Art inspired by the Novus Ordo

[brotherhrolf]

Well, in my case, the Cathedral in which I am now a member only became a cathedral in 1962 when this diocese was split off from the Archdiocese of New Orleans. My cathedral was one of the first to be renovated after Vatican II. The pictures I’ve seen pre VII look similar to what St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans looks like

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/Image/1403/THUMB/1403-571.jpg

Except that there were no ceiling murals. As you can see, they ripped out the balconies and installed the gothic vaulted beams which were not part of the original structure which looked more similar to this.

I can’t say in all honesty that they trashed St. Joseph Church when it became St. Joseph Cathedral although said church was over a hundred years old in 1962. Truth be told the Yankees did more damage to the church when they shelled it in 1862.

No, I think they did a reasonably good job. You “know” you are in a cathedral. But they did use NO art. The crucifix is, indeed, stunning.
http://www.cathedralofstjoseph.org/images/sjc_chap_lft.jpg

And there is a very NO tapestry behind the very NO tabernacle and side altar (which to my knowledge in 25+ years has not been used.) The tabernacle is very modern using the fish symbol of early Christianity as a motif. The tapestry is very modern. But it is extremely well done and in my visits to the Blessed Sacrament, there are layers upon layers of meaning about the Eucharist in it. I am the vine, you are the branches. The Holy Spirit…the crown of thorns.

So I think that they’re were reverent renovations done way back when. However, after seeing clips of Los Angeles’ new cathedral…I can only wonder.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Our Lady? Our Lady in my cathedral doesn’t look anything like this. Not to be uncharitable, but what this reminds me of is Star Trek. Our Lady looks like a Vulcan. This is not garb appropriate for a Jewish woman of the 1st century AD.

Someone posted earlier about the organic growth of the liturgy through 2000 years. There is organic growth of art likewise. I think some Rococo churches are a bit over the top but I don’t know who the above is supposed to be whereas I would with a Rococo Virgin. Without the crescent moon beneath her feet, there is nothing to identify that this is the BVM.

 

[ctos]

It’s a quintessential expression of your desire to trash the NO and nothing else.

Friend, I long to praise the Novus Ordo. Nothing makes me gladder of heart to suppose that orthodoxy will have a rebirth, that the local church down the street will be a haven and a holy place. But the insipidity of the Novus Ordo is undeniable, and it spills over into the art.

The use of the church for the disgusting art reported by TIA is furthermore an example of a total lack of mission, of understanding of what the church is for. The vomit-inducing depiction of a wierdly dead person in front of a confessional is filthy and horrid to pious ears and eyes: the confessional is the sight of rebirth of the soul-- if they did but know it. Alas, Novus Ordo-ites hardly bother with confession anymore. So much has been lost.

Your loss, I guess. I think that’s very nice. It’s not overly complex, lets in light, doesn’t distract, and each time I look at it I see something different.

This in reference to abstract art. Art in a church should lift our hearts to God. It shouldn’t be a head-scratcher without purpose. Controlling light is not its purpose, nor is complexity something to be necessarily be encouraged or discouraged.

some people obviously have problems with abstract art that calls on you to exercise your deeper imaginative faculties.

Novus Ordo-ites have unfortunately been imagining all sorts of strange things over the past 50 years, like how to get divorced and get away with it, how to suppose that hell may be empty, and how to act and believe increasingly like Protestants.

“All things are clean to the clean: but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean: but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1:15)

It’s not a question of the art being “defiled”, it’s a question of it not being ideal art for a church setting.

That odd stained glass window is okay, but I wouldn’t want all of the art in a church to be so ambiguous. … I think all Catholic churches should also have art that sends a definite and clear message to the viewers as well - representational art should be the dominant type.

And the message should be one that lifts our hearts and minds to God, rather than stimulating an insular imagination session, which everyone knows, everyone knows but won’t admit, has anything but a pious effect on the viewer.

 

[edward_george]

Friend, I long to praise the Novus Ordo. Nothing makes me gladder of heart to suppose that orthodoxy will have a rebirth, that the local church down the street will be a haven and a holy place. But the insipidity of the Novus Ordo is undeniable, and it spills over into the art.

