The crucifix vs. the cross

[Sowndog]

I was in a Church last year that doesn’t even have a wooden cross: Just the image of the crucified Christ suspended from the ceiling above the altar. It is a little strange but I like the theological message that is portrayed.
Having said that, a priest said to me that he would still feel better if someone stuck a plank of wood to Christ’s back!

 

[mj330]

Sowndog:

I was in a Church last year that doesn’t even have a wooden cross: Just the image of the crucified Christ suspended from the ceiling above the altar. It is a little strange but I like the theological message that is portrayed.
Having said that, a priest said to me that he would still feel better if someone stuck a plank of wood to Christ’s back!

While on the subject of differences in displaying the crucifix: some protestant churches subscribe to the notion that there should be no cross in the sanctuary, as it is an “offense” to those who may not believe.

 

[Scullinius]

mj330:

While on the subject of differences in displaying the crucifix: some protestant churches subscribe to the notion that there should be no cross in the sanctuary, as it is an “offense” to those who may not believe.

That’s just perverse.

 

[antiaphrodite]

mj330:

While on the subject of differences in displaying the crucifix: some protestant churches subscribe to the notion that there should be no cross in the sanctuary, as it is an “offense” to those who may not believe.

may not believe in what? that Christ died ON A CROSS for our sins???!!!

 

[puzzleannie]

Jodi:

This is so funny me and my husband are converting to catholic and were having this discussion just last night. I am converting from lds. You will not find a single cross or picture of a cross anywhere in a lds home or church. So I have been trained from childhood to not be comfortable with any crosses and more especially crucifixs. We were even instructed as a lds ward to not see the passion. Because it was graphic in detail and that we didn’t need to concentrate on that aspect of christs life and death. One of the first things I am trying to do is to get used to this .

welcome home! you could not have chosen a better example to demonstrate the falsity of LDS teaching and its complete denial of Christ and the Paschal Mystery. thank you. Are you familiar with this prayer of St. Francis before a crucifix.
Look down upon me, good and gentle Jesus, while before your face I humbly kneel. With burning soul, I pray and beseech you to fix deep into my heart lively sentiments of faith, hope and charity, a true contrition for my sins, and a firm purpose of amendment, while I ponder your five most precious wounds and recall the words of David, your servant: They have pierced my hands and my feet and they have numbered all my bones.

 

[prodromos]

puzzleannie:

when it comes to displaying the cross in Church it is not a matter of personal preference. A Catholic Church is required to have a crucifix, with the corpus of the crucified Christ, not the risen Christ present prominently during the celebration of Mass to make it perfectly clear that the Mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary and without the sacrifice there could be no resurrection. The Protestant view is the Sacrifice of Jesus was a one-time historical event, as was the resurrection, over and done with. The Catholic view is that the entire Paschal Mystery, from Holy Thursday, Good Friday through to the Resurrection and Ascension is sacramentally present and we participate in it sacramentally through every single Mass celebrated in every time and place by the Church. We are united in this way to the salvific action of Christ and to all Catholics past, present and future.

Excellent post Annie, the Gospel isn’t simply the resurrection but the whole of the incarnation of Christ, from His conception and birth, through His ministry, to His death and resurection.
My personal preference (being Orthodox ) is the Orthodox crucifix which presents Christ standing victorious on the cross, not hanging from the cross as if defeated. While the Catholic crucifix might be historically accurate, the Orthodox crucifix trancends the physical to teach us theological truth.

John

 

[prodromos]

I meant to add this from philthompson.net/pages/faq/13.html

But there’s still one more reason to show Christ on the cross: It’s Christ we worship, not the Cross. Nobody salutes a flagpole when the flag is not flying! But when they see the flag on the pole, they venerate the flag, hand over heart, hat removed, in token of their respect for the country it represents. A cross without Christ on it is an empty flagpole.

 

[mj330]

good point, prodromos.

 

[Ignatius]

1) Best I can say is that Christ died once and for all and that He presented Himself into the Holy of Holies once; therefore, the completed work is not necessarily reflected by the cross but by the resurrection. I may not have articulated this well enough, perhaps another can explain it better.
2) Isaiah 53.
QUOTE]

Then an image of a seplucher would be more appropriate. It is His Crucifixion that atones for our sins, not His resurection. That doesn’t present us His suffering and death for our salvation.

