Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Fr Robert Taft, SJ

 

From First Things:

Earlier this month, Christopher Warner at the Catholic World Report interviewed Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., a Byzantine Catholic priest and professor emeritus of Oriental Liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, about Catholic-Orthodox relations and the prospects for future unity:

CWR: Most Catholics probably envision future unity between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church as a re-installment of one world Church organization with the pope of Rome at the top of the governing pyramid. A look at history shows that such a model never existed, so what could Orthodox-Catholic communion actually look like if it were achieved? A renewal of Eucharistic communion? The possibility of an eighth ecumenical council? A resolution for the dating of Pascha/Easter?

Taft: What it would look like is not a “reunion” with them “returning to Rome,” to which they never belonged anyway; nor us being incorporated by them, since we are all ancient apostolic “Sister Churches” with a valid episcopate and priesthood and the full panoply of sacraments needed to minister salvation to our respective faithful, as is proclaimed in the renewed Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II and enshrined in numerous papal documents from Paul VI on, as well as in the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we just need to restore our broken communion and the rest of the problems you mention can be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord.

. . .

CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East Asia?

Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom.

Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.

In this context I would recommend the excellent new book by Robert Louis Wilken, The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press 2012). Professor Wilken, a convert to Catholicism who is a recognized expert on Early Christianity and its history and literature, shows that Early Christianity developed not out of some Roman cradle but as a federation of local Churches, Western and Eastern, each one under the authority of a chief hierarch who would come to be called Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, or Catholicos, each with its own independent governing synod and polity, all of them initially in communion with one another until the vicissitudes of history led to lasting divisions.

Read Full Post »

Bartholomew with Pope Francis

This is hopeful, but to put it in perspective, I don’t know many time, quoting the Ecumenical Patriarch, I have had Orthodox friends respond “Well, he’s not really Orthodox”…

“It was a lovely and very intense meeting,” Bartholomew said. “I felt moved and I really hope the successor of the Apostle Peter and the successor of the Apostle Andrew, his brother, will decide to do the pilgrimage to Jerusalem next January.” The Patriarch of Constantinople even invited Francis to visit the Holy Land: “We would like to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the embrace between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, in January 1964. The Patriarch of Jerusalem also agrees.” Bartholomew also invited Pope Bergoglio to Istanbul for the Feast of St. Andrew on 30 November: “We invited him to visit this year or the next.”

Read the whole thing here.

Read Full Post »

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life, which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards ‘having’ rather than ‘being’.
Centesimus Annus – ‘The One Hundredth Year’ (1991), paragraph 36

Its [the Church's] desire is that the poor should rise above poverty and wretchedness, and should better their condition in life; and for this it strives.
Rerum Novarum -’Condition of Labour’ (1981), paragraph 23

When there is a question of protecting the rights of individuals, the poor and helpless have a claim to special consideration. The rich population has many ways of protecting themselves, and stands less in need of help.
Rerum Novarum, paragraph 29

While an immense mass of people still lack the absolute necessities of life, some, even is less advanced countries, live sumptuously or squander wealth. Luxury and misery rub shoulders. While the few more enjoy very great freedom of choice, the many are deprived of almost all possibility of acting on their own initiative and responsibility, and often subsist in living and working conditions unworthy of human beings.
Gaudium et Spes – ‘Joy and Hope’ (1965), paragraph 63

The principle of participation leads us to the conviction that the most appropriate and fundamental solutions to poverty will be those that enable people to take control of their own lives.
Economic Justice for All, US Catholic Bishops (1986), paragraph 188

“If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17) It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: “You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.”
Populorum Progressio -’Development of the peoples’ (1967), paragraph 23

The Church continually combats all forms of poverty, because as Mother she is concerned that each and every person be able to live fully in dignity as a child of God.
Pope John Paul II, Lenten message, 1998

“The Church’s love for the poor … is a part of her constant tradition.” This love is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus, and of his concern for the poor.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2444

