Why don't some Protestants like the cross?

[Hellisreal]

True; a cross without Christ would be just jewelry. I don’t have a major problem with people using a “symbol” to represent Christ’s death on Calvary. Sometimes the symbols in question are over-worked and over-rated. One thing that has come to mind for me as I read all the posts here is that there are two sides battling it out as to whether or not a literal cross of some kind is OK to use as a “symbol” to “represent” Christ, and Him crucified.

A further dimension could be added here to give a more comprehensive answer. Let me try to ask a question here; to better explain this next point. When we look at the various contexts and uses of the word “cross” in the Bible, does it always mean the instrument upon which Christ died? Are there some cases, in the Bible where the word cross is used in a metaphorical sense?

Perhaps, too many of us are getting caught up in specious debate about “crucifix” versus “cross” and we are in fact missing out on the true New Testament meaning of “take up thy cross?”

Is this a physical cross, and if not, what does this mean for us as Christians today? I know that Catholics usually choose to wear a literal cross around their necks; but is this text talking about that, or something else? **Protestants are maybe scared of saying this is “OK” **but really; all we need to do is look at the full meaning of Scripture to see that it is not intrinsically wrong. Maybe there is something else we don’t know??

I have a question for you,

Why would these protestants be scared of saying this is okay?

 

[Protestant101]

I have a question for you,

Why would these protestants be scared of saying this is okay?

That’s a good question - it likely has several possible answers. It is likely for the same reasons that some Catholics keep saying things like:

some Protestants seem to belittle the cross or want to ignore it altogether

 

[Bennie_P]

Don’t you get it? bakhita’s question: “why is it that some Protestants seem to belittle the cross or want to ignore it altogether?” does not accurately express what is behind a statement such as Wilson made. So, it is completely false to say that they [protestants] want the prize without understanding the price. In fact, I find that particular assumption an offensive projection.

And after Rob Horn’s well-worded statement had given me hope that we were all on the same page, too.

Are you one of the protestants/non-Catholics that want the prize without understanding the price? If not, then why are you offended? My statement was directed to the question which as another poster noted has the qualifing word “some”. I wasn’t making a blanket statement toward all protestants. Being a recent convert to the Catholic Church and someone that still does co-ministries with brothers and sisters from the church I had left, I know very well that many protestants understand what price Christ paid. But at the same time I also know many protestants/non-Catholics don’t have a full understanding of the price, how Christ suffers with us and how we as followers of Christ also share with Him His passion. That is how a relationship works, though lopsided it is not one way. The idea of offering up our pain and suffering is foreign to many non-Catholics. so for many non-Catholics they like the idea of receiving the prize without sharing in that suffering, for they see that idea as a works to earn the prize, which is further from the truth, for all that we receive from God is a Grace/gift we cannot earn, even the ability of sharing in the passion and doing good for others. Otherwise to truly to become a child of God we must become another Christ, but the only way we are able to do that is by the Grace/gift of God. And as Christ died on the cross we must do that each and everyday and having a cross/cruxifix in our Church, in our homes and around our neck is a physical reminder of the price paid in order that we may rise again just as Christ did and we are expected to live as He did, sharing life with others in their joy, their pain, their suffering but not to forget in their hope.

By the way at the end of film, which I have watched dozons of times, I think I remember that in the last scene, Christ arose from the tomb.

 

[Protestant101]

But at the same time I also know many protestants/non-Catholics don’t have a full understanding of the price, how Christ suffers with us and how we as followers of Christ also share with Him His passion.

I would just say that the name “Catholic” should also be included in the above comment. This would not be something that one is “immune” to, just because they are Catholic.

I think you are actually just trying to emphasize the way that Catholics usually choose to witness to others about Jesus, and making sure that people do not forget/leave out the death He suffered on the cross.

But I wonder too, have you considered Isaiah 53; and how it is connected to “Christ and Him crucified?” I have been thinking about this; and I am not so sure that a crucifix would adequately portray all that was involved in killing Jesus. Isaiah 53 tells us more about this idea I am bringing up.

