Placement of Processional Crucifix?

[Luger]

I have a question that has been bugging me for a long time. First my parish has a beautiful and huge crucifix that hangs on the back sanctuary wall right behind the altar. This large crucifix satisfies the requirement for a crucifix at all Masses.

We also use a processional crucifix during the procession and recession. No problem. Further, we use two processional crucifixes during the offertory. The gifts of wine and bread are processed up from the main and annex sides of our churches and they are led by crucifers. That’s fine too – very beautiful actually.

While one of the processional crucifixes is easily “put away” (it is reverently hung in a way that no one can see it) it’s very difficult to put the other one away in the sacristy do to logistics in the sanctuary. This happens when we have very solemn OF Masses with 6-8 servers and it does make things more clumsy and cumbersome.

Would it be wrong per the church for one of the processional crucifixes to remain visible in the sanctuary? The crucifix would be away from the altar but it would still be reverently displayed off to the side where the servers sit. It would not be hastily be shoved into a corner.

Here is what I found from the Church:

GIRM 122. …The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place. In addition, the candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it. It is a praiseworthy practice that the Book of the Gospels be placed upon the altar.

GIRM 188. In the procession to the altar, the acolyte may carry the cross, walking between two ministers with lighted candles. Upon reaching the altar, the acolyte places the cross upright near the altar so that it may serve as the altar cross; otherwise, he puts it in a worthy place. Then he takes his place in the sanctuary.

I think what I described would satisfy GIRM 122 and 188. However some of the liturgical fetishists at my parish might bring up:

Built of Living Stones: Art, Architecture, and Worship

The Cross
§ 91 § The cross with the image of Christ crucified is a reminder of Christ’s paschal mystery. It draws us into the mystery of suffering and makes tangible our belief that our suffering when united with the passion and death of Christ leads to redemption. There should be a crucifix “positioned either on the altar or near it, and . . . clearly visible to the people gathered there.” Since a crucifix placed on the altar and large enough to be seen by the congregation might well obstruct the view of the action taking place on the altar, other alternatives may be more appropriate. The crucifix may be suspended over the altar or affixed to the sanctuary wall. A processional cross of sufficient size, placed in a stand visible to the people following the entrance procession is another option. If the processional cross is to be used for this purpose, the size and weight of the cross should not preclude its being carried in procession. If there is already a cross in the sanctuary, the processional cross is placed out of view of the congregation following the procession. usccb.org/liturgy/livingstones.shtml

This clearly says “out of view.” Must we comply with this document? Thank you.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I just got off the phone with the USCCB Secretariat’s Office of Divine Worship. (Basically it’s quicker than trying to find the info on the internet, if you know the right questions to ask.) The person that I talked with told me that this document does not have the recognito of the Holy See. These are simply the guidelines approved (majority) by the US Bishops.

The following is my view:
Now, technically, that means that this document does NOT have force of law. BUT, your Bishop may give this document the force of Law within his diocese. You need to call the Bishop’s Office and find out. They may direct you to the Worship Office for the diocese. There may also be a set of guidelines given by the Diocesan Liturgy Committee which has been approved and issued by the Bishop. I believe most people here will state that these have force of law.

So, what would I do in the mean time? I would follow “Built of Living Stones” since it is the norm.

You also mentioned the fact that you use the processional cross, actually 2 at the offertory. I am sure that it would look beautiful, however in my opinion that is not the intended use of the processional cross. The Priest represents Christ at the Mass. This processional cross is used to help symbolize that. The gifts at the offertory do not represent Christ nor have they yet been consecrated and “turned into” Christ. Therefore, I also think that the use of the processional cross at the offertory should not happen.

Pax!

 

[Luger]

I just got off the phone with the USCCB Secretariat’s Office of Divine Worship. (Basically it’s quicker than trying to find the info on the internet, if you know the right questions to ask.) The person that I talked with told me that this document does not have the recognito of the Holy See. These are simply the guidelines approved (majority) by the US Bishops.

The following is my view:
Now, technically, that means that this document does NOT have force of law. BUT, your Bishop may give this document the force of Law within his diocese. You need to call the Bishop’s Office and find out. They may direct you to the Worship Office for the diocese. There may also be a set of guidelines given by the Diocesan Liturgy Committee which has been approved and issued by the Bishop. I believe most people here will state that these have force of law.

So, what would I do in the mean time? I would follow “Built of Living Stones” since it is the norm.

You also mentioned the fact that you use the processional cross, actually 2 at the offertory. I am sure that it would look beautiful, however in my opinion that is not the intended use of the processional cross. The Priest represents Christ at the Mass. This processional cross is used to help symbolize that. The gifts at the offertory do not represent Christ nor have they yet been consecrated and “turned into” Christ. Therefore, I also think that the use of the processional cross at the offertory should not happen.

Pax!

Thank you! I couldn’t have asked for a more definitive answer!

I strongly suspect that if we just placed the 2nd crucifix in a visible yet out of the way place given the fact that BoLS is not authoritative that we would be just fine – the bishop would be happy – actually he wouldn’t care or notice. Conversely I’m 99% certain that if we asked the diocese for guidance, the very people who allow and promote truly monstrous abuses would tell us that neither processional cross may be visible and it would become a huge issue.