I exhort every Christian, in this Lenten season, to evidence his personal conversion through a concrete sign of love toward those in need, recognising in this person the face of Christ and repeating, as if almost face to face: “I was poor, I was marginalised … and you welcomed me.”
Pope John Paul II, Lenten message, 1998

We begin with the scandal of poverty. Half the world’s population, some three billion people, live on two dollars or less a day. Of these 1.2 billion people, 20 per cent of the world’s population, live in extreme poverty on less than one dollar a day. This poverty occurs in a world of plenty, in a global economy capable of satisfying all the demands of its richest consumers but seemingly and scandalously unable to meet the needs of vast numbers of the poorest, whose needs ought to be at the heart of public policy. That is why poverty is the proper starting point for all discussions about aid, debt cancellation and trade.
Catholic Bishops of England, Scotland and Wales, 2003

Love for the poor is incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2445

People who are poor and vulnerable have a special place in Catholic teaching: this is what is meant by the “preferential option for the poor”. Scripture tells us we will be judged by our response to the “least of these”, in which we see the suffering face of Christ himself. Humanity is one family despite differences of nationality or race. The poor are not a burden; they are our brothers and sisters. Christ taught us that our neighbourhood is universal: so loving our neighbour has global dimensions. It demands fair international trading policies, decent treatment of refugees, support for the UN and control of the arms trade. Solidarity with our neighbour is also about the promotion of equality of rights and equality of opportunities; hence we must oppose all forms of discrimination and racism.
Bishops of England and Wales,
The Common Good, 1996

Faced with the tragic situation of persistent poverty which afflicts so many people in our world, how can we fail to see that the quest for profit at any cost and the lack of effective responsible concern for the common good have concentrated immense resources in the hands of a few while the rest of humanity suffers in poverty and neglect? Our goal should not be the benefit of a privileged few, but rather the improvement of the living conditions of all.
Pope John Paul II,
Lenten message 2003

The solidarity which binds humanity together as members of a common family makes it impossible for wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger, misery and poverty of other nations whose citizens are unable to enjoy even elementary human rights. The nations of the world are becoming more and more dependent on one another and it will not be possible to preserve a lasting peace so long as glaring economic and social imbalances persist.
Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra -’Christianity and Social Progress’ (1961), paragraph 157

Countless millions are starving, countless families are destitute, countless men are steeped in ignorance; countless people need schools, hospitals, and homes worthy of the name. In such circumstances, we cannot tolerate public and private expenditures of a wasteful nature; we cannot but condemn lavish displays of wealth by nations or individuals; we cannot approve a debilitating arms race. It is our solemn duty to speak out against them.
Populorum Progressio, paragraph 53

It is the person who is motivated by genuine love, more than anyone else, who pits his intelligence against the problems of poverty, trying to uncover the causes and looking for effective ways of combating and overcoming them.
Populorum Progressio, paragraph 75

As followers of Christ, we are challenged to make a fundamental ‘option for the poor’ – to speak for the voiceless, to defend the defenceless, to impact on the poor…..As Christians, we are called to respond to the needs of all our brothers and sisters, but those with the greatest needs require the greatest response.
Economic Justice for All, paragraph 16

As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental ‘option for the poor’. The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one’s neighbour as one’s self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief.
Economic Justice for All, paragraph 87

The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation.
Economic Justice for All, paragraph 86

The primer purpose of this special commitment to the poor is to enable them to become active participants in the life of society. It is to enable all persons to share in and contribute to the common good. The ‘option for the poor’, therefore, is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community. The extent of their suffering is a measure of how far we are from being a true community of persons. These wounds will be healed only by greater solidarity with the poor and among the poor themselves.
Economic Justice forAll , paragraph 88

Read Full Post »

Renowned liturgist and retired professor from the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., from his essay, Liturgy in the Life of the Church:

“Now, in the case of Christian Initiation, modern historical research and historical reflection have shown that the universal primitive tradition of both East and West viewed the liturgical completion of Christian Initiation as one integral rite comprising three moments of baptism, chrismation and Eucharist, and without all three the process is incomplete.  In Christian antiquity, to celebrate initiation without Eucharist would have made about as much sense as celebrating half a wedding would today.  For this reason, contemporary Western Catholic experts on the liturgy and theology of Christian Initiation have insisted on the necessity of restoring the integrity of this process which broke down in the Middle Ages. . .

