Changing the Crucifix

  • Thread starter Thread starter banjo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
misericordie:
The image of the protestant “risen Christ” is prohibitted for liturgical use in any CATHOLIC Parish, and is against current LITURGICAL LAWS. Apart from usually being ugly versions. My pastor destroyed the image of the risen Christ that was hanging behind the altar on the wall as soon as he was named Pastor, this way, no one can hang it back up when he no longer is in the future, pastor.
Click to expand...
I love the crucifix with our crucified Lord on it in Church and think it is most applicable and necessary for the Mass, than the resurrected crucifix, but…don’t we have to be careful to not show dishonor to the resurrected Lord also??? Don’t the two go hand in hand…His death AND resurrection. Yes, resurrection isn’t just a Protestant thing…He rose from the dead for all of us, just like he died for all of us. It’s sort of like the Bible. You can’t separate the Bible from the Church, nor the Church from the Bible. The Lord’s Passion is fulfilled in His Resurrection, or the Passion was for nothing. To destroy the cross with the resurrected Lord seems disrespectful to me. I think we need the reminder of His resurrection just as much as we need the reminder of His Passion. After all, it is a mystery of the Holy Rosary!

There are many other places than in the Church building the resurrected Lord could be displayed vs. destroying it. How about a school cafeteria or hallway or something?
 
“Behold the Lamb of God”

I can think of no better representation of the price paid for our salvation than the crucifix. Why so many Catholics seem to want to forget this in favor of the triumphant Christ risen is perhaps not so hard to understand in light of a society that wants to avoid guilt at all costs…

The Cross some of you seem to be desribing is called a *crux gemmata * I believe. If a crucifix is processed to the altar there may be some interpretive license within the GIRM for allowing the crux gemmata as well. However, even if this is true, I still cannot fathom why anyone would want to have anything less than the crucifix displayed on the wall behind the altar.
 
Yes, it seems that your parish is a bit behind the times. This was all the rage in the 1980’s, but that fad seems to be passing.

Seems like you need to encourage your parish to get “up to date” and read the latests news about liturgy. An imiage of the crucified Christ is what people are doing these days.
40.png
banjo:
Recently, the large crucifix in our church has been altered. The usual image of the crucified Christ has been replaced. Now we have an image of the risen Christ on the cross. I’m wondering if anyone else has been seeing anything similar.
Click to expand...
 
In Austin unfortunately most parishes have the risen Christ on the Sanctuary and worse mine has a descending Christ (at least that is what it looks like) and a risen Christ that is used for the procession and exit. The pastor will not listen to those who want it changed, but what can you expect from a priest who won’t hear confessions. I am tired of it all and I thank God everyday that He arranged my job to send me to another city soon where they have Crucifix
 
A Catholic Dictionary published in New York in 1941, says that “the use of the crucifix was not general before the 6th Century, and the representation of Our Lord suffering or dead is even more recent; it began about the 13th Century and only became general with the Spanish influence of the counter-Reformation. The traditional Catholic crucifix represented Our Lord crowned, robed, alive, not hanging on but reigning from the cross.” Nihil obstat, Rev. Arthur J. Scanlan, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur, Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York.
 
A crucifix is to have the crucified Christ on it. Anything else is not a crucifix.

A cross with the risen Christ is not a crucifix.
 
This site bears out that in the early Church there was no crucifix, even no cross until Constantine but Crucifixes were found that are much older than the 13th century.

geocities.com/cbnc17109/brief_history_of_cross.htm

Early and throughout the third century, various Church fathers including Clement of Alexandria and St. Augustine reference the use of crosses as an already established custom. Early Christians used the cross to distinguish themselves from the dominant pagan culture with accounts of ancient Christians being called “cross-worshippers”. What we would recognize as crucifixes begin to appear in the late sixth century

The Catholic Encylopedia says this,
"The first mentions of crucifixes are in the sixth century. A traveller in the reign of Justinian notices one he saw in a church at Gaza in the West, Venantius Fortunatus saw a palla embroidered with a picture of the Crucifixion at Tours, and Gregory of Tours refers to a crucifix at Narbonne. For a long time Christ on the cross was always represented alive. The oldest crucifixes known are those on the wooden doors of St. Sabina at Rome and an ivory carving in the British Museum. Both are of the fifth century. A Syriac manuscript of the sixth century contains a mimature representing the scene of the crucifixion. There are other such representations down to the seventh century, after which it becomes the usual custom to add the figure of our Lord to crosses; the crucifix is in possession everywhere. "
Click to expand...
 
