Changing the Crucifix

[deogratias]

Thanks Buffalo - I was about to address that myself.

Headman - no one is saying you “made this up”, but there are other sources, earlier sources than the one you quote, that say otherwise giving both a different definition and an earlier appearance of crucifixes. One of them is the Catholic Encylopedia as I quoted.

The very earliest figures of crosses with figures, not called crucifixes but crux gemmata which were heavily jeweled and carried the image of imperial splendor. Eventually the Church moved away from this and focused attention on Christ’s sacrifice rather than the glory of the image. By the year **692 **the Council of Constantinople ordered the use of the Crucifix in place of ornamental crosses (a cross with the corpus or figure of Christ attached to it).

Just as today, some were disobedient and still favored the crucifixes showing Christ alive, wearing imperial robes, and standing before the cross. But by about the year 1000 the present crucifix became the accepted norm.

The real issue is that Christ Crucified makes people think more about his suffering and his love and sacrifice for us. Did you see the movie “The Passion” - that’s what it was about.

Did you ever notice there are two types of corpus appearing on crucifixes - the agonized and the tranquil - All mine seem to be the tranquil but in my mind’s eye now, I will always see the agonized with the wounds and the blood that flowed for me and my sins.

 

[scaxter]

loyola rambler:

I can tell that people have a lot of strong feelings one way or another. Personally, I’ve always noticed both the risen Christ and the crucified Christ on the altar at most parishes where I’ve ever celebrated. But the most potent of all was a statue to the side of the altar at St. Vincent de Paul in Chicago where the angels are holding the body of the dead Christ. Though probably 15’ tall, it really overshadows the rest of the debate because that’s when it hits home that was mortal and yet came back to secure our immortality.

When we start taking a preference for Christ in one position or another, I fear we run the risk of forgetting the totality of His acts and keeping it all in perspective.

Very well put. As I said before you can’t separate the Passion from the Resurrection. To destroy a cross of the resurrected Lord as someone said their new pastor did seems very dishonorable and disrespectful to me. I didn’t think we could destroy anything that was a sacramental or dishonor anything pertaining to God, his Mother, the saints, etc. There is a place for the resurrected Lord also. The Mass, being a sacrifice must have a crucified Lord on the cross visible to the priest saying the Mass. But that doesn’t mean we should start destroying the resurrected Lord crosses. That really bothers me that someone would do that.