very ugly stations of the cross

[Historian]

Not sure what the artist trying to communicate with the work in the first post. If it were made for nonreligious purposes, it wouldn't be so bad, but it isn't...

The Stations of the Cross by their own nature always have a religious motive if not a religious purpose in themselves. Furthermore, depicting Our Lord in such a bizarre and dysmorphic manner is cause for scandal.

[Historian]

Not sure what the artist trying to communicate with the work in the first post. If it were made for nonreligious purposes, it wouldn't be so bad, but it isn't...

The Stations of the Cross by their own nature always have a religious motive if not a religious purpose in themselves. Furthermore, depicting Our Lord in such a bizarre and dysmorphic manner is cause for scandal.

That was my point, genius....
This stuff is for museums, not Stations of the Cross.

[Historian]

Maybe if you could actually read the ACTUAL sentence instead of seeing the individual words and your resulting emotive responses, you wouldn't be throwing a hissy-fit.

[Historian]

That was my point....

I thought you were saying that if they were for nonreligious purposes, those paintings wouldn't be bad. In my opinion, the depiction of Our Lord has always a religious purpose in itself for God is the object of religion. Furthermore, He should always be depicted with the highest decorum for the sake of His glorification. Things like these raëlian paintings are always a scandal for us.

We agree on that, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.

[didishroom]

This stuff is for museums, not Stations of the Cross.

I vote for a garbage compactor.

[Historian]

That was my point....

I thought you were saying that if they were for nonreligious purposes, those paintings wouldn't be bad. In my opinion, the depiction of Our Lord has always a religious purpose in itself for God is the object of religion. Furthermore, He should always be depicted with the highest decorum for the sake of His glorification. Things like these raëlian paintings are always a scandal for us.

We agree on that, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.

Hmm, yes, perhaps I was clear enough, so I'll try to clarify. The actual content(The wacky face and all) of the work of art I wouldn't have much trouble with if the subject was not actually Jesus and it being a part of the Stations. However, since it DOES represent Jesus and a part of the Stations, I consider them totally inappropriate.

[Historian]

While I'm ranting I would like to remind everyone of JPII "The Great's" horrific and symbolic crosier.

http://photography.nationalgeographic.co...image.html

Yes, the "deformed crucifix". Some people say it's satanic in origin.

I'd say it is meant to look realistic to a higher degree.

[didishroom]

I had the same argument with some Sedes over that. I don't how so many Trads can love the 'Passion of the Christ' and gruesome statues of our Lord suffering but because Paul VI and John Paul II used it, a papal stuff employing the same style is Satanic.

Even the weirdos at TraditionInAction said the same thing.

[Historian]

I beg to differ.

I can't see any supposed resemblance between H.H. John Paul II's crosier and the real sufferings of Christ as portrayed in the "Passion of the Christ" or in traditional catholic artwork.

The crucifix is bent and barely recognizable.

[Historian]

I beg to differ.

I can't see any supposed resemblance between H.H. John Paul II's crosier and the real sufferings of Christ as portrayed in the "Passion of the Christ" or in traditional catholic artwork.

The crucifix is bent and barely recognizable.

They didn't use telephone poles in crucifix. Most wood is not straight. Which one reflects the suffering of Our Lord as it happened? Which one depicts a tortured man attached to a wooden torture device?