T
tawny
Guest
Because without the Crucifix; there would have been no Resurrection.
- Status
O
oliver927
Guest
The only people I have ever know that actually objected to the crucifix with Jesus on the cross as opposed to just the cross itself were also people who thought Jesus was killed/sacrificed again at each mass and that the Eucharist is cannibalism. Is there a link or just coincidence? I don’t know.
K
Kliska
Guest
So Easter did nto happen? Only Good Friday… well I differ. Easter happened and JOY! Jesus ROSE,
Without that we have no faith do we? Had He not risen? NO Easter, no faith,
OK> over and out from me before I revert!At ttimes I feel tempted believe me…
You’re confusing me a bit, as that was my point; we have Good Friday (Christ dying on the cross; crucifix) and Easter Sunday (Empty tomb). The empty cross doesn’t really represent either Good Friday or Easter Sunday as an effective Christian symbol. There were a lot of people killed on crosses, so empty crosses aren’t really that accurate as far as a symbol of theology… Crucifixes and empty tombs, however, are IMO.
K
Kliska
Guest
I wear one around my neck and have lots of compliments.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Well, we could all be wearing fish around our neck. The cross came first and the crucifix followed a century or two later. I like the earlier symbols actually - the dove, the anchor, the Good Shepherd.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
G
GEddie
Guest
The cross is an instrument of death with or without a body.
We don’t show the body to commemorate the death, per se, but in celebration of **somebody **who went into death-- the ultimate horror-- and overcame it.
ICXC NIKA!
We don’t show the body to commemorate the death, per se, but in celebration of **somebody **who went into death-- the ultimate horror-- and overcame it.
ICXC NIKA!
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
The point is that we have both. Silly or not ( I guess the world would regard our Gospel as " foolishness?"), that’s the best explanation I can come up with. The empty cross symbolizes Christ’s death and resurrection. The crucifix serves as a reminder of the price Jesus Christ paid for our salvation. Did Jesus remain a Baby forever? Yes, " we preach Christ and him crucified" ( 1 Cor. 1:23) but, let us not lose track of this very important lesson that we learn from the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, verses 13 through 25:
The Promise Realized Through Faith
13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law* but through the righteousness of faith. ***14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.**** biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+4&version=ESV
I understand our Evangelical Catholicism, Steido and I agree as to the necessity of the crucifixes in our churches, but I also posit the importance of being reminded ( even on Friday, the Day of the Sorrowful Mysteries) that death had no hold on Jesus and that His trip to Hell was indeed a victory tour. It’s all in the catechism, all in the catechism… my goodness, what are they teaching young people these days?
Yet another unaddressed post. I’ll take that as confirmation that my point has been made and received.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Exactly my point.Both are used in Catholic iconography. The crucifix is mostly for liturgical rites, such as the Mass. Indeed, the rubrics say that one be visible to the congregation, if I’m stating it correctly. Catholic parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. OTOH, have a simple cross atop their buildings. Both are used for devotion. The crucifix is a focal point for meditation on Christ’s sufferings and death for our sins, while the “empty” cross symbolizes that we are take up our own cross to follow Christ, which is why some religious orders wear a simple cross instead of a crucifix. ** It is, as in most things Catholic, both/and not either/or.**
C
Church_Militant
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
Thank you
Before replying, as the OP and a FYI, I have read the 25 {to date} replies
1 I was speaking metaphorically for both cases, “on” or “off” the Cross.
2 I agree that the tomb is the “sign” {and the evidence} of the Resurrection
- I used the term “protestants” in the sense of non-Catholic Christians {one word instead of three words; I was not trying to be faith belief-specific here.
1 continues for a precise purpose {suffering has a possible purpose, a possible benefit}
2 Because of our suffering which can be “with Christ”, grace becomes an issue
3 With Christ “still” {metaphorically} on the Cross, we are in constant awareness that there was a REASON for His suffering, not, dare I say, “only” for His Resurrection.
We are {or can be reminded} that Salvation is not a “done deal.” That suffering as a road; a path to grace {needed to merit one’s salvation} is an effort of our self-will, and an indication that the Jesus instituted 7 Sacraments exist for a precise reason.
Jn 20:19-23 is in the bible which we are told in 2nd Tim. 3:16-17 “[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” & again, but a bit differenly in Matthew 4:4 “Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”
4 Because of this we Catholics are able to understand that one’s salvation is a PROCESS, not a done deal
5 The teaching that "Christ has ALREADY done everything we “need” for our salvation based on a simple profession of “faith”; conflicts with the reality of what and WHY Christ died for us.
Life is “the God TEST” Isaiah 43 verses 7 &21
Jesus spoke “seven last words” from the Cross
1 Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34. …
2 Today you will be with me in paradise. Luke 23:43. …
3 Behold your son: behold your mother. John 19:26-27
4 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Mt 27:46
5 I thirst. John 19:28
6 It is finished. John 19:30
7 Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. Luke 23:46
Numbers 5 & 6 above are, it would seem, either not correctly understood, or not fully understood by large numbers of non-Catholic communities.
