So much of Novus Ordo "art" should turn our stomachs, and does, but it's hard to prove objectively that it's evil or has malicious intent behind it. You can't really prove anything based on art. The Church for so long apparently had no problem with rampant full-frontal nudity in its own art, which may have seemed very strange to the early Catholics, I don't know.
Novus Ordo "art" shows a spirit that is wrong, and this is what we pick up on. For instance, somewhere in prophetic writings, I believe it is in Mary Agreda's City of God, it says that Jesus, when He was on Earth, was never seen smiling but often was seen crying. Since He was the man of sorrows, this feels right, it feels authentic, it triggers recognition in the Catholic mind ( at least in mine ). Well, at my local Novus Ordo, "Jesus" is depicted in most statues with an insane grin on his face that makes him look like a mental defective. Truly, if you saw someone who looks like this coming towards you on the street, you'd cross to the other side. They make him look like John Wayne Gacy or something, someone who lures kids into basements with balloons; which is fitting for the Novus Ordo, since it constitutes a massive betrayal of children. Both children in the literal sense, who are often molested, and "children" in the sense of "children of God," who imbibe heresies and are in danger of spiritual destruction there.
I had no idea why this felt so wrong to me before, except that I thought it was kind of corny. But then again, for a long time I thought Fatima was kind of corny, it felt too fairy-talish to me, and now that I know I'm wrong, it made me mistrust my perception of corniness. Anyway, now I know I was at least right about the Jesus statues, and I know why, Jesus did not go around guffawing like a buffoon, he wasn't some back-slapping, hippie, party guy, despite what the aging hippies who have drifted into the Novus Ordo might like to think. But others could disagree and say "I think Jesus was a happy guy who liked to laugh," and while that would prove they don't really get it, that their spirit isn't perfect -- it doesn't exactly prove they're heretics.
You can't prove much from art, is the point. You will just get into frustrating arguments with people who refuse to accept the obvious. For instance, in the Vatican, in that area where Ratzinger receives his homoerotic acrobats, there is the ugliest sculpture I've ever seen, it looks like a mass of seaweed from which the souls of the damned are futilely trying to escape... But someone else could say, "Ah, it's just abstract modern art." What am I going to say in return? "No, it's hellish, look, you can see the screaming, damned souls!" They'd say "That's only in your sick mind." Is it really? What about in that cathedral in Chicago, I think, where there is a sculpture of some supposed-Jesus-figure that looks like a skeletal alien trying to emerge from a spiderweb? Is it just in my imagination that this is demonic? No, but I can't prove that it's demonic either, because art is subjective.
Trads know that this stuff is twisted, but there are people out there, who I'm not necessarily willing to judge, who don't see it. Maybe they have twisted spirits, or maybe they just have bad taste. But bad taste isn't a sin. Likewise, there are people out there, who I'm also not willing to judge, who don't see Jєωs as an especial problem... What can I say? I have a book from a priest before Vatican II, an American priest, who mocks the idea of a Jєωιѕн conspiracy and says that no recent Pope has ever talked about such a thing. That may be true, but what he didn't consider is that they COULDN'T talk about it, because the Jєωs held the purse strings since at least the mid-19th century... Maybe he also forgot, or never knew, that it used to be forbidden for Catholics to go to Jєωιѕн doctors, or that they were often confined in ghettos. Was this done because the Jєωs are eminently trustworthy folk? Seems pretty unlikely.
There are just so many things out there that seem wrong, feel wrong, perhaps are wrong, but that don't fall under the category of dogmas. However, those who have a certain kind of gift will recognize each other by certain understandings. This sounds kind of gnostic, or like I'm describing a supra-Catholicism, but it's not that. It's just that some people are more gifted than others at understanding the mystery of iniquity, but that being an expert in these matters may not be a requirement for getting into heaven. In fact, some of these people -- among which I number myself -- may be lacking in charity or other virtues that others who are less gifted in terms of intellect have in abundance...
Topic: Is the "Bent Crucifix" of the Conciliar Popes Evil? (Read 6012 times)