We can get so caught up in the aesthetics of the Mass, its art, music and style of celebration that we forget that the Mass is the renewal in an unbloody way of the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross. Through His cross and resurrection, Jesus Christ has set us free from sin and eternal damnation. He has opened the gates of heaven for all who accept and participate in the gift of eternal salvation. Even our acceptance and participation is aided by divine grace for without it we could accomplish nothing on our own.
Yes, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our daily Independence Day, our freedom form powers and principalities.
Yet, what do most of us focus on when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? We focus on music, ad orientem or versus populum; we focus on Latin or the vernacular, improvisation by the priest or congregation and a whole variety of other side bar issues.
Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that we should read the black and do the red but with flair and grace, not in a mechanical, robotic way.
Don't bet me wrong, I love the Ordinary Form of the Mass as well as the Mass from which is morphed, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. These are the foundation of my spiritual life.
Yes, because of language and weak rubrics, the Ordinary Form of the Mass lends itself to compromised celebrations. Yes, priests do improvise, use their own words and insert their personality, humor, spirituality and the rest of it onto the Mass. Maybe I should say they inflict the Mass and the congregation with their antics. But what is really sad is that most laity don't know any difference. They've been cooked in the crockpot of liturgies should manipulated by clergy that they think this is the way it should be. They wouldn't know and might not appreciate an Ordinary Form Mass celebrated by book using Gregorian chant and its offspring.
The Extraordinary Form of the Mass can suffer abuse at the hands of priests too, but it is less obvious to the laity. So much of the EF is silent. The worst thing that a priest could do is race through the prayers, but sometimes this isn't always obvious to the laity unless the Mass is over in 10 minutes. But of course I'm speaking of the low Mass or spoken Mass. The Sung Mass is difficult to corrupt by the priest.
Yes, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our Independence Day from Satan and his plan of eternal damnation for us. Only God can free us from Satan and He has done so through His most beloved Son Jesus Christ.
Happy Independence Day!
46 comments:
Fr, If you just put your first and last paragraphs together, it sounds like a letter Paul might have written in retrospect about the Mass...just a hint of Calvin, as well...LOL!
Yes, Father. I won't quibble with you here because if one has that last paragraph firmly in mind one can endure anything.
Great post!
Regarding getting caught up in the aesthetics of Mass . . . that makes the aesthetics sound as if they're rather unimportant. In the final analysis, maybe they are, but maybe they aren't (lex orandi lex credendi). So I have a hypothetical to test it. Be warned that it's rather disturbing, or at least I find it so.
Suppose a validly ordained Catholic priest becomes a member of some group that desecrates Hosts as part of their, er, liturgy. Suppose that this priest then celebrates a valid, but highly illicit, Mass for this group--it doesn't matter whether it's NO or Tridentine. But throughout this Mass, he and the, er, congregation, indulge in the most obscene and blasphemous acts, including parodies of actual liturgical prayers and actions, throughout. The priest joins in, but at no time does he do anything to invalidate the Mass he is celebrating. At the Consecration . . . well, I'll leave it to your imaginations, since this hypothetical is unsavory enough as it is.
Question 1: Given that all of the "essentials" of Mass are present, is all of this other stuff, includingnot only the blasphemous additions, but the blasphemous distortions, aesthetic, or is it some third class of item, neither essential nor aesthetic? Keep in mind that some or even most of these things may be as simple as reciting the Creed or the Our Father in loud and mocking tones, or using death metal, for the hymns--i.e., doing perfectly legitimate things in very ugly ways.
Question 2: If it's aesthetic, can we really say that aesthetics don't matter a huge deal? I.e., is it right to refer to the aesthetics as "just" aesthetics?
Question 3: If it is some third thing, how do we distinguish it from "mere" aesthetics? And does it follow that whatever this third thing is, its legitimate and reverent counterpart at a licit Mass isn't "mere" anything?
