Resurrected Christ Crucifixes

[Cecilianus]

Much of the divergence actually happened from the West deviating from Byzantine tradition (and, to be fair, from both deviating from Oriental tradition - the Orientals are the most conservative, the Byzantines less conservative, and the Latins the least conservative of all). Confessionals were introduced at the Council of Trent to affirm the Sacrament of Confession against Protestantism; before that they were done in front of the altar (as per Byzantine tradition) and the priest would fast before the liturgy of Confession. (For reference, see Karl Rahner’s Theological Investigations volume II, which is where I am getting this from.) The fast was originally the same in both East and West, but the West using Roman law as its theological analogy began to focus on the bare minimum as a legal necessity (carrying with it the penalty of mortal sin for violations of the fast) while the East focused on the maximum ideal one should be striving for in fasting (without having developed a mortal/venial sin distinction, and while viewing breaking of the fast as being part of the process of growing in humility rather than a mortal sin). Consequently the Western fast became laxer (relatively recently, actually - around the 1400s).

Pews were an English tradition that became introduced in Protestant congregations to accomodate the length of the sermons. Before that, Roman Catholic churches had empty sanctuaries like Eastern churches. I don’t know where kneeling came from.

Everyone crossed themselves right to left (Byzantine fashion) until the 1200s. Pope Innocent III noted in his De sacro altaris mysterio that “It is done from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from heaven to the earth, and from the Jews He passed to the Gentiles.” He also noted that some people were doing it from left to right, indicating that the shift probably happened around then. Nobody knows why the Orientals (Copts, Maronites, Armenians) do it left to right today.

Theological differences between East and West largely follow difference of language between Greek and Latin. The Latins focused on Aristotelian terminology which often harmonized well with the Latin language (substance and accidents, etc.) and also with the “forensic metaphor” (viewing the Church as jurisdictional and legal in character - for this at its worst see the disputes over the “decrees” of God concerning one’s predestination). The Greeks tended to focus more on God’s “essence” versus “energies” (a word you can’t really even translate into Latin, so far as I know) and the course of dogmatic development in the East tended to follow from this distinction. Most of the divergences in theology happened from dogmatic developments after the estrangement and schism, and the fact that theological development has occurred in both the East and the West (not just the West) has led to apparent disagreements. Often the language of the West is more developed than that in the East - Easterners will often say they prefer not to define mysteries like the Eucharist or the sinlessness of the Panagia though especially if you read St. Gregory Palamas I think the Eastern tradition in these cases really is well defined - and sometimes the Eastern approach to certain doctrines (e.g., the “toll-houses” versus Purgatory) has been incredibly controversial in the East. Other times, the Eastern doctrine (the divine energies, and the Trinitarian doctrine of the eternal energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son) is much more advanced than the Latin doctrine (which for example never developed a very terminologically clear understanding of theosis, of gratia increata or the divine energies, or of the distinction between proeinai and exporeusthai which is crucial to the Eastern understanding of the procession of the Spirit but which isn’t made in Latin or any other language that I know of besides Greek).

My point is that there are really quite interesting historical reasons for at least most of the differences.

 

[patrick457]

The West in my experience tends to classify iconography as one of many kinds of religious art.

Some Western art is very much influenced by Byzantine iconography (e.g. the San Damiano cross popular amongst Franciscans: franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/stfrancis/images/SanDam3.gif). Italy had notable influences from Byzantium through the southern states which had a long Byzantine presence, and also through Florence. Some Renaissance artists, for example Duccio, were heavily influenced by Byzantine iconography, and their works are just as Eastern as Western in appearance. e.g. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Duccio_Maest%C3%A0.jpg/800px-Duccio_Maest%C3%A0.jpg

I also notice that Romanesque art is similiar to Byzantine iconography in some respects. e.g. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Meister_aus_Tahull_001.jpg/531px-Meister_aus_Tahull_001.jpg

As you may know, Christian art from the start took motifs and templates from Roman Imperial imagery, classical Greek and Roman religion and popular art and ‘baptized’ them as her own. In the Late Antique period iconography began to be standardised, and to relate more closely to Biblical texts, albeit many of the gaps were filled in with matter from popular apocryphal literature. Some of these were eventually weeded out, but some still remain, like the ox and donkey at the birth of Jesus.

