Why don't all Catholic churches have a crucifx?

[Aelred_Minor]

Oh for goodness sake. Such exaggeration does not even make sense. Not having a crucifix does not equal non-Catholic, and the pizza sauce reference is just plain ridiculous. Such silly things are not what being a Catholic is about and is a very poor witness for the faith.

Well, I’ve heard of pizza and beer Eucharist being done (attempted, rather, as the sacrament would surely have been invalid), and at a seminary no less. This comes from a seminarian there, describing something he claimed the faculty described has having occurred repeatedly before his time.

Unless I’m quite mistaken it is required that there be a crucifix somewhere in the sanctuary during mass. This could be on the wall, or on the alter, or it could be a processional cross that is also a crucifix and is left standing in the sanctuary during the mass, but there should be one somewhere. A disregard for this rule constitutes a lack of regard for liturgical norms in general, and that can be a slippery slope to worse problems.

 

[Filioque]

Well, I’ve heard of pizza and beer Eucharist being done (attempted, rather, as the sacrament would surely have been invalid), and at a seminary no less. This comes from a seminarian there, describing something he claimed the faculty described has having occurred repeatedly before his time.

There have been a few incidents of such abuses, yes. And it is importatnt to be mindful of the rubrics, even those that do not effect the validity of the Mass.

Happily most of those were issues of the past. While we need to be on guard regarding them, we should also educate ourselves and promote education among other Catholics on the Faith, both the spiritual/theological, and externals of the Faith. The reality is artwork used in Church buildings has spanned from a very simple altar without crucifix in the early Church, to the roccocco and everything in between. Some of the (In my opinion) beautiful expressions of Faith after Trent are as Catholic as simple monastic settings with little ornamentation. Carthusians, even prior to Vatican II had very plain and simple chapels, and vestments. For their spiritual lives it was and remains appropriate. We become accustomed to things we grew up with and are comfortable with them.

 

[sedonaman]

Oh for goodness sake. Such exaggeration does not even make sense. Not having a crucifix does not equal non-Catholic, and the pizza sauce reference is just plain ridiculous. Such silly things are not what being a Catholic is about and is a very poor witness for the faith.

I knew I’d get that reaction before I threw the bait out. Did it ever occur to you that not having a crucifix “does not make sense” and might be “ridiculous” to some people, especially those who wrote the documents specifying what is required for the Mass, and the pope who signed them out? Your reply indicates that you accept that there is a line somewhere between following the regulations and not following them, a line where one crosses over from the legitimate to the “ridiculous”. We are merely debating where that line is. One thing is for sure: The intent of Vatican II was not to create a do-it-yourself Catholicism. It might have been the effect, but not the intent.

---

“The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears will be itching for anything new, and they will collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths.” – 2 Timothy, 4:3-4

 

[godisgood77]

While I am not supporter of the “Resurrected Christ” crosses, and am a regular at the EF. I do have to point out historically that the crucifix as a form of Cathoic religous iconography, and on the altar is not of Apostolic origins, it did not become universal in the West until at least the 600’s If memory serves. It was only placed on the altar during Mass, along with the Candles. and the altar was otherwise barren outside of Mass.

From the few times I’ve had to fulfill my obligation by assisting at Mass in a parish with the described sanctuary, there was always a processional Crucifix which was placed near the altar, Not my cup of tea, but according to the Rubrics of the OF permissible, and when there is no crucifix in the sanctuary manditory.

So as distasteful it may be for me, it would seem it is permissible, if they at least use the processional crucifix during Mass, Not being the Pope, I guess I must accept it as being licit if they do follow the rubrics during Mass.

I was going to post the same information… thanks for doing so.

Relative to the original post, I would disagree with one major point… We do not have salvation because Jesus died on the cross… anyone can do that. We have salvation because Jesus rose from the dead and opened up the gates of Heaven… not just anyone can do that

 

[godisgood77]

Where does it end? Could some host-makers in a predominantly Italian parish decide the hosts needed spiffing up to make them not so plain, like adding pizza sauce for blood and a slice of pepperoni for the body?

