Resurrected Christ Crucifixes

[patrick457]

I can think of five churches I’ve been to in the Philippines in Baguio, Manaog, and Manila and none of them had one?

Well, you can only really see them during Eastertide, and even then, it could be the case that not all churches in the Philippines practice it. As I’ve said, it seems to be a popular hallowed tradition, but not necessarily ‘mandatory’. For all I know, the churches I’ve been to had at least one by the altar during that season.

The main reason why many Filipino churches have their risen Christs out is due to the popular ritual of Salubong, aka Encuentro. To explain it simply, it involves a reenactment of the ‘meeting’ (hence the name) between the resurrected Jesus and His mother Mary.

There may be some slight variations on the ritual depending on the locale, but the general structure is: at very early dawn even before sunrise, two different processions start at different points. The first consists of the statue of the risen Lord accompanied by men, while the second consists of a statue of Our Lady, with a black mourning veil (lambong) covering her face, accompanied by women and children.

The two processions meet at a predetermined area, often the church courtyard, after each making their way round about the town, from different routes. In this area stands a structure - usually temporary, but in a few areas permanent - often called galilea (‘Galilee’; cf. Matthew 28:7). At the climactic moment, an ‘angel’ appears from the galilea, usually in some ingenious fashion and removes the veil from the statue of the Blessed Virgin (Regina Coeli is sometimes sung at this point), at which point the mood changes into one of joy. Usually following the salubong is the celebration of Mass of Easter Sunday.

I’ve also heard tell of a few churches who use the statue for a reenactment of the Resurrection itself (with tomb and all erected inside the church, near the sanctuary), usually at midnight.

 

[patrick457]

Parishes there tend to have a full complement of statues for all feasts and thus you’d be hardpressed to find a parish who doesn’t have the resurrected Christ statue, or even the Christ in a glass coffin, which is usually used for Good Friday procession.

Ah, the Santo Entierro, as we usually call them (among many other names): a statue of the dead Christ lying in state. The climax of any Good Friday procession in the Philippines during Holy Week (and possibly other Hispanic countries)! If the East has its Epitaphios/Plashchanitsa, we have this for a near equivalent.

 

[Madaglan]

Ah, the Santo Entierro, as we usually call them (among many other names): a statue of the dead Christ lying in state. The climax of any Good Friday procession in the Philippines during Holy Week (and possibly other Hispanic countries)! If the East has its Epitaphios/Plashchanitsa, we have this for a near equivalent.

I didn’t know about the Santo Entierro, of the dead Christ lying in state, in the Latin Church. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Cristiano]

What do you, as Easterners, think of the Resurrection crucifixes that are sometimes used in place of the traditional Latin crucifix of the suffering Christ? Do you think this a positive change with the Latin Church focusing more on the Resurrection? Or, is this a departure from the Latin tradition and therefore not a positive development?

First is it not a “resurrection crucifix” because crucifix means nailed to the cross. I think that there are several things that do not belong in the Latin Church including the risen Christ attached to a cross. It is bad theology and the Eastern Churches should not fall into bad theology just to follow the Latin Church. We had that in my Latin parish for decades (or it feels like) and the pastor taking advantage of the chapel renovation removed it and put in a real crucifix above the altar.

 

[ciero]

First is it not a “resurrection crucifix” because crucifix means nailed to the cross. I think that there are several things that do not belong in the Latin Church including the risen Christ attached to a cross. It is bad theology and the Eastern Churches should not fall into bad theology just to follow the Latin Church. We had that in my Latin parish for decades (or it feels like) and the pastor taking advantage of the chapel renovation removed it and put in a real crucifix above the altar.

I don’t believe the East is following the Latins in this regard. I believe we have it all on our own. As I stated earlier…every processional cross I have seen in Orthodox churches as well as Greek Catholic churches have a crucified Christ on one side and the resurrected Christ on the other.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wasn’t aware that I was being discourteous?

