Arcadia Discussion Zone

Is it? I see two infants in the same place. The onus is on someone to demonstrate that two infants somehow really means one.
The physical evidence shows two infants, the explanation for such from certain quarters doesn't cut the mustard with me. It would have been so easy to put two virgins, one on either side of the altar with the same infant but this is different and it's repeated in a lot of art.

Well, since we're discussing Catholic church décor, and Catholic images of both Joseph and Mary holding the infant Jesus are run-of-the-mill, and church dogma doesn't support the notion of biological twins, I'd say the ball would be in the court of anyone who saw something different to show that the church is secretly sending out subliminal messages. The physical evidence consists of two statues, each holding an infant, which the church itself identifies as the two parents of a single infant (or one biological and one step-parent). I'm afraid I'd have to give them the benefit of the doubt on how they decorate their own churches unless something more definite turns up to prove they're lying about it and intentionally advertising the discrepancy.

If I posted separate photos of my parents each holding me in their laps as an infant, would you assume I'm a twin? If I told you I wasn't, would you have a valid reason to suspect I'm lying about it?

TCP

To avoid confusion it would be much easier to place both Mary and Joseph stood together with one child. Why the need to seperate them at all? Unless of course the church likes to play silly mind games.

Quite honestly I don't think many people, if any, have been confused by it at all, being somewhat conditioned by two-thousand years' worth of perpetual dogma to view an infant in the arms of either Mary or Joseph as Jesus - and only Jesus. I remember the parish where I used to attend Mass had four babies Jesus - one in Joseph's arms to the right of the altar from my vantage point (the Mary image on the other side was the Lourdes version, sans bébé), one in the arms of St. Anthony, one in the arms of Mary in a copy of the classic "Theotokos" image in a side chapel, and one image of the Infant of Prague that I remember used to get his dress changed frequently. I can't recall anyone being confused by the presence of four infant Christs in the church, least of all myself.

TCP

Regarding the two lines of descent recorded in the Gospels - that cant be reconciled - do you think two different people were being referred to?

I dont know how that would work .... seeing as all 4 Gospels say they are talking about 'Jesus' .... how could the Gospel writers not seen the glaringly separate and presumably wrong lines of descent?

I think you meant to say "virgin Birth" here rather than "Immaculate Conception"...

It's a coded reference to the Judgement of Solomon...

ROTFLMAO!

Gee, all that stubborn insistence that she was Catholic and attended Catechism classes in her youth and look what happens!

TCP

In which case each would be holding half a baby, since that episode featured a single infant as well.

TCP

I think we have to remember one thing here - we are talking about the church in RLC and given that Sauniere redecorated his church in unorthodox ways, we are right to ask what his intentions were. However, given that in the common iconography of the Roman Church that it is not unusual to have Joseph with babe in arms, then Sauniere's treatment here is not unusual or unorthodox and hence in all probability was not designed to push an unorthodox message.

I don't happen to think that Saunière's remodel was unorthodox at all - in questionable taste, perhaps, but there isn't anything terribly outré about it for that particular period when everything was conspicuously over-decorated. I remember reading years ago that the placement of articles was unusual, particularly the plaques of the Stations of the Cross which according to the source (was it HBHG?) ran in the opposite direction than they normally would have. They actually don't. As to the "blue apples", they've got to fall somewhere on 17 January.

TCP

Aren't some of the stations of the cross unorthodox in their treatment? I am referring to the 14th in particular.

I always found this wood panel interesting at Notre Dame



Its the Wedding of Cana

we see Jesus and the Lady Mother Mary? Magdalene? the little black servant points to her belly next to him but the fellow sitting next to him ...looks just like Jesus but wears roses on his head
the bride? next to him darker hair ...has a crown but no halo

The French seem to have some oral traditions unlike other countries such as the French Oral tradition of Mary Magdalene coming to France ...

ROTFLMAO Ok I made a mistake ...they have so many different names for everything ....Thanks Caelum ...glad to give you a chuckle Tim

Just like Rennes Chateau
at the New Orleans Cathedral
Mary and her baby



Joseph and his baby


I've found under Joseph the winged serpent ...similar to the winged serpent at Rosslyn

Hi Hotspur,
Ben Hammott has done some good comparisons of the RLC stations of the cross with similar ones from other churches.
http://www.benhammott.com/stations_of_the_cross_1.html
http://www.benhammott.com/stations_of_t ... 2_&_3.html
http://www.benhammott.com/stations_of_the_cross_4.html
http://www.benhammott.com/stations_of_t ... 6_&_7.html
http://www.benhammott.com/stations_of_t ... 8_&_9.html
http://www.benhammott.com/stations_of_the_cross_14.html
Regards
Nic

Thanks Nic.

I read somewhere that the 14th depicts a night scene because the moon is depicted.

To move the body in darkness is against Jewish law.

Some have suggested that rather than the body being taken to the tomb, it was being clandestinely removed.

That seems to be the common theory of the RLC station 14. It certainly looks like a night scene to me, who knows why though? I suppose it could be a genuine mistake but I doubt it.
Regards
Nic

I don't think they are, no. I know that some people feel the sky is painted too dark on the 14th, but not in my estimation if they're portraying the entombment at dusk. One usually sees the moon rise before the sun even sets.

TCP

And do you know what that mistake was...?

TCP

yes I do it was using the term Immaculate Conception
that was Mary's birth ...not Jesus

Queen of the Google Machine, you are!

TCP

an Damn proud of it

here is something that puzzles me
why do they put the Crucifix on the side and near a door
this isn't the only church which does this

maybe the guy with the red hat can tell me whats up
shouldn't the cross be front and center?

The moon doesn't appear very high in the sky, suggesting dusk.



That wasn't exactly the primary issue in the Gospel narratives. Jewish burial custom holds that a body should be buried or entombed before sundown on either the day of or the day following death, depending on the time of death and the preparation of the body. The overarching issue here was the onset of the Sabbath, and not just any Sabbath, but Passover. If they didn't get the body of Jesus in the tomb that day (which ended at sundown, and he died around "the 9th hour" or approximately 3:00PM on Friday) they would have had to wait until daylight on Sunday.



Both Matthew's and Mark's Gospels indicate that Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate "as evening approached", and although that could mean three, four or five hours before sundown rather than mere minutes, an artistic rendition taken from either source could emphasize "evening approaching" by painting a darkening sky and a risen moon.

TCP