I see the angels on either side reminding us of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant.
I see Mary kind of leaning on the moon which I thought she was standing on in Revelation, but who's counting.
I see that misty blue thing which I suppose has a depiction of our Lord in some stage of development. Oh wait, it's a monstrance, right?
So, yeah I can see how it's an outrage to non-Catholics. To me it's an outrage to good taste -- it's the remnants of my being Episcopalian you understand.
But it's perfectly decent theology.
If the Host is really Jesus,
If Jesus was the heart of Mary - as I SAY He is mine, but I'm at the beginning of that,
If Mary is the woman standing on the moon,
If Mary, housing the TRUE Light and the True Word of God is that of which the ark of the Covenant was a prefiguring,
then the angels make sense, then that monstrance makes theological sense.
As for aesthetic sense, well, de gustibus ...
I pretty well did at the end of #5979
I see the angels on either side reminding us of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant.
Yes, hosts of heaven bowing down before that horrid depiction. How vile is that?
I see Mary kind of leaning on the moon which I thought she was standing on in Revelation, but who's counting.
I believe she is sitting akimbo...
So, yeah I can see how it's an outrage to non-Catholics.
It should be an outrage to ANYONE who worships YHWH,
[...] To me it's an outrage to good taste -- it's the remnants of my being Episcopalian you understand.
That'll do it, every time.
But it's perfectly decent theology.
I could not disagree more vehemently.