Tuesday, November 12, 2024

An Art School For Catholics - Showcasing Work by Apprentices of Stabat Mater Studios

Students Getting an Authentic Traditional On-the-Job Apprentice Training

The excellent Stabat Mater Studio—an art school I recommend for a soup-to-nuts training in naturalistic art styles—opened its doors this September, and a mixture of full-time core students and part-timers began their intensive instruction in the fundamentals of drawing with executive director Robert Puschautz, and art fellow AnneMarie Johnson.

One key factor distinguishing the Stabat Mater Studio from other classical art programs is that it is a working studio with an openly Catholic ethos, which offers students on-the-job training by participating in actual commissions given to master artists.
A recent project was for St. Joseph’s church in Mason, Texas. Stabat Mater Foundation was in charge of the stenciling portion of this historic church's renovation under the guidance of Studio Io. After the stenciling was finished on-site, the whole studio, teachers and students, came together to complete the Tree of Life mural behind the crucifix, which was then attached to a board behind the altar.
“One of our goals is to share an integrated approach to art with students. We are not just making pretty pictures for walls but trying to create work that reflects the cosmological order of the universe. That means creating a harmony between the architecture, the artwork and objects that go into the church and the mission and function of that liturgical space.” - Robert Puschautz.
You can read about their intensive integrated training program here. It is a uniquely well-rounded program rooted in rigorous academic method training but certainly not limited to it. 
A couple of features particularly caught my eye: 
First, they include training in sacred geometry, harmony, and proportion, which is unique to this school. 
Second, they shepherd the students from being able to draw and paint accurately what they see - which is hard enough - to creating original paintings that draw on the imagination of the artists, and the memory of what they have observed in the past. This final stage is so often missing in the ateliers that have sprung up around the country, leaving artists at a disadvantage, because they can only reproduce scenes they create in the studio. This is why so many naturalistic paintings being commissioned look like static Victorian tableaus in which the girl next door is dressed up as the Virgin Mary. 
Also, Pontifex University is proud to partner with Stabat Mater atelier. Through our online courses in art theory, created for the Master of Sacred Arts program, we offer intellectual formation and deep inculturation that accompanies the training in artistic skills that the Stabat Mater atelier offers. 
Contact Studio Io for church renovation commissions and Stabat Mater Foundation for artistic and decorative commissions.

Wednesday, March 04, 2020

Images of Mary In Lent - A Lenten Meditation on the New Eve and the New Adam

Here is a beautiful meditation on how Mary draws us to her Son through images of her as the New Eve. It is offered to us at Pontifex University by Msgr John Myler, who holds an STD from the Marianum in Rome, and serves as rector of the cathedral of St Peter in the diocese of Belleville, Illinois.

Msgr Mylers’s doctoral work is in Marian theology and art, and this is a taster for a full course which will be offered in the coming year by Pontifex University, as part of its Master of Sacred Arts Curriculum. In the upcoming course, he will focus on liturgical Images of Mary in Advent and Christmas; liturgical images of Mary in Lent, Easter, and Pentecost, and finally, on devotional images of Mary, especially in the Litany of Loreto. The course will drawing especially on the following magisterial sources: Lumen Gentium, chapters 7 and 8 (1964), Sacrosanctum Concilium, chapter 7 (1963), Marialis Cultus (1973), St John Paul II’s Letter to Artists (1999), and the Directory on Popular Piety (2001).

Let us sing with the Church: We praise you O Virgin Theotokos, mediatrix of our salvation, for your Son our God who suffered on the cross, in the flesh which was taken from you redeemed us from corruption, for He is the Lover of mankind.

Let all in heaven rejoice and all on earth be glad, for the Lord has exerted power with his arm, by death he has trampled upon Death, and has become the first-born from the dead. He has delivered us from the bosom of Hades and has granted to the world great mercy.

