MaryMonstrance:FAIL! or Beautiful Icon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KaneKatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KaneKatholic

Guest
2.bp.blogspot.com/_eN8ou3Z_9Zg/S2zuUNZ_rUI/AAAAAAAABMA/NmSwxanRvP8/s1600-h/ArkOfOurLady1.jpg
The Link above is to an image of a monstrance that is (i think) the largest in the world.
I understand the meaning which is beautiful(mary as the new ark and all) BUT
if you notice it has a strange quality about it HOW IS IT THAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND OUR BELIEFS OF HER IF WE ARE MAKING IMAGES LIKE THESE
We cannot just expect people to just go along with it
this thing (and it is a thing its art) looks like a statue (idol but i dont want to sound like a Chick-brainwashed zombie) of an eastern religion
It size gives it a menacing quality
Basically when people try to be too “catholic” (and i use that term by its trivial meaning ie. mary, saints, wafers and all that jazz) it creates misunderstandings and leads to reckless behavior
I personally believe that this is beautiful but OH SO RECKLESS!
all that Im trying to say is that we cannot just expect people to understand the symbollogy when they are distraced by its “menacing” (and i say that tounge-in-cheek) size. Im not condeming it but we have to be a little more sensitive

Now on the Artistic note: the face of the likeness of the virgin is stone like and the way the eyes curve… I dont know I guess Im just picking but regaurdless it’s appearence is both symbollically beautiful in expressing the new ark in Mary but at the same time it’s countenance is that of an actual…and i have to say it Idol. I agree with its opponents at least that far. it has a scary menacing appearence on the other hand.
I am frustrated with Catholics being reckless they get so focused on opposing protestants that they unwittingly push people away from the faith
There has to be a middle ground
anyone agree or disagree?
 
I don’t personally find the image immediately appealing, but it’s hard to judge its suitability without a lot more context and background.

My first question would be: Where is that church located? And then: What precedent is there, if any, for images like that in local custom (or in ethnic custom if it’s an ethnic church)?

Since the image is in a church, then I think the general rule of thumb about liturgical matters would apply: We do best when our practices, architecture, and images are in visible continuity with the best of our tradition – and “tradition” should encompass the universal tradition of our rite as well as local custom, and should balance the two. Tradition should also balance what is ancient with what is relatively new, not to mention what came after the ancient but before the new.

I don’t put much stock in worries about being ‘too Catholic’ in our imagery – if anything, we Catholics in the US in 2011 lack a distinctive and visible culture. We might need to be thinking about how we can be more visibly Catholic.

But at any rate if there is a problem with this image at all – and again I don’t want to jump to conclusions without knowing any context such as the history of the church – maybe a reasonable objection would not be that it’s “too Catholic” as much as that it’s not quite Catholic enough.

In other words, perhaps it’s too much of a departure from tradition, even though it presents a brilliant and theologically sound concept in what many will certainly find to be a very beautiful way.
 
I think it is one of the ugliest and least-helpful pieces of church art I have ever seen.

It exaggarates the status of Our Lady to an extent which will shock any visiting non-Catholic, and the elongated arms are almost in a ‘Behold the wounds in My hands’ position. Their position also reminds me of the William Blake engraving, called ‘The Ancient of Days’, which depicts the Almighty bending down to measure and create the world.

I think it’s ghastly, to be frank.
 
For those of you who disapprove this Ark of the Covenant, you can google more about it and find a wealth of protestant writing to support your viewpoints. The protestants that voiced their opinions appear to be in agreement with you.
 
From what I’ve found researching, this monstrance is in St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in Chicago, which is Roman Catholic and architecturally in a ‘Polish Cathedral’ style. Polish Cathedrals are often criticised for being ostentatious. As a piece of art it may not be to everyone’s taste but the religious symbolism is beautiful and highly significant. The monstrance is not even intended to remain in the main church: they are building a sanctuary with a chapel for perpetual adoration where it will be placed.

But I don’t think I agree with your argument at all. Why should we compromise our faith because people don’t understand it? We should educate people about what our faith is and what things like this mean and symbolise rather than hide ourselves for fear of criticism.