After the period of iconoclasm innovation was regarded as unhealthy, if not heretical, in the East, though it still continued at a glacial pace. More than in the West, traditional depictions were often considered to have authentic or miraculous origins, and the job of the artist was to copy them with as little deviation as possible. Very little room is made for artistic license.

One of the main differences between the iconography of the East and West is the manner of identifying a given saint. The West developed a system of attributes for identifying individual figures of saints by a standard appearance and symbolic objects held by them, while in the East they were more likely to be identified by labels of text.

From the Romanesque period sculpture on churches became increasingly important in Western art (the use of monumental high relief or free-standing sculpture never caught on in the East because it was too reminiscent of the pagan tradition of statuary), and probably partly because of the lack of Byzantine models, became the location of much iconographic innovation, along with the illuminated manuscript, which had already taken a decisively different direction from Byzantine equivalents, under the influence of Insular (Hiberno-Saxon) art and other factors.

Eventually developments in theology and devotional practice produced artistic innovations and new iconic types in the West, but for the most part, painters remained content to copy and slightly modify the works of others, and it is clear that the clergy, by whom or for whose churches most art was commissioned, often specified what they wanted shown in great detail.

Whereas in the Romanesque and Gothic periods the great majority of religious art was intended to convey often complex religious messages as clearly as possible, with the arrival of Early Netherlandish painting (15th-16th centuries) iconography became highly sophisticated, and in many cases appears to be deliberately enigmatic, even for a well-educated contemporary.

From the 15th century Western religious art gradually freed itself from the habit of following earlier compositional models, and by the 16th century ambitious artists were expected to find novel compositions for each subject, and direct borrowings from earlier artists are more often of the poses of individual figures than of whole compositions. The Renaissance and subsequent movements pushed for more realism and ‘authenticity’ in Western art - both secular and religious - and the end result were artists like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Tintoretto, and Raphael.

The Reformation, and the iconoclasm of certain circles, soon restricted most Protestant religious painting to Biblical scenes conceived along the lines of history painting, and after some decades the Council of Trent reined in somewhat the freedom of Catholic artists. While the Protestants largely removed public art from religion and Protestant societies moved towards a more secular style of art, the Church continued to promote art with ‘sacred’ or religious content. The Church felt that much religious art in Catholic countries (especially Italy) had lost its focus on the religious subject-matter, and became too interested in decorative qualities.

…every superstition shall be removed…all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust…there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God. And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop…

 

[patrick457]

Ten years after the decree Paolo Veronese was summoned by the Inquisition to explain why his Last Supper, a huge canvas for the refectory of a monastery, contained, in the words of the Inquisition: “buffoons, drunken Germans, dwarfs and other such scurrilities” as well as extravagant costumes and settings, in what is indeed a fantasy version of a Venetian patrician feast. Veronese was told that he must change his painting within a three month period - in fact he just changed the title to The Feast in the House of Levi, still an episode from the Gospels, but a less doctrinally central one, and no more was said.

But the number of such decorative treatments of religious subjects declined sharply, as did “unbecomingly or confusedly arranged” Mannerist pieces, as a number of books, notably by the Flemish theologian Molanus, Saint Charles Borromeo and Cardinal Gabriele Paleotti, and instructions by local bishops, amplified the decrees, often going into minute detail on what was acceptable. Many traditional iconographies considered without adequate scriptural foundation were in effect prohibited, as was any inclusion of classical pagan elements in religious art, and almost all nudity, including that of the infant Jesus. Michelangelo’s art actually suffered harsh criticism during this period.

 

[patrick457]

The Stations of the Cross began as a pilgrimage devotion. But Eastern Catholics in the Near East generally didn’t go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, because they lived there already. After Jerusalem fell to the Saracens, I don’t think too many Roman citizens went on pilgrimage to and through territory controlled by an enemy.

And the ironic part is, the devotion did not begin in the Holy Land at all.

