The Feminization of Western Christianity
#11
(04-02-2019, 06:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 05:26 PM)xskramx2 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Florus Wrote: Not sure about that, just look at the kind of religious art that was mass produced in the 19th century, the language of devotional writings etc, I think it points to a gap.

Some examples please, 

Take a look at the 19th century Holy Cards here: Holy Card Heaven

It shows definite uhhh id say "protestantization", but i don't think it necessarily proves a gender gap in anyway def a lack of aesthetics, so you think it started around the 1800s?
Reply
#12
(04-02-2019, 06:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 05:26 PM)xskramx2 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Florus Wrote: Not sure about that, just look at the kind of religious art that was mass produced in the 19th century, the language of devotional writings etc, I think it points to a gap.

Some examples please, 

Take a look at the 19th century Holy Cards here: Holy Card Heaven

                                       What was specifically wrong with those holy cards ?
Reply
#13
(04-02-2019, 06:52 PM)Eric F Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 06:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 05:26 PM)xskramx2 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Florus Wrote: Not sure about that, just look at the kind of religious art that was mass produced in the 19th century, the language of devotional writings etc, I think it points to a gap.

Some examples please, 

Take a look at the 19th century Holy Cards here: Holy Card Heaven

                                       What was specifically wrong with those holy cards ?


I know right, they lack aesthetics, but it doesnt prove a gender gap in the church
Reply
#14
(04-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Florus Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 03:42 PM)Eric F Wrote: I've seen this line of reasoning in recent years from the way out there Orthodox convert Frederica Mathewes-Green, and frankly I don't think it was ever a problem in our church until the 1960's when it began arriving from decidedly different sources. I seriously doubt many people were wondering about such things as recent as the 1950's. 

Not sure about that, just look at the kind of religious art that was mass produced in the 19th century, the language of devotional writings etc, I think it points to a gap.


here's a pretty good explanation for the lack of quality of 18th century art 


"The 18th century was the era of absolute monarchs, whose despotic rule was based on the so-called 'Divine Right of Kings' appointed by God. However, these monarchs, like Louis XIV, Louis XV, the Russian Romanovs, and the Austrian Habsburgs, were too concerned with exalting their own secular status and propping up their creaking empires to invest money in religious painting, sculpture or architecture. Furthermore, except in the Iberian Peninsular, where Spanish piety never slackened, the power of the Roman Catholic Church had been severely weakened by the destruction of its monasteries during the previous two centuries. This combination of secular and ecclesiastical weakness meant that - with odd exceptions, such as the Catholic commissions awarded to Giambattista Tiepolo (1696-1770) in Bavaria and Venice - there was a significant reduction during the 18th century in the amount of money devoted to religious art. Moreover, this period saw a huge increase in demand on behalf of merchants and land-owners, for portraiture and topographical landscapes. As it was, the period ended with the French Revolution, which heralded a change in sentiment across Europe. Henceforth, art would celebrate people rather than deities.

The 19th century produced even less religious art. Although the Industrial Revolution created significant surplus wealth for both nations and individuals, it wasn't invested in Christian art. Instead it went into the development of social and public services. The only regular commissions offered by Church authorities were for free-standing sculpture to commemorate deceased Bishops and other clerics. And while a few painters continued to paint Biblical scenes, the demand for religious compositions slumped - a trend which continued into the 20th century. But see A Burial in Ornans (1850) by the realist painter Gustave Courbet, and the strange symbolist works of the Belgian painter James Ensor (1860-1949), notably Christ's Entry Into Brussels."
Reply
#15
(04-01-2019, 10:33 PM)xskramx2 Wrote: What happened in the medieval Church? In his immensely influential sermons on the Song of Songs, Bernard of Clairvaux taught that the relationship of the Christian soul to God was that of a bride to a Heavenly Bridegroom. In this he continued an allegorical exegesis that goes back to Origen, but his preaching fell on fertile ground, and was taken up by popular piety, which had undergone a mysterious transformation into what we might call affective, or sentimental, piety, although these words are not exact. Emotions and sentiments had always played a part in Christian life, but now for some reason the emotions were those of women.

Bernard’s language expressing the union of the soul with God in erotic terms was highly congenial to women. Valerie M. Lagorio in her survey of mystical literature concludes: “In the works of the women visionaries, one notes the prevalence of Brautmystik, the love affair between Christ and the soul, leading to espousal and marriage.” Birgitta of Sweden usually referred to herself in the third person as “the bride.”

If the Song of Songs is not to be interpreted as a symbol of the union of the soul and God, why does it seem so obvious that this is a valid interpretation?
Reply
#16
(04-03-2019, 02:05 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(04-01-2019, 10:33 PM)xskramx2 Wrote: What happened in the medieval Church? In his immensely influential sermons on the Song of Songs, Bernard of Clairvaux taught that the relationship of the Christian soul to God was that of a bride to a Heavenly Bridegroom. In this he continued an allegorical exegesis that goes back to Origen, but his preaching fell on fertile ground, and was taken up by popular piety, which had undergone a mysterious transformation into what we might call affective, or sentimental, piety, although these words are not exact. Emotions and sentiments had always played a part in Christian life, but now for some reason the emotions were those of women.

Bernard’s language expressing the union of the soul with God in erotic terms was highly congenial to women. Valerie M. Lagorio in her survey of mystical literature concludes: “In the works of the women visionaries, one notes the prevalence of Brautmystik, the love affair between Christ and the soul, leading to espousal and marriage.” Birgitta of Sweden usually referred to herself in the third person as “the bride.”

If the Song of Songs is not to be interpreted as a symbol of the union of the soul and God, why does it seem so obvious that this is a valid interpretation?
  I've heard that the song of songs can be interpreted as an symbolic representation of the relationship between the divine masculine and feminine itself, our heavenly father and mother. After all don't we also have to honor thy father and thy mother?
Reply
#17
As for the subject of whether the mystical symbolism of love is the cause of effeminacy in the church, we have to understand that metaphysical gender, while being the archetype of human gender, isn't similar to it, it's just analogical. In such works, the soul being feminine represent it's openness as the passive receptor, to the active force of god and the holy spirit, which is in this case masculine. Isn't Mary also an archetype of the church, in regards to her obedience and union to the divine will?
  In my opinion, the real cause of the effeminacy of the catholic church, comes from the fact that, due to a loss of understanding in it's doctrines, it has fallen to the level of moralism and sentimentalist humanitarianism. Instead of being about the development of man trough overcoming sin and passions, creating a freer human being in the true sense of the word, modern catholicism is mostly about making sure everyone has the right material conditions towards living and stopping suffering, which while not something wrong in itself, is much lower to the first goal. We need to remember that loving god comes first to loving your neighbor, and that loving your neighbor doesn't simply mean doing what might please their ego.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Fallen Adam's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#18
(04-03-2019, 05:03 PM)Fallen Adam Wrote: As for the subject of whether the mystical symbolism of love is the cause of effeminacy in the church, we have to understand that metaphysical gender, while being the archetype of human gender, isn't similar to it, it's just analogical. In such works, the soul being feminine represent it's openness as the passive receptor, to the active force of god and the holy spirit, which is in this case masculine. Isn't Mary also an archetype of the church, in regards to her obedience and union to the divine will?
  In my opinion, the real cause of the effeminacy of the catholic church, comes from the fact that, due to a loss of understanding in it's doctrines, it has fallen to the level of moralism and sentimentalist humanitarianism. Instead of being about the development of man trough overcoming sin and passions, creating a freer human being in the true sense of the word, modern catholicism is mostly about making sure everyone has the right material conditions towards living and stopping suffering, which while not something wrong in itself, is much lower to the first goal. We need to remember that loving god comes first to loving your neighbor, and that loving your neighbor doesn't simply mean doing what might please their ego.


You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. I would only add that it was allowed to descend to that level because too many men cared more about loosing their access to sex than telling their wives what they needed to hear. When the same said men couldn't get adoring affection from their feminist enraged wives, they turned to their feminist inspired daughters for favor whom they subsequently turned into spoiled perpetually adolescent princesses just to get a smile. Simply put, man betrayed his own dignity by failing to show woman the door. The clergy I think on some level despise the average man for "choosing the girl over God" and try to satisfy the need for feminine attention by giving them the sermons they want to hear.
Local anti-feminist.....if you think women deserve special treatment without any accountability for their actions expect to hear from me!
Reply
#19
(04-02-2019, 06:52 PM)Eric F Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 06:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 05:26 PM)xskramx2 Wrote:
(04-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Florus Wrote: Not sure about that, just look at the kind of religious art that was mass produced in the 19th century, the language of devotional writings etc, I think it points to a gap.

Some examples please, 

Take a look at the 19th century Holy Cards here: Holy Card Heaven

                                       What was specifically wrong with those holy cards ?

Overly sentimental, rosy-cheeked and feminized images of the saints and Christ do nothing for men. I think there are two very different types of devotion here. Extreme examples, I know, but I think they illustrate something real.

[Image: christchild+sacred+heart+lovely+lace.jpg]

vs.

[Image: 743fec3addbbadb9bd402bf74e88891c.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Florus's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)