In a re-post here I attempted to analyze the differing visual and emotional interpretations presented to us in paintings by Raphael Sanzio and Peter Paul Rubens.

There are different theological interpretations that can also be drawn from the two works.

(click on pictures for a clearer, sharper image)

Raphael Sanzio’s Crucifixion

Raphael’s Crucifixion displays an ontological theology. In his view of the crucifixion, Christ has already risen and ascended back to the Father. Rather than the realistic cruelty of a fallen world we see before us a world of peaceful harmony attained through the Incarnation, the climax of which was the sacrifice of the Cross. The world in this interpretation of the crucifixion has been restored and is again at one with God. The event here is in God’s time. What originally took place in earthy time is shown to us to exist in eternal time, God’s time, once and for all. The un-bloody sacrifice of the Mass, celebrated in the church building on the altar below this painting in “real” time, taps into that “once and for all” sacrifice.

Peter Paul Ruben’s Crucifixion

Ruben’s Crucifixion comforts us with another theological interpretation, the moment of the actual victory of the cross –victory in apparent defeat. Here the moment of climax has arrived symbolized by the thrusting spear piercing the heart of the Savior. Evil has spent itself, evil has exhausted itself. All is in horrible, violent, noisy confusion. Yet, there is the good thief with his arm visually attached to the Savior. He is with His Savior in the Kingdom as we who remain faithful will be, as a result of this victory.

Notice also, that the Cross and Christ’s Body in Ruben’s violent painting forms a mighty upright vertical line, standing triumphantly in the middle of the confusion withstanding everything attacking it.

Evil is defeated at the moment it seems to have conquered. There is the bad thief symbolizing evil, thrust aside, visually separated from the Savior by darkness and tumbling out of the picture.

1

2

Processional crosses came into use very early in the church, perhaps as early as the 7^th century. The cross was viewed as a ‘victory standard’ similar to those carried at the head of a victorious army as it processed into a capital city, such as Rome. The cross, of course, symbolized the victory of Christ and Christianity over evil and the pagan world — Christianity had conquered the Roman Empire and the Cross is the Christians’ standard.

Scattered 14th and 15th century liturgical manuscripts from England refer to processional crosses used in the entrance procession of Mass. Evidence suggests that the general practice across medieval Europe was for processional crosses to be carried at or close to the front of the entrance procession at more solemn Masses. A 13th-century Pontifical of the Roman Curia lists the processional cross as the first of the objects to be carried in the entrance possession.¹

The crucifix, in contrast to the plain cross, was being used in some liturgical celebrations as early as the 10th century. A 14th century rubric directed that in all processions the cross should be carried with “the face of the image of the cross”, that is, the face (corpus) of the crucified Christ, “turned toward the people”.²

Psalm 67:2 was cited by Pope Innocent III (died 1216) as the reason for carrying the cross at the head of processions:³

“Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered: and let them that hate Him flee before His face.”

God arises (the standard/cross is lifted up) and His enemies flee before His face (the corpus of the crucifix).

I think it would be helpful if priests and deacons and catechetical folks would find opportunities to promote this understanding or explanation for the use of the processional cross, especially its analogy to Psalm 67:2.  Wouldn’t congregations be better predisposed to derive more grace from the entrance procession of the Mass knowing that analogy? Wouldn’t the people tend to view the entrance procession with deeper appreciation? Upon seeing the Crucifix at the head of the procession would not the congregation visualize evil fleeing before the face of Christ?  Wouldn’t it more effectively predispose the congregation to receive the graces that flow from the victory enacted and celebrated at the altar?

………………………………………………………………………………

¹ James Monti, “A Sense of the Sacred – Roman Catholic Worship During the Middle Ages”, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press 2012) p. 30

² Monti p. 31

³ Monti p. 31

Photo 1:“Processional Crucifix”, ca. 1180–90, Made in Limoges, France Champlevé enamel, copper-gilt, Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917. Photo Credit: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/467727?rpp=20&pg=1&rndkey=20130821&ft=*&what=Enamels|Crosses&pos=7. 

