Why are Catholics replacing Crucifixes with Resifixes?

[pbecke]

We rightly focus most of the time on the unbelievably atrocious suffering that Christ underwent to save us, but its whole purpose was our redemption, not the futility of suffering for its own sake. Our faith should be a faith of joy. If it is not a joyful faith to you, then you, not Vatican II, are at fault.

The Protestants make the paramount point with their Resifix that Christ has already won the battle over the force of darkness for us. Of course, it doesn’t mean, as at least one of their more deluded denominations would have it, that we are saved, period.
Nor does it mean that the Mass is to be observed in a spirit of levity and jubilation.

But, at least, let us focus equally on the ‘bottom line’, namely, that Christ’s historical, personal sufferings lead us to life in its fulness, not to death.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, I guess all of this gets us back to the OP - how can it be at all appropriate to substitute the Crucifix for any other form (including a standard Cruciform) in the Church and for the celebration of the Mass?

 

[TrueLight]

We rightly focus most of the time on the unbelievably atrocious suffering that Christ underwent to save us, but its whole purpose was our redemption, not the futility of suffering for its own sake. Our faith should be a faith of joy. If it is not a joyful faith to you, then you, not Vatican II, are at fault.

The Protestants make the paramount point with their Resifix that Christ has already won the battle over the force of darkness for us. Of course, it doesn’t mean, as at least one of their more deluded denominations would have it, that we are saved, period.
Nor does it mean that the Mass is to be observed in a spirit of levity and jubilation.

But, at least, let us focus equally on the ‘bottom line’, namely, that Christ’s historical, personal sufferings lead us to life in its fulness, not to death.

As an evangelical, I focused more on the resurrection than the passion. It seems Roman Catholicism is more focused on his passion.

However, as a protestant, there was a clear distinction between his suffering and the meaning of the word “cross”, whether when referring to Christ our our daily crosses verses his resurrection.

We didn’t wear crucifixes/crosses (because they looked Catholic). I never saw a “Resifix”.

 

[skigirl1689]

Is there a free-standing cross on the alter? If there is, the crucifix could be facing the celebrant. I saw this at a retreat center when there was nothing above the alter (but I think they had one to the side facing the people).

I was confused as well attending my aunt’s funeral and they had no visible (to the people) crucifix but a huge resifix. I discussed it with a friend of mine, and she said the diocese was likely less liberal than what we are used to in our area, which is very traditional.

 

[Another_Mary]

The picture below is pretty much what the “resifix” looked like in the school-affiliated Catholic church I mentioned in a previous post. Except the cross was not apparent at first. It was formed by the wood in the frame of the picture window behind the risen Christ. I was very uncomfortable with thinking there was no cross–until I made the connection.

Of course, I was seated on the side because few of the pews faced the altar squarely.

(There was an altar crucifix carried in the procession.)

basically, it is one that shows a risen Christ (vs. a crucified Christ), like this:

http://www.almosteurope.net/shop/me...f78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/5/250001.jpg

 

[amgp]

Well, I guess all of this gets us back to the OP - how can it be at all appropriate to substitute the Crucifix for any other form (including a standard Cruciform) in the Church and for the celebration of the Mass?

Thank you for reminding us of the OP. Obviously, it is NOT licit to substitute anything for the crucific in Catholic churches; a crucifix is required. If there is not a crucifix in a Catholic church, the issue should be taken up with the parish priest. If that isn’t successful, then report it to the local bishop. Again, from the GIRM:

1. 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.

 

[sedonaman]

Why are Catholics replacing Crucifixes with Resifixes? Because Vatican II allowed (name removed by moderator)uts from people who had little or no theological training and who must have change at all cost. Click on the diagram below. Under paragraph a, it says, “…a crucifix placed above the altar at the center to mark the place as a new Calvary and to remind us that the Mass [not liturgy] is the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross.” :sad_yes:

---

“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[Rejoice_Always]

It makes no sense to me to show a smiling, clothed Jesus on a cross.

Perhaps you have a point (though I personally imagine him smiling with the Good Thief), but far too many of the faithful can’t even imagine a smiling, clothed Jesus walking the earth, before or after the Resurrection.

 

[McDale721]

We have one at our parish. It’s horrible. Jesus looks like a waving cartoon character. “Oh hey there, welcome to my house! It’s got lots of rooms.” (insert goofy cartoon voice here.)

Every year when they take it down for Holy Week, we try to pay the maintenance crew to drop and break it. The worst part is that someone in the parish donated it years ago. Our pastor hates it too and would love to replace it but it would cost $30K which we can’t afford.

 

[Equites_Christi]

I recently was at a Catholic church where above the altar was a large risen Christ. I didn’t perceive any kind of cross behind him. They did bring a crucifix attached to a rod to the altar when they processed in.

I looked in the GIRM, but it doesn’t seem to specify a permanent crucifix by the altar. At first it sounds that way, but then it 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.” If the crucifix were necessarily permanent, this sentence would be meaningless.

Regardless, the risen Christ in place of what would normally be a crucifix did bother me.

 

[CB_Catholic]

We rightly focus most of the time on the unbelievably atrocious suffering that Christ underwent to save us, but its whole purpose was our redemption, not the futility of suffering for its own sake. Our faith should be a faith of joy. If it is not a joyful faith to you, then you, not Vatican II, are at fault.

The Protestants make the paramount point with their Resifix that Christ has already won the battle over the force of darkness for us. Of course, it doesn’t mean, as at least one of their more deluded denominations would have it, that we are saved, period.
Nor does it mean that the Mass is to be observed in a spirit of levity and jubilation.