40.png
buffalo:
A crucifix is to have the crucified Christ on it. Anything else is not a crucifix.

A cross with the risen Christ is not a crucifix.
Click to expand...
While I much prefer the suffering Savior on the crucifix, I believe if you refer to the articles cited in both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the the Catholic Dictionary, you will find out that your statement is not correct.
 
Read them again Headman. The article says that in the early Churches there were only crosses without a corpus but to be a Crucifix it has to have a corpus or other representation of the crucifixion … ( it means crucified, not empty)
 
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.
 
Yes, you are correct that people do have strong feelings on the subject however (there is always a however or a but, isn’t there ?) the church has said that there must be a Crucifix and the Living Christ figure (or the one you mention) would not satisfy that ruling.

I have seen pictures of the one you refer to and that is a lovely scene and one appropriate to where it is placed - it would not serve to replace the Crucifix behind the altar.
 
I was at a church once when I was on vacation and I was talking the priest who had recently been assigned to that parish. I asked him about the resurected figure of Christ over the altar. His words “My favorite time of the year is Easter when I can cover up that hideous thing.”
When he first arrived he wanted to replace it but the parishoners were so upset that he made a comprimise and instead of replacing it he added a real crucifix below it.
 
40.png
Poisson:
I was at a church once when I was on vacation and I was talking the priest who had recently been assigned to that parish. I asked him about the resurected figure of Christ over the altar. His words “My favorite time of the year is Easter when I can cover up that hideous thing.”
When he first arrived he wanted to replace it but the parishoners were so upset that he made a comprimise and instead of replacing it he added a real crucifix below it.
Click to expand...
It is true that in a Catholic Church, to have a figure of the resurected Christ is a hideous thing. But, it seems many of the priests who still want to do there own thing, or just be defient to official Church teachings, will continue to have that, as well as glass chalices, clay chalices, liturgical dancers(usually nuns over 60 in leotards, or young women in transparent dresses: how sad). That is why I would literally RUN OUT of a parish which I see is not in comformity with the Holy See.
 
40.png
headman13:
While I much prefer the suffering Savior on the crucifix, I believe if you refer to the articles cited in both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the the Catholic Dictionary, you will find out that your statement is not correct.
Click to expand...
Really? Then what IS a crucifix???
 
Maybe it’s just my part of the country, but I’m hard pressed to remember any parish that didn’t display both the crucified and the risen Christ. For some who had only the risen Christ, they went to having the altar server carry the crucifix to the altar during the procession and remove it during the recessional.

When I served on my parish pastoral council, we actually undertook to count the number of figures of Christ on the altar. There were 36. Yes, the beautiful 19th century German hand carved altar was over 20’ tall and 25’ wide. It included Christ from infancy through his crucifixion and on to his resurrection and ascension. There were also statues of Christ on either side of the main altar, but none overhead.

So for a parish to display both, they’re not only in accord with the precepts, but they’re going the extra mile to bring the balance that some of us appreciate.
 
40.png
misericordie:
Really? Then what IS a crucifix???
Click to expand...
According to the sources mentioned it is a cross with a representation of Our Lord on it, suffering or in exaltation. I don’t make these things up. The Cardinal Archibishop of New York gave his “Imprimatur” to the Catholic Dictionary in 1941, and it says the original form of the crucifix represented Our Lord robed and crowned, “not hanging on the Cross, but reigning from it.”
 
loyola rambler:
Maybe it’s just my part of the country, but I’m hard pressed to remember any parish that didn’t display both the crucified and the risen Christ. For some who had only the risen Christ, they went to having the altar server carry the crucifix to the altar during the procession and remove it during the recessional.
Click to expand...
My old parish always had a permanent Crucifix over the old altar. The risen Christ was a statue prominently displayed during Easter.
That risen Christ statue made a huge impact on me every year when it was displayed.
 
I will quote from Funk and Wagnalls dictionary -crucifix - 1. A cross bearing the effigy of Christ crucified.
Code: 
                               *Imprimatur*                      is Latin for "let it be printed." When a Roman Catholic                      bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures                      the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith                      or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after                      a thorough review process.
This does not necessarily mean it is endorsed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top