Judgmentalism notwithstanding, there is a point at which Catholicism ends and non-Catholicism begins. :yup: I find it disturbing that there are folks who don’t research Vatican documents before trying to implement what they feel is the right symbology.

YIKES!! pretty extreme example that really doesn’t have any connection with the question at hand. The early Church did not have crucifixes as has been mentioned. Were the fathers not Catholic… not having a Crucifix, while it might not be to the taste of some, is perfectly Catholic… there is not accounting for taste, it is purely subjective.

 

[adrift]

Relative to the original post, I would disagree with one major point… We do not have salvation because Jesus died on the cross… anyone can do that. We have salvation because Jesus rose from the dead and opened up the gates of Heaven… not just anyone can do that

:bigyikes:

619 “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (⇒ I Cor 15:3).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: “This is my body which is given for you” (⇒ Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (⇒ Mt 20:28), that is, he “loved [his own] to the end” (⇒ Jn 13:1), so that they might be “ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers” (⇒ I Pt 1:18).

623 By his loving obedience to the Father, “unto death, even death on a cross” (⇒ Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf ⇒ Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will “make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities” (⇒ Is 53:11; cf. ⇒ Rom 5:19).

What did Jesus say about His own death?

27 And He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

What did Jesus ask for us to do?

19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus asks that we remember His sacrifice not His resurrection.

We do not have salvation because Jesus died on the cross…

Seriously? Without the cross there is no salvation.

III. THE MEANING AND SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION

651 "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."520 The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ’s works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

652 Christ’s Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life.521 The phrase "in accordance with the Scriptures"522 indicates that Christ’s Resurrection fulfilled these predictions.

653 The truth of Jesus’ divinity is confirmed by his Resurrection. He had said: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he."523 The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly “I AM”, the Son of God and God himself. So St. Paul could declare to the Jews: "What God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’"524 Christ’s Resurrection is closely linked to the Incarnation of God’s Son, and is its fulfillment in accordance with God’s eternal plan.

The Resurrection isn’t our salvation but the proof of our Salvation. Jesus asked to remember the cross which is what mass is about. We are to be obedient to the Church which has said that a crucifix be present.

 

[Lormar]

Post deleted.

 

[Lormar]

There have been a few incidents of such abuses, yes. And it is importatnt to be mindful of the rubrics, even those that do not effect the validity of the Mass.

Happily most of those were issues of the past. While we need to be on guard regarding them, we should also educate ourselves and promote education among other Catholics on the Faith, both the spiritual/theological, and externals of the Faith. The reality is artwork used in Church buildings has spanned from a very simple altar without crucifix in the early Church, to the roccocco and everything in between. Some of the (In my opinion) beautiful expressions of Faith after Trent are as Catholic as simple monastic settings with little ornamentation. Carthusians, even prior to Vatican II had very plain and simple chapels, and vestments. For their spiritual lives it was and remains appropriate. We become accustomed to things we grew up with and are comfortable with them.

Filioque, thank you for this and your previous post.

You are right. We become accustom to what we grew up with and are comfortable with that.

We do not have a crucifix in our parish church outside of the processional crucifix. Our last pastor had one on the altar, but our present pastor removed it.

However, Our Lord is there. What more can any Catholic want?

 

[Lucky7]

Such a situation is MUCH worse when other denominations do not use the same building. To me, it tastes of Protestant cultural contamination of our faith.

winner, winner, chicken dinner

I think we all know that, in the past, one huge, visible difference between a Catholic church and a protestant one was the crucifix. Removing the crucifix from our churches certainly gives them more of a Protestant feel than a Catholic one. Why would we want to remove the crucifix which depicts the wounds of our Savior?

Also, keep in mind that the crucifix wards off evil. Perhaps we should bring them back.