Well, there would be no western music as we know it without Gregorian Chant, its fons et origo, and the same chant is inseparable from the liturgy with which it grew up and developed. It can be argued that the whole idea of aesthetics as understood in the West is developed from and with the liturgy.
Anon 5,
If Fr. Dominic is at the EWTN Family Celebration, I'll see what he says about your comment. He is studying Cannon Law in Rome, but he is home for summer break. I think he would be quite interested in this.
Anon 5, How does one separate "aesthetics" from what is essential? Where does one draw the line? I have always maintained that Liturgy is Doctrine and Doctrine is Liturgy. The Liturgy embodies Catholic Doctrine, and Catholic Doctrine points to Liturgy. For me, the vestments, gestures, liturgical items, incense, etc. are only secondarily "aesthetics." They are primarily the Mass.
One of my former Mercer theology professors, a Baptist, told me a few years ago when I discussed with him my coming to the Church, "Oh, well, denominational choices are mainly a matter of aesthetics." That really bothered me at the time, and it bothers me even more today. No, Anon 5, aesthetics are not "mere" anything." Good post.
Anon 5 - A priest cannot accomplish, even by a "valid" celebration of the mass or other sacraments, that which the Church does not intend to accomplish.
A priest cannot, for example, enter a large bakery and by a valid celebration, consecrate all the bread in the bakery since this is not intended by the Church.
If it is a matter of mere aesthetics - are the walls painted a pleasant puce or a calming celadon - then the intention of the priest and the Church coincide. If his intention is to mock, to denigrate, to provide the eucharist not for the benefit of those it is intended for, the validity is at least questionable and, according to many, not present.
Aehthetics can indeed be "mere." A hymn played/sung at an entirely inappropriate tempo, a vestment that is really worn and in need of replacement, a sound system that truly sucks eggs - these are mere aesthetics which, while unpleasant, do not in any way impact the validity of the mass OR the way in which many present benefit from the graces made present therein.
Pater,
Let's leave aside your final paragraph for the moment and focus on the first three.
What--precisely--in any given Mass, does the Church intend to accomplish? Is it the unbloody re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice so as to make it present to the congregation? In my hypothetical, I'd say that the priest doesn't intend to mock anything. He intends what the Church intends. He intends a valid consecration and a celebration of the Mass. (And by the way, I see no intrinsic reason why consecrating all the bread in a bakery wouldn't work, although it might be illicit due to leavening. I can imagine a city-wide catastrophe in a Catholic country in which bakery has the only bread available for Mass, and a winery is located right next door. If you want to argue that it's invalid _simply_ because of the environment, then I think you may have proven my point for me as to the crucial nature of aesthetics or at least environment/setting.)
If you want to make my hypothetical more straightforward, we can say that rather than being part of this group, the priest is making a misguided attempt at evangelization, hoping by his Christlike example of offering Mass in this lions' den to win some souls to Christ from this satanic group. My point is, let's don't sidetrack the key issue of the hypothetical, which isn't validity but the definition and importance of aesthetics.
Of course, if you want to argue that, despite the proper intention of the priest, this still can't be a valid Mass merely because of the surrounding circumstances, that again gets very close to admitting the argument I'm investigating--that aesthetics, or something like them, play a major substantive role in making the Mass the Mass, and that sufficient defects in them invalidate the Mass.
Thoughts?
Gene, if denominational choices are merely a matter of aesthetics, I'd still be high church Anglican, which beats the NO all hollow. :-)
So then, a mentally ill person, driven to murder someone for the pleasure of watching them bleed out, is not committing a mortal sin then? It's mere aesthetics that he is killing someone since his intent isn't to commit the murder, just to engage the part of his mind that wants to watch the person bleed out. By killing he never intends to slight God, hence no sin, right?
Everything is judged by intentions, yes? So any sin is allowable if one feels compelled to it, then it's not sin and not one's fault, because intention is everything.
Slippery slope.
This is the best Independence Day commentary I have read this far!