Photo 2: “Processional Crucifix”, ca. 1150, Possibly made in Santo Domingo de Silos, Spain, Champlevé enamel, copper-gilt, Gift of George Blumenthal, 1941. Photo Credit: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/467727?rpp=20&pg=1&rndkey=20130821&ft=*&what=Enamels|Crosses&pos=7.

Continuing our Lenten series on crosses, crucifixes and crucifixion scenes

Previously here

(Click on pictures for larger images)

Christ of Saint John of the Cross

By Salvador Dali, 1951

This very unusual crucifixion scene was inspired by two experiences of Dali. “In the first place, I had a ‘cosmic dream’ in which I saw this image in color and which in my dream represented the ‘nucleus of the atom.’ This nucleus later took on a metaphysical sense; I considered it ‘the very unity of the universe’, the Christ!”  In the second place, Dali was directed by a Carmelite priest to a drawing of the crucified Christ made by St. John of the Cross following a mystical vision.

In both instances the viewpoint is from above the cross, looking down rather than a traditional frontal or low angle view.  It is almost as if we are being invited to see the crucified Lord from the viewpoint of heaven, from the Father’s viewpoint.  The seascape in the bottom part of the painting is rendered in normal perspective and so we seem to be transported to another dimension that is both real because of the realistic treatment of forms and surfaces, and dream-like because of the incorporation of two different perspectives. The scene is surreal.

In fact Salvador Dali is probably the single best-known Surrealist artist. Surrealism can be found throughout the history of art but its most concentrated period as a distinct movement was from 1924 to 1950. It is a style in which dream-like imagery from the subconscious mind is used with no intention of making the work logically comprehensible. It was primarily a European movement that attracted artists of the radical Dada movement and was deeply influenced by the psychoanalytical work of Freud and Jung. Dali eventually broke with the members of the Surrealists group due to his right-wing politics as leftism became the fashion among Surrealists, as it was in almost all intellectual circles.

Corpus Hypercubus, 1954

Dali, born Catholic, became an atheist but returned later to Catholicism combining in his work Catholic imagery with his so-called ‘nuclear mysticism.’ In addition to the “Christ of Saint John of the Cross” he painted other religious works like his “Corpus Hypercubus”  in which “Christ is suspended on an eight sided dodecahedron –an octahedral hypercube or a cube in the fourth dimension.” Dali called this

“Metaphysical, transcendent cubism, it is based entirely on the Trearise on Cubic Form by Juan de Herrera, Philip the 2^nd’s architect, builder of the Escorial Palace: it is a treatise inspired by Ars Magna of the Catalonian philosopher and alchemist Raymond Llle. The cross is formed by an octahedral hypercube. The number nine is identifiable and becomes especiall consubstantial with the body of Christ. The extremely noble figure of Gala is the perfect union of the development of the hyper cubic octahedron on the human level of the cube. She is depicted in front of the Bay of Port Lligat. The most noble beings were painted by Velazques and Zurbaran; I only approach nobility while painting Gala, and nobility can only be inspired by the human being.”

(I have no idea what that all means except that I know Gala was his wife and the Bay of Port Lligat is where they had a home! And, yes, I know the work of Velazques and Zurbaran.)

Thomas Banchoff a Brown professor who did pioneering work using computer graphics to illustrate geometry beyond the third dimension in the 1970’s insists that Dali “… knew what he was talking about; he was not just using the symbols.”

In the “Christ of Saint John of the Cross”, Dali worked out geometrically a triangle and a circle, which “aesthetically summarized my previous experiments, and I inscribed my Christ in this triangle.” The cross forms a triangle symbolizing the Holy Trinity. Christ’s head forms a circle within the triangle meaning that Christ, and the fulfillment of His Father’s will, is the center and meaning of everything in the universe. Christ and His Father’s love for us should be at the center of every person’s life.

“Christ of Saint John of the Cross” was not well received when it was first exhibited in London and was called “banal” by an important art critic. Several years later -1961- it was slashed by a fanatic upset over the unusual perspective of looking down on the cross. Repaired, it hangs in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow, Scotland.

