The risen Christ crucifix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monica4316 said:
a parish that does the Novus Ordo ?
Click to expand...
Novus Ordo is the incorrect term for Ordinary Form. While we all (most on this forum anyway) know what the PP means, it’s not the correct term. It’s also viewed by many as offensive (think NO church). I don’t personally care, but every one will find a reason to get offended by anything these days.
 
nicolep said:
Novus Ordo is the incorrect term for Ordinary Form. While we all (most on this forum anyway) know what the PP means, it’s not the correct term. It’s also viewed by many as offensive (think NO church). I don’t personally care, but every one will find a reason to get offended by anything these days.
Click to expand...
hmm… I dont know, I was told that Novus Ordo is the official term as well… “ordinary form” is the description of it… as in:

Novus Ordo: ordinary form
Tridentine Latin Mass: extraordinary form

I dont know :confused:
 
I don’t think Novus Ordo is an incorrect term - I think it is simply another descriptive name. Can’t it also be called the Mass of Paul VI? Can’t the TLM be called the Mass of Blessed John XXIII?
 
Novus Ordo simply means ‘New Order’. It’s seen as a term of abuse by those who favour the new rite/mass/Ordinary Form because it has been associated with so much criticism of same.

I can see, twenty years from now, people saying: “You shouldn’t use the term Ordinary Form”, for the same reason. A name attracts the connotations of the thing is refers to.

A famous example: ‘Gay’ is now a term of abuse, when first it meant something jolly, then was appropriated by homosexuals as a slang word for their ‘lifestyle’, then becoming a term of abuse (‘that’s so gay’) because a lot of people don’t like sodomy. And so it goes.
 
Monica4316 said:
hmm… I dont know, I was told that Novus Ordo is the official term as well… “ordinary form” is the description of it… as in:

Novus Ordo: ordinary form
Tridentine Latin Mass: extraordinary form

I dont know :confused:
Click to expand...
Novus Ordo was NEVER the official name for the Mass of Paul VI. In Universae Ecclesiae, Pope Benedict made this very clear
  1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.
Click to expand...
 
ConstantineTG said:
Novus Ordo was NEVER the official name for the Mass of Paul VI. In Universae Ecclesiae, Pope Benedict made this very clear
Click to expand...
While that’s true, in fairness, the term does crop up a few times in Church documents. If you google the term on the Vatican website, there are a handful of hits. Most of them are in more informal things, like The Priest in the Concluding Rites of the Mass or The Priest and the Paschal Triduum from the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff. But it’s still used on occasion.

I think the term becomes less and less apt with every passing year, though. How long will it remain “new”? 😛
 
ConstantineTG said:
Novus Ordo was NEVER the official name for the Mass of Paul VI. In Universae Ecclesiae, Pope Benedict made this very clear
Click to expand...
this doesn’t say that Novus Ordo should not be used … ?

anyways…Novus Ordo, Ordinary form, - we all know what we mean 🙂
 
Monica4316 said:
this doesn’t say that Novus Ordo should not be used … ?

anyways…Novus Ordo, Ordinary form, - we all know what we mean 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, I’m just responding to what you said that you were told it is the “official” term.
 
As to the risen Christ crucifix, its standard on a Byzantine processional crucifix. One side is the icon of Christ crucified, the other is Christ resurrected. Obviously during the Pascha procession, the icon of Christ resurrected is the one that is facing forward, rather than the one crucified.
 
BernadetteM said:
My recollection is that these crosses with the Resurrected Christ first started in the Episcopal Church.

I can remember back over 20 years ago seeing them at some parishes.

In my opinion it is another innovation taken from the protestants.

If one is not careful, soon their will be an empty cross which is typical of almost every protestant church who even has a cross, even many Anglican or Epsicopal churches only have a cross.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
Click to expand...
I am with you. one will probably experience protestantism atmosphere there too.
 
wisdomseeker said:
one will probably experience protestantism atmosphere there too.
Click to expand...
I resent that statement. Our parish has a risen Christ crucifix and we have a very Catholic atmosphere. The idea that you can paint all parishes by what kind of crucifix is behind the altar and state that it has anything to do with the Catholicism of a parish is ludicrous. I do prefer the traditional crucifix, but I have been to multiple parishes with both, and can tell no difference in how Catholic they are. Heck, I have even been to a parish where they had a traditional crucifix during ordinary time and a risen Christ crucifix during Easter season.
 
