For those Pre-V2

Sorry this is a bit long but just for background-

Last week I went to my FH’s RCIA class with him. Aside from the glaring flaws that will just raise my blood pressure, here’s my question. They had these sheets with images and captions “Jesus as Teacher”, “Jesus as Reformer”, etc etc including “Suffering Jesus” and we (I was sort of thrust into participating) were supposed to talk about which image we identified most with as a child, and which one was most relevant to us now. I ended up picking about 4 because obviously they are connected. But there were a lot of older people in the class, 50s and 60s,and all of them, including the facilitator, said that before V2, they identified with the suffering Jesus, fear, etc and how destructive that was for their faith, and now of course “Jesus as Friend” is their favourite.

Now V2 was 20 years before I was born. But really- was it THAT bad?? They spoke as if the only image they had was Christ crucified and had never heard the Gospels about His healing, teaching, etc. To me the cross is the ultimate expression of His love- so why was that so harmful? :confused:

Before V2 the crucifex was a symbol of redemption, mercy, and love.

Now we have that weird looking ‘risen christ’ statue in place of Crucifex’s in most NO Churches.

A famous quote comes to mind:

"What is the world’s religion now? It has taken the brighter side of the Gospel, - its tidings of comfort, its precepts of love; all darker, deeper views of man’s condition and prospects being comparatively forgotten. This is the religion natural to a civilised age, and well has Satan dressed and completed it into an idol of the Truth … Our manners are courteous; we avoid giving pain or offence …
“Religion is pleasant and easy; benevolence is the chief virtue; intolerance, bigotry, excess of zeal, are the first of sins … it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth … and therefore is neither hot nor cold, but (in Scripture language) lukewarm … I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, that it would be a gain to this country, were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion, than at present it shows itself to be.”

- John Henry Newman

I’ve always loved that quote from Newman! I believe that comes from a sermon he gave while still Anglican. At any rate, it’s especially true today.

How could an image of Christ redeeming the world be destructive to their faith?

How true this is.

**My friend, how can an image of a Risen Christ be wierd? :confused: **

In my parish, we still have an image of the Crucified Christ in any case.

Interesting.

Cardinal Newman uttered those words at the time when the Church was still supposedly very “traditional”, very “reverent”, many decades before the advent of Vatican II.

I have been raised in the Pre-V2 era. I wonder why I never regarded it “destructive” to relate to Jesus as the suffering Christ or why I never lived in fear of him. From the time I was taught about Jesus at the age of six, I related to Him as God whom I could completely trust and One who loves me.

Now that I am older, I have begun to realize that I am in great need of the Fear of the Lord and have begun to frequently pray to the Holy Spirit for that gift. I need it because I so often sin without thought or consequence. And may I tell you, God listens. I don’t know how many times I have been reminded or where I have been stopped from trespassing. So, to have that holy fear of God is not bad at all, it is better for the soul than not to have it.

I have a question: Do RCIA teachers nowadays just make up things or fish for them from the class attendees to propose a current popular theory that it is bad to feel guilty because of wrongdoing (sinning)? I would say No fear, no guilt, :eek: major time in Purgatory, or maybe Heaven denied. Now what could possibly be worse?

I grew up with the Latin Mass in the 1950’s. I remember as a child that I was constantly terrified that I might commit a mortal sin and get thrown into hell. They may have preached the same God that they do now, but He didn’t seem very loving to me. I thought that he was sitting up there waiting for me to slip up. Remember that just eating meat on a Friday was enough to send you to hell in those days. I imagined Jesus sitting up in Heaven with His Notebook just waiting for someone to slip up.

Thank God for the Charismatic Renewal! That was finally what made me see and feel how what a loving Friend we have in Jesus!

They may have gone overboard with teaching that is too lenient, but I doubt if children nowadays suffer like I did!

As an Italian in Jersey in the early 60’s, I had it in spades from all corners with the guilt and fire and brimstone. The nuns were ruthless and terrifying (corporal punishment the order of the day), the priests mostly alcoholic, the mothers and grandmothers all mantilla’d and robed in black carrying their rosary beads. We did Stations of the Cross on our knees on the floors of the Church. We were rarely taught about “Good Jesus”. In fact, back in the day on the east coast, the sisters tended to preach a more Old Testament Catholicism. God as angry and punishing.