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

3,000-Years-Old Newsflash! God Commanded the Use of Graven Images

Last month, on Sunday, October 13th, the Eastern Catholic Church celebrated the Feast of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. I am happy to share with our readers the text that was the basis of the homily given by Fr Sebastian Carnazzo, pastor of St Elias Melkite Catholic Church in Los Gatos California, on that day.

There are several points that we of the Roman Church can take from this.

First, is the content. Contrary to what is commonly believed, the 10 commandments do not forbid graven images. The relevant commandment, often quoted by iconoclastic Protestants and out of context, does not condemn the making and use of religious imagery, but rather idolatry, which is very different. Graven, incidentally, means “made by hand.” Fr Sebastian (a Scripture scholar who is a colleague of mine on the faculty at www.Pontifex.University) explains why this is the case.

Second is the fact that Fr Sebastian thought this point is important enough to make it the central subject of his homily, and to send out a summary of his points in the church bulletin which he encouraged his parishioners to take home and study. In this homily, while he did mention in passing the many contemporary forms of idolatry in our neo-pagan or secular world, (a subject that many priests today are more likely to discuss in this context), he focused primarily on the use of images in the context of worship.

As Roman Catholics, we cannot afford to be smug about this. The general situation in my observation is that images are not incorporated in worship at all. And I am not referring here to the liberal, impious parishes with whitewashed, modern churches that reflect modern iconoclasm and are barely distinguishable from a puritanical Protestant church. I am thinking of your parish and mine, that of the orthodox, pious and religious who appreciate beauty, and very likely agree in principle with the need for sacred art in churches. They might have beautiful art in their churches, and Mass at such parishes might be dignified and beautiful, with expert choirs singing chant or polyphony, but I have never yet seen liturgical imagery used in the context of worship in the way that I see it in every Eastern Divine Liturgy. The understanding of the place of liturgical imagery in the actual process of worship is so small that, in my experience, Roman Catholics simply don’t know what I am referring to when I mention it. At Roman Catholic churches, the art is reduced to contributing to a beautiful backdrop that is incidental to the process of worship, which is an eyes-closed affair that involves us having our noses buried in Missals. Most of the art is devotional, and if it is engaged with at all, it is not in the context of the liturgy. Until we remedy this situation in the Roman Church, we cannot, in my estimation, revitalize the culture powerfully. I wrote about this specifically and in detail in the following article: The Good, the Better and the Sunday Best - Using St Thomas’ 4th Way to Evangelize the Culture.

The third is the importance of this feast in the Church calendar in the Eastern Church. Of the seven Councils recognized by the Eastern Church, the first six are celebrated together, but the Seventh Ecumenical is given its own day. This is a reflection of the history of the Eastern Church and its fight against iconoclasm. There are martyrs from the period, over 1,000 years ago, people who were prepared to die rather than concede the point. We have been through our own period of iconoclasm in the West (we are not out of it yet), but in contrast with its Eastern equivalent, it is marked not by resistance from the Catholic faithful and hierarchy, but by quiet acquiescence. Greater the fools we!

Images are the stepping stones by which the spirit of man can move from contemplation of the material world to contemplation of God. We neglect them at our peril, as the history of Church in the West for the last 200 years demonstrates. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that until we once again incorporate imagery directly into our worship, we will continue to lose the culture wars with the anti-Christian secular forces, and Mass ayyendance will continue to decline.

The Adoration of the Golden Calf – Picture from the Hortus deliciarum of Herrad of Landsberg (12th century)
Here is Fr Carnazzo’s recorded Bible study on the topic.
And here is the written text, which was the starting point for his homily, made available at my request:

The Holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared: “We, therefore...define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the divine nature...but...according to ancient and pious custom” (NPNF, vol 14).