I admire the way Catholics have tried to focus people’s attention on the death of Christ. Catholic authors whom I really enjoy, such as Rachel Callahan, C.S.C. and Rea McDonnell, S.S.N.D have co-authored a great book, with beautiful insights on the subject of how “our God is close to the broken-hearted; Those who are crushed in spirit; God saves.” (Ps.34:18). There are few authors who can enter into Christ’s suffering the way these do; and they do it in such a way as to really make one think they were personally at the cross.

I can also cite Protestant and other authors whom I feel have also done this; but the point is, is that there are many aspects to the death of Christ; and His horrible sufferings - not all of which are detailed in “the cross.” But they do all lead to the cross.

“Our tear Catching God;” and “The Laments Of Jesus” are two chapters in this book that would show us “the real God” in our suffering, as He too has suffered. (But He didn’t just suffer for us on the cross).

The authors ask the question: “So where is God in this most anguished time of Jesus’ life?” (pg.88); and perhaps, if we try to answer that one question we would better reflect “the cross” here on the forum, and in our personal lives?

I mean; it is possible to wear a cross/crucifix around your neck; and still not be much of a witness regarding Christ’s death. Like the authors of this book, how can we witness to this grand theme of “Christ and Him crucified;” unless we have personally been to Calvary? The religion and faith that we “preach” to others must also be one that we experience today.

How does a Christian “go to Calvary” today? This is another question that can help us to see deeper into 'the cross."

 

[VeronicaAnne]

Y’all might want to know about the Martyrs of Japan –

crucified in the late 1500’s in Japan.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/PAULMIKI.htm

Feast day of the Maryrs of Japan is February 6.

Here’s part of that article –

…In 1592 the persecution was renewed, and several Japanese converts received the crown of martyrdom. The emperor Tagcosama, one of the proudest and most vicious of men, was worked up into rage and jealousy by a suspicion suggested by certain European merchants desirous of the monopoly of this trade, that the view of the missionaries in preaching the Christian faith was to facilitate the conquest of their country by the Portuguese or Spaniards.

Three Jesuits and six Franciscans were crucified on a hill near Nangasaqui in 1597. The latter were partly Spaniards and partly Indians, and had at their head F. Peter Baptist, commissary of his order, a native of Avila, in Spain. As to the Jesuits, one was Paul Miki, a noble Japanese, and an eminent preacher, at that time thirty-three years old. The other two, John Gotto and James Kisai, were admitted into the Society in prison a little before they suffered. Several Japanese converts suffered with them. The martyrs were twenty-six in number, and among them were three boys who used to serve the friars at mass; two of them were fifteen years of age, and the third only twelve, yet each showed great joy and constancy in their sufferings. Of these martyrs, twenty-four had been brought to Meaco, where only a part of their left ears was cut off, by a mitigation of the sentence, which had commanded the amputation of their noses and both ears. They were conducted through many towns and public places, their cheeks stained with blood, for a terror to others. When the twenty-six soldiers of Christ were arrived at the place of execution near Nangasaqui, they were allowed to make their confession to two Jesuits of the convent in that town, and being fastened to crosses by cords and chains about their arm. and legs, and an iron collar about their necks, were raised into the air, the foot of each cross falling into a hole prepared for it in the ground. The crosses were planted in a row, about four feet asunder, and each martyr had an executioner near him with a spear ready to pierce his side; for such is the Japanese manner of crucifixion. As soon as all the crosses were planted, the executioners lifted up their lances, and at a signal given, all pierced the martyrs almost in the same instant; upon which they expired, and went to receive the reward of their sufferings. Their blood and garments were procured by Christians, and miracles were wrought by them. Urban VIII ranked them among the martyrs, and they are honoured on the 5th of February, the day of their triumph…

 

[goodknight439]

Recently I caught part of a broadcast on TBN where Demond Wilson (remember Lamont on Sanford & Son? He’s born again and preaching now) was talking about how when Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” came out, he was happy that it put some focus on Jesus in the secular press but he was annoyed that it focused on the crucifixion instead of the resurrection.

And while, yeah, without the resurrection we’ve got nothing to put our faith in…why is it that some Protestants seem to belittle the cross or want to ignore it altogether?

Most Protestant CHurches I have been in display a large cross in the open. not to be a smart alleck, but are you referring to a Crucifix?

 

[whatistruth]

I Cor 1:23 - But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:

I Cor 2:2 - For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Gal 3:1 - O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?

