Has Benedict XVI disposed of the CCC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TNT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like to Equate Benedicts Staff with the Image Of the Risen Christ Holding his Cross, Similar to That of the Statue above St Peters Basilica. Both Staffs from Both Popes are beautiful, each in it’s own way. John Pauls Was realistic of the actual crucifixion, while Benedicts is more Symbolic.
 
Re Crucifix:

I believe the image is powerful. The body of Christ is sagging,
arms extended, knees bent, the horizontal crosspiece is bent by the weight. It seems to represent Christ just after He said, “It is finished,” “Father, into your hands, I commend my spirit.”

One may not care for the artistic style of the crucifix.
But we should always distinguish our personal taste in artistic style from the message being conveyed.

Unfortunately, some folks think that the good religious art (painting, sculpture, music etc.) is limited to traditional forms.
(Michaelangelo, Bernini, Gregorian chant, etc.)
While these are justly considered excellent expressions of faith,
I don’t think all more contemporary expressions thereof are necessarily bad. Certainly, some of the more abstract are less than enticing.

Some contemporary Catholic church music (much criticized, alas) for me is quite powerful, and especially when the lyrics are based on Scripture. “Shepherd Me O God” based on 23d Psalm, “Behold the Wood of the Cross”, and “Holy is Your Name” based on Magnificat, are some excellent contemporary songs. If a hymn is liturgically, scripturally, and doctrinally appropriate, that would be the first consideration. If it also moves one’s heart to appreciate some aspect of faith better one might otherwise, that’s good too. I can appreciate a piece of scripture a little better through good music sometimes than I might by just reading the scripture alone.

Of course, I dont know where the borderline is between properly stimulating emotions thru music and manipulating them, or just making folks superficially “feel good” (rah, rah, sis, boom, bah, Yay God!) is.

Anyone want to enlighten me?

Robster7
 
A good example of bad art for Church art would be Bauhaus, minimalism, internationalism, the movements of the early to mid 20th century.
 
TMGallyon85 said:
A good example of bad art for Church art would be Bauhaus, minimalism, internationalism, the movements of the early to mid 20th century.
Click to expand...
I don’t think ANY of those forms would necessarily be “bad” for the Church. However when you strip away all the foof, design becomes a great deal more difficult and it becomes far easier to miss the mark – which seems to often be the case…
 
I always thought that the twisted cross represented bent religious values, and is used in occults, just as the inverted cross is (or many other inverted symbols). At any rate I am glad to see that Pope Benedict XVI is bring back the crucifix that Pope Pius IX used.
 
Gara3987 said:
**I always thought that the twisted cross represented bent religious values, and is used in occults, **just as the inverted cross is (or many other inverted symbols). At any rate I am glad to see that Pope Benedict XVI is bring back the crucifix that Pope Pius IX used.
Click to expand...
Who taught you that?
 
Gara3987 said:
I always thought that the twisted cross represented bent religious values, and is used in occults, just as the inverted cross is (or many other inverted symbols). At any rate I am glad to see that Pope Benedict XVI is bring back the crucifix that Pope Pius IX used.
Click to expand...
I’ve looked at Google, and most of the sites who claim that the bent crucifix means bent religious values are mostly Anti-Catholics who uses this as another ‘evidence’ that the Catholic Church is a demonic institution (the rest are made up of Ultra-Traditionalists who uses this as another ‘evidence’ that the Post-Vatican II Church is a demonic institution).

Just because Satanists use a particular symbol (say one that originally originated in Christianity) one should not suddenly jump in and say ‘Aha! A satanic symbol!’.

Those whole ‘inverted crosses’ and pentagrams thingie being the properties of the devil are mostly the product of Hollywood and modern Occultists or Satanists.

Here is a thread from two years ago about the Inverted Cross:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87556&highlight=patrick456+St.+Peter+Cross

I think that when one looks at a crucifix, one should never pay too much attention if it is historically accurate, what shape the cross is, if Jesus is bloodied or not or if the thorns (or nails) are in a proper shape or not; rather what is more important is that one should only see a crucifix, a visual reminder of what the Lord did on that day. We should not get caught up too much on the little details, but look at the bigger picture.
 
patrick457 said:
I’ve looked at Google, and most of the sites who claim that the bent crucifix means bent religious values are mostly Anti-Catholics who uses this as another ‘evidence’ that the Catholic Church is a demonic institution (the rest are made up of Ultra-Traditionalists who uses this as another ‘evidence’ that the Post-Vatican II Church is a demonic institution).

Just because Satanists use a particular symbol (say one that originally originated in Christianity) one should not suddenly jump in and say ‘Aha! A satanic symbol! You people must be worshipping the devil!’.

Those whole ‘inverted crosses’ and pentagrams thingie being the properties of the devil are mostly the product of Hollywood and modern Occultists or Satanists.