According to Father John Hardon S.J.’ s Modern Catholic Dictionary , the Crucifix depicting the dead or suffering Christ did not come into “general” use antil after the Reformation … Go figure …:hmmm:
CRUCIFIX.
Click to expand...
A cross bearing the image of Christ. It must be placed on or over an altar where Mass is offered. Due reverence is always given to it. It is sometimes carried as a procession cross leading a line of clergy. Depicting the dead or suffering Christ, the crucifix did not come into general use until after the Reformation. The earlier ones represented Our Lord as the High Priest crowned, robed, and alive. Some men and women religious wear the crucifix as part of their habit. A crucifix is attached to the Rosary beads, and many liturgical blessings are to be given with it. A blessed crucifix is a sacramental and is commonly displayed in Catholic hospitals, homes, and institutions. (Etym. Latin crucifixus, the crucified.)
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia provides a more detailed, in depth history including these notables :
  • “It is certain, then, that the custom of displaying the Redeemer on the Cross began with the close of the sixth century, especially on encolpia, yet such examples of the crucifix are rare…”
    • “As a permanent adjunct to the altar, the cross or crucifix can hardly be traced farther back than the thirteenth century…”*
And in describing an unusual Cross made for the King of Ireland which had no Corpus on it, but rather a “a boss of rock crystal, which formerly enshrined a relic of the True Cross” , Catholic Encyclopedia says that, concerning processional Crucifixes :
    • ” but other processional crosses of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are for the most part true crucifixes. In a great number of cases the shaft was removable, and the upper portion could be set in a stand to be used as an altar-cross. Indeed it seems not improbable that this was the actual origin of the altar-cross employed during Mass (Rohault de Fleury, La Messe, V, 123-140)”*.
Tim Drake’s article of May 22, 2011 Expunging Christ The Crucifix and The Nation provides food for thought from another perspective.

Would it be safe to say that most of us know which crucifix Blessed John Paul II preferred ?

[i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa23/holymusic55/Saints/St%20Bridget%20of%20Sweden/th_Oct11999JohnPaulIIproclaimedStBridg.jpg](http://media.photobucket.com/image/cross of john paul ii/holymusic55/Saints/St Bridget of Sweden/Oct11999JohnPaulIIproclaimedStBridg.jpg?o=18)

:)👍
 
Resurrection or insurrection?

The parish where I attended Catholic school built its “new” church in 1966. A ten-foot Risen Christ sculpture was (and still is) prominently displayed and illuminated in the “altar cove”, in place of the then-standard Catholic Crucifix. A standing altar crucifix (approx 24" tall) was positioned within view of the priest and the faithful at all times.

Initial reaction of the parishioners to the Risen Christ sculpture was mixed. Most folks - so excited to be in a modern building with A/C, wall-wall carpeting and other creature comforts - just took it in stride.

Within a year or so, the altar Crucifix was replaced with a smaller one which was laid flat on the altar. Although it was within view of the priest and altar servers, it was not visible to those in the pews.

The last Latin Mass (of any form) was offered in 1969. Since then, it has undeniably become a 100% Novus Ordo parish. Today the Ordinary Form is offered in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. The Extraordinary Form has never been offered.

Live and learn.
 
The same philosophy like in the gnostic apocrypha: Gospel of Judas: Judas is coredemptor, his betrayal was necessary to bring us the resurrection. And any way, we should not think about the cross, what we had to share with Jesus, do not worry, be happy,

As somebody pointed out Jesus did not risen from the cross. First he was killed, died a shameful death, and we should remember that. The cross is the symbol of his shameful death.
 
laszlo said:
As somebody pointed out Jesus did not risen from the cross. First he was killed, died a shameful death, and we should remember that. The cross is the symbol of his shameful death.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Christ did not die for the sins of mankind.

He was tortured unto death.

A mere technicality?

I don’t think so.
.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Ah, the Resurrectifixes. 😛
Click to expand...
I’ve just got to let you know, you’ve made me laugh out loud so hard I can barely breathe 😃 Thank you, you cheered me up!
SonCatcher said:
since there are no detailed images yet, I looked online to try to find the offending image
http://www.valpo.edu/facilities/chapel/assets/images/christusrex.jpg
this seems very incorrect to me - very much a “glorified” appearance so it’s not a crucified Christ at all

http://www.notredamenhp.org/html/db_ResCross1.jpg
likewise - eyes open and lands not even aligned with crossbeam

http://www.saintcatherine.com/virtualtour/Virtual_Tour_images/Crucifix.jpg
Plainly a variation of the second. However, the eyes seem to be closed here. It’s difficult to tell if the hands align with the crossbeam or of there are nails in the hands and feet, so this might be a “peaceful crucified” image like the one that was just replaced at my parish.
Click to expand...
That first one actually scares me. It doesn’t look like our Blessed Saviour one bit!😦
 
According to Father John Hardon’s notes on the image and etymology of the word “crucifix” [post # 35] … (green bolds mine)
CRUCIFIX.
A cross bearing the image of Christ … **Depicting the dead or suffering Christ **… (Etym. Latin crucifixus, the crucified.)
Click to expand...
… it means the “crucified” - so those other images re-posted directly above are not crucifixes and shouldn’t be referred to as crucifixes.

“Resurrectifixes” not only makes us smile, it’s accurate too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top