AmericanPapist Comments
Size isn't everything.
It's big, looks like an enormous flower, is it supposed to?
How can you tell it's not beautiful from the photo? Looks fine to me ...
How does the priest give the blessing with a monstrance that large? He'd have A HERNIA lifting it!
Wow!
How is adoration not a beautiful act? How is the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament not beautiful? Are you suggesting that the beauty of the Sacrament is contingent upon architecture and placement? Perhaps a return to St. Thomas on the transcendentals would do you well.
Policraticus:
I think his point IS that the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is a beautiful thing, indeed, the most beautiful thing.
What follows, then, is that we should create the most beautiful object possible to hold such a treasure. Our ability to create beauty is a sharing of God's own ability to create and pronouce things good.
While what is beautiful aesthetically may be debated, an ugly monstrance - and I'm not saying this is - can say without words, "I don't believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist."
I'd say the problems internal and external to the Church did not come about because monstrances, sanctuaries, church buildings, vestments, and other art and artifacts necessary for the liturgical life of the Church were too beautiful.
What follows, then, is that we should create the most beautiful object possible to hold such a treasure. Our ability to create beauty is a sharing of God's own ability to create and pronouce things good.
While what is beautiful aesthetically may be debated, an ugly monstrance - and I'm not saying this is - can say without words, "I don't believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist."
Since you brought up aesthetics, perhaps you will be a bit more honest in how to evaluate and form an aesthetic judgment. The photo represents emergent qualities: act of adoration within a specific setting, the sacramental presence of Christ, etc. What Thomas does unfortunately (showing some atrocious aesthetic sense) is break the actual event into its parts (thereby obliterating the emergent qualities) and then attempts to make an (aesthetic?) judgment on something that is not actually represented, namely, the monstrance. Such a vulgar move with respect to forming aesthetic judgment betrays a spiritual and intellectual lethargy in terms of the perception of beauty.
When one perceives aesthetically the aesthetic object of this representation, then one does not dissect it, ignoring the beautiful in favor of pronouncing a part of it "not beautiful." What Thomas is claiming (and so are you, apparently) is that the monstrance is capable of being pulled from our aesthetic perception--which simultaneously divorces the piece of art from its intended function. That is absurd. What is equally absurd is your claim that a monstrance can somehow betray its function and represent unbelief. If that is possible, then it is not a monstrance.
Again, I would advise a return to St. Thomas on the transcendentals in conjunction with some solid reading in aesthetic theory.
uh...Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, remember that. thanks!
I think the monstrance is ugly. Note that I didn't mention the act of adoration, the Eucharist, or the scene in that statement.
h...Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, remember that. thanks!
Ah, beauty is relative, not absolute.
I think the monstrance is ugly. Note that I didn't mention the act of adoration, the Eucharist, or the scene in that statement.
Given that the act of adoration includes the monstrance and the Eucharist is held by the monstrance, the monstrance cannot be severed from its function. To pronounce it "ugly" is to break a part from a whole, which is absurd in judging aesthetic quality. It appears it is not only Thomas who doesn't get aesthetic beauty around here.
Strange how few people are kneeling...
First, I want to say thank you for posting this. I am in the picture and had greatly enjoyed that time of Eucharistic Adoration and the picture captures my time in that place wonderfully.
Second, regarding the size of the monstrance... Remember it was also used for the vigil. It needed to be large for more people to see. Check out this photo for a better view of it: http://www.daylife.com/photo/05L...o/
05Li9Dn8Ve3L1
Third, while the monstrance is very modern and large, the moment was beautiful because Christ was present. That's what matters most.
Fourth, Alan, I am not kneeling in this photo. It does not mean I was not kneeling earlier and did not return to kneeling later. Nor does it mean that I was ignoring the fact that Christ was before me. I had been there for sometime, along with many of the other people in the photo, and kneeling for that long was not possible for me. I am young, but I do have a hard time kneeling for an hour straight with no support.
Thank you again and God bless!
¡VIVA IL PAPA!
Perhaps they should have put kneelers there or something.
Commenting by HaloScan
