Shouldnt there be a Crucifix on the Altar at Mass?

[Michael038]

I was at a Mass out of town on business recently and there was no crucifix on the Alyar during the Mass. I thought this was mandatory am I wrong? There was a resurected Christ hanging behind the Altar. This was a Roman Catholic Church.

Also, is it proper for a Priest to leave the Altar area and let the EMHC distribute the Eucharist? In another out of town Church I attended this happened. The Priest came back after all had received. Also a Roman Catholic Church.

Peace

 

[puzzleannie]

there must be a crucifix with a Corpus, not a risen Christ, present in the sanctuary, clearly visible, but not on the altar. It can be suspended above the altar, on the back wall behind the altar, or even can be the processional cross, but it must be there. Ordinarily the priest should be the minister of communion, but there may be a reason this particular priest could not do it, so we will make that charitable assumption.

 

[palmas85]

Michael038:

I was at a Mass out of town on business recently and there was no crucifix on the Alyar during the Mass. I thought this was mandatory am I wrong? There was a resurected Christ hanging behind the Altar. This was a Roman Catholic Church.

Also, is it proper for a Priest to leave the Altar area and let the EMHC distribute the Eucharist? In another out of town Church I attended this happened. The Priest came back after all had received. Also a Roman Catholic Church.

Peace

There does not have to be a crucifix on the altar. The rubrics state there must be a crucifix, not a plain cross or a risen Christ or a dove or a purple swath of cloth, or anything elae, a crucifix displayed.

That being said, many churches now do not have a crucifix at all of any type. I believe it is all part of the downplaying of the sacrificial aspect of Christ and the exalting of the resurrection.of Christ, which you see in the Mass clearly all the time.

As far as the Priest not distributing communion, unless there was something very very wrong with the Priet that would prevent him from so doing, it is definitely not allowed. But in all honesty, it does happen frequently, at least here in San Diego, particularly in Parishes where you have hordes of Extraordinary Ministers of Communion,lurking about, all anxiously awaiting their turn to more actively participate, or as often is the case, be in the limelight. Sorry, but the truth does sting a bit at times.

Sorry for not being more charitable, but in these areas I find very little to be charitable about…

 

[John_Lilburne]

According to the 2002 General Instruction for the Roman Missa (GIRM)l, n. 117.

“The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with the figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession”

This is repeated later in the GIRM:

“308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.”

Clearly there is not to be a small crucifix, visible only to the priest.

Cardinal Ratzinger had interesting things to say about this in Feast of Faith (Ignatius Press, 1986, ISBN 0-89870-050-6, page 145:

“Even in St. Peter’s in Rome, as a result of the exaggerated and misconceived idea of “celebrating facing the people”, the altar cross has been removed from the center of the altar, so that it does not obstruct the view between celebrant and congregation. But the cross on the altar is not obstructing the view; it is a common point of reference. It is an open “iconostasis” which, far from hindering unity, actually facilitates it: it is the image which draws and unites the attention of everyone. I would even be so bold as to suggest that the cross on the altar is actually a necessary precondition for celebrating toward the people.”

 

[Petergee]

palmas85:

There does not have to be a crucifix on the altar. The rubrics state there must be a crucifix, not a plain cross or a risen Christ or a dove or a purple swath of cloth, or anything elae, a crucifix displayed.

That being said, many churches now do not have a crucifix at all of any type. I believe it is all part of the downplaying of the sacrificial aspect of Christ and the exalting of the resurrection.of Christ, which you see in the Mass clearly all the time.

As far as the Priest not distributing communion, unless there was something very very wrong with the Priet that would prevent him from so doing, it is definitely not allowed. But in all honesty, it does happen frequently, at least here in San Diego, particularly in Parishes where you have hordes of Extraordinary Ministers of Communion,lurking about, all anxiously awaiting their turn to more actively participate, or as often is the case, be in the limelight. Sorry, but the truth does sting a bit at times.

Sorry for not being more charitable, but in these areas I find very little to be charitable about…

San Diego must be a strange place. I would be interested to hear from others in that city. I have been in scores of Catholic churches in Australia, old and new, city and country, with “liberal” and “conservative” priests and congregations, and have never seen any Catholic church without a crucifix. And the only priest I ever saw refrain from distributing Communion is a paraplegic.

And in my parish the priest/commentator frequently has to beg reluctant Communion Ministers to come forward. I find it hard to believe there are churches where “hordes” of Communion Ministers rush the altar. As for your allegation that they do this in order to “be in the limelight”, what possible basis do you have for this highly uncharitable, not to mention bizarre, assumption? How could you possibly know their motivation? And if I wanted to be the centre of attention I could think of a thousand more effective ways of doing it than by serving as a Communion Minister.

Would I be right in concluding that your basic problem is that you pridefully consider the Church is wrong to allow lay Communion Ministers at all, and so you look down on anyone who offers to serve in this role?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

The proper term is “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” not “lay Communion Ministers.”

I too have witnessed the hordes of EMHCs descending on the altar. And I’m a loooooooong way from San Diego. It’s now 6 degrees here. Wish I was in San Diego.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Dr. Bombay:

The proper term is “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” not “lay Communion Ministers.”

I too have witnessed the hordes of EMHCs descending on the altar. And I’m a loooooooong way from San Diego. It’s now 6 degrees here. Wish I was in San Diego.

It’s a little warmer in OKC, maybe by 10 degrees, but it is expected to fall into single digits tonight. In my old parish, the EMHCs were in hordes also. I am about to leave for a TLM so I don’t expect to see any Extraordinary Ministers tonight.

 

[netmilsmom]

Petergee:

As for your allegation that they do this in order to “be in the limelight”, what possible basis do you have for this highly uncharitable, not to mention bizarre, assumption? How could you possibly know their motivation? And if I wanted to be the centre of attention I could think of a thousand more effective ways of doing it than by serving as a Communion Minister.

Would I be right in concluding that your basic problem is that you pridefully consider the Church is wrong to allow lay Communion Ministers at all, and so you look down on anyone who offers to serve in this role?

Until you have dealt with some of the American EMCHs please don’t be judgemental of someone who speaks with distain of their actions.
I wash Altar Linens at my old parish. Some of the EMCHs there treated me as the hired help. Some do hold a pride that does not belong in a Catholic Church. Just because someone dislikes the actions of some EMHC does not mean that he is against them. Note they are EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of Holy Communion and in some parishes in the States, they act like they are ordinary and indispensable.

We have very few at my parish that are brought out for Holiday Mass and big events. We had three priests and one EMHC today with 600 people. Ask how many are in the other parishes in the States. You will find MANY more.

 

[Petergee]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Until you have dealt with some of the American EMCHs please don’t be judgemental of someone who speaks with distain of their actions.

I wasn’t judging palmas85, I was ASKING.

I wash Altar Linens at my old parish. Some of the EMCHs there treated me as the hired help. Some do hold a pride that does not belong in a Catholic Church.

Yes it’s wrong that these people are rude and prideful. But what does that have to do with their being EMHCs? You seem to be suggesting that being EMHCs MADE them rude and prideful.

Just because someone dislikes the actions of some EMHC does not mean that he is against them.

I meant palmas didn’t exlain how it is so obvious that they are only doing it because they want to hog the limelight. Which of their “actions” prove this? How would an EMHC go about proving that s/he is doing it for noble motives? And why put the onus on them to prove this ?

Note they are EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of Holy Communion and in some parishes in the States, they act like they are ordinary and indispensable.

This has been done to death here and elsewhere. “Extraordinary” in this case does NOT mean “extremely rare”. It means “outside the Sacrament of Holy Orders”, i.e. “lay”.

We have very few at my parish that are brought out for Holiday Mass and big events. We had three priests and one EMHC today with 600 people. Ask how many are in the other parishes in the States. You will find MANY more.

You seem to think any more than one constitutes a “horde”. Most parishes are not lucky enough to have three priests. To distribute communion within a liturgically appropriate time, several hundred communicants would usually require four Communion Ministers, or eight if Communion is given under both kinds, or ten if Communion by intinction is also offered. If the priest asks ten ministers to come forward, and they obey him, you can hardly blame the ministers themselves for constituting a “horde”. Palmas seemed to suggest that dozens of people rush forward elbowing each other out of the way for the opportunity of grabbing the “limelight”. What limelight? I’d say most of the congregation are like me - the only time I even look at any of the EMHC’s is for a couple of seconds at the one administering Communion to me.

 

[thistle]

John Lilburne:

This is repeated later in the GIRM:

“308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.”

Clearly there is not to be a small crucifix, visible only to the priest.

Cardinal Ratzinger had interesting things to say about this in Feast of Faith (Ignatius Press, 1986, ISBN 0-89870-050-6, page 145:

“Even in St. Peter’s in Rome, as a result of the exaggerated and misconceived idea of “celebrating facing the people”, the altar cross has been removed from the center of the altar, so that it does not obstruct the view between celebrant and congregation. But the cross on the altar is not obstructing the view; it is a common point of reference. It is an open “iconostasis” which, far from hindering unity, actually facilitates it: it is the image which draws and unites the attention of everyone. I would even be so bold as to suggest that the cross on the altar is actually a necessary precondition for celebrating toward the people.”

In my local church there is no crucifix of any size on the altar. What we have is a giant crucifix (10 feet) hanging from the ceiling in the centre of the church. It is in view of everyone. Does this conform to the GIRM instruction?

 

[palmas85]

Petergee:

San Diego must be a strange place. I would be interested to hear from others in that city. I have been in scores of Catholic churches in Australia, old and new, city and country, with “liberal” and “conservative” priests and congregations, and have never seen any Catholic church without a crucifix. And the only priest I ever saw refrain from distributing Communion is a paraplegic.

And in my parish the priest/commentator frequently has to beg reluctant Communion Ministers to come forward. I find it hard to believe there are churches where “hordes” of Communion Ministers rush the altar. As for your allegation that they do this in order to “be in the limelight”, what possible basis do you have for this highly uncharitable, not to mention bizarre, assumption? How could you possibly know their motivation? And if I wanted to be the centre of attention I could think of a thousand more effective ways of doing it than by serving as a Communion Minister.

Would I be right in concluding that your basic problem is that you pridefully consider the Church is wrong to allow lay Communion Ministers at all, and so you look down on anyone who offers to serve in this role?

The last time I attended my parish church was this morning for the 7:00am Holy Day of Obligation. We had, oh I don’t know, fifty, sixty people there more or less. Six Extraordinary Ministers of Communion plus the Priest. On Sundays they usually have, at least the times I’ve been there, ten to 12.

It is not bizarre at all. You would have to see it to truly understand I suppose, but believe me, in the U.S., probably the undisputed leader in this thing there is no shortage of Extraordinary Ministers of Communion at all. Not only that, in many cases they are communed before the Priest, and are in the sanctuary most of the Mass prior to and including the Consecration. But hey, since you guys don;t have many over there, I’ve got an idea, we could round em up and send them over there

Nah, couldn’t be done and an uncharitable idea at that, and I apologize.

But I can dream!

And yes, there are not a few but a whole lot of Churches here in the States without a Crucifix. A lot of them have substituted a figure of the Risen Christ, and not a few have a plain cross or nothing at all. All very ecumenical you know. the crucifix offends some peoples sensibilities. There are quite a few priests, excuse me presiders, that allow lay members to give the homily and there are some cases in which the only visible function of the Priest is to observe rather disinterestedly I might add, from the throne, excuse me, the presiders chair, sipping bottled water, I actually saw that one as the congregation takes over the lead role in just about everything.

 

[palmas85]

Oh and by the way, the Extraordinary Minister title refers to using them in extraordinary situations, not as a routine matter which is not allowed. You can check that one, I’m not making it up.

 

[msproule]

Petergee:

I wasn’t judging palmas85, I was ASKING.

That may be, but in so asking you were being quite presumptuous, and you know you were. (Wait a minute, was *I *being presumptuous, too?)

You seem to be suggesting that being EMHCs MADE them rude and prideful.

No, they were probably already rude and prideful. Being appointed EMHC just gave them a vehicle through which to exercise their nasty demeanors. Humility should be the most important criteria for being an EMHC, right after steady hands, IM(H)O.

This has been done to death here and elsewhere. “Extraordinary” in this case does NOT mean “extremely rare”.

Once again you point out a fact, but nevertheless the Vatican expresses repeatedly that they are to be used as infrequently as possible.

Most parishes are not lucky enough to have three priests.

I think her parish actually does have three priests on the books, but I also know that they are resourceful enough and holy enough to attract many other priests from near and far to assist.

To distribute communion within a liturgically appropriate time, several hundred communicants would usually require four Communion Ministers, or eight if Communion is given under both kinds, or ten if Communion by intinction is also offered.

Interestingly, netmil(name removed by moderator)'s parish distributes by intinction. Furthermore, go to that parish and you will witness one of the most reverently celebrated Masses anywhere. No corners are cut in order to achieve “liturgical efficiency”, whatever that means. By the Grace of God, they get the job done!

 

[thistle]

The thread has gone off topic by now discussing EMHC’s.
Could we get back on topic as I was interested in somebody kindly answering my previous question.

In my local church there is no crucifix of any size on the altar. What we have is a giant crucifix (10 feet) hanging from the ceiling in the centre of the church. It is in view of everyone. Does this conform to the GIRM instruction?

 

[msproule]

Getting back to the topic, I am sad to report that there are at least a few parishes in my area that have “Risen Christ” Crucifixes instead of a true Crucifix. Ultimately, the Bishop is at fault for misinterpreting the instructions, as he holds final approval authority on architectural plans and Sacred Art.

Interestingly, the GIRM never mentions the word “Crucifix”. All you will find is “cross with a figure of Christ crucified” or even simply “cross”. Both mean a true crucifix.

My neice, who is in RCIA at one of these parishes, asked the Deacon why there was a risen Christ figure instead of a crucified one. He told her that this was the “artist’s interpretation”. This parish was just rebuilt in 2002, so unfortunately the artist had already been commissioned before the GIRM was published. Nevertheless, I believe the previous Ordo Missae also specified that the Christ figure be crucified. What a shame…

 

[msproule]

Thistle,

The GIRM is (somewhat) clear on this:
308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

Is the altar also at the center of the church building? Or is the altar on one end and the crucific in the center? The latter is potentially problematic, IMO. However, the local Bishop is responsible for approving architecture and art.

But also in the GIRM (with emphasis added):
119…When there is an Entrance Procession, the following are also to be prepared: the Book of the Gospels; on Sundays and festive days, the thurible and the boat with incense, if incense is used; the cross to be carried in procession; and candlesticks with lighted candles.
So, there should be a crucifix used for the Entrance Procession, which is typically placed on or near the altar in the sanctuary. This would be sufficient. Do you have this?

 

[thistle]

msproule:

Thistle,

The GIRM is (somewhat) clear on this:
308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

Is the altar also at the center of the church building? Or is the altar on one end and the crucific in the center? The latter is potentially problematic, IMO. However, the local Bishop is responsible for approving architecture and art.

But also in the GIRM (with emphasis added):
119…When there is an Entrance Procession, the following are also to be prepared: the Book of the Gospels; on Sundays and festive days, the thurible and the boat with incense, if incense is used; the cross to be carried in procession; and candlesticks with lighted candles.
So, there should be a crucifix used for the Entrance Procession, which is typically placed on or near the altar in the sanctuary. This would be sufficient. Do you have this?

A crucifix is carried at the entrance procession which is then placed at the side of the sanctuary.

 

[msproule]

thistle:

A crucifix is carried at the entrance procession which is then placed at the side of the sanctuary.

Rest assured; I believe this satisfies the requirement.

Either way, your parish is better than my former one in this regard. They, too, have a processional crucifix that is placed quite far away from the altar but still in the sanctuary. In fact, it is nearer to the ambo than it is to the altar. Alas, there is no other crucifix in the nave. Sadly, this is a very wealthy parish and could easily fund a new, prominently-displayed crucifix but I will probably never see that happen.:crying:

 

[John_Lilburne]

Yes, I think a large crucifix hanging in the centre satisfies the requirement of 2002 GIRM 308 for a crucifix on or near the altar.

Having a processional cross which is then put aside is also correct, according to the 2002 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.”

So following this GIRM, if there were to be a cross on the altar (as Cardinal Ratzinger suggested in Feast of Faith) there should be the removal another large, fixed crucifix.

 

[Michael038]

I didnt intend this thread to rip into the EMOHC’s because I’m one myself. I did have to question the Priest for leaving the Altar during a daily Mass with about 15-20 people in attendance and having the EMOHC distribute the Eucharist. We use an average of four in our Parish on Sundays. Again, I am a EMOHC but I recognize that this should only be practiced when absolutely necessary. I didnt feel that particuliar Mass warranted that.

Peace