God the Father and the Sistine Chapel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter budgie2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

budgie2

Guest
Is the picture of God the Father on the Sistine Chapel actually Jupiter? I was just inspired by another thread on Excommunication.

Is it in accordance with the Catholic religion to paint God the Father?

Jupiter
by Micha F. Lindemans
Jupiter is the supreme god of the Roman pantheon, called dies pater, “shining father”. He is a god of light and sky, and protector of the state and its laws. He is a son of Saturn and brother of Neptune and Juno (who is also his wife). The Romans worshipped him especially as Jupiter Optimus Maximus (all-good, all-powerful). This name refers not only to his rulership over the universe, but also to his function as the god of the state who distributes laws, controls the realm and makes his will known through oracles. His English name is Jove.

He had a temple on the Capitol, together with Juno and Minerva, but he was the most prominent of this Capitoline triad. His temple was not only the most important sanctuary in Rome; it was also the center of political life. Here official offerings were made, treaties were signed and wars were declared, and the triumphant generals of the Roman army came here to give their thanks.

Other titles of Jupiter include: Caelestis (heavenly), Lucetius (of the light), Totans (thunderer), Fulgurator (of the lightning). As Jupiter Victor he led the Roman army to victory. Jupiter is also the protector of the ancient league of Latin cities. His attribute is the lightning bolt and the eagle is both his symbol and his messenger.

Jupiter is completely identical with the Greek Zeus

pantheon.org/articles/j/jupiter.html

Here’s a picture of the Creation of Adam and God the Father:
mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_V_StCentr_06.html
 
No God the Father in the Sistine Chapel is NOT Jupiter, as I said in the other thread.

The fact that Michelangelo, as with all Renaissance artists, consciously evoked Greek and Roman styles doesn’t mean the Sistine Chapel has anything to do with Jupiter, any more than the fact that St Peters’ architecturally resembles a Roman temple means it IS a Roman temple!

No other artist, and many have represented God the Father in similar fashion, has been accused of such a thing, so Michelangelo need not be.
 
Michelangelo was a very devout Catholic. For him to paint a picture of a false god to represent God the Father on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would make no sense at all.
 
The style of the art does not necessarily have aby bearing on it’s meaning or what it is depicting. It was common in that time to use ancient Greek or Roman imagery in art. No one knows what God the Father lloks like, so He can be depicted in many ways. Michelanglo’s masterpiece is just one rendition. Just because the Father does not look like the older man we are used to seeing in modern imagery does not mean that He is equivalent to Jupiter or Zeus.
 
I’m sure as a child I was never allowed to draw God the Father in children’s hours. I’ve never seen any other picture of God the Father. I thought we were made in his image in our soul and therefore couldn’t depict him as we don’t know what he looks like.
 
budgie2 said:
I’m sure as a child I was never allowed to draw God the Father in children’s hours. I’ve never seen any other picture of God the Father. I thought we were made in his image in our soul and therefore couldn’t depict him as we don’t know what he looks like.
Click to expand...
There are numerous depictions of God the Father out there - in Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic art as well as the Western tradition. There is no ban of any sort on depicting the Father.
 
There are many representations of God the Father in Catholic Churches, most often when the Father is represented with the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as with representations of the baptism of Jesus. This question is tied in with the whole question of images such as statues of Mary and the Saints in parish Churches. Since the passing iconoclast icontroversies in the Church fifteen hundred years ago, the Church has insisted on the rightness of such representations. More than this, the image of Mary at Guadalupe was put onto the garment of a poor Indian man by a supernatural act of God. Images of the saints are valuable to the devotion of the faithful.
 
In Eastern / Oriental Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox iconography, it is the norm that making images of God the Father is forbidden – yes there are exceptions, but the norm remains such.

The only “allowable” expression of God the Father that I’ve consistently noted is a depiction of the all-seeing eye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top