D
Della
Guest
I used to do that… but after a couple of days it would fall apart and I would have to get another.
- Status
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Our salvation did not come cheap.
T
truetofaith
Guest
3 pages of posts over one foolish question! 
“leaving Jesus on the Cross” is the culprit of the foolishness…it implies that Catholics don’t believe in the Resurrection & Ascension of Jesus.
When we Catholics look at a crucifix, it brings to mind the intense suffering that Jesus endured for our salvation.
A plain wooden cross cannot bring that to mind. On the top of a building or on a gravestone it represents our Christianity, but in church, on rosary beads, or when we are praying, the crucifix is inspiring.
“leaving Jesus on the Cross” is the culprit of the foolishness…it implies that Catholics don’t believe in the Resurrection & Ascension of Jesus.
When we Catholics look at a crucifix, it brings to mind the intense suffering that Jesus endured for our salvation.
A plain wooden cross cannot bring that to mind. On the top of a building or on a gravestone it represents our Christianity, but in church, on rosary beads, or when we are praying, the crucifix is inspiring.
T
Todd977
Guest
I think one of the reasons for the difference is that some non-Catholic Christians understand the Ten Commandment prohibition against graven images not only as a prohibition against idols but also, and wrongly, as a prohibition against all religious statuary whatsoever. So, for them, a cross might be ok but a cross with the graven image of Christ crucified on it is definitely a no-no. They seem to forget about the God-approved graven images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant and in the Temple and the graven image of the serpent. (Exodus 25:18; 1 Kings 6:23; Numbers 21:8) The last-mentioned graven image, the serpent, was rightfully destroyed later on after the Israelites had turned it from a piece of religious statuary into an idol by worshipping it. (2 Kings 18:4)
H
Hawkmaid
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?
Thank you, both of you! It drives me crazy when people vie for one or the other - both the crucifix and the empty cross are important, and we can have both. THANK YOU.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Actually the premiss of this thread is incorrect. Lutherans have already stated that they have crucifixes in their churches.
Many Anglicans have crucifixes in their churches as well.
Many Anglicans have crucifixes in their churches as well.
J
JimG
Guest
“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
1 Corinthians 2:2
1 Corinthians 2:2
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
If that. There are a lot of us who still have Catholic relatives and we are great with crosses without the corpii and the crucifixes with ( there are explanations for both!). I have a very old crucifix hanging from the wall of my bedroom ( my 2X great grandfather Pecot made it about a hundred years ago or so, passed it to my great grandmother Cornett who passed it down to my Granny McDonald. When she died, I requested it). I wear a cross necklace that my other Granny bought for me as a graduation from High School gift. I had that necklace blessed by my Lutheran pastor when I was still living in Florida.
Yes, we preach Christ and Him crucified, but we also preach about our Risen Lord! Same One.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps some real theologian would have something different to say about this. I’m not one, but I will say what I think about it.
It has been my impression that there is more meaning to the difference than people often attribute to it, and it has to do with a central difference between Protestantism as understood by most Protestants and Catholicism as it should be understood.
For most (but not all) Protestants, the Incarnation is a past event. Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose again, and that’s that. It’s rather similar to the belief most Protestants hold that there is a chasm between the living and the dead, which no one crosses into this world, as well as the belief of some (but not all) Protestants that one’s salvation is also a spot on a timeline. “Once saved, always saved” and all that. For Catholics, salvation is a daily struggle in which one (as Jesus put it) “…falls seven times a day…” And to Catholics, each fall is a true fall.
In Catholicism, the sacrifice of the Cross is ongoing; intended by God from all eternity and into all eternity. In God there is no time and His intentions have no “past” or “future”. They’re eternal and always present to Him. The Mass is a true sacrifice, every bit as much as the cross and Calvary. And so, it’s always “in the present”, not a segment on the timeline of history. Jesus is, therefore, as much crucified today as He was 2,000 years ago, and He will always be. The sacrifice is, therefore, vastly greater than we can possibly imagine. Infinitely greater. We can’t comprehend something infinite, but we can symbolize it in limited ways.
Most Protestants do not believe in the Eucharist in the same way Catholics do. For most (but not all) it’s not a true sacrifice in the present, but a commemoration of a past event.
And so, for most Protestants, it’s fitting that the cross be empty. Jesus was crucified in time and the timeline moved on. For Catholics, it’s fitting that Jesus be on the Crucifix because the timeline as to His sacrifice never moves on.
It has been my impression that there is more meaning to the difference than people often attribute to it, and it has to do with a central difference between Protestantism as understood by most Protestants and Catholicism as it should be understood.
For most (but not all) Protestants, the Incarnation is a past event. Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose again, and that’s that. It’s rather similar to the belief most Protestants hold that there is a chasm between the living and the dead, which no one crosses into this world, as well as the belief of some (but not all) Protestants that one’s salvation is also a spot on a timeline. “Once saved, always saved” and all that. For Catholics, salvation is a daily struggle in which one (as Jesus put it) “…falls seven times a day…” And to Catholics, each fall is a true fall.
In Catholicism, the sacrifice of the Cross is ongoing; intended by God from all eternity and into all eternity. In God there is no time and His intentions have no “past” or “future”. They’re eternal and always present to Him. The Mass is a true sacrifice, every bit as much as the cross and Calvary. And so, it’s always “in the present”, not a segment on the timeline of history. Jesus is, therefore, as much crucified today as He was 2,000 years ago, and He will always be. The sacrifice is, therefore, vastly greater than we can possibly imagine. Infinitely greater. We can’t comprehend something infinite, but we can symbolize it in limited ways.