Thank you again for such a wonderfully complete answer.

 

[Catholicben]

I would think it would be definitely preferable to have it away in the sacristy, but if it is clumsy or distracting, I would leave it off to the side in the place you mentioned.

I also agree that the gifts probably shouldn’t be led up by a processional cross (or two). We used to, but we stopped about two years ago. Now, we simply have a server go to the back, and escort the gift bearers up (to simplify timing for the gift bearers).

 

[Luger]

…You also mentioned the fact that you use the processional cross, actually 2 at the offertory. I am sure that it would look beautiful, however in my opinion that is not the intended use of the processional cross. The Priest represents Christ at the Mass. This processional cross is used to help symbolize that. The gifts at the offertory do not represent Christ nor have they yet been consecrated and “turned into” Christ. Therefore, I also think that the use of the processional cross at the offertory should not happen.

Pax!

I’m sorry I did not respond to this the first time – I suppose I was afraid this thread would be de-railed into a discussion about that practice. That said, priests, the altar, the Book of Gospels and processional crucifixes are all important icons of Jesus Christ within the context of the Mass. Obviously the consecrated Hosts and Precious Blood are no longer icons of Jesus Christ – sacramentally they are Jesus Christ – His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

There is absolutely nothing wrong liturgically with associating (not equating but associating) an icon of Jesus Christ with the gifts from the people. (Although many would suggest the gifts themselves are icons of Jesus.) For Jesus Christ Himself is the ultimate gift – not from the people but for the people to His Father for the peoples’ sins – past, present and future.

The practice is 40 years old at my parish and at least three bishops have tacitly approved of it during that period. It is a very clean and powerful way to bring the gifts quite a distance from the people to the celebrant. It contravenes no instructions from the Church. Some might indignantly reply that it’s an “unauthorized addition” to the Mass and therefore abusive but it’s not.

Thank you again for your wonderful response. I hope this thread does not now degenerate into a fight over the use of the processional crucifixes at the offertory.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
The practice is 40 years old at my parish and at least three bishops have tacitly approved of it during that period. It is a very clean and powerful way to bring the gifts quite a distance from the people to the celebrant. It contravenes no instructions from the Church. Some might indignantly reply that it’s an “unauthorized addition” to the Mass and therefore abusive but it’s not.
. . .

There is often a provision allowing practices which have a long history [time immemorial = 30 years I think] in a parish to continue. This might be a case.

 

[CatholicLife]

At my church the servers put it behind the presiders chair. We put it there at the begining of mass , after the procession and leave it there during the whole mass until the end of Mass, when we proceed out with it.

 

[Spirithound]

[time immemorial = 30 years I think]

I thought that “time immemorial” was longer than centenary. ?

 

[CatholicZ09]

At my parish, the processional crucifix is hanging on a wall just to the left of the Sanctuary hanging by two wooden handles.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 1968 Instruction Pontificalis ritus:

“20. Only a single cross is to be carried in a procession, to increase the dignity of the cross and its veneration. If an archbishop is present, the cross will be the archiepiscopal cross, to be carried at the head of the procession, with the image of Christ crucified facing forward. The recommended practice is to stand the processional cross near the altar so that it serves as the altar cross. If this is not done, the processional cross is put away.”

(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 1394.)

The idea that “put away” means “may remain visible to the congregation” seems unreasonable to me.

 

[FrDavid96]

There is often a provision allowing practices which have a long history [time immemorial = 30 years I think] in a parish to continue. This might be a case.

That would be “custom” but that word (and indeed the very concept) is very often misunderstood, and often misrepresented. Custom refers to how the law has been interpreted and applied. It does not mean that if a parish does something wrong and continues the practice for 30 years, it becomes legitimate. “Custom” is similar to what we might call in civil law “case law” “precedent” or even “common law.” A practice must be a legitimate application of the law for it to be custom–or at least a sincere attempt to follow the law. If a practice outright violates the law, it is not custom. The exception is that if a custom has existed for 100 years or time immemorial, it can generally (but not always) be continued.

I’ve come across quite a few references to “custom” on these threads and the idea that if a group (typically a parish) has been doing something for 30 years, it enjoys the status of custom. That’s not the case. Custom doesn’t mean “we like to do it this way” or “we’ve been doing it this way for a long time.” It means that there is a precedent for applying the law in a certain way, and that interpretation/application has been in-use for 30 years or more.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I thought that “time immemorial” was longer than centenary. ?

This was from some document in the 60’s. Don’t remember how official it was but was considered a standard by some at least.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have a question that has been bugging me for a long time. First my parish has a beautiful and huge crucifix that hangs on the back sanctuary wall right behind the altar. This large crucifix satisfies the requirement for a crucifix at all Masses.

We also use a processional crucifix during the procession and recession. No problem. Further, we use two processional crucifixes during the offertory. The gifts of wine and bread are processed up from the main and annex sides of our churches and they are led by crucifers. That’s fine too – very beautiful actually.

