No cross above altar

  • Thread starter Thread starter WomanOfHeb11.1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WomanOfHeb11.1

Guest
I attended a different parish this Christmas while visiting family out of state.
I was surprised to see no crucifix anywhere.
Above (rather behind) the altar was a reproduction of a Renaissance painting of a Western madonna and child.
No other sculptures or images around, except for the Stations of the Cross, really out of sight and off to the very back.
I’ve been to many churches around the world and I think I never saw one without the cross or a grown Jesus.
Is this a choice, a diocesan preference, or there is always supposed to be an image of Jesus? (To be fair, Jesus was present as a baby in this painting, just not a cross)
 
WomanOfHeb11.1 said:
… is always supposed to be an image of Jesus? …
Click to expand...
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
308. Likewise, either on the altar or near it, there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. It is desirable that such a cross should remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations, so as to call to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord.
Click to expand...
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...uction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-5.cfm
 
WomanOfHeb11.1 said:
Is this a choice, a diocesan preference, or there is always supposed to be an image of Jesus?
Click to expand...
As noted in the other post, there is to be a crucifix. However it does not have to be mounted on the wall behind the altar. It might be free standing. It might be suspended above the altar from the ceiling. I might be an altar crucifix ON the altar. It might be the processional crucifix standing beside the altar.
 
Vico and 1ke, thanks.
Once again I’m confirmed in listening to that “gut feeling” that most likely has nothing to do with instinct and a lot to do with the Holy Spirit. Something felt wrong, not just creative or original. Being an artist, the last thing I thought of was creativity or originality… I missed Jesus.
So, is that parish in conflict/rebellion with the Vatican? Or is the Missal a guideline?
 
WomanOfHeb11.1 said:
Something felt wrong, not just creative or original.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with a mural painted in the apse. I’m not sure how you got that from my post or Vico’s.
WomanOfHeb11.1 said:
So, is that parish in conflict/rebellion with the Vatican?
Click to expand...
Well first, lack of a crucifix doesn’t mean a parish is “in rebellion”.

And we really don’t have enough information to make a comment on whether the parish was in line with the GIRM. If they had a processional crucifix or altar crucifix near or on the altar, or a free standing crucifix nearby, then yes.

Also keep in mind that the parish might normally have a freestanding crucifix in the sanctuary that may have been moved to accommodate Christmas decorations.
 
Last edited:
DeniseNY said:
Didn’t we just have a lengthy thread on this topic?
Click to expand...
Yes, we certainly did.
40.png
Risen Christ Cross above Altar Traditional Catholicism
I went to Mass in a Church that has the Risen Christ reaching down from the Cross above the Altar. I was crushed. It felt wrong to me. Might be from my Mormon background where we would distance ourselves from the symbol of the Cross. Christ Crucified, for me should be front and center. So many want to distance themselves from pain and suffering. I believe we must embrace pain and suffering in order to find a lasting peace, lasting joy. If we distance ourselves from the suffering Christ how can …
Click to expand...
 
I can’t answer from direct knowledge, but I’ve heard there is more emphasis in the Eastern Rites on the Resurrection than on the crucifixion. So, it may be the excuse for not having a crucifix. So, that might be the case, if the Resurrection is emphasized somehow.

Some of the rationalizations I’ve heard for one thing or another is that the churches in rome don’t have this or that – as if our traditions were less important.
 
Vico said:
  1. Likewise, either on the altar or near it, there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people.
Click to expand...
This is where I got it in the reply.

There were no decorations at all, anywhere. The portrait didn’t seem transitory either.

To answer the other part of your comment, in my view the recent discussion was rather about a resurrected Christ vs. a Crucifix. It was that post that prompted me to add mine. Since it seemed related and was still burning in my head, I thought perhaps this would complete the subject of WHAT is supposed to be there.

The absence of a cross was distracting/unsettling to me to some extent, but I put it behind during mass to focus on what was the main point.
No doubt symbolic connections to Jesus gift to us can be made in zillions of forms, His sacrifice, His life for ours. Crucifix, no cross, resurrected Jesus, light coming from an opening in the ceiling, abstract art, etc.
I was just wondering if anyone here knew if there was a rule about it.
 
Strita, just to clarify, this was a Roman Catholic church, not Latin but very traditional indeed.
The only Jesus displayed was the baby in Mary’s arms, on a heavily framed painting over 10 feet tall that I doubt was a holiday decoration. Not impossible, but unlikely.
 
Did the altar server carry a professional cross?

If so, that’s the only cross needed.

Deacon Christopher
 
strita said:
I can’t answer from direct knowledge, but I’ve heard there is more emphasis in the Eastern Rites on the Resurrection than on the crucifixion. So, it may be the excuse for not having a crucifix
Click to expand...
Excuse? That implies something wrong is being done.
 
WomanOfHeb11.1 said:
Above (rather behind) the altar was a reproduction of a Renaissance painting of a Western madonna and child.
Click to expand...
I have stated it before, I will again. The large crucifix on the wall above the altar is fairly new to church design. Not that it never happened before, but it was not that common. In the past, there were typically large altar pieces and a painting as you describe could easily been part of the altar piece. But those altar pieces have often been removed or not built in new churches. That left a void. That void has often been filled with a large crucifix. Not a bad solution at all, but it’s not that traditional either. We have just grown accustomed to it in our new churches.

I strongly suspect there was a crucifix on or near the altar and the OP just missed it. Perhaps it was the processional cross that was placed on a stand right behind the altar ( i have seen that a lot).

ETA:. There was a thread about this just a few days ago and someone posted a picture of a new FSSP church with an altar piece. Look at that for the more traditional way this was done and you will see what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
I will recopy my photo here from the other thread. This is the altar set up for Christmas Day TLM at an FSSP parish. The statue in blue at the top is Mother Mary and the others are angels. Spot the Crucifix?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Thanks @Tis_Bearself, I forgot that it was you. I do miss these. My home town church still has theirs, it is beautiful.

OTOH, I do often find the large crucifix very useful for devotional prayer, as it is so easy for meditation, as opposed to admiring the beauty of the altar piece.
 
Many of the old churches that kept their high altars have a very large crucifix someplace else in the church that people can venerate. As I posted in the other thread, in the FSSP church, there is a crucifix about 10 feet high on the back wall of the church next to the exit. I have also seen them in side altars and even in the vestibule of an 1800s church.
 
Tafan, thanks for the historical perspective.

Yes, as an architect I’m aware of that, and pay attention to details. I did consider before posting the many churches I’ve seen and studied. Specially the ones in Europe. Art was used to evangelize and tell biblical stories, so much abounded in church buildings to that effect. Beautiful times when the highest forms of art were religious and gave explicit glory to God!
The altar piece (really, at the apse, in front of the altar, this was all pre Vatican II) was usually the biggest, most magnificent, often (but not always) depicting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But in my question I was referring to a post Vatican II, novus ordo church, curious about a possible VII rule to that effect.
 
Tis_Bearself
No need to transplant another (beautiful) thread. But beautiful picture!

And I had no bias whatsoever in that church, just felt unfamiliar without a more clear representation of Jesus in sight.
Let me point out, in this photograph, although there is a clear reverence for Mary, I also see at the very top, an adult Jesus blessing His mother, the Holy Spirit above them, and God the Father above all the composition.
The hierarchy is clear.
There are also crosses on top of the sculptural arrangement.

Anyway, just to stay on topic, my point was not, are there other cases like this? (See my comment on architecture below, or above, not sure how this will post 😜) but is there a rule about a crucifix, or is an aesthetic/personal choice?
 
Last edited:
WomanOfHeb11.1 said:
but is there a rule about a crucifix, or is an aesthetic/personal choice?
Click to expand...
The rule has been answered. The choice should not just be aesthetic, all devotional art should serve a purpose, especially that which is so prominent. In the case you describe, I would be curious as to the name of the parish? As it is likely chosen to Foster devotion to the parish patron saint, perhaps Mary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top