Where's the crucifix?

[ac_pearse]

Hi, my name is Amanda, I’m 29 years old. This is my first post to CA, and my first time back on the internet after many years. I am grateful to have found this place!

Here’s the situation I would like the forum’s opinion on: When I first started going to my church I was suprised to see a big plain wooden cross (no corpus) hanging over the alter. There wasn’t a crucifix to be seen. In every other way this is a traditional Catholic church, except for the huge Protestant-lookin’ empty wooden cross.

A few months later, around Eastertime, they hung a figure of the Risen Christ in front of the plain cross. So Instead of the crucified Jesus there is a triumphant Jesus. It just seems kinda wrong to me. I’ve always thought that the crucifix is such a great visual reminder of the Sacrifice.

In fact, the only one that I see is the gold or silver processional crucifix that the altar server walks in with; after the procession he/she takes it off to the side (would I call that “altar right”?), down the stairs and sets it against the wall in a corner.

My questions are:

1.) Is this correct liturgical practice? What does the Church say about crucifixes in the church?

2.) Assuming that this is a wrong (or at least an oddly non-traditional) practice, what could be the reasons for a church actively deciding to get rid of the crucifix at the altar? Political correctness…? Eceumenism…?

Baffled,
a.c.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi, my name is Amanda, I’m 29 years old. This is my first post to CA, and my first time back on the internet after many years. I am grateful to have found this place!

Here’s the situation I would like the forum’s opinion on: When I first started going to my church I was suprised to see a big plain wooden cross (no corpus) hanging over the alter. There wasn’t a crucifix to be seen. In every other way this is a traditional Catholic church, except for the huge Protestant-lookin’ empty wooden cross.

A few months later, around Eastertime, they hung a figure of the Risen Christ in front of the plain cross. So Instead of the crucified Jesus there is a triumphant Jesus. It just seems kinda wrong to me. I’ve always thought that the crucifix is such a great visual reminder of the Sacrifice.

In fact, the only one that I see is the gold or silver processional crucifix that the altar server walks in with; after the procession he/she takes it off to the side (would I call that “altar right”?), down the stairs and sets it against the wall in a corner.

My questions are:

1.) Is this correct liturgical practice? What does the Church say about crucifixes in the church?

2.) Assuming that this is a wrong (or at least an oddly non-traditional) practice, what could be the reasons for a church actively deciding to get rid of the crucifix at the altar? Political correctness…? Eceumenism…?

Baffled,
a.c.

No it’s not correct liturgical practice. Nothing says that a crucifix must always be present in the church. The GIRM says however that during the celebration of the Mass a crucifix with Christ crucified MUST be present on or near the altar on which the Mass is being celebrated.

 

[teme]

St. Paul writes in Corinthians (1 Cor 1:23) “We preach Christ Crucified”. Seems odd a Catholic Church, or even a Protestant church for that matter, would have a cross without our crucified Lord. But I’ve seen it in Catholic churches too, particularly a Jesuit University near my home. Might want to ask the priest and see what he says if it bothers you - especially if they really lean a crucifix against the wall in a corner…

 

[Lepanto]

No it’s not correct liturgical practice. Nothing says that a crucifix must always be present in the church. The GIRM says however that during the celebration of the Mass a crucifix with Christ crucified MUST be present on or near the altar on which the Mass is being celebrated.

Here’s what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says:
“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.”

Source:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml#sect2

So having the processional crucifix as the only crucifix MAY meet the letter of the law, but it certainly does not meet the spirit IMHO, and it is certainly a deviation from centuries of Catholic tradition.

Chalk up another one to the protestantisation of American Catholicism.

 

[ac_pearse]

Here’s what the General Instruction of
So having the processional crucifix as the only crucifix MAY meet the letter of the law, but it certainly does not meet the spirit IMHO, and it is certainly a deviation from centuries of Catholic tradition.

Chalk up another one to the protestantisation of American Catholicism.

Thanks for looking that up!

If I can find the confidence I will bring it up with Father. I know I’m not the only one who is curious/concerned. I’ve heard other people-- visitors from other parishes, mostly-- comment on it.

