Crucifix above the altar, yes or no?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Casilda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Father,
Is it strictly required that it be a permanent, fixed crucifix, or would the requirements technically be met if a smaller crucifix were placed on the altar before Mass is celebrated?
 
I agree the traditional high altars have a majesty all their own. But remember most Catholics today are much less used to seeing crucifixes in their classrooms, homes, and other places. There might be a reason for emphasizing something in 2017, more so than we needed to emphasize it decades ago.
 
Last edited:
commenter, very good point. Let me be clear, I am not saying I disapprove of the large crucifixes that are becoming common above/behind the altar. I actually like and think they are quite appropriate. Your post gives me further reason to think so. I was just pointing out to everyone that they are more a (good) response to the architectural changes post Vatican II than a traditional feature in and of themselves.
 
tafan2 said:
commenter, very good point. Let me be clear, I am not saying I disapprove of the large crucifixes that are becoming common above/behind the altar. I actually like and think they are quite appropriate. Your post gives me further reason to think so. I was just pointing out to everyone that they are more a (good) response to the architectural changes
Click to expand...
and catechetical and pastoral omissions
“tafan2 said:
post Vatican II than a traditional feature in and of themselves.
Click to expand...
I inserted the bold part.
 
twf said:
Father,
Is it strictly required that it be a permanent, fixed crucifix, or would the requirements technically be met if a smaller crucifix were placed on the altar before Mass is celebrated?
Click to expand...
It’s clear from the GIRM that a processional crucifix meets the requirement, so that means that it need not be a permanent or immovable fixture.

All that the Church really requires is some crucifix; some cross with the crucified Christ displayed.
 
Father David, when we were meeting with our Diocesan committee on church design, a couple of the members said that only one crucifix was permitted by the altar, and as such the procession crucifix should be all there was and permanent one on the wall behind the altar should not be allowed. The committee as a whole did not enforce this, but for a time we were worried they would. Is what was stated correct?
 
tafan2 said:
Father David, when we were meeting with our Diocesan committee on church design, a couple of the members said that only one crucifix was permitted by the altar, and as such the procession crucifix should be all there was and permanent one on the wall behind the altar should not be allowed. The committee as a whole did not enforce this, but for a time we were worried they would. Is what was stated correct?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as “only one crucifix is permitted” Of course not. Catholic Churches are full of different crucifixes.

At the same time though, there is a principle that says that images should not be redundant or conflict with each other. So there should not be 2 processional crosses, or 2 crosses near the altar. If there is a large one one the wall, then it makes no sense to have another smaller one (still large) in front of it.

This comes down to a matter of good taste.

If there is a large one on the wall, then the better option is to have the processional cross set off to the side when it’s not being used. But that would only apply if the two somehow clash with each other or appear redundant.

The preference for the processional cross rather than one on the wall is artificial and not consistent with Catholic practice. The processional cross may be placed near the altar, but there is no requirement that it be done this way.
 
Thanks Fr, I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps all that was being stressed by the committee, was a idea that they should not be redundant or in conflict. Its been a few years, and perhaps I forget the details.
 
tafan2 said:
Thanks Fr, I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps all that was being stressed by the committee, was a idea that they should not be redundant or in conflict. Its been a few years, and perhaps I forget the details.
Click to expand...
There is a certain trend that sometimes borders on iconoclasm.

It’s a false interpretation of one of the lines in Vatican II.

Vatican II spoke about noble simplicity and removing redundant images. That line has been stretched beyond reason in many places. What it was really about was eliminating what had become cluttered and confusing church art. Examples might be a church with 8 Infants of Prague or 4 statues of the Sacred Heart all near each other. The recommendation was for no duplication. What it really meant was “pick one Infant” or “pick one Sacred Heart” and not “eliminate all Church art and whitewash all the walls.”

We’re always going to have multiple crosses in churches. They appear everywhere. I could not even count the number of different crosses in my own church if I tried (pew ends, the top of every window, stained glass, there’s probably a few hundred embroidered on the altar frontal).
 
At the same time though, there is a principle that says that images should not be redundant or conflict with each other. So there should not be 2 processional crosses, or 2 crosses near the altar. If there is a large one one the wall, then it makes no sense to have another smaller one (still large) in front of it.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by images being redundant?

Many churches, especially older and larger ones, will have plenty of images depicting more or less the same theme, but by different artists and in different location. You may have a crucifiction scene on one of the stained glass windows, another on the altar, yet another on the way of the cross, maybe another in some minuscule carving in one of the pillars of the choir loft. In my church you can easily find a dozen depictions of the Blessed Virgin.
 
"Cirdan_XII

What do you mean by images being redundant?"

I might be wrong but I think Father is simply saying the GIRM requirement during Mass is a crucifix near the altar so having two crucifixes near the altar would be redundant. I don’t think he is saying there cannot be lots of images or crosses in the Church. At least that is how I read his comment.
 
15 12 17
Casilda -

In worship we use signs, symbols, rituals.
Signs instructs a person to follow what is displayed, and that is it. Eg. EXIT, STOP, U TURN, etc,
Symbols speak by itself a lot of images already stored up in the mind of the beholder. eg: Scapular, picture of a saint, as statue of a saint, crucifix, a pen engraved with a verse from Bible written on it., a flag, a coin, etc.
Rituals are symbols in action. eg. saluting the president, winking at a girl, saying goodbye at with waving hands, absolution at a confessional. etc.

Now CRUCIFIX is a symbol. As we keep gazing at it, or medititating.
The most glorified form of Jesus while present on this blessed earth is at Crucifixion. The sum total of his mission can be seen reflected at the crucifix.
Jesus said, on the Cross, “It is accomplished.”

Yes the powerful message can be meditated upon by gazing at the crucifix.
I should say, no other better image need be presented at the altar.

The symbol speaks volumes as we keep gazing at it.

0104 -
The risen christ is also a powerful symbol. But mixiing up crucifix and the risen christ is dangerous. The ordinary man get confused.

Tis_Bearself
The manger scene by itself is so powerful, the incarnation depicted.
The boy Jesus in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, is wonderful, symbol for the temple, the church. Then the scene at wedding at Cana. The Last supper, The Transfiguration,

All these SYMBOLS if depticed AT THE ALTAR gives a definite image to the altar. Surely the parishoners shall be impacted by it. Considering the need of the to which image would convey the message which is appropriate for the day, shall be presented on the altar.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
What do you mean by images being redundant?
Click to expand...
I gave a few examples.

I remember some churches from my youth that had 8 or 9 (maybe more) images of the Infant of Prague all in one place. Another example would be to have a large (48") statue of the Sacred Heart in front of a painting of the Sacred Heart and then at the base have several more smaller ones (12-24") all in the same place.

That’s what I mean by redundant.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
Many churches, especially older and larger ones, will have plenty of images depicting more or less the same theme, but by different artists and in different location. You may have a crucifiction scene on one of the stained glass windows, another on the altar, yet another on the way of the cross, maybe another in some minuscule carving in one of the pillars of the choir loft. In my church you can easily find a dozen depictions of the Blessed Virgin.
Click to expand...
And is that not more-or-less the same thing I wrote here
We’re always going to have multiple crosses in churches. They appear everywhere. I could not even count the number of different crosses in my own church if I tried (pew ends, the top of every window, stained glass, there’s probably a few hundred embroidered on the altar frontal).
Click to expand...
 
Your church is very pleasing to the eye. Thank you for sharing the picture of your church
 
I just now realized you can’t see that picture… here’s one(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
My parish has a large crucifix behind the altar, above the tabernacle. During Easter the crucifix is switched out for the Risen Jesus but otherwise all year it remains a crucifix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top