Here is a thread from two years ago about the Inverted Cross:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87556&highlight=patrick456+St.+Peter+Cross

I think that when one looks at a crucifix, one should never pay too much attention if it is historically accurate, what shape the cross is, if Jesus is bloodied or not or if the thorns (or nails) are in a proper shape or not; rather what is more important is that one should only see a crucifix, a visual reminder of what the Lord did on that day. We should not get caught up too much on the little details, but look at the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
 
Gara3987 said:
I always thought that the twisted cross represented bent religious values, and is used in occults, just as the inverted cross is (or many other inverted symbols). At any rate I am glad to see that Pope Benedict XVI is bring back the crucifix that Pope Pius IX used.
Click to expand...
Sheesh.HH BXVI has not carried a Crucifix since Palm Sunday. He is now carrying a CROSS.

And who cares a rat’s rear what satanists do ? Are we supposed to discard everything they mock ?

Pray for them.
 
saint_rafael said:
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.
Click to expand...
Rafael,

Can you provide proof for the “Satanist” claim? Please, don’t take offense. I’ve tried to substantiate this claim myself with no luck. I will explain more if need be. Private email…
 
patrick457 said:
I’ve looked at Google, and most of the sites who claim that the bent crucifix means bent religious values are mostly Anti-Catholics who uses this as another ‘evidence’ that the Catholic Church is a demonic institution (the rest are made up of Ultra-Traditionalists who uses this as another ‘evidence’ that the Post-Vatican II Church is a demonic institution).

Just because Satanists use a particular symbol (say one that originally originated in Christianity) one should not suddenly jump in and say ‘Aha! A satanic symbol!’.

Those whole ‘inverted crosses’ and pentagrams thingie being the properties of the devil are mostly the product of Hollywood and modern Occultists or Satanists.

Here is a thread from two years ago about the Inverted Cross:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87556&highlight=patrick456+St.+Peter+Cross

I think that when one looks at a crucifix, one should never pay too much attention if it is historically accurate, what shape the cross is, if Jesus is bloodied or not or if the thorns (or nails) are in a proper shape or not; rather what is more important is that one should only see a crucifix, a visual reminder of what the Lord did on that day. We should not get caught up too much on the little details, but look at the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t this just make too much sense and take the hot air out of all our arguing? Kill joy! 😛
 
TNT said:
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…
Click to expand...
**That is a rather blasphemus way to refer to the Crucifix.

For your information, John Paul II’s Crucifix/Staff is called the Val Gardena Papal Cross. The structure of the Cross dates back to the 17th century in the Val Gardena area of northern Italy where woodcarvers have passed down their craft for generations. When Paul VI became pope, he accepted as a gift a Val Gardena Cross. John Paul II also received one as a gift and decided to carry his Papal Crucifix because it was for him a sign of service in the footsteps of Jesus-the Shepherd who guides and leads, who serves, and gives his life as a ransom for many.**
 
peary said:
That is a rather blasphemus way to refer to the Crucifix.

For your information, John Paul II’s Crucifix/Staff is called the Val Gardena Papal Cross. The structure of the Cross dates back to the 17th century in the Val Gardena area of northern Italy where woodcarvers have passed down their craft for generations. When Paul VI became pope, he accepted as a gift a Val Gardena Cross. John Paul II also received one as a gift and decided to carry his Papal Crucifix because it was for him a sign of service in the footsteps of Jesus-the Shepherd who guides and leads, who serves, and gives his life as a ransom for many.
Click to expand...
good information, thank you.
 
peary said:
**That is a rather blasphemus way to refer to the Crucifix.

For your information, John Paul II’s Crucifix/Staff is called the Val Gardena Papal Cross. The structure of the Cross dates back to the 17th century in the Val Gardena area of northern Italy where woodcarvers have passed down their craft for generations. When Paul VI became pope, he accepted as a gift a Val Gardena Cross. John Paul II also received one as a gift and decided to carry his Papal Crucifix because it was for him a sign of service in the footsteps of Jesus-the Shepherd who guides and leads, who serves, and gives his life as a ransom for many.**
Click to expand...
That answers that, from my point of view…but then, I was one of the ones who’ve always liked it! 😉
 
Gara3987 said:
Basically from research. An example the inverted cross can represent the Crucifixion of Saint Peter, yet it is used by satanist as a symbol to mock our Lord Christ.
Click to expand...
I haven’t done any serious study of this, but I always thought there was a distinction between an inverted cross (Peter) and an inverted crucifix (satanic).
 
cecilia97 said:
I haven’t done any serious study of this, but I always thought there was a distinction between an inverted cross (Peter) and an inverted crucifix (satanic).
Click to expand...
The Val Gardena Crucifix is NOT an inverted cross.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top