The Seventh Ecumenical Council made this declaration in AD 787, against the heresy of Iconoclasm, a heresy that had labeled the making and use of religious imagery in the Church as idolatry. The council condemned the heresy of iconoclasm on the grounds that it contradicted the Orthodox and Apostolic Faith. For the Church had used sacred images in both its liturgical life and catechesis from the earliest days, just as Israel had in both its synagogues and places of worship in the OT. And although the declaration of the venerable Council officially ended the problem for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the heresy lives on even to today.

Iconoclasm is found implicitly in the architecture and decor and explicitly in the doctrine of the vast majority of Protestant sects. These sects teach that the Bible forbids the making and use of religious imagery, such as statues and icons. The passage they most commonly cite is from the Ten Commandments given through Moses at Sinai: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them...”(Exod 20:4-5). When this passage is read out of context, it can appear that the Protestant position has some support and that the Bible really does condemn the making and use of religious imagery.

However, if one reads the passage in its original context, one can see that the commandment does not condemn the making of a graven image as such (“graven” simply means ‘fashioned by hand’), but rather the making of an image to be worshiped as a god. This is made clear by a careful reading of the words which appear immediately before and after the passage in question: “I am the Lord your God....You shall have no other gods before me.....for I the Lord your God am a jealous God....” Later on in the same chapter, God repeated his commandment in one succinct statement, “You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold” (Exod 20:23). Therefore the passage, usually quoted by Protestants and often out of context, does not condemn the making and use of religious imagery, but rather idolatry, that is the making and use of an image of a created thing to bow down and worship it as a god.

An examination of the broader context further supports this conclusion, since there are a number of passages, even in the very same book of Exodus, where God actually commands that religious imagery be made. For example, just a few chapters later, God began to describe to Moses how to build the Ark of the Covenant and the Sanctuary that would be God’s dwelling place among Israel (Exod 25:10-22). In this passage God told Moses to make an ark (a box about the dimensions of a bath tub) out of wood and to cover it with gold. Then he was to put two cherubim (a cherub is a type of angel) on the lid at either end, facing each other, wings out-spread, and touching in the middle. In this box, Moses was to place the Ten Commandments, and above this box God would sit enthroned on the outstretched wings of the graven images of golden angels (cf. 1 Sam 4:4; Ps 99:1, etc.), and from there speak to Moses about all of his commandments to Israel. Continuing on in the book of Exodus, one finds that from chapter 25 to the end of the book, the majority of the text is spent describing how God wants Moses to build the Sanctuary, and how he is to cover it with images of cherubim, palm trees, flowers, and fruit (cf. Exod 25: 31-40; 26:1,30-31; 28:31-34), all according to God’s command (cf. Exod 25:40; 26:30; 27:8; 39:43; 40:33-38). As one can see, God did not condemn the making or use of religious imagery; on the contrary, he actually commanded it for his most holy Sanctuary where he would dwell among Israel. Similar imagery appears later in the Old Testament, when Solomon built the Temple.

Like Moses before him, Solomon was appointed to build a place for God to dwell among His people. And like the Sanctuary Moses was commanded to build, Solomon built the Temple in accordance with the pattern he had been shown by God (1 Chron 28:18-19; Wis 9:8; cp. Exod 25:40). In the inner sanctuary of the Temple, Solomon put the Ark that Moses had built, and at the entrance he put two 15-foot (1 cubit = 1 ½ feet) statues of cherubim to guard the way (1 Kings 6:14-32). The Temple’s inner sanctuary was covered in gold and the rest of the Temple walls were lined in cedar and carved with images of cherubim, open flowers, gourds, palm trees, lilies, and lions (cf. 1 Kings 6:33-35; 7:28,36). Twelve life-sized statues of oxen supported a 10,000-gallon bath for liturgical washing (cf. 1 Kings 7:25-26). Hundreds and hundreds of golden pomegranates (a type of fruit) hanging from lengths upon lengths of golden chains draped from every pillar (cf. 1 Kg 7:15-22,42). What Moses had made for ease of travel through the wilderness, Solomon made for permanence in Jerusalem. As with the sanctuary built by Moses, Solomon’s Temple contained numerous examples of God’s command to make and use religious imagery for both catechetical decoration and liturgical function.