At any rate, during the sixteenth century, a number of devotional manuals, giving prayers for use when making the Stations, were published in the Low Countries, and some of our fourteen appear in them for the first time. But whilst this was being done in Europe for the benefit of those who could not visit the Holy Land and yet could reach Louvain, Nuremburg, Romans, or one of the other reproductions of the Via Dolorosa, it appears doubtful whether, even up to the end of the sixteenth century, there was any settled form of the devotion performed publicly in Jerusalem, for Zuallardo [ed.: Jean Zuallart, a Belgian pilgrim who went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1586], who wrote a book on the subject, published in Rome in 1587, although he gives a full series of prayers, etc., for the shrines within the Holy Sepulchre, which were under the care of the Franciscans, provides none for the Stations themselves. He explains the reason thus: “it is not permitted to make any halt, nor to pay veneration to them with uncovered head, nor to make any other demonstration”.

From this it would seem that after Jerusalem had passed under the Turkish domination the pious exercises of the Way of the Cross could be performed far more devoutly at Nuremburg or Louvain than in Jerusalem itself. It may therefore be conjectured, with extreme probability, that our present series of Stations, together with the accustomed series of prayers for them, comes to us, not from Jerusalem, but from some of the imitation Ways of the Cross in different parts of Europe, and that we owe the propagation of the devotion, as well as the number and selection of our Stations, much more to the pious ingenuity of certain sixteenth-century devotional writers than to the actual practice of pilgrims to the holy places.

The whole emphasis on the Passion of Christ in the West can be traced perhaps and is related to the emphasis on and devotion to the humanity and life of Jesus. In world so full of troubles (say, like wars, plagues, famines, that sort of thing), the people increasingly looked upon Jesus as one who suffers along with them and identified more and more with His sufferings. The monastic practice of Lectio Divina (meditative reading of the Scriptures) would have drawn the Christian into the events, even assigning him a role as an actor in the drama. Once inside it, he responded to the scene with a variety of human emotions. This led to an identification with Christ and a desire to imitate His virtues, especially poverty and humility, along with a willingness and even a longing to suffer with Christ in His Passion. Thus was born the medieval emphasis to the “Were you there when they nailed Him to the Tree?” type of thing: the Christian is invited to share in and participate with various aspect of our Lord’s life in an interactive manner.

Whereas the East looked more upon the glorious, triumphant “Christ our God” who is the preexistent Logos, the medieval West looked more upon the broken, wounded, human “Jesus, meek and humble of heart” who knows the trials and tribulations of the common man.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I think the Orthodox (Eastern) focus too much on the conquering of death and not enough on the sacrificial nature and the journey of the Cross. .

I recently was listening to a podcast by Father Tom Hopko on Grief and he rebuked the idea that the Orthodox Church is a a Church of the Transfiguration and not the Resurrection. He went on to say we cannot rejoice without first having genuinely grieved and sorrowed. You cannot taste and the sweetness and joy of the Resurrection unless you weep and mourn for the passion. I was pleased to hear this. Hope this helps!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Where do you have Western iconography? The closest I’ve seen have been Greek icons used by Polish Roman Catholics - the Theotokos of the Passion, or Our Lady of Perpetual Help - and some pictures published by the “Monastery Icons” company which were written by “monks” of the Gnostic Orthodox Church but which appear to be Roman Catholic. Blessed Fra Angelico’s religious art can’t be considered iconography unless there is a label on the painting.

There is Western iconography in the old Churches and Cathedrals of the West, to be sure. The biritual Benedictine Monastery of Chevetogne has Western iconography in its Latin Rite Church and Western Rite Orthodox promote such iconography as well.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What would you say to someone who would think that sounds like borderline idolatry? Some would say it sounds that way when you claim an inanimate object contains realities of deity and the afterlife.

This is spot on with respect to the veneration of icons re: Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Icons do not contain realities of deity, but they are grace-filled. They are holy because in the Incarnation of OLGS Jesus Christ, matter is transfigured and becomes capable of bearing and communicating Grace. Christ’s Sacred Body, those of His Saints, even objects touched to the Apostles can bear Grace that performs miracles.

This is an outcome of the Incarnation of our Lord and this is why the Church has dogmatized on icons.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And the ironic part is, the devotion did not begin in the Holy Land at all.

At any rate, during the sixteenth century, a number of devotional manuals, giving prayers for use when making the Stations, were published in the Low Countries, and some of our fourteen appear in them for the first time. But whilst this was being done in Europe for the benefit of those who could not visit the Holy Land and yet could reach Louvain, Nuremburg, Romans, or one of the other reproductions of the Via Dolorosa, it appears doubtful whether, even up to the end of the sixteenth century, there was any settled form of the devotion performed publicly in Jerusalem, for Zuallardo [ed.: Jean Zuallart, a Belgian pilgrim who went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1586], who wrote a book on the subject, published in Rome in 1587, although he gives a full series of prayers, etc., for the shrines within the Holy Sepulchre, which were under the care of the Franciscans, provides none for the Stations themselves. He explains the reason thus: “it is not permitted to make any halt, nor to pay veneration to them with uncovered head, nor to make any other demonstration”.

