tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post4164822816264984294..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: IS THE 1950'S LITURGICAL MOVEMENT TOO 1950'S AND TOO ICONOCLASTIC? SHOULD WE BE STUCK IN THE 1950'S?Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-33207273249623552192012-08-24T18:09:33.410-04:002012-08-24T18:09:33.410-04:00Marc - It makes no sense to enter into a discussio...Marc - It makes no sense to enter into a discussion of substance with someone who thinks he can define terms at his whim.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-75132492468801444452012-08-24T15:11:34.605-04:002012-08-24T15:11:34.605-04:00Pater - Are you ready to tell us about Mortalium A...Pater - Are you ready to tell us about Mortalium Animos and the Syllabus now?Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1390762725122385982012-08-24T13:56:12.059-04:002012-08-24T13:56:12.059-04:00Marc - I read Anon 2's definition. The window...Marc - I read Anon 2's definition. The windows at HS do not use "a visual language of form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world." The objects pictured in the windows are very realistic.<br /><br />The windows at HS do not depart from reality in depiction of imagery. They are "accurate representations" of the bells, yoke, broken sword, etc.<br /><br />They are not "abstract" images. You erred in calling them abstract, as you erred is saying we have "felt banners" and now you are grasping at straws to cover up your error.<br /><br />If you would refrain from offering caricatures of that which does not suit your personal tastes, you'd not fall into these factual errors.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-5582981519752829242012-08-24T11:58:35.005-04:002012-08-24T11:58:35.005-04:00Pater - Did you fail to read Anon2's definitio...Pater - Did you fail to read Anon2's definition of "abstract art" that supported my view? If you've read that, then not every definition you've read says what you claim. <br /><br />Still, neither you nor any document can tell me what definition of "abstract art" I am using. <br /><br />Again, I agree with you on the actor debate. You are being irrationally obstinate on this abstract art debate, though. <br /><br />Thank you for the resources on the symbology of the lily. Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71956705960684665992012-08-24T10:00:12.643-04:002012-08-24T10:00:12.643-04:00Marc - Andy is trying to say that when I say "...Marc - Andy is trying to say that when I say "actor" I am referring ONLY to ONE meaning of the word "actor." Neither he nor any document from the Church can tell me what definition of "actor" I am using.<br /><br />Although I have repeatedly explained to him that I am NOT using the word in the sense of a stage or screen actor, he obstinately refuses to understand. <br /><br />Abstract art, according to ALL the definitions I have read, does not include clear images of things in the natural world. For example, "It does not borrow objects from the real world; it creates its own objects .... The abstract reveals the will of the artist; it becomes expression. ..."<br /><br />Now the nine stained glass windows in Holy Spirit Church all contain clear representations (not so much the lily) of objects in the real world. While you may not care for the style, calling them "abstract" is simply an error.<br /><br />The windows at St. Joseph are beautiful works of art. But they, too, "are symbolic of higher ideas." All Christian symbols work that way, whether it is a Ringing Bell in a Holy Spirit window or the "AMDG" monogram in the rose window above the organ pipes in ST. Joe's.<br /><br />If, to you, "it is unclear what the lily window means in the context of a Church" I would suggest you need to do a little more reading in the area of Catholic iconography. You will discover: "The Lily, symbol of virginity and purity. There is also a white day lily which only blooms during the time of the Assumption in mid-August and is known as the Assumption Lily among horticulturalists. The species here is very similar to the Assumption flower."<br /><br />And: "The lily is a symbol of purity, and has become the flower of the Virgin. Originally, in Christian symbolism, the lily was used as the attribute of the Virgin Saints. The lily among thorns has become a symbol of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin because of the purity<br />she preserved amid the sins of the world. The Annunciation, is very much associated with lilies. In many of the scenes of the Annunciation executed during the Renaissance, the Archangel Gabriel holds a lily, or a lily is in a vase between the Virgin and him. Thus, the lily is also an attribute of the Saint Gabriel."<br /><br />And: "In one of the niches in the font's stem you will see, not a simple Marian lily as in the other three, but a lily crucifix..."<br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-11877498633580136432012-08-23T20:14:48.983-04:002012-08-23T20:14:48.983-04:00Pater - Your latest comment was posted as I was ty...Pater - Your latest comment was posted as I was tying my last comment. Despite the tone of your latest comment, I stand by what I have written. <br /><br />I agree that words have a plain meaning (a colloquial meaning, if you will, that we have all generally accepted so that we can live in community, which I suppose is the whole point of language). To step aside from those generally accepted definitions is a problem, particularly as it regards theology.<br /><br />I think I understand your point here that "abstract art" has a particular definition, just as "act" has a particular definition. But, I am confused by your saying that no document can tell YOU what YOU mean when YOU say "act." How is that different than me saying that no document can tell ME what I mean when I say "abstract art?" <br /><br />I am not being deliberately obtuse here, either. I firmly believe that your windows fall under my definition of abstract art. This is not because they represent things not found in reality, but because they are symbolic of higher ideas in an abstract way (if that makes sense). Take your lily window, for example. It is arguably clear that it is a lily (as I have heard you yourself concede). So, it is abstract in that sense initially. Further, it is unclear what the lily window means in the context of a Church. So, there is a further abstract element from the image itself, to what it is, to its symbology, to its meaning. I contend that makes it abstract. <br /><br />While I certainly understand your definition that the abstract only depicts things not found in reality, as you can see my definition is somewhat different. I think both definitions are valid (and I am certainly no art expert - I'm a lawyer, so I'm somewhat of a definitions expert). <br /><br />Do you at least understand where I'm coming from here? For what it's worth, I understand where you're coming from...Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70487861554702544012012-08-23T20:01:10.530-04:002012-08-23T20:01:10.530-04:00Anon2, you have contributed greatly to this thread...Anon2, you have contributed greatly to this thread. My sole purpose was to point out that Pater is denying my relativistic viewpoint on something as unimportant as "abstract art" while simultaneously himself arguing from a point of relativism with Andy as regards "act" and "actor." <br /><br />While I personally happen to agree with Pater in the "act" and "actor" discussion, I was trying to illustrate that it is in fact him who is seeking to simultaneously force someone to accept an objective definition while forcing someone else to allow Pater's subjective definition. <br /><br />What is the consequence of all of that? I don't really know. What I do know is that I enjoy my discussions with Pater and with all of you on this blog. I wish we all (myself chiefly) could be a bit less heavy-handed in our condemnations of others (again, I am the chief among sinners in this regard, so I say this for myself).<br /><br />I've said it before, but since there are new people here, I will say it again: I have met Pater in person. I find him quite an enjoyable person with whom to speak. I would enjoy these discussions with him much more face to face where the anonymity of the internet did not tempt me to be uncharitable. That said, I disagree with him greatly on many things and am suspicious of the motivations he has for saying some of the things he says. I likewise think he is wrong about a great many things - just as he thinks I am wrong about a great many things! I include him regularly in my Rosaries, and I hope he includes me in his prayers, as well.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24048927940688334142012-08-23T19:38:35.777-04:002012-08-23T19:38:35.777-04:00Marc - You can choose to redefine any term you lik...Marc - You can choose to redefine any term you like. If, to you, "cat" means "milkshake" and "plastic" means "rattle" and "cash" means "gasoline" then have at it and be happy. However, it means that you have stepped away from any meaningful conversation with those who do not redefine as you do.<br /><br />A conversation with you about Mortalium Animos or the Syllabus is, since you decide what words mean, impossible. Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-39156683840958616472012-08-23T18:48:38.184-04:002012-08-23T18:48:38.184-04:00I offered the extracts from Wikipedia to suggest t...I offered the extracts from Wikipedia to suggest that Marc and Pater Ignotus could both claim to be correct in their assertions about the stained glass art at Holy Spirit (which I have not seen for a few years, Pater, a lapse that I hope to remedy soon). According to the first account, Marc is correct in claiming that the widows are abstract art. According to the second account, Pater is correct in denying that they are abstract art. Pater and Marc are using different definitions and therefore they are speaking from within different frames of reference. And those definitions and frames of reference appear to be mutually exclusive, so that if one is correct the other one must be incorrect – either abstract art includes figurative art or it doesn’t. From within their respective frames of reference each one sees himself as correct and the other as wrong.<br /> <br />But if both definitions and frames of reference are admitted as legitimate choices, so that it is not a question of either/or but both/and, an external observer can see that each one can be right in seeing himself as correct and the other as wrong. And if each of them themselves accepts the legitimacy of such definitional pluralism, their disagreement over the “proper” definition and frame of reference dissolves; Pater can accept that Marc is correct in asserting the windows at Holy Spirit are abstract art and Marc can accept that Pater is equally correct in denying that they are. Is this relativism? Well, yes, I suppose it is, but sometimes relativism is a good thing. Would we really want a world in which we all had the same standards of beauty and all applied them in the same way, for example?<br /><br />Are the stakes higher when it comes to questions such as the meaning of “act” and “actor” in the Mass, or the meaning of the word “traditional” as in “the traditional form of the Mass”? Well, again, yes, I suppose they are. But again, to the extent we can legitimately accept pluralism and, yes, relativism, in such matters, perhaps it is a good thing to do so.<br /> <br />But yet again, what do we mean by “legitimately”? What is it that makes acceptance of a particular choice legitimate or illegitimate? Do we have common standards for that? Do we apply them the same way? Clearly we do not. Some will not accept folk masses. Others will not accept the OF at all. Yet others do not accept the EF. <br />And so we continue to squabble and bicker. And perhaps we should. Or perhaps we should not. <br /><br />But then I ask: What are the deepest values informing our disparate standards and/or disparate applications? What is REALLY at stake here? Can we agree on that perhaps? Or at least identify more precisely where we disagree, if we disagree, at this deepest level? Might this point a way forward?<br /><br /> <br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-63262382356416193932012-08-23T12:38:07.894-04:002012-08-23T12:38:07.894-04:00Pater - There you have it, then. You cannot prove...Pater - There you have it, then. You cannot prove that I am incorrect when I refer to your windows as "abstract art."<br /><br />Now, let's move on to Mortalium Animos and the Syllabus. I am awaiting your response.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47865083557145685302012-08-23T11:04:30.598-04:002012-08-23T11:04:30.598-04:00Marc - I do not claim that such a document exists....Marc - I do not claim that such a document exists.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-28990294356532925452012-08-23T10:28:31.613-04:002012-08-23T10:28:31.613-04:00Without wishing to take sides in the terminologica...Without wishing to take sides in the terminological dispute over “abstraction,” it seems that abstraction, like beauty, may exist in the eye of the beholder. So perhaps Marc and Pater Ignotus are both right. <br /><br />The Wikipedia entry for “Abstract Art” offers the following account:<br /><br />“Abstract art uses a visual language of form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world. . . .<br /><br />Abstract art, nonfigurative art, nonobjective art, and nonrepresentational art are loosely related terms. They are similar, although perhaps not of identical meaning.<br />Abstraction indicates a departure from reality in depiction of imagery in art. This departure from accurate representation can be only slight, or it can be partial, or it can be complete. Abstraction exists along a continuum. Even art that aims for verisimilitude of the highest degree can be said to be abstract, at least theoretically, since perfect representation is likely to be exceedingly elusive. Artwork which takes liberties, altering for instance color and form in ways that are conspicuous, can be said to be partially abstract. Total abstraction bears no trace of any reference to anything recognizable. In geometric abstraction, for instance, one is unlikely to find references to naturalistic entities. Figurative art and total abstraction are almost mutually exclusive. But figurative and representational (or realistic) art often contains partial abstraction.”<br /><br />Until I read this account, I would have been inclined to consider “abstract art” as being what the article refers to as “total abstraction.” It seems, however, that some use the term to include the slightest departure from complete natural representation. <br /><br />But then the Wikipedia article for “figurative art” seems to suggest a possible contrast with “abstract art” and to define abstract art, therefore, more narrowly than in the above extract:<br /><br />"'Figurative art' is often defined in contrast to abstract art:<br /><br />‘Since the arrival of abstract art the term figurative has been used to refer to any form of modern art that retains strong references to the real world.’<br /><br />Painting and sculpture can therefore be divided into the categories of figurative, representational and abstract, although, strictly speaking, abstract art is derived (or abstracted) from a figurative or other natural source. However, 'abstract' is sometimes used as a synonym for non-representational art and non-objective art, i.e. art which has no derivation from figures or objects.<br /><br />Figurative art is not synonymous with ‘art that represents the human figure,’ although human and animal figures are frequent subjects.”<br /><br />The articles have much more for those who want it and I imagine ther are better accounts than Wikipedia. I have now learned more than I want to about the topic. According to my teachers, I was never very good at art in school, abstract or otherwise. Personally, I think I was an underappreciated artistic genius who was, like so many, not understood by his times. =) <br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-78855880857387659062012-08-23T07:48:56.957-04:002012-08-23T07:48:56.957-04:00Pater - If you can show me a document that tells m...Pater - If you can show me a document that tells me what I mean when I say "abstract art," I will immediately agree with you. I await with baited breathe.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-68937579245316256902012-08-23T07:39:33.067-04:002012-08-23T07:39:33.067-04:00Marc - If you can show me a magisterial document t...Marc - If you can show me a magisterial document that tells me what I mean when I say "Christ, the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation act in the mass" I will immediately begin celebrating the EF. I weight with baited breath.<br /><br />And no, you cannot define terms, changing the meaning to fit the arguments you make regarding the windows in Holy Spirit Church.<br /><br />No, in the real world, we don't get to define the words we use. I can't say "Marc eats worms" and then suggest that what it MEANS is "Marc is grasping at straws" now can I?Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-16403949300119433762012-08-22T23:16:35.725-04:002012-08-22T23:16:35.725-04:00Not to muddy the waters, but is this debate about ...Not to muddy the waters, but is this debate about the proper understanding of the words “act” and “actor” analogous to the debate about the proper understanding of the word “Acts” in the New Testament “Acts of the Apostles”? Does that debate shed any light on the present one? Just wondering.<br /><br />Perhaps this has been addressed in an earlier thread that I did not follow.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50098820632074010222012-08-22T20:00:31.150-04:002012-08-22T20:00:31.150-04:00Pater Ignotus;
You say, " You, also, don'...Pater Ignotus;<br /><br />You say, " You, also, don't get to define terms in the real world. And actor acts. Kenneth Brannagh "acts" on stage and screen. Your stomach "acts" up when you eat something greasy. A nation "acts" when it sends troops into a neighboring country to quell a rebellion. Christ, the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation "act" when they fulfill their roles at mass."<br /><br />You're right of course, but that doesn't mean that all of those instances are actors. Yes, Kenneth Brannagh (good choice, btw) is an actor, but my stomach would not be an actor, nor would a nation, nor do your "big four."<br /><br />I'm not trying to redefine anything. To the contrary, I am trying to apply a proper definition as objectively defined. It seems that you are the one who trying to redefine the terms.<br /><br />Again, standing on sound tradition, sound English syntax, and sound logic, I find that your reasoning for calling your "big 4" actors is to show that they are acting as if on a stage or in the cinema, among other things. They simply are not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-20445602473778079042012-08-22T19:44:38.521-04:002012-08-22T19:44:38.521-04:00Pater said, "There is no[thing] that can tell...Pater said, "There is no[thing] that can tell me <i>what I mean when I say</i> 'Christ, the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation act in mass.'" (emphasis added).<br /><br />Marc said, "[Y]ou cannot tell me <i>what I mean when I say</i> the words 'abstract art.'" (emphasis added).<br /><br />Then Pater said, "In the real world, you don't get to define terms."Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-16280951564708146082012-08-22T17:47:50.721-04:002012-08-22T17:47:50.721-04:00Andy,
Thank you for your kind words and assurance...Andy,<br /><br />Thank you for your kind words and assurance of prayer and support. Your generosity is truly appreciated.<br /><br />In fact I am not the pastor where I am currently assigned. I am in specialized ministry and tend to be assigned to reside in the parish with the most acute need at the time. Over the past 7 years I have lived in 5 different rectories and have filled in for a number of priests on medical leave. Most of these assignments have been to large parishes served by multiple priests. Given the wide range of age and theological formation of the priests with whom I have been assigned, and given the dynamics of being a priest either in residence or filling in for a short time I have simply not found it prudent to push the issue. <br /><br />I do find the laity of all ages and backgrounds to be very receptive when I teach about the Mass being offered <i>ad orientum</i>, for example when I have occasion to teach in the RCIA or adult catechesis, and when I have had the opportunity to offer Mass in that manner at parish-based retreats and on other occasions. <br /><br />One does what one can given the particular circumstances in which one is placed. I very much look forward to a day when the normative posture for the priest at the altar is <i>ad orientum</i>, and I hope to do my part, however small, in helping to bring that about. <br /><br />Thanks again, Andy for your words of encouragement and your prayer.Yankee Padrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-75231714932894197812012-08-22T17:38:37.124-04:002012-08-22T17:38:37.124-04:00Marc - In the real world, you don't get to def...Marc - In the real world, you don't get to define terms. I'll go with the standard, accepted definition. If you choose to go another way, have at it!<br /><br />Andy - You, also, don't get to define terms in the real world. And actor acts. Kenneth Brannagh "acts" on stage and screen. Your stomach "acts" up when you eat something greasy. A nation "acts" when it sends troops into a neighboring country to quell a rebellion. Christ, the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation "act" when they fulfill their roles at mass.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-64964757145297352332012-08-22T16:26:33.151-04:002012-08-22T16:26:33.151-04:00It seems to me on reading the initial exchange abo...It seems to me on reading the initial exchange about "acting" that one arguer means "perform an action, DO something"and the other means "perform a role in theater."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47728112827523224582012-08-22T16:18:40.569-04:002012-08-22T16:18:40.569-04:00Pater Ignotus;
I have not conceded anything. I w...Pater Ignotus;<br /><br />I have not conceded anything. I will stand behind my view with all the fervor that I can muster.<br /><br />Basic and simple logic tells me that I am not mistaken about my view. I can look to both theology and to basic linguistic syntax and understand that the way that you are applying "actor" is incorrect. While the word does define what one can do, it does not define what one actually does.<br /><br />Let me see if I can be more clear. If I were to approach the altar and offer a "dry Mass," I would be acting as an actor. However, when you approach the altar and offer the Holy Sacrifice, you are not acting, you are being.<br /><br />That is the difference. While we both act, I would be functioning as an actor, in the sense that the word, actor is understood, whereas you would be doing that which you are ordained to do, by virtue of the indelible mark placed upon your soul at the moment of your ordination.<br /><br />I realize there is a nuance and it is not lost on me, but your application of actor is not the application as it is used in common language today. Because that is the case, it goes back to my original point that you are misleading the faithful in their understanding of the Mass and how the Church, the priest, the faithful and Christ function. Those four are not actors. They are actually fulfilling an action.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009356356243871772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45415319879275976102012-08-22T15:14:17.590-04:002012-08-22T15:14:17.590-04:00Pater - My definition of abstract art is different...Pater - My definition of abstract art is different than yours. The depictions of those things you list in your stained glass windows is abstract according to my definition of abstract art.<br /><br />Are you dodging the discussion of Mortalium Animos and the Syllabus, Father?Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-62245557549204185722012-08-22T14:00:29.263-04:002012-08-22T14:00:29.263-04:00Marc - "Abstract art can be a painting or scu...Marc - "Abstract art can be a painting or sculpture (or stained glass) that does not depict a person, place or thing in the natural world - even in an extremely distorted or exaggerated way."<br /><br />The nine stained glass windows in Holy Spirit depict the Holy Spirit, a broken sword, the keys of heaven with an unbalanced scale, a yoke, lilies, a spider web, an olive branch, a ringing bell, and a heart.<br /><br />And they are depicted very clearly and realistically, with the exception of the lily, in my opinion.<br /><br />Now, in my natural world all of these exist. Do they in yours? Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84832053609643049282012-08-22T13:59:19.931-04:002012-08-22T13:59:19.931-04:00Pater, you cannot tell me what I mean when I say t...Pater, you cannot tell me what I mean when I say the words "abstract art." Therefore, according to my perception and my meaning of those words, Holy Spirit does have abstract art in its stained glass.<br /><br />Now, can you address Mortalium Animos and the Syllabus of Errors, please?Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-76794962644448589042012-08-22T13:51:29.963-04:002012-08-22T13:51:29.963-04:00Andy - There is no document, writing, homily or Oe...Andy - There is no document, writing, homily or Oecumenical Council that can tell me what I mean when I say "Christ, the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation act in mass."<br /><br />This is not a matter of doctrine or dogma. So, I take it, you have already conceded.<br /><br />Marc - I am arguing nothing. I am simply stating that you were in error when you said we have 1) felt banners or 2) abstract stained glass images in the windows of our church.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.com