The Blood of Christ

[_huckelberry]

Stigmata.

I am repulsed by the art in the OP. Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice, or at least of one human sacrifice. No thanks.

When I first saw this painting, I was drawn to the paradox. It's sort of a personal thing, I suppose.

I have never seen this theme in Christian art before. I think I have looked at a broad variety of art and am surprised by it. Christian images have been made over a long time in many areas. There are uncounted images I have not seen.

My thought is that it is outside of usual imagery. I have considered over a few times and have not escaped the reaction that even as a Christian believer with views of the Eucharist at least similar to those of Catholics, I still find the image repulsive. I do not think I have any reason to require that other people to feel the same about it though. It is not a literal image but instead an imagination reflecting on interior experience. If it communicates for some people ,well and good.

Sacrifice in human experience can have a wide variety of meanings and forms. I do not think lumping such all together into a one size chicken blood affair helps understanding. Some reactions to the Eucharist may suffer from such over generalization.

[_Chap]

chap, I just want to be clear that my above explanation isn't a condemnation. In that sort of passive-aggressive type coming from Mormonism. Just an explanation.

I understand where you are coming from. The first time a Catholic explained the real presence to me, I called him a cannibal. He in turn, called me a heathen.

It is an acceptance of faith. Christ revealed who He is, I accept that revelation. For myself, my relationship with Jesus Christ is an encounter. The painting shows, artistically, an aspect of that encounter. It is of the heart and soul.

The Eucharist is the source, center and summit of our faith. You'll find many Catholic writings, art and miracles that surround the Eucharist. Some are much more disturbing than a painting. Being provoked, jarred out of our preconceptions and expectations, is one of the attributes of Christ. The Cross, being the prime example.

Some would say, our society (western/US) has sanitized death to the point that it has no affect on us. Don't you think it should? Shouldn't we be provoked?

I'm a simple Catholic. Christ is at the center, always on my horizon. I can't explain others experiences for them. I have had my own, unexplainable, experiences that cannot be explained away as tricks of the mind. Believe me, I tried that route for most of my life. When I asked a Catholic friend, what meaning I should take, what should I do, what, what, what? He only said, why does it have to mean anything more than God's love.

From the writings of mystics that I have read, that is their same approach.

Peace.

I am well acquainted with the eucharistic doctrines and practice of Latin Christendom from a long time spent on the inside. Explaining how it is possible to become accultured to them, so that they cease to seem bizarre and become part of one's internal world of imagery and interpretation strengthens the point I have tried to make in this thread: other peoples' religions have features that seem frankly weird and repellent to believers in some given religion. Their own religion seems perfectly normal and reasonable, however odd it may seem to outsiders.

The skeptic, however, looks at them all from the outside and concludes that there are some things that seem to belong in psychopathology (such as a repeated dwelling on images of human blood and its consumption), but which get a free pass to acceptability if they are part of a religion. Why this should be (and whether it should be) seems worth discussing.

[_brade]

St. Catherine of Siena was a mystic. The painting is attempting to portray one of her mystical experiences. Difficult to do if you are the person having the experiences. Always seen in a mystic's writings, sometimes as poetry. It is near impossible for someone else to do it for you.

It's a kitschy painting, but full of deep meaning. :) Vanni was a painter in Siena, so no doubt, he painted more than one painting of the Patroness of that city. This particular one is meant to show a vision she had of Jesus. It isn't literally what occurred. Rather, to show how intimate her relationship was, in very strong religious tones.

Old Testament sacrifices were tied to atonement. In Christianity, these sacrifices prefigure Jesus. Jesus, being God's Perfect sacrifice. The intimacy in this painting is that of St. Catherine, to the atonement of Jesus. The receiving the blood of Christ symbolic of the Eucharist.

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6 is very clear.

It isn't that we're obsessed with blood. We aren't. :) We just accept what we view as God's Final and Perfect Revelation: Jesus Christ.

If our daughter starts telling us she has dreams about drinking someone's blood, and even writes poems about it we get her to a doctor. If an authoritative religious organization labels her a 'mystic', famous artists do paintings of her fantasies.

If a man on the internet goes on about the need to eat human flesh and drink human blood, we find him and do something about it, usually involving restrictions on his liberty and shutting down his sites. If people say that in a book held to be 'sacred' by an authoritative religious organization, then we dress up in our best clothes and listen to someone reading it aloud in a big public ceremony.

There is really no basic difference of kind here: it is just a matter of sacralization and sanitization. Personally, I am mildly embarrassed when I look back at what I once considered quite normal.

+10000000...

[_zeezrom]

Less repulsive?



"Dante and Virgil in Hell" William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1850