An empty cross is simply a torture device. Countless people were crucified during that time in history. The cross with my Saviour on it means something else entirely:

1 Peter 2:21-24 - For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.

23Who, when he was reviled, did not revile: when he suffered, he threatened not: but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly.

24Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.

Good job on the scriptural quotations. No crucifixion, no resserection! We must participate in Christs’ Passion. Read in Numbers 21 and the brazen serpent on the pole. When Israel looked at the serpent on the pole they were protected from the venim and not die. Without the serpent on the pole it had no value. With no Christ on the cross no protection from death. Catholics have Jesus on the cross so when we look up at it, we are protected from the venim of sin. It helps us remember the vision so we do not commit sin. Read also the words of Jesus in John 3:14, “As Moses raised the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man” here Jesus is referring to the moment in Numbers. This is what is called “Typology” something in the Old Testament that prefigures or points to Jesus in the New Testament. This is how Catholics read the bible for salvation; as a “Whole” and not in proof texting each other to death. Is this going to be a stumbling block to you?

Peace be with you

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Which is why I don’t have any objection to the use of a crucifix.

On the other hand, if one asked me to critique Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”, I would have liked to have seen a clearer presentation of the resurrection, than just showing a sunrise. They didn’t have to spend another 2 hours on it, but to show a tomb with the rolled away stone would have spoken more to me than the scene that was used to proclaim Christ’s resurrection. Certainly, to have made that film and not gone on to have proclaimed that not only did Christ suffer, but he rose victorius would have been to have told the truth but not the whole truth, and it does take the whole truth (not just partial truth) to set us free from the shackles of sin in our life.

As a single symbol of our faith, a crucifix, and empty cross, an single nail, they all speak to me. But as a testimony, I need the empty tomb at the end of the story.

 

[jmcrae]

Which is why I don’t have any objection to the use of a crucifix.

On the other hand, if one asked me to critique Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”, I would have liked to have seen a clearer presentation of the resurrection, than just showing a sunrise. They didn’t have to spend another 2 hours on it, but to show a tomb with the rolled away stone would have spoken more to me than the scene that was used to proclaim Christ’s resurrection.

Are there different versions of the movie? The one I saw had a very powerful resurrection scene - as the sun lights up the interior of the cave, the clean bare feet come down off of the shelf (which you can’t see) on to the floor of the cave, and begin to walk toward the light, and then you see the linens neatly folded on the shelf. I thought it was too short, but I still thought it was very powerful. (I thought the emptying-out of Limbo was too short, too - if I hadn’t been watching for it, I’d have missed it - but I thought the look on Satan’s face when he just suddenly found himself all alone in the netherworld was completely priceless. )

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Are there different versions of the movie? The one I saw had a very powerful resurrection scene - as the sun lights up the interior of the cave, the clean bare feet come down off of the shelf (which you can’t see) on to the floor of the cave, and begin to walk toward the light, and then you see the linens neatly folded on the shelf. I thought it was too short, but I still thought it was very powerful. (I thought the emptying-out of Limbo was too short, too - if I hadn’t been watching for it, I’d have missed it - but I thought the look on Satan’s face when he just suddenly found himself all alone in the netherworld was completely priceless. )

I didn’t think so, other than that there was a re-release, and maybe they added something to it. I’ve only seen it that one time in the spring of 2004, and I don’t remember seeing any feet getting coming down off of the shelf, I agree that would be a powerful visual image. Or maybe I blinked and missed it.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Most Protestants have the cross as a symbol. A few don’t, as they see it as celebrating a symbol of execution I think.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

A few don’t, as they see it as celebrating a symbol of execution I think.

Have you asked? Or is that just an assumption you have made without any actually facts, testimony, or other evidence to support your conclusion?

 

[VeronicaAnne]

I didn’t think so, other than that there was a re-release, and maybe they added something to it. I’ve only seen it that one time in the spring of 2004, and I don’t remember seeing any feet getting coming down off of the shelf, I agree that would be a powerful visual image. Or maybe I blinked and missed it.

I got to see it the 2nd day it first aired. The very end scene is VERY short… I was looking to my side to tell my friend that she could open her eyes now, because here would be the Resurrection. By the time I got her to open her eyes, the credits were rolling…

so… I had to see the whole movie a second time, just so that I could catch those last moments.