The Crucifix of Christ will:

Remind me of Thine Agony
Remind me of Gethsemany
Remind me of Thy Love for me
Take me to Calvary

 

[mj330]

Then an image of a seplucher would be more appropriate. It is His Crucifixion that atones for our sins, not His resurection. That doesn’t present us His suffering and death for our salvation.

Does not the resurrection complete the atonement?:
"It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up becuase of our offenses and was raised because of our justification." (Rom.4:24,25).

It seems that the RC crucifix points to an incomplete work.

 

[John_Henry]

mj330:

Can anyone help with the following: The protestant church has an empty cross that signifies the resurrection of Christ, which they say that shows the message of the gospel “better.” Any help with the Catholic position to speak against it? Thanks.

There’s no need to speak against it. An empty cross does speak better of the resurrection. A crucifix speaks better about the crucifixion. A manger scene speaks better about the birth. That is assuming they are using an empty cross for that reason, and not just to not be Catholic.

Nevertheless, a crucifix demonstrates the reality that it was Jesus who saved us, not an empty cross. Furthermore, it demonstrates the depth of the agony he endured to save us. Furthermore, it better highlights the reality of the Mass (real presence). Furthermore, it better demonstrates the reality that our life is also a cross bearing until we get to heaven, and that in so bearing our crosses, we participate in Christ’s sufferings, for a servant is not greater than the master.

 

[Philthy]

mj330:

Can anyone help with the following: The protestant church has an empty cross that signifies the resurrection of Christ, which they say that shows the message of the gospel “better.” Any help with the Catholic position to speak against it? Thanks.

Hi MJ:
This is a good question that you ask. Some protestants believe the empty cross is a better representation of the accomplished work of the Crucifixion. This is an absurd proposition since the empty Cross, of itself, acknowledges nothing. It doesn’t acknowledge that Christ even went to the Cross and it certainly, therefore, can’t better represent his resurrection. For that the empty tomb is far better as others have stated… what’s really going on is that Protestants blur the concept of the mass as a “recrucifixion” of Christ and they infer that from this we Catholics believe that Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was somehow incomplete and they feel the need to “make a statement” with the bare Cross. It’s sad. Check out the last page or two of this marathon thread http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=16703

where our good friend Ozzie (protestant) and I cover this issue. Of course I can’t be entirely unbiased, but my argument in favor of the Crucifix seems to overwhelm his oppositions.

OZZIE:

Of course Jesus said “it is finished” on the cross. That was my whole point. There on the cross HE FINISHED the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation…“once for all.” No more sacrifice is ever required!! That’s why a vacant cross is a better symbol than a crucifix.

Ozzie - you are almost as stubborn as I am persistent! I told you when we started to pick your battles wisely - attempting to criticize Catholics for wearing Crucifixes is simply foolish. I’ll state it again: I don’t have a problem with people wearing crosses and you shouldn’t have a problem with Crucifixes. Criticism of the crucifix is (at least) foolish and (possibly) vengeful. I will, again, prove it from your own argument that your logic above fails.
The problem with your argument is that it is DERIVED ENTIRELY FROM CHRIST ON THE CROSS. “It was finished” with Christ **ON **the Cross. Here, let me quote you:“There on the cross HE FINISHED the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation…“once for all.” No more sacrifice is ever required!!” Exactly Ozzie - ALL ON THE CROSS. Nothing more perfectly represents ALL OF IT, because ON the Cross is where it happened. If, as you say, he finished it all ON the cross, why would you or I want to remember it any differently by removing Him from it?

OZZIE:

“The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty” (see Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

Even Paul has to edify the empty cross with the empty tomb because the empty cross doesn’t stand on it’s own. But Paul has no problem speaking of Christ crucified alone; " …I resolved to know nothing…except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" 1cor 2:2. Nothing you’ve said contributes one iota toward your illogical dislike of the Crucifix. In fact, the empty cross is looking more and more lacking.

OZZIE:

You can add nothing to it, Phil, nor can you subtract from it, or you are quilty of violating it. And you must accept His FINISHED work by faith.

Well, for the record Ozzie I didn’t add anything to the Cross and I haven’t removed anything from it either - some might argue that you have, but I won’t. As I said, I don’t have a problem with the cross vs crucifix issue. But here in your statement , finally, we can get a glimpse of where your illogical, misplaced distaste for the crucifix comes from: you judge the faith of others - particularly Catholics. You inject theological disputes into every aspect of Christianity. It’s not good enough that they are choosing to proclaim their belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior by wearing a representation of Good Friday around their neck. Oh no, not good enough because you know their heart- they need to have the empty cross because, well, that just means so much more. Think about how rediculous that is. It seems distinctly uncharitable to me. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think so; I’ve been guilty of the same, and as the saying goes, “It takes one to know one.” I realize I’m coming on a little strong here Oz, but we really should be striving for unity, not division, and I really sensed that somehow rather than looking at it objectively you have allowed pride or some other bias to cloud your mind and your heart.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

mj330:

Does not the resurrection complete the atonement?:
“It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up becuase of our offenses and was raised because of our justification.” (Rom.4:24,25).

It seems that the RC crucifix points to an incomplete work.

Are you sure your translation says “because of” our justification? I can’t make any sense of that statement. Mine says “was raised for our justification” In any event, keep reading…

Romans 5:9
“How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.”

We are justified by his blood: He bled throughout the Passion, however there was no blood shed during the 3 days he was dead in the tomb.
And don’t forget either, there have been lots of empty crosses. There were two right next to Christs on the day he was crucified. How does the empty cross distinguish itself from them?
Furthermore, Catholics make the “sign of the Cross” which does not have “Christ on the Cross” - but that also is frowned upon by non-catholics. go figure. As I said in my original post - this is a silly argument. I don’t have a problem with the empty cross. People who have a problem with the Crucifix have a bone to pick. Taking Christ off the Cross is primarily directed *against *Catholic theology and not towards the resurrection - despite all the hot air. Go read my post above…

Phil

 

[Mt19_26]

Catholic Apologist John Martignoni describes why Catholics use a crucifix as opposed to a cross:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=7061&T1=martignoni

In summary:

Catholics keep Christ on the cross because we preach Christ as crucified as Paul did:

Paul says “we proclaim Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:2)

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2)

Through Christ’s crucifixion we were freed from the bond of sin and death. The crucifix also reminds us of God’s love for us for He gave up his only begotten Son for death and suffering.

And in this life we share in the suffering of Jesus on the cross:

“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)

“If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” (Romans 6:8)

Lastly,

"O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? " (Gal 3:1)

Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. It appears they were looking at a crucifix? Wouldn’t you say?

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

Genesis315:

I don’t think the Catholic position would say there’s necessarily anything wrong with an empty cross in general. The crucifix is better because it’s more apt to remind us of the huge sacrifice and price Jesus paid for our sins. This is especially pertinent at the Mass, which is the perpetuation of that same sacrifice (and why the GIRM mandates a crucifix I believe).

For a year we had a Syro-Malabar (Catholic, in communion with Rome) priest from India assisting in our parish. He told me that in their churches do not have a corpus on their crosses - just the cross. Their focus as a rite is more on the resurrection - the empty cross. Apparently Rome is quite happy to let the Eastern Rite Churches continue their spirituality. In the Latin Rite, yes, a crucifix is required. Our church at home where my parents still attend had a Byzantine style mosaic of the resurrected Christ on the cross.

God bless,
Stephen

 

[Ignatius]

mj330:

It seems that the RC crucifix points to an incomplete work.

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him Crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2)

That’s complete enough for me!

 

[SPOKENWORD]

exoflare:

The crucifix repels evil spirits… kind of makes you think.

Hi exo, I think you have been watching to many movies. God Bless

 

[Little_Mary]

mj330:

While on the subject of differences in displaying the crucifix: some protestant churches subscribe to the notion that there should be no cross in the sanctuary, as it is an “offense” to those who may not believe.

Those are the churches in which Satan has won the battle.

 

[Exporter]

What represents the terrible suffering and death that Jesus Christ actually endured so we poor humans could have a shot at salvation?

Was the wooden cross or was it his death and agony on the cross? The crucifix tells us every time we look at it of what Jesus did for us. An empty cross doesn’t mean much.