Has Benedict XVI disposed of the CCC?

[TNT]

I noticed that the CCC which JPI was so attached to and B16 continued:

The Crooked Creepy Crucifix

At the Easter Mass, I believe, as well as the US recent Masses
(Yankee Stadium below) the CCC was replaced by a traditional “cross”. I don’t believe it’s a Crucifix…

 

[LilyM]

I noticed that the CCC which JPI was so attached to and B16 continued:

The Crooked Creepy Crucifix

At the Easter Mass, I believe, as well as the US recent Masses
(Yankee Stadium below) the CCC was replaced by a traditional “cross”. I don’t believe it’s a Crucifix…

Who knows? I sure am not going to lose any sleep either way.

 

[saint_rafael]

I noticed that the CCC which JPI was so attached to and B16 continued:

The Crooked Creepy Crucifix

At the Easter Mass, I believe, as well as the US recent Masses
(Yankee Stadium below) the CCC was replaced by a traditional “cross”. I don’t believe it’s a Crucifix…

Yes he has thank God. The new cross is the one Pope Puis IX used. Traditionally, Popes have used crosses as staffs. Slowly, Pope Benedict is bringing in some tradition.

The Crooked Creepy Crucifix should make Catholics shudder. It’s weird and Crooked Crucifixes have generally been used by Satanists over the centuries for mocking.

 

[brigid12]

I’m definitely glad for the change!

 

[Scott1]

I noticed that the CCC which JPI was so attached to and B16 continued:

The Crooked Creepy Crucifix

At the Easter Mass, I believe, as well as the US recent Masses
(Yankee Stadium below) the CCC was replaced by a traditional “cross”. I don’t believe it’s a Crucifix…

I rather liked JPII’s crosier… and like me, Pope Benedict saw it as something more than a “fashion statement”:

“He always spoke them with unbending firmness, first brandishing his crosier crowned with a Crucifix and then, when his physical energy was ebbing away, almost clinging to it until that last Good Friday, when he took part in the Way of the Cross in his private Chapel, gripping the Cross tightly in his arms. We cannot forget his last and silent testimony of love for Jesus.”

 

[John_Higgins]

I suspect the popes have a great deal of papal memorabilia they can draw on, just like the presidents do. They pick what suits them.

John

 

[Lepanto]

Some claim that JP2’s crucifix was based on a design by St. John of the Cross (which doesn’t neccessarily mean much), but I never liked it.

JP2’s crucifix definitely looks like a relic of 1960s/1970s “art” design. I always found it grotesque, just like this monstrosity:

img246.imageshack.us/img246/6172/popepompgs5.jpg

B16’s cross is infinitely more beautiful, although I do wish it included a corpus.

(BTW, I have nothing against bloody, realistic crucifixes, but ugly is ugly!)

 

[bpbasilphx]

My own opinion (for what it’s worth) is that the one Pope Benedict has been using lately looks too much like a processional cross because of its size and proportions.

 

[I_Believe]

Palm Sunday is when B XVI first carried it.

This, the replacement of the older Marini, The MP, the removal of modern music in the halls of the the Vatican, the vestments.

Baby steps

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My own opinion (for what it’s worth) is that the one Pope Benedict has been using lately looks too much like a processional cross because of its size and proportions.

I agree with this. It’s too large and unwieldy. I don’t object to a different staff from the one used by the Servant of God HH Pope John Paul II. Indeed, “traditionally,” from early times until the 11th century, popes used crosiers that looked like those of other bishops, then they switched to the three-barred papal cross, which hung on long enough to be regarded as “traditional,” too. Some didn’t carry any at all, if I recall correctly.

I do wish the Holy Father’s staff had a crucifix on it, rather than simply a cross. The one used by TH Popes Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II always called to my mind what Our Lord said in the Gospel of John: “If I be lifted up above the earth, I will draw all men unto me” (paraphrase). I also cannot take seriously any charge that there is something sinister to the bent arms of the particular staff in question. They aren’t bent that much and they aren’t the first crosses in history to be depicted with bent arms. I have an old German crucifix that has the arms bent upward, for example.

 

[CBS]

I’m glad I’m not the only one who found that papal crucifix creepy and gross.

I hope he has replaced it with that cross. A simple cross is way more Benedict anyway.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

The one the Holy Father uses looks great. I prefer to make no comment about the previous one.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Some claim that JP2’s crucifix was based on a design by St. John of the Cross (which doesn’t neccessarily mean much), but I never liked it.