But, at least, let us focus equally on the ‘bottom line’, namely, that Christ’s historical, personal sufferings lead us to life in its fulness, not to death.

I have never seen a “Resifix” in a Protestant Church. They don’t have figures of any kind on their crosses or anywhere else, generally. No statues, icons, etc. Only bare crosses. It is not correct to say it makes Catholic churches who use them seem Protestant, because the Protestants generally do not use 3 dimensional images of Christ or anyone else. They may have some pictures, though.

 

[mexolic]

The crucified Christ on the cross is what the people at Calvary actually saw. The risen Christ is from the tomb. My parish church has a huge one behind the altar. I do like it
though.

 

[LoyalViews]

basically, it is one that shows a risen Christ (vs. a crucified Christ), like this:

http://www.almosteurope.net/shop/me...f78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/5/250001.jpg

That one is quite orthodox, considering I see this one most commonly:


They’re not common here, either, but I’ve seen them visiting other places.
Ew.

Well, technically, to offer Mass there should be a crucifix behind, next to or in front or ON the altar. A normal crucifix. As long as there’s one present, the resifixes ARE allowed…but not to replace a crucifix…only as a statue to be venerated.

 

[sedonaman]

We have one at our parish. It’s horrible. Jesus looks like a waving cartoon character. …

At least it was Jesus. I heard a priest tell of visiting a Catholic !] church on the east coast [he wouldn’t be more specific] that had a woman!] on the cross over the altar. When some visitors asked about it, they were told it symbolized the Church’s persecution of women.

 

[Rejoice_Always]

It is not correct to say it makes Catholic churches who use them seem Protestant, because the Protestants generally do not use 3 dimensional images of Christ or anyone else.

Good point, but it doesn’t take into account that anything that rubs a CAFer in the wrong way is considered Protestant or, quite commonly, liturgical abuse. Half of CAF threads would disappear if we couldn’t make these claims!

 

[SMHW]

A

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good resifix, but NOT when it replaces a crucifix above the altar!

Why are we doing this? Were making our selves look more protestant. Seriously. I even considered changing rites from Roman Catholic to either Byzantine or Eastern Catholic.

But please tell me; someone, what is the main reason we change these? Is a smaller crucifix hidden somewhere?

Thanks!

As you suggest, there is nothing wrong with having a resifix (I’ve more often seen them called resurrecifixes) for devotional purposes. So it would be licit to have one in a church for that reason. But there is definitely to be a crucifix on/near the altar during Mass. And since our Catholic identity is so connected to the Crucifix I have trouble understanding why a parish would not want a fixed, highly visible crucifix near the altar.

As to why…

Well, some of it is just folk art. I have all kinds of crosses and crucifixes in my home.

But as for the primary cross in a church building? Is is a hold-over from the seventies? Probably. My opinion is that there are some parishes/priests who are finally getting their chance to live through the 1970s and they are taking advantage of it. But most of us who actually came of age in the 1970s have moved on now! Do we have some fond memories? Sure. But we really don’t want to go back.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Good point, but it doesn’t take into account that anything that rubs a CAFer in the wrong way is considered Protestant or, quite commonly, liturgical abuse. Half of CAF threads would disappear if we couldn’t make these claims!

And half the time, what is said about the Protestants is incorrect, but when the Protestants say something incorrect about the Catholics, we get mad. From what I’ve read on these forums, we can dish it out as well as they do.

 

[vjnycguy]

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good resifix, but NOT when it replaces a crucifix above the altar!

Why are we doing this? Were making our selves look more protestant. Seriously. I even considered changing rites from Roman Catholic to either Byzantine or Eastern Catholic.

But please tell me; someone, what is the main reason we change these? Is a smaller crucifix hidden somewhere?

Thanks!

These changes are made because of Vatican II… it all started going downhill from there. The Bishop is allowing all of these changes you see. The Churches being built are resembling Protestant Churches. It sickens me. But we unfortunately can’t do anything but wait. Wait for what? A new Pope. The current Pope, whom is the last person from Vatican II, is trying his best to fix the mistakes.

• Vjnycguy

 

[TheDoors]

At least it was Jesus. I heard a priest tell of visiting a Catholic !] church on the east coast [he wouldn’t be more specific] that had a woman!] on the cross over the altar. When some visitors asked about it, they were told it symbolized the Church’s persecution of women.

NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO! ARRRRRG!

deep breath

Sorry. I’ll go back to my corner now.

 

[Digitonomy]

The question is what does the cross represent. Does it not represent his suffering?

ByzCathCantor:

The Cross alone (i.e. without imagery beyond the Cruciform) has always been the symbol of Christ’s triumph over death. In that regard, it was never necessary (nor should it be now) to depict a risen Christ on the Cross.

Likewise, I don’t think it was ever necessary to depict a crucified Christ on the cross. Every Christian should know what the cross represents, and it’s not just the resurrection, nor is it just the crucifixion. Even the crucifix doesn’t represent just the suffering and death of the Lord. It also represents the resurrection (albeit less directly).

It may well be that a crucifix better represents the passion, and an image of Christ rising through the clouds better represents the resurrection. But I think it’s a bit extreme to suggest that a cross without the image of crucified Christ is somehow Protestant and ignores Christ’s passion.
visualsbysheree.com/St.PetersDome.JPG

I think the crucifix, the empty cross, and the “resifix” all represent both the passion and the resurrection, simply with different emphases. Obviously there must be at least one crucifix present near the altar during mass, per the GIRM. Beyond that, I don’t think we can say that any others are “incorrect,” although I’ve got my preferences as a bit of a traditionalist.