 

[Lucky7]

While I am not supporter of the “Resurrected Christ” crosses, and am a regular at the EF. I do have to point out historically that the crucifix as a form of Cathoic religous iconography, and on the altar is not of Apostolic origins, it did not become universal in the West until at least the 600’s If memory serves. It was only placed on the altar during Mass, along with the Candles. and the altar was otherwise barren outside of Mass.

I still think the 600’s was a long time ago…that means it was custom for 1,400 years. There are a lot of things that took some time to develop. This only reminds me of folks who look to the Apostles and say, well, we shouldn’t use/it’s okay to get rid of Latin because the apostles wouldn’t have celebrated the Eucharist in Latin.

Just because crucifixes weren’t used yet in apostolic times does not mean we needed to remove them from our churches 1,400 years later.

 

[Filioque]

I still think the 600’s was a long time ago…that means it was custom for 1,400 years. There are a lot of things that took some time to develop. This only reminds me of folks who look to the Apostles and say, well, we shouldn’t use/it’s okay to get rid of Latin because the apostles wouldn’t have celebrated the Eucharist in Latin.

Just because crucifixes weren’t used yet in apostolic times does not mean we needed to remove them from our churches 1,400 years later.

I’m not in favor of their removal by any means. But I am in favor of an accurate understanding of the History of the Church and it’s practices. As the Crucifix is still required by Liturgical law during the celebration of Mass, even if it is not in a manner I am happy to see, I think we’ve got bigger battles to fight to restore the Faith which many have not been taught.

I’d personally like to see the old Cathedrals in Europe in their original polychrome glory, with large civories over the altars, and festooned with religious tapestries, but we have become accustomed to the non-painted stone structures that centuries without upkeep have given us. Imagine all the carvings on the facade of Notre Dame and the interior brightly painted like a Da Vinci, would that not be glorious? But when I go to N.D. or Chartres, or St. Denis, I pray where other Catholics have prayed, where others have spilled their blood during the French Revolution and where today they have been restored to the Church, and I’m satisfied to see that the Mass and the Faith still survive.

 

[godisgood77]

Just because crucifixes weren’t used yet in apostolic times does not mean we needed to remove them from our churches 1,400 years later.

Agreed. By the same logic just because crucifixes were used in the Church for 1400 years, does not mean we need to have them for the next 1400.

I’m fine with whatever the Church teaches… whether or not a symbol of the the crucified Christ present does not effect one way or the other my understanding of and faith in what happens at the Mass.

Here is what the Church says:
*Masses are not valid or invalid, they are licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit (not in conformity with the law). It is the consecration of the Eucharist within the Mass that can be valid or invalid.

Whether a crucifix is present at the altar has no bearing on whether the Eucharist is valid or invalid (the absence of a crucifix will not cause the Eucharist to be invalid), but it does have a bearing on whether the Mass is licit or illicit.

The law requires that “There is to be a cross, clearly visible to the congregation, either on the altar or near it” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] 270). The revised General Instruction—which has not yet gone into effect—clarifies that the cross in question should have a corpus (representation of Christ’s body), meaning that it should be a crucifix rather than a bare cross.

If there were no cross by on or near the altar (or, once the new GIRM goes into effect, no crucifix) then the Mass would be illicit, or not celebrated in accord with the requirements of the law.

However, a Mass celebrated in this manner would still have a valid consecration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, it would still fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.*

If I’m reading this correctly… a crucifix should be present, but if not does not effect the validity of the Eucharist and still fulfills the Sunday obligation… it sounds somewhat like a stylistic preference.

 

[Filii_Dei]

If I’m reading this correctly… a crucifix should be present, but if not does not effect the validity of the Eucharist and still fulfills the Sunday obligation… it sounds somewhat like a stylistic preference.

