What is the real crisis?

[Jacafamala]

lucybeebee; What I’m trying to say is that traditionalists need to start creating art, rather than churn out the same polemics that we’ve been reading for the past 40+ years.** Maybe this means being the only traditionalist in a very liberal art school or in a writing program to rejuvenate the current trends in the fine arts world.** Maybe it means selling a self-published book out of a van. It could mean becoming an architect. I just think we need to create more of what we ought to be seeing as opposed to just decrying what we hate.

And who wil teach the art student traditional technique in a liberal art school? No, you need a traditional art school for that.
Because technique is well, very technical.

 

[lucybeebee]

What on earth are you talking about??? Catholicism has given us the greatest culture of the art, music and literature, the European Culture. The current “traditionalist movement”, as you put it is merely a continuation of what has always been.

I just don’t see the traditionalist movement of the past 40 years as being a natural continuation of European Catholic culture. The Catholic culture of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Counter-Reformation, etc. was lacking in the self-consciousness that characterizes modern religious thought. The Church was operating from a place of strength, not as one actor among many in a democratic society. The Church was also the primarily patron of the arts in those times, which is how they were able to produce Palestrinas and the like. Today, most art is produced by the market and almost none of it depicts religion in a positive manner. Based on what I personally have seen, most of the fruits of the traditionalist movement seem to be polemics about what has gone wrong for the past 40+ years, rather than creating the kind of art and culture that would be beneficial. I have to give evangelicals credit for the fact that they at least try to create Christian books, music, and the like, even if the results are incredibly tacky and superficial. The average person can’t make a cathedral or a Pieta, but they could self-publish their own music, books, or articles.

I think most people here relate to their faith in a very cerebral way that would have been unusual in a truly traditional Catholic culture. There was no need for most people to know apologetics because most people, save for the Jewish outposts, would have been Catholic. Catholicism would have been a natural, unquestioning part of life that one didn’t think too much about. The doings of the pope or some other far off church official didn’t matter to the average person because “the Church” was the local parish. Today, we read online about liturgical abuses that happen in far off places, read papal encycicals both recent and new, and pontificate the innumerable meanings of the documents of Vatican II. We know more in terms of book knowledge about the Church than our ancestors, but I’m not sure we’ll be better saints because of it.

 

[lucybeebee]

And who wil teach the art student traditional technique in a liberal art school? No, you need a traditional art school for that.
Because technique is well, very technical.

I would think that even in a liberal art school, you still have to know the fundementals of traditional figure drawing and perspective. When I was taking art lessons, I was told something like, “you have the know the rules to break them.”

 

[Jacafamala]

I would think that even in a liberal art school, you still have to know the fundementals of traditional figure drawing and perspective. When I was taking art lessons, I was told something like, “you have the know the rules to break them.”

As a graduate of a liberal fine arts school, (I have a BA in painting) I’d say yes to figure drawing and perspective, and then the “classical education” ends there. And that leaves you a long way off from the great masters. After figure drawing and perspective, the art teachers all want to move into Comtemporary art, which is given the lions share of everyone’s time and attention.

 

[Jacafamala]

I just don’t see the traditionalist movement of the past 40 years as being a natural continuation of European Catholic culture. The Catholic culture of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Counter-Reformation, etc. was lacking in the self-consciousness that characterizes modern religious thought. The Church was operating from a place of strength, not as one actor among many in a democratic society. The Church was also the primarily patron of the arts in those times, which is how they were able to produce Palestrinas and the like. Today, most art is produced by the market and almost none of it depicts religion in a positive manner. Based on what I personally have seen, most of the fruits of the traditionalist movement seem to be polemics about what has gone wrong for the past 40+ years, rather than creating the kind of art and culture that would be beneficial. I have to give evangelicals credit for the fact that they at least try to create Christian books, music, and the like, even if the results are incredibly tacky and superficial. The average person can’t make a cathedral or a Pieta, but they could self-publish their own music, books, or articles.

I think most people here relate to their faith in a very cerebral way that would have been unusual in a truly traditional Catholic culture. There was no need for most people to know apologetics because most people, save for the Jewish outposts, would have been Catholic. Catholicism would have been a natural, unquestioning part of life that one didn’t think too much about. The doings of the pope or some other far off church official didn’t matter to the average person because “the Church” was the local parish. Today, we read online about liturgical abuses that happen in far off places, read papal encycicals both recent and new, and pontificate the innumerable meanings of the documents of Vatican II. We know more in terms of book knowledge about the Church than our ancestors, but I’m not sure we’ll be better saints because of it.

Traditional Catholics of this century still believe what has always been believed. But they are part of this century, so yeah they react to this century.

When you write that, “We know more in terms of book knowledge about the Church than our ancestors, but I’m not sure we’ll be better saints because of it.”, I’m assuming you mean we know more about our Roman Catholic Faith. I’m not sure this is true, given the kinds of homilies and Religious Education most of us have had…But what exactly are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that we’d be better off knowing less “book knowledge”?

 

[Jacafamala]

Let’s see what our handy dandy search engine can pull up on traditional Catholic art.

Architecture:
bloggernews.net/115502

Fine Art?
bloggernews.net/115502

Check out Hamiliton Reed:
agdei.com/

Artwork by Roxolana Luczakowsky Armstrong…

agdei.com/Roxolana.html

You want a painting of the Papa?
benedictxvithemagnificent.com/newportrait.html

A beautiful Chalice:
agdei.com/millennium.html

So I have barely scratched the surface. You should take a look before you say there is no traditional Catholic art out there on the scene today, because the internet is chalk-a-block full of it, lucybeebee

 

[ethelzguy]

lucybeebee;
What a Catholic kid needs is a strong Catholic family. That really is enough. I have my kids in public school. The two older kids tell me that they’ve taken a look at what some of the other kids have going on in their messed up homes, and they don’t want that. They can see for themselves that the Faith is truth.

I see, daily, a similar situation with one of my teen-aged grandsons. It seems that all of his “friends” are in some kind of trouble, either at school, with the law, or at home. He struggles to understand all of this.

But from the outside looking in, it seems rather clear. Of his circle of friends, he is the only one who still lives with both of his parents, and always has. He is also the only one who has remained in the same Church for his entire life.

There is something to be said for stability and example.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I see, daily, a similar situation with one of my teen-aged grandsons. It seems that all of his “friends” are in some kind of trouble, either at school, with the law, or at home. He struggles to understand all of this.

But from the outside looking in, it seems rather clear. Of his circle of friends, he is the only one who still lives with both of his parents, and always has. He is also the only one who has remained in the same Church for his entire life.

There is something to be said for stability and example.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[lucybeebee]

Let’s see what our handy dandy search engine can pull up on traditional Catholic art.

Architecture:
bloggernews.net/115502

Fine Art?
bloggernews.net/115502

Check out Hamiliton Reed:
agdei.com/

Artwork by Roxolana Luczakowsky Armstrong…

agdei.com/Roxolana.html

You want a painting of the Papa?
benedictxvithemagnificent.com/newportrait.html

A beautiful Chalice:
agdei.com/millennium.html

So I have barely scratched the surface. You should take a look before you say there is no traditional Catholic art out there on the scene today, because the internet is chalk-a-block full of it, lucybeebee

I know that traditional Catholic art exists, I just don’t think there is enough of it. We need to let our creative juices overflow so that the world can’t help but take notice, sort of like the confusion that secularists felt when The Passion was released. As hideous as most art programs are, I think that a Catholic presence is needed. The only way for the art establishment to change is if we become the establishment. Cliched, but true. I’m in a digital media program myself, and I’m the only person who’s even remotely religious in the whole department. The readings are all cultural studies and reek of the worst that liberal academia can produce. It’s just a case of taking what you need and ignoring the rest.

 

[lucybeebee]

Traditional Catholics of this century still believe what has always been believed. But they are part of this century, so yeah they react to this century.

When you write that, “We know more in terms of book knowledge about the Church than our ancestors, but I’m not sure we’ll be better saints because of it.”, I’m assuming you mean we know more about our Roman Catholic Faith. I’m not sure this is true, given the kinds of homilies and Religious Education most of us have had…But what exactly are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that we’d be better off knowing less “book knowledge”?

No. What I mean is that religion is something we have to self-consciously think about, which was not the case prior to modern times. Those of us who take religion seriously certainly know more about the faith than our ancestors, many of who were most likely illiterate. We have access to a wealth of information through books and the Internet that even the best libraries of the previous 1000 years could not have imagined. The Vatican home page alone contains more information than the average monastic library of the Middle Ages. That doesn’t mean that we are nessesarily better Catholics because of it. This blog entry explains what I’m trying to say in a better manner.

arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/el-futuro-que-se-acerca-y-el-pasado-que-nos-hechiza/#more-148

 

[Jacafamala]

I know that traditional Catholic art exists, I just don’t think there is enough of it. We need to let our creative juices overflow so that the world can’t help but take notice, sort of like the confusion that secularists felt when The Passion was released. As hideous as most art programs are, I think that a Catholic presence is needed. The only way for the art establishment to change is if we become the establishment. Cliched, but true. I’m in a digital media program myself, and I’m the only person who’s even remotely religious in the whole department. The readings are all cultural studies and reek of the worst that liberal academia can produce. It’s just a case of taking what you need and ignoring the rest.

Well, there are fewer traditionalists. Fewer traditional Catholics equals less traditional Catholic art. But it is out there if you look. Good stuff. Trads aren’t all just on the internet complaining, so don’t paint it that way. And I’m sure that I don’t need to tell ya we’re not living in the glory days of Catholicism.

 

[Jacafamala]

lucybeebee; No. What I mean is that religion is something we have to self-consciously think about, which was not the case prior to modern times.

That’s because the local church down the block’s teaching was spot on. By en large, our grandparents and our great grandparents didn’t have heresies dished out to them to the extent that many Catholics do today.

Those of us who take religion seriously certainly know more about the faith than our ancestors, many of who were most likely illiterate. We have access to a wealth of information through books and the Internet that even the best libraries of the previous 1000 years could not have imagined. The Vatican home page alone contains more information than the average monastic library of the Middle Ages. That doesn’t mean that we are nessesarily better Catholics because of it.

Well, yes if you’re talking about us Catholic internet junkies. But the average Catholic in the pew at the local Pauline Mass? I don’t think they take the time or really care. And as I said before, we sure aren’t getting much doctrine from the “NO” pulpit. We didn’t get it from the fourth rate books given out at the Religious Education program, either.

This blog entry explains what I’m trying to say in a better manner.
arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/el-futuro-que-se-acerca-y-el-pasado-que-nos-hechiza/#more-148

I’ll give it a look see, thanks.

 

[peary]

No. What I mean is that religion is something we have to self-consciously think about, which was not the case prior to modern times. Those of us who take religion seriously certainly know more about the faith than our ancestors, many of who were most likely illiterate. We have access to a wealth of information through books and the Internet that even the best libraries of the previous 1000 years could not have imagined. The Vatican home page alone contains more information than the average monastic library of the Middle Ages. That doesn’t mean that we are nessesarily better Catholics because of it. This blog entry explains what I’m trying to say in a better manner.

]

I disagree. I do not believe that we know more about the faith than our ancestors did just because we are literate and most of them were not. In fact, I believe they understood the Faith moreso than we do today because of that fact. Were they literate in the time of Jesus and the apostles? How many of them weren’t? The vast majority of converts were illiterate, and they did not have the mental garbage we have to deal with today when it came to practicing the Faith. Knowledge-wise, we may know more, but knowing more does not get one ‘saved’, and it doesn’t get one to Heaven.

 

[Jacafamala]

OK, cool blog BTW. After having read your blog entry maybe I understand what you’re getting at. And you’re right that we aren’t necessarily better for our knowledge than our ancestors. St. Bernadette, the Fatima children, St. Juan Diego all come to mind as examples of uneducated pious individuals.

But I don’t think we can go back to being primitive. Not at this point. I’ll take your holy dirt theme and run with it a little here, if I may: the soil of the Church back during the time of our ancestors was rich and dark black as coffee beans. Almost anything would grow in it. Right now in most parishes I think the dirt’s devoid of nutrients. It’s anemic. You can’t just toss the seeds in and turn your back and expect a bumper crop by harvest time. So I think that a little head knowledge holds an important place in the lives of the faithful today. Knowledge can make you holy, or it can add to your ego.

I also know people come onto the internet to bicker and rant. Well, yeah. It’s our fallen human nature at play. It’s unfortunate.

I think it’d be extremely dangerous not to learn what you can of the Faith today. In particular, I think it’s extrememly dangerous not to educate one’s children in the Faith today. Because uneducated they become easy prey for other churches or hedonism, or what have you.

 

[CradleCath]

In terms of architecture, the current “bunker” or “glass and steel” models are what’s popular. When an architect is hired to design a church, the diocese is held hostage to the tastes of the designer, who probably doesn’t know or care about what styles are appropriate for a Catholic church. It seems like the only way to combat this tendency is to have more Catholic architects and stained glass artists.

Very true, however the prelate in charge of the building has the freedom to choose the architect. In the case of the monstrosity built by Roger Mahony, the architect, Rafael Moneo, is known for his “bunker” style buildings & the Cathedral of Los Angelos is a joke among the people of the diocese & the world. Mahony, however, thinks it’s beautiful.

**Art, Music & Catholic culture ** have suffered severely since the Church in America began to be in the hands of the Vatican II hierarchy. Much of it is an embarrassment. Think “The gift of Finest Wheat” vs “Adoro Te Devote” chant??? Analogous to the Sistine ceiling in art is the Gregorian chant in music, expressive of the faith of the creative souls who bequeathed it to us.

 

[CradleCath]

That would indeed be cause for question, if those reasons (by themselves) are being used to grant annulments.

Pope Benedict recently addressed the abuses of the annulment process. I agree with him. The criteria for annulment was always that the Sacrament itself was not valid (one partner lied, etc.) or that consumation had not/could not be completed. Today…well, I’ve heard it referred to as a “Catholic divorce” more than one time.

Pope Benedict XVI has warned Vatican judges to get tough on couples who ask the Catholic Church to annul their marriages.
The Pope ordered the clampdown after new figures showed that the church’s appeals court allowed 69 annulments in 2005 for reasons which included husbands being too attached to their mothers.

The court, known as the Sacra Rota, considers petitions from couples claiming their marriages were never truly valid. Apart from the get-out clause for women married to “mummy’s boys”, an “inability to assume conjugal obligations”, usually due to a childhood trauma, appears among the successful reasons for annulment in 2005, as do alcoholism, use of cannabis (marijuana), infidelity and a serious lack of “moderation in judgment” by a partner, meaning jealousy or a propensity to lie

guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/29/religion.catholicism

 

[gavanhe]

OK, cool blog BTW. After having read your blog entry maybe I understand what you’re getting at. And you’re right that we aren’t necessarily better for our knowledge than our ancestors. St. Bernadette, the Fatima children, St. Juan Diego all come to mind as examples of uneducated pious individuals.

But I don’t think we can go back to being primitive. Not at this point. I’ll take your holy dirt theme and run with it a little here, if I may: the soil of the Church back during the time of our ancestors was rich and dark black as coffee beans. Almost anything would grow in it. Right now in most parishes I think the dirt’s devoid of nutrients. It’s anemic. You can’t just toss the seeds in and turn your back and expect a bumper crop by harvest time. So I think that a little head knowledge holds an important place in the lives of the faithful today. Knowledge can make you holy, or it can add to your ego.

When you think about it our forefathers had it relatively easy in the faith department, although life was hard there was no ambiguity in their belief so consequently they did not need to spend their precious time confirming their beliefs as we need to today.
We have so much contrary information and opinion that some of us do need to confirm what we belief.
Gerry