That Church grew, established its tenets, liturgy and customs over the hundreds of years. The Douay Bible was written along the year 300. Great progress was made in respect to universality.
There were, indeed, bumps in the road but the Roman Catholic Church moved along from century to century in its usual dignified manner. Then Vatican II was convened and voila a new religion was born that threw out everything that mattered. Yes there still remained confession, but it was called reconciliation.
Statues and pictures were removed and in many 'churches' the stations of the cross were removed. Votive candles? Gone or hard to find. The Tabernacle was moved off to a corner probably to make room for the throngs of communion dispensers that crowded around . Girl altar boys. In many cases new structures were built, consecrated and called churches even though they looked like airplane hangars.
No crucifix behind the altar. There isn't even an altar. In some cases there is a cross with a risen Jesus superimposed.
The priests run around in lay clothes. No collar and you don't call them Father Jones, rather you call them Father Barry or just plain Barry.
I could go on and on, but the ignorance is on display each Sunday in the majority of what passes for catholic churches today.
In some cases there is a cross with a risen Jesus superimposed.
I agree with you on the sadness of the lack of an altar. I also think that crucifixes are important. However, the cross with the risen Jesus predates the crucifix. The risen Christ, known as the Christus Rex, was the commonplace cross in churches when the cross finally replaced the icthus. Then, there was a widely disseminated heresy that Christ never actually died. Faithful Christians everywhere began to replace the Christus Rex with the Corpus Christi, as an acknowledgement that Christ actually did die. Then, the empty cross arose in practice as a response to the heresy that Christ was not raised from the dead.
I prefer the crucifix in terms of what it teaches, but all three styles of crosses are valid in worship. It’s a matter of emphasis, of course—and since Paul says “We preach Christ and Him crucified,” I think that the crucifix is especially important. But each variation of the cross is a response to heresy, rather than a watering down of the theology.
Granted, the Christus Rex and empty cross fit in more easily with a Theology of Glory rather than a Theology of the Cross, but considering recent statements by Episcopalian priests (one claimed that Christ’s resurrection was not necessary), I think that the Christus Rex is a needed reminder.
By the way, I love your concern for the catholic (universal) church. We are indeed headed for a “pop” Christianity that has nothing to do with Christ. Thank you for being aware of this and fighting against it.
I could go on and on, but the ignorance is on display each Sunday in the majority of what passes for catholic churches today.When I became Catholic (in 1984), I was already a daily Mass Catholic (as I would join my boyfriend-now-husband). And for many years following my conversion, I had great difficulty going to Sunday Mass, but I did.
Not all Catholic Churches fall into that category you describe. I go to a very traditional Catholic Church and although it does the Novus Ordo Mass it is very reverent. The Church I attend has the stations of the cross on each side of the inside of the church. There is a huge crucifix behind the altar. There are statutes all over the church, even in the dining room. People generally remain quiet after entering church. We have three deacons and one is always present to assist the priest. I don’t agree with altar girls, but it’s here, so not much you can do about it. I also don’t agree with lay people passing out Holy Communion, but I didn’t make the rules.
Was not the NO really the Church going back to the early days of the Church, during its first 300 years as a Church?