While one of the processional crucifixes is easily “put away” (it is reverently hung in a way that no one can see it) it’s very difficult to put the other one away in the sacristy do to logistics in the sanctuary. This happens when we have very solemn OF Masses with 6-8 servers and it does make things more clumsy and cumbersome.

Would it be wrong per the church for one of the processional crucifixes to remain visible in the sanctuary? The crucifix would be away from the altar but it would still be reverently displayed off to the side where the servers sit. It would not be hastily be shoved into a corner.

Here is what I found from the Church:

[edited for space]

I think what I described would satisfy GIRM 122 and 188. However some of the liturgical fetishists at my parish might bring up:

Built of Living Stones: Art, Architecture, and Worship

The Cross
§ 91 § The cross with the image of Christ crucified is a reminder of Christ’s paschal mystery. It draws us into the mystery of suffering and makes tangible our belief that our suffering when united with the passion and death of Christ leads to redemption. There should be a crucifix “positioned either on the altar or near it, and . . . clearly visible to the people gathered there.” Since a crucifix placed on the altar and large enough to be seen by the congregation might well obstruct the view of the action taking place on the altar, other alternatives may be more appropriate. The crucifix may be suspended over the altar or affixed to the sanctuary wall. A processional cross of sufficient size, placed in a stand visible to the people following the entrance procession is another option. If the processional cross is to be used for this purpose, the size and weight of the cross should not preclude its being carried in procession. If there is already a cross in the sanctuary, the processional cross is placed out of view of the congregation following the procession. usccb.org/liturgy/livingstones.shtml

This clearly says “out of view.” Must we comply with this document? Thank you.

The document “Built of Living Stones” has no force of law. None. It is not even a document of the US Bishop’s conference, even though it is often misrepresented as such because it happens to be published by the USCCB publishing (actually, it is a thing of the past anyway, because it’s since been replaced). It is entirely a work of the Bishop’s Committee on Liturgy; only the committee, not the entire bishop’s conference. The USCCB never officially approved this document. It has many many problems, and in at least a few instances it even goes so far as to completely contradict the liturgical norms of the Church. The document takes a great deal of liberties.

This is an example of such liberty, and why the document cannot be trusted. The liturgical norms of the Church do not say that the processional cross is placed out of view–the authors of BoLS simply made that up to suit themselves and their agenda of sanitizing the sanctuary in opposition to what Vatican II says. Built of Living Stones is not something to be trusted, and it’s certainly not something that has any force of law.

There is a problem with two processional crosses being used at the same time. The cross should be something to draw our attention to the crucified Christ. Since there is only one Christ, having two Christs side-by-side just doesn’t make sense from a theological or aestetic perspective. The incarnate Christ wasn’t a pair of twins, and having a pair of crucifixes both serving the same purpose right next to each other can cause a bit of confusion; not a crisis of faith, but it just doesn’t “look right.”

At the same time, there can be more than one cross in the church, and even in the sanctuary. If there is a large crucifix on the wall, and another processional crucifix somewhere else (but not too close to be confusing), that’s fine because everyone can see the difference. A church might even have a stained-glass window of the crucifixion as well as other crucifixes throughout (like the 12th Station, and possibly another small one on the altar, etc. etc.). There’s nothing wrong with more than one crucifix–it only becomes a problem when those two-or-more crucifixes give the appearance of being a single representation of the event–and that could happen when using two in the offertory procession. Granted, no one is silly enough to think or say that on Calvary, two Christs were crucified–but the point is that even though we all know better, we don’t want to have an artistic symbol that does give that impression.

The question I would ask is “why do we need two crucifixes at the offertory?” What purpose does this serve? What statement is being made by this? If the answer turns out to be something like “someone needs something to carry” then that means we have to re-think the offertory procession itself.

Edit: I had to edit the post for space becaue it was too long. I cut out the GIRM when what I should have cut was BoLS. Too late to change it now.

 

[Luger]

From the 1968 Instruction Pontificalis ritus:

“20. Only a single cross is to be carried in a procession, to increase the dignity of the cross and its veneration. If an archbishop is present, the cross will be the archiepiscopal cross, to be carried at the head of the procession, with the image of Christ crucified facing forward. The recommended practice is to stand the processional cross near the altar so that it serves as the altar cross. If this is not done, the processional cross is put away.”

(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 1394.)

The idea that “put away” means “may remain visible to the congregation” seems unreasonable to me.

That document does not control the OF Mass. Even if it did, the “put away” part is your personal opinion. Now that this thread has been de-railed I will stop participating.

 

[FrDavid96]

From the 1968 Instruction Pontificalis ritus:

“20. Only a single cross is to be carried in a procession, to increase the dignity of the cross and its veneration. If an archbishop is present, the cross will be the archiepiscopal cross, to be carried at the head of the procession, with the image of Christ crucified facing forward. The recommended practice is to stand the processional cross near the altar so that it serves as the altar cross. If this is not done, the processional cross is put away.”

(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 1394.)

The idea that “put away” means “may remain visible to the congregation” seems unreasonable to me.

Not necessarily. Put away might simply mean “put in its proper place” like placing the cross on its base which is also in the sanctuary. We “put things away” all the time but they’re still visible to us.