Another example of God commanding the making of graven imagery appears in an episode of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness when they were stricken by deadly serpents Here God commanded the making of a graven image in the form of a serpent as a medium through which he would save his people (Num 21:8-9; cp. 2 Kings 18:4).

Therefore, the common Protestant claim that the Ten Commandments condemn the making and use of graven religious imagery is clearly refuted, not only in the immediate context as already addressed, but by numerous other passages in the Bible, as the above examples demonstrate. God did not condemn the making and use of religious imagery in the Ten Commandments, but rather the sin of idolatry. Idolatry is the act of making or using an image to be worshiped as a god. One can see the difference by an examination of the well-known biblical account of idolatry, when Israel made a golden calf (cf. Exod 32). But notice what was at issue here. It was not the fact that Israel decided to make an image of a calf, Solomon had made twelve life-size statues of oxen to be used in the Temple he built (cf. 1 Kings 7:25-26), rather the issue here was the making of an image of a calf to be worshiped as a god (cf. Exod 32:1,4).

Another example of idolatry appears in the book of Daniel, when King Nebuchadnezzar built a 90-foot tall golden image (Dan 3). He then commanded all in his kingdom to come and worship it as a god (cf. Dan 3:6,11,14,18). Here again, notice that the problem was not that Nebuchadnezzar built a large golden statue, indeed Solomon had built two 15-foot golden statues of cherubim in the Temple (cf. 1 Kings 6:23), rather the issue here was that Nebuchadnezzar had built his statue to be worshiped as a god.

So we see how Protestantism’s erroneous interpretation of God’s teaching regarding graven images in the Ten Commandments, is not only contradicted by a careful examination of the immediate context, but also in numerous examples throughout the rest of Sacred Scripture. Let us recall the golden cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant, whose wings formed the very throne of God upon the earth, the two 15-foot golden cherubim who guarded the way into the Temple’s sanctuary, the twelve life-size statues of oxen which supported the bath of purity in the Temple, the cherubim, lions, palm trees, gourds, pomegranates, and open flowers that decorated the Temple, and the bronze serpent, fashioned that the people of God might live. Thus it is obvious from even the ‘Bible alone’, that God did not condemn the making of religious imagery in the Ten Commandments, but rather the sin of idolatry. And so while we renounce the idolatrous making of a graven image to be worshiped as a god, we also uphold the ancient and honorable practice of the making and use of religious imagery in the Church, received from Israel of Old, since as the Council Fathers taught: “For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them....” Therefore, let us proclaim with the great and venerable Fathers of that most blessed and glorious Council concerning the Iconoclasts of the past and their modern adherents today among the Protestant sects: “they have failed to distinguish between holy and profane, styling the images of our Lord and of his Saints by the same name as the statues of diabolical idols....[applying] to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols.”

Here is the bulletin which is not only distributed to all who attend the Divine Liturgy but is emailed out to any who have ever attended the church. This contains a truncated version of the above. Again, this indicates the seriousness with which this topic is taken in the Eastern Church.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Should We Paint God the Father?

This article first appeared in September 2010, and is reposted in response to comments from readers made on last week’s post about the artistic representation of Our Lady.

One of the most famous pieces of sacred art that exists is Michelangelo’s fresco in the Sistine Chapel of God giving the spark of life to Adam. Despite its popularity and familiarity, I had often wondered about the validity of representing God the Father.

My own instincts run against the idea of portraying God the Father in a painting at all; even when I was a child, I always thought that the white-whiskered God looked more like God the Grandfather, than God the Father. Later on in life, this was reinforced by training in icon painting. I was pretty sure, but not certain, that it was not part of the tradition. Certainly, I have never painted an icon of God the Father. Furthermore, the theology of St Theodore the Studite in regard to sacred imagery, which is accepted by both Eastern and Western churches, bases the argument for the creation of any figurative art upon the fact that we can portray the person of Christ as man. The person of God the Father is a spiritual being and most certainly not man. This would seem to suggest that we should not portray the Father as a man either.

