Crucifix or Risen Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracelovefaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracelovefaith

Guest
My church has the risen Christ hanging on the wall behind the alter with the Crucifix off to the right side hanging where a statue may be. Just wanted to find out what others thought about it. I prefer the crucifix in the center wall behind the alter, after all it is Mass. When and why did this change. I don’t ever recall seeing this when I was in CCD about 20 years ago. Thanks.
 
I’m not an apologist, but I’m almost certain that the crucifix is to be front stage center so to
speak. The empty cross, the risen Christ, is the protestant presentation. In fact, the two
views indicate in nushell, the two views of Christ. The crucifixion indicates the need for
catholics to suffer for Christ. The empty cross indicates the “once saved, always saved”’
doctrine. In my life I’ve attended any number of protestant and non-denominational churchs. I thank God I’m back in the catholic church.
 
reindeer said:
I’m not an apologist, but I’m almost certain that the crucifix is to be front stage center so to
speak. ***The empty cross, the risen Christ, is the protestant presentation. In fact, the two
views indicate in nushell, the two views of Christ. The crucifixion indicates the need for
catholics to suffer for Christ. The empty cross indicates the “once saved, always saved”’
doctrine. ***In my life I’ve attended any number of protestant and non-denominational churchs. I thank God I’m back in the catholic church.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if I completly understand or even agree with this statement.
Could you please provide some supporting information for this idea,
preferably from Church documentation.
 
There is supposed to be a crucifix somewhere in the sanctuary. I agree with the OP in my opinion it should be front and center, large and behind or over the altar. As for the empty cross/crucifix question - as Catholics we preach Christ crucified - see 1 Corinthians 1:23. “But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles, foolishness:…” Hence the necessity of a central crucifix in the sanctuary of the church, where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass takes place. Protestants are more focused on the Resurrection which is why they prefer a plain cross minus the corpus.
 
That’s not to mention the fact that a Risen Christ on the cross can be confusing. Christ did not rise from the cross, He died on it for all mankind.
 
My former parish had a large Risen Christ right above the altar. It was a little confusing when the priest would be giving a homily about Christ’s Passion, and he would gesture towards it. The parishes I go to now both have large crucifixes, which I prefer.
 
I think there has to be a crucifix on or near the altar, not necessarily large and hanging behind it, but certainly in very close proximity.
 
Following the exhoration of St. Paul, the Church proclaims Christ crucified. The crucifix is our banner. We glory in the Cross of Christ.

Here is what the GIRM states:
  1. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.
Click to expand...
Thus, the crucifix is what is called for, not a depiction of the Risen Christ. If a parish wants this particular depiction, it can certainly be somewhere inside the church, but, it should not take the place of the crucifix.
 
Hi All,

The confusion seems like " It was never there before, since when the crucifix changed ?

Yes, these days in the churches there are Crosses with the Risen Christ, It is there in the Franciscan friary church that I go every Sundays.

Even Catholic Churches can keep, juts a Cross, Crucifix, or Risen Christ on the Cross etc.

There are churches with modern art depictions of Christ and Mary. Sometimes it is quite disturbing as well to be honest.

These changes are result of Second Vatican Council as far as my info goes. The results of so called modernization of the Catholic Church. The same people who cried their lungs out to get some “Fresh air” in the church and get rid of the millennium old strict traditions, now seems regretting about the degradation of artistic depictions of Scriptures and designs of the modern churches.
Joe
 
joeantony said:
Hi All,

The confusion seems like " It was never there before, since when the crucifix changed ?

Yes, these days in the churches there are Crosses with the Risen Christ, It is there in the Franciscan friary church that I go every Sundays.

Even Catholic Churches can keep, juts a Cross, Crucifix, or Risen Christ on the Cross etc.

There are churches with modern art depictions of Christ and Mary. Sometimes it is quite disturbing as well to be honest.

These changes are result of Second Vatican Council as far as my info goes. The results of so called modernization of the Catholic Church. The same people who cried their lungs out to get some “Fresh air” in the church and get rid of the millennium old strict traditions, now seems regretting about the degradation of artistic depictions of Scriptures and designs of the modern churches.
Joe
Click to expand...
I think that we have to be very careful. None of the authoritative documents of the Second Vatican Council called for the crucifixes to be replaced. This is more along the lines of the alleged “Spirit of Vatican II” than what the documents actually stated. Even the GIRM does not have anything noted that a statue of the Risen Christ could replace the crucifix.
 
As Benedictgal quoted from the GIRM in an earlier post that a cross “with a figure of Christ crucified upon it” be visible to the congregation, it is noteworthy that the original version of the GIRM said “crucifix,” but this phrasing was added several years ago to clarify the Church’s intentions. A real crucifix must be used, not a “resurrexifix” or a bare cross, as have been installed in some churches over the past thirty years or so.
 
What is required is to have a crucifix by the altar during Mass. So even if the parish would have a bigger “Ressurifix”, as long as there is a crucifix by the altar during Mass. Some parishes would use the processional crucifix and place it directly beside the altar.

The crucifix is important because it reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ, and why we have the Mass in the first place. The ressurection is also a good reminder of Christ’s victory over sin and death, but the point of Mass is the sacrifice that is why we need the crucifix.
 
gracelovefaith said:
My church has the risen Christ hanging on the wall behind the alter with the Crucifix off to the right side hanging where a statue may be. Just wanted to find out what others thought about it. I prefer the crucifix in the center wall behind the alter, after all it is Mass. When and why did this change. I don’t ever recall seeing this when I was in CCD about 20 years ago. Thanks.
Click to expand...
It’s a bit more positive to have the risen Christ in front of the altar than the crucified Christ. Otherwise we’re always crucifying Christ for our sins. It’s traditional to have the crucified Christ above the altar but Holy Communion contains the risen body of Christ so the risen Christ should really be in prime position.
 
budgie2 said:
It’s a bit more positive to have the risen Christ in front of the altar than the crucified Christ. Otherwise we’re always crucifying Christ for our sins. It’s traditional to have the crucified Christ above the altar but Holy Communion contains the risen body of Christ so the risen Christ should really be in prime position.
Click to expand...
However that is not what is required. During a Mass, it is a requirement to have a crucifix by the altar. It doesn’t say you cannot have a Resurrected Christ statue, but the requirement is that there is a crucifix by the altar. Its non-negotiable.

Also, Christ was crucified for our sins. To this day we continue to sin, Christ’s sacrifice is eternal. So its best we remember that event 2000 years ago which extends for all eternity
 
benedictgal said:
I think that we have to be very careful. None of the authoritative documents of the Second Vatican Council called for the crucifixes to be replaced. This is more along the lines of the alleged “Spirit of Vatican II” than what the documents actually stated. Even the GIRM does not have anything noted that a statue of the Risen Christ could replace the crucifix.
Click to expand...
The parish I currently attend went through the “Spirit of Vatican II,” which led to the replacement of the crucifix that adorned the sanctuary upon opening in 1927 to a risen Christ. Thankfully, the original crucifix was restored quite a bit ago.
 
PA650 said:
The parish I currently attend went through the “Spirit of Vatican II,” which led to the replacement of the crucifix that adorned the sanctuary upon opening in 1927 to a risen Christ. Thankfully, the original crucifix was restored quite a bit ago.
Click to expand...
One local parish had the “ressurifix”. I haven’t been in that church in quite some time, thankfully. At our abbey, they use the processional crucifix and place it next to the altar during the Mass.

Incidentally you have the accent in the wrong place on Christe in your signature. It’s on the first syllable and when that’s the case the accent is never indicated on the first syllable so there shouldn’t be an accent on Christe. By default for two syllable words the accent is on the first syllable so no need to indicate it.

Sorry to nitpick. Gregorian chant is my schtick, and accentuation is everything when chanting, otherwise it comes out all wrong.
 
OraLabora said:
One local parish had the “ressurifix”. I haven’t been in that church in quite some time, thankfully. At our abbey, they use the processional crucifix and place it next to the altar during the Mass.

Incidentally you have the accent in the wrong place on Christe in your signature. It’s on the first syllable and when that’s the case the accent is never indicated on the first syllable so there shouldn’t be an accent on Christe. By default for two syllable words the accent is on the first syllable so no need to indicate it.

Sorry to nitpick. Gregorian chant is my schtick, and accentuation is everything when chanting, otherwise it comes out all wrong.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction. I truly never noticed it until you mentioned the incorrect placement of the accent.
 
PA650 said:
Thank you for the correction. I truly never noticed it until you mentioned the incorrect placement of the accent.
Click to expand...
One could also point out that accent marks aren’t actually a part of the Latin at all, and are only added to certain texts intended to be read aloud to facilitate pronunciation among people whose spoken Latin is poor. 🙂
 
MarkThompson said:
One could also point out that accent marks aren’t actually a part of the Latin at all, and are only added to certain texts intended to be read aloud to facilitate pronunciation among people whose spoken Latin is poor. 🙂
Click to expand...
Now, you are just being pedantic. 🙂
 
benedictgal said:
I think that we have to be very careful. None of the authoritative documents of the Second Vatican Council called for the crucifixes to be replaced. This is more along the lines of the alleged “Spirit of Vatican II” than what the documents actually stated. Even the GIRM does not have anything noted that a statue of the Risen Christ could replace the crucifix.
Click to expand...
there is it benedict. when Catholics argue, some dont seem to get it. we are not atacking one another but this horrible enterpretation of the Council, but people dont seem to get it, and continue to defend these practice as if they cannot distinguish what is true and what is not. the Chant, the Latin, the Alter, and many other things that people simply adopted that is contrary to the Council continues to be simply ignored and defended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top