"Yes, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our daily Independence Day, our freedom form powers and principalities."
"Yes, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our Independence Day from Satan and his plan of eternal damnation for us. Only God can free us from Satan and He has done so through His most beloved Son Jesus Christ. "
~SqueekerLamb
"what do most of us focus on when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? We focus on music, ad orientem or versus populum; we focus on Latin or the vernacular, improvisation by the priest or congregation and a whole variety of other side bar issues"
I can't believe you think so lowly of the "most of us"! I assist at a reverent Sunday NO Mass and I NEVER focus on all that you attribute to so many! I focus on our Lord Jesus Christ present in the Liturgy both of the Word and of the Eucharist. Sweeping (and belittling) generalizations are unwise.
Anonymous, I think Fr. meant what do we focus on when discussing the Mass, not when we are assisting at Mass. Duh...your self-righteousness is showing.
Anon at 6:36 raises an interesting point. If we all of us could focus during the entire Mass on Christ, aesthetics would not only be unnecessary but an actual distraction. Yet the Church has seen fit to add a substantial aesthetic element. Why?
Further, Anon says he focuses "on our Lord Jesus Christ present in the Liturgy both of the Word and of the Eucharist" (emphasis added). Does the ease/character/degree of that focus change depending on whether the liturgy is celebrated well or badly?
A5, I think the esthetics are certainly for our lowly human minds. But I think it should draw our focus to God rather than interrupt or distract.
Three conditions are necessary for a mortal sin to be committed:
1) Grave matter
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother. (CCC 1858)
2) Sufficient reflection
3) Full consent of the will
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Yes, the intent of the person - his/her will - matters.
This is also true in celebrating the sacraments. A priest cannot do what the Church clearly does not intend when he celebrates a sacrament.
I priest cannot, for instance, consecrate all the wine in the sacristy closet or all the hosts in the sacristy cabinet from his place at the altar. These are not magic words we are using, and they don't function magically.
Anon 5 - I am arguing that the bakery-wide consecration of bread must be the Church's intention to which the individual priest's intention must correspond if the consecration is to happen.
I don't think that "bad" or "insufficient" aesthetical elements can ever invalidate a mass in and of themselves.
I still believe that what we are calling "aesthetics" are, to a considerable degree, integral to the Mass and not incidentals. We might refresh our memories by reading Exodus: Chaps. 37-40, and Leviticus and Numbers regarding the specific instructions given by JHWH to the Israelites regarding the dress of the Priest, the Temple structure, and the offerings. Apparently, God held these things to be important. The Catholic Church, certainly since 400 AD, developed a consistent and careful structure of worship based, in part, on the worship of Israel. The Mass was carefully structured and rigorously celebrated. Then, and for no apparently compelling reason, in the feel-good sixties and seventies all of that was thrown over for this sad hybrid we now have, and the old aesthetics were defiled and destroyed. Flip quickly over to Amos, "...I take no delight in your feasts and solemn assemblies, to the noise of your songs I will not listen..."
Is no one willing to consider that this very discussion about aesthetics, these long discussions about Liturgy and the disagreements regarding it, the very existence of this blog and blogs like Pray Tell are witness to God's judgement upon the Church? Again, anything such as Vat II that has sown so much dissension, division, and unrest cannot possibly be pleasing to God other than as the destruction of Jerusalem might have been at his pleasure. Think about it...
Pater; I'll stipluate to your 11:29 AM bakery remarks, but they're pretty much a digression. We still need to define "what the Church intends" rather than just give examples. Until we do so, I think that my original hypothetical still may qualify in that, blasphemous circumstances aside, the priest still intends a valid consecration at an alter during Mass. I think my revised hypothetical certainly qualifies, and your bakery hypothetiucal doesn't speak to it. Further, I'm not arguing that bad aesthetics can invalidate a Mass. In fact my hypothetical presumes validity.