The last scene began with the inside of the tomb having light in it, coming from a direction that you had to figure was where the stone had to have been rolled away…

(in retrospect, remembering this I was figuring that He moved it away without touching it – or maybe it was from just His resurrected body – glowing white like it did at the mount where He brought James, John, and Peter to see His glorified Body with Moses and Isaiah next to Him…?)

next scene continued with His feet (clean and dry, with the wound) hitting the floor… and starting to step forward…

next scene was the camera panning up from His feet… continuing upward, passing along his clean white robe… and then to a side shot of His face – looking forward –

with the most AMAZING expression of certaintude and positivity – and STRONG…

like He was saying – Okay… <this isn’t rocket science!> … I told them what I’d do 3 days after I died … now, let’s get this show on the road!! – as He smoothly and surely moved forward…

And THAT’s when the credits started rolling…

That must’ve lasted maybe all of 45 seconds… wish it had lasted longer, but the impact would have been lost if it lasted any longer than that…

The scope of this movie was, of course, His Passion…

It would have been really great if there was a sequel of the period between His resurrection and the Ascension… and Pentecost…

I’m just really, really glad that Mel made sure that scientifically and historically he covered what truly happens with a crucifixion… and scourging… not whitewashing, at all.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Have you asked? Or is that just an assumption you have made without any actually facts, testimony, or other evidence to support your conclusion?

Yes, a SDA told me that. So no, I didn’t “assume”.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes, a SDA told me that. So no, I didn’t “assume”.

Does SDA stand for Seventh Day Adventist?

See, I learned one new thing today. I had not know that the Adventists did not use the cross in their churches. The one in the town I used to live in had it painted on the sign in front of their building.

And not only did you not assume, but you actually knew. You didn’t have to qualify your previous statement with an “I think”.

 

[peary]

The Cross became a prominent teaching fixture in the early Church as Islam became stronger in Christian areas. Islam denies that Christ died on the Cross. That is in the Koran, and that is what Muslims believe. It was also tied to confronting Arianism, a heresy which plagued the Church in its early days. The corpus on the Cross reminds us that Jesus died for our sins - which is a major tenet of our Faith, and one proclaimed by protestant churches, which is ironic since they reject the symbol with a body on it.

A Protestant once asked Archibishop Sheen about why the Church puts a body on the Cross since in their churches it is a plain Cross. Bishop Sheen replied that when he views a Cross without a corpus, it means very little to him. But when he sees a crucifix, he knows immediately that Jesus died for him and for all. Amen.

 

[Protestant101]

Does SDA stand for Seventh Day Adventist?

See, I learned one new thing today. I had not know that the Adventists did not use the cross in their churches. The one in the town I used to live in had it painted on the sign in front of their building.

And not only did you not assume, but you actually knew. You didn’t have to qualify your previous statement with an “I think”.

“SDA” is an unofficial abbreviation for Seventh-day Adventist. The official abbreviation that the General Conference encourages us to use is “Adventist.”

I am not clear on what you mean when you say “Adventists do not use the cross in their churches.” What do you mean “use” the cross? Do you mean “crucifix” or “cross?” How does one “use” the cross?

 

[BrewMax]

Recently I caught part of a broadcast on TBN where Demond Wilson (remember Lamont on Sanford & Son? He’s born again and preaching now) was talking about how when Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” came out, he was happy that it put some focus on Jesus in the secular press but he was annoyed that it focused on the crucifixion instead of the resurrection.

And while, yeah, without the resurrection we’ve got nothing to put our faith in…why is it that some Protestants seem to belittle the cross or want to ignore it altogether?

??? I have never heard of any Christian who would belittle a cross or who ignores it. No offense meant here, but I do not see the value in this thread.

 

[St_Violet]

man, If i had a nickel for everytime I heard a protestant talking smack about the cross. But like said, most protestants feel the cross is too catholic.

 

[O.S.Luke]

??? I have never heard of any Christian who would belittle a cross or who ignores it. No offense meant here, but I do not see the value in this thread.

I am not getting this either. Is this a beat-up-Protestants-because-some-have-beat-us-up thread?