From this it would seem that after Jerusalem had passed under the Turkish domination the pious exercises of the Way of the Cross could be performed far more devoutly at Nuremburg or Louvain than in Jerusalem itself. It may therefore be conjectured, with extreme probability, that our present series of Stations, together with the accustomed series of prayers for them, comes to us, not from Jerusalem, but from some of the imitation Ways of the Cross in different parts of Europe, and that we owe the propagation of the devotion, as well as the number and selection of our Stations, much more to the pious ingenuity of certain sixteenth-century devotional writers than to the actual practice of pilgrims to the holy places.

The whole emphasis on the Passion of Christ in the West can be traced perhaps and is related to the emphasis on and devotion to the humanity and life of Jesus. In world so full of troubles (say, like wars, plagues, famines, that sort of thing), the people increasingly looked upon Jesus as one who suffers along with them and identified more and more with His sufferings. The monastic practice of Lectio Divina (meditative reading of the Scriptures) would have drawn the Christian into the events, even assigning him a role as an actor in the drama. Once inside it, he responded to the scene with a variety of human emotions. This led to an identification with Christ and a desire to imitate His virtues, especially poverty and humility, along with a willingness and even a longing to suffer with Christ in His Passion. Thus was born the medieval emphasis to the “Were you there when they nailed Him to the Tree?” type of thing: the Christian is invited to share in and participate with various aspect of our Lord’s life in an interactive manner.

Whereas the East looked more upon the glorious, triumphant “Christ our God” who is the preexistent Logos, the medieval West looked more upon the broken, wounded, human “Jesus, meek and humble of heart” who knows the trials and tribulations of the common man.

This is, of course, a matter for discussion. The devotion to the Passion of Christ in the West has more to do with medieval Catholicism and perhaps also with the lack of a definite affirmation of the same of Theosis one finds in the East. Both East and West, at one time, portrayed Christ on the Cross, but in the way that He is portrayed on the Cross of San Damiano, as the God-Man.

Contemporary and earlier Western representations of Christ on the Cross seem, to Eastern eyes and to not a few Western eyes (perhaps this is the misguided root of the Resurrection Cross?) to portray Christ in His Humanity only.

Proper iconography/religious art is there to teach and proclaim. There is, unfortunately, very little in Western artistic depictions of Christ to indicate He is more than just Man.

I grew up with Latin religious art through my RC relatives. When I experienced Eastern iconography (yes, the UGCC has Latinized parishes . . .) through a new Eastern-style parish, I bought it hook, line and sinker.

Alex

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think that’s great to hear, LBL. I hear from Orthodox Christians a huge focus on his death and resurrection (which of course both matter bigtime!) but not on the Way of the Cross and the pain, suffering, hurt, rejection, and actual sacrifice He endured on our behalf. I was reading that the Ukrainian Church had Stations of the Cross but dropped them long ago in an effort to “de-Latinize” themselves? I don’t know how true that is. I just can’t imagine NOT having the Stations in my church. They’re such a sublime journey to “walk” each Lent. I think Catholics in the Latin West focus a lot on the suffering Christ went through AND His Glorious resurrection. I see the journey through Western eyes unapologetically. I think every lash, every moment of Our Lord’s suffering was part of the Atonement and meant for me but taken by the Lord. I think sharing in His suffering at Lent is key. I think sometimes the heavy, heavy “medicinal” “overcoming death” emphasis that I hear A LOT in Orthodoxy seems to focus on the outcome and not the journey. But, as you pointed out, there obviously are Orthodox who are more holistic in the walk…

