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

[Randy_Carson]

Why use the now meaningless term ‘protestant’ when you actually mean ‘evangelicals’ and ‘non-denominationals’?

Because those two terms merely describe subsets of the larger, Protestant, set.

One could also talk of Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, and so forth, but the word “Catholic” still has meaning.

As does the term “Protestant”.

We, as Lutherans, certainly keep Christ on our crosses, or on our crucifixes. We preach Christ crucified, like St. Paul.

And may God bless your preaching of the Gospel.

 

[mattp0625]

Because those two terms merely describe subsets of the larger, Protestant, set.

One could also talk of Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, and so forth, but the word “Catholic” still has meaning.

As does the term “Protestant”.

And may God bless your preaching of the Gospel.

Latin versus eastern rites- recite the same creed, have communion with pope and valid sacraments, and hold same doctrines and dogma. The difference? Some of their liturgical prayers are different. Not quite the same as a denomination.

Per this topic, they also display a crucifix.

 

[PJM]

Simply put many Protestants do not place Christ on the Cross as symbolic of his being risen. He is no longer there, his work for our salvation being done. Catholics depict Christ on the Cross because they place a greater emphasis on his sacrifice for the world and it’s continual present nature during Catholic mass. That said, not all of what Catholics would consider Protestants choose to depict an empty cross. My own church depicts Christ on the cross. Albeit not in his tortured form but rather in his risen glorified form as a middle ground since his sacrifice is central to our mass as well but we also acknowledge his resurrection as well.

http://files.ctctcdn.com/a8b80208001/76fc6b10-bea6-4b1c-84fa-607b0ac94b2e.jpg

Thank you, But a question

IF as you sate “His work” is done; why do churches exist? And IF Truth ca only be singular per defined issue. WHY are r=their so many faith-belief-differing churches?

God Bless you

 

[PJM]

So you don’t know what the word means, then?

WELL it means “to PROTEST!”

GBY

 

[Padres1969]

Thank you, But a question

IF as you sate “His work” is done; why do churches exist? And IF Truth ca only be singular per defined issue. WHY are r=their so many faith-belief-differing churches?

God Bless you

Churches exist in part so that we can know about Christ and his works. And in part to celebrate (for lack of a better word) his sacrifice for us.

And IF truth can only be singular per issue, there are so many differing churches and beliefs about the truth because man remains a flawed creature and our interpretations and understandings of God’s revealed truth remains as flawed as we are. Man does the best he can to interpret those truths you speak of, and churches play a big role in that interpretation.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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

Either way is fine.

Why do Catholics use a crucifix?

It is because Catholics are like Paul, who preached “Jesus crucified,” and who knew of “nothing but Jesus crucified.”

Protestants, like Catholics, believe our sins put Jesus on the cross. So when we see Jesus on the cross in the crucifix, we are reminded that my sins, the ones I personally commit, help put Him there. It reminds us that maybe we should be there instead of Him.

Again, either way is fine.

But what makes me sad is that Protestants will use the crucifix versus the empty cross as something to make an argument about, just something to pick about. A pretext to point out how Catholics are wrong, and Protestants do things right. I’ve even heard the argument that Catholics don’t believe in the resurrection because Catholics think Jesus is still on the cross! Anything…sigh.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Churches exist in part so that we can know about Christ and his works. And in part to celebrate (for lack of a better word) his sacrifice for us.

And IF truth can only be singular per issue, there are so many differing churches and beliefs about the truth because man remains a flawed creature and our interpretations and understandings of God’s revealed truth remains as flawed as we are. Man does the best he can to interpret those truths you speak of, and churches play a big role in that interpretation.

Indeed, it is by means of churches that God’s truth is spread. But, since churches are of flawed creatures, then we have no assurance that God’s truth is not also taught in a flawed manner. We will not know the truth. Sad.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Churches exist in part so that we can know about Christ and his works. And in part to celebrate (for lack of a better word) his sacrifice for us.

And IF truth can only be singular per issue, there are so many differing churches and beliefs about the truth because man remains a flawed creature and our interpretations and understandings of God’s revealed truth remains as flawed as we are. Man does the best he can to interpret those truths you speak of, and churches play a big role in that interpretation.