Also, gurneyhalleck1, please don’t label the Western or Anselmian viewpoint as the “Catholic” viewpoint. Eastern Catholics (such as myself) who by virtue of being Eastern follow Eastern rather than Western theological persepctives are just as fully Catholic as you are. In fact, for me to argue that I am as fully Catholic as you are is about as silly as to argue that you are as fully Catholic as I am - we take our Catholicism for granted, just as you take yours. Please show us the same courtesy.

The dispute is not between the “Catholic” viewpoint and some non-Catholic one, but between the Western viewpoint and the Eastern one. Catholicism is not Western, but rather comprises the totality of the Church. The Eastern viewpoint is just as much the “Catholic viewpoint” as the Western one is. To be sure, most Eastern Christians are not in communion with Rome - just as a very significant minority and in many places such as America the majority of Western Christians are not in communion with Rome (they are called Protestants). But the Orthodox are in schism from Rome; they are not regarded by the Church as heretics, and can’t be regarded as such - we Eastern Catholics hold their same faith and same theological viewpoints. To equate the Eastern viewpoint with schism or to treat it as something other than Catholicism is simply wrong; it’s as fallacious as the Eastern temptation to see anything other than Protestantism in the Roman Church (a very easy error for us to make, since relative to us they look the same, and all the errors of Protestantism can be seen in a less consistent or watered-down manner in the Roman Church).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m well aware that there are Catholics even in the West, Latin Catholics who subscribe to Christus Victor. That’s fine. I totally reject that thinking and continue to. I don’t find your reasoning compelling or congruent with Scripture any more than I accept the EO’s views on it. God doesn’t owe Satan anything…Why does God owe Satan? Why does Christ need to become incarnate to pay such a debt? Anselm asked the right questions. Anselm gets it right. Jesus, by becoming incarnate, fullfilling Isaiah 53’s prophecies, and by dying for our sins pays a debt to GOD not the Evil One. I believe the Eastern outlook gives Satan more credit than he has coming to him and it makes Satan the center of things, not God. Aquinas tweaks Anselm a bit, and I prefer Aquinas’s thinking a bit to Anselms—that it wasn’t so much a debt of honor that Christ was paying but reversing a morally unjust evil that man perpetrated upon God. Satan doesn’t deserve a ransom; he doesn’t deserve repayment or sacrifice, God does as He was the one who was wronged. And as a result I would choose neither Eastern Orthodoxy nor Byzantine Catholicism, etc. We can argue this until we’re purple as Barney and we’re not budging so we’re at impasse mode. I believe in my bones I’m right on this. Blessings…

Also, gurneyhalleck1, please don’t label the Western or Anselmian viewpoint as the “Catholic” viewpoint. Eastern Catholics (such as myself) who by virtue of being Eastern follow Eastern rather than Western theological persepctives are just as fully Catholic as you are. In fact, for me to argue that I am as fully Catholic as you are is about as silly as to argue that you are as fully Catholic as I am - we take our Catholicism for granted, just as you take yours. Please show us the same courtesy.

The dispute is not between the “Catholic” viewpoint and some non-Catholic one, but between the Western viewpoint and the Eastern one. Catholicism is not Western, but rather comprises the totality of the Church. The Eastern viewpoint is just as much the “Catholic viewpoint” as the Western one is. To be sure, most Eastern Christians are not in communion with Rome - just as a very significant minority and in many places such as America the majority of Western Christians are not in communion with Rome (they are called Protestants). But the Orthodox are in schism from Rome; they are not regarded by the Church as heretics, and can’t be regarded as such - we Eastern Catholics hold their same faith and same theological viewpoints. To equate the Eastern viewpoint with schism or to treat it as something other than Catholicism is simply wrong; it’s as fallacious as the Eastern temptation to see anything other than Protestantism in the Roman Church (a very easy error for us to make, since relative to us they look the same, and all the errors of Protestantism can be seen in a less consistent or watered-down manner in the Roman Church).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well that explains it…whenever my wife, kids, and I go to the Philippines, we do so at Christmas time or in the summer. I’ve never been there during the Easter season.

