Traditional Catholic Wall Crucifix

[slyboots]

Two candles is the bare minimum I think. But the only other candle lit at most any time is the Paschal candle during baptism.
I was really referring to the lack of a traditional crucifix.
Great parish though. Our choir can sing about any music. Lots of lay activities for all ages.
But tradition is not a priority.

 

[bkovacs]

Which online seller puts out the nicest wall crucifixes in the 12" category.

 

[cecilia97]

Do you know if the medieval Spanish crucifixes are pictured anywhere online?

The Louvre has a collection of them, I believe. You might try www.louvre.fr

I remember a particulary gruesome crucifix at the Spanish mission Presidio La Bahia in Goliad, TX but it was probably Mexican and definately from the 1800s. Difficult to look at, let alone imagine going through it.

 

[Miserissima]

Benjamin C. Boulter did a drawing of the crucifix mentioned upthread, circa 1920s. He lived in the UK and died in 1960.

Here is a picture of his drawing:
http://s193.photobucket.com/albums/z244/Miserissima415/?action=view&current=res2.jpg

Additionally, here is a pic of the same crucifix, circa 1950s:
http://s193.photobucket.com/albums/z244/Miserissima415/?action=view&current=res1.jpg

 

[KeithL]

Would you all consider this a Traditional Catholic Wall Crucifix. And any history on this style. I kind of like it. It looks Medieval.

img223.imageshack.us/img223/426/12462lgdz3.jpg

I have one that almost looks exactly like this one,that I bought on Ebay,the sticker on back says “His Store” The Sacred Heart, Chicago…It doesnt have the gold trim on the edges though.

Question,I have one with a golden(plastic) Christ with INRI over him,would this be a Traditional Crucifix?Sorry no picture.

 

[Miserissima]

Recently I picked up Why Do Catholics Do That? and read the chapter about “The Sign of the Cross.” There was a relative passage on page 211:

By the end of the fourth century, though, crucifixion as a public execution was virtually unknown, and people started to see the Cross differently. Crosses of gold or of precious wood were studded with pearls, jewels, and carved gemstones, and a crux gemmata was carried in imperial and pontifical liturgies. This kind of image exalts the cross, transforming it from a symbol of shame into a sign of triumph.

But the Church gradually moved away from this image of imperial splendor and came to prefer the crucifix – a cross with a corpus or figure attached. It focuses attention on Christ’s sacrifice rather than on the glory of the image itself. By the year 692, the Council of constantinople ordered the use of crucifixes in place of ornamented crosses. Still, a good many patrons naturally still had the taste that brought about the old crux gemmata, and they ordered crucifixes showing Christ alive, standing before the Cross with his arms outstretched, wearing imperial robes, a kind that you can still find today."

So, it seems, that the image of the triumphant, kingly Christ on a Crucifix is much older than I would have guessed – even before medieval times.

As with most art reflecting the era and culture in which it was produced, you can date the piece by stylistic tendencies – a Baroque crown perhaps, or even the style of the vestments would be indicators. For example, Christ wearing a Roman ‘fiddleback’ chasuble would indicate that the piece was made (or inspired by) pre VII days, or a Gregorian chasuble may indicate post VII days.

 

[KeithL]

Recently I picked up Why Do Catholics Do That? and read the chapter about “The Sign of the Cross.” There was a relative passage on page 211:

So, it seems, that the image of the triumphant, kingly Christ on a Crucifix is much older than I would have guessed – even before medieval times.

As with most art reflecting the era and culture in which it was produced, you can date the piece by stylistic tendencies – a Baroque crown perhaps, or even the style of the vestments would be indicators. For example, Christ wearing a Roman ‘fiddleback’ chasuble would indicate that the piece was made (or inspired by) pre VII days, or a Gregorian chasuble may indicate post VII days.

Thanks for the information…would a Gregorian Chasuble include the one in the photo above Of Christ on the Cross? Just curious because someone mentioned in being in books pre VII.

 

[Miserissima]

Thanks for the information…would a Gregorian Chasuble include the one in the photo above Of Christ on the Cross? Just curious because someone mentioned in being in books pre VII.

I’m going to hazard a guess and say yes, and apologize for trying to make that distinction. After all, the (current) Gregorian chasuble is based on the older model worn in ancient times – before the fiddleback even came along! I suppose using clothing style is a poor way to try to gauge the period of art.