JP2’s crucifix definitely looks like a relic of 1960s/1970s “art” design. I always found it grotesque, just like this monstrosity:

img246.imageshack.us/img246/6172/popepompgs5.jpg

B16’s cross is infinitely more beautiful, although I do wish it included a corpus.

(BTW, I have nothing against bloody, realistic crucifixes, but ugly is ugly!)

“Monstrosity” and “ugly” are in the eye of the beholder. What you cite is, to me, quite beautiful (and I’m sure others feel the same). Let us thank God that we are a part of a Church that can encompass the art in the papal audience hall and the art in the Sistine Chapel.

 

[EasterJoy]

John Paul’s crucifix was extreme, but considering what the Church in Poland had been through, I thought the extreme nature of it suited him. Being united to the suffering of Christ has never been a theoretical concept for them. Poland has faithfully suffered through all that Europe’s errors had to dish up, and the last century really dished it up. Was the crucifix ugly, hard to look at? Well, what they suffered was, too. When the Holy Father went to seminary, he took his life into his hands, and his archbishop did, too.

I was a bit surprised when Benedict XVI kept that crucifix, even though I understand that his esteem and affection for his predecessor is considerable. I’ve always wondered who on earth could succeed such a strong personality and long pontificate as JP II. I think Benedict XVI was exactly the right choice. Whatever cross or crucifix or crozier he chooses will be fine by me.

 

[CB_Catholic]

John Paul’s crucifix was extreme, but considering what the Church in Poland had been through, I thought the extreme nature of it suited him. Being united to the suffering of Christ has never been a theoretical concept for them. Poland has faithfully suffered through all that Europe’s errors had to dish up, and the last century really dished it up. Was the crucifix ugly, hard to look at? Well, what they suffered was, too. When the Holy Father went to seminary, he took his life into his hands, and his archbishop did, too.

I was a bit surprised when Benedict XVI kept that crucifix, even though I understand that his esteem and affection for his predecessor is considerable. I’ve always wondered who on earth could succeed such a strong personality and long pontificate as JP II. I think Benedict XVI was exactly the right choice. Whatever cross or crucifix or crozier he chooses will be fine by me.

When you think about it, the Crucifixion of Christ was creepy and crooked, and ugly. But sometimes we don’t want to think about it. I like the “crooked” Crucifix. It reminds me more of Christ’s suffering. But everybody has their own taste.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Folks, it wasn’t JPII’s cross. It was the cross of Paul VI’s in the “spirit of Vatican II”. I am glad to see a return to something far more traditional.

 

[AJV]

Yes he has thank God. The new cross is the one Pope Puis IX used. Traditionally, Popes have used crosses as staffs. Slowly, Pope Benedict is bringing in some tradition.

The Crooked Creepy Crucifix should make Catholics shudder. It’s weird and Crooked Crucifixes have generally been used by Satanists over the centuries for mocking.

Traditionally, Popes have not used a staff (i.e. regular use as now) unless required to (e.g. at an ordination). That’s a modern innovation of Paul VI

 

[EasterJoy]

Traditionally, Popes have not used a staff (i.e. regular use as now) unless required to (e.g. at an ordination). That’s a modern innovation of Paul VI

And if modern, bad? I hope not. It is hard to criticize our Pope for walking around at globally-covered events so that he is hardly ever photographed without a huge Crucifix in his hand, on the grounds that it is modern.

The world needs to see the Crucifix. The more often, the better! Of course this is the choice of the Pope, but I am all for it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And if modern, bad? I hope not. It is hard to criticize our Pope for walking around at globally-covered events so that he is hardly ever photographed without a huge Crucifix in his hand, on the grounds that it is modern.

The world needs to see the Crucifix. The more often, the better! Of course this is the choice of the Pope, but I am all for it.

Likewise, to criticize the pastoral staff used by the last 3 pontiffs on the same ground (it’s “modern”) would be equally illogical. It depicts Christ Crucified, the essence of Catholicism. You’re quite right, “modern” or “contemporary” does not mean automatically mean bad.

I think what AJV was saying was that the pastoral staff’s use by the pontiff as REGULARLY as it has come to be is a modern or contemporary usage, not that it is a bad one.

 

[Dauphin]

“Monstrosity” and “ugly” are in the eye of the beholder. What you cite is, to me, quite beautiful (and I’m sure others feel the same). Let us thank God that we are a part of a Church that can encompass the art in the papal audience hall and the art in the Sistine Chapel.

I don’t think it’s beautiful at all, but I think it’s a magnificent piece of art. It points in such a profound way to the mystery of the resurrection, to this miraculous act in which death was conquered by the power of the living Christ. It’s a terribly ugly thing, but a great reminder of the salvation wrought for us.