthodox who are very optimistic about Pope Benedict, although I also understand the concerns of those who are not. This was a very interesting article, indeed. It is not one of the then Cardinal Ratzinger's most outstanding articles, but it has numerous points of great interest.

The first is the fact that B16 appears to be very close to a correct understanding of the Orthodox mind with regard to Platonism, although he doesn't explicitly take the final step. He indicates that the passages from Cabasilas are reflections of Platonic thought, which is sort of true (but not quite), but goes on to indicate that he understands that while for Plato, love of beauty is a love of a concept and and an abstraction -- for the Christian, this longing is fulfilled in a different way. The final step would have been to indicate in explicit language that our love is a very personal love for the spiritual beauty of a specific person: Jesus Christ. He gets there, but only those who agree with the point to begin with would see it and understand it -- it is very von Balthasarian in that sense. I think this is atypical for B16, though -- he is usually quite direct in a more patristic vein.

The second point of interest is one that B16 has discussed before in his works on liturgical and sacred art: not all that is beautiful draws one to God. In some of his other writings, B16 has explicitly talked about the changes that happened after the 13th century in Catholic art, moving away from traditional liturgical purposes and shifting emphases -- reaching a low point in the Renaissance, where the art could really no longer be said to be liturgical or sacred, even though it was very beautiful. Even though sublime themes of Christianity were being portrayed, B16 has pointed out that this art was really all about man, and turned man toward himself.

As a side-note, the Greek lay theologian Constantine Cavarnos has written about this and summarized it as follows. He writes that the beautiful and the sublime are two different things. As examples of the sublime but not beautiful he gives pre-Schismatic Western art and older, more severe forms of Byzantine iconography. As examples of the beautiful but not sublime, he gives Renaissance and other classical Western art. As an example of paintings that are both beautiful and sublime, he cites the Russian iconography of roughly the 15th century or so.

Anyway, the gapingly obvious thing about those other essays of B16 that I mention is the unspoken condemnation of most modern Catholic art and architecture: Renaissance art is positively holy compared to what we see in the interiors of most newly constructed and renovated Catholic churches and institutions. Yet the studied ugliness of the 20th century represents the application of the same principle of the Renaissance -- it's all about us.

In those same essays, B16 made the incredible (from an Orthodox perspective) statements that the RC church has never really come to terms with the 7th Ecumenical council and made it its own. And he made the even more remarkable statement that while the Catholic church couldn't restrict herself to the specifics of Orthodox iconography, she needed to embrace the *theology* of iconography that matured in the East around the 15th century.

Were she to do so, and live it out, not only would this make things less "loosey-goosey" (in ninenot's unforgettable and all-too-true words) for you RC's, it would do more to take steps toward reconciliation between Orthodox and RC's than would the return of 100 ancient icons to Russia.

The implications of a correct view of iconography are tremendous, since at the heart of the beauty of Orthodox iconography is the fact that it is true. For an Orthodox Christian, a traditionally rendered icon is as much a part of the authoritative tradition of the Church as are the writings of St. Gregory the Theologian. The details have been hammered out over the centuries just as the details of written theology have been honed. Untruth has been chiseled away. In a properly painted Orthodox icon, there is no falsehood found, no misdirection, no misplaced emphasis.

This does not happen as a result of the brilliance, creativity, or holiness of the individual iconographer, but because the iconographer has submitted to the mind of the Church through prayer, fasting, and study of traditional iconography.

The implications go even farther, into other areas that B16 has written about with great perceptiveness, such as music, since liturgical music is an aural iconography.

We who spend our entire lives trying to understand and follow the traditions of Orthodox chant are engaged in the same process of working within a tradition, and putting our creativity in the service not of doing something new or different, but of faithfully rendering the timeless liturgies with timeless chants.

There are of course very slight, almost imperceptible differences in Orthodox iconography from different places and times, and the same is true of chant. But to an outsider, the family resemblance is striking. This is unfortunately not the case with Catholic art and music, and it is this sort of thing that does more than anything to render reunion betwen Orthodox and Catholics impossible at this time.

The new Pope seems to understand the depths of the underlying problem, and even to understand that the roots go back long before the 20th century. The question is whether he will have the time and energy to address these liturgical issues when there are so many other pressing issues for his pontificate. Regardless, it seems clear that he is the right man for the job.

Thanks again for the ping.

[Kolokotronis]

"This is unfortunately not the case with Catholic art and music, and it is this sort of thing that does more than anything to render reunion betwen Orthodox and Catholics impossible at this time."

I remember as a kid going to High Mass, which, Agrarian, was all chanted in contrast to a Low Mass which was not. I have noticed that nowadays the hymns at a Catholic Mass seem to change every Sunday and are quite clearly not integrated into the Liturgy. In other words, those hymns seem more like a overlay to the Mass rather than of the very substance of the prayers of the Liturgy. Sandy, this is one of the problems which I was thinking of when I commented on the latitude allowed in the NO liturgy as cited by +Arinze on another thread. Agrarian is right that the reglarization and integration of the chants in the Roman Mass and the increase in the use of Icons would be of great assistance in any reunion between Roman and the East.

The music of the Liturgy is a recurring subject at Orthodox parishes among some converts. They say they miss the hymns they sang in their pre-Orthodox days at church. I don't doubt that one bit, but as we explain to them, the designated hymns of the Divine Liturgy are as much part of the Liturgy as, say, the Our Father or the Antiphons. They are not something which changes with the weather or at the whim of a priest.

[Desdemona]

the reglarization and integration of the chants in the Roman Mass and the increase in the use of Icons would be of great assistance in any reunion between Roman and the East.

How different is the chant in the east and where can we find information on the theology of the icon? I'm one who does believe that east and west need to be joined, but that there is a lot to learn about each other and a lot of minds to convince first.

The music of the Liturgy is a recurring subject at Orthodox parishes among some converts.

It's plain and simply a recurring theme among Catholics. With all luck, under BXVI a lot of the crap will fall to the wayside.

[Agrarian]

"How different is the chant in the east..."

There is absolutely no need for the RC church to use Byzantine or Znamenny chants or hymnography. The West has its own very rich chant tradition. It was melded into the Gregorian chant, but many other older chant forms exist.

As K. points out, the hymnology itself is a huge problem in the NO, but frankly it was also so in the low mass culture of old Catholicism as well, and the absence of other aspects of the daily office in parish life hurt Catholicism a lot, too. There is a lot of rich hymnology going un-used in the Western tradition, although there is no reason that borrowing couldn't take place from the East if it was felt to be helpful. B16 has written that "rites" in the past were not as rigidly separated as they are today, and by implication, I would assume that he is implying that borrowing can take place.

"where can we find information on the theology of the icon"

I'll start by posting a link to B16's article when I have time. He likes to quote Evdokimov, whom I've never read, but who is a very peripheral (and, to some, "iffy") figure in Russian Orthodoxy. I would dare say there are better works than his, and I will get some titles and links to you.

K wrote: "The music of the Liturgy is a recurring subject at Orthodox parishes among some converts..."

This is interesting. I've never met anyone who has anything to say but to talk about how wonderful and rich the music is compared to what they had grown up with. I've never once had someone ask me why we can't use western hymns.

But I think that this is partly because I've been almost exclusively in Russian parishes, where the chant has a more "accessible" feel than does Byzantine chant. But as converts are in the church more and become more infused with the phronema, they more and more prefer the old Byzantine and Znamenny chant forms. The Russians themselves can be a problem here, since some of them developed too much of a taste for 19th century Russian "romantic" forms.

"It's plain and simply a recurring theme among Catholics. With all luck, under BXVI a lot of the crap will fall to the wayside."

All I can say to that is "Amen!"