“Do not be afraid of them therefore. For everything that is now covered will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. What I say to you in the dark, tell in the daylight; what you hear in whispers, proclaim from the housetops.” Matthew 10:26-27

“So if anyone declares himself for me in the presence of men, I will declare myself for him in the presence of my Father in heaven. But the one who disowns me in the presence of men, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33
 
as i said i was speaking in the context of surface appearence of catholocism Yes it is Jesus but it looks like bread, a wafer of unleavened bread.
 
jeanannemarie said:
For those of you who disapprove this Ark of the Covenant, you can google more about it and find a wealth of protestant writing to support your viewpoints. The protestants that voiced their opinions appear to be in agreement with you.
Click to expand...
You appear to be saying that someone who finds this particular artistic expression to be distasteful or problemmatic is essentially a heretic, or at least less than a faithful Catholic. I think that’s wildly inappropriate.
 
PerfectTiming said:
From what I’ve found researching, this monstrance is in St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in Chicago, which is Roman Catholic and architecturally in a ‘Polish Cathedral’ style. Polish Cathedrals are often criticised for being ostentatious. As a piece of art it may not be to everyone’s taste but the religious symbolism is beautiful and highly significant. The monstrance is not even intended to remain in the main church: they are building a sanctuary with a chapel for perpetual adoration where it will be placed.

But I don’t think I agree with your argument at all. Why should we compromise our faith because people don’t understand it? We should educate people about what our faith is and what things like this mean and symbolise rather than hide ourselves for fear of criticism.

“Do not be afraid of them therefore. For everything that is now covered will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. What I say to you in the dark, tell in the daylight; what you hear in whispers, proclaim from the housetops.” Matthew 10:26-27

“So if anyone declares himself for me in the presence of men, I will declare myself for him in the presence of my Father in heaven. But the one who disowns me in the presence of men, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33
Click to expand...
you used a fallacy Im not talking of comprimising faith im just talking about watching our outer appearence so to lead people’s thoughts into falsehood
 
I would not be inclined to criticise. Protestants do not accept our belief in the Blessed Sacrament either, so the fact that this piece of art expresses two of our beliefs so well - that is that Mary is the ark of the covenant and the Holy Eucharist is the body of Christ I can only say that I think there is nothing wrong with it.

Br. Paul
 
KaneKatholic said:
you used a fallacy Im not talking of comprimising faith im just talking about watching our outer appearence so to lead people’s thoughts into falsehood
Click to expand...
What you describe is compromising faith, I’m not using a fallacy at all. If you’re changing what you’re doing because of fear of what other people might think then that’s compromising. What you describe is altering artwork, expressions of our faith and our beliefs, to suit the opinions of others. That’s compromising. Like I said, we should try and educate people about what we believe, to dispel the myths by education and reason not by hiding.
 
I loved the imagery of that monstrance. It ties the two Arks together as well as Jesus to the God whose glory filled both Arks. For a Catholic, the center point is not Mary, but Jesus. The Ark of the Covenant is far larger than Mary, yet no one is suggesting that is what we worship. Her hands are not in the position of “behold my wounds”, but rather “let it be done to me according to Thy will.”

FYI - It is not an icon, as that would be one dimensional.
 
One more reason I like this is that I think that Catholics have lost the sense of the “Slendour of Truth” in art. The imagery here is rich. One of the Protestant bloggers mentioned that Mary was on the mercy seat. That simply is not true. It is Jesus who is on the mercy seat. Mary surround Jesus, as the angels surrounded the Glory of the Lord on the Ark. She holds Jesus in her womb because, well, she held Jesus in her womb. I would ask any Protestant who disagrees exactly what the issue is. Is it that they do not believe that Jesus is divine, or that He is not one with the God of the Old Testament, or that Mary did not carry the Divine God, Second person of the Holy Trinity, in her womb.

I think the ultimate issue will come down to, as it almost always does, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. But for Catholics, that is really and substantially Jesus there, just as it was 2000 years ago. It is still just as scandalous now as it has ever been.
 