Perhaps what I'm getting at is that aesthetics can affect the amount of graces conveyed/received, sort of (but not exactly) ex opere operantis. That's still not quite correct, because if you make things too subjective, then it becomes a matter of full heart and empty head (or as Duke Ellington once said of music, "If it sounds good, it is good.") If you could have someone who genuinely believes that "Gather us in" is as aesthetically better than a Palestrina Mass setting, or that a guitar played by someone with a only a week of lessons through an amp deliberately pushed to clipping is as good as Duruflé playing an Aeolian-Skinner, then aesthetics don't matter much. But if aesthetics are that inconsequential, shouldn't we strip the mass down as far as possible?
On the other hand, if the aesthetics of Mass are generally the same for several hundred years, and within the space of a decade we completely change those aesthetics--everything from the music to the language to the architecture--are we not making a statement that 1) aesthetics _do_ matter, and that 2) the prior aesthetics were wrong? (And if they were wrong, by what standards?) And if aesthetics can be wrong, doesn't that mean that they matter? And if they matter, but can't affect validity, must that not mean that they effect the amount of graces available or received at Mass?
But, if a Priest went into a bakery and consecrated all the bread and pastries would that mean they are no longer bad for you to gorge on?
Anon 5 - This link (http://100swallows.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/van-meeregan-cristo-y-adultera.jpg) will take you to a well known fake Vermeer painting called "Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery."
Anyone familiar with Vermeer's work would suspect right off that it is a phony. The colors, the construction, the background, the faces just don't have the "Vermeer feel." (Yet, many were fooled by it nonetheless.)
I wonder if a person guilty of adultery could not be moved just as readily to repentance by this painting as they might be by a real Vermeer. Could it not be appreciated for what it is - a scene depicting the mercy of the Lord and His power to heal - in spite of it being a forgery? In the real painting the colors would be stronger, the details more finely presented, the background would be elegant with fine details.
I don't think aesthetics are inconsequential at all. But I am sure that different people respond differently to different aesthetics.
The aesthetics of the mass were, for centuries, controlled by European aesthetic sensibilities. I can be in awe of a glorious baroque church dripping with gilt putti, acanthus leaves, and more columns than you can shake a stick at. I can equally be in awe in the austere chapel at the monastery of the Holy Spirit at Conyers.
If we must speak of grace as a commodity, then the "amount" of grace conveyed/received at the baroque church and the "amount" conveyed/received at Conyers are the same.
Pater,
You get the general idea of where I'm going with your Vermeer example, except that in my guitar example, the musician is doing a bad AC/DC rendition as opposed to a passable Palestrina knockoff. But I get your point and I agree with it.
Your Eurocentric point doesn't cover all of it, at least in this country, since most of the stuff that people here consider bad is still heavily, if not entirely, in the western/European tradition. (Gene will tell you of a sci-fi series I introduced him to recently, in which the sacred music of a planet's dominant religion is descended from an ancient musical form called "country and western.")
Your final statements paragraphs are more problematical. Re the next to the last: you show the objective/subjective problem when you describe Conyers as austere. In that context, the word sounds complimentary; you like the effect (subjective) and assign a complimentary word to it to show that you like it. Is there a decor or a setting, though, that could objectively be called bad? A person with a week's worth of guitar lessons and a faulty amp may be sincere, and may be sincerely appreciated, much as a three year old's efforts and intentions are sincerely appreciated by his parents, obviously in terms of achievement, technical expertise, scale, etc., the work doesn't rank with those of Michelangelo, though those are objective criteria. But in light of the objective difference, can we say that in a corporate setting, the finger painting is out of place? If so, why? If not, why not? The next step would be to ask whether "gather us in" is the musical equivalent of finger painting.
I think I would disagree with your final paragraph. If my ex opere operantis analogy is correct, then amounts of grace _received_ can definitely differ from circumstance to circumstance. I'll defer to others as to whether there are circumstances in which a Mass can actually convey less grace than another Mass (e.g., perhaps an illicit one as opposed to a licit one?), though if the answer is "yes," I think the argument that aesthetics can have an effect on this is further strengthened.