Nicely said. People talk about the rich variety of Christian expression in different denominations as though it were a bad thing. What are the basics? Law and Gospel. Baptism and Communion. The Holy Scriptures. Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Three Ecumenical Creeds and the belief in the Holy Trinity. The Virgin Birth, crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost are commonalities that all Christians share. We all have access to the same New Testament and all but a few of the books of the Old Testament ( which were disputed in the beginning anyway). What was it Luther said? " Disagreement in fasting does not alter agreement in faith." bookofconcord.org/sd-adiaphora.php, lcms.org/faqs/denominations

 

[Della]

Nicely said. People talk about the rich variety of Christian expression in different denominations as though it were a bad thing. What are the basics? Law and Gospel. Baptism and Communion. The Holy Scriptures. Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Three Ecumenical Creeds and the belief in the Holy Trinity. The Virgin Birth, crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost are commonalities that all Christians share. We all have access to the same New Testament and all but a few of the books of the Old Testament ( which were disputed in the beginning anyway). What was it Luther said? " Disagreement in fasting does not alter agreement in faith." bookofconcord.org/sd-adiaphora.php, lcms.org/faqs/denominations

Oh dear me, no, this is not a good argument. Christ founded his Church and promised that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth. Now, either he meant it or he didn’t. If he didn’t we cannot be sure of anything.

Biblical interpretation has nothing to do with authority. Authority was given by God to certain men–the Apostles, by Christ himself. Again, either he meant it or he didn’t. If he didn’t, again we have no authority to depend on and we are all simply groping in the dark–for varying interpretations on vital issues can be very costly to our eternal destinies.

I used to think your way too, trying to be very indulgent and ecumenical. But acknowledging that there is truth in all Christian communities, and even outside Christianity is not the same thing as saying that the fullness of the truth subsists within the Church Christ founded.

We’ve gone off topic here, but I couldn’t let this pass by without comment.

 

[goout]

We have the risen Christ in “touchdown” fashion, with a “glorified” cross of light behind him. The sense of those in the parish office is:
Christ is risen and we should not depict suffering that has already been conquered.
In my opinion, this is symptomatic of a comfortable culture that does not want to be disturbed from it’s slumber. But that’s just my opinion.

The sense of the people in the pews is one of commitment, and those who care would like to see the cross with the corpus. The corpus should remind us of the total commitment Christian faith asks for.
As a compromise the corpus is in the balcony where at least the priest can see it.

 

[Padres1969]

Indeed, it is by means of churches that God’s truth is spread. But, since churches are of flawed creatures, then we have no assurance that God’s truth is not also taught in a flawed manner. We will not know the truth. Sad.

I’d agree with some of your statement. We have no assurance that our interpretations are the truth. But I think that’s where faith comes in, you have to have faith that the interpretations are the truth or close to it and that God will take mercy on his flawed creations and our flawed attempts to understand and interpret his truth.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I’d agree with some of your statement. We have no assurance that our interpretations are the truth. But I think that’s where faith comes in, you have to have faith that the interpretations are the truth or close to it and that God will take mercy on his flawed creations and our flawed attempts to understand and interpret his truth.

So, we hope that since we are flawed and there is no way to really know the truth, God will not hold it against us if we do not know the truth.

Too bad God didn’t provide a way, a church that He would be head of, that He would keep from making flawed and failing interpretations. Just too bad that He didn’t live up to His promise that we would “know the truth.”

 

[Della]

A line I read today about the crucifix’s importance to our worship of God:

“I longed for worship that gave full expression to the mysteries of the Christian faith. The Cross had to be there, but also our Lord’s crucified body – with the pierced side, and the bloodied hands, the scourged and welted back, and the thorns cutting into the forehead. The sacrifice had to be restaged…” Sohrab Ahmari, former Muslim. His conversion story: My Journey from Tehran to Rome.

 

[PJM]

Because those two terms merely describe subsets of the larger, Protestant, set.

One could also talk of Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, and so forth, but the word “Catholic” still has meaning.

As does the term “Protestant”.

And may God bless your preaching of the Gospel.

Nice reply,

THANKS

 

[PJM]

Churches exist in part so that we can know about Christ and his works. And in part to celebrate (for lack of a better word) his sacrifice for us.

And IF truth can only be singular per issue, there are so many differing churches and beliefs about the truth because man remains a flawed creature and our interpretations and understandings of God’s revealed truth remains as flawed as we are. Man does the best he can to interpret those truths you speak of, and churches play a big role in that interpretation.

Thank you, VERY well done:thumbsup:

BUT the Truth {singular} Is presented in the bible, but ignored, redefined, or simply not rightly understood. I {ME personally} wonder what Jesus thinks about this?

God Bless you
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Either way is fine.

Why do Catholics use a crucifix?

It is because Catholics are like Paul, who preached “Jesus crucified,” and who knew of “nothing but Jesus crucified.”

Protestants, like Catholics, believe our sins put Jesus on the cross. So when we see Jesus on the cross in the crucifix, we are reminded that my sins, the ones I personally commit, help put Him there. It reminds us that maybe we should be there instead of Him.

Again, either way is fine.

But what makes me sad is that Protestants will use the crucifix versus the empty cross as something to make an argument about, just something to pick about. A pretext to point out how Catholics are wrong, and Protestants do things right. I’ve even heard the argument that Catholics don’t believe in the resurrection because Catholics think Jesus is still on the cross! Anything…sigh.

Good point and right-on!

 

[LutheranScholar]

Oh dear me, no, this is not a good argument. **Christ founded his Church and promised that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth. ** Now, either he meant it or he didn’t. If he didn’t we cannot be sure of anything.

Biblical interpretation has nothing to do with authority. Authority was given by God to certain men–the Apostles, by Christ himself. ** Again, either he meant it or he didn’t. ** If he didn’t, again we have no authority to depend on and we are all simply groping in the dark–for varying interpretations on vital issues can be very costly to our eternal destinies.

I used to think your way too, trying to be very indulgent and ecumenical. But acknowledging that there is truth in all Christian communities, and even outside Christianity is not the same thing as saying that the fullness of the truth subsists within the Church Christ founded.

We’ve gone off topic here, but I couldn’t let this pass by without comment.

We surely have gone off the topic of using the crucifix as opposed to the empty cross ( as though it were an " either/ or" rather than a " both/ and"- as it is for the LCMS), but of course I can’t just let the rebuttal go without a response of my own. Nobody argues or disputes the authority that Jesus gave to His apostles.

I dispute your argument that those who are said to be in Apostolic Succession have the authority that Christ gave to His disciples ( of which we all are). That authority was given to the Church as a whole, rather than some few elected officials. The Church retains the Office of the Keys for forgiveness of sins for the repentant and retention of sins for those who do not repent.

I maintain that we all are part of the Church that Christ founded and that is clearly explained in the Ecumenical Councils regardless of denominational affiliation.

The Holy Spirit *did *in fact lead the Church into all Truth and that Truth is in fact contained in Holy Scriptures. The basics as I outlined them earlier remain in effect… baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the proclamation of the Gospel, the truths outlined in the Three Ecumenical Creeds, Jesus Christ giving us His Body and Blood in the sacrament of Holy Communion, God granting us forgiveness of our sins in Confession and Absolution.

" Indulgent and ecumenical?" Not really. I just state the truth as had been revealed to me over a lifetime of prayer and observation. I’m quite sure that Confessional Lutheran Christianity is the closest expression of Apostolic Christianity out there, although other Christian churches have critical truths that are common to us all ( Jesus being born in the flesh of a Virgin, the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection of the dead, etc) and that the Lord accepts all of our prayers.

What better way of carrying out the Great Commission than having a multiplicity of denominations that preach Christ and Him crucified? More ground is covered and more people are given the opportunity to accept the Gospel, receive baptism and become incorporated into the Body of Christ. Right now, the Global South is a rich mission field ( as is the United States) and certain areas missed by one church are covered by another. It all really does boil down to faith in our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, that He works all things for our good.

 

[mattp0625]

We surely have gone off the topic of using the crucifix as opposed to the empty cross ( as though it were an " either/ or" rather than a " both/ and"- as it is for the LCMS), but of course I can’t just let the rebuttal go without a response of my own. Nobody argues or disputes the authority that Jesus gave to His apostles.

I dispute your argument that those who are said to be in Apostolic Succession have the authority that Christ gave to His disciples ( of which we all are). That authority was given to the Church as a whole, rather than some few elected officials. The Church retains the Office of the Keys for forgiveness of sins for the repentant and retention of sins for those who do not repent.

I maintain that we all are part of the Church that Christ founded and that is clearly explained in the Ecumenical Councils regardless of denominational affiliation.

The Holy Spirit *did *in fact lead the Church into all Truth and that Truth is in fact contained in Holy Scriptures. The basics as I outlined them earlier remain in effect… baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the proclamation of the Gospel, the truths outlined in the Three Ecumenical Creeds, Jesus Christ giving us His Body and Blood in the sacrament of Holy Communion, God granting us forgiveness of our sins in Confession and Absolution.

" Indulgent and ecumenical?" Not really. I just state the truth as had been revealed to me over a lifetime of prayer and observation. I’m quite sure that Confessional Lutheran Christianity is the closest expression of Apostolic Christianity out there, although other Christian churches have critical truths that are common to us all ( Jesus being born in the flesh of a Virgin, the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection of the dead, etc) and that the Lord accepts all of our prayers.

What better way of carrying out the Great Commission than having a multiplicity of denominations that preach Christ and Him crucified? More ground is covered and more people are given the opportunity to accept the Gospel, receive baptism and become incorporated into the Body of Christ. Right now, the Global South is a rich mission field ( as is the United States) and certain areas missed by one church are covered by another. It all really does boil down to faith in our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, that He works all things for our good.

Except Jesus never gave us provisions for conflicting doctrines in His church.

He also did not define the essentials versus nonessentials.

So, who did these things? If we are honest, it is not difficult to see.

 

[Della]

We surely have gone off the topic of using the crucifix as opposed to the empty cross ( as though it were an " either/ or" rather than a " both/ and"- as it is for the LCMS), but of course I can’t just let the rebuttal go without a response of my own. Nobody argues or disputes the authority that Jesus gave to His apostles.

I dispute your argument that those who are said to be in Apostolic Succession have the authority that Christ gave to His disciples ( of which we all are). That authority was given to the Church as a whole, rather than some few elected officials. The Church retains the Office of the Keys for forgiveness of sins for the repentant and retention of sins for those who do not repent.

I maintain that we all are part of the Church that Christ founded and that is clearly explained in the Ecumenical Councils regardless of denominational affiliation.

The Holy Spirit *did *in fact lead the Church into all Truth and that Truth is in fact contained in Holy Scriptures. The basics as I outlined them earlier remain in effect… baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the proclamation of the Gospel, the truths outlined in the Three Ecumenical Creeds, Jesus Christ giving us His Body and Blood in the sacrament of Holy Communion, God granting us forgiveness of our sins in Confession and Absolution.

" Indulgent and ecumenical?" Not really. I just state the truth as had been revealed to me over a lifetime of prayer and observation. I’m quite sure that Confessional Lutheran Christianity is the closest expression of Apostolic Christianity out there, although other Christian churches have critical truths that are common to us all ( Jesus being born in the flesh of a Virgin, the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection of the dead, etc) and that the Lord accepts all of our prayers.

What better way of carrying out the Great Commission than having a multiplicity of denominations that preach Christ and Him crucified? More ground is covered and more people are given the opportunity to accept the Gospel, receive baptism and become incorporated into the Body of Christ. Right now, the Global South is a rich mission field ( as is the United States) and certain areas missed by one church are covered by another. It all really does boil down to faith in our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, that He works all things for our good.

I wouldn’t expect any other explanations from a Protestant than the ones you’ve given. Sure, by our baptisms were all Christians, but we weren’t left to wonder about important matters of faith and morals. Christ gave that authority to his Apostles not to all of us. We see succession very clearly in the pages of the NT. The whole history of the Church shows one group after another trying to usurp the authority of the pope through various coups and heresies. If there’s no defined leadership, then why all the bother to try to take control? Why all the battles over doctrine? Why even bother to have any sort of leadership? Why not just let everyone believe what he pleases? Sorry, but your ideas simply don’t match reality. You’re holding on to what makes you happy, and I hope you gain your salvation, as I hope to gain mine, but you are simply wrong on all counts.

 

[Tommy999]

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

When I see a crucifix, I am reminded of how much Jesus loved mankind and the price He paid to redeem us. After all, He was the spotless lamb who was slain for the sins of the world and he voluntarily died a painful, gruesome death so that we might achieve salvation through Him.

When I see an empty cross, it is a symbol of Christ’s love but also a reminder that He conquered the grave. As someone else mentioned, perhaps an empty tomb with a large stone rolled away attached to it would be an even more fitting symbol of Jesus conquering the grave, but for whatever reason it never caught on in sculpture and art like the cross did.

The empty cross also serves as a reminder that I must take up my cross daily and follow Him and not *just *be grateful that He died for me.