As well as the word “FAIL” in conjuction with my Lord and my mother.
 
ok…i meant people who exxagerate the central beliefs just for the sake of expressing them outwardly, for instance if You were to have a house and you put pictures of Mary on every inch of wall in your house when you have protestant family coming over not out of devotion to her but just pushing the message for reaction. what the common protestant sees when he sees the eucharist is just a circle of bread a thin wafer of unleavened bread I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU IT WASNT BREAD THAT IT WAS JESUS I TOLD YOU OF MY BELIEF IN THE EUCHARIST SO TO CLAIM OTHERWISE AND CONTINUING TO DO SO FRUSTRATES ME when people try to be a catholic on the surface it creates problems. thats what i meant.
 
pnewton said:
As well as the word “FAIL” in conjuction with my Lord and my mother.
Click to expand...
“FAIL” in reference to the monstrance
you guys need to stop looking for things to be offended by because that’s what it appears your doing
 
PerfectTiming said:
What you describe is compromising faith, I’m not using a fallacy at all. If you’re changing what you’re doing because of fear of what other people might think then that’s compromising. What you describe is altering artwork, expressions of our faith and our beliefs, to suit the opinions of others. That’s compromising. Like I said, we should try and educate people about what we believe, to dispel the myths by education and reason not by hiding.
Click to expand...
FIRST OFF YOUR TRYING TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH I HAVE CORRECTED YOU ALREADY AND YOU REFUSED TO LISTEN
YES WE SHOULD TRY TO EDUCATE PPL BUT ART DOSENT EQUAL DOCTRINE
IF ART IMPLIES SOMETHING THAT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAN IT DOES MORE DAMAGE TO ECUMINISM AND THATS THE LAST I’LL SAT TO YOU IF YOU CONTINUE TO ACUSE ME OF GRAVE OFFENSE
(ps.you acusation hurts)
 
KaneKatholic said:
you guys need to stop looking for things to be offended by because that’s what it appears your doing
Click to expand...
I find that to be an odd request in light of your original post, which seemed to be nothing but finding something to be offended by.

I understand your original concern of using prudence in front of Protestants, but this monstrance was inside a Catholic Church, during Adoration. If deifying what Protestants consider to be plain bread and worshipping it as God does not offend them, I doubt Marian imagery will. After all, it is just art. Eucharistic Adoration (and the Mass) is a far bigger stumbling block that our Mary the Mother of God, or Mary as the Ark of the Covenant.
 
In my opinion, this monstrance is not very monstrancey. Excuse the silliness, but practically all monstrances for hundreds of years have followed a pattern. The mystery of our faith contains, among other things, the fact that Christ is substantially present in the Holy Eucharist! In this aspect, He is invisible… but by faith we see that He really is there; however, this is a supernatural faith, not a visual one.

We can never ‘see’ Jesus Christ in the most Blessed Sacrament, and this fact means our faith in Holy Communion must be mystical! On that vein, this representation on the monstrance does not seem to be in continuity with the tradition of monstrance-design in the past. We should always strive to carry on the traditions of our saintly ancestors. 🙂 Classical monstrances always had a base/stand, a neck, and a portal with splendorous rays of the Sun/Son of God, where the Eucharist was placed. This “MaryMonstrance” adds a new, extra-Eucharistic dimension to the whole thing. Who needs such symbolism when you have God Himself?

“New Ark” though our Blessed Mother may be, that seems more appropriate for 2D art, not Sacramental reality… 🤷
 
I kind of like it, because she is the ark of the convenant and through her we received our savior and Lord.
 
Dear Kane,

I am sure that our posters here meant no offence.

We all have to be careful the way we phrase things. You are right that it would be wrong to shove our belief’s down someone’s throat the way you mentioned earlier. Covering your walls with Picture’s of Our Lady when a protestant was coming to visit.

However there are other things to be sensitive to as well.

Catholic’s today are very sensitive to many who call themselves catholic and behave as if they are not, or even go so far as to deny things that the church teaches. I am not saying that you are doing that however it was probably not a good idea to use internet terminology to get your point across. ie FAIL.

This means that many people can get very protective about these kind of issues. This Icon in a Catholic Church is expressive of our Faith and we should not be afraid to express beautiful truths in such a way in our church’s.
**
Now as to the damage that can possibly be done to ecumenism?**

The fruit of true ecumenism is conversion to one true church which teaches the one true faith. Now it might damage ecumenism if we become afraid to make beautiful art expressing our one true faith in our own churches.

This is the other side of the coin.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top