I’m afraid that may be the one bit that you didn’t read correctly. It’s not a matter of stylistic preference but law as decreed by the Church that Christ has founded. The GIRM is very clear that there should be a crucifix - defined as a cross with corpus - in every church, and it does so for very good reasons: A crucifix is an excellent summation of Christian identity, and a Tradition which has been carried down unbroken since its conception (though certainly not since apostolic times). It is a stark reminder that Jesus lived, died and rose again for our sins. Everybody has no issue with remembering the fact that he lived and rose again, but people often forget the true agony and pain of Jesus dying on that cross for our sake. That is why we put crucifixes in our churches, to remind us of the most holy sacrifice on Calvary which we commemorate with every Mass. The sacrifice is not possible without life, and it is not complete without resurrection, and our Mass is a expression of all three.

Hence, I would argue that it actually does affect the faith and understanding of our Mass. In fact, there so many elements in the Mass that interact with each other to weave a fabric of faith and understanding of Christ, and the crucifix is certainly one of the more obvious and significant ones. There is no reason to remove the crucifixes, and there is no reason to be afraid of having a crucifix. We are Catholics, with a strong 2000 years of history, and we do not bend with every new theological fad.

Of course it does not affect the validity of the Eucharist, but if we were to reduce every Mass down to its essential elements for validity, all we would be having are Eucharistic Prayers in t-shirts and jeans. After all - one would argue - aren’t everything else merely stylistic preferences?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Resurrection isn’t our salvation but the proof of our Salvation. Jesus asked to remember the cross which is what mass is about. We are to be obedient to the Church which has said that a crucifix be present.

The resurrection is part of our salvation. Why do people try to make a dichotomy between the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection as if they can’t be all part of the bigger picture? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, the fact is it is all three.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The resurrection is part of our salvation. Why do people try to make a dichotomy between the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection as if they can’t be all part of the bigger picture? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, the fact is it is all three.

Very well said! I hope you are in agreement with me, but I feel that this also strengthens the case for a crucifix.

 

[adrift]

From the GIRM

1. Likewise, either on the altar or near it, there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. It is desirable that such a cross should remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations, so as to call to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord.

 

[adrift]

The resurrection is part of our salvation. Why do people try to make a dichotomy between the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection as if they can’t be all part of the bigger picture? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, the fact is it is all three.

Why is it that you try to make my post something that it is not. I never even indicated that they were exclusive from one another in fact I said the opposite. I was disputing this post

We do not have salvation because Jesus died on the cross…

I seem to be the only one that found his statement off kilter.

 

[Lucky7]

From the GIRM

Very often the crucifix is not “visible” at all. The one carried into Mass most times is pretty small once it gets to the altar. I see it also mentions that it is desirable that a crucifix be there ALL of the time (not just during Mass). In which case there are many churches that thought it was more desirable to NOT have one there all of the time.

 

[Lucky7]

I’m not in favor of their removal by any means. But I am in favor of an accurate understanding of the History of the Church and it’s practices. As the Crucifix is still required by Liturgical law during the celebration of Mass, even if it is not in a manner I am happy to see, I think we’ve got bigger battles to fight to restore the Faith which many have not been taught.

I’d personally like to see the old Cathedrals in Europe in their original polychrome glory, with large civories over the altars, and festooned with religious tapestries, but we have become accustomed to the non-painted stone structures that centuries without upkeep have given us. Imagine all the carvings on the facade of Notre Dame and the interior brightly painted like a Da Vinci, would that not be glorious? But when I go to N.D. or Chartres, or St. Denis, I pray where other Catholics have prayed, where others have spilled their blood during the French Revolution and where today they have been restored to the Church, and I’m satisfied to see that the Mass and the Faith still survive.

I understand what you are saying. I’m just pointing out that the year 600 is also fairly early on in the grand scheme of things. Just because there is no evidence of a Crucifix before then does not lessen its significance. I see the plain crosses or the Resurrection crosses as ways to make everyone “feel good”, to get away from that awful “Catholic guilt”, etc.

 

[Lormar]

Why is it that you try to make my post something that it is not. I never even indicated that they were exclusive from one another in fact I said the opposite. I was disputing this post

I seem to be the only one that found his statement off kilter.

No, you are not the only one that found that statement troublesome.