Nudity in the Sistine Chapel
#21
For what it is worth, there are icons of Our Lady nursing Our Lord - Maria Lactans, I think.

http://www.fisheaters.com/marialactans.html
Reply
#22
What's next? Coal dust in the bath water or cutting a hole in the bedsheets? Catholics aren't supposed to be Puritians.
Reply
#23
(08-11-2012, 06:42 PM)Doce Me Wrote: When I think of great artists,  I think of Michelangelo first of all. No one can deny the immense beauty of his works, and their depiction of the human form, God's creation

Michelangelo's paintings are vastly overrated. He was much better as as sculptor, which is what he primarily thought of himself as.

Also, his "Creation of Adam" in the Sistine Chapel has permanently implanted in the Western ethos this immature, excessively anthropomorphic idea that God is an old man sitting up in the clouds. It also, I feel, has done damage to the understanding of the Trinity in the Western world by making people thing of this image--one that attempts to portray God the Father, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit--when they hear "God."
Reply
#24
I've said it before and i'll say it again. If the Sistene Chapel is a scandal, then so are the works of Shakespere and the works of Homer. Burn them all.
Reply
#25
You know there won't be any need for clothes in Heaven, right?
Reply
#26
Nudity is actually the norm. We live fallen, and now covered because we abuse with our "awakened" eyes and our distorted viewing of ourselves and our neighbor. The problem is lust and concupiscence. We turn human persons whom we should love into objects of selfish gratification. The key is to allow them to view nudity which will foster a healthy and mature view of it. The paintings of Michelangelo are a good example. Teach them about our creation as two sexes, the fall, why we are clothes now, lust and temptation, and the many abuses of our time. Also teach them that Satan uses nudity to bring down holy people. They should have a comfortable and mature view of the naked body. Comfortable with God's creation, but also humble to know when they are tempted and need to refrain from viewing. Also they should be wary of the extreme also of rigorism, that the body can never be viewed naked, except, perhaps, in a very few limited circumstances, like in one's bedroom. This is a kind of societal scrupulosity which sees flesh as evil in itself. Not healthy. Avoid the two extremes. The Catholic position is modest, but comfortable with God's designs.
Reply
#27
(08-12-2012, 07:55 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Michelangelo's paintings are vastly overrated. He was much better as as sculptor, which is what he primarily thought of himself as.

Also, his "Creation of Adam" in the Sistine Chapel has permanently implanted in the Western ethos this immature, excessively anthropomorphic idea that God is an old man sitting up in the clouds. It also, I feel, has done damage to the understanding of the Trinity in the Western world by making people thing of this image--one that attempts to portray God the Father, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit--when they hear "God."

Hmm ... how do you paint "pure act"?
Reply
#28
(08-13-2012, 12:49 PM)dymphnaw Wrote: You know there won't be any need for clothes in Heaven, right?

They all wear white garments in heaven (acts 1:10, Rev. 3:4-5,18).
Reply
#29
(08-13-2012, 01:42 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Nudity is actually the norm. We live fallen, and now covered because we abuse with our "awakened" eyes and our distorted viewing of ourselves and our neighbor. The problem is lust and concupiscence. We turn human persons whom we should love into objects of selfish gratification. The key is to allow them to view nudity which will foster a healthy and mature view of it. The paintings of Michelangelo are a good example. Teach them about our creation as two sexes, the fall, why we are clothes now, lust and temptation, and the many abuses of our time. Also teach them that Satan uses nudity to bring down holy people. They should have a comfortable and mature view of the naked body. Comfortable with God's creation, but also humble to know when they are tempted and need to refrain from viewing. Also they should be wary of the extreme also of rigorism, that the body can never be viewed naked, except, perhaps, in a very few limited circumstances, like in one's bedroom. This is a kind of societal scrupulosity which sees flesh as evil in itself. Not healthy. Avoid the two extremes. The Catholic position is modest, but comfortable with God's designs.

Clearly it isn't the norm for the Blessed Virgin was clothed, Christ was clothed, apparitions are clothed, Samuel appeared before Saul clothed, saints are clothed in heaven, etc...
Reply
#30
These are presented to us in our fallen nature. I don't imagine the saints are spinning immaterial clothing in heaven to cover glorified bodies. Angels appear as men too, that doesn't mean they are men, or actually have the appearance of men to heavenly eyes. This does not affect the truth that in original innocence man was naked. It stands to reason our glorified bodies will not be clothed, or if they are, with some heavenly clothing, it will be an outward sign of virtue, and not a way to prevent lust and concupiscence.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)