From the beginning of the primitive Church in East and West, the process of Christian Initiation for both children and adults was one inseparable sequence comprising catechumenate, baptism, chrismation (confirmation) and Eucharist.  History is unmistakably clear in this matter:  every candidate, child or adult, was baptized, confirmed, and given Communion as part of a single initiation rite.  This is the universal ancient Catholic Tradition.  Anything else is less ancient and has no claim to universality.

For centuries, this was also the tradition of the Church of Rome.  In 417, Pope Innocent I in a doctrinal letter to the Fathers of the Synod of Milevis, teaches that infant initiation necessarily includes Communion:

“To preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completely idiotic.  For unless theu eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them.  [Note:  From the text, it is obvious that Innocent I is teaching principally that without baptism infants cannot be saved.  But the argument he uses from John 6:53, which refers to the necessity of eucharist for salvation, shows he simply took for granted that communion was an integral part of Christian Initiation for infants].”

That this was the actual liturgical practice of Rome can be seen, for example, in the 7th century Ordo romanus XI, and in the 12th century Roman pontifical, which repeats almost verbatim the same rule (I cite from the later text):

“Concerning infants, care should be taken that they receive no food or be nursed (except in case of urgent need) before receiving the sacrament of Christ’s Body.  And afterwards, during the whole of Easter Week, let them come to Mass, and receive Communion every day.”

Until the 12th century this was the sacramental practice of the Roman Church and the doctrinal teaching of Latin theologians.  Christ Himself said in John 6:53 that it was necessary for eternal life to receive his Body and Blood—“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”—and the medieval Latin theologians applied this to everyone without exception, infants included.

The practice began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate.  Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only.  And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too.  This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning.  When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.  Even the 1910 decree Quam singulari issued under Pius X mentions the age of reason not as required before Communion, but as the age when the obligation of satisfying the precept begins.

Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century.  Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious—realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both!  For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants.

So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants.  Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years.  Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation.  In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out.  Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion.  So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument.  And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants.  Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.”

Read Full Post »

A Divided Mind

article-ariel-castroScreen-Shot-2013-04-12-at-1_20_56-PMNever has the confusion and contradiction surrounding the abortion debate in this country seemed as stark as it has in the last few weeks.

There are two particularly grisly tales in the news in which dead babies are prominent: the trial in Philadelphia of abortionist Dr Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder for killing babies outside the womb, and here in Ohio, the arrest of Ariel Castro, accused of kidnapping, then imprisoning for over a decade, three young women, who were subjected to repeated rapes and beatings. The prosecutor has announced that he will seek the death penalty for Mr Castro, who more than once beat and starved one of the women whom he had impregnated until she aborted the child she was carrying.

These cases are curious for many reasons. The babies Dr Gosnell murdered were no different biologically or ontologically than if he had murdered them a few minutes earlier, when they were still inside their mothers. If he had done that he would only have been charged with violating Pennsylvania’s law against late term abortions. And those babies  were no different biologically or ontologically than if he had killed them a couple of months earlier, which would have been perfectly legal.

And the babies Mr Castro killed? Fathered by a rapist? Even many who call themselves “prolife” believe that such children can be killed with impunity. This is unprincipled, to be sure, but even Catholics like Paul Ryan hold to this “exception”. If the young woman had escaped while pregnant her child’s life would have no value; it is apparent that its only value now is a legal way of seeking greater punishment for Mr Castro.