I recently was listening to a podcast by Father Tom Hopko on Grief and he rebuked the idea that the Orthodox Church is a a Church of the Transfiguration and not the Resurrection. He went on to say we cannot rejoice without first having genuinely grieved and sorrowed. You cannot taste and the sweetness and joy of the Resurrection unless you weep and mourn for the passion. I was pleased to hear this. Hope this helps!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As I stated earlier, I often wonder why the East got so into iconography and have attached HUGE significance to them and the West did not? Obviously the West believes inanimate objects can be blessed but the icons seem to convey a different reality of grace, almost like looking through a portal into heaven, etc. whereas a blessed medal or rosary or prayer card, etc. isn’t of that approach. I wonder why it became so entrenched into Eastern thinking and not Western pre-schism? I findi it interesting that things like the Stations of the Cross took hold in the West but not in the East, and yet iconography in the East but not West, etc. It seems that the United Church was always a bit divided in pious practices, unfortunately…

This is spot on with respect to the veneration of icons re: Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Icons do not contain realities of deity, but they are grace-filled. They are holy because in the Incarnation of OLGS Jesus Christ, matter is transfigured and becomes capable of bearing and communicating Grace. Christ’s Sacred Body, those of His Saints, even objects touched to the Apostles can bear Grace that performs miracles.

This is an outcome of the Incarnation of our Lord and this is why the Church has dogmatized on icons.

Alex

 

[patrick457]

This is, of course, a matter for discussion. The devotion to the Passion of Christ in the West has more to do with medieval Catholicism and perhaps also with the lack of a definite affirmation of the same of Theosis one finds in the East. Both East and West, at one time, portrayed Christ on the Cross, but in the way that He is portrayed on the Cross of San Damiano, as the God-Man.

The San Damiano cross is one of those Byzantine-style painted crucifixes that were popular in Italy (especially in Umbria) during the Middle Ages. The tradition is actually quite strong there: Cimabue and Giotto also painted crosses in their own style.

And you’re correct that it was more common in earlier times to depict Jesus on the cross erect, almost without any vestiges of suffering, if you will. Beginning about the 9th century, Byzantine depictions started to gradually replace the fully-erect, awake Christ with a closed-eyed Jesus with bowed head you often see in icons today. This type was firmly established during the Ottonian period in the West (cf. the Gero Cross, made around 965-970) and especially after c. 1000, became the most standard image. Theological discussions on the sufferings of Christ, as well as increasing public interest in the life and Passion of our Lord - especially in the Western Church IMHO - may help explain this shift. The suffering of Jesus is also reflected in the increasingly mournful attitudes of the accompanying figures: Mary and John, whereas depicted as standing more stoically in older depictions, are now depicted as mourning in an increasing dramatic display. In the West this would segue into the ‘fainting Mary’ and the Mater dolorosa. The body of Jesus also starts to pull and slump more dramatically in Romanesque and Gothic art, and by the 13th century, depictions which show Christ being pierced by three nails, which emphasizes more the swaying nature of Jesus’ body, became increasingly popular in the West, and became increasingly iconic (too iconic, in fact, that many Western Christians often still think that there are only three nails in the crucifixion; I argued against that based on historical and iconographic evidence here).

In fact, for a period of time, it became a fad for some depictions in both East and West to show Jesus as clothed either with a sleeveless tunic (colobium) or a long robe, either out of reverence or quite possibly to suggest his simultaneous role as priest and victim in the sacrifice of the Cross. Sometimes, He even sports a royal crown on His head (in place of the crown of thorns, which itself was not depicted in art until about the late medieval period, and then mostly only in the West) to drive home the point of Christ’s kingship. But as time passed, this element was subsequently dropped and both sides gradually reverted to showing our Lord wearing a simple loincloth, as per the earliest orthodox depictions that we have (the ‘thieves’ were always depicted in this way), perhaps in an effort for greater realism and a greater emphasis on the humanity of Jesus and His human form.

Some good examples of this are: (1) nm illumination from the Rabbula Gospels (586); (2) a 6th-century wooden reliquary from Palestine; (3) from the Durham Gospels (late 7th c.); (4) an 8th-century icon now at St. Catherine’s at Sinai; (5) a fresco, dating ca. 741-752 from Santa Maria Antiqua, Rome (does it look Byzantine? The frescoes were made during the period of the Byzantine Papacy, after all); (6) from the Gospel Book of St. Gall (8th c.); (7) the of LuccaVolto Santo (and the various copies of this image; the one displayed at Lucca is itself a copy because the original was apparently chipped by relic-seeking pilgrims beyond repair); (8) from the Carolingian Uta Codex (11th c.).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Interesting post, patrick, thanks!

