Statues of Lucifer

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tis_Bearself

Patron
A while ago I saw a sculpture/ statue of a pensive angel that I liked quite a bit, and would have maybe bought one for decoration, except then I saw it was supposed to be Lucifer. It was one of a series of angel sculptures that also included Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. Instead of Lucifer being ugly, he was portrayed as a handsome but pensive young man. I did not feel right about having a statue of Lucifer in my home so I did not get one.

Now I discover there is a cathedral in Belgium that has a big statue of a handsome Lucifer in chains under the pulpit? (And that it’s actually the second one because the first statue commissioned was too attractive looking.)

en.wikipedia.org

Le génie du mal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

This is the first I’ve ever heard of a church that would have a handsome Lucifer statue, as opposed to showing the devil as a snake, dragon, or ugly monster getting stomped on and killed by Virgin Mary or St. Michael.

Are there other churches with statues of handsome Lucifer?
I still don’t think I want one in my house. It is too much temptation to feel sympathy for the devil.
 
Last edited:
this is interesting. I’ve never seen it before. Sometimes evil things are very attractive. Maybe it’s meant to be a reflection on this.
 
Last edited:
I have seen these in museums or occult places but no i havent. It is quite lovely. Similar to the illustrations in Milton. Probably a renaissance thing but i could be wrong. Thank you for sharing and id say do not fear him.
 
I don’t fear him, but I don’t invite Lucifer into my home either. I bought a comical puppet of him in Prague because he looked so unhappy. But it was the typical “red devil with horns” portrayal. It wasn’t him as a beautiful angel.

I know Lucifer was supposed to be the most beautiful and smartest angel before he chose evil, but I don’t need any reminders that evil can be glamorous. I think a St. Michael statue is a better choice, as he is now the most beautiful and smartest angel, from what I’ve read.

Edited to add, apparently these handsome Lucifers are from the 1800’s Romantic movement when people were fascinated with darkness and the occult. Makes an entertaining horror movie but one cannot take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
I can imagine that in the end they might’ve allowed it in the church to remind others that the path of Satan can be attractive.

A message we can take seriously for today, but I agree I wouldn’t have it in my home either.
 
In a way I actually find depictions like le génie du mal to be creepier than the black metal goat man depictions. It gives one an idea of the angel he would have been before the fall. I find evil to often appear beautiful or even attactive, but something’s slightly off.

On another note, I’ve discovered it’s now a challenge to find images of Lucifer on google because of that stupid show.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Edited to add, apparently these handsome Lucifers are from the 1800’s Romantic movement when people were fascinated with darkness and the occult. Makes an entertaining horror movie but one cannot take it seriously.
Click to expand...
Never seen this in a german church before the 1800s, too. I can´t remeber it right now, but I think I saw something like that in a french church decoration and in an old french christian book from my grandma. I will look If I find it and post a photo.
 
Yeah, I’ll be honest, I’m not seeing Lucifer #2 as being all that different from Lucifer #1. #2 is just a slightly older man version of him, but still hunky.
 
Honestly, I wouldn´t be comfortable with both when I focus on paying. Maybe I have sometimes little “take custody of the eyes” struggles, but yes, they are a bit too sexy for me.
 
I’ve never been turned on by seeing naked men in art, I usually just sit there thinking “Put some clothes on”. But nearly naked people other than Jesus on the cross (where the nakedness is part of the horror/ humiliation of this passion) just seem inappropriate for church.

I can appreciate something like “The Creation of Adam” as art on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but I wouldn’t want it on the wall next to the pulpit when I’m trying to pay attention to the Mass.
 
Strangely, it comes with certain Art types for me. I´m absolutely immune to ancient plastic art or depictions, as I got an overdose of them during my study years (I can´t see naked greek men without thinking “yeah, 5th century BC, athenian, listing number…” and this is simply dry). The sistine paintings are simply stunning for me, also the late medieval french and german painters who are often that graphic that it hurts, so clear, brutal - I like this very much and it helps me focusing. But for the whole romatic and neoclassizistic era…strangely it´s the other way. I can´t concentrate and am more tempted to be lost in useless or, depending on my mood, bad thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Look at Bouguereau or Michelangelo. Classic iconography. Some nudity. It’s a matter of taste. It is art. Though at one point this was maybe more controversial… these guys are masters and I think should be held with more respect.
 
@alice24 @Tis_Bearself

It is usually only by commenting on secondary objects - such as art, woman’s head covering, pop culture- that attraction gets mentioned. Indeed, it seems, attraction is a fundamental part of theology deeply tied into our very nature.

Attraction seems neglected, in its fundamental ties to concupiscence, the passions, feelings, desire, and even the appetites. Everyone talks about attraction without addressing attraction in itself. And, remarkably, the visual fruition of art also remits back to attraction.

Notice carefully, the feelings of offense, jealousy, inappropriateness, are almost inseparable from mention to attraction. It is perhaps the one issue that will immediately inflame and stir a reaction in all listening.

Especially so, by way of separation, when man comment on masculine attraction and woman comment on feminine attraction. Tending to result in censoring or silence, and to circumvent these secondary objects are chosen.
 
I think the pretty statue of Lucifer can be very productive in Christian teaching by emphasizing that despite his beauty and wisdom he too was thrown in hell. Also can remind people that outer beauty does not equal inner beauty and pretty people aren’t angels (as some believed in medieval times). It is all passing away.
Changing it because it’s too pretty is shallow imho.
 
Mary888 said:
Changing it because it’s too pretty is shallow imho.
Click to expand...
Recently a CAF’er struggling with chronic illness complained at feeling badly and devalued by the imperative sight of woman on instagram exhibiting their beauty.

But by addressing beauty, you need to address attractiveness. And evil is also attractive, of the appetites.
 
I don’t want to be a party pooper but …
I am reminded of the phrase ‘like a moth to the flame.’
 
adgloriam said:
But by addressing beauty, you need to address attractiveness. And evil is also attractive, of the appetites.
Click to expand...
Evil is not beautiful. It is ugly. It only appears to be beautiful when looking from the wrong perspective.
True beauty is universal is not relative to attractiveness.
 
adgloriam said:
sight of woman on instagram exhibiting their beauty.
Click to expand...
What people show on Instagram is their bodies not their beauty. A picture does not capture the soul. And it is the temporary body not the one that woman will have after Parousia. As Christians we have to rise above it whether we now look pretty or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top