Crucifix or plain cross at Good Friday service?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
When I went to the Good Friday service at my local parish today they just used a big plain cross for veneration. I have heard this is not liturgically right and that it should be a crucifix. Is this in anyway true? Is using a plain cross technically liturgical abuse? If it is, I would imagine it would only be considered a more minor form of liturgical abuse. But, still I want to know.
 
I have seen both done around here. The rubrics repeatedly use the word cross instead of crucifix, but I have heard like you, that a crucifix is appropriate and a bare cross is not.
 
I would also add that the reason for the potential confusion is that some parishes may only have a crucifix and not a bare cross for this purpose. Every parish is supposed to have a crucifix, but I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that every parish would have a removable corpus or bare cross suitable for this one liturgy.
 
We individually genuflected and adored a crucifix. Drives home the point of what our Lord did for us on Good Friday IMO.
 
At a local parish, the cross; at the monastery across town, the crucifix.

I have no idea if there really is an issue.

ICXC NIKA
 
thephilosopher6 said:
When I went to the Good Friday service at my local parish today they just used a big plain cross for veneration. I have heard this is not liturgically right and that it should be a crucifix. Is this in anyway true? Is using a plain cross technically liturgical abuse? If it is, I would imagine it would only be considered a more minor form of liturgical abuse. But, still I want to know.
Click to expand...
My pastor explained this as an age old practice at the beginning of Lent and I take his word for it (too lazy to verify it). He said that years ago the faithful would have very beautiful and and elaborate crucifixes. Other than the tabernacle it was the most decorated part of the church with gold and rubies and emeralds around it. Because of this, during lent, a time of sacrifice, the faithful would cover up this beautiful symbol to have it unveiled again on Easter Sunday.

If you find out he was giving me a line of bull, please let me know. Otherwise, it sounds good to me.
 
I’ve seen both, and I’m also not convinced a bare cross is an “abuse”.

For one, the original Adoration of the Cross used a relic of the True Cross, which, obviously, would not have had a corpus on it.
 
TheDoctor said:
Some are of the opinion a crucifix must be used:
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/quaeritur-good-friday-plain-cross-or-crucifix/

Some are of the opinion that a cross is fine:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur359.htm

As the Church does not seem to have definitively spoken, the choice and the responsibility is on the Pastor and the Bishop. No abuse in any event.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Church has clarified things definitively. The Latin language can only say “cross” (crucis, etc) because there is only one word. English makes a distinction between cross (bare) and crucifix (with the corpus).

The Church did clarify that when the Latin word is used, it always means “a cross with the image of Christ crucified.” For that reason, newer translations into English make that distinction, even though older ones (sometimes) did not.
 
porthos11 said:
I’ve seen both, and I’m also not convinced a bare cross is an “abuse”.

For one, the original Adoration of the Cross used a relic of the True Cross, which, obviously, would not have had a corpus on it.
Click to expand...
It’s not exactly an abuse, but it isn’t licit. There was a lot of confusion about this because of the ICEL translation which simply said “cross” in this context and in many others even though the rubrics actually intend a “crucifix”. It took decades for this to be fixed. By that time, many places had already become accustomed to using a plain cross.

So it’s not an abuse, but a misunderstanding. If the pastor knows he is supposed to be using a crucifix but intentionally decides to use a cross in opposition to the rubrics, then it would be an abuse. Personally, I think the vast majority of times, it’s just misinformation and not intentional.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Yes, the Church has clarified things definitively. The Latin language can only say “cross” (crucis, etc) because there is only one word. English makes a distinction between cross (bare) and crucifix (with the corpus).

The Church did clarify that when the Latin word is used, it always means “a cross with the image of Christ crucified.” For that reason, newer translations into English make that distinction, even though older ones (sometimes) did not.
Click to expand...
Thanks Father.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Yes, the Church has clarified things definitively. The Latin language can only say “cross” (crucis, etc) because there is only one word. English makes a distinction between cross (bare) and crucifix (with the corpus).

The Church did clarify that when the Latin word is used, it always means “a cross with the image of Christ crucified.” For that reason, newer translations into English make that distinction, even though older ones (sometimes) did not.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, thank you Father. I think I may tell my priest this just so he knows. So next year hopefully it will be a crucifix. Thank you. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top