From TIA   Contorted Papal Crucifix


Behind the Contorted Papal Cross

Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.



Scorazelli cross
The Scorzelli papal cross commissioned by Paul VI in 1963
There is a history behind the famous distorted papal cross habitually associated with John Paul II who always carried it. Many Catholics are oblivious that it was not JPII, but Paul VI who commissioned it from Italian sculptor Lello Scorzelli in 1963 and used it for the first time December 8, 1965, at the official closing of the Second Vatican Council.



Servaes Via Crucis cross 1919
Crucifixion - From the Via Crucis by Servaes - 1919

 But the cross actually dates back much further to Belgian artist Albert Servaes (1883-1966). In 1919, Servaes made 14 charcoal drawings on white paper depicting the stations of the Via Crucis for the monastery chapel of Luithagen. The skeleton figures he sketched, especially the emaciated figure of Christ on the Cross in the 12th station – are pervaded by a dark despair. The contorted figures are supposed to express extreme pain, and in one sense the artist was successful: It is certainly painful for the viewer to see them.

 These drawings are a clear example of the new school of "Expressionism" applied to  sacred art. Servaes was one of the artists of the Laethem School living together in community outside of Ghent in Laethem-Saint-Martin, Flanders. The works of the Laethem School and the Expressionalism it adopted were characterized by pessimism, mystical symbols, a distorted stylization and search for “exotic” primitivism in nature.




Popes with Paul VI cross

The distorted  cross became a symbol of the Vatican II papacy
 The Laethem Group, whose best known artist is Gustave de Smet, was animated by a violent reaction against Impressionism, which it felt was too positive and unable to grasp the deep complexities and darkness of the world, which was heading toward the First World War.

 Rebelling against the decorous and delicate forms of French Impressionism, the Expressionists sought to discover a supposed tragic inner reality of which the artist is the interpreter. Albert Servaes was guided spiritually by Carmelite mentor Fr. Jerome, who initiated him in an occult “mysticism of suffering.” It was under this influence that he sketched the Stations of the Cross for the Luithagen chapel soon after WWI.

 Servaes’ style became so macabre in his dark Expressionalism that this Way of Cross (1919) drew upon him the condemnation of the Church. Indeed, the condemnation of the Via Crucis of Servaes came straight from the Holy Office, with the direct approval of Pope Benedict XV. This Decretum stands out because it is not just a condemnation of one specific work of Albert Servaes, but the banning of an entire school of art as being opposed to Faith and Tradition.

 Now, as the reader can see, the Scorzelli papal cross - commissioned by a Pope a half century after that condemnation - is nothing but the revival of that condemned Expressionism. It is, as a commentator who inspired this article noted, “the revenge of Servaes proclaimed to the world in 1965.”

In fact, not only was this condemnation ignored after Vatican II, but the crozier inspired by Servaes became a symbol of the pontificates of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II & Benedict XVII. Francis I was quick to assume this horrific insignia in the first days of his papacy.

 Anyone who looks closely at this gruesome crucifix, with the Christ whose hands look like claws, his legs rudely sprawled open, and his hidden downcast head, can see something devilish in it. It is no wonder the Church solemnly condemned the artist who inspired it. Now, we witness this sad sign of the times: That same cross has been assumed as a symbol of the conciliar Popes in open scorn of the previous condemnation by Benedict XV.

 Since the papacy of John Paul II, this crucifix has been placed on every papal rosary that is given out. Thus, many unknowing Catholics have become accustomed to this monstrosity, believing it to be acceptable just because it has been approved by the conciliar Popes.

 In closing, I would like to point out the inaccuracy of some reports made by conservative and traditionalist commentators which assert that Benedict XVI supposedly retired this “broken cross,” Doing so they imply that he did not approve it.

 As you can see in the collection of pictures below, Pope Ratzinger definitively did not retire the Scorzelli crucifix, but used it often, thus showing his acceptance and approval of it. During his entire pontificate, it was also on all the papal rosaries that he handed out as gifts.

 It is an example of the continuity practiced by Benedict XVI, a continuity that is not in an authentic tradition – which condemned this art style – but rather a continuity in error, occult symbols and promotion of modern art. Here we have a good example of where the openness to the modern world preached by Vatican II is leading us: a devilish art invading the Papacy.



Benedict XVI broken cross
Despite denials of conservatives, Benedict XVI approved the Scorzelli cross and used it often
 
Posted May 8, 2013

This cross is absolutely revolting, and chases souls more away from the
Church than it ever has gained.
Gives the average person who sees such a cross to walk away from
anything spiritual. Because, it is associated with the ugly.
Agree with me or not, it is the way I feel when I view such a cross.

Why on Earth has every pope since Paul VI continued to use this horribly blasphemous depiction of Our Lord?

Look up expressionism on google and click on the images.  If this school of art does not amount to pure evil then I do not know what does.

This also reminds me of an argument that I had with a classmate studying the Irish whistle.  She said that she and her husband had visited the Julliard school to see his cousin perform.  After describing the music for a bit, it became clear that she was trying to describe really ugly, repulsive music, without admitting that she was repulsed by it, because that would have been a concession that she was not cultured enough to appreciate it.  I called it as I saw it and proceeded to talk about how stupid, unnecessary, and repulsive I found modern music to be.  She countered that by saying that some people have trouble with modern music because it's not as "accessable", a veiled insult, saying that I did not have enough knowledge of music to understand the modern genres.  Yeah, I think it is really much more simple than that.  It is not difficult to see what kinds of art are pleasing to the Lord.  He has made us in His likeness.  If it sounds ugly, looks ugly, etc, it is not pleasing to the Lord.  This depiction of the Crucified Christ is nothing short offensive and I find the fact that it continues to be used, to be very suspicious.

So...

You think that "artistic" representation of Our Lord Jesus Christ is ugly and offensive, ok.

Tell me what do You think about this one:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barranquilla_-_Interior_de_la_Catedral.jpg

My personal opinion on the aesthetic of the cross is that it doesn't look like Our Lord simply died on the Cross, it looks like He's defeated. There's no sense of His paradoxical victory; the depiction isn't that He died with dignity. He's just hanging like an ugly piece of meat.
 

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Notwithstanding all the historical background to this wretched cross, my question is, why would anyone want this cross to represent the Catholic Church?  

Who would pick this cross?  

Think of all the funds and resources at the very fingertips of any pope.  An artist could be hired for any price he asked to create an extraordinarily beautiful crucifix.  

So, why this one?

It inspires no one.

It is actually repulsive to look at.  

Could that be the reason?

Do the post Vatican II popes find Catholicism repulsive and are trying to show the world how much disdain they have for it?

I think you've nailed it. This monstrosity was designed to make a mockery not only of the Church but also of Our Lord. It's all part of the program that was set in place long before VII.

This monstrosity was designed to make a mockery of Our Lord.

Why on Earth has every pope since Paul VI continued to use this horribly blasphemous depiction of Our Lord?

Look up expressionism on google and click on the images.  If this school of art does not amount to pure evil then I do not know what does.

This also reminds me of an argument that I had with a classmate studying the Irish whistle.  She said that she and her husband had visited the Julliard school to see his cousin perform.  After describing the music for a bit, it became clear that she was trying to describe really ugly, repulsive music, without admitting that she was repulsed by it, because that would have been a concession that she was not cultured enough to appreciate it.  I called it as I saw it and proceeded to talk about how stupid, unnecessary, and repulsive I found modern music to be.  She countered that by saying that some people have trouble with modern music because it's not as "accessable", a veiled insult, saying that I did not have enough knowledge of music to understand the modern genres.  Yeah, I think it is really much more simple than that.  It is not difficult to see what kinds of art are pleasing to the Lord.  He has made us in His likeness.  If it sounds ugly, looks ugly, etc, it is not pleasing to the Lord.  This depiction of the Crucified Christ is nothing short offensive and I find the fact that it continues to be used, to be very suspicious.

Very suspicious indeed.

Quote from: wallflower

My personal opinion on the aesthetic of the cross is that it doesn't look like Our Lord simply died on the Cross, it looks like He's defeated. There's no sense of His paradoxical victory; the depiction isn't that He died with dignity. He's just hanging like an ugly piece of meat.
 

Exactly my point.  The artist went out of his way to make Our Lord look defeated in his moment of victory.

This abysmal effigy of the Triumph of the Central Event of History is a
frontal assault against Christianity and everything holy.  It attempts to make
of Our Lord's Passion and Death a kind of Guy Fawkes festival where the
victim is defeated and everyone 'celebrates' around his dangling corpse.

It's really a not-so-subtle pandering to the Jєωs, actually, like so much of what
else has been going on, such as the 'exclusion' of +Williamson.

Well, that's not so bad!!  

Now, if anyone can describe what it IS, we'll be getting somewhere.

What IS it??

I was explained what it meant when I was a little child. That is in my home town, that's why I know it.

Basically, it is a monument to mankind. Every bad thing that has happened through out history to men, has been represented as a really strange "crucifix?"