The San Damiano cross is one of those Byzantine-style painted crucifixes that were popular in Italy (especially in Umbria) during the Middle Ages. The tradition is actually quite strong there: Cimabue and Giotto also painted crosses in their own style.

And you’re correct that it was more common in earlier times to depict Jesus on the cross erect, almost without any vestiges of suffering, if you will. Beginning about the 9th century, Byzantine depictions started to gradually replace the fully-erect, awake Christ with a closed-eyed Jesus with bowed head you often see in icons today. This type was firmly established during the Ottonian period in the West (cf. the Gero Cross, made around 965-970) and especially after c. 1000, became the most standard image. Theological discussions on the sufferings of Christ, as well as increasing public interest in the life and Passion of our Lord - especially in the Western Church IMHO - may help explain this shift. The suffering of Jesus is also reflected in the increasingly mournful attitudes of the accompanying figures: Mary and John, whereas depicted as standing more stoically in older depictions, are now depicted as mourning in an increasing dramatic display. In the West this would segue into the ‘fainting Mary’ and the Mater dolorosa. The body of Jesus also starts to pull and slump more dramatically in Romanesque and Gothic art, and by the 13th century, depictions which show Christ being pierced by three nails, which emphasizes more the swaying nature of Jesus’ body, became increasingly popular in the West, and became increasingly iconic (too iconic, in fact, that many Western Christians often still think that there are only three nails in the crucifixion; I argued against that based on historical and iconographic evidence here).

In fact, for a period of time, it became a fad for some depictions in both East and West to show Jesus as clothed either with a sleeveless tunic (colobium) or a long robe, either out of reverence or quite possibly to suggest his simultaneous role as priest and victim in the sacrifice of the Cross. Sometimes, He even sports a royal crown on His head (in place of the crown of thorns, which itself was not depicted in art until about the late medieval period, and then mostly only in the West) to drive home the point of Christ’s kingship. But as time passed, this element was subsequently dropped and both sides gradually reverted to showing our Lord wearing a simple loincloth, as per the earliest orthodox depictions that we have (the ‘thieves’ were always depicted in this way), perhaps in an effort for greater realism and a greater emphasis on the humanity of Jesus and His human form.

Some good examples of this are: (1) nm illumination from the Rabbula Gospels (586); (2) a 6th-century wooden reliquary from Palestine; (3) from the Durham Gospels (late 7th c.); (4) an 8th-century icon now at St. Catherine’s at Sinai; (5) a fresco, dating ca. 741-752 from Santa Maria Antiqua, Rome (does it look Byzantine? The frescoes were made during the period of the Byzantine Papacy, after all); (6) from the Gospel Book of St. Gall (8th c.); (7) the Volto Santo of Lucca (and the various copies of this image; the one displayed at Lucca is itself a copy because the original was apparently chipped by relic-seeking pilgrims beyond repair); (8) from the Carolingian Uta Codex (11th c.).

 

[patrick457]

Further theological reflections, devotional and mystical writings and a penchant for allegory and typology influenced the iconography of the Crucifixion in the West, and variations like the Throne of Grace, the Y-shaped cross, the Cross-as-Tree-of-Life, and the inclusion of donors, saints and prophets to the scene came to being. Along with this depictions became very literal about the violence suffered by Christ’s body: the works of Lucas Cranach and Matthias Grünewald are good examples. Renaissance art eventually restored a sort of calm idealization to the scene as artists sought other ways to be dramatic, however, which was preserved, with a more overt expression of emotion, in the Baroque period. Violence is eschewed and many artists have returned to stylized and/or symbolic portrayals of the crucifixion, though sometimes with quite different meanings.

But ironically, Cardinal Humbert would probably not approve of Cranach, Grünewald or Mel Gibson.