Here’s one of Christ with a more priestly garment and a cope. And this one is definately more modern, with the hands no longer nailed to the cross.

I think the way we’ve been using the word “traditional” in this thread has a meaning based on relevance – we’ve been saying “traditional” as in how we’re used to seeing things. But if the robed, crowned image of Christ dates back to about the 700s, that’s definately a more *traditional *crucifix. Go figure…I always thought that seeing a robed, crowned Christ on a cross was a very modern image.

(I’m not sure why this topic has me so fascinated, please forgive me if I’m posting too much here.)

 

[lak611]

The Louvre has a collection of them, I believe. You might try www.louvre.fr

I remember a particulary gruesome crucifix at the Spanish mission Presidio La Bahia in Goliad, TX but it was probably Mexican and definately from the 1800s. Difficult to look at, let alone imagine going through it.

I tried the Louvre website but I have not looked all the way through. There were 108 examples of crucifixes, but those pages were only in French, which I do not read or speak.

 

[TheApologist]

Is a picture of Jesus somehow in the shape of a cross necessary? Currently, our parish has a picture of Him resurrected with His five wounds, with one hand out stretched and the other holding a staff with a banner bearing the cross. Is this wrong? There is a picture of Him crucified in the back though…

EDIT:
Oh also, the processional cross if of Him glorified on the cross.

 

[KeithL]

I’m going to hazard a guess and say yes, and apologize for trying to make that distinction. After all, the (current) Gregorian chasuble is based on the older model worn in ancient times – before the fiddleback even came along! I suppose using clothing style is a poor way to try to gauge the period of art.

Here’s one of Christ with a more priestly garment and a cope. And this one is definately more modern, with the hands no longer nailed to the cross.

I think the way we’ve been using the word “traditional” in this thread has a meaning based on relevance – we’ve been saying “traditional” as in how we’re used to seeing things. But if the robed, crowned image of Christ dates back to about the 700s, that’s definately a more *traditional *crucifix. Go figure…I always thought that seeing a robed, crowned Christ on a cross was a very modern image.

(I’m not sure why this topic has me so fascinated, please forgive me if I’m posting too much here.)

Thanks for the reply…yeah the play on words can confuse some lol.
Keith

 

[Genesis315]

I wouldn’t say that this is a traditional crucifix. I am not aware of any medieval crucifix in which Our Lord is depicted in this manner. This is almost certainly post-V II. Unless I am badly mistaken, this kind of imagery did not exist prior to 1965.

You are badly mistaken . This is actually a very old style. From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the St. Wilgefortis legend:

In the early Middle Ages it was common to represent Christ on the cross clothed in a long tunic, and wearing a royal crown.

newadvent.org/cathen/15622a.htm

 

[Loy]

You are badly mistaken . This is actually a very old style. From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the St. Wilgefortis legend:

In the early Middle Ages it was common to represent Christ on the cross clothed in a long tunic, and wearing a royal crown.

newadvent.org/cathen/15622a.htm

Also the following excerpt from second to the last paragraph of another article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

PRIMITIVE CRUCIFORM SIGNS
In the artistic treatment of the crucifix there are two periods: the first, which dates from the sixth to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and the second, dating from that time to our own day. We shall here treat only of the former, touching lightly on the latter. In the first period the Crucified is shown adhering to the cross, not hanging forward from it; He is alive and shows no sign of physical suffering; He is clad in a long, flowing, sleaveless tunic (colobium), which reaches the knees. The head is erect, and surrounded by a nimbus, and bears a royal crown. The figure is fastened to the wood with four nails (cf. Garrucci, “Storia dell’ arte crist.”, III, fig. 139 and p. 61; Marucchi, op. cit., and “Il cimitero e la basilica di S. Valentino”, Rome, 1890; Forrer and Müller, op. cit., 20, Pl, III, fig. 6). In a word, it is not Christ suffering, but Christ triumphing and glorious on the Cross. Moreover, Christian art for a long time objected to stripping Christ of his garments, and the traditional colobium, or tunic, remained until the ninth century. In the East the robed Christ was preserved to a much later date. Again in miniatures from the ninth century the figure is robed, and stands erect on the cross and on the suppedaneum.

 

[Loy]

I’m making an educated guess that the Christ the King crucifix is a more recent adaptation from medieval Romanesque and Byzantine art. The originals were probably paintings, not statues (especially in the East).