Most Protestants do not believe in the Eucharist in the same way Catholics do. For most (but not all) it’s not a true sacrifice in the present, but a commemoration of a past event.
And so, for most Protestants, it’s fitting that the cross be empty. Jesus was crucified in time and the timeline moved on. For Catholics, it’s fitting that Jesus be on the Crucifix because the timeline as to His sacrifice never moves on.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I would think similarly.
There are Protestants who simply think that the crucifix is idolatry. That Jesus is no more hanging on the cross. There were some Protestant posters in CAF some years back who said that their belief is symbolized by the empty cross, not the crucifix, thus the empty cross.
These category of Protestants would never have crucifix hanged in their churches, homes or cars.
However, as can be seen here, there are non-Catholic Christians who share same the view as Catholics on the crucifix.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
My understanding is that protestants removed Jesus Christ from the crucifix because 3D images were considered idolatry (which sounds like a puritan origin). It was only a much later development that presented the argument that it is more fitting to have an empty cross. Guilt of idolatry turns to guilt of emptiness requires some form of resolve. Whoever came up with the “it is more fitting to have an empty cross” slogan certainly solved a dilemma and it gets repeated often by protestants with remarkably similar wording. (The denomination I was raised in even went so far as to remove the cross entirely taking “sola scriptura” to a whole new level of sola.)
The cross was also empty when Jesus Christ was in the tomb. This is the period of time when his disciples were at their most defeated and disillusioned. If the crucifixion was an event that we have moved on from, and now it is sola fides then the crucifixion achieved nothing for us directly, it only achieved something for Jesus Christ himself, and as a consequence of what he achieved for himself we are able to gain salvation indirectly.
The violence of the cross became slightly embarrassing to parts of Christianity from the late 1700s onwards causing them to seek other interpretations of salvation.
The cross was also empty when Jesus Christ was in the tomb. This is the period of time when his disciples were at their most defeated and disillusioned. If the crucifixion was an event that we have moved on from, and now it is sola fides then the crucifixion achieved nothing for us directly, it only achieved something for Jesus Christ himself, and as a consequence of what he achieved for himself we are able to gain salvation indirectly.
The violence of the cross became slightly embarrassing to parts of Christianity from the late 1700s onwards causing them to seek other interpretations of salvation.
G
GKC
Guest
I’d say the Mass is the sacrifice, that of the cross and Calvary, eternally offered, but well said, overall…
P
PJM
Guest
Thank youhttp://www.romanhomes.com/vacation_...-sights/rome-panorama-st-peters-dome-m1-t.jpg
*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.
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
The symbol of a Crucifix verses a Cross depicts a profound difference in how one views salvation.3 pages of posts over one foolish question!
“leaving Jesus on the Cross” is the culprit of the foolishness…it implies that Catholics don’t believe in the Resurrection & Ascension of Jesus".
When we Catholics look at a crucifix, it brings to mind the intense suffering that Jesus endured for our salvation.
A plain wooden cross cannot bring that to mind. On the top of a building or on a gravestone it represents our Christianity, but in church, on rosary beads, or when we are praying, the crucifix is inspiring.
we Catholics have understood for some 2,000 years {and on-going} that salvation process
Many, perhaps even most Protestants accept the recent 16th Century position of the reformers of OSAS
That is HUGE.
Former Pope Benedict said this about TRUTH:
"Their cannot be your truth and my truth or their would be no truth:
Can that teaching be anything BUT True
God Bless you
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Oh! OK
And we Catholics don’t is your point?
So for the sake of discussion
Twice Yahweh {GOD} COMMANDED Moses to build for Him; Idols
IDOLS:
Exod.25: 18, 20 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. [20] The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be
Num.21: 8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
So we can conclude then that being as GOD COMMANDED Idos to be made that it is NOT the object, RATHER it is the purpose, the INTENT of the builder that determines if it is a GOOD or an EVIL
ANYTHING that can lead one CLOSER to GOD is good
ANYTHING that competes with GOD being evil:thumbsup:
Because we pray THROUGH {all prayers END with God}, Mary and the Saints they ar GOOD> Amen!
God Bless you
Patrick.
M
mattp0625
Guest
“For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 DRC1752
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 DRC1752
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You present an entirely false dichotomy, as though Catholics exclusively use a crucifix while Non-Catholic Christians do not. That is incorrect.
Over my decades, it is a small number of Catholic bishops one observes whose pectoral CROSS has a corpus on it.
Here, for example, is a photo of Pope Pius XII, from not long before his election media.gettyimages.com/photos/pope-pius-xii-wearing-holy-vestments-including-jeweled-pectoral-cross-picture-id50713292
Here, for example, is a photo of Pope Saint Pius X upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Pope_Pius_X_(Retouched).jpg
More recently, a photo of Sean Cardinal O’Malley with, in 2010, Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio. infovaticana.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/omalley6.jpg
The habits of many Sisters will include a Cross without corpus. As but one example: the now beatified Mother Foundress of a Polish congregation who were close to Pope Saint John Paul II…all the Sisters of this congregation wear a Cross without corpus nazarethcsfn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mz-chicago-1896-res.jpg
Or the more recently established Franciscans of Life whose members wear the Tau, the Franciscans’ distinctive form of the Cross franciscansoflife.org/img/sld/01.jpg
And it is normative for Catholic Churches to have a Cross, without corpus, on their exterior.
So again: proposing that somehow one use is Catholic and the other is not is, in fact, in error and not at all in keeping with Catholic praxis.
- Status