In 2006, with 29% of the vote, “Christ of Saint John of the Cross” won a poll to decided Scotland’s favorite painting.

Continuing our Lenten series on crosses, crucifixes, and crucifixion scenes

Previously

Click on pictures for sharper images.

1

The largest category of free-standing sculpture created in Western Europe between the end of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance period of the Italian city-states is the high crosses we think of as uniquely Irish –a tall Latin cross with a ring encircling the interestion. The specific form of the crosses may have originated in Ireland, but they also survive in Cornwall, Wales, Northern England and parts of Scotland, probably as a result of contact with Irish missionaries during the so-called “Dark Ages.” High crosses are more popularly identified as Celtic.

2

The stone crosses were erected by Irish monks from the 8^th to the 12^th century with the 9^th and 10^th centuries the most productive period. Metal covered wood crosses that served as precursors to the stone ones were probably created at least a century before the stone ones.

The crosses were used as boundary markers of monastic lands or as devotional monuments at important crossroads. They also were employed to commemorate a miraculous event, the dedication of a church, or a place associated with a local saint. Inscriptions on the crosses sometimes invite prayers for the patron, the person who sponsored construction of the cross. They were not used as grave stones.

It is the ring around the intersection of the arms of the cross that makes the cross unique among the various Christian designs for crosses. The design actually predates Christianity. Called sun crosses they have been found in Bronze Age Europe. The arms of the sun cross, however, do not extend beyond the circle as the Christian ones do, and they sometimes have more than four arms.

3

The Christian Celtic cross may not have been meant, primarily, as a representation of the crucifixion at all but rather as an image of the early chi rho monogram. Some point out that the circle, or wreath, in connection with a Greek or Latin cross, or with a chi rho, was a symbol of triumph used by Constantine following the legalization of Christianity in the 4^th century [3].

4

A more remote possibly is that Celtic crosses may have had their origins in the early Coptic crosses of Christian Egypt. There is an interesting similarity between the ankh –the ancient Egyptian symbol of life- and variations of the cross or ankh with a circle on the Coptic stella and textiles from as early as the 5^th century [4].

5

The earliest extant Celtic crosses are covered in geometric ornament including interlace [5] and round bosses [2] with the most important characteristic being the shape of the cross itself. In subsequent development the crosses became more pictorial and are known as transitionary crosses. They in turn led to scripture crosses, literally and liberally covered with biblical scenes carved in panels on the sides of the crosses [6]. These are generally considered to be High Crosses proper. Crosses made in the later 11^th century and through the 12^th century show a return to geometric patterns, or an image of the crucified Christ. Most recorded crosses in Britain were destroyed or damaged by iconoclasm after the Reformation and typically only sections of the shafts remain.

6

With the Anglo-Norman invasion and influence of the more austere Cistercians no new High Crosses were constructed.

7

The crosses were constructed of sandstone or granite in sections topped off by a capstone which was often depicted as a small house with a sloping roof. The carvings were rendered once the plain cross was erected (carved in situ). It is now thought by some experts that the crosses were painted in bright colors like the insular illuminated manuscripts and metalwork of the time. This is highly conjectural, but the colors may have resembled those found in metalwork and the manuscripts: yellow, green, blue, and dark red.

8

There are crosses in France that look very similar but are not really considered as Celtic crosses, certainly not High Crosses. But all the French examples are analogous in shape to each other. They are found mostly in the Western part of France in Normand, Britanny and Limousin as far as Auvergne in the center. Those were constructed in the 15^th century well after the period of the High Crosses.

9

———————————————

Picture credits:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cross  By Johnbod

2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynetbrown/3769502589/ By Wayne Brown

4. http://www.flickr.com/photos/11413503@N03/3021604379/ By Su55

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_cross    By Johnbod

7. http://www.unc.edu/celtic/topics/crosses/colored/loaves.jpg

8. http://www.celticbydesign.com/index.cfm?feature_ID=29&fuseaction=feature.display

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_cross

Continuing our Lenten series on crosses or crucifixion scenes in art.

