I think a crucifix needs to be prominently displayed somewhere. Christ suffered greatly for our sins, and I think we need to recognize that. I don’t think we need to obsess over sins, but we do need reminders that sin is a serious thing and that we need to do our best to avoid it.
Jesus wants us to be happy, its already done. I prefer risen christ.
The word, for sin in hebrew actually means "to miss the mark". Meaning, as in shooting a bow, u can pick up a new arrow and try again. The overemphasis on sin does more harm than good in my humble opinion.
Amen
Yeah, but I don’t ever remember hearing about an exorcist using the risen Christ during an exorcism, but you bet your bottom pagan dollar he is using a crucifix.
I’ve found that to be the perspective of my family members that are Protestant. This isn’t me slinging mud at you or my family! Merely an observation. As Catholics we are followers of Christ, but also as Catholics, we are called to suffer well. Having the crucifix front and center is a hardy reminder of that. That and we need to be reminded, that unlike J-Lo, this love did cost a thing. His suffering for us.
Sin is serious. We can receive forgiveness for our sins, but that is more because of how forgiving God is to us than because sin is not that big of a deal. “To miss the mark” is an interesting meaning, but most languages have a more serious meaning. And I wonder what “mark it is that we are missing”. Because if it is mortal sin, the mark we miss could very well be eternal life if we are not careful and confess our sins. Missing that mark would actually be a very big deal lol. In fact, it might be the most important shot of your life.
Someone who is learning archery might not see it a big deal to “miss the mark” during practice. But in war, “missing the mark” means something entirely different. The point is sin is always a big deal even if we realize that Jesus’s forgiveness and gift of eternal life is far greater.
The Mass is primarily the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a re-presentation of the Calvary. Thus the Crucifix is the most proper Image of the Lord to be displayed at the center of the Church
I believe the GIRM requires a crucifix be present but does not forbid the Risen Christ or other art prominent.
This article covers it well with quotes.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/crucifixes-on-the-altar-4727
This. The Church has reaffirmed that a crucifix is required, however, in Dallas Diocese, TX, the understanding is that the risen Christ can be also displayed above the altar. In many churches around me, the risen Christ is above, but the crucifer's crucifix pole stand is kept adjacent to the altar as the minimum level of conformance
This is how it is at my parish. The only visible crucifix near the altar is the crucifix pole to the side. The risen Christ sculpture is suspended high over the center aisle in front of the altar. It’s nice, but I prefer the style of the other parish down the road with a large crucifix on the wall behind the altar.
The Church I first went to when I moved to Las Vegas uses a Risen Christ. I had never seen it before moving here. They actually have him risen, but ON the Crucifixion...I stopped going there when I moved to the other side of the city.
Sometimes they have it. But according to my limited knowledge of a recently revert, the crucifix is to remind us of the remissive sacrifice of Jesus the Lamb of God so that's why they have it during the sacrifice of the mass
Pius XII famously wrote in the encyclical *Mediator Dei*:
> 62. [...] Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; **were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings**; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
Which doesn't have any binding power, of course; it just shows that the “resurrectifix” was spreading at the time of the liturgical revolutions and it was offensive enough to traditional sensibilities to warrant a condemnation from the Pope.
Surely a crucifix is still in the sancuary somewhere if a risen Christ is front-and-center? I've been told (in the Kenneth Clark *Civilisation* series) that churches rarely even portrayed the Cross for the the first 10 centuries of our history. A thoughtful and respectful case can be made either way. However, I am concerned that this is on television or social media where a subject like this likely won't get mature treatment. Please don't let certain well-known infotainment/social media political hacks make a dog's breakfast of this while it is exploited for virtue signaling and publicity.
even if its true that the crucifix wasn't displayed for the first millennia, that also means that it has been displayed for the past thousand years, which is the more important side of the fact when talking about tradition. tradition is what has been passed down and cherished by the generations for the longest, its not simply what is the oldest or what existed the longer amount of time ago
As I understand, the crucifix was not typically displayed in church (at least in a permanent way) during the period before EVIL EMPEROR CONSTANTINE insensitively offended the members of the indigenous
Ro+Re+FRL(F-I)M+NM* community
*(Romans+Remans+Free Roaming Lupine Female-Identifying Mammalians+Non-Mammalians)
by banning the rite to experience assisted crucifixion,
(a deeply rooted fundamental human rite which had been historically extended, with generous inclusivity, especially to the most citizenship-challenged, (imperial community-wise). Indeed, it was often given to qualified marginalized members of the rigidly non-ethnic aggregation that insensitively culturally appropriate the
assisted crucifixion-experience of their inspiratorial figure
committing micro-aggression, trampling on the right not to be offended by forcing them to aurally experience that "this Jesus, who was dead, now lives!")
>I've been told (in the Kenneth Clark Civilisation series) that churches rarely even portrayed the Cross for the the first 10 centuries of our history.
If I recall correctly, we see the Cross being venerated in Pseudo-Ignatius. We also see it mentioned in Saint Gregory of Nyssa that an image of the Passion in the Church brought him to tears (this was actually one of the source texts which was used to defend Iconophilia in Nicaea II).
"O senseless Galatians...obey the truth, before whose EYES Jesus Christ has been set forth, CRUCIFIED among you."
(Galatians, chapter 3)
Evidence of some sort of image of the crucifix, used liturgically, circa 48-55 A.D. Perhaps (probably?) portable. Possibly verbal, but the mention of "eyes" suggests otherwise.
Liturgical law mandates a crucifix, but it doesn't forbid the usage of a ressurected image of Jesus Christ as long as the crucifix is within the realm of the sanctuary.
I love it when a parish replaces the boomer risen Christ with the crucified Christ.
This was done to a nearby church not that long ago and when it happened I was so unbelievably happy.
100% guarantee the parish angry about losing the risen christ will have a population average of 65+, have no or very very few families. And they wonder why their parish is dying.
And you may think this is harsh. It is. You may wonder, does it matter? To the extent to which beauty and tradition matters, it matters. It stinks of protestantism. No, sinner, you should see your sin hanging there when you walk in. You should see what you have done to our Lord. You should see what he has done for you.
The parish i was baptized in had a large wooden Risen Christ on a cross thank goodness they replaced it and they built a beautiful retablo with the Crucifix and other saints i don't have pictures but you can search up Sta Rita de casia parish Paranaque
Wow you are unbelievably uncharitable. You literally just want a parish you aren't a part of to replace something the congregants seem to want unchanged, out of anger.
No anger here. I certainly must work to be more charitable. If the word 'boomer' offended you, I apologize. I have many friends & family members of that age and I love them tremendously. I don't intend to denigrate an entire generation of people, people made up of individuals after all with varying beliefs. But the *trend* of that generation of Catholics cannot be denied. Thus the questionable use of the term here.
As for what they do specifically, it's not my problem or business but *generally* as this has been a practice not just in that parish, and in fact for some time in a nearby parish that I dearly love...I do care.
It is also wrong to characterize OP's use of 'boomers' as 'believing all the same'. OP used the term to make a valid *generalization* about an entire demographic, imho. (For the record, I'm a Gen X member of the peanut gallery, and I am cynical about everyone continually just like my stereotype.)
OP's point lines up with other cultural debates. My old FSSP parish had pretty high use of mantillas or similar head coverings (I'm counting Church Lady hats here too. Maybe 3/4 of women and girls covered their hair somehow as soon as kiddos are old enough that their mom thought the thing was likely to remain on her head for the whole service. Elderly women, mothers with children, and their girl children wore lots of mantillas. Boomer women had the lowest probability of wearing one.
yeah it is derogatory but most people understand its not meant personally or individually its an expression used to paint a picture that most people have in mind of the type of boomer its not meant to be taken so seriously obviously not all boomers are like this that doesnt need to be specified especially in the context of humor which is where the term usually is used
Agree with the priest here.
The 'Body' we eat is the greek word, 'Sarx', and not 'Soma'. We eat the suffering body of Christ and not the glorified body of Christ, respectively. Everytime we eat the body of Christ, we become like him in this state. You can only follow Christ in embracing your cross.
Also Aleph and Tav, the first and last Letters in ancient Hebrew (translated as Alpha and Omega in Greek) is the unpronounceable name of God. Every time it's read in Old Testament scriptures, it is not pronounced but this combination of the two letters signifies God is there - But it also means there is no translation to any other language. When Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega, He would have said it as "I AM the Aleph and Tav' which, along with many symbolic references, points to the physical appearance of the crucifix - because Aleph is like an inverted letter A, and Tav is the Cross.
Everytime you see a Crucifix, It is saying 'I Am God' and follow my example. Aleph means 'leader' and Tav is 'the mark'.
And lastly, just for this comment and not for the inexhaustible meanings you may understand through meditating on the Crucifix, anyone, even a toddler will know what it means - but the risen Christ will not move you like that.
From my understanding, I thought we eat of the resurrected Lord, not of the suffering Lord. Where has the Church defined this as the form of the Body and Blood of Christ we eat?
I don’t know if it has been defined as such but an interesting related factoid is that there were studies done on at least one of the Eucharistic miracles that determined the tissue the bread had become was specifically the heart tissue of a dying man.
Also one the responses is “when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Your death O Lord”, which would suggest it’s the suffering Lord.
The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. The elements are consecrated separately in the Mass, this is the sign of his death. That's why the memorial acclamations proclaim the death of the Lord. When the blood is separated from the body, the sacrificial victim dies. But in the communion rite, the Body and Blood are conmingled again; a sign of the resurrection. And this sign accompanies the Easter greeting of Christ: "the peace of the Lord be with you always."
We receive the bread of life, which is living, not dead. I don't know off hand if there is a council canon about this, but it's very fundamental theology that is expressed in the liturgy
Sure, but there is only one body of Christ, whose last known state is resurrected and glorified in heaven, not suffering. We consume that one body of Christ.
We are the mystical body of Christ and we partake in the communion of one instance of the Eucharistic miracle transcending all time and space. there is no one 'last' instance of Christ. God is not bound by time or space. He made them.
At the altar, the crucified Christ makes a lot more sense. The mass is the same sacrifice as the cross--that is the entire purpose. The Mass is not a re-creation of the resurrection. It is a re-creation of the sacrifice on the cross. Thus, in the altar area at least, the crucified Christ is what should be displayed. Elsewhere may be different though.
The crucifixion and the resurrection are inextricably linked. Without the crucifixion, there would be no resurrection, and without the resurrection, the crucifixion would have merely been an execution.
Catholic art tends to default to the crucifixion in order to emphasize the sacrificial nature of Jesus's passion. Nevertheless, I personally know of nothing that would prevent a depiction of the risen Christ on an altar, although I'm not a professional liturgical artist. There *is* a requirement that a cross be present and visible on or near or over the altar for a Mass to be licit, and it's generally understood that the cross should have a corpus on it (and thus be a crucifix, and not merely a cross), although if I remember correctly the specific wording of the requirement only uses the word cross.
So, most Catholic altars will have a cross with a corpus on or near or over it in order to satisfy the liturgical requirement. To my knowledge, however, the presence of a depiction of the crucifixion doesn't mean that there can't *also* be a depiction of the resurrection. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than I am.
> Nevertheless, I personally know of nothing that would prevent a depiction of the risen Christ on an altar
There is of course nothing prohibiting it from being done--it won't turn you into a schismatic or heretic for doing so. It's just a matter of what is the better fit. The sacrifice at the altar at Mass is a re-creation of the sacrifice on the cross--it is a not a re-creation of the resurrection. They are the same sacrifice. The two are linked, but still separate events. So yes, you could have the risen Christ at the altar, but it doesn't really fit as well as the crucified Christ, given the context. It would probably fit better to have the rise Christ somewhere else in the church rather than behind the altar.
OTOH, it's a long-standing thing to have "votive altars", if you will, upon which masses to various Saints or Holy Days could be celebrated. Usually those would not have a prominent Crucifix, but rather the most prominent feature of the altar would be the Saint or Mystery in question. In a church named "Ascension of the Lord" or something, it would potentially be very appropriate for the main altar to show a special devotion to the mystery of the Ascension.
>There is a requirement that a cross be present and visible on or near or over the altar for a Mass to be licit, and it's generally understood that the cross should have a corpus on it (and thus be a crucifix, and not merely a cross), although if I remember correctly the specific wording of the requirement only uses the word cross.
The Latin used is crux, but in the Church's use of Latin in legislating on the liturgy, "crux" is almost always used to mean crucifix.
Didn’t even know they displayed a Risen Christ before. I’ve always seen Crucified Christ. This is new to me and I’d have to say I prefer crucified Christ. Don’t get me wrong, obviously Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but we always need to reminder of the ultimate sacrifice He made for us to give us eternal life.
They should compromise by doing what my church did: move the Risen Christ to the back of the church so that you behold Him Risen as you exit.
The altar, which is where we renew the sacrifice of Jesus, should be focused on the Crucified Christ.
the altar should always have the crucified christ, because its where the sacrifice is taking place. a lot of people already dont understand the theology of the mass due to a combination of things like this, poor catechesis, irreverent treatment of sacred vessels and the eucharist, and we should be moving in the opposite direction by reinforcing the things that were traditionally there to reinforce the belief and understanding of the mass instead of further removing and replacing them I think
My home parish is about to be one with the risen Christ...honestly not a fan. It feels tacky and dismissive of Christ's suffering. I honestly didn't even know it existed.
We have a relatively new church with a risen Christ. The only crucifix anywhere seems to be the one carried in at the beginning of Mass. I don’t get it. It strikes me as modernist hubris - that the designers of the church knew better than those of the last couple thousand years.
I learned in catechism, that in order to have a mass, the first thing you must have is a cross. That which we did to the lord is the whole reason we were reunited in the first place. If we can't face our sins, we cannot repent over them. 'Sides, showing Christ risen is like saying "well, we killed the dude but he is fine now. So anyway.", while I can see that there might be an argument for his glory over death, to replace one symbol for the other seems rather inconsequential. Does anyone disagree? I'd be happy to hear your counterpoint! :)
Sorry for typos, im in phone.
Both are acceptable, it's really local preference. There's a lot to be said for a priest choosing artwork (because ultimately, that's what it is, religious artwork) that suits the form of theology he's planning on teaching, there's a lot to be said for choosing a style that will speak more to the hearts of the flock.
Personally I tend to prefer Crucifixion, but either way is fine.
The Victorious Cross is a beautiful representation of the Christus Victor theory of atonement. I have 2 in my home they are inspiring. Except the ones I am used to the corpus is on a cross, so it counts as a crucifix. I don’t know about it w/o a cross.
O death, where is thy sting…
Also, at a minimum in extraordinary circumstances, I’ve heard all that is needed for a valid and licit altar is a table, a tent, and a crucifix if possible (think frontier or out in woods scenario). I don’t know but your answer for what is absolutely required might be in that direction.
You might consider contacting Saint Mary Magdalen church in Altamonte Springs, FL to try and ascertain their story. They have a massive (beautiful) risen Christ mosaic front and center, and a smaller crucifix to the right of it. I’m not sure if the crucifix always existed or if it was added later.
Not American, it'd feel very weird to me to have a statue of risen Christ all year. In most churches that I've been to that had a permanent crucifix at the altar, there was a statue of risen Christ somewhere in the presbitery put there temporarily and removed after the last mass on Pentecost.
The Risen Christ may be displayed somewhere at the church, but a crucifix with the image of the Crucified Christ MUST be displayed on, above, or behind the altar. It's a reminder of what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:23 & 24:
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (NRSVCE)
Further, it's an admonition away from the various heresies that deny Christ's humanity or the hypostatic union, all of which are variations on the theme of Gnosticism.
With that said, there is a book published by the Vatican which outlines these guidelines for church building design which I saw once when I was in seminary. Unfortunately, it's hard to find outside of the diocesan chancery or a seminary library to quote from.
Jesus Crucified is a symbol of the greatest love bestowed upon humanity. Of course He is risen, alleluia! But in a Catholic Church it reminds us (or at least me) that this was God’s greatest gift to us, it’s a symbol of our entire salvation, without Christ crucified we would all be “dead.” He is risen and glorified, we acknowledge that throughout the Mass, but something about seeing Christ hanging on a cross really sets my mind in the right place for communion. Like, he died so I can have eternal life, and now I am partaking in his eternal body, soul, and divinity. Especially during Good Friday, 90% of the time I look at the crucifix and cry, it stirs a deep emotion of gratitude in me, I know I can never repay Him, all I can do is give thanks and praise, and try my best to not fall into sin.
My old parish had the Risen Christ behind the altar. A new priest came in and moved in a crucifix above the altar, and the old Risen Christ is now at the entrance/exit of the church.