So in you guys’ opinion, what do you think is the reason for this particular abuse? The crucifix rule is clearly stated in the General Instructions, so a priest can’t claim ignorance…And it’s not like it’s something that is just being ignored…At the church I’m writing about they ACTIVELY took away the crucifix and spent a lot of money and effort to replace it with the risen Christ figure in front of a plain cross.

-a.c.

 

[Lepanto]

Thanks for looking that up!

If I can find the confidence I will bring it up with Father. I know I’m not the only one who is curious/concerned. I’ve heard other people-- visitors from other parishes, mostly-- comment on it.

Kudos to you for being concerned about this. It is not only the right of Catholics to be on guard against liturgical abuses, but it is also our obligation.

You should look into getting the book “Mass Confusion” by James Akin. It discusses all of this and much more.

So in you guys’ opinion, what do you think is the reason for this particular abuse? The crucifix rule is clearly stated in the General Instructions, so a priest can’t claim ignorance…And it’s not like it’s something that is just being ignored…At the church I’m writing about they ACTIVELY took away the crucifix and spent a lot of money and effort to replace it with the risen Christ figure in front of a plain cross.

-a.c.

It could be ignorance or disobedience. But the overarching reason is, as previously mentioned, the protestantisation of American Catholicism. Also, Americans in general don’t like to be reminded of suffering, so our faith is watered-down and almost repackaged into a more marketable “Catholic-Lite.”

If you show the GIRM to your priest, he may get legalistic and say that the processional crucifix meets the letter of the law. It MAY do this during Masses, but processional crucifixes are almost always removed at the end of Mass. In this case, the GIRM would be violated because article 308 (second sentence) says: “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.”

So the best solution is to have a permanently affixed crucifix, which is what Catholic churches around the world have done for centuries.

If the priest was ignorant about the GIRM he should be thankful to you for bringing it to his attention and he should rectify the matter. If he disregards the GIRM then he is a disobedient priest. A number of other Church documents clearly state that nobody (not even a priest) is allowed to add, remove, or change any of the fixed parts of the Mass – and required sacred furnishings are certainly part of the Mass.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Hi, Amanda. Welcome to CA Forums.

A few months later, around Eastertime, they hung a figure of the Risen Christ in front of the plain cross. So Instead of the crucified Jesus there is a triumphant Jesus. It just seems kinda wrong to me. I’ve always thought that the crucifix is such a great visual reminder of the Sacrifice.

I really hate images of the resurrected Jesus stuck onto a cross. (Our associate pastor disdainfully calls it a “resurrectifix.”) It’s not even realistic. Jesus rose from His tomb, not from the Cross.

It seems to me (my opinion) that what is going on is that people don’t want to face up to suffering. They want to have all the “happy” images associated with our faith. They want to have eternal life, but they don’t want to admit that it involves accompanying Jesus to Calvary first.

Jesus said that unless we take up our crosses daily we cannot be His disciples. If we can’t even look at a crucifix, how can we be on the Cross with Him?

At my friend’s parish (in the same city as mine), she discovered stashed away in a closet in the church basement an old crucifix — almost life-size, and much more realistic that some of the “sanitized” ones we see. It showed many more wounds and abrasions on our Lord’s Body. My friend asked her pastor whether they could use it for the Veneration of the Cross on Good Friday. He refused, on the grounds that it might frighten the children.

Somehow the crucifix ended up at my church on Good Friday. We used it for the Veneration of the Cross, along with another cross — we had two lines of people (I don’t remember whether the second one was a plain cross or a less “graphic” crucifix). Anyway, people young and old reverenced the realistic crucifix. Little children would go up and touch it with love, and did not seem unduly disturbed. It even seemed that people preferred going up to that crucifix (some who were in the other line even crossed over and did a second veneration).

All this is to say that our pastors or church decorating decision-makers are not doing us any favors by trying to insulate us from the reality of the Crucifixion. Meditation on a crucifix can draw us into the love of Christ.