Why do Catholics leave Jesus "on the Cross" & Protestants do not?

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

You are indeed correct.

 

[Darryl_B]

I think PJM is just presenting a commonly held protestant argument. I would adventure to say that one is a depiction of the body and blood, and the other, the cross is not actually empty, it is instead a depiction of the soul and divinity?

 

[benjohnson]

At least nobody has fessed up to liking those resifix’s.

 

[mattp0625]

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.

The OP is referring to a Protestant (evangelical?) narrative which indicates that Catholics, by displaying crucifixes, try to “re-crucify” Jesus, or “keep Jesus on the cross”, and “don’t know He resurrected”.

Some even hold to the narrative that we are mocking Jesus. This is, of course, not true.

Note that most Protestant places of worship do not display a crucifix while some do have a cross.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

The cross is empty because Jesus is no longer there. Yes, he suffered and died on that Cross for the sins of the world and our crucifixes remind us of that. What our empty crosses remind us of is that Jesus’ work is finished. He was taken down from that Cross, laid in a tomb, did His Victory Tour in Hell, rose from the dead on the Third day and after forty days He ascended to the Father’s Right Hand. All that remains is His parousia and the resurrection of the dead ( and the coming Kingdom of God).

From the previous post…

We don’t leave Jesus on the cross. A crucifix is a depiction of Jesus on the cross–that is quite a difference. If you took a picture of your child at the beach, does that mean your child is still at the beach because the picture shows the child at the beach? Of course not. Are the 4 Presidents actually on Mt. Rushmore, or are their images depicted on Mt. Rushmore?
That argument is one of the silliest ones I have heard. In addition, the empty cross is not a symbol of the Resurrection. The empty tomb is. Jesus did not rise from the cross–someone took down His dead body. He rose from the grave, not the cross.

People use images all the time to remind them of someone or something. And that is what a crucifix is. And if we can have an image of dead Presidents or famous people to remind us of them, why can’t we have an image of Jesus, who was a real person as well as being God?

 

[ThundersnowIV]

In my personal opinion either one is perfectly acceptable. one depicts the sufering and death and another the resurrection, both are vital to the message of Jesus.

In addition, maybe that a crucifix necklace or earrings may be heavier or have parts that may catch on clothing or other objects ( my hair gets tangled around earrings easily), and may not be really practical, although I am sure it could be done.

 

[PJM]

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.

Well articulated POST!

Thank you & God Bless

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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.

Very well done, Thanks and Gpd Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Nobody left Jesus on the Cross. Next

Hmmmmmmm

NOt even metaphorically?

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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.

You’re right of course, but missed the point of me asking the question which I had hoped would lead to a discussion of our differing faith beliefs.

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I think PJM is just presenting a commonly held protestant argument. I would adventure to say that one is a depiction of the body and blood, and the other, the cross is not actually empty, it is instead a depiction of the soul and divinity?

Thank you!

God Bl;ess

 

[PJM]

The OP is referring to a Protestant (evangelical?) narrative which indicates that Catholics, by displaying crucifixes, try to “re-crucify” Jesus, or “keep Jesus on the cross”, and “don’t know He resurrected”.

Some even hold to the narrative that we are mocking Jesus. This is, of course, not true.

Note that most Protestant places of worship do not display a crucifix while some do have a cross.

Indeed That was a PART of my motive in asking the Q

Thanks and God Bless you

PJM

 

[PJM]

quote
Originally Posted by LutheranScholar View Post
The cross is empty because Jesus is no longer there. Yes, he suffered and died on that Cross for the sins of the world and our crucifixes remind us of that. What our empty crosses remind us of is that Jesus’ work is finished. He was taken down from that Cross, laid in a tomb, did His Victory Tour in Hell, rose from the dead on the Third day and after forty days He ascended to the Father’s Right Hand. All that remains is His parousia and the resurrection of the dead ( and the coming Kingdom of God). end quote

From the previous post…

We don’t leave Jesus on the cross. A crucifix is a depiction of Jesus on the cross–that is quite a difference. If you took a picture of your child at the beach, does that mean your child is still at the beach because the picture shows the child at the beach? Of course not. Are the 4 Presidents actually on Mt. Rushmore, or are their images depicted on Mt. Rushmore?

That argument is one of the silliest ones I have heard. In addition, the empty cross is not a symbol of the Resurrection. The empty tomb is. Jesus did not rise from the cross–someone took down His dead body. He rose from the grave, not the cross.

People use images all the time to remind them of someone or something. And that is what a crucifix is. And if we can have an image of dead Presidents or famous people to remind us of them, why can’t we have an image of Jesus, who was a real person as well as being God?

Our LuthernScholar friend has hit the point I was hoping to discuss. Namely our differing beliefs in “the WORK OF CHRIST” being “accomplished” or NOT as we Catholics hold too.

I’ll withhold for the time being my further comments of this point to see where the conversation goes from here

God Bless you both!
Patrick {PJM}

 

[mattp0625]

Galatians 3:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced** so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.**

 

[truetofaith]

At least nobody has fessed up to liking those resifix’s.

HUH !

What’s a resifix ; and we do like the crucifix.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

 

[Kliska]

HUH !

What’s a resifix ; and we do like the crucifix.

I’m assuming it’s the resurrected Christ affixed to the cross instead of the crucified Christ… I’ve seen some good ones and some awful ones, just like most things. lol

 

[Michael68]

I’m assuming it’s the resurrected Christ affixed to the cross instead of the crucified Christ… I’ve seen some good ones and some awful ones, just like most things. lol

Who woud even think such a thing?

 

[Kliska]

Who woud even think such a thing?

Well, they look very Catholic (you can Google images), and His hands aren’t nailed to the wood, it’s more like He’s “floating” in front of the cross, hands raised, kind of like He’s ascending…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m assuming it’s the resurrected Christ affixed to the cross instead of the crucified Christ… I’ve seen some good ones and some awful ones, just like most things. lol

This sort of depiction. almosteurope.net/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/2/5/250001.jpg