So when does life have value? When it is valued by the mother? When society finds it useful? Is it not apparent that in this country the value of human life is utterly arbitrary? And is this not a frightening thing, which sets a precedent for God knows what horrors?

This is yet another fruit of consequentialism, the idea that an act is moral or immoral not because of the innate nature of the act but because this or that good or evil consequence may follow from it. This is a sort of original sin of moral reasoning, one which may be used to justify any horror, from bombing civilian populations, to torturing terror suspects, or any act that treats  human life as disposable for a “good” reason.

Until this nation rethinks this and acknowledges objective moral truth  -in this case that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being - we can expect the fruits of this confusion, this divided mind, to continue to poison our nation.

Read Full Post »

Iconographer Aiden Hart makes the case at Orthodox Arts Journal, at least for Western churches in which three dimensional images are traditional:

“There is a long tradition of relief sculpture in the Orthodox Church’s liturgical art tradition, but very little in the way of three dimensional sculpture. Can sculpture in the round act like an icon, leading us through itself to its prototype?

Although, for reasons discussed below, the Orthodox Church is unlikely to adopt sculpture in the future, the tradition of using statues in Roman Catholic and Anglican churches is likely to remain. Is there some way of restoring sculpture’s iconographic role and style such as it once had, for example in the Romanesque times? I do not argue here for an introduction of statuary into Orthodox worship, but want rather to open a discussion about how the existing statuary tradition within Catholic and some Anglican churches might be made more iconographic.”

Read the rest here.

Okay, the link doesn’t work; I’ll just paste the whole thing:

Statue from Auvergne.1150-1200

I have been prompted to think about this question since being approached by the Chapter of Lincoln Cathedral  to carve a sculpture of the Mother of God and Child for the Cathedral’s Our Lady of Lincoln Chapel. They wanted this sculpture to act liturgically, as an encouragement to prayer and not merely as a decorative work of art. I accepted the challenge and have been commissioned to design and carve this two metre high work in limestone. The half size maquette you see illustrated was modelled in clay and cast into plaster.

Our Lady of Lincoln face. Clay Maquette by Aidan Hart

Our Lady of Lincoln. Half-size plaster casting of maquette. By Aidan Hart

I would like to first explain how I have tried to make this particular sculpture iconographic, and then discuss the pros and cons of sculptural work in churches in general, with a positive emphasis on ways that it can be made to work liturgically in non-Orthodox churches.

The Our Lady of Lincoln sculpture

Lincoln Cathedral

The following passage is taken from the explanatory leaflet that the Cathedral Chapter asked me to write, and outlines the theology behind the work’s design:

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel, which means, ‘God is with us’.” (Mathew  1:23)

This sculpture of Our Lady of Lincoln aims to embody the words quoted above, that “God is with us”.

On the one hand it affirms Christ’s divinity. He is shown surrounded by the vesica, which symbolizes heaven. He holds a sphere, symbolic of the universe which He created and sustains by the word of His power. Although clearly a child, He is also shown as a small man, indicating that while fully human He remains the pre-eternal God, the Ancient of Days. He raises His right hand in blessing.

On the other hand the sculpture also affirms that this same God has become human, has become like us. The heavenly vesica is also the Virgin’s womb. God has become a little child, held in the arms of His mother, dependent upon His mother.

But the sculpture and the Our Lady of Lincoln Chapel will not exist merely to remind us of past events. The aim is to help each person who takes the time to enter the chapel, contemplate and pray, to become a “God bearer”, to experience Christ in their hearts. Mary looks at us, saying, ‘Let Christ be born in our hearts’.

The sculpture’s design is also rooted in place, in Lincoln Cathedral. The garment drapery in particular is inspired by the rich Romanesque carvings found in this wonderful cathedral. The rhythmic curves show that God’s incarnation in the flesh also transfigures the whole material world, restores it to harmony, fills it with His glory. When Christ was transfigured, His garments as well as His face became “dazzling white”. The vesica shape is also drawn from the Cathedral, from the 12th century seal matrix which is one of the oldest and most treasured objects in the Cathedral’s possession.

