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.