The use of the church for the disgusting art reported by TIA is furthermore an example of a total lack of mission, of understanding of what the church is for. The vomit-inducing depiction of a wierdly dead person in front of a confessional is filthy and horrid to pious ears and eyes: the confessional is the sight of rebirth of the soul-- if they did but know it. **Alas, Novus Ordo-ites hardly bother with confession anymore. So much has been lost. **

Sir, I am extremely offended by this accusation. Hardly bother? I attend Belmont Abbey College, named for the monastery which founded it, and the Benedictine Monks here hear confessions nearly every day before Mass. Yes, the Novus Ordo Mass is said here. To say that “Novus Ordo-ites hardly bother with confession” is to deny that there is a line of college studentsgoing to confession here every single day…

You’re in my prayers.
-ACEGC

 

[Unfinished]

I attend Belmont Abbey College, named for the monastery which founded it

The one in Charlotte? Beautiful campus. I met the Abbot a few months ago. He started trying to convince me to come down there and I said “But I have a vocation! I want to go to seminary next year!” So he told me to get my undergrad at Belmont. Personable guy.

 

[edward_george]

The one in Charlotte? Beautiful campus. I met the Abbot a few months ago. He started trying to convince me to come down there and I said “But I have a vocation! I want to go to seminary next year!” So he told me to get my undergrad at Belmont. Personable guy.

The same…the Abbot is a great guy…He’s my Latin professor, and while he’s very tough in the classroom he is, as you said, very personable–and he makes a great confessor. Not too shabby of a homilist either–they say last Sunday he ripped the media for their criticism of Bishops Jugis and Berbage and the recent letter issued by them on stem cell research.

-ACEGC

 

[BobP123]

May I remind you that the old Mass was not “removed” but it is still the same sacred sacrifice of the Mass, albeit with changed wording and disciplines.

Do you believe traditional forms are not to be replaced? It may help you to read Acts 15, where the original “Catholics,” the Jews of that day, were upset that the gentile converts did not keep the entire prescriptions of their “tradition.” (Sound familiar?)

Jesus did not teach the apostles all things before His Ascension, but left the direction of the Church to the Holy Spirit and those who were entrusted with His Divine Authority. As a result of the troubling from the original “chosen ones” there came the first Jerusalem Council. Verse 28 states: For the Holy Spirit and we have decided …" The traditional discipline was changed, lawfully!

Again, it is not tossed out, it is changed. I believe your problem lies with the authority of the Magisterium to make these changes, indicating a complete lack of faith in God’s guidance within the Church.

While the internet complaints have been circulating a relatively short time compared with close to 40 years of the Pauline Mass, I am amazed that people are still whining that they are not able to have things their way according to “tradition” — they somewhat resemble the ancient Jews with their complaints. I wonder how many years they carried this antagonism toward the gentiles, AFTER the Council gave dispensations? I’ll bet there were a lot of sour grapes. Yet the new way was lawfully promulgated by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Pope Paul V was right about a few things. One thing that immediately comes to mind was that he admitted the “smoke of Satan” had entered and permeated the springtime air of the Catholic Church. In other words, Vatican II should have never happened.

Better to have realized it late rather than never.

 

[Balance]

Pope Paul V was right about a few things. One thing that immediately comes to mind was that he admitted the “smoke of Satan” had entered and permeated the springtime air of the Catholic Church.

Hi all,
BobP - or anyone else, can you give me a reference for the “smoke of Satan” quote? I’ve seen it referred to before and would like to know the context.

…Vatican II should have never happened.
Better to have realized it late rather than never.

But it did happen. Either God caused it to happen, or he didn’t. Have you really thought through the implications of your claim that it wasn’t a work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[BobP123]

Hi all,
BobP - or anyone else, can you give me a reference for the “smoke of Satan” quote? I’ve seen it referred to before and would like to know the context.

But it did happen. Either God caused it to happen, or he didn’t. Have you really thought through the implications of your claim that it wasn’t a work of the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm. The fact that NO new dogmas were actually drawn up by the Vatican II officials doesn’t disclaim that it wasn’t a work of the Holy Spirit. Nor that at some point Pope Paul VI smelled something funny.

As to the authenticity of “Smoke of Satan” you decide.

greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Azmn

---

“The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary”

This quote, attributed to Pope Paul VI, has been circulating for years, but where can we find a reliable reference for it? I have encountered many versions ranging from hysterical to dubious, e.g., “The smoke of Satan has entered the very sanctuary of St. Peter’s basilica.” or this version, supposedly said by Paul VI at a homily by Paul VI on June 29 1972,
“We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness … And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God.”​

Supposedly the quote is on the Vatican website in Italian.

 

[ctos]

Sir, I am extremely offended by this accusation [that confession is little used in the Novus Ordo]. Hardly bother? … that there is a line of college students going to confession here every single day…

You’re in my prayers.
-ACEGC

That’s wonderful! I’m very glad to hear it.