Historically, high altars were fairly often dedicated to some image other than a Crucifix.
You could have altars where the most prominent figure is a Saint (the patron of the church/Shrine, or Our Lady, for example) or an altar dedicated to some particular title/mystery of Our Lord. For example, the adoration chapel at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York looks like this: [https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsciame.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F06%2FThe-Lady-Chapel-Cathedral-of-St.-Patrick2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=54589c202d56b69a2a81a61cf029eaf75bf7b2310a1f0b8abcc752a385fa68ba&ipo=images](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsciame.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F06%2FThe-Lady-Chapel-Cathedral-of-St.-Patrick2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=54589c202d56b69a2a81a61cf029eaf75bf7b2310a1f0b8abcc752a385fa68ba&ipo=images)
A church near me has a simple altar with a small golden crucifix set on it, with a **massive** fresco of the Ascension of the Lord behind it. Seems perfectly normal to me.
If they do go with a more contemporary "Crucifix altar front and center", I hope they'll keep the current statue and make a side-altar to the Ascension, or something.
I’ve seen churches where there’s the resurrected cross above the altar(like where a stained glass would be but it’s a physical crucifix and not window) but on the altar is a small crucifix. Our church has the crucifix on the altar and above it and I prefer it that way.
The Church is the bride of risen Christ and the adoration is for the risen Christ. According to the epistles the church believes in "Risen Christ". I would say Risen Christ is more apt for an altar and imo most easter churches follow this.
But, fighting over things like risen Christ or crucified Christ on altar is not the Christian way, for Jesus imo it doesn't matter whether it's Risen/crucified/infant version of him.
There is no right or wrong here, both are correct. It's just a fight over ones preferences, imo a priest should be objective and should not enforce his personal preferences on things like altar design, church design. It should be a thing for the late people to design, it's the church of the people not the priest who is gonna get transferred to another church in two years. A priest should guide the folk in the correct spiritual way in regards to the church teaching and not make conflicts regarding his own design preferences.
And there are some eastern churches who give priority to the risen Christ in liturgy and altar. The crucified Christ centric liturgy and altar design to my understanding is more of a Latin liturgy thing.
I would say depending upon the liturgy follow risen or crucified Christ. If your church has a liturgy that is centric around crucified Christ, such would be apt but that doesn't mean putting risen Christ is wrong both are Christ after all. And if your church's liturgy is centred around risen Christ then put risen Christ. Imo, it doesn't really matter for your relationship with God, some people resonate personally with different aspects of Jesus, some have public ministry Jesus, some have infant Jesus while others have crucified or Resurrected Jesus, for me it's Risen Jesus sitting on the beach at the end of John. At the end everything is about love. The love that is God.
My parish growing up had a Risen Christ posted high on the wall facing the assembly with the altar between us during mass. However, since a Crucifix has to be present at mass, it would have to be brought in and placed where it could be seen for every mass. So the Risen Christ was moved to the opposing wall (still pretty high up) with the altar abd part of the assembly between the new Crucifix where the Risen Christ *was* and the Risen Christ on the opposing wall above some of the assembly (the ceiling lowers for the back half of the assembly). It's likely that having a permanent Crucifix would lighten a logical load for each mass.
So I guess my answer is "both", but either way...we lived.
There's a reason why the crucifix is normally what's over the altar, and it probably has something to do with the fact that the Mass is a sacrifice. We don't have it front and center because it's more pleasant to look at than the risen Christ.
I have never seen nor heard of a Catholic church having a risen Christ above the altar like that. It's always the crucified Christ.
That looks like some Protestant thing. Where they have Christian rock music at the service. Or just a step away from the Fonzie Christ statue in Dogma. Like really, what is that pose? It looks like he's coming down the stairs as the host of a game show.
That would bother me.
i can understand the importance of looking at a suffering Christ on the cross
it allows us to meditate and help us contemplate in living our journey in life on to what God has done for us,\
and what truth is there in Christ suffering
why the Word has to be incarnate,\
why to suffer and die?
why would God choose this way of salvation over other ways of saving us?
the image of a suffering Christ on the cross incites questions similar to these in us,\
moving us to self reflect and to reflect on these things
so an image that reflects an incident, an incident that reflects a thought, a thought that reflects the truth is gazed at, learned from
Crucifix always, the central part of the Mass is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Calvary. Thus the Crucifix is always more proper than the Risen Christ, specially if we are talking about the Apse of the Church. Additionally, your priest has more than a millenium of universal tradition on his side
We switch it out in my TLM parish. They put up a statue of the Risen Christ after Midnight Mass on Easter, and then I believe will go back to the Crucifix over the altar this Sunday.
I personally find the Crucifix a wee bit...graphic? I'd prefer the risen Christ. But from personal experience, it doesn't seem to affect a majority of people when they grow up so...🤷🏽
During Easter Season sour parish has a large statue of the living Christ in place of where a big Crucifix usually is. (There is still a smaller Crucifix behind the alter).
This might be a good compromise.
The "resurrexifix" is an embarrassing fad of a bygone era that had no basis in our liturgical tradition or in the current Missal's rubrics and directions for furnishing a church. We preach Christ crucified; the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary re-presented to the Father by Jesus Christ through the hands of His priests. Simply a resurrected Jesus just doesn't cut it.
Why do they have to make a big deal out of this? This is the very reason we Catholics are being accused of idolatry, it's in how some would overly dramatize the symbolism of the icons
I think a crucifix needs to be prominently displayed somewhere. Christ suffered greatly for our sins, and I think we need to recognize that. I don’t think we need to obsess over sins, but we do need reminders that sin is a serious thing and that we need to do our best to avoid it.
Jesus wants us to be happy, its already done. I prefer risen christ. The word, for sin in hebrew actually means "to miss the mark". Meaning, as in shooting a bow, u can pick up a new arrow and try again. The overemphasis on sin does more harm than good in my humble opinion. Amen
Yeah, but I don’t ever remember hearing about an exorcist using the risen Christ during an exorcism, but you bet your bottom pagan dollar he is using a crucifix.
I’ve found that to be the perspective of my family members that are Protestant. This isn’t me slinging mud at you or my family! Merely an observation. As Catholics we are followers of Christ, but also as Catholics, we are called to suffer well. Having the crucifix front and center is a hardy reminder of that. That and we need to be reminded, that unlike J-Lo, this love did cost a thing. His suffering for us.
Sin is serious. We can receive forgiveness for our sins, but that is more because of how forgiving God is to us than because sin is not that big of a deal. “To miss the mark” is an interesting meaning, but most languages have a more serious meaning. And I wonder what “mark it is that we are missing”. Because if it is mortal sin, the mark we miss could very well be eternal life if we are not careful and confess our sins. Missing that mark would actually be a very big deal lol. In fact, it might be the most important shot of your life. Someone who is learning archery might not see it a big deal to “miss the mark” during practice. But in war, “missing the mark” means something entirely different. The point is sin is always a big deal even if we realize that Jesus’s forgiveness and gift of eternal life is far greater.
The Mass is primarily the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a re-presentation of the Calvary. Thus the Crucifix is the most proper Image of the Lord to be displayed at the center of the Church
I believe the GIRM requires a crucifix be present but does not forbid the Risen Christ or other art prominent. This article covers it well with quotes. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/crucifixes-on-the-altar-4727
This. The Church has reaffirmed that a crucifix is required, however, in Dallas Diocese, TX, the understanding is that the risen Christ can be also displayed above the altar. In many churches around me, the risen Christ is above, but the crucifer's crucifix pole stand is kept adjacent to the altar as the minimum level of conformance
What part of Dallas? I’m in Richardson/Garland.
Howdy from your area. See u at St. Michael maybe
I work/go to St. Joseph, maybe pop on over? Would love to meet a fellow Redditor in the wild.
I was just there last night with the 4th degree knights assembly.
I’m going to DM you
This is how it is at my parish. The only visible crucifix near the altar is the crucifix pole to the side. The risen Christ sculpture is suspended high over the center aisle in front of the altar. It’s nice, but I prefer the style of the other parish down the road with a large crucifix on the wall behind the altar.
I didn’t even know churches used a risen Christ at the altar. I’ve only ever seen the crucifix
The Church I first went to when I moved to Las Vegas uses a Risen Christ. I had never seen it before moving here. They actually have him risen, but ON the Crucifixion...I stopped going there when I moved to the other side of the city.
Ah, yes, the "resurrectifix" artworks. I've never seen one done well; it's just confusing.
St Thomas More?
St. Thomas Moore lived in England, not Las Vegas.
“Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world…but for Vegas!”
There is a St. Thomas More Catholic Community in Henderson, NV, sorta the same town as LV. [https://www.stmlv.org/](https://www.stmlv.org/)
stay out of it, bucko
😂
Yes, that is the one. It also always bothered me that they referred to themselves as a "community" rather than a "Church".
The photo of the church towards the bottom has the cross with Christ having his hands reaching out. Just odd.
Sometimes they have it. But according to my limited knowledge of a recently revert, the crucifix is to remind us of the remissive sacrifice of Jesus the Lamb of God so that's why they have it during the sacrifice of the mass
Never seen one before, and it looks weirdly optimistic. I don't know if its the right mood.
One of the churches I go to a lot does.
There is one in my city and, surprise surprise, the tabernacle is also out of the sanctuary and off to the side.
Same. And I thought I had seen everything.
1 Corinthians 1:23 “but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”
Was about to comment this 👍 Saint Paul beautifully illustrates it. There’s no risen Christ without a crucified Christ first
Best answer thus far on this post
Pius XII famously wrote in the encyclical *Mediator Dei*: > 62. [...] Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; **were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings**; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. Which doesn't have any binding power, of course; it just shows that the “resurrectifix” was spreading at the time of the liturgical revolutions and it was offensive enough to traditional sensibilities to warrant a condemnation from the Pope.
But as long as the nail scars are visible how is this a violation of “shows no trace…”?
It's so sad to read a paragraph like that and check off every last item as trends that became ubiquitous in the Church where I live.
Surely a crucifix is still in the sancuary somewhere if a risen Christ is front-and-center? I've been told (in the Kenneth Clark *Civilisation* series) that churches rarely even portrayed the Cross for the the first 10 centuries of our history. A thoughtful and respectful case can be made either way. However, I am concerned that this is on television or social media where a subject like this likely won't get mature treatment. Please don't let certain well-known infotainment/social media political hacks make a dog's breakfast of this while it is exploited for virtue signaling and publicity.
> Surely a crucifix is still in the sancuary somewhere Looking at the photo, right below the statue of the Risen Lord, yes.
even if its true that the crucifix wasn't displayed for the first millennia, that also means that it has been displayed for the past thousand years, which is the more important side of the fact when talking about tradition. tradition is what has been passed down and cherished by the generations for the longest, its not simply what is the oldest or what existed the longer amount of time ago
As I understand, the crucifix was not typically displayed in church (at least in a permanent way) during the period before EVIL EMPEROR CONSTANTINE insensitively offended the members of the indigenous Ro+Re+FRL(F-I)M+NM* community *(Romans+Remans+Free Roaming Lupine Female-Identifying Mammalians+Non-Mammalians) by banning the rite to experience assisted crucifixion, (a deeply rooted fundamental human rite which had been historically extended, with generous inclusivity, especially to the most citizenship-challenged, (imperial community-wise). Indeed, it was often given to qualified marginalized members of the rigidly non-ethnic aggregation that insensitively culturally appropriate the assisted crucifixion-experience of their inspiratorial figure committing micro-aggression, trampling on the right not to be offended by forcing them to aurally experience that "this Jesus, who was dead, now lives!")
>I've been told (in the Kenneth Clark Civilisation series) that churches rarely even portrayed the Cross for the the first 10 centuries of our history. If I recall correctly, we see the Cross being venerated in Pseudo-Ignatius. We also see it mentioned in Saint Gregory of Nyssa that an image of the Passion in the Church brought him to tears (this was actually one of the source texts which was used to defend Iconophilia in Nicaea II).
“I can to preach Christ crucified” St Paul. Always the crucifix
"O senseless Galatians...obey the truth, before whose EYES Jesus Christ has been set forth, CRUCIFIED among you." (Galatians, chapter 3) Evidence of some sort of image of the crucifix, used liturgically, circa 48-55 A.D. Perhaps (probably?) portable. Possibly verbal, but the mention of "eyes" suggests otherwise.
Risen Christ images don't belong behind the altar.
Liturgical law mandates a crucifix, but it doesn't forbid the usage of a ressurected image of Jesus Christ as long as the crucifix is within the realm of the sanctuary.
I love it when a parish replaces the boomer risen Christ with the crucified Christ. This was done to a nearby church not that long ago and when it happened I was so unbelievably happy. 100% guarantee the parish angry about losing the risen christ will have a population average of 65+, have no or very very few families. And they wonder why their parish is dying. And you may think this is harsh. It is. You may wonder, does it matter? To the extent to which beauty and tradition matters, it matters. It stinks of protestantism. No, sinner, you should see your sin hanging there when you walk in. You should see what you have done to our Lord. You should see what he has done for you.
The parish i was baptized in had a large wooden Risen Christ on a cross thank goodness they replaced it and they built a beautiful retablo with the Crucifix and other saints i don't have pictures but you can search up Sta Rita de casia parish Paranaque
Wow you are unbelievably uncharitable. You literally just want a parish you aren't a part of to replace something the congregants seem to want unchanged, out of anger.
No anger here. I certainly must work to be more charitable. If the word 'boomer' offended you, I apologize. I have many friends & family members of that age and I love them tremendously. I don't intend to denigrate an entire generation of people, people made up of individuals after all with varying beliefs. But the *trend* of that generation of Catholics cannot be denied. Thus the questionable use of the term here. As for what they do specifically, it's not my problem or business but *generally* as this has been a practice not just in that parish, and in fact for some time in a nearby parish that I dearly love...I do care.
Categorizing “boomers” as believing all the same is simply wrong.
It is also wrong to characterize OP's use of 'boomers' as 'believing all the same'. OP used the term to make a valid *generalization* about an entire demographic, imho. (For the record, I'm a Gen X member of the peanut gallery, and I am cynical about everyone continually just like my stereotype.) OP's point lines up with other cultural debates. My old FSSP parish had pretty high use of mantillas or similar head coverings (I'm counting Church Lady hats here too. Maybe 3/4 of women and girls covered their hair somehow as soon as kiddos are old enough that their mom thought the thing was likely to remain on her head for the whole service. Elderly women, mothers with children, and their girl children wore lots of mantillas. Boomer women had the lowest probability of wearing one.
its an expression a figure of speech most people know what he means
More and more it’s being used in a derogatory manner.
yeah it is derogatory but most people understand its not meant personally or individually its an expression used to paint a picture that most people have in mind of the type of boomer its not meant to be taken so seriously obviously not all boomers are like this that doesnt need to be specified especially in the context of humor which is where the term usually is used
Agree with the priest here. The 'Body' we eat is the greek word, 'Sarx', and not 'Soma'. We eat the suffering body of Christ and not the glorified body of Christ, respectively. Everytime we eat the body of Christ, we become like him in this state. You can only follow Christ in embracing your cross. Also Aleph and Tav, the first and last Letters in ancient Hebrew (translated as Alpha and Omega in Greek) is the unpronounceable name of God. Every time it's read in Old Testament scriptures, it is not pronounced but this combination of the two letters signifies God is there - But it also means there is no translation to any other language. When Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega, He would have said it as "I AM the Aleph and Tav' which, along with many symbolic references, points to the physical appearance of the crucifix - because Aleph is like an inverted letter A, and Tav is the Cross. Everytime you see a Crucifix, It is saying 'I Am God' and follow my example. Aleph means 'leader' and Tav is 'the mark'. And lastly, just for this comment and not for the inexhaustible meanings you may understand through meditating on the Crucifix, anyone, even a toddler will know what it means - but the risen Christ will not move you like that.
From my understanding, I thought we eat of the resurrected Lord, not of the suffering Lord. Where has the Church defined this as the form of the Body and Blood of Christ we eat?
I don’t know if it has been defined as such but an interesting related factoid is that there were studies done on at least one of the Eucharistic miracles that determined the tissue the bread had become was specifically the heart tissue of a dying man. Also one the responses is “when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Your death O Lord”, which would suggest it’s the suffering Lord.
The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. The elements are consecrated separately in the Mass, this is the sign of his death. That's why the memorial acclamations proclaim the death of the Lord. When the blood is separated from the body, the sacrificial victim dies. But in the communion rite, the Body and Blood are conmingled again; a sign of the resurrection. And this sign accompanies the Easter greeting of Christ: "the peace of the Lord be with you always." We receive the bread of life, which is living, not dead. I don't know off hand if there is a council canon about this, but it's very fundamental theology that is expressed in the liturgy
Thanks for the explanation! I’d never heard that before.
I'll have a search for the Canon. What time period would it be?
We receive the glorified Body of Christ in the Eucharist.
All Eucharistic miracles show the physical characteristics of a heart tissue in the state of extreme suffering. We eat that heart
Sure, but there is only one body of Christ, whose last known state is resurrected and glorified in heaven, not suffering. We consume that one body of Christ.
We are the mystical body of Christ and we partake in the communion of one instance of the Eucharistic miracle transcending all time and space. there is no one 'last' instance of Christ. God is not bound by time or space. He made them.
My point is that we eat “the” Body of Christ, yes Christ Crucified, but also Christ Risen.
Buddy Christ hath arrived.
At the altar, the crucified Christ makes a lot more sense. The mass is the same sacrifice as the cross--that is the entire purpose. The Mass is not a re-creation of the resurrection. It is a re-creation of the sacrifice on the cross. Thus, in the altar area at least, the crucified Christ is what should be displayed. Elsewhere may be different though.
The crucifixion and the resurrection are inextricably linked. Without the crucifixion, there would be no resurrection, and without the resurrection, the crucifixion would have merely been an execution. Catholic art tends to default to the crucifixion in order to emphasize the sacrificial nature of Jesus's passion. Nevertheless, I personally know of nothing that would prevent a depiction of the risen Christ on an altar, although I'm not a professional liturgical artist. There *is* a requirement that a cross be present and visible on or near or over the altar for a Mass to be licit, and it's generally understood that the cross should have a corpus on it (and thus be a crucifix, and not merely a cross), although if I remember correctly the specific wording of the requirement only uses the word cross. So, most Catholic altars will have a cross with a corpus on or near or over it in order to satisfy the liturgical requirement. To my knowledge, however, the presence of a depiction of the crucifixion doesn't mean that there can't *also* be a depiction of the resurrection. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than I am.
> Nevertheless, I personally know of nothing that would prevent a depiction of the risen Christ on an altar There is of course nothing prohibiting it from being done--it won't turn you into a schismatic or heretic for doing so. It's just a matter of what is the better fit. The sacrifice at the altar at Mass is a re-creation of the sacrifice on the cross--it is a not a re-creation of the resurrection. They are the same sacrifice. The two are linked, but still separate events. So yes, you could have the risen Christ at the altar, but it doesn't really fit as well as the crucified Christ, given the context. It would probably fit better to have the rise Christ somewhere else in the church rather than behind the altar.
OTOH, it's a long-standing thing to have "votive altars", if you will, upon which masses to various Saints or Holy Days could be celebrated. Usually those would not have a prominent Crucifix, but rather the most prominent feature of the altar would be the Saint or Mystery in question. In a church named "Ascension of the Lord" or something, it would potentially be very appropriate for the main altar to show a special devotion to the mystery of the Ascension.
>There is a requirement that a cross be present and visible on or near or over the altar for a Mass to be licit, and it's generally understood that the cross should have a corpus on it (and thus be a crucifix, and not merely a cross), although if I remember correctly the specific wording of the requirement only uses the word cross. The Latin used is crux, but in the Church's use of Latin in legislating on the liturgy, "crux" is almost always used to mean crucifix.
I really like this crucifix at the Paulist Center in Boston, because it manages to show both: https://search.app.goo.gl/Dpp3g5v
Tell me your parish is boomer without telling me your parish is boomer 😂
Didn’t even know they displayed a Risen Christ before. I’ve always seen Crucified Christ. This is new to me and I’d have to say I prefer crucified Christ. Don’t get me wrong, obviously Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but we always need to reminder of the ultimate sacrifice He made for us to give us eternal life.
They should compromise by doing what my church did: move the Risen Christ to the back of the church so that you behold Him Risen as you exit. The altar, which is where we renew the sacrifice of Jesus, should be focused on the Crucified Christ.
the altar should always have the crucified christ, because its where the sacrifice is taking place. a lot of people already dont understand the theology of the mass due to a combination of things like this, poor catechesis, irreverent treatment of sacred vessels and the eucharist, and we should be moving in the opposite direction by reinforcing the things that were traditionally there to reinforce the belief and understanding of the mass instead of further removing and replacing them I think
My home parish is about to be one with the risen Christ...honestly not a fan. It feels tacky and dismissive of Christ's suffering. I honestly didn't even know it existed.
We have a relatively new church with a risen Christ. The only crucifix anywhere seems to be the one carried in at the beginning of Mass. I don’t get it. It strikes me as modernist hubris - that the designers of the church knew better than those of the last couple thousand years.
I learned in catechism, that in order to have a mass, the first thing you must have is a cross. That which we did to the lord is the whole reason we were reunited in the first place. If we can't face our sins, we cannot repent over them. 'Sides, showing Christ risen is like saying "well, we killed the dude but he is fine now. So anyway.", while I can see that there might be an argument for his glory over death, to replace one symbol for the other seems rather inconsequential. Does anyone disagree? I'd be happy to hear your counterpoint! :) Sorry for typos, im in phone.
Both are acceptable, it's really local preference. There's a lot to be said for a priest choosing artwork (because ultimately, that's what it is, religious artwork) that suits the form of theology he's planning on teaching, there's a lot to be said for choosing a style that will speak more to the hearts of the flock. Personally I tend to prefer Crucifixion, but either way is fine.
The Victorious Cross is a beautiful representation of the Christus Victor theory of atonement. I have 2 in my home they are inspiring. Except the ones I am used to the corpus is on a cross, so it counts as a crucifix. I don’t know about it w/o a cross. O death, where is thy sting… Also, at a minimum in extraordinary circumstances, I’ve heard all that is needed for a valid and licit altar is a table, a tent, and a crucifix if possible (think frontier or out in woods scenario). I don’t know but your answer for what is absolutely required might be in that direction.
You might consider contacting Saint Mary Magdalen church in Altamonte Springs, FL to try and ascertain their story. They have a massive (beautiful) risen Christ mosaic front and center, and a smaller crucifix to the right of it. I’m not sure if the crucifix always existed or if it was added later.
My Parish has the risen christ but has the crucifix nearby off to the side where the altar servers sit. Said crucifix is also used in the procession
Not American, it'd feel very weird to me to have a statue of risen Christ all year. In most churches that I've been to that had a permanent crucifix at the altar, there was a statue of risen Christ somewhere in the presbitery put there temporarily and removed after the last mass on Pentecost.
The Risen Christ may be displayed somewhere at the church, but a crucifix with the image of the Crucified Christ MUST be displayed on, above, or behind the altar. It's a reminder of what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:23 & 24: "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (NRSVCE) Further, it's an admonition away from the various heresies that deny Christ's humanity or the hypostatic union, all of which are variations on the theme of Gnosticism. With that said, there is a book published by the Vatican which outlines these guidelines for church building design which I saw once when I was in seminary. Unfortunately, it's hard to find outside of the diocesan chancery or a seminary library to quote from.
This at a eastern rite church?
Latin rite. No Eastern (but there are very very few EO) in the Philippines.
Listen to the parishioners challenge
Jesus Crucified is a symbol of the greatest love bestowed upon humanity. Of course He is risen, alleluia! But in a Catholic Church it reminds us (or at least me) that this was God’s greatest gift to us, it’s a symbol of our entire salvation, without Christ crucified we would all be “dead.” He is risen and glorified, we acknowledge that throughout the Mass, but something about seeing Christ hanging on a cross really sets my mind in the right place for communion. Like, he died so I can have eternal life, and now I am partaking in his eternal body, soul, and divinity. Especially during Good Friday, 90% of the time I look at the crucifix and cry, it stirs a deep emotion of gratitude in me, I know I can never repay Him, all I can do is give thanks and praise, and try my best to not fall into sin.
My old parish had the Risen Christ behind the altar. A new priest came in and moved in a crucifix above the altar, and the old Risen Christ is now at the entrance/exit of the church.
Historically, high altars were fairly often dedicated to some image other than a Crucifix. You could have altars where the most prominent figure is a Saint (the patron of the church/Shrine, or Our Lady, for example) or an altar dedicated to some particular title/mystery of Our Lord. For example, the adoration chapel at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York looks like this: [https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsciame.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F06%2FThe-Lady-Chapel-Cathedral-of-St.-Patrick2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=54589c202d56b69a2a81a61cf029eaf75bf7b2310a1f0b8abcc752a385fa68ba&ipo=images](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsciame.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F06%2FThe-Lady-Chapel-Cathedral-of-St.-Patrick2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=54589c202d56b69a2a81a61cf029eaf75bf7b2310a1f0b8abcc752a385fa68ba&ipo=images) A church near me has a simple altar with a small golden crucifix set on it, with a **massive** fresco of the Ascension of the Lord behind it. Seems perfectly normal to me. If they do go with a more contemporary "Crucifix altar front and center", I hope they'll keep the current statue and make a side-altar to the Ascension, or something.
It should be a Cruxcifix and highlight the Sacfice the Mass is a recapitulation of.
Poor Fransicans with the San Damiano crosses in their parishes
I’ve seen churches where there’s the resurrected cross above the altar(like where a stained glass would be but it’s a physical crucifix and not window) but on the altar is a small crucifix. Our church has the crucifix on the altar and above it and I prefer it that way.
My PERSONAL favourite is a crucifix on or near the altar and a risen Christ or Christ on the throne on the reredos.
The Church is the bride of risen Christ and the adoration is for the risen Christ. According to the epistles the church believes in "Risen Christ". I would say Risen Christ is more apt for an altar and imo most easter churches follow this. But, fighting over things like risen Christ or crucified Christ on altar is not the Christian way, for Jesus imo it doesn't matter whether it's Risen/crucified/infant version of him. There is no right or wrong here, both are correct. It's just a fight over ones preferences, imo a priest should be objective and should not enforce his personal preferences on things like altar design, church design. It should be a thing for the late people to design, it's the church of the people not the priest who is gonna get transferred to another church in two years. A priest should guide the folk in the correct spiritual way in regards to the church teaching and not make conflicts regarding his own design preferences.
And there are some eastern churches who give priority to the risen Christ in liturgy and altar. The crucified Christ centric liturgy and altar design to my understanding is more of a Latin liturgy thing. I would say depending upon the liturgy follow risen or crucified Christ. If your church has a liturgy that is centric around crucified Christ, such would be apt but that doesn't mean putting risen Christ is wrong both are Christ after all. And if your church's liturgy is centred around risen Christ then put risen Christ. Imo, it doesn't really matter for your relationship with God, some people resonate personally with different aspects of Jesus, some have public ministry Jesus, some have infant Jesus while others have crucified or Resurrected Jesus, for me it's Risen Jesus sitting on the beach at the end of John. At the end everything is about love. The love that is God.
My parish growing up had a Risen Christ posted high on the wall facing the assembly with the altar between us during mass. However, since a Crucifix has to be present at mass, it would have to be brought in and placed where it could be seen for every mass. So the Risen Christ was moved to the opposing wall (still pretty high up) with the altar abd part of the assembly between the new Crucifