Thurible,

As my last post that included a picture of a thurible stimulated much discussion I thought I would throw up anothery...

This one is very neo-gothic, note the tracery that gives it a 19th Century Medieval Romanticising quality.

It appears to be a nice size and shape, though larger window spaces are preferred over beauty as good air flow is necessary for good smoke.

Art History Exam.

Other people on their blogs have been talking about their exams so I thought I would do the same… too late to ask for prayer, I sat an Art History exam on Mon (6,11).

It seemed to have gone very well, though I had a few mental blanks. The so called ‘slide test’ comprised of eight PowerPoint images chosen from a list of eighty that I had to study. My fellow students and I had only six minutes in which to right on each.

Hear is a sample.

This, the Altar of Zeus from Pergamum, was the first image. It was here, at the start that I had a mental blank and forgot when it was constructed. I also referred to it as ‘classical’ when in fact it is the perfect example of a Hellenistic construction.

Raphael’s so called ‘School of Athens’ was the third slide. My only hope here is that the teacher assessing understand what I have written. I started of by speaking of it in its relationship to the ‘Disputa’ on the opposite wall and how according to Aquinas Philosophy is the handmade of the greatest of sciences, Theology. I then explained that central to the School of Athens are the figures of Aristotle and Plato in discussion. Plato is point upwards as if he is talking about an ideal world of forms, Aristotle is gesturing to the here and now as if saying ‘yes form and substance do exist but that exist in real thing, in matter’. Thus, what Plato and Aristotle and doing is discussing Metaphysics. One the opposite was we see in the centre the Eucharist in a lunette on an altar. Around It are a bunch of saints and doctors discussing Its nature. After speaking briefly about the quality of the paint and its compostion, I went on to close state “Metaphysics the handmade of Transubstantiation”!

Delacroix’s Liberty leading the people should be denounced as a Masonic plot to usurp a false goddess in the place of true religion. However, under exam conditions, I just spoke about it be a ‘historic painting of the New Order’ and craped an about Romanticism and the use of colour.

I found this on an Armeina Church site. It is almost as good as the ones I design myself.
Though a very diferent style.

Beeswax for ever!

In former times the Church instruct that all candles used in the Liturgical Celebration be at least 51 percent beeswax ( in majori vel notabili quantitate ex eadem cera) and that the paschal candle and the two candle used at Mass should be made ex cera apum saltem in maxima parte (Cong. Sac. Rit., 14 December, 1904). However, today things have change and wanting to relax the rules and regulations the church has let things get out of hand and it is quite common to find upon our altars such gordy things as lime green or plasticy purple fat and ugly candles. It is good that the Church can leave and trust parishes to their own devices, thus it is now the time for the laity to stand up, reviving pious tradition and cry beeswax for ever.

The Older edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia claims that it is or mystical reasons that the Church prescribed the exclusive use of beeswax candles at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and at other liturgical functions (sighting luminaria cerea. -- Missale Rom., De Defectibus, X, I; Cong. Sac. Rites, 4 September, 1875). It goes on to say:
“The pure wax extracted by bees from flowers symbolizes the pure flesh of Christ received from His Virgin Mother, the wick signifies the soul of Christ, and the flame represents His divinity. Although the two latter properties are found in all kinds of candle, the first is proper of beeswax candle only.”

The truth is that it was probably for practical reasons that this legislation came in to play. I have read it said that the Church legislated the use of pure beeswax because those candles did not cause the soot and smoke problems that other candles did (damaging building interiors and artwork). Moreover, modern advocates of the use of beeswax (usually those trying to sell them) claim that Beeswax burns more cleanly and longer than other common wax types. That said, the fact that a mystical reason could so easily be attributed to their use is evidence of the edification that they give and the piety that they stimulate. Moreover, there is no doubting that Beeswax smells nicer than synthetic candles and thus helps to engage the sense of smell in the act of worship when there is no incense to fulfil this role.

If people want aesthetic variety than we can again look to former times and makes the present day measure up to past glories. Prior to the Novus Ordo it was taught that candles should on ordinary occasions be of white bleached wax, but at funerals, at the office of Tenebrae as well as at the other Good Friday ceremonies they should be of yellow unbleached wax (Caerem. Episc.). De Herdt (I, no. 183, Resp. 2) says that unbleached wax candle should be used during Advent and Lent except on feasts, solemnities, and especially during the exposition and procession of the Blessed Sacrament. Thus, with white for the more joyous and tanned for mournful, along with the number of candles used, the mood can be altered to soot.

So, do your bit, tell your parish priest or get on your local candle buying sub-commity of the auxillary commity of purchases wich is a branch of the parish pastoral planning and finace club and say "Beeswax for ever! please."

On Catholic Art Part II

I recently read a book, by Josep Pearce, entitled 'Literary Converts'. An excellent read that I highly recommend, it is about that wave of 20th Century English converts to Catholicism that include such great names as Chesterton, Benson, Knox, Waugh and even Wilde. Oscar Wilde it was that said 'the Catholic Church is the church for both Saints and sinners, for perfectly respectable people Anglicanism will do'. What strikes one in reading the conversion accounts and about the draw of the Catholic Church is that those great literary figures, those weavers of words of wonder, were primarily attracted to the Church by her beauty. A church of saints and sinners she was to them far from mundane, prosaic or even merely respectable but in fact sublime and wonderful. True, those 'literary converts' had to then go on to discover its truth (and many of them became great apologists for that truth) but, first, their emotions were stirred not by clear clever arguments but by beauty. By Catholic Beauty I am not here just talking about Gothic Architecture or Baroque Painting, nor do I mean merely Classical Chant and Divine Liturgy, but the whole Catholic thing (as it was in England at that time): priests, monks and nuns dedicated to God, congregations on their knees, Saints, Martyrs, feasts and fasts, all in harmony, culturally rich, a delight of dreams. Into this, on top of this and as part of this, reflecting, breathing conjuring up and signifying this entire cultural feeling where the visual arts of the Catholic Church.

Who does not walk into a Gothic, Romanesque, Byzantine, or baroque Church and know – this is special, this is where something wonderful takes place, this is the home of devotion and heart felt beauty. My point here is to say that beauty has as much place in salvation as truth. For it is beauty, true beauty in Christ Crucified that draw one with devotion to the Church. I you want community you join a tennis club is you want to worship God you turn to that which is given to the worship of God – the sublime, the beautiful!

The cross of Christ Crucified is the height of our experience of beauty.
Our faith is not a purely apophatic one. While we cannot make idols to experience the one true God, the Word made flesh communicates God to us in image and form. When we meditate it is not as the Buddhists do, separating ourselves from all that is sensate. No, we use our God given imagination. In the Benedictine tradition, reflecting on the divine word, or, with St Dominic, thumbing our beads we ponder the mysteries, or, like St Ignatius, we put ourselves in the Gospel stories and in the words of St John of the Cross 'we allow God to lead us up that dark mountain' where we experience Him through what he has revealed. God reveals God's self to us in the person of Jesus Christ. We do not make an idol of a great unknown nothing and white wash our walls to express it.

As we are all aware, all of are naturally attracted to various things, many of them that are not of God. Natural religions (those without the light of revelation) often seek to purge the spiritual life in order to find God beyond the beyond, away from all that is. When really God is not beyond our created world, but indeed, behind it. God is the source of all things, truth, goodness, beauty and even being itself. Moreover, God, in the person of Jesus Christ, has chosen to speak of himself. And so, instead of turning to the world, which is not God, or turning away from the world, which is not God either, we need to 'convert'[ from the world to God. God wants to speak to us and be seen by us and so God has created a world precisely in which He can express himself, a world of images and likenesses in which we, creative and symbol making, are the crescendo and Jesus the summit there-of.

Of course, while keeping this in mind we should remember the old axiom lex crdendi lex orandi – the law/rule of belief is the law/rule of prayer. That is to say: who believe God to be determines how we approach Him and the image/concept of God that we approach is who or what we really (in practise) believe God to be. We are only deceiving ourselves if we say anything other about God than that which we imagine in our prayer life. Thus (getting back to the visual arts) any use of images should be determined by our understanding of the one to whom we are turning our attention. By this I do not just mean image of Jesus or Gospel stories but any use of the arts. Images of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of Angles, of Saints, the images created by music or evoked by the use of language all impacts of how we experience God, especially when used in worship. And indeed, any lack of the use of image (be that visual, musical, liturgical or even the liturgical action) does not have a neutral effect on our relationship with God, but taints it all the same.

On Catholic Art Part I

We have all heard it said before: ‘the best way to preach is by example’, or ‘ the best apologies for the faith are the saints themselves’. In a certain sense, what the Catholic artist is called to do is akin to that of the saint, that is ‘make, by analogy, other Christs’. Artists, and indeed Catholic Artists, co-creators with God, are given a special task of capturing and showing the form of beauty. The Saint does this with his or her life. The artist (weather painter, poet, song writer or other) should strive to do this also through their work.

It seems that this goal, showing forth the beauty of God, was, in yester-century, more to the artists (and indeed art critics) mind than it is today. Yet, today there is even more need for beautiful art. We live in a visual, symbol-oriented age. From advertising billboards and magazine racks to the ‘icons’ on our computers, we know that one thing can represent, speak and indeed capture the form of another. The only step further in this creative speaking by analogy would be to make the thing actually effect and truly be that which it signifies. Of course that would take the direct intervention of God who gives each created thing it nature. That is precisely what a sacrament is. Sacraments gain their nature through Jesus Christ who is the full revelation of God and (and because) he is God. God uses forms and things to speek of Himself and yet we seldom (these days at least) use the arts to speak of God. Even our liturgies have become wordish and boorish (I once heard the modern mass described as ‘one person after another talking at you through a microphone’) and most unlike the Saints who speak to the heart. Like the Saints Catholic artists needs to re-find ways of stirring the viewers emotions and singing of God, not with just stale dry words but with beauty and imagination!

Jesus Christ is loved, in part, because he captures our imagination. Moreover, with Christ the whole human person is redeemed. That means your heart, your love, your joy and your imagination as been sanctified in Christs having of a human heart, love joy and imagination.
Any sound epistemology must bring us to the conclusion that the imagination is an intrinsic aspect of the intellect and not something to be escaped. Nor should we want to escape it, as the Buddhists do, for it brings us such delight. St Thomas Aquinas describes it as an essential power for allowing us to understand all things.
It is clear that for the intellect to understand actually, not only when it acquires fresh knowledge, but also when it uses knowledge already acquired, there is need for the act of the imagination (ST Ia, 84, 7)

As we cannot posses things in themselves in our minds (neither God nor any material object nor anything extrinsic to us, save the emotion for which they stir) we need to imagine factually. Rather than turning to the thing itself (which cannot be in our mind of itself) we turn to phantasms of that which we are to understand. So, even when grasping things in truth (as they really are) we are using images – phantasms – the imagination.

And so God gives us imaginative ways in understanding and experiencing him. None more importantly that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where we can see our Lord Jesus Christ’s entire life death and resurrection played out in signs and symbols and ultimately taste and consume His very real presence. So let us take a cue from God and strive to make the mundane of this world beautiful in art to say the least of that which is already sacred, our churches and chapples and places and things of worship.

Get a haircut and a real job

This art student knows that he would probably be better of with a haircut and a real job. However, what he is protesting about is actually something that we should stand up and take notice of. What I am talking about here is economic rationalist’s attack which is set to damage culture in the country.

He is protesting in the hope of saving his school. However, this is not just about the closure of any old school (though old it is). This is about the attempted death of and institution within the Australian art world. This issue is intrinsicly related to the potion of the arts (in general) in our society.

The State Government of NSW, wishing to relieve itself of the cost of the National Art School had cooked up a plan the hand it to one of the federal funded universities. In doing so it made the offer of the school, with its name (a name which includes very impressive alumni) and it beautiful and inspiring campus – the old stone gaol overlooking the old-ly-worldly districts of Darlinghurst and Surry Hills. Tenures were put out and after Macquarie took up and then put down the opportunity that University of New South Wales decided that they would be happy to take responsibility of the Art School.

The problem is that the UNSW already has a fine arts faculty. Cofa, the College of Fine Art, also at Darlinghurst but in much plainer buildings and further out, also offers graduate degree in fine art. The Cofa degree, not as well respected in artistic circles, is in reality a lot cheaper in the training than the equivalent degree from NAS. I use here loosely the term ‘training’ for that is precisely what the College of Fine Art does not do: train artists.

The National Art School, in its studio practices employs known and practising artists to mentor and hands on train its student. Class sizes are small and class hours are many. In fact, the three year degree at Cofa comprises of less than half the hours of the three year course at NAS. Moreover, NAS Students compulsory lessons in drawing (including that from life) all the way through their studies where as at Cofa one can take it as a small elective, most don’t. Anybody who knows anything about the visual arts knows how fundamental drawing is tho the practising and seeing of an Artist.

Major flour in the Cofa program is its lack of a proper education in art history and theories of aesthetics. As Dr Allen commented in the Australian (October 11, 2006) “The school believes that artists should be aware of the history of their practice and more generally of the history of the culture and society to which they belong. Consequently, the art history course is the most ambitious of any art school in Australia, covering the Western tradition from antiquity to the French Revolution in first year, the 19th and 20th centuries in second and Australian and the contemporary scene in third.”

The plight of the National Art School, I fear, is none other than the general trend and (dare I say) existing fashion and fascism of society and a cultureless culture (a kunst-less zeit geist) that is a dictatorship of a relativism that ignores the whole of human experience, love and beauty in favour of that which both economically advantageous as well as palatable only to a baby boomer bourgeoisie.


The following is an extract from the Allen article:
Educational philosophy is the crux of the matter. The NAS would have fewer objections to UNSW if the school could be guaranteed autonomous status similar to the National Institute of Dramatic Art, but that is not going to happen.
The NAS stands unashamedly for residual art practices. It believes that whatever shape the art of the future may take, the breadth and depth of skills it attempts to impart will serve its students well. It considers drawing to be the most fundamental practice of all: it is the first and most intimate contact of the artist's mind with the visible world, the first point at which what is seen or felt is turned into something finite and artificial. It also believes the study of the human figure - the hardest thing to draw but the richest in its endless potential for feeling and meaning - to be the central concern of drawing. In this, the NAS keeps alive a tradition that goes back to the Renaissance.
There is no reason to believe that the fundamental values of the NAS would be preserved in the event of a merger with COFA. A glance at the COFA website shows art history and theory at that institution are bogged down in the residual ideologies of the '70s and '80s. Lecturers seldom venture into the past without the protection of a predetermined theoretical interpretation. Students know in advance that the key to more or less any subject will be found in class, sex or race; they quickly learn, as in so many institutions, that doing obeisance to these fetishes is the path to academic distinction.
As for practice, it is hard to forget the occasion, a few years ago, when a lecturer from COFA gave a lunchtime talk to NAS students on the meaning of the expression contemporary art. She proceeded to show a series of slides, telling us what was and wasn't contemporary. Anything that was made by hand was dismissed as not contemporary; anything that was cut and pasted from previous works or media imagery was approved as contemporary, especially if it was done on a computer. This is the postmodern conception of art in its most primitive form, which denies the possibility of any real contact with experience and the value of tradition as the passing on of living ideas. In the postmodern world of appropriation, dead material is scavenged, and there is no getting past the clutter of cultural ready-mades.
There are some fine individual teachers at COFA, but the ethos of the place is permeated by stale ideologies and a moribund postmodernism that survives only in corners that haven't been properly cleaned out for ages, like universities. The living tradition of practice and an open, critical interest in the art and culture of the past are almost certain to be stifled if the schools are merged, and the range of diversity and choice in art education in Sydney will be dramatically curtailed. The NAS has often been accused of being old-fashioned, but in cultural matters it is better to be attached to traditions that are centuries old than to fashions that are decades out of date.

This is the so called 'Cross of Gero'

The Cross of Gero might look like any other Crucifix that you would find hanging in a church, on the walls of Catholic classrooms or hospitals, or even on the end of your granny's rosary beads. Today we freely portray the agonising suffering and death of Christ in the most graphic of representations.

As we can see, the Cross of Gero is an exceptionally beautiful depiction of the crucifixion, but in a religious icon so numerous one should expect pearls. What is of interest is its place in history. The development of the depictions of the crucifixion in art has taken a new path since the Cross of Gero.

In its day this sculptured crucifix was an innovation. Carved of oak, it was probably the first fully three-dimensional, 'in the round' and life-size depiction of the crucifixion. But, more importantly than that, it was the first real portrayal of a suffering Christ. It was an innovation that set a precedent for the proliferation of passion images throughout the west.

Called the 'Cross of Gero', this crucifix is named after the man who commissioned it, the Archbishop Gero; who was (as well as being a high-ranking clergyman) chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire and a leading figure in the Ottonian court.

Gero was Archbishop of Cologne from 965 to 976 AD and it is assumed that the cross was crafted at that time. Ottonian art is better known for manuscript illuminations, metalwork and even ivory relief, rather than wood sculptures. However, during the Ottonian period (mid Tenth Century to the beginning of the Eleventh Century) Germany, centred at the city of Cologne, was the leading nation of Europe, politically as well as artistically and thus we can expect the best craftsmen in all trades to have gravitated to it. Nor should we be surprised by any Byzantine influence in the arts, considering political ties. Otto II had married a Byzantine princess and it is said that it was Gero himself who travelled to Constantinople to negotiate the marriage.

Of the earliest depictions of Christ actually on the cross, we have two examples from the Fifth Century. Both are set in relief and are from Rome; one is carved in stone on a sarcophagus and the other carved in wood on the doors of the Church of Santa Sabina. From the Sixth Century Jesus was depicted on the cross in an image of virtual triumph (it is almost as if it is he that is holding up the cross rather than the cross supporting him). Therein, this Christus Triumphans is robed from neck to feet (sometimes with the arms bare) and he stands firmly, his feet apart and head held strong looking straight forward.

By the Ninth Century the Christus Patiens with closed eyes, head bowed, sagged body and loin cloth became common enough an icon. While a noticeable influence on and forerunner to our subject, these images representing the dead Christ lacked any semblance of pain, torment or hardship and instead portray a stylised body asleep in peaceful serenity. Since the time of the Cross of Gero and into the Medieval period the Christus Patiens itself had become more expressive and emotional (as can be seen in Cimabue's wondrous and stylised example). However, what is truly amazing is how an Ottonian artist had translated the Christus Patiens into not only a three-dimensional form, but into something so dramatically moving. The real-size face having been strained in agony is now collapsed in death.



Though no examples remain, there is existing evidence of metal crucifixes in the round from the Carolingian period. Those crosses, it is assumed, have nothing of the scale of the cross of Gero. Nor (if depictions of the crucifixion in Carolingian manuscripts are anything to go by) were they images of suffering. This was a new thing and, though not completely removed from the existing tradition, the beginning of a new tradition. Its influence from its home in the then virtual capital of Medieval Europe can be seen by the vast number of monumental crucifixes of that period. Years ahead of its time this cross is a forerunner to a great tradition that is artistic, visual, literal, musical and even spiritual.

Here we can see a contrast in that there is an obvious difference in the spiritualities and religious devotion of Christianity from East to West. This difference finds its obvious expression in the visual arts. The foremost image of Christ in Byzantine art is that of the Pantocrator, usually a severe- looking image of the judging Christ complete with book in hand and stern imposing looks. The primary Christian icon in the west, since the cross of Gero, has been the crucifix. This is a divergence from the traditions of the east where a concern for a conservative adherence to 'orthodox' gives little rise to growth, innovation or development, be it artistic or theological. Not just artistic, this fundamentally spiritual difference even strikes at the head of how religious adherers perceive their worship. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition they refer to the 'divine Liturgy', whereas in the West the Eucharistic celebration is called the 'Holy Sacrifice of the Mass'; one a public duty based on unity with the state (synonymous with the Kingdom of God), the other a re-presenting of Christ of the cross. Thus we can see the connection between theology, spirituality, worship and art.

Also ahead of its time, the Cross of Gero has a carved cavity in the back of its head. This cross, as well as being a visual focal point for a ceremonial setting, had a liturgical function. In this case it was for the reservation of the Sacred Hosts that was left over from the Christian service. Reflecting the Western concern of seeing the Eucharistic celebration as predominantly a mystical re-presence of Christ's self-giving sacrifice on the cross, this sculpture is virtually an icon of the Mass itself.

To understand the acceptance this image received (and, indeed, its subsequent proliferation) it is worth taking a look at the predominant theological thinking of the time. Against early Christological controversies (mainly Arianism) the official Church (both East and West) had stood firm to an essential balance in its understanding of the mystery of Christ, at once God and human being. For Augustine (the dominant theological authority in the West until Thomas Aquinas) Christ is the Mediator between God and man. That is to say that as the Word incarnate, both God and man, Jesus leads us to eternity through temporal realities; identifying completely with our human condition, Jesus Christ gives us hope for eternal life by mediating divinity to us. In this system of thought Jesus is fully human, suffers unto death, but being God he so takes the essence of life, God, to death. Therein, according to St Augustine, Jesus' death is the extreme to which God would go to call man back to himself as well as man's most complete response to God. And that's the appeal of the cross of Gero: it gloriously shows the extent to which God would go to be with the believer and pull him or her out of their misery while allowing the believer to identify with Jesus/God personally.

The greatest of all Medieval scholars, St Thomas Aquinas, witting a couple of hundred years after the crafting of this cross (but reflecting back on the Christian tradition), noticed that all Christian spiritualities are ways of presenting and interrelating two fundamental pathos, that of Christian joy and that of Christian sorrow. He explained that the Liturgy (the ceremonies and rites of the Christian Church) is the congruent setting for the contemplation of these mysteries. The 'spiritualis laetitia mentis' (spiritual joy of mind) is caused by contemplation of and meditation on the divine goodness and mercy to which one is moved principally by prayerful consideration of the suffering and death of the man/God Jesus Christ. To express this and help others experience this joy of God's empathy with man, the Christian artist in the Western tradition has, starting with the Cross of Gero, employed images of the suffering Christ. This is the image of mercy. Looking at the face of this Crucifix the believer can easy recall the betrayal, the denial, the severe physical as well as mental anguish and be consoled in their own misery, for this is how their God wrought their salvation.

This spiritual insight into the Medieval mindset enlightens us to a cultural predisposition found in Western man. One is hard-pressed, in any other culture, to find images (whether literal or visual) that romanticises suffering in such a way. And, visually speaking, the earliest known image of the suffering servant found in Western art is the Cross of Gero.

True Worship!

In true Ratzinian style the Holy Father Benedict has continued to preach to the world about the wonders of the truest beauty. Personally, I believe that his greatest legacy to the Church will not be in any nonsense or heresy that he will suppress (no matter how valuable that will prove to be) but in the gift of a Christology/theology for the 21st century and beyond.

Follows is an extract of general audience address given at Castel Gandolfo, AUG. 23, 2006. The address is dedicated "the seer of Patmos" St. John the Apostle.

… [St. John’s] ‘objective, in short, is to unveil, from the death and resurrection of Christ, the meaning of human history. The first and essential vision of John, in fact, concerns the figure of the Lamb, which, despite being slain, is standing (cf. Revelation 5:6), placed before the throne where God himself is seated. With this, John wants to tell us two things above all: The first is that Jesus, though he was killed with an act of violence, instead of lying fallen on the ground remains paradoxically standing firmly on his feet, because with the resurrection he has vanquished death definitively.

The second is that Jesus himself, precisely because he died and resurrected, now participates fully in the royal and salvific power of the Father. This is the fundamental vision. Jesus, the Son of God, is, on this earth, a defenceless, wounded and dead Lamb. And yet, he is standing, firm, before the throne of God and participates in the divine power. He has in his hands the history of the world. In this way, the visionary wishes to tell us: Have confidence in Jesus, do not be afraid of opposing powers, of persecution! The wounded and dead Lamb conquers! Follow Jesus, the Lamb, trust Jesus, follow his way! Even if in this world he seems to be the weak Lamb, he is the victor!

The object of one of the principal visions of Revelation is this Lamb at the moment he opens a book, which before was sealed with seven seals, which no one was able to open. John is even presented weeping, as no one could be found able to open the book and read it (cf. Revelation 5:4). History appears as undecipherable, incomprehensible. No one can read it.

Perhaps this weeping of John before the very dark mystery of history expresses the disconcertment of the Asian Churches because of God's silence in the face of the persecutions to which they were exposed at that time. It is a disconcertment which might well reflect our surprise in the face of the grave difficulties, misunderstandings and hostilities that the Church also suffers today in several parts of the world.

They are sufferings which the Church certainly does not deserve, as Jesus did not deserve punishment either. However, they reveal both man's maliciousness, when he allows himself to be led by the snares of evil, as well as the higher governance of events by God. So, only the immolated Lamb is capable of opening the sealed book and of revealing its content, to give meaning to this history which, apparently, often seems so absurd.

He alone can draw pointers and teachings for the life of Christians, to whom his victory over death brings the announcement and guarantee of the victory that they also, without a doubt, will attain. All the language John uses, charged with strong images, tends to offer this consolation.

At the centre of the vision that Revelation presents is the extremely significant image of the Woman, who gives birth to a male Child, and the complementary vision of the Dragon, which has fallen from the heavens, but is still very powerful. This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but she represents at the same time the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church that at all times, with great pain, again gives birth to Christ. And she is always threatened by the power of the Dragon. She seems defenceless, weak. But, while she is threatened, pursued by the Dragon, she is also protected by God's consolation. And this Woman, at the end, is victorious. The Dragon does not conquer. This is the great prophecy of this book, which gives us confidence! The Woman who suffers in history, the Church which is persecuted, at the end is presented as the splendid Bride, image of the new Jerusalem, in which there is no more tears or weeping, image of the world transformed, of the new world whose light is God himself, whose lamp is the Lamb. For this reason, John's Revelation, though full of constant references to sufferings, tribulations and weeping -- the dark face of history -- at the same time presents frequent songs of praise, which represent, so to speak, the luminous face of history.

For example, it speaks of an immense crowd that sings almost shouting: "Alleluia! The Lord has established his reign, (our) God, the almighty. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready" (Revelation 19:6-7). We are before the typical Christian paradox, according to which, suffering is never perceived as the last word; rather it is seen as a passing moment to happiness and, what is more, the latter is already mysteriously permeated with the joy that springs from hope.
…
Above all it implies, of course, the awaiting of the Lord's definitive victory, of the New Jerusalem, of the Lord who comes and transforms the world. But, at the same time, it is also a Eucharistic prayer: "Come, Jesus, now!" And Jesus comes, he anticipates his definitive coming. In this way, with joy, let us say at the same time: "Come now and come definitively!" This prayer also has a third meaning: "You have already come, Lord! We are certain of your presence among us. For us it is a joyful experience. But, come definitively!" Thus, with St. Paul, with the seer of Patmos, with nascent Christianity, we also pray: "Come, Jesus! Come and transform the world! Come now, today, and may peace conquer!" Amen.

‘…[In summery] ‘John's central vision is that of the Lamb once slain, who now stands victoriously before God's throne, sharing in the Father's kingship and power (5:6ff). He alone is able to open the mysterious book closed with seven seals and to reveal, in the light of his own triumph over persecution and death, the ultimate meaning of history in God's providential plan.

The certain unfolding of God's victory is seen in John's visions of the Woman who gives birth to a Son destined to rule the nations (12:1ff.), the final defeat of the Dragon, and the heavenly Jerusalem, prepared as a bride adorned for the wedding feast (21:2ff.). As his book draws to an end, John invites Christians of every time and place to trust in the victory of the Lamb and to hope for the coming of God's Kingdom: "Come, Lord Jesus!" (22:20).’

Thanks to ZENIT for the translation.

In a resent address to the 'Patrons of the Arts' (an orginisation that raises funds to support the Vatican museum) the Holy Father again praised and reflected upon the Catholic Church's innate disposition towards the beautiful.

"In every age," the Pontiff said, "Christians have sought to give expression to faith's vision of the beauty and order of God's creation, the nobility of our vocation as men and women made in his image and likeness, and the promise of a cosmos redeemed and transfigured by the grace of Christ." "The artistic treasures which surround us are not simply impressive monuments of a distant past," Benedict XVI observed. "Rather, for the hundreds of thousands of visitors who contemplate them year after year, they stand as a perennial witness to the Church's unchanging faith in the Triune God who, in the memorable phrase of St. Augustine, is himself 'Beauty ever ancient, ever new.'"

For more information on the Patrons of the Arts you can visit
www.vatican-patrons.org

beezwax4ever
The Topic of Mass Ad Orientum or Ad Populous seems a popular one for discussion. Within this topic there are many done-to-death arguments like ‘visibility’ and ‘participation’ or, adversely, ‘facing God’, ‘facing the rising sun’ and ‘priest and people all facing the same way together’. Of cause, one can’t see transubstantiation and the people don’t offer the Mass in the same way the priest and will probably participate better if they are behind him supporting him in their prayers and looking to one common … you have heard it all before. The following (a further extract from the same interview with Cardinal Arinze) is a more practical and pedagogical reason why Ad Populous just sucks.

"Vatican II brought many good things but everything has not been positive, and the synod recognized that there have been shadows," Cardinal Arinze acknowledged. "There has been a bit of neglect of the holy Eucharist outside Mass," he said. "A lot of ignorance. A lot of temptations to showmanship for the priest who celebrates facing the people. "If he is not very disciplined he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed it is very demanding, the altar facing the people. Then even those who read the First and Second Reading can engage in little tactics that make them draw attention to themselves and distract the people.

So, let’s get rid of the showmen and bring back worship. Let’s even turn the readings around to face various directions, draw that part of the liturgy into the sacred drama and do everything for the glory of God.

As an advocate for the ongoing use of the more traditional forms of the Roman Rite, I thought I would post this extract of an article (published originally in Zenit) for comment. The Mass Isn't Entertainment, Says Cardinal Arinze... The Mass is a moment of reflection and encounter with God, rather than a form of entertainment, says Cardinal Francis Arinze. In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made a comprehensive assessment of the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist and of developments in liturgical practice 40 years after the Second Vatican Council. Regarding "music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage," he said. "It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere." However, "the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music," the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops' conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese. "The ideal thing is that the bishops would have a liturgical music commission which looks at the wording and the music of the hymns. And when the commission is satisfied, judgment is brought to the bishops for approval, in the name of the rest of the conference." What should not be the case, insists the Nigerian cardinal, is "individuals just composing anything and singing it in church. This is not right at all -- no matter how talented the individual is. That brings us to the question of the instruments to be used. "The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of instrument used, the type of music used." Suitability "I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. "But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, [but with] the visit of a special group, etc." "The judgment would be left to the bishops of the area. It is wiser that way," he pointed out. "Also, because there are other instruments in many countries which are not used in Italy or in Ireland, for instance. "People don't come to Mass in order to be entertained. They come to Mass to adore God, to thank him, to ask pardon for sins, and to ask for other things that they need." "When they want entertainment, they know where to go -- parish hall, theatre, presuming that their entertainment is acceptable from a moral theological point of view," added the cardinal. This section of the article, which centres on liturgical music, I find to be quite balanced and, dare I say, middle of the road. The good cardinal speaks of authority and responsibility being given to comities of local bishops conferences, liturgical commissions and the like. However, we in the west have for long now felt the ill effects of such bodies. One only has to thick of the so called hymnal 'Gather Australia' for an example the 'dictatorship of bad taste' imposed as the norm. It's no wonder that guitar slinging aged hippies have turn away from the transandenaly established (hierarchical) church in favour of do-it-yourself compositions. Unfortunately the local church has not bean conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar. I know from experience that your average Catholic above the age of 35 imagines that Gregorian chant is some thing exclusively attached to the old Latin Mass, and thus redundant. On the other hand, many Catholic's under the age of 35 would never have experienced chant in relation to the Mass at all (they may have heard it mixed in with techno music or in the background to pornographic movies). Thus, we have a crisis, most are denied a participation in this, the Church's most precious heritage. Please comment...