F
FloridaAngler
Guest
Yes. We do that by celebrating the Lord’s Supper, not by placing Christ back on the cross.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
hope
Guest
It sounds to me like you want to Sanitize Jesus’ death.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It seems that there are Catholics who are Good Friday Catholics and others who are Easter Sunday Catholics.
Fact is, you can’t have one without the other, but had Christ not risen from the tomb, this forum nor the Church exist today.
Jim
Fact is, you can’t have one without the other, but had Christ not risen from the tomb, this forum nor the Church exist today.
Jim
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No one ever said that the San Damiano Crucifix is not a crucifix. (Just to be clear, it is one).Christ was indeed risen following his death on the cross, so as long as the risen Christ is depicted as nailed to the cross, with the wounds of the nails and lance, there should be no argument, because the risen and glorified body of Christ does not deny the crucifixtion…800 years of Franciscan thought is not counter to Curch theology.
The topic is something else–a cross with the resurrected Christ.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
This particular issue is indeed “black and white.”Understood…GIRM like Canon Law cannot always be reduced to the black and white text…there are many gray areas that do not constitute willful or intentional or real violation…same even goes for Scriptural interpretation…Saint Augustine once said (paraphrased) that even if one misinterprets scripture, as long as it was with all due charity, and not with malice, no harm is done.
The Holy See made clear that there must be a cross depicting the crucified (very specific) Christ.
It was a grey area before. It is no longer that.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Everyone:
This topic is not about whether people believe in one thing while rejecting the other.
It’s about what is liturgically proper—and that’s defined in the GIRM and based on solid liturgical tradition.
The Church requires that (every place where Mass is celebrated) there will be a crucifix (a cross with an image of Christ crucified) visibly displayed.
The requirement is no-more and no-less that that.
Having a crucifix does not deny the resurrection. It has its own purpose.
Displaying a resurrection cross (though not as a substitute for a crucifix) does not deny the crucifixion. It has its own purpose.
This topic is not about whether people believe in one thing while rejecting the other.
It’s about what is liturgically proper—and that’s defined in the GIRM and based on solid liturgical tradition.
The Church requires that (every place where Mass is celebrated) there will be a crucifix (a cross with an image of Christ crucified) visibly displayed.
The requirement is no-more and no-less that that.
Having a crucifix does not deny the resurrection. It has its own purpose.
Displaying a resurrection cross (though not as a substitute for a crucifix) does not deny the crucifixion. It has its own purpose.
H
Hereiam
Guest
Ah, but because it is an example of iconography, it is written as both Christ crucified and him in his post resurrection glory.No one ever said that the San Damiano Crucifix is not a crucifix. (Just to be clear, it is one).
The topic is something else–a cross with the resurrected Christ.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.