Everyone in the world can have their own opinion about what speaks to them or what does not. I am allowed to have my own opinion of things. I will not follow the crowd. Just because Fr Z , Ann Barnhardt and Taylor Marshall (who thinks the ANGEL is Mary!!) don't like the nativity, does not mean that I have to not like it too. (The pieces on either side of the angel are too far from the figure. They are the angel's wings but the effect of wings is lost since they are not placed close enough to the figure. See the photo below of the wings correctly placed.)
Because I like the Vatican's nativity am I less Catholic? A degenerate person? Bad to the bone? Shall we all cancel Grandma Moses because she wasn't a Renaissance painter? Toss Van Gogh's paintings out the window? Change Williamsburg's Folk Art Museum to a museum containing famous American painters whose work more resembles acceptable societal images than simple folk art?
Maybe I just appreciate art (I was an art major for the first two years of university, one of those years in Venice, Italy at the Accademia) - all art, including modern art, folk art, ancient art, European art, Asian art, African art, and most of all, the beautiful artwork my children made when they were small, like the "Turtles with Cupcakes on Their Head" and the "Zebra Standing on an Anthill" which I framed.
Before I begin here, please note that I think the neon light behind the angel is superb. It's just the right touch for this modern nativity scene. A neon light would not look right in a traditional creche, but with this one, it's perfect.
 |
| Scene in Abruzzo, Italy with Baby Jesus and the angel's wings placed properly. |
From the 54 pieces in the original nativity of the FA Grue Institute of Art in Castelli, Italy, along with the angel, Mary, Baby Jesus, St Joseph, wise men, shepherds and several animals, Bergoglio also chose 2 controversial pieces to display - the astronaut and the executioner.
In the days of the 1960s there was a race to the moon. It was in the news for a decade, with Neil Armstrong landing on the moon in 1969. Maybe the high school students of that 1960s art institute made an astronaut figure for the nativity in 1969 because even astronauts can be happy that Christ was born. Maybe the astronaut is holding a beautiful moon rock to give to Baby Jesus.
Possibly the executioner figure was made to remind us that we all kill Jesus daily. The "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" of the Passion is all of us. All of us crucify Christ, therefore we are Christ's executioners. Therefore, there I am standing there as the executioner. That is you standing there too, looking like Darth Vader, crying out to crucify Him - or possibly kill Him right then and there along with the Holy Innocents.
What I did not like is that Bergoglio put his own spin on the nativity. The Vatican said: "The figures are shaped like pillars, distant and not interacting with one another, reminding some of today’s social-distancing norms." (Maybe that's why the angel's wings are so far from its body. They're social distancing.) Bergoglio said that the executioner stood for the Death Penalty. No. It did not. In 1960s the students weren't that woke. That is merely Bergoglio's personal opinion. He has his opinion, I have mine and you have yours.
The figures of Mary and Joseph are beautiful. She looks like Our Lady of Guadalupe. Over the years I have collected nativity scenes, my favorite being one from Bangladesh. It's a simple 4-piece set with the stable resembling a temple and the three figures of Mary, Jesus and Joseph robed in gold Asian fabric.
So I will have my opinion, and you may have yours. If we all thought alike the world would be a terribly boring place.
 |
| Marc Chagall's Nativity |
 |
| Chinese artist He Qi's Nativity |
 |
| Salvador Dali - The Birth of Jesus (1967) |
Interesting viewpoint, Susan. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I think the Nativity scene looks like Fisher Price people myself and don't particularly like it, but I'm thankful there's no buff, half-nude, homeless guy this year. And I do like the donkey and the ox.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why the pope selected the controversial pieces... but, on the other hand....maybe I don't.
I'm a big fan of Chagall, although I don't particularly like that nativity. In any case, I don't think this year's display is worth fighting over. You say tu-mah-to and I say tu-may-to....
I just think it would scare the children.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason for most public displays of art in this new world order
ReplyDeleteVictoria
https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/the-occult-symbolism-of-the-vaticans-2020-nativity-scene/
Why would it scare children? Children made it. And if it looks like Fisher Price people, that proves the point that it would not scare children.
ReplyDeleteNo. Instead, it scares adults who are afraid of losing their faith because something is not as they think it should be. They see something as scandalous because they do not understand it.
They must demean something not understood by them because their vision is apparently the only right and correct one. They do not delve any deeper than the surface, never bothering to see the human element behind how something was made, who made it, what is the meaning behind what was made. Was it good or bad? Was it made with love?
After reading the article posted by Victoria, I wonder what the hidden messages were from the evil folks at the Vatican as well. If the only figures were Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, I might agree with you, Susan; but the description of Jesus as looking like "a cork" and the huge halo on the angel vs. no halo on Jesus, Mary, and Joseph -- why?
ReplyDeleteOne could wonder if this massive Gabriel with the huge halo is Mohammed's angel Gabriel. And the executioner sure doesn't look like a Fisher Price figure! I'm sure that horned figure was what Osusanna was referring to. Scary is an understatement!
Yeah, we just "don't understand it"...you're full of yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe person who wrote that article has no clue why Baby Jesus is not there. Well, it isn't Christmas yet. He will be unveiled then - on Christmas. Is the person who wrote that article a Catholic? Not knowing that Baby Jesus is not in the crib until Christmas Eve at midnight is a gross misunderstanding, therefore that person is either intentionally misleading his/her audience (fake news?) or is completely devoid of the facts.
ReplyDeleteThe astronaut is giving birth? Why can't the astronaut be brining Baby Jesus a beautiful moon rock? Why not go to FA Grue and find out the real meaning of their nativity instead of speculating?
How many times do we have to read about the obelisk in St Peter's Square? And the Egyptian trinity? And now the US Capitol's dome and the Washington Monument, and on and on, all off track., and misleading.
Has anyone read the links in the article above that I posted?
Mary Ann, Muhammad's demon "Gabriel" was a man and I seriously doubt he had a halo. He was definitely not a blonde woman.
The executioner figure....scary? How many children today have toy figures far scarier than that! He looks just like a Viking. Wow, adults are so scared of themselves!! Because that is what the executioner figure represents...mankind. "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" Maybe that should be removed from the Easter Passion so adults won't be so frightened of what we are capable of.
Nothing sacred in Newchurch. Take that childish mess to an art museum if its art, not a sacred setting.
ReplyDeleteWell...people can disagree and art is definitely a personal taste. I can't stand Picasso's cubism. A lot of people like it. Dali's modern stuff turns me off as well. I feel the same way about other art forms. Much modern literature, especially poetry, is drivel on steroids.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article's description of the pillars (with reference to the angel) was interesting comparing it to the Djed pillar in ancient Egyptian symbolism. Obviously we are not talking about the same article (Are you referring to Taylor Marshall's? I didn't read it.) because the article at Vigilant Citizen didn't say a word about Jesus not being in the Nativity scene.
I'd be interested in your opinion of that article, Susan.
Read the caption underneath the second picture....which is the same as the first picture.
ReplyDeleteThe writer also shows baby Jesus "looking like a cork" when Baby Jesus is still covered up in red cloth awaiting Christmas at Midnight. But a cork? No. He looks as if He's wrapped in swaddling clothes.
Is the Vatican to tear up the the obelisk and the pavement surrounding it because of this person's article? People are tearing up and burning their past so since this person does not like the nativity and the obelisk and the pavement and the dome on St Peter's, we will have to scrap it all thus proving that it is all EVIL, WICKED, OCCULT excrement....you know, to prove to the world that we must not use common sense but believe everything that comes out of the mouth of someone we have no clue about.
At the end of Vigilant Citizen's article they ask for MONEY. Yep. Write a scathing article and if enough people are anti-Catholic they will send $$$$$$.
You have drunk the poison of modernist heresy. Too bad you cannot distinguish sacred art from blasphemy in which modernists mock the incarnation of the Son of God with a grotesque manger that includes an astronaut and a strange creature
ReplyDeleteArt historians lampoon crib figures as fertility goddesses, ceramic sockets https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/art-historian-vaticans-manger-matches-popes-modernism
nazareusrex,
ReplyDeleteThis type of comment is not very helpful. I wish everyone could be respectful of each other and discuss their differing opinions without insulting the person with whom you disagree. The article you link to is interesting and I found the view of the art historian and his experience with the ceramic school a great addition to the conversation. Why start with an insult? I went to your two blogs and presume you are a serious Catholic from their content. But this comment does not reflect St. Paul's description of love. "Love is patient, love is kind....love is never rude....There is no limit to love's forbearance. Imagine how different blogs and social media would be if we all followed 1 Corinthians 13.
Susan, you have an opinion and others have different opinions. I think your suggestion that the author is only after money is a rash judgment. You started this article saying you have a right to your opinion. You do. But so does the person who writes the Vigilant Citizen blog. I get a little tired of everybody arming for battle if they disagree, especially when the disagreement is not over an obvious intrinsic moral evil. One can believe or dismiss the opinions about connections to the occult of the current nativity. Personally, I would be interested in the conversation. We don't need to do it with bricks and baseball bats.
Bricks and baseball bats? If you just read my comments in a "normal voice" they are not bricks and baseball bats. Just comments. And yep, anyone can have their opinion, including Vigilant Citizen who IS asking for money, right? Begging for money is right there at the end of the article. Because of COVID, you know. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteYet no one has even possibly thought that maybe the astronaut is lovingly bringing Baby Jesus a beautiful moon rock. Why must it always be that "the astronaut is "giving birth"? Or that the executioner is evil, rather than OURSELVES killing Jesus? What on earth is the matter with everyone?
I suppose that Fisher Price nativity sets for children should be outlawed now because they are not holy enough. And they don't have halos. Children must play with actual real looking people figures with delicate halos except THOSE figures are not for play. They are for the family nativity upon the mantle or under the tree and must not be touched.
What about Willow Tree nativities? They have NO FACES! Nor do they have halos. I have a nativity set from Peru. Beautiful. Lovely. No halos, though, so are they not acceptable?
I saw a gorgeous statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in a chapel at Cuidad Mitad del Mundo (Middle of the World, i.e., the equator) outside of Quito, Ecuador a few years ago. He had on a red Ecuadorian hat. He was gorgeous. So beautiful. He looked great in that little red hat. So Ecuadorian. So culturally correct.
I have simple stone nativities from Ireland. No faces, no halos, but lovely and pure. Are they to be categorized as ugly and not acceptable? Even though they are culturally correct?
The whole world can say I am vile and stupid and mean and nasty, but I will never give up trying to see beauty. And I see it in the the Vatican nativity. So sixties. So beautifully crafted. So imaginative. If they made little miniatures I'd buy all 54 pieces and add it to my nativity collection and get a neon rope light to put behind it. I'd set it up every years and clap my hands like a child with joy that I owned something so beautiful.
(Please read this in a "normal voice") PS - And, really, I don't care what a "church historian" says. And the nazareusrex person commenting above can blame my "drinking the poison of the modernist heresy" on my Protestant upbringing. So so so sorry, nazareures person, that I'm not JUST LIKE YOU.
ReplyDeleteThe angel has a halo.
ReplyDeleteI laughed when I read "so 60s." All I can think of is Twiggy, mini skirts, bell bottom trousers, drugs and rock and roll. (How did I end up living in a place called Woodstock?)
Well, at least Mary isn't in a mini skirt and Joseph isn't wearing bell bottoms and the angel doesn't have a bong. Gotta be thankful for small favors as my mom used to say.
I know. That's so funny that you live in a place named Woodstock. Maybe we can all have a concert on the front lawn of your house next summer if Virginia is out of Covid prison by then. I'll find some bell bottoms at Goodwill (a miniskirt would be a bit much now) and we can all pick flowers and make flower ring crowns for our hair, drink wine and sing!
ReplyDeleteI hope it happens. I miss you!
ReplyDelete"Bricks and baseball bats " Maryann ? i have not looked at this site since Susan commented back to me ( actually you) when I explained about masks lowering the viral load one maybe exposed to.
ReplyDeleteThe comments referred to me and how surprised I would be when I died and saw Jesus with a Donald Duck mask on. as i stated then and restate now. I am surprised by the edgy blasphemy that Susan puts in print.
Please tell me what I have written that is blasphemy. Examples?
ReplyDeleteGuess I'm a traditionalist and expect Christ's Nativity scene or display to represent the Jewish culture and description found in the Gospel readings. Misrepresenting that tradition by adapting it to our "modern" culture and hipness feels like a punch in the stomach or spitting on that tradition as if we moderns kow the best way to depict the birth of Christ. As the man Pontius Pilate might ask - what is the truth here in this display. Is it art, is it blasphemy, is it evil? Each of us must judge for themselve.
ReplyDeleteGlad to have you back, Elpine, even for a short visit. One of things that disturbs me about virtual contacts is that we all tend to be less charitable. Our rudeness filter is turned off. I doubt some of the things people say in a comment would ever happen in a real contact. One of the reasons I love the period films like Jane Austen is the societal norms of courtesy. Hillaire Belloc has a beautiful poem on courtesy that starts, "Of Courtesy, it is much less, Than Courage of Heart or Holiness, Yet in my Walks it seems to me, That the Grace of God is in Courtesy." I wish we would all be kinder and more courteous to one another." May you have a blessed and holy Christmas.
ReplyDeleteGerry McKeegan - By "misrepresenting tradition" and "the Jewish culture and description found in the Bible", you're saying then that all the different Virgin Marys in the world should be eradicated except those where the Virgin and Child are JEWISH?
ReplyDeleteOur Lady of Guadalupe, who is an AZTEC PRINCESS, should have been JEWISH? God would be interested to discuss that with you.
Our Lady of China should not be Chinese but JEWISH? The Black Madonna of Poland should not be black but rather JEWISH (I know, I know...painted on wood, candle smoke over the ages made her black). Our Lady of Kiebho should not be black, but JEWISH. Etcetera.
All the world's cultural statues of the Madonna and Baby Jesus MUST BE JEWISH? Again, if that is what you are saying then you must have objections to Our Lady of Guadalupe being an Aztec Princess.
Furthermore, Mary Ann's little grandchild made a beautiful felt nativity with a fire hydrant (?). There were no fire hydrants in Bethlehem just as there were no astronauts (there WERE executioners, though) yet not one person has said that the fire hydrant is blasphemous. Why is that? I think it is because Bergoglio isn't putting Mary Ann's grandchild's lovely nativity at the Vatican in St Peter's Square. 2 + 2 = 4, correct? People do not like Bergoglio + Bergoglio puts creative nativity at the Vatican = people hate it.
Mary Ann's grandchild made a beautiful nativity + Mary Ann loves her grandchild = Mary Ann loves the nativity with the cute fire hydrant.
It's just a simple math problem really with theology, philosophy, culture and emotions tangled in the equation. Before you go any further questioning my taste in art or nativity scenes, you might first consider questioning God why Our Lady of Guadalupe isn't JEWISH.
THEN come to me and we'll discuss.
Wow! I think you're assuming a lot of things not in Gerry McKeegan's comment, Susan. He likes traditional art. Is he allowed to do that?
ReplyDeleteAnd the red thing was not a fire hydrant as we both know. That was my humorous interpretation. It was obviously a dome from the Bethlehem skyline. The "globe" wasn't the earth either. It was a tree that Jude put on sideways. I had fun creating my own story.
Your 2+2=4 is a faulty logical syllogism. I'll demonstrate it this way. "Mary Ann's grandchild is pro-abortion. Mary Ann loves her grandchild. Therefore Mary Ann love abortion." Not a chance!
I'm closing this comment thread.