 

[patrick457]

As I stated earlier, I often wonder why the East got so into iconography and have attached HUGE significance to them and the West did not? Obviously the West believes inanimate objects can be blessed but the icons seem to convey a different reality of grace, almost like looking through a portal into heaven, etc. whereas a blessed medal or rosary or prayer card, etc. isn’t of that approach. I wonder why it became so entrenched into Eastern thinking and not Western pre-schism? I findi it interesting that things like the Stations of the Cross took hold in the West but not in the East, and yet iconography in the East but not West, etc. It seems that the United Church was always a bit divided in pious practices, unfortunately…

I think this is probably because the West looks on images more as educational tools, a Biblia pauperum (Bible of the Poor), from which even the ignorant could nonetheless learn the people and events of sacred history, rather than as ‘windows to heaven’. This was a view inherited by Protestants, albeit they of course excised the principle (which both East and West shares) of veneration of images. In addition, it never had to undergo the Iconoclastic controversies the East suffered (though parts of the Western Church did suffer during the iconoclastic tendencies of the Reformation), so this was probably the reason why there is less emphasis on the image.

 

[jonnyws]

we were redeemed by his death, not his resurrection.!

Without the Resurrection the atonement of the Cross means nothings. The crucifixion is only complete in terms of salvific effect when Christ overwhelms the grave. It is when his divinity undoes the bonds of sin and does away with death to which each person owes a debt through their wilful choice to sin that our salvation is accomplished. We are not redeemed by Christ’s death, we are redeemed because Christ carries out sins to the grave and the grave cannot hold him. Our debt is paid, a death is given unto death and we share in his Life!

 

[Aramis]

Without the Resurrection the atonement of the Cross means nothings. The crucifixion is only complete in terms of salvific effect when Christ overwhelms the grave. It is when his divinity undoes the bonds of sin and does away with death to which each person owes a debt through their wilful choice to sin that our salvation is accomplished. We are not redeemed by Christ’s death, we are redeemed because Christ carries out sins to the grave and the grave cannot hold him. Our debt is paid, a death is given unto death and we share in his Life!

Actually, the salvific effect remains incomplete until it is accepted by the individual… For God will not force salvation upon the unwilling, or so we are taught by St. Paul and St John.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I was reading that the Ukrainian Church had Stations of the Cross but dropped them long ago in an effort to “de-Latinize” themselves? I don’t know how true that is. I just can’t imagine NOT having the Stations in my church. They’re such a sublime journey to “walk” each Lent.

Thanks. I don’t think it’s All this or All that. But I do think there are empahsis within all Christian traditions. I personally don’t like Stations of the Cross and find the meditations off putting. But your mileage may vary.

 

[patrick457]

Well, by this reasoning, some of the earliest icons would not be considered icons, because they don’t have any writing on them. Or are they exempt from this rule?

Take for example, these icons now at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai: the famous icon of the Pantocrator, another (short-haired) Pantocrator, the Theotokos, St. Peter, and the Ascension. All of these date from the 6th century, and they do not have any writing.

Not to mention that this image would under this definition be an icon because it has (Latin!) writing on it:



Icon dating from the third quarter of the 13th century, presently in Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai. Probably by a Venetian artist. Note the quite ‘Westernized’ style of the depiction: for instance, Christ’s feet being pierced by a single nail.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Explain? What do you mean they put you off?

Thanks. I don’t think it’s All this or All that. But I do think there are empahsis within all Christian traditions. I personally don’t like Stations of the Cross and find the meditations off putting. But your mileage may vary.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Explain? What do you mean they put you off?

The devotion is a memory of the passion. I did not like the focus on the imagery of pains, lashings, and sufferings that Christ endured as he walked to Golgotha. I am trying to obtain a copy from the passion from my friends though for this lent. I have not seen that movie since it came out in theaters years ago. Adding to my previous quote, I do think the Byzantine tradition emphasizes the Transfiguration more than the Latin tradition.

I recently went through a period of listnessness/doubt and my spiritual father suggested I read and meditate upon the Transfiguration in the gospels. So I did. I asked him what I should be looking for, and he said just to read it and meditate upon the mystery. So I did. I still have not found anything in the mystery itself to really help with some of my own doubts, but it did give me a greater appreciation for the event than I otherwise would have had. So I asked most of my Catholic friends who are Roman Catholic about the Transfiguration and most of them have never thought of it.

Perhaps the focus on the passion in Latin spirituality works for Roman Catholics. I think stations of the cross can help people acquire a spirit of genuine sorrow and joy for the Resurrection which they may not have had. But I cringed when I heard of a man who said the stations of the cross every day of his life since he survived a Uboat attack in World War II.

Maybe it’s fulfilling what Saint Silouan of the Mountain said “Keep your mind in hell, but do not despair.”.

= /