- We believe that the words “Redemption” & “Salvation” have separate meaning.
“Salvation” pertaining to those who actually DO know God, Know His entire will, and accept and practice ALL that he desired and teaches in His Bible.
7 WHY does John 20:19-23 exist in the bible if Jesus did not intend this TEACHING as an necessary AID to one’s salvation?
John 20:19-23 “Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
God Bless you
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Please see my POST #29
You raise the very point I wish to further discuss. Thank you.
God Bless
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
SORRY about your strong feelings of the “P” WORD
I choose to use it because it stems from the word “PROTEST”, which is not something I {ME!} choose to forget.
There is but One True God
Who historically and biblically Did, desired and choose to have just ***One set of faith beliefs ***which existed for an extended period of time before the reformation that Luther is credited as founding.
And through just one chosen people {Exo 6:7} and “MY Church” singular Mt 16:18
This is a Catolic Forum so we ought to be explaining and when necessary, defending our Catholic Faith. Amen:thumbsup:
God Bless you
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
C
CaptFun
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
*Glowing cross atop the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, Rome, Italy
*
I’m a Catholic. Sometimes I’ve had a cross that is not a crucifix.
But if it’s not JESUS’ cross that comes to mind … or that moment when our salvation became possible … what is the point? It becomes just the letter T (or t) … a shape.
In looking for distinctions from Catholicism in the early days (and those following) some Protestant groups latched onto iconoclasm as a more faithful and biblical way of being Christian (in their view). So “no graven images” per the Old Testament prescriptions could represent God. Which depictions of Jesus (on the cross or otherwise) would be (in their view).
The Church was given keys however and ruled that such visual aids were OK to advance the faith … the objects themselves not being mistaken for God understood.
It was the cross with Jesus ON it that was the “cross that saved us” versus any other cross (even St. Peter’s for instance).
http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/im...raspontina-church-rome-lazio-italy-europe.jpg
Although I’ll bet a cross with St. Peter on it – would also be an edifying visual aid for Christians.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Because it’s our Lord wielding the weapon by which he defeated death and sin. It’s our Lord in his greatest expression of love for us. It’s a reminder of what he went through for us. It’s a reminder that our God humbled himself so. It’s a reminder that my own sufferings can be united with his, who suffered so much more greatly. The crucifixion points to Easter. It doesn’t overshadow it.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
That is an extremely extensive answer to the point I made about why we use empty crosses as well as crucifixes. A lot of this simply confirms certain things pointed out by our Confessions ( you sure you have no use for the AC in the CCC? 
).#1: This is something the LCMS says about Scripture:
QUESTION: I’m interested in how the LCMS came to the view of inerrancy of the Bible since the evidence is overwhelming that Martin Luther rejected the notion of Biblical inerrancy.
*ANSWER: Luther said the following in the Large Catechism: “We know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I — in short, all men — may err and deceive, but God’s Word cannot err” ( LC IV, 57).
Again he states in the Large Catechism, “If you cannot feel the need, therefore, at least believe the Scriptures. They will not lie to you, and they know your flesh better than you yourself do” (LC V, 76).
Luther’s view on this question is summarized by the Lutheran Cyclopedia as follows: “Scripture remained [Luther’s] sole authority. Though many things in the Bible puzzled and amazed him, he admitted no error in its original MSS. At the same time he emphasized the human part in its writing.”
The Lutheran position on the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures was first developed by the Lutheran dogmaticians (theologians) of the 17th century.
For a review of this teaching and its roots following the period of the Reformation see Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture in the Concordia Heritage Series (Edinburgh, 1955), 76-87. See also “F. The Infallibility of Scripture” in A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles.
- and here is a link to the LCMS and its treatment of the authority of Scripture: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/gospel.html.
*QUESTION: I had been a Missouri Synod Lutheran for many years but never really understood a statement in the Apostles’ Creed where it says that Jesus descended into hell. Could you explain this more fully to me?
Did Jesus have to be tormented in hell as part of the payment for our sins, or was the finished work of Christ completed on the cross through his death and shed blood for the full payment for our sins?*
*ANSWER: Lutherans believe Jesus descended into hell not to suffer for our sins but to proclaim his victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil (see 1 Peter 3:19).
Thus, Lutheran theologians have always considered Jesus’ descent into hell to be the first of Christ’s works of “exaltation” mentioned in the Creed rather than part of his work of “humiliation.”
Christ’s suffering for our sins ended with his death on the cross, and the final stage of his “humiliation” was his burial, not his descent into hell.* lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=2118#why-jesus-descended. So now, apart from the argument of " crucifix vs. cross" where the ultimate answer is in the usage of both rather than either one or the other, what exactly are we arguing about?
Pax Christi Vobiscum.
Andrew of the McDonald Clan.
1
1believer1
Guest
I used to do that… but after a couple of days it would fall apart and I would have to get another.
- Status