M
miniquedoes
Guest
No the processional cross also was a “Resurrix”
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Then thats an abuse then
P
paddy22
Guest
Well externals do matter to the Church, so it is more than just aesthetic preference or nitpicking we are talking here. I think that is why the Risen Christ on the Cross should instead be the Crucified Christ - He did not rise from the Cross, so is it not theologically incorrect? That is not to mention the fact that a Crucifix must be present during Mass.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
That would be taking artistic literalism too far. The risen Savior depicted against the backdrop of a Cross is *illustrative, *not historical, and there would be nothing wrong with this just as there is nothing wrong with our Lord depicted with a royal crown on His Head and dressed in the robes of a priest (the Christus Rex), which is a very traditional depiction. Yet we require no evidence that Our Blessed Lord ever wore a crown apart from the Crown of Thorns or that He was ever dressed in the robes of a Latin Rite priest. The Church has always permitted a lattitude to artists, musicians, poets, etc. It is not an abuse for a Resurrected Christ to be depicted in the Sanctuary or a Christus Rex, provided that there is a Crucifix present during the offering of the Holy Sacrifice (and that can be a processional Cross, as has been noted). If there is NOT one present, then that is a violation of the rubrics and should be corrected.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
This beautifuly sums up this thread
G
georgewithfaith
Guest
We need the Crucifix AND the tabernacle front and center because it is integral to focusing our attention on Jesus Christ and reminds that it is Jesus Christ truly present at the front and center of our church. Reverence falls aside when we focus on the Risen Christ. It minimizes Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross for us.
V
VetA
Guest
already stated but that is an abuse
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I think that you are painting with a very broad and presumptive brush here. I fail to see how “reverence falls aside when we focus on the Risen Christ” or how “it minimizes Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross for us.” Both the Crucifixion and the Resurection are integral to the Faith, indeed, together they ARE two-thirds of that Faith, summarized in the Mystery of Faith, ie., “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” and “Dying You destroyed our death, rising You restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory!”
Your assertion that the Crucifix and the tabernacle should be front and center is one I happen to agree with as a private opinion, but that is all that it is. It isn’t the mind of the Church. The Tabernacle is to be prominient, but it does not HAVE to be in the center and in the old medieval cathedrals of Europe it rarely was, and there must be a Crucifix displayed in the Sanctuary during the Holy Sacrifice. That is the will of the Church. Frankly, I don’t see why there cannot be both. Take, for example, a putative church named Church of the Good Shepherd or Church of the Resurrection. It could have murals above the Altar of Our Lord depicted in His very traditional role as a shepherd or in His Resurrected Glory. There could still be a Crucifix displayed on or by the Altar. It doens’t have to be either/or.
V
Vico
Guest
The empty cross is also used in the Eastern Catholic Churches (consisting of 1.5% portion of the Catholic Church), although you see icons of the crucifixion instead. In the Eastern Catholic traditions, like the Orthodox, the focus is on the Resurrection, except during Lent, but always on Sunday, although there are actually four penetential seasons for fasting, abstinance, alms, and charity, not just Lent. Wednesday commerates The Precious Cross; the betrayal by Judas, and Friday The Precious Cross, which are both fast days in Lent. There is much focus on being Christlike (deification).
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Right. Eastern Traditions do not allow them to have three-dimensional depictions of Jesus and the saints, so they will not have the crucifix as we have them in the Latin Rite.
V
VetA
Guest
why is that?
V
Vico
Guest
It’s not prohibited to have statues, rather it is not the tradition emphasized.
The anti-image influence in Constantinople came from Syrians and Armenians. In the west from the Emperor Charlemagne till the ninth century. The memory of the Iconoclasts and the Moslem conquest froze Orthodox art. In the conquered areas the Church was driven indoors, bells were proscribed, and external of Christian worship was forbidden in public. In Russia, woodcarving was developed, so there are many three dimensional crucifixes there (and statues).
A bit of irony: Bishop Kalistos Ware noted that realistic crucifixion scenes originated in the East.
M
mikesv
Guest
For olive wood handmade Crosses and Crucifixes as well as Figurines, Nativity sets made in Bethlehem - The Holy Land check out olivepearl.com
F
fall_fox
Guest
The Risen Christ on a cross is more of a Protestant symbol. A Crucifix is to be prominent in the sanitary. A parish I belonged to for 37 years had a processional cross with the risen Christ on it, we had a Crucifix above the alter, that procession cross was gone within a week. Our new Pastor was very Orthodox, and hurray for him!!!
F
fall_fox
Guest
Joe, it wasn’t Vatican ll, it never mandated turning the Priest around facing the people, nor getting rid of the Communion rail, Latin neither, holding hands or the Oran posture during the Our Father, communion on the tongue, replacing the organ with a guitar, and so on. Vatican ll is blamed for many things which were not mandated. It was more about society at the time that felt they could do a better job than the Clergy. There was a Catholic Church that I suppose we should have been going to but it was too liberal. I felt if they could do the Mass without the Priest, they would have done it. The choir there was very strong and outspoken. I had to take my family to a Catholic Church that was still Catholic.
A
andrewstx
Guest
I have a large crucifix or is it cross. It is over 3’ and depicts Jesus on the cross. eyes closed with the crucifixion scars on his hands and feet.
But the difference is this Jesus is dressed in Mass Vestments with crown on his head.
I got it several years ago at a Catholic store in Phoenix Az.
What is this called? And since it is in my house and not a church does it make a difference?
Btw I collect crucifixes, I also have several traditional crucifixes, and one an orthodox blessing cross with the crucified Jesus on one side and the risen Christ on the other.
But the difference is this Jesus is dressed in Mass Vestments with crown on his head.
I got it several years ago at a Catholic store in Phoenix Az.
What is this called? And since it is in my house and not a church does it make a difference?
Btw I collect crucifixes, I also have several traditional crucifixes, and one an orthodox blessing cross with the crucified Jesus on one side and the risen Christ on the other.
O
Ohana
Guest
I think that crucifix is called “Christ the High Priest”.
Z
zab
Guest
This sounds right, also called, Christ the Eternal High Priest.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
No. The Risen Christ on a cross is an old tradition in the Christian East done way before Martin Luther started his reformation. Of course we only use the crucifix during Pascha (Easter) and the days until the Ascension.
http://www.aidanharticons.com/icons/09_double_sided_crucifix_1.jpg
http://www.aidanharticons.com/icons/09_double_sided_crucifix_2.jpg
A
andrewstx
Guest
That is a lot like my blessing/hand cross looks like, except it’s not coloured just engraved on gold plate.
It came from Russia.
- Status