This is a sophomore year history of philosophy discussion regarding objective truth and beauty a la Plato, et al. Here is the short answer:
Either there is an objectively proper Mass with proper aesthetics or anything goes. See, now wasn't that easy...
Anon 5 - A well celebrated NO in the vernacular is not a "knock off" rendition of the mass. It is the mass, from start to finish.
Conyers is austere and I like it. I also like highly ornate baroque churches. I don't think there is objective "beauty/ugly," no.
Pater: I don't understand. You, and not I, were the one who introduced the idea of the Vermeer copy. I understood that to apply to aesthetic appreciation and discussed it in terms of the element of music. I had no intention to applying it to the Mass in toto re its validity. Of course the Mass is the Mass. But your statement just brings us back to the beggining of the circle. There can be beautiful Masses and ugly Masses. I believe you still haven't tried to address my point of whether aesthetics can have an affect on receptivity to graces.
If you want to believe that a kid with a weeks's worth of lessons and a bad guitar/amp is going to produce music that is objectively as good as a Palestrina Mass setting by a well-trained organist and choir--or, appealing to the relativist standard of the majority, that most people would find it to be as good--be my guest.
Finally, I'm sorry that when I made a concession as to the validity of one of your arguments--that a Vermeer knowckoff could be aesthetically pleasing--you didn't accept that with good grace. Instead, it looks very much to me as if you chose to twist my words and then criticized me for them. Goes back to something I recently said to you on another post. Do people here want to have a mutually enlightening debate, or do that want to concede nothing, find that their opponents always wrong, score points off each other, and generally be so predictable that each of us could write posts for the other regulars by now? Why exactly are you here?
Anon 5 - I don't agree that there is an objectively "beautiful" or an objectively "ugly" celebration of the mass.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find the chapel at Conyers, austere and with minimal adornment, exceptionally beautiful. I also find our cathedral in Savannah, rich with adornment, exceptionally beautiful.
To a classically trained musician, 6 or 8 missed notes in a simple Bach piece played at the time of the presentation of the gifts may render the mass "ugly." To a lover of natural fibers, the synthetic carpet in a church render that building unattractive. A seller of wall board might find a church built entirely of stone repulsive.
I don't buy the argument for the existence of objective beauty.
As soon as you bring in a kid with a guitar and an orchestra with a Palestrina composition, you have introduced a huge amount of subjectivity.
Ok, Ignotus, How about objective truth? Leaving aside theology and revealed truth, do you believe there is an objective truth...other than a priori mathematical truth? Or do you not believe in that, either?
Pin/Gene - There are objective facts. Green is the color that our brains perceive when the visible light wavelength is about 510 nm. One second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Twiggs County cops are among the most watchful in the State of Georgia on I-16. These are objective matters.
On the other hand, and not analogous to objective facts, determining what is beautiful and what is ugly is largely, if not entirely, a subjective.
What might be the criteria for judging what is objectively beautiful. Not in terms of a mass, but in general?
Ignotus, I did not ask about objective facts, the question was about objective TRUTH. There is a difference.
But, let me help you out...the "facts" which you cite are actually based upon mathematical truths which are expressed in the various constants and formulas of physics...
Pin/Gene - If you set aside "theology and revealed truth," what objective truth are you referring to?
Is "An acorn submerged in salt water will not grow into an oak tree" the kind of thing you are getting at?
A priori mathematical truths, The Laws of entropy, inertia, etc. 2+2 =4, sq. rt. of 9=3, Pi...you know, that sort of stuff.
We can imagine a planet or a universe with an atmosphere or chemical construction where an acorn in salt water will grow into an oak. We cannot imagine a planet or universe where 2+2=5 or where pi does not obtain.
Pin/Gene - OK - If we are using "fact" and "truth" to mean the same thing (both of us reserve the right to revisit this along the way as needed), then there are objective truths.
So, then, you do accept mathematical truths, at least? But, again, fact and truth are different concepts. Facts are based upon certain mathematical and physical truths. But, we can let that slide for now.
The argument I would make is that our perception of beauty is based upon mathematical symmetry and how well or poorly it is approximated in various forms of expression. Humans being continuous with the structures of the universe, our minds are constructed, according to Kant and others, so that we impose structure upon our perceptions in a way that is synchronous with the existing mathematical structures of the existing world "out there." Our mind's imposition of order upon the physical world is based upon mathematical structures within and without our minds.
Art history shows an increasing symmetry in painting, sculpture, and architecture...an increasing attempt to approximate mathematical symmetry in visible form. Through the Renaissance, this was the artistic ideal. It might be argued, a la Jung, that these forms are archetypal in our collective psyche. The same holds true for Byzantine and asian art. A certain mathematical symmetry obtains there, as well.
When we get to the Baroque and its various expressions, still the beauty is based upon a certain measured deviation from the traditional symmetry of the High Renaissance...there is still balance and rational proportion within the asymmetrical (not totally) expression.
When we get to modern art...cubism, expressionism, etc. we begin to see the breakdown of culture and traditional forms expressed in art. That is the point...the old symmetries and forms no longer hold because society and culture have become degraded by industrialism, technology, war, and the disintegration of religion and law. But, even this expression is derived from the departure from the symmetry of traditional art. The artists are deliberately making a statement by departing radically from traditional expressions which reflect traditional values and perceptions. Modernism and post-modernism did not happen in a vacuum...they are statements about the decline of our culture.
I would argue from this that traditional Gothic and Romanesque architecture more closely approximate a symmetry that is integral to human perception...the structures of our minds as they relate to the structures in the real world than some thrown together hovel. They attempt to express, in grand form, the symmetries of the cosmos, if you will. (cont'd)
So, if someone prefers a punk with one week's lessons banging out "Camp Town Races" on a fifty-dollar guitar to Schubert's "Ave" or a Palestrina, then I would indeed argue that that person's tastes are dis-ordered in the mathematical as well as the aesthetically (which is to say the same thing) sense.
One may also be reminded that Einstein, Fermi, and other scientists of the first order have said that viable theories and accepted laws of of physics are "beautiful" in that they reflect symmetry and balance.
Finally, to argue that there is simply no objective standard or measure for beauty is to argue for chaos. This is like the morons who run around parroting "everything is relative, everything is relative." This is nonsense because if that were the case there would be nothing for anything to be relative to...an absurdity.
So, whatever one's subjective perception of beauty, it is based upon mathematical symmetry or a purposive departure therefrom. We can see in the history of art that we have moved from painting and building to the glory of God, as in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, to the making of social or political statements. This phenomena is based, in my opinion, upon the collectively unconscious awareness that the socio-political structures of our world are breaking down and that the age old forms and traditions that have given us meaning and identity are disintegrating. Many of these Modernist/Post-Modernist expressions are actually cries of anguish or dire warnings to us concerning what we face.( In this line, one might ask why the Church, in its Vat II fugue, would choose to cast her lot with the forces of disintegration rather than with those of re-integration and continuity...but, I digress.)
Now, we have not discussed Revealed Truth, and we may not. But, Scripture presupposes the same symmetry and objective standards for beauty about which I am speaking. JHWH's instructions for the building of the ark, the Temple, the Altar, the Ark of the Covenant, the Priest's garments all reflect a symmetry and adornment based upon mathematical forms and the mental structures with which we receive (are you ready?) REVELATION. Song of Solomon presupposes certain standards for beauty, and Revelation is quite descriptive of the precious metals (all in the Periodic Table) and precious stones (crystalline structures) with which the Holy City is adorned.
Iconoclasm is nihilism. De-constructionism is a symptom of a dying culture. Modernism was the warning...we missed it.
So, yeah, we call them pedestrian tastes for a reason.
I have not been reading the Blog for several days, and this evening I find this fascinating thread.
Gene, Pater, and Anon 5: I wonder if there is a way you can all be correct based on your excellent last post, Gene. The perception of symmetry is surely the key to why Pater finds both Conyers and a “glorious baroque church” such as St. Josephs beautiful. Both churches respect the laws of symmetry. In my view one excellent book to read on this, covering architecture and so much else besides, is “Harmony” by the much misunderstood Charles, HRH the Prince of Wales:
http://www.amazon.com/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/B0051BNW5S
That said, I suspect it is not a question of either/or – not so much a question of Plato so much as Aristotle. And since acorns have already been brought up, the oak tree can be more or less near the mark of “perfection,” not_either_“perfect”_or_“imperfect,” just as the arrow can be closer or further away from the bull’s-eye.
Both St. Joseph’s and Conyers are, arguably, central cases of “beauty” because they observe closely the rules of symmetry. The less respect for those rules the more peripheral the cases become.
But again, even with that said, there is room for subjectivity. Some people may find a highly ornate church such as St, Josephs too “busy” and “distracting.” Others may find Conyers too “plain” (austere) and “distracting” for that reason. So here again, it is not a matter of either/or, but an additional vector along which we must measure to determine the ultimate effect both in terms of perception of beauty and associated reception of graces.
And I am not quite sure exactly what to make of your disturbing hypothetical, Anon. 5. Perhaps this does indeed introduce a second subjective consideration and a third vector to help determine ultimate effect – the intention of the priest (and, presumably, that of the participants too).
All of which leaves me with the sense that the “truth” of the matter is not either “objective”_or_”subjective” but a mix of both, much as “greenness” is not indeed “in” the thing itself_or_in us but in the interaction between the two.
As for the implications of all this for TLM versus OF, Latin versus the vernacular, and Gregorian chant versus organ versus contemporary “folk” musical styles, it takes me, as it usually does, to a pluralism of forms that respect both the “objective” elements_and_ the “subjective” responses of those who experience them.
But in all cases, Father is surely right to remind us never to lose sight of what is really central – the miracle of the Mass as God comes to His people under the form of bread and wine. And here the arrow can never fail to hit the bull’s-eye because the bow is in the hand of the divine Archer.
Yes, Anon 2 and, though there may be a wide range of subjective responses to art, they are still based upon a mathematical symmetry or a purposive departure from it. Again, I would maintain that, whatever the subjective response, the farther it gets from mathematical symmetry and proportion...the further towards randomness or chaos...the more disordered the "taste" of the respondent.
Parenthetically, a part of the problem with our educational system over the past several decades is that, instead of working to form the tastes and appreciations of our children, it has taken to consulting them or catering to them. There was nothing wrong with the concept of education in Plato's City State (Republic). It would need to be fine tuned to modern developments, that's all.
Lest I give the wrong impression, I also find the chapel at St. Procopius Abbey (http://www.osb.org/aba/2006/BenUniv/target28.html) with its asymmetry and minimalist design, exceptionally beautiful.
While our cathedral and the chapel at Conyers are designed with significant symmetry, I do not consider "ugly" churches or chapels that are built without that symmetry.
More to come . . .
Pater,
Those photos are interesting. While the architecture is not to my personal taste (even though I love minimalism too, as at Conyers), I can see “beauty” in the design. I wonder if “symmetry” is too narrow a concept, then. Perhaps Prince Charles’s notion of “harmony” would be better. Would you say that the abbey church at St. Procopius is “harmonious” in its asymmetry? Certainly the asymmetry seems to be very studied and deliberate. Is it another instance where, as Gene puts it, “beauty is based upon a certain measured deviation from the traditional symmetry of the High Renaissance...there is still balance and rational proportion within the asymmetrical (not totally) expression.” (not the Baroque he refers to, but the same idea)? Are these sparse comments suggestive:
http://www.architecture-student.com/architecture/interrelationship-of-symmetry-and-asymmetry-with-balance-and-harmony-in-design/
As you can probably tell, aesthetics are not my strong suit but I do find this conversation an interesting one.
Been very busy the last couple of days and don't anticipate changes soon. Posted something but either posted on the wrong thread or it didn't go through. So here's a re-post.
Pater, accepting arguendo your claim that there's no suc thing with objective beauty, consider the following. Let's say that I hate Palestrina, and I find a kid with a week's worth of guitar lessons playing a bad guitar at Mass to be aesthetically pleasing. If I attend a Palestrina Mass, is it possible that I receive less grace at that Mass (ex opere operantis or by analogy to it) due to aesthetic reasons?
And please don't mistake this for a question as to whether the same amount of grace is _available_ at every Mass. That goes to the ex opere operato issue, and that's not what I'm asking about. I'm talking about graces received, not grace available.
Anon 5 - Again, I think it is a wild hare chase to talk about grace as if it were a commodity. There is not "more" here and "less" there.
What keeps us from receiving grace (just grace, not more or less grace) is our sin, our hardness of heart, our unwillingness to allow grace to enter our lives and transform us.
Music does not block grace, neither does a lector who mispronounces Shadrack, Meshak, and Abednego, an altar server who drops a cruet, or a crying baby in the front row just below the pulpit.
It is possible for you to miss the opportunity to receive grace (just grace, not more or less) at any time and at any place. As it is possible for you to receive it at any time at any place.
Ignotus, Do you always deliberately misunderstand/ignore the questions put to you by people...in this case, Anon 5? Are you so intellectually inept as to be unable to respond to him appropriately?
Now, "just grace, not more or less grace" sounds suspiciously protestant. "...t'was Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace that fear relieved, How precious did that Grace appear the hour I first believed..."
Pin/Gene - I don't believe that beauty exists apart from the experience of the observer.
A form, be it musical, architectural, decorative, sculptural, etc., is not beautiful unless it is experienced as beautiful by the observer.
A form may be a "proper" expression of a mathematical formula. A form may embody some mathematical proportions, it may express a "symmetry" that corresponds to some mathematical formulas.
But this seems to leave out entirely the experience of the form by the human observer.
A fault I find in your argument is your suggestion that a departure from mathematical symmetry cannot result in beauty.
Another fault I find in your argument is that mathematical symmetry is the ONLY foundation/source for beauty. In a building, this can come from materials used, the colors, textures, and sizes of building materials. The same would be true for decorative arts, painting, sculpture, etc.
I am not convinced, at all, that the measure of beauty is found in mathematical formulas inasmuch as it leaves out the experience of the observer.
Anon 2 - One of the things that makes the Procopius Abbey chapel beautiful to me is material used in its construction. I find brick and wood in this instance to be exceptionally beautiful - as I find the marble, terrazzo, and plaster of our cathedral and the chapel at Conyers to be so.
I like the concept of "harmony." The building at Procopius, from the narthex, through the baptistery, through the hall leading into the main body of the chapel, is harmonious with the RCIA on which the design is based.
Ignotus, I said in my post that a measured or purposive departure from a certain symmetry is another kind of beauty.
If you will read it more carefully, I also point out that our mental structures, being continuous with the structures of creation, are based upon the same mathematical symmetry and are designed to impart order and proportion to our apperceptions. We are a part of the very symmetry we perceive as "beauty." Also, we are not talking about mathematical "formulas;" we are talking about symmetry and proportion, which may be explained by formulas but are qualitatively different. Materials, colors, texture, and size are all based upon symmetry and proportion, as well.
Any argument for subjectivity alone as the measure of aesthetic appreciation (or truth, either) is an argument for chaos and randomness. That is ultimately the logic of such argument.
Pin/Gene - What is a "mental structure"? The arrangement of neurons? The relative positions of the brain parts?
Post a Comment