Previously here.

Click on the pictures to see larger and sharper images.

Probably the most powerful picture of the crucifixion of Christ comes to us out of the 16^th century. Matthias Grünewald in 1506-1515 painted an altarpiece consisting of several different panels for the Monastery of St. Anthony in Isenheim, France. The monks there specialized in hospital work and were noted for their successful treatment of patients suffering from skin diseases such as ergotism. The skin of Christ in the crucifixion scene appears to exhibit the symptoms of the disease. Given the context we can assume that the altarpiece was meant to have a profound impression on the patients, inviting them to identify their sufferings with Christ’s. 

The altarpiece is thought to have been displayed in the infirmity where the patients were treated and, if so, would have been perhaps visible to them from their beds. It is a large piece that would have had a looming presence. I suppose it would have been terribly depressing except for the fact that the altarpiece consisted of many panels that opened and folded in such a way as to reveal the entire story of the Incarnation and Paschal Mysteries. Used in that way during the liturgical year it would certainly have been uplifting for the suffering patients. Three different configurations were possible.

The first view shows the Crucifixion scene flanked by images of St. Anthony of the Dessert, patron of the monks, and St. Sabastian. Below is a predella with depicts the Lamentation over the body of the Lord. The Lamentation is visible under the second configuration, as well. When the flanking panels with the saints are opened, the Crucifixion is hidden and the second view reveals scenes of the Annunciation, Mary Bathing the Christ Child, and the Resurrection. Finally, then, the innermost configuration reveals a pre-existing carved gilt-wood altarpiece by Nicolas Hagenau of about 1490 and flankinig scenes of the Temptation of Saint Anthony and the meeting of St. Anthony and Paul, the Hermit.

BTW: Some of our renovated or new churches that are so minimalistic when it comes to art in the chancel might want to consider a large multi-panel (altar)piece on the chancel wall behind the altar. Its different configurations of religious scenes could add to the meaningful experiences of the Mysteries celebrated throughout the Church year.

There is a nice write-up about the altarpiece by Nicolas Pioch for the website, WebMuseum: Paris

Also, there is a short video comment by Father Barone here.

"The Crucifixion" by Graham Sutherland, 1946*

Which subjects are appropriate for chancel images?

That’s an interesting question to me. (I hope it’s also an interesting question for you!) It’s an easier question to answer for Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox than it is for us. Our Western tradition has not developed as clear a focus as to appropriate subjects and styles. Controversy swirled around many liturgical works unveiled in the Church’s past. But addressing the question helps us to think about our faith and the liturgical art that is meant to help communicate it. And so, it’s interesting to put before you -the readers- examples to get your reactions.

The previous example (The Great Banquet) elicited a little hesitation (except for Gen). I personally don’t think it passes muster but I’m unable to settle on reasons why. I keep going back and forth on it in a “Yes, but…” conversation with myself.

Anyway, here is another work for you to consider: Graham Sutherland’s The Crucifixion which he completed in 1946. Sutherland converted to Catholicism in 1926 and was deeply religious until his death in 1980. He worked as a war artist during the Second World War depicting mining, industry, and bomb damage.

Sutherland painted numerous crucifixion scenes. This one hangs in the south transept of St. Matthew’s Anglican Church, Northampton, England. Many of you may already be familiar with it or with several other versions of its composition.

I won’t go into any analysis or description of the painting for fear I may prejudice your reactions.

In your opinion is this an appropriate liturgical work of art for display in the chancel over the altar in a Catholic church? Would it contribute to, and complement, the Liturgy in an appropriately meaningful way? Does it reinforce Catholic doctrine? Why or why not?

A REQUEST: Can you recommend a liturgical work of art from one of our Diocese of Rochester churches that you think is particularly good –or bad? Let’s limit your nominations to paintings, sculptures, mosaics, or windows. Send me a brief description (or picture, if you have one) and information on its location. Your identity will not be revealed. Send me an email: bernie@cleansingfire.org. You can nominate in the Comment Box if you wish.

*Picture Source