Thanks for sharing, Patrick! blessings, brother…

Well, you can only really see them during Eastertide, and even then, it could be the case that not all churches in the Philippines practice it. As I’ve said, it seems to be a popular hallowed tradition, but not necessarily ‘mandatory’. For all I know, the churches I’ve been to had at least one by the altar during that season.

The main reason why many Filipino churches have their risen Christs out is due to the popular ritual of Salubong, aka Encuentro. To explain it simply, it involves a reenactment of the ‘meeting’ (hence the name) between the resurrected Jesus and His mother Mary.

There may be some slight variations on the ritual depending on the locale, but the general structure is: at very early dawn even before sunrise, two different processions start at different points. The first consists of the statue of the risen Lord accompanied by men, while the second consists of a statue of Our Lady, with a black mourning veil (lambong) covering her face, accompanied by women and children.

The two processions meet at a predetermined area, often the church courtyard, after each making their way round about the town, from different routes. In this area stands a structure - usually temporary, but in a few areas permanent - often called galilea (‘Galilee’; cf. Matthew 28:7). At the climactic moment, an ‘angel’ appears from the galilea, usually in some ingenious fashion and removes the veil from the statue of the Blessed Virgin (Regina Coeli is sometimes sung at this point), at which point the mood changes into one of joy. Usually following the salubong is the celebration of Mass of Easter Sunday.

I’ve also heard tell of a few churches who use the statue for a reenactment of the Resurrection itself (with tomb and all erected inside the church, near the sanctuary), usually at midnight.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I wasn’t aware that I was being discourteous?

Be careful guys, in my experience there’s very little that gets Gurney as upset as when you question his little Anselmian fetish.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(I’m just teasing, please don’t rip my head off)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While fetish is about the lousiest term possible, you’re right that it’s an issue I feel strongly about. In fact, it is one reason I have returned to Catholicism, because the West gets this right. I’d go Anglican again or even Lutheran rather than compromise this issue.

But I’m done talking about it, Jeremy, at least on this thread I’m going to get back with Jharek and talk comic books or guitar-playing!

Be careful guys, in my experience there’s very little that gets Gurney as upset as when you question his little Anselmian fetish.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/Greylond/smiley/bear-poke.gif

(I’m just teasing, please don’t rip my head off)

 

[Madaglan]

I’m well aware that there are Catholics even in the West, Latin Catholics who subscribe to Christus Victor. That’s fine. I totally reject that thinking and continue to. I don’t find your reasoning compelling or congruent with Scripture any more than I accept the EO’s views on it. God doesn’t owe Satan anything…Why does God owe Satan? Why does Christ need to become incarnate to pay such a debt? Anselm asked the right questions. Anselm gets it right. Jesus, by becoming incarnate, fullfilling Isaiah 53’s prophecies, and by dying for our sins pays a debt to GOD not the Evil One. I believe the Eastern outlook gives Satan more credit than he has coming to him and it makes Satan the center of things, not God. Aquinas tweaks Anselm a bit, and I prefer Aquinas’s thinking a bit to Anselms—that it wasn’t so much a debt of honor that Christ was paying but reversing a morally unjust evil that man perpetrated upon God. Satan doesn’t deserve a ransom; he doesn’t deserve repayment or sacrifice, God does as He was the one who was wronged. And as a result I would choose neither Eastern Orthodoxy nor Byzantine Catholicism, etc. We can argue this until we’re purple as Barney and we’re not budging so we’re at impasse mode. I believe in my bones I’m right on this. Blessings…

St. Gregory the Theologian argued against the notion of Christ as ransom to the Devil. Centuries before Anselm, St. Gregory already has stated that God doesn’t owe Satan anything.

The Eastern outlook centers on Christ as Victor over sin and death, which is how St. Paul and the early Fathers approached the matter as well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Victor over sin and death through paying a ransom to Satan, that’s the outlook…

And Paul talks about nailing the Law to the Cross along with its legal claims. Anselmian Atonement apologists believe that Christ conquered death as well, just through sacrificing Himself as satisfaction for our sins, repayment for the Fall and our fallen nature. Christ takes our place. It should be us enduring death and sacrifice, not Him.

And just because the early Fathers had opinions doesn’t always mean that it’s gospel. A Catholic looks at ecclesiology, soteriology, theology, and Christology holistically. Just as sola scriptura has its huge pitfalls, so does the “Fathers Alone” approach…

St. Gregory of Nyssa believed that due to the Fall mankind became ensnared and under the dominion of the Enemy. Satan took us and snatched us up. God could not snatch humanity back unilaterally as it would akin to stealing property, which God in His justice and constancy would not do. Satan had the right to demand a ransom in return for the children of Adam being freed. Christ was the chosen ransom. Because Christ overcame death and conquered it, man and Christ were freed as Satan’s power could not contain His divinity within his manhood. Man and Christ were freed from death. And as a result Satan was deprived of both. This is about as legalistic as anything I’ve ever heard. And yet Easterners like to accuse the West of legalist trappings. St. Gregory of Nyssa did indeed believe in a ransom and he wasn’t alone! So some indeed did feel that God owed Satan a ransom for humanity. This puts Satan in the driver’s seat and in the end he isn’t even paid the ransom as he can’t contain it or keep it. Talk about welching on a deal!

St. Gregory the Theologian argued against the notion of Christ as ransom to the Devil. Centuries before Anselm, St. Gregory already has stated that God doesn’t owe Satan anything.

The Eastern outlook centers on Christ as Victor over sin and death, which is how St. Paul and the early Fathers approached the matter as well.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Victor over sin and death through paying a ransom to Satan, that’s the outlook…

The outlook of whom?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Didn’t you read the post, Joseph?

The outlook of whom?

 

[Madaglan]

St. Gregory of Nyssa believed that due to the Fall mankind became ensnared and under the dominion of the Enemy. Satan took us and snatched us up. God could not snatch humanity back unilaterally as it would akin to stealing property, which God in His justice and constancy would not do. Satan had the right to demand a ransom in return for the children of Adam being freed. Christ was the chosen ransom. Because Christ overcame death and conquered it, man and Christ were freed as Satan’s power could not contain His divinity within his manhood. Man and Christ were freed from death. And as a result Satan was deprived of both. This is about as legalistic as anything I’ve ever heard. And yet Easterners like to accuse the West of legalist trappings. St. Gregory of Nyssa did indeed believe in a ransom and he wasn’t alone! So some indeed did feel that God owed Satan a ransom for humanity. This puts Satan in the driver’s seat and in the end he isn’t even paid the ransom as he can’t contain it or keep it. Talk about welching on a deal!

The early Fathers understood salvation in terms of the Incarnation: God became man so that man might become God (i.e. God-like through participation in His energies). The Fathers believed that Christ assumed everything belonging to humanity, save sin, and raised it all from corruption to incorruption.

St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote within this theological context, and St. Gregory of Nyssa’s words on ransom need to be read within this background.

Western scholars may trace their theologically imperative atonement theories to select passages from the early Fathers, but this does not mean the early Fathers held their own passages with the same doctrinal importance or significance as Western scholars today hold their own.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’d make a few points here.

a) Just because a person (like me) accepts the Anselmian explanation of the Atonement does NOT mean they reject theosis and the idea that the Incarnation had the purpose of uniting divinity to a fallen humanity. It’s not an either-or for me or most Catholics. I have yet to meet a Catholic of any atonement philosophy who doesn’t see the Incarnation through the lens of bringing us into transforming sanctification and deification. Christ became man so we can be more like him. You’ll get NO argument out of me there. I can walk and chew gum

b) I don’t care what the context is, Satan doesn’t deserve jack squat from God anytime, anywhere

c) No Catholic (or Orthodox for that matter) should put all the Fathers on such a pedestal that we must take their views verbatem. They’re are wise, holy men full of insight and since they existed early on in the Church, some even disciples of the Apostles, they possessed keen and godly opinions on many things. But not everything they taught is gospel and everyone is going to accuse one another of cherry-picking when that is exactly what we ALL do! The Holy Father is not going to take everything every saint says and make it dogma. Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Well guess what…the man was wrong. He was brilliant and I happen to believe his Summa is beyond brilliant. His theological opinions enriched the Church beyond measure but he wasn’t right 24/7. I take the Fathers seriously but keep in mind that they’re not infallible and we need the Church’s magisterium and other theologicans since then to clarify and enlighten as well. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas are my three A’s whom I respect A LOT! It’s my AAA insurance!

The early Fathers understood salvation in terms of the Incarnation: God became man so that man might become God (i.e. God-like through participation in His energies). The Fathers believed that Christ assumed everything belonging to humanity, save sin, and raised it all from corruption to incorruption.

St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote within this theological context, and St. Gregory of Nyssa’s words on ransom need to be read within this background.

Western scholars may trace their theologically imperative atonement theories to select passages from the early Fathers, but this does not mean the early Fathers held their own passages with the same doctrinal importance or significance as Western scholars today hold their own.

 

[patrick457]

I didn’t know about the Santo Entierro, of the dead Christ lying in state, in the Latin Church. Thanks for sharing!

A few churches even have crucifixes where you can ‘un-nail’ the Corpus from the cross. Sometimes with complex theatrics involved.

Here are a few (Filipino) samples:

Santo Entierro from Taal Basilica, Taal, Batangas (a peek inside the basilica). Even has the name of the donor attached to the coffin. (For the record, the main altar notably has the image of the risen Christ, at least at the time these photos were taken; now it seems to have been replaced with another statue - St. Martin of Tours if I could hazard a guess).

Santo Entierro from Bacolor, Pampanga. Has the notable record of being very large, measuring at least seven feet tall. For a few other Santo Entierros in Pampanga see here.

Señor Santo Sepulcro lying in state in Lucban, Quezon. Here meanwhile is the image being brought inside the church.

Another lying in stateSanto Entierro, this time at the altar of a church in Bacoor, Cavite. Its pretty much common custom to have the image out on Good Friday (usually after the procession) for the veneration of the faithful. In true Filipino fashion, it is normal for devotees to kiss and touch the statue - usually the arms and feet - and to wipe it with handkerchiefs and towels, in an effort to take with them the statue’s perfumed scent (it is pretty much expected that the statues of our Lord and His saints should not only look beautiful, but smell good as well! ). For the enthusiast, this practice is a nightmare as it deals some damage to the image.

I was kind of thinking. Why don’t we build a separate thread on the various customs of Holy Week in different countries?

 

[Cecilianus]

Didn’t you read the post, Joseph?

I was confused too. Christ didn’t need to pay Satan to give up his rightful ownership of us or trick Satan into giving us up - that’s the whole position we DON’T believe.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Explain your version then. That’s what I’ve read countless times…paying a ransom to Satan…Satan had dominion over us and Christ paid the ransom thus freeing us.

I was confused too. Christ didn’t need to pay Satan to give up his rightful ownership of us or trick Satan into giving us up - that’s the whole position we DON’T believe.

 

[Waiting]

I’m an advanced senior citizen with many years of Catholic study – grade school, college, conferences, studies towards certification to teach the faith, reading extensively – yet this is the first time I have ever heard it even hinted, much less stated, that God owed anything to satan. Satan is just a creature who turned his back on God. He’s lucky that God didn’t just annihilate him.