OTOH: Mass was an ecstasy. The choir sang with the organist (me!) in Latin. The little girls sat quietly and reverantly, hands folded toward heaven praying they might be made little saints. The priests gave homilies that may have frightened but were never ambiguous, confusing, or unorthodox. Big families went to Church together, and dressed for the occassion. The priests and altar boys alone distributed Communion and we still all managed to get out of Church in an hour (how was that possible?). Families went out to breakfast or ice cream as a treat together in their Sunday best. It was a wonderful time and I miss it terribly.

Oh, and May Processions. The best part of the school year for little girls!

To each his own I suppose, and too hard is equally as bad as too soft, but overall, don’t you think it better to be on the safe side, than to presume ob Gods mercy, which as I remember is a no no anyway?

The Church always gives images of Christ Crucified central place, because the Crucifixion was when Jesus was lifted up and revealed in His true nature to the World.

Whilst other images of Jesus are legitimate, by suggesting that all are somehow equivalent, the Catechist is not being very sensitive to the teaching and imagery the Church uses. However if the intention was simply to open a discussion about how people see Jesus, it wouldn’t be wrong to use various images of Jesus as a startign point.

And after V2 some of us learned this as well, but you are right - for the most part the late '60’s and early '70’s RE was mostly warm fuzzies.

I do disagree wtih this, although I have been in NO Churches with said “risen Christ” statues the majority still have a crucifix in them, above the altar where it belongs.

To answer the question of the OP, I wonder why the “older” RCIA people identified the way they did - if they are indeed converts an argument can be made that this was their original faith tradition (Protestantism) that has them thinking this way, not their view of the Catholic Church!

Yes, I can remember being at Mass and asking my mom what Fr. was yelling about - his homily was apparently one of Fire and Brimstone but I was too young to understand it, just that he seemed so angry and scarey. But that was just one Priest, I knew others who weren’t scarey who said Mass and gave homilies that were calm :smiley: . Today, I am blessed with some very good Homilists for Priests, they are not afraid to talk fire and brimstone with the redemption that Jesus Christ has given us and the wonderful Sacrament of Reconciliation (which reminds me, please pray for our 12 students who will be making their first Reconciliations tomorrow - the first of many as this is very encouraged at my Parish). These Priests have no qualms about telling it like it is, the sin of contraception, the sin of abortion, pre-marital, extra-marital sex and so on.

I could ask my mom who is 70 now and has weathered Vat. 2 reforms well. I can tell you that as a 49 yo, my knowledge of Catholicism is different and probably less child like than my Grandmothers was (I had more theological knowledge before she passed away some 10-15 years ago, yet she had Faith and trust in God which in the end is what is most important).

Brenda V.

It still is.

Now we have that weird looking ‘risen christ’ statue in place of Crucifex’s in most NO Churches.

No we don’t.

Per the OP:

I go to a TLM and I here Gospel readings about Jesus healing, teaching, etc. all the time. The people in the class either weren’t paying attention, they forgot, or they’re lying.

These lines are from the sermon The Religion of the Day, written by the Anglican Newman in 1834, eleven years before becoming a Catholic. Edited out in the excerpt above was also “no loyalty to the Holy Apostolic Church…”. I’m guessing Newman in this sermon was mostly targeting the Church of England which, years later, he finally determined was not Apostolic and he converted to Catholicism, perhaps also seeing in her a church “more fierce in its religion.”

The erroneous “Spirit of Vatican II” that we all decry actually predates Vatican II - it’s basically the heresy of modernism that’s been attcking the church ever since the time of the so-called “Elightenment”.

Modernists (and perhaps well meaning folks unknowingly influenced by Modernism) used ambiguities in the essays of Vatican II to promote a big break with tradition. Some legitamtely thinking they were doing the right thing - others I assume explicitly trying to change the church into something other than what it truly is.

BTW - Newman was probably writing in Protestant England at the time no?

Peace,

DustinsDad

Are you sure about this? I’ve visited a number of Catholic churches in our archdiocese, and none of them have a risen Christ in place of the crucifix. Even the very liberal student parish at my university had a crucifix.

Well im glad.

Thats not the way it is in my diocese though…:frowning:

Ive been to…lemme think…11 Churches in this diocese.

Id say 5 have the Risen Christ instead of a crucifex.

While that is not a WRETCHED number…I think just having 1 parish that uses the Risen Christ instead of a cross is already one too many.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.