I quietly suspected that the white-bearded God of Michelangelo or William Blake or even my favourite Baroque artist, Velazquez, were all in error. I was not so worried about Blake, who was not Catholic and had eccentric beliefs, but I didn’t like the idea that Michelangelo, and especially Velazquez might be in error.

I was forced to rethink this recently, when I was approached to do a commission that involves the portrayal of the Father. Rather than reject it out of hand, I thought I had better find out where the Church stands on this.

Here’s what my first investigations have revealed. For the first thousand years or so of Christianity, East and West, there was little portrayal of the Father figuratively. Then images started to appear in both the Eastern and Western traditions, though it was more common in the West.

There are two simple arguments that I have found for the representation of the Father: the first is that Christ said in John 14, 9 that whoever has seen me has seen the Father. This would seem to open up to a representation of the Father as the Son. So, one could say, seeing an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is also seeing one of the Sacred Heart of the Father, with the heart of the Father understood as a symbol of His love.

The second is that the white-bearded figure with whom we are all familiar is the Ancient of Days who appears in the seventh chapter of the book of Daniel. This is the source of so many familiar portrayals of the Father. In the East there is a tradition known as the New Testament Trinity. This title would distinguish it from the Hospitality of Abraham, in which three angelic strangers of Gensis 18 represent the three Persons of the Trinity. Below is a Greek Orthodox New Testament Trinity on the ceiling of the entrance to the Vatopedion Monastery on Mount Athos. The Catholic Church allows for the interpretation of the Ancient of Days as the Father, which justifies the portrayal of the Father. (I have been told that Pope Benedict XIV issued pronouncement on this in 1745, although I have not been able to validate this beyond a reference on Wikipedia). It also allows for the interpretation of the Ancient of Days as Christ. Since the 1667 Synod of Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church has forbidden the portrayal of God the Father as a man. Consistent with this, it interprets the Ancient of Days strictly as the Son. It is this pronouncement by the Russian church that gave me the idea, wrongly, that it had never been part of the Eastern tradition and that the whole Eastern Church forbids it.

There is a Western tradition of portrayal of the Trinity in a type known as the Throne of Mercy, in which the Father sits on his throne and presents His crucified Son to the viewer, while a dove rests on the cross or hovers just above it. It was this that was explicitly mentioned by Benedict XIV. This tradition goes right back the medieval era times in the Western Church, and has continued even into the 20th century.

So where do I stand on this now? It seems clear that the portrayal of the Father as a grey-haired man is permitted. I would feel on safest ground however, following the traditional presentations, such as the Mercy Throne image. Outside that, I would consider painting images of the Father, but would be cautious, unwilling to promote any trend of anthropomorphizing God the Father in case the transcendence of God is further compromised in people’s imaginations.

It is also worth pointing out that when God is portrayed as a single person in the form of the Ancient of Days, we cannot be sure that it is the Father who is portrayed. The artist might, quite justifiably, have the intention of representing the Son. I have not, for example, been able to find an authoritative text that tells us precisely which person of the Trinity either Michelangelo or Blake intended us to be looking at. (I would welcome comments from readers on this and any other related point - I am still open to formation on this point!)

Velazquez’s Crowning of the Virgin
The New Testament Trinity in Mt Athos, Greece
A Mercy Trinity by Ribera, 17th century
A Gothic pieta, with God the Father as the Ancient of Days
An early Gothic Mercy Throne
Mercy Throne, 16th century, German
The Ancient of Days, William Blake, English 18th century
For those who are interested in a deeper discussion of the theological and artistic principles behind the traditional imagery of the Church, investigate the www.Pontifex.University Master of Sacred Arts program.

More recent articles:

For more articles, see the NLM archives: