Resurrected Christ Crucifixes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madaglan

Guest
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?
 
Madaglan said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well I am not an Eastern Catholic(I’m not even a western one yet haha), but personally I don’t like them…we were redeemed by his death, not his resurrection.

If I wanted to see a depiction of his arms outstretched and him living, I would get an image of the ascension…now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with focusing on his resurrection, it’s a great thing, but a crucifiz reminds us of the most important event which ever happened, I don’t think it should be replaced with him resurrected.

Well that’s just my opinion!
 
Madaglan said:
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?
Click to expand...
Inaccurate. It reminds me off all the goofy sort of crucifixes you will find at different protestant denominations. Just the other week I was at an OCF meeting at the meeting place that is owned by the Lutherans and there was a cross with a woman who had her hands outstretched but she was standing on a rock or some grass.

Here is a good solid Orthodox Crucifix.
You have the seraphim amazed in heaven, The Theotokos and the Beloved Disciple at the hill with Christ, and Jesus standing above death/hades, which he will shortly descend to and break open.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Madaglan said:
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?
Click to expand...
I’m from the Roman rite, but I can tell you that I do not approve of the Resurrection Crucifix. It is not the crucified Christ which is supposed to be on every altar at Mass. This is just another example of people doing their own thing instead of what the Church dictates. It bothers me that people find the crucifix so difficult to look at. Shouldn’t it be an object of love? It was love that led Jesus to that cross. Shouldn’t it inspire us to return that love each time we gaze at the crucifix?
 
We have a resurrected Christ crucifix in our parish, life size. It is in our parish hall and was behind our temporary altar until such time we finally had our church built. We purchased and installed the crucified Christ crucifix in the new church as the Mass is the celebration of the suffering Christ endured for our salvation. It is a constant reminder of His love for us. That love that we too often forget as we go through our daily lives. The resurrected Christ has its place but I don’t think that it belongs in place of the crucified Christ in the Church altar.
Your Brother in Christ,
Dan
 
juarezd said:
. We purchased and installed the crucified Christ crucifix in the new church as the Mass is the celebration of the suffering Christ endured for our salvation. It is a constant reminder of His
Click to expand...
I would pick some bones about that. It is not the suffering but the sacrifice itself. The reading of the gospels is the commemoration of his ministry and life, not his passion.
 
Well technically in the East it is his whole Passion, Death, and Resurrection that redeemed mankind, not only his Death. It is true that at the Death mankind had become perfected and the Church had taken its roots as Christ said it is consummated, but without the Resurrection then the Crucifixion would lose its purpose. Therefore from an Eastern perspective it is both his Resurrection and Death that gives humanity life, for instance the Paschal Hymn “By death, He conquered death, and to those in the tombs He granted life.” In this instance Death conquers Death, and Life through Death is ever present through His Resurrection.
 
Every Cross/Rapidia set I have seen in Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic churches or in the church goods catalogs have the cross with Christ crucified on one side and resurrected on the other…at the local OCA church they turn the cross so on Sunday and during the Paschal season you see the resurrected Christ and on weekdays you see the crucified Christ.
 
Mojo674 said:
Well technically in the East it is his whole Passion, Death, and Resurrection that redeemed mankind, not only his Death. It is true that at the Death mankind had become perfected and the Church had taken its roots as Christ said it is consummated, but without the Resurrection then the Crucifixion would lose its purpose. Therefore from an Eastern perspective it is both his Resurrection and Death that gives humanity life, for instance the Paschal Hymn “By death, He conquered death, and to those in the tombs He granted life.” In this instance Death conquers Death, and Life through Death is ever present through His Resurrection.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, I’ve never thought of it that way before, but that might be what the Western church teaches too, and I just didn’t know. Because what you just said is similar to the “mystery of faith” we proclaim at mass
“Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Jesus, come in glory”
 
The local Latin Rite parish, St. Andrew, has a Resurrected Christ, arms outstreched, no cross, over the back wall of the Narthex; the Crucifix is opposite it, behind the Altar. When one exits the parish after liturgies, one is confronted with a 12’ tall Christ…

Before they moved, it was behind the altar, over a St. Andrew Cross (saltire) in the woodwork of the wall, and the crucifix over the entrance, where the priest could see it.

For reference, tho’, they cover both during lent!
 
The “resurrected Christ” crucifixes in the West look like goofy things that came out of the 1970s. I don’t like them. If they looked remotely like the Orthodox crucifix shown above, it would be fine - and there wouldn’t be anything inconsonant with the Western tradition by making such a crucifix (you’ll see old Norse/Scandinavian crucifixes where Christ is very peaceful, radiant, and frankly Byzantine-looking - but in a completely Western manner).

Having been a Roman Catholic, I don’t think the West needs a greater emphasis on the Resurrection. They do emphasize the Resurrection just as we do have an emphasis on the Passion - but they have a spirituality proper to their genius just as we have one proper to ours.
 
I don’t mind the “Resuri-fix” as long as it isn’t used to replace the Crucifix.

Also during the Easter Season, its mandatory in the Roman Church to have a statue of the Resurrected Christ by the altar. So I don’t see the need for a “Resuri-fix”. But if the parish feels they want this, go ahead. As long as it doesn’t replace the Crucifix which unfortunately some do.
 
This might be the question of a simpleton here but I’ll ask it anyway…what is the Church’s position on the resurrection crucifix? Have bishops, cardinals, or anyone from the Church commented on them? That could provide clarity to trump our personal opinions…or affirm them…🤷
 
I hear a lot of comments about the death being the most important part and not the resurrection. Isn’t this not an either-or situation? Without His death, there was no resurrection for sure. But if Christ had died and not risen, we would not have risen with Him either? They’re a packaged deal. And being a good Anselmian with the Atonement, I think the entire Passion including the scourging and crowning with thorns and way of the Cross and sacrifice and resurrection is part of the Atonement and our Future Hope. It’s not an either-or but a whole package for me 🙂
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I hear a lot of comments about the death being the most important part and not the resurrection. Isn’t this not an either-or situation? Without His death, there was no resurrection for sure.
Click to expand...
that’s very much a Latin view.

The Byzantin emphasis is on the resurrection… the sure sign that the sacrifice had value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top