I would argue that lack of adherence to the faith on the part of some bishops and priests (OK, perhaps even many bishops and priests) in the so-called ‘Spirit of Vatican II,’ and the poor catechesis that apparently followed (I’m a convert, so my understanding of recent events is still being formed) is to blame for the ‘wreckovation’ that took over many parishes. And it has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Mass.
That’s what I tried to say, you just put it out better.
I don’t think it sounds lame at all, really. I think the confusion lies in the distinction between ‘modern’ and ‘modernist.’ And clearly, not everything modern is guilty of what some in the traditionalist movement would call modernism.
How did I put words in your mouth?
Looks more like Ziggy Stardust than something from heaven…
The question is, what do you mean by disgusting/abominable art? How do you define it?
Apology accepted.
I kept looking to see if Mary had pointed ears. It reminds me of Vulcan costurming on Star Trek.
I don’t know about the others here, but I myself have no problem with modern art per-se - just having a church that goes overboard with non-objective and non-representational art. I’ve seen stained glass by Chagall that I liked, for example, and that is definately considered modern. I think most liturgical art should be kind of functional in a religious sense by reenforcing the teachings of our faith - this means having represenational art that has a purpose other than being merely atmospheric or artistically interesting.
To be honest, the blandness of some of our churches clearly predates the establishment of the *Novus Ordo *mass. Here is a shot of my current church as it appeared at its very first mass, back in the summer of 1954: http://www.stjoevan.org/images/churchschool.jpg
Absolutely!
Here’s an awe-inspiring photo of my dear pastor celebrating the Eucharist at Christmas midnight Mass. I was priveleged to take part in a men’s choir that chanted the ordinaries of Missa de Angelis at this celebration:
http://www.saintcyrils.org/images/photo7/frben1.jpg
You can almost feel the awe and reverence he feels toward the Eucharist in this photo, which is why it has become one of my very favorites.
Here’s a nice shot of the altar and manger scene, which also gives a broader view of the sanctuary. You can see the bottom half of St. Joseph to the right, as well as the ambo. I’m not sure why the baby Jesus is lying on the step, though
And this is how people receive the Eucharist at our parish - kneeling, on the tongue.
So, despite what the naysayers and professional negativists would like you to believe, there is beauty, reverence, awe and yes, even traditionalism, to be found at a Novus Ordo parish.
This discussion isn’t about rules and exceptions. I’m answering the charge that there’s something in the Novus Ordo Mass that inspires bad art, and it simply isn’t true. What insipres bad art is bad faith, just as what inspires good art - that which lifts the spirits to the heavens - is good faith. Novus Ordo isn’t the source of bad faith. Bad catechesis and disobedience are some of the sources of bad faith.
This is, unfortunately, true. There are some pretty hideous Catholic churches out there (the buildings, not the Churches themselves, of course
). Here’s the 1992 remake of the 1954 parish shown in my last post: