The “logo” designed by Jesuit Father Marko Rupnik for the Jubilee of Mercy has bothered me since the day it was released last year. It’s more than the fact that it’s ugly that bothers me. In short, there’s something wrong here both with the logo and with its stated meaning, and wrong in ways that are indicative of a general theme.
To begin, the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization writes that the logo “represents an image quite important to the early Church: that of the Son having taken upon his shoulders the lost soul demonstrating that it is the love of Christ that brings to completion the mystery of his incarnation culminating in redemption.” While it is true that the theme of the Good Shepherd carrying His lamb is part of the bi-millennial tradition of the church, the logo they are actually describing is far from Good Shepherd iconography, which, in and of itself, is pictorially comforting. The Merciful like the Father logo, on the other hand, is off-putting and discomfiting, which we’ll see is not accidental.
What does the image actually say? To answer this question, we should start with the overall impression it gives. In other words, is the image beautiful?
As the Rupnik piece is ostensibly Catholic, one might imagine that beauty would be of paramount importance in its creation. In the Letter of His Holiness to Artists, the recently sainted Pope John Paul II stated, “In a very true sense it can be said that beauty is the vocation bestowed on [the artist] by the Creator in the gift of ‘artistic talent’.”
Whatever we see in this neo-icon, what we find is surely not beautiful. The logo rather elicits the revulsion reminiscent of trypophobic (so-called) pictures on the web. It is off-putting, discordant, confused, aesthetically disconcerting, and somewhat…well, creepy. At first glance, the false icon appears to show a man with two heads. Look again, and you’ll find two figures together – one is supposed to represent Christ, the other the sinner he carries. But between them they have only three eyes. And this third eye is a merging together of the two.
How does the Vatican account for this cinematic oddity? The Pontifical Council explains, “One particular feature worthy of note [as though we might miss it] is that while the Good Shepherd, in his great mercy, takes humanity upon himself, his eyes are merged with those of man.” But this is not strictly true. On the one hand, God became man, so in a way, yes, God’s eyes merged with man in the incarnation. But this iconography doesn’t actually elicit the incarnation of the Word through the Blessed Mother – rather, it shows a man merging with the God-Man. Might one not be led, then, to believe that man can merge with God, if God merges with man in the way Fr. Rupnik has depicted? And while one half of the icon shows us the God-Man, Christ, does the other half show us the man-god that we might progress to?
As the Pontifical Council states, “Christ sees with the eyes of Adam, and Adam with the eyes of Christ.” Maybe such an implication is why no orthodox iconographer has ever depicted such a merging. What it says is ultimately not Christian.
The Pontifical Council maintains that the logo “represents an image quite important to the early Church” and that it shows “a figure quite important in early and medieval iconography.” It most certainly does not. At best, the logo hearkens back to and elicits Christian iconography. But to the extent that Rupnik quotes the authentic tradition, he rather misquotes it and inhabits it to take it out of context, while at the same time claiming the authority of the original host.
He does so in two ways. First, and as we’ve seen, the work explicitly takes the Good Shepherd iconography and perverts it into this merging of man and God. Second, the logo displays several uses of an almond shape, also known as the mandorla, or vesica piscis. We know this not only because our eyes tell us so, but because the Pontifical Council does as well. In their words, “[t]he scene is captured within the so called mandorla (the shape of an almond), a figure quite important in early and medieval iconography, for it calls to mind the two natures of Christ, divine and human.”
Without a doubt, orthodox Christian iconography is replete with this shape. The Virgin of Guadalupe stands in the midst of a mandorla, and many depictions of Christ throughout the millennia do as well. In this way, the logo does make use of Christian tradition, but it has clearly done so in an odd way. The fact that the image is surrounded by a mandorla is not, to my eye at least, especially noteworthy in any negative way, but coupled with the merging bodies and with the third eye, which is also almond-shaped, the entire piece takes on an occult feeling.
Viewing the work from an occult, or let’s say New Age, perspective, the mandorla is also known as the vesica piscis, which Wikipedia describes as “[t]he intersection of two congruent disks, each centered on the perimeter of the other.” Certainly such a shape, which can be used at home to make equilateral triangles, is totally innocuous. It represents, in a Christian context, the point at which heaven and earth meet: one circle representing heaven, the other earth, and the vesica piscis is the shape left where they meet in the middle. It’s pretty clear why Christ is frequently represented standing there.
However, the vesica piscis is also steeped in the occult. Freemason George Oliver, whom the Masonic Dictionary describes as “one of the most distinguished and learned of English Freemasons,” claimed that the vesica piscis is “a universal exponent of architecture or Masonry, and the original source or fountain from which its signs and symbols are derived – it constituted the great and enduring secret of our ancient brethren.”
It’s clear then that while the mandorla has a pure and true Christian context, it also has an occult context much elicited in the “Merciful like the Father” logo precisely because the image depicts a god merging with a man and a third eye. Surely it is no stretch to interpret this merged eye as the so-called third eye of the occult, of Hinduism, etc., because it is the most prominent feature on the sparse icon.
The concept of the third eye is heavily discussed in the New Age movement as well – appropriately enough, because the so-called New Age movement reverberates strongly in the post-conciliar church and in this logo.
One Fr. Richard Rohr, who has promoted the occult enneagram in books like The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective, writing for the Huffington Post, described interpreting the “third eye” as “the full goal of all seeing and all knowing.” He goes on to write (italics in the original):
Now do not let the word “mystic” scare you off. It simply means one who has moved from mere belief systems or belonging systems to actual inner experience. All spiritual traditions agree that such a movement is possible, desirable, and available to everyone. In fact, Jesus seems to say that this is the whole point! (See, for example, John 10:19-38.) Some call this movement conversion, some call it enlightenment, some transformation, and some holiness. It is Paul’s “third heaven,” where he “heard things that must not and cannot be put into human language” (2 Corinthians 12:2, 4).
I would say that such a “belonging system” as Rohr derisively downplays Catholicism as is exactly what a blessed image like the Christ Pantocrator gives to the faithful, which is precisely what gnostic elitists want to strip from us as they push us to what they imagine is an “actual inner experience,” or rather an “enlightenment,” or this “third heaven” – as if it weren’t an actual inner experience that brought us to the true faith in the first place. Maybe this is why ugliness is embraced.
The idea of a “belonging system” in context with the logo is apt, since the logo exudes a strong sense of un-belonging – who would like to belong to that logo, after all? This is the point, since the entire modernist, neo-pagan, gnostic New Age movement takes as Gospel Truth the directive that it must break the rest of us from our traditional belief systems to move us into what its proponents see as “authentic” modes of worship as we progress to the grand future. At the same time, such men vociferously maintain the pretense of orthodoxy, which is why the Pontifical Council insists that the logo “represents an image quite important to the early Church” and that it shows “a figure quite important in early and medieval iconography” when it instead introduces a new concept to Catholicism by redirecting the meaning of approved visual forms.
In other words, the logo is artistic parasitism, using the patrimony of Catholic art as its host. A cycloid third eye has no place in the iconographic record; you cannot graft it in now, no matter how traditional you claim what surrounds it is.
When discussing an earlier work of art, a mosaic installed in the Spirituality Center of Suore Adoratrici in Lenno, Italy, the crafter of the logo, Rupnik was quoted by a fellow artist and Pope Francis biographer, Roberto Alborghetti, as saying:
When matter exudes light, it tinges with color. The colors testify the world soul. Things are alive and the universe has its own heart. The color is the flesh of the world. The color is related to the universe matter. The universe is colorful. In a certain sense, it is the color. But is the light that makes us seeing it. The color and the light: they are an indivisible unity.
“World soul”? Which religion does such a sentiment correspond to? “Things are alive and the universe has its own heart.” Such talk may come from the mouth of a guru on a rerun of Oprah, but it is not Catholic.
To be fair, some of Rupnik’s decoration, from what I can see, can be quite good when he more or less faithfully respects tradition. But where he veers, which it is clearly his desire to do, his work is undoubtedly bad and anti-Christian.
The “Merciful like the Father” logo is a clear nexus of much that is evil within the church. As an artist and priest, Rupnik works to change the church by skewing Her iconography the way others skew Her documents and definitions and quote themselves to support their own condemned beliefs.
This movement cannot ultimately be successful, because the visual iconographic record, like the magisterium, is too clear. For the moment, however, we have been offered a new vision, a visual alter-magisterium. In the words of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, “[t]he logo and the motto together provide a fitting summary of what the Jubilee Year is all about[.] … The logo … presents a small summa theologiae of the theme of mercy.”
If this creature represents a visual summa, then what does the New Evangelization actually evangelize?
I read into it the Illuminati image with Jay-Z carrying Kanye. The robe even has an incomplete triangle with the weirdo eye-mergey thingy above (the all-seeing eye!). I’m also disturbed by the way the Christ figure carries the man. Like, i get that’s how the good shepherd carried a sheep in early Christian art, but with a human it calls to mind restraint and abduction.Quite frankly, whatever the artist’s intent was, it’s ugly, creepy, not Catholic, and sends weird mixed messages.
“….frankly, whatever the artist’s intent was, it’s ugly, creepy, not Catholic, and sends weird mixed messages…”
Describes the logo and actions of PF as well.
“ but with a human it calls to mind restraint and abduction”
You certainly got that right.
“Pope Francis…”
As one who has repeatedly referred to him as the putative pope, IANS now retracts those repeated references and apologies for causing scandal to many faithful Catholics.
Pope Francis is who he is. Period.
For too long IANS has not kept order in his own bailiwick and he has not walked the narrow path of Salvation and Sanctification personally prepared for him by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for IANS has been following his own will, always anxious to enter into the latest captious controversy when the plain and simple truth is that each member of the Body of Christ has the answer to any problem confronting the Body of Christ.
Become a Saint.
Dear Mr. Skojec. I thank you for your patience and your high level of tolerance regarding my penchant of using the third person rhetoric – a habit I fell into a long time ago.
God Bless you and yours and I apologise to any of your readers whom I have offended.
Dear Long Skirts. We have been opponents for a LONG time, more than a score of years in my various appearances under different S/N here and at free republic and other sites/blogs but since we agreed to begin praying for each other my heart has softened and I think of you as a sister and I will continue to keep you in my prayers and ask you to do the same for me.
There is one other man I have butted heads with in here but I can not remember his name (Johnny Cruddents, or something) although I do know he has repeatedly called me an anti semite. I have no hard feelings, Johnny.
pax tecum to all
Two of the stated goals of communism:
22. Continue discrediting (American) culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
Sad part is this creepy piece of art may have more “meaning” but not in a positive way.
This “logo” mirrors the architecture of most modern day church buildings. It does not comfort the soul but rather makes you a little uneasy.
The communists have been horribly successful
Speaking as an artist, I concur that this piece of iconography leaves much to be desired. I also wonder how many bowls the padre Rupnik smoked when he devised this strange sack of flour around Christ’s neck..replete with feet/hands.
It’s NOT iconography. My cousin is a REAL iconographer and if she saw that, she would politely disagree. My late aunt (her mother) would probably have given the artist who designed that a four hour lecture on iconography.
Reminds me of the Vatican light show –
Vatican ‘climate change’ light show: More than meets the eye?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-climate-change-light-show-more-than-meets-the-eye
Very unsettling to look at. So much of this ” year of mercy” was likewise unsettling.
The “New Evangelization” and the “New Mass,” etc., these directives resemble the Stalinist tactic of describing something as the opposite of what it really is. The New Evangelization is an anti-evangelization campaign, just as the new mass is a mass that detracts from the meaning of the liturgy and the Catholic faith. The errors of Russia, anyone?
It’s repugnant. Nothing Catholic about it. Gets pride of place in our local ecumenical church while the tabernacle is in a corner out of the sight of people entering the church. It might offend the protestants who share it due to the benevolence of our NO Bishop.
What’s an “ecumenical church”? Sounds like an oxymoron.
The Evangelicals & Church of England have their services there.
I’m hoping that the prophecy reigns true that England’s time has come to convert. BTW I’m English.
We can always hope & pray.
The first time I saw this image I didn’t notice the third eye, as I was focused on the strange proportions and basic ugliness. It reminded me of the often jarring covers of the OCP missal.
An adult catechist in my parish told us that the word “reconciliation” could be broken down into “re” (again) +”con” (with) + “cilia” (eyelash). According to him, reconciliation is the sacrament where we are eyeball to eyeball with God, and see our ourselves reflected in His merciful eyes. The dictionary says the word’s root is from Latin, “conciliare” (to unite), but I can’t find it broken down to “con” + “cilia” so I wonder if anyone here has heard this. I also wonder if the artist had that same “eyeball to eyeball” theology in mind.
Could also be interpreted as meaning, “I only have eyes for you” as the old song went. Or perhaps, finally we see “Eye to eye”…whatever, it doesn’t read right.
The adult catechist you mention obviously doesn’t know Latin. He or she is wrong on this. Rather, conciliation comes from the same root as council. Your dictionary’s got it right!
I agree. The “cilia” eyelash thing is either purposeful deception or sophomoric ignorance. Why is this person a catechist?! Ugh! (Forehead slap.) I feel sorry for the smart commenter and her fellow parishioners in having to deal w that. :,(
The image’s Freemason teasing is so tickling obvious it acts as a distraction. With that, the image – regardless of the artist’s intent – is no stealth surfacing signaling Illuminati plans and conspiracies. The Illuminati wickedly attained power shortly before the French Revolution, ran its course, and is now historical debris. Something other (other wicked things have taken its place. I do not give Satan honors of successfully running an “apostolic succession”. With the Devil it’s hit and miss: of course, hitting and missing with horrific destruction or great sizzle. Let’s face it for him; the guy has been defeated, if not yet chained, tossed, and dungeon door slammed.
The point being, evil’s (and the Evil One’s) present presence and current ways and means is what matters, which should arrest our own eyeballing the world about us.
Which brings me to this – and I’ll say it, since few are – the image is homoerotic.
Good God, great mercies. Oh, merciful Lord.
____________________________________
Below, another disaster of image & icon: the new (Maloney) cathedral of Los Angeles.
Beyond the building’s design, there is something unsettling about the commissioned tapestry of saints.
Now and then I touch upon the tapestry’s disturbance, then its slips out of knowing. It’s an odd thing. (Do have a particular in mind, but won’t state it here.)
Not that I am one, for instance, who pines for 19th Century religious art (especially the French). Whatever that art attempted to restore – what iconographic standard it sought to re-root – the effort quickly dissolved in the corroding salts of Modernism (itself in the process of crumbling under the dictates of the Permanent Revolution). So, you see, it’s not that I’m willing to settle for something aesthetically half-done and spiritually half-baked; it’s just that the Los Angeles cathedral, especially its tapestry of saints, is disturbingly unsettling:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/fashion-and-design-ideology-in-sacred-architecture-a-review-of-the-cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels
Bingo…”Which brings me to this – and I’ll say it, since few are – the image is homoerotic.” Which is what I learned last fall when I attended a seminar at our local church…all about the Theology of the Body with Christopher West videos. I left that six week program convinced that leaving the church 40 years ago was the best thing I had done. I could not believe what they were teaching about the theology of the body, that is Father and Son, which was conveyed in sexual terminology.
I learned in those six weeks that the relationship of the Father and Son is one on-going 24/7 big Org…I found it utterly disgusting to be sure…why is it that men have to make what they conceive as heaven into sexual terms..we know the moes do it and we know they are as whacked as they come. But to devolve the father/son relationship into erotic terms was more than I could abide…seems to me the commies are doing a bang up job in the ruining-human sexuality dept…probably why the Pope told us recently we owe gays apologies!!
Worse, was trying to talk to the laywoman who put on the seminar. I told her I found it repugnant, but she, being at least 25 years younger than me, thought I was some sort of old fogey to not ‘get it’…she saw nothing wrong with the message that the father/son relationship was put into erotic terminology. So I take it that for decades they’ve really been screwing around with student’s minds in an attempt to get them to buy into perv/homo/lesbian sex lives.
Anyone who has learned of the elementary and middle school program called Growing in Love should know it doesn’t get more disgusting than that. No child has any need to know the way gays do it, et al…God help us.
You want a response. Can tell.
The first item most will jump on was your decision to “leave the Church” (40 years ago!). Before most of this – in its ugly fullness – was rounding the corner and coming down the pike. Yet, you still harbor some interest as your put yourself through that T/B seminar. Seems like torture.
Am more patience than most with such “leaving stories”; I’m not one to immediately drag St. Cyprian (Carthage) into the conversation. Have learned to wear kid gloves when handling that Father. When I was Orthodox had seen how the Eastern Church used Cyprian mightily *against* the Catholics!
More than that, my patience (which, I pray, is continuously offered up to the Lord) is a byproduct of the circumstances (setting) of how I became Catholic.
When processing through a conventional RCIA program (in a well-entrenched liberal California parish) the priest announced (in an interview with the local paper) that his breakthrough into authentic spiritual arrives after he had sex with a homeless man.
Now, this was during the height of the priest sex abuse scandals. Kno2wing the Catholic “community” and the spiteful, leftist politics of the city & county (no, not San Francisco!) his interview was meant to mollify any lingering hostility towards the Catholic Church: if the much respected local Catholic pastor can discover the spiritual vortex of homosexuality then the “community (“faith” & secular) can be very *narrow-minded* about the scandal. Nothing is permitted to taint the Queer benefits of homosexuality. The scandal has only to do with a proper application of *ageism* – the kids in the charged cases being grade school boys. Narrowly considered, this brackets out the teenage victims, for one must consider their liberty to consent (even if that choice was mentored – tat is *groomed*).
Now, poor disillusioned father didn’t say all that in his interview, yet it was the point of him being so – and the larger reverberating outcome. This very liberal, progressive parish, nestled under the armpit of America’s most pungent leftist enclave, can rest safely between their stained sheets that the Catholic Church – as represented by their “faith-journeyed” priest – easily winks & nods when it comes to homosexuality.
Saw all that. “Processed” through candied RCIA program. Entered the Catholic Church. Am still here. (Though, what St. Cyprian would think about a parish scented up with such pungency., I wouldn’t know in the least”.)
As for more serious reflection on John Paul *Theology of the Body”, am sure others have provided learned exposition here on 1P5, and other sites such as Rorate Caeli. If you can’t locate., ask.
When I was going through, Theology of the Body – as evangelized by Mr. West – was all the rage. I fear delving into nothing, so I dived in and surfaced with, I think, a reasoned, and a bit stand-offish, take on what John Paul (minus West) was attempting. Though I must admit, I find the language turgid and somewhat off-putting. In short, much of it unnecessary, as if something else was being avoided talking about.
But, then, I have an issue or two with John Paul *Personalist/Phenomenonist” conceptual “narrative”. Wouldn’t quite call it a philosophy; for that, I believe, he remains an Aristotelian/Thomist Essentialist -however qualified. How he constructed *Reason & Faith” demonstrates that. *Theology of the Body* was John Paul’s attempt (experiment) to do a bit of Pope Francis (before his time)!
*Theology of the Body” was John Paul’s try at being a pastor within the Personalist/Phenomenonist “community” that was so much a part of his intellectual & social safety net passing, as a young man, through both Nazism & Communism .
They would not quite put it this way, but he doyens and guardians of our Post-Modernist/Queer Theory age have tagged the Personalist/Phenomenonist Worldview as an obstacle, even an enemy, to their agenda of reconstructing, reordering, history, our civil lives, and even nature itself. Modernist & Queer Theorists see that worldview as the last gasp of Christianity, as a philosophy with too many lingering roots in what must be plowed up and salted sterile.
I know these remarks do not address any of your pointed ones – especially the one about the homosexualist kernel Theology of the Body sprouts from. Am I reading you correctly?
Maybe later.
You say, “Yet, you still harbor some interest as your put yourself through that T/B seminar. Seems like torture.”
Au contraire, it was freeing to know that my crap detector has been on target for eons. Sadly, that seminar (videos of Chris West), was not what I thought it would be. Instead of the theology of the body concentrating on the implicit beauty of male/female relationships, i.e. marital sex act, it was all about the supposed erotic relationship between father and son.
After seeing and hearing that I thought that the church must have been consulting and cavorting with Islamic imams for sometime. For they’re the only ones I know who push for family incest, hence their reason for moes being fairly whacked in the head. So all I got from that seminar is that the church elders are still woefully lacking in what male/female relationships should be about. Instead giving that only to the father and his son.
Which of course, leaves a hugh gap for females who are obviously to be sexless to keep the focus on gayness. Just wonder if this is all part of the population control push….Can’t help but wonder why the pope met with a world population expert two months ago….a good reason to push gay theme?
Usually such folks (in a church setting) areLet;s see if I’m tuning in correctly. A parish seminar (workshop) was deigns to lay the ground for “theologizing” the father/son relation as an erotic one: or, in the least, using eroticism to assist in describing that relationship. (That latter puts the issue a bit removed from the grossly visual.). Organizing the argument (presentation) through the use of of John Paul’s Theology of the Body, as read by Mr. C. West.
(Caveat: has been eons since I’ve read Christopher – either the early or late Mr. West. Does West, in his material, push the notion himself?)
Am interested in how the presenters went from here to there. their sources, their argument string. Usually such folks, in a religious setting, are not very inventive. Their concepts and applications are derivative of notions that have been cobbled together for some time. Which (Queer) authors have these seminar organizers embraced as authoritative – and darn near inspired. Could make a guess, and be spot on in the effort.
Not only are they “scripturelizing” outside (secular) sources, they are also selectively pulling texts from the Church Fathers and (especially Medieval) theologians. In the violence of their selecting, exaggerating, twisting, and forcing those texts to perform tasks never meant by the1r authors or the Church which received them.
You are certainly correct that part of the outcome (agenda?) is the exclusion (the shunting aside) of the female. Which, as you pointed out, is the foudning point of Islam’s sexual ethic.
.
“(Caveat: has been eons since I’ve read Christopher – either the early or late Mr. West. Does West, in his material, push the notion himself?)”
Boy does Chris W. ever push the notion, and it was that very disturbing element that made me realize the church appears to be pro gay now…to the point of making that the best thing one could possibly be since the son/father share that element of eroticism…which should have been the realm of married couples for eons, but was never to be..and the upshot of that is the thousands of marriages that failed by diluting the very cement God provided to keep couples together for life!
Now whether this gay push is for reducing population I do not know. I know that months ago Francis met with a world expert on overpopulation. Perhaps they have finally grown a brain and realize billions of people cannot survive with ever reduced resources. Many if not most countries are wanting a standard of living akin to the US. Good luck with that.
As it is, the Chinese are buying up vast tracts of our land out west…..and now they are buying up our Great Lakes Water.. the Saudis are so far only buying western farmland, but knowing they are running out of oil, am sure they want to get their grubby hands on any and all American goodies.
The Chinese with their one girl policy for decades, meaning mostly girl babies were aborted or outright killed, left them with an overabundance of boys, many of them becoming gay with no natural supply of females to balance the population.
At any rate, that six week seminar should have been taught by a priest, but have heard that our two local priests at St Mary’s are gays, so am sure it would have been rather uncomfortable to address that topic …and then having to answer any questions that seminar participants might want to ask.
As it was mostly women who attended, most of them were hesitant to ask questions having been brainwashed for years to accept whatever was thrown their way by the church. As if anything that emanates from a pope’s mouth is the truth and only the truth. In essence only the good/moral is taught. NOT!
Sunshine,
Would enjoy carrying this thread further. 1P5, though, discourages ongoing (semi-private) conversations. I’ll respect that.
Just to note, through various sources, have crossed sight of the observations you pointed out.
“Two gay priests at St. Mary’s”!! Will refrain from guessing from where.!
At times I tease my (innumerably few) readers – directly towards the gay/MHR Castro parish sort – about where I keyboard my messages on DISQUS. I say usually while sitting on my reserved bar-stool at a dive called The Black Cat Bar Cafe (in the old Barbary Coast). Of course the place no longer exists, but it bugs the whatever out of them to think I’m onto their game.
But hum, the old Black Cat, on the Montgomery, is just a block (no more) from a St. Mary’s that has been . . .
Have enjoyed this back and forth. Carry on with Our Lord and His Truth – which always (always) include the truth of the Natural Law.
_____________________
For the record:
Have found TOB useful (and insightful). Yet, early on after entering the Church, came to see how easily it can be put to some unhealthy uses. Seems that a teaching so easily manhandled begs to be better footed. (Have thought, how would it been better put if John Paul had the leisure of spending a good five years recasting it?)
When I was an Eastern Orthodox had chewed on the TOB topics from a more patristic grounding. Arrived at a modified view of TOB from that standing.
Including the link below which is quite critical of TOB. Know nothing of the proprietor of the site, though found this piece interesting, if not blunt and a bit gruff:
https://maryvictrix.com/2010/08/05/theology-of-the-body-and-the-mystical-magical-train/
Indeed it is, has been, and will be forevermore about natural law. Without that we have no compass for which to move forward. It is the Lord who created nature and woe to those who think they can mess that up. It is natural for a man and a woman to come together and marry and form a family. It is not natural to tell a couple that eroticism cannot be part of their expression of love. Do that and you destroy many marriages.
As for St Mary’s, I live in New England in the US where more priests have been pedophiles in this area for a long time. Am sure it is the liberal mindset which reigns supreme here and which I abhor…feel like a stranger living in an insane environ.
Thank you for that link above on TOB….Father Angelo Geiger sums up some of the same concerns I had with the TOB seminar so I know it isn’t just me that found the new teachings odd. I had no idea that TOB has been around that long as I just learned of it about 3 years ago..thanks for your insight too!
Jesus stands on an upside-down V, making me think of the “victory” of the guy from the pit, or part of the Freemason symbolism of the square. The ugly merged eye always repulsed me and made me think of ye shall be as gods.
V = peace sign = broken cross, another of their symbols. And if upside down means upside down cross again another of their symbols.
*
Something unseemly they way the figure strikes a pose on the V.
The merged eye made me think of ‘now we see eye to eye’. Or could it be as the old song goes, “I only have eyes for you/me”
The author has put into words and astute analysis what was just an uneasy feeling in my mind when I looked at it. Certainly, it’s ugliness stands out as well. Thanks for pointing out yet another example of evil forces at work in the church, this time through an iconographer.
Howling Dog Ugly!
The “shared eye” motif is not unique to the “Merciful Like the Father” logo. Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik, S.J., uses the same device in three different “icons” of Sts. Joachim and Anne. (There, it might be interpreted as a symbol of the marital union of “one flesh.” Hm.)
In the image entitled “Baptism of the Lord,” Jesus has two (closed) eyes and St. John the Baptist has one (open, albeit not shared) eye.
In “The Risen Christ Appears to the 10 Apostles in the Upper Room,” Jesus stands on a two-tone carpet recalling the carpenter’s square. (The Cross? not so much.)
All this is available on a page resulting from a Google search for Rupnik’s work, with those almond eyes staring back at you from all over the place, a veritable cacophany of UG-LEE!
The figure being carried appears to have a female body in spite of the bearded face. Looks like a perverse nod to so-called “transgenderism” or promotion of androgyny.
Someone elsewhere on the ‘net made that same observation. They also pointed out that the head too is female, and that what passes for a beard is actually a heart denoting ‘lurv’.
The “sinner” in this dreadful thing always looks like a serpent to me. Cover the hands and feet and it is easier to see it. The “halo” surrounding Christ’s head is part of the snake. Even when I listen to explanations about the symbolism and how the ovals framing the figures darken in colour (which is also supposed to mean something), the only thought in my mind is, “It’s ugly. God is the creator of beauty. This cannot have anything to do with God.” (My second thought is that the artist should be sued to get the money back!)
Kinda like this? In this image, what appears to be Christ’s hand is actually that of Satan. It is actually an image of the Anti-Christ.
la trahison des clercs in action. Julien Benda’s 1929 The Treason of the Intellectuals is the Fodor’s for the world today,
All I wanted was for someone to accompany me on my journey, but all I got was this lousy logo.
My first thought when the Logo was first revealed was – ugly. Followed by revulsion.
Since ugly, then it cannot be of the true, the good and the beautiful
The Prodigal Son would have been perfect image of the year of Mercy
I look at this and think what an uncomfortable position the guy bring carried by Jesus seems to be in. Unless he is like a jellyfish man.
Three eyed beast.
I’ve said before all this divine mercy business has chained many to accept the Vatican-II novelties.
The divine mercy should go back into the chasm from whence it came: The Index Librorum Prohibitorum!
Just another confirmation that Pope Francis, far from pursuing a radical agenda, is simply following in the footsteps of his predecessors. The establishment of the Divine Mercy devotion in the mainstream church by John Paul II helped to lay the groundwork for the novelties we are now experiencing, such as the Year of Mercy and ‘forgiveness’ without repentance to homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, heretics, blasphemers, unbelievers etc. etc.
Absolutely HIDEOUS. This, along with the artwork inside Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral, oatmeal wizard-sleeved albs, potteryware and burlap banners need to be exorcised and destroyed. Evil is the absence of beauty.
Speaking of Masonic logos. Rabbi Bergman, the secretary of the environment in Argentina, who is a very, very close friend of Bergoglio. (They’re in the same club). recorded a short video lauding “Laudato Si” and how this new “implementaion” will change Argentina etc etc. One major thing stood out in the video you can see Bergoglio’s and Bergman’s picture, underneath the Masonic logo. (BTW, Bergman refers to Bergoglio as Rabbi (Rabino) Bergoglio)
I believe this will be proof enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-iU2pWJoD4
http://www.sergiobergman.com/wp-content/uploads/librobergman08_038b.jpg
http://www.conib.org.br/admin//media/images/1383073431-BergmanBergoglio.jpg
(Notice the skullcap. Not a bishop’s one.)
http://www.noticiasurbanas.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_0153-e1355399434404.jpg
Interesting
Yikes…
Rupnik is, we can only assume intentionally, using elements of orthodox iconography for unorthodox ends. Traditional iconography has a canon, i.e. a rule (from ancient Greek κανών / kanṓn for “measuring rod”). Traditional iconography has a pictorial language with its own syntax and grammar. Pictorial elements have a meaning, which generally don’t vary from icon to icon or from time to time. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is exactly this predictable regularity that makes icons intelligible. (The same logic applies to Liturgy, but that is another topic).
Traditional iconography also has a theology; images are structured to convey theological meaning. They are, incidentally, “written” not painted. The mandorla, e.g., is used to depict Christ in his Glory; it conveys what human eyes cannot see. In traditional iconography (as if there were another type), it is used typically in only four icons: (1) The Conquering of Hell / Resurrection; (2) The Transfiguration; (3) the Ascension; and (4) The Dormition of the Theotokos (Mother of God). The Good Shepherd is not a traditional icon in the Eastern tradition (which is the tradition that Rupnik is self-consciously exploiting). Rupnik almost certainly knows this because, i.a., he teaches at the Pontifical Oriental Institute
The non-canonical use of the mandorla is not the only problem. Rupnik uses the traditional orthodox halo with the cross conspicuously within it, but just as conspicuously omits the three Greek letters – ώ Ό Ν (omega, omicron, nu) — which always appear within the three arms of this cross. These mean “He who is”. Perhaps this is to avoid giving offense to persons of ‘other faiths.’
Only Christ is traditionally shown inside a mondorla. In the Dormition of the Theotokos icon he is joined within the mandorla by the Theotokos who appears as a baby in His arms. In the Resurrection icon, one sometimes sees Christ pulling Adam and Eve into the mandorla with him. The physical ‘merger’ of Christ with a man’s eye is, needless to say, unprecedented in the orthodox tradition.
What Rupnik might be attempting to depict is his own (distorted) form of the Eastern concept of “Theosis.” St. Athanasius of Alexandria’s famous statement “The Son of God became man, that we might become god” is typically written with “god” in the lower case, because although we aspire to union with God (“Theosis”) we cannot become “God,” as there is only one hypostatic union (as defined by the Council of Chalcedon) and that is Christ.
Rupnik is, perhaps, in this sense giving pictorial form to the Christological confusion that Francis has expressed verbally elsewhere. Recall this gem from Francis: “Christian doctrine is not a closed system that’s incapable of generating questions, doubts, or interrogations. It is alive. It moves. It animates. Its face is not rigid. It has a body that moves and develops, it’s soft: It’s called Jesus Christ. Christian doctrine is called Jesus Christ.”
Now Christian doctrine can easily be understand as Jesus Christ, for “Christian doctrine” is simply truth, and Jesus Christ is “the Truth” (John 14:6). He is the Word of God incarnate. He is the LOGOS. Leaving aside how much “development” takes place in a glorified/resurrected body, we can see that a human body is “soft” and “develops.” The LOGOS (Christ’s divine nature), however, categorically does not “develop.” The LOGOS is ever existing and ever the same. He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). He is the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 1:8) He exits outside of time (of which He Himself is the Author), so it is an obvious category error to apply a purely temporal process of “development” to the Godhead who exists outside of time. Furthermore, it is surely an error to suggest that the LOGOS somehow takes on the attributes of the human nature of Christ. This would amount to a confusion or admixture of natures that the first Church Councils emphatically teach does not take place.
I don’t know how else to understand this Francis quote other than that Francis would seem to be preaching, undoubtedly unwittingly, a form of Monophysitism in which Christ’s Divine Nature is subsumed into or dissolved into his human nature, such that Truth takes on the attributes of mortal flesh, i.e. specifically mutability. Bearing this in mind, it would not then stretch the imagination too far if one were to understand Rupnik’s work as developing a ‘new’ iconography to communicate Francis’s ‘new’ Christology. This is not merely bad art (and that it surely is), it is bad art in the service of bad theology.
Christ was made man that we might be made God.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria
Thanks for a great article, Chris. Yes, something ugly and weird. I find the black things (someone called them skis) under Christ’s feet very puzzling. Do you know what they are supposed to represent?
My impressions:
–Contorted shapes.
–Homoerotic symbolism.
–A certain look of indifference in Christ’s eyes suggesting a lack of love.
–The person being carried is healthy looking. So why is he being carried?
–Given the small body being carried there is a certain suggestion of pedophilia given the image of the clergy today.
Little kids don’t have beards. The body isn’t that small, given proportions. Plus, I have seen some pretty small old people in my life. I would buy the homoerotic symbolism (although you can read homoeroticism that isn’t there into much religious art) before pedophilia, especially considering that the “pedophilia” crisis was much more of a crisis consisting of homosexual priests preying on pubescent and post-pubescent young men. (Still disgusting, but technically not pedophilia)
The image reminds me of the repulsive “artwork” found in some of the newer St. Joseph Missals and ALL versions of the Liturgy of the Hours. It smacks of 60’s/70’s Age of Aquarius BS and is annoying to the point of distraction. Nauseating, really. Dear God, when will it end?
A radical “sister”, who used to be invited often to my parish to lead discussions about how the Church should be transformed… (pretty much the way it is now being transformed), used to say, slowly and with Great. Dramatic. Gravitas. “between me and God there is no between”, which I suppose is sort of the thought depicted in this icon. An interesting point about the masonic square on which “Jesus” is surfing is that the masonic term “on the square” can be used to mean “just between you and me” or in other words, “keep this quiet”. So you might surmise that there is a nod and a wink to the brother masons in the Church in this icon.
If they say it is, it is. No explanation necessary.
Unam Sanctam has it right in his article The Phantasm of Fiat Continuity.
From the horse’s mouth: Jubilee of Mercy – Home » Jubilee » Logo » Description of the logo [http://www.im.va/content/gdm/en/giubileo/logo.html]
The only logo that counts has to show the crucifix.
Looks like an icon that would have been developed by a Taize community.
PLEASE don’t call it an icon. Cf. my post above.
Now that we’re on this subject; has anyone taken a good look at the cross Francis wears around his neck? I work at a Catholic book & gift shop and have taken a good look at the large cross (about 5 inches) even with a magnifying of the cross this pope wears. First of all, the man on the cross is wearing a short tunic. The people in those days especially the Christians all wore long tunics down to their knees. The only one’s who wore short tunic’s were the Roman soldiers or people of ill-repute. The man on his cross is wearing a short tunic up to his knees. Also if you look at the face of the man close up, its actually Demonic looking, very ugly! Now for his arms. The man on his cross has his arms crossed in the form of the god’s of Egypt, totally crossed. The Egyptian gods were buried with their arms crossed in the form of an “X.” The Illuminist/Masonic meaning of the X is simply this: its the sign of Osiris, the great (Egyptian) sun god. Now for the lambs on the cross… Christ was always depicted with one lost lamb on His shoulder, not twenty! If you look at his cross, you will see that this Demonic looking form of a man has about fifteen or twenty sheep behind him. As you can see, I’m highly suspicious of this man in the holy chair of St. Peter
I think you’re reading too much into it. There is really no evidence that most people in “those days” wore long tunics. I would imagine a workman such as a shepherd would wore a short tunic for the same reason Roman soldiers did: greater ease of movement while doing physical labor (Have you ever tried running or working out in long trousers?). The tunic is hardly short enough to be indecent. And as for the sheep, the shepherd is returning the lost sheep to the flock. Remember, the parable of the Lost Sheep and Christ’s Good Shepherd discourse are separate (and not even in the same Gospel).
My problem with the pectoral cross of Pope Francis is simply that it’s not a crucifix.
When the workmen were doing carpentry work, perhaps but when Christ was out in the crowds among people, He dressed in a modest fashion so as to not attract attention. There are countless painting’s of Christ in the Catacombs and other holy sites from the times of Christ. It never showed him wearing a short tunic, it was always long. And I’m well aware of Christ and the lost lamb. He’s never been pictured or painted with more then “one” lamb either around his neck or attempting to save it from falling from a cliff. You also clearly missed what I mentioned about the total crossing of the arms in the form of an X. That not only is a Masonic sign but also the Egyptian kings were buried in that manner and most of their painting’s of gods and other art work of Egyptian people, have their arms in a perfect X You need to check this out before you give your opinion
Who are you to tell me when I should or should not give my opinion? Are you some kind of authority or expert? Because if not, your opinion is only an opinion, and of just as much value as mine.
Moreover, you’ve completely missed my point. Obviously Christ probably wore a long tunic, as was the custom, when He taught and ministered to the people. But Jesus was also never a shepherd. My point was not that Christ Himself wore a short tunic (although He likely did when working as a tekton prior to the start of His public ministry) but that shepherds did. The Good Shepherd is a symbol for Christ, a metaphor that Christ employs to help us better understand the extent of His merciful love. Christ is not literally a shepherd anymore than you or I are literally sheep. Whoever designed the papal cross (I won’t call it a crucifix) was merely presented an image of what a shepherd of Christ’s time would have looked like. (And are we seriously freaking out about the “decency” of a short tunic? What are we, Puritans?)
I did not miss what you mentioned about crossing of the arms in an X and I do admit it looks odd and not how one would carry a lamb on his shoulders. However, it could have been done so the arms are actually defined or simply an artistic choice that was nothing to do with Masons and pharaohs (which are themselves related).
As for images in the catacombs Christ is presented in a long tunics in those because the people who painted the catacombs were Roman Christians and long tunics were symbols of high office and nobility in Roman culture. Furthermore, the oldest known purported image of Christ is an image of the Good Shepherd in the catacombs of St. Callixtus. In it, the Good Shepherd is wearing a…gasp…short tunic.
That logo is absolutely diabolical. The third eye is illuminati. The number of whiskers amounts to 18. 6 on the right, 6 in the middle and 6 on the left. I cannot believe the Vatican approved this logo. The beast is cunning.
Very sharp!
*
I cannot believe the Vatican approved this logo. Not if in the Vatican those approving have gone over to the beast or are controlled by it.
Can you tell me please, where my comment has gone that I put out yesterday?
How do you like it in the rainbow flavor? This was in the window of DeRitis in Rome last fall.
(Sorry that photo is sideways- I don’t know why.)
I never liked it- and I don’t like the saying either. Merciful like the Father…??? What does that mean in the Year of Mercy? That we are supposed to be merciful like God is merciful? I thought it was about our seeking God’s mercy through confession, repentance and reparation. I don’t imagine myself in such a position to ‘grant mercy’. Really? Who am I to grant mercy…and to whom? I’m not in a position to judge & sentence people…except in my head maybe. “Because of what he did I’ll never talk to him again!” “The way she snubbed me- she’ll be sorry.” Is that what he’s getting at?
That image struck me as ‘gay’. The two heads next to each other?? I couldn’t tell which was which. I did not notice until now that they are sharing an eye!. How bizarro. But I don’t think I’ve looked at since last fal.
I don’t understand anything this guy does or says…sorry.
The motto comes from the words of Christ:
“Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” -Luke 6:36
Unfortunately, trying to turn an imperative command into an adjective is very clumsy in Latin.
http://www.conchiglia.us/UK/UK_index.html
http://www.conchiglia.us/Conchiglia/15.310_UK_TU_E_LUI_UNITI_PER_DIRE_BENTORNATO_MIO_SIGNORE_13.05.15.pdf
http://www.conchiglia.net/C/Conchiglia_2016-02__VERITA_BEN_XVI.pdf
It is ugly. It does not inspire, elevate or encourage. It is an off-putting image that leaves me cold and is rather nauseating. They could have done a lot better. Where is the beauty?
Have we really descended to the level of looking for occult elements in official logos like some hack conspiracy theory YouTube channel? Hey, it’s the Fourth of July! Let’s talk about all the occult Masonic elements in our government buildings and currency while we’re at it!
Glad to hear many people think this is not a appropriate way to represent the mercy of our God!! I look the other way around whenever my eyes notice those three scary almond-shaped eyes. Our Savior and King, pictured as some kind of unchancy Disney-figure… It’s appalling!
Why are you all so mad at the merging of God into man? You people are so blinded with your manmade doctrines twisted and also perverted by the council of nicea when the bible was compiled. Isn’t Jesus Christ the God who was born as human? You all pretend to know the truth but in facy you dont. Even Christ himself said in the bible that “Ye are all Gods”; which contradicts to your opinion. What happened to the Christians who was taught by the church that man was made from God’s image. I can sense hypocrisy in here..