As well as commissioning the sculpture, the Chapter are also refurbishing the chapel which will be its home. Our aim is to create a space that helps people to be still and pray, to enter the heart and contemplate the mysteries of the Incarnation. We are submitting every element to this question: Will it help people pray? Lighting, furniture design, placement of the sculpture, colouration, all will be chosen with this spiritual end in mind. All the stylistic elements of the sculpture were chosen to embody the words of St Athanasius the Great: “The Son of God became man so that we might become god.”

Lincoln Cathedral, intended Chapel

The tradition of three dimensional sculpture in the Orthodox Church

We turn now to the more general question of the tradition of sculpture in the Orthodox Church. We lack space here to discuss the subject in any depth, so all that can be done in this short space is to raise some arguments people have used against statuary, and then outline some possible ways of mitigating or solving these issues.

As far as I know, there are no Orthodox canons prohibiting liturgical sculpture in the round. The Seventh Ecumenical Council merely states:

We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence, in a manner not unlike that befitting the shape of the precious and vivifying Cross, that the venerable and holy icons, painted or mosaic, or made of any other suitable material, be placed in the holy churches of God upon sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, houses and streets, both of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our spotless Lady the holy Mother of God, and also of the precious Angels, and of all Saints. For the more frequently and oftener they are continually seen in pictorial representation, the more those beholding are reminded and led to visualize anew the memory of the originals which they represent…

Though this canon neither specifically prohibits nor condones statuary, it does seem nevertheless to favour “pictorial representation” (by this meaning flat imagery in general and not just painted, as it mentions “mosaic, or… any other suitable material” as well as painting).

The commentary on the canons, “The Rudder” by St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, certainly makes a case against statuary, but no canons as such ban them. The quote from the Rudder can be read in post 26 in the this link.

St Nicodemus concludes that although statues are not immoral, they do not do the job as well as flat representations. He acknowledges Eusebius’s reference to a bronze sculpture made by the woman healed by Christ of an issue of blood and placed in the basilica of Paneas where it was venerated. But he considers this liturgical use of a statue as “a concession from God, who, for goodness’ sake accepted it, making allowances for the imperfect knowledge of the woman who set it up”. St Nicodemus summarizes his case in these words:

You see here three things as plainly as day, to wit: 1) that the erection of the statue of Christ was moral, and that the Lord accepted it as a matter of compromise with the times; 2) that statues ought not to be manufactured; and 3) that it is more pious and more decent for the venerable images to be depicted, not by means of statues, but by means of colours in paintings. (“The Rudder” by St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain)

It seems that the argument for their paucity relies not so much on theological principles as on certain practical difficulties in making a fully rounded sculpture work like an icon.

There are some extant examples of Orthodox statuary, some illustrated here, but they are few and far between: two ivory statue of the Virgin and Child, and a 14th century marble “Sokolac Virgin”, still venerated at the Sokolica monastery, Boletin, Kosovo.

The Virgin and Child, Ivory
Byzantine Empire (probably Constantinople)
1000-1100

Sokolac Virgin, 14th century, Sokolica monastery, Boletin, Kosovo.

I have listed below some arguments against statuary for liturgical use, followed by some suggestions on how within a non-Orthodox context these difficulties might be solved, or at least mitigated.

Arguments against statuary in churches

  1. A statue can be walked around and therefore can be treated more easily as an object in its own right. A painted or relief icon faces only one way and therefore always invites relationship with the person facing us, whereas a sculpture is generally designed to be viewed from all angles, even the back, which tends to make it be treated as an art object rather than an invitation to relationship.
  2. Sculptures are rooted in three dimensional space, while painted icons or relief works exist on surfaces, such as walls, ceilings, or containers. For this reason, it could be argued, flat images can act more readily as windows to heaven. The fact that painting’s two dimensionality is one step removed from three dimensional space enables them more readily to open onto heavenly space.
  3. How do you venerate sculptures? What part do you venerate? The foot, the knee?
  4. Being flat, painted or relief iconography emphasizes its non-likeness to the prototype as much as its likeness. A sculpture on the other hand is just one step too close to being like its prototype. This is behind fears that a sculpture can tend to act more as an idol than an icon. St Nicodemus observes in his “Rudder” a distinction between icon and replica:

The reason and cause why statues are not adored or venerated (aside from the legal observation and custom noted hereinabove) seem to me to be the fact that when they are handled and it is noticed that the whole body and all the members of the person or thing represented are contained in them and that they not only reveal the whole surface of it in three dimensions, but can even be felt in space, instead of merely appearing as such to the eye alone, they no longer appear to be, nor have they any longer any right to be called, icons or pictures, but, on the contrary, they are sheer replications of the originals. (St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, “The Rudder”)

  1. Unlike relief carving, or paintings which need to be hung or painted on walls, sculptures can too easily become detached from their architectural setting. This in turn can detach them from the larger liturgical drama of the Church and set them to become stand-alone art objects.

Possible solutions to these problems:

  1. A sculpture can be placed against a wall or placed within a niche so that it can only be viewed face to face. This also binds it to the architectural setting and therefore compels it to remain integrated into the larger liturgical life of the church community (see point six above). The one rare example of a three dimensional sculpture used and venerated within an Orthodox church that I know of, the Sokolac Virgin, is indeed set within an niche.
  2. A sculpture’s style can be abstracted in such a way as to remind us that liturgical art does not aim to imitate every physical detail, but rather to introduce us to deeper spiritual realities. Examples are Anglo-Saxon, Carolingian, Ottonian and Romanesque sculptures. Two examples are illustrated here: a wooden polychromed Virgin and Child from Auvergne, France, 1150–1200, now in the Metropolitan Museum, NY, and a Lombardian polychromed work in limestone, now in the MFA, Boston.
  3. The scale and placement of sculptures should keep in mind the liturgical role they play.
  4. Architectural or furniture elements of a sculpture can be depicted using iconographic perspective systems, such as inverse perspective and multi-view perspective. These transcend rational thought and encourage noetic vision.  Also, all the adjustments to proportion made in the painted icon tradition can be used in sculptures, such as enlarged eyes, elongated figures, simplified anatomy.
  5. As already mentioned, a sculpture can be integrated into its architectural and liturgical setting by such means as being set into a niche or set against a wall, perhaps in front of a blind arch.

Conclusion

Roman Catholic and Anglican churches increasingly look to the Orthodox Church’s liturgical art for inspiration. Any iconographer in the West will find many of their commissions come from sources outside Orthodoxy. Apart from the Lincoln Cathedral commission, I am presently working on the redesigning and frescoing of an apse in a 1960′s Catholic church in London, a mosaic for the Church of Wales, wall paintings for a Catholic monastery in Ireland and a parish in Leeds, and then leading an icon workshop in a Catholic University in Canada. It is clear that we have a role in helping our Christian brethren vivify their liturgical arts. To do this well we cannot adopt a merely negative, critical and polemic stance. While discerning the failings in western liturgical art and the causes of  these failures, we  surely need to do this in an affirmative, creative way. But above all we need to identify and encourage all those things, past and present, which are good.

Each Orthodox liturgical artist must therefore decide what their role can be and how to play that role. Andrew Gould has for example designed the Catholic church illustrated below, and Jonathan Pageau carved this splendid cross. All this requires dialogue with the commissioner, which in turn necessitates knowledge of western art, architecture and liturgical worship. The Orthodox Church in the West is not called to be a ghetto, but a transforming and transfiguring community.

Our Lady of the Rosary. Designed by Andrew Gould.

Read Full Post »

My children have all loved beer. Not me, not when I was a kid. I thought it sour and nasty. I can tell you the precise moment that changed: I was 21, living on a communal farm in the Appalachian foothills. We only used horses on our farm, but sometimes we would help local farmers put up hay bails in return for some of the hay.

Putting up hay is arduous work; it is hot, the bails are heavy, and bits of hay on your sweaty skin are itchy. And we hadn’t brought water.

So when the womenfolk showed up with a case of Rolling Rock beer I eagerly grabbed one and for the first time appreciated beer. There is really nothing like an ice cold lager, even the skunky sort like Rolling Rock, to quench a thirst.

From then on I liked beer, but I did not drink much of it, and when I did it was the thin American lager type.

My first brush with anything more flavorful was when I started going to bars to listen to Irish folk music and tried Guinness. I liked it immediately, but drank it rarely.

Later I tried other interesting beers, and found I preferred malty brews: stouts and porters, and the hoppier but still malty pale ale.

I really did not like IPAs. “IPA” stands for “India Pale Ale”;  it first evolved as a heavily hopped ale for British export to colonial India, the hoppiness enduring the long ship voyage better than maltier brews. I did not care for them, but to be fair my exposure was very limited. I used to buy Saranac and Dundee mixed twelve packs, and they usually included a couple of IPAs. They were always the last to be drunk; I found them thin and bitter.

Now the great thing about these two brands of beer is that for the same price as a relatively tasteless American lager -think Budweiser or Miller- you can drink a pretty flavorful beer. But they are not particularly complex or intense. And I did not like IPAs.

But that changed last summer when I began stopping by the  new Wooster Brewery. I at first mostly stuck to the malty stuff: the Red Ale, the Brown Ale, and the New Stout, the one  that made Guinness taste like Bud. But some of my coworkers insisted that I try the JAF IPA. “JAF” stands for “Just an effin’ ” IPA, which is a total joke, as this is not “just” an IPA by any means. While American IPAs are much hoppier and flavorful than their British cousins, I had never encountered anything like this: the aroma was rich and flowery, like weed (to which hops are closely related), the flavor complex and multi-leveled. It changed my perception of the style, and I find that I buy little else these days,whether in the brewery or in the store. And I have found some very fine IPAs, not least because of a couple local stores that allow one to make a custom 6 pack from individually priced bottles: Hop Notch, from, of all places, Salt Lake City, Centennial IPA, from Grand Rapids, Old 21, named after the highway just a few blocks away, from Brew Kettle brewery in Strongsville, Ohio, an hour north of here, Sierra Nevada’s aptly named Hoptimus Ale, and many more.

I know, Red Owen will think me hopelessly bourgeois, but it is my one indulgence. And I note that one can spend $5 a day on smokes without losing one’s prole cred.

I had been blind to the glories of the hop; that is only natural . Humans, plain and simple, prefer sweetness. It is not unlike the neophyte wine drinker who is at first put off by dry reds. It can take a bit of aesthetic discipline to find the hidden sweetness in a dry red wine.

And so it is with the humble hop: there is a sweetness deep within the bitter taste, a complexity beneath the intimidating sourness.

Like many things in life that are not immediately apparent it is worth the quest. There is a lesson here: that it is worth the effort and work to find the inner sweetness, the hidden nectar, behind the apparent and forbidding bitterness.

As in beer, so in life.

Read Full Post »

Lost Cream

Well, lost Jack Bruce, actually, as he played everything on this tune except the high hat cymbal. I last heard this, probably, around 1968, and had forgotten about it until Maclin Horton posted it on his Light on Dark Water blog….

Read Full Post »

When Feast Is Fast

Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.

Not really, but I did not attend Divine Liturgy yesterday, Ascension Thursday, which is a major feast. I had planned on attending, and had taken a change of clothes in case I had to work later than usual and had to drive directly to Canton or Akron, where the three closest Byzantine Catholic parishes are.

But when I got to work I was told that there was a sick call and that instead of my usual hour or hour and a half overtime I was going to carry two and a half hours extra. This meant that I would have to drive to Akron, where there was a 7pm liturgy (St George in Canton is 6:30). That is a fifty minute drive from Wooster, where I work.

The two and a half hours was all walking, which meant that I would walk over 6 extra miles, in addition to the 7 or 8 on my own route.

By midday I realized that I was going to be dead tired by the end of the day. The prospect of a fifty minute drive, an hour and a half  liturgy and then a thirty minute drive back home began to seem daunting. By day’s end I decided that it was no sin to just go home.

Now, some may ask why, for a feast celebrated in every rite, did I not just attend a local Roman mass?

Because, dear reader, in the Latin Catholic diocese in which I live all the moveable weekday feasts except Christmas are celebrated on the nearest Sunday. I don’t know if this custom is universal, but I don’t think it rare.

The Latin Church is frequently criticized for this; the practice is cited as yet another proof of the laxity of the Roman Church, which after all requires fasting on only two days a year, and abstinence from meat only on the Fridays of Lent. Most of the criticism I have seen has been from clerics, in other words from men whose lives involve very little manual labor or heavy lifting and are free on feast days to celebrate the whole day long.

Workers, on the other hand, face the task of rushing off to liturgy after working all day. I can’t tell you how many times, after a grueling 10 hour workday, I have stood clutching the pew in front of me, trying hard not to fall asleep during a festal liturgy. That is not celebration but a penance. It is not a feast but a fast.

For in a Catholic or Orthodox culture a feast is an occasion for rest and well, for feasting. It is a day off work, a day for family and friends, music, and of course, for the processions and liturgical services of the day. But for those of us living in a secular society, it is just another day at work, with an ardous task at the end of it. Ascension Thursday, to the world, is just Thursday. Maybe if you work in an air conditioned office this is not big deal, but for those who labor physically it can be exhausting. I question the wisdom of requiring attendance at a festal liturgy when the attendance is anything but festal, let alone laying the burden of the “holy day of obligation” on the faithful. By all means keep the feast, but celebrate it as well on Sunday, the day when workers are rested and free.

The common Roman practice, far from lax, is truly a pastoral one.

(Painting by  Boris Kustodiev, c 1915)

Read Full Post »

francis tawadros

VATICAN CITY: Pope Francis on Friday prayed for “full unity” with the Coptic Orthodox Church as he received Patriarch of Alexandria Tawadros II for an historic visit in the latest sign of closer ties between the Catholic and Orthodox worlds.

“Our persevering prayer, our dialogue and the will to build communion day by day in mutual love will allow us to take important further steps towards full unity,” Francis told Coptic Orthodox leader Tawadros at their meeting in the Vatican. “We long for the day when, in fulfilment of the Lord’s desire, we will be able to communicate from the one chalice,” he said, acknowledging that there had been “centuries of mutual distrust” between their two Christian churches.

This was the first such meeting in 40 years. Tawadros’ predecessor Shenouda III visited the Vatican in 1973 to meet pope Paul VI and the two had launched a process of dialogue between Catholics and Copts and pope John Paul II also visited Shenouda in Egypt in 2000.

Francis spoke of “an ecumenism of suffering”.

“Just as the blood of the martyrs was a seed of strength and fertility for the Church, so too the sharing of daily sufferings can become an effective instrument of unity,” he said. “And this also applies, in a certain sense, to the broader context of society and relations between Christians and non-Christians: from shared suffering can blossom forth forgiveness and reconciliation, with God’s help,” he added.

The four-day visit was the high-point of a tour of Europe by Tawadros, who was elected in November 2012 as leader of a Christian Church faced with the rise of radical Islam and growing emigration. Copts account for up to 10 percent of the population in Egypt, where tensions and clashes with the majority Muslim population have increased since the fall of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in 2011.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-10/216600-pope-francis-prays-for-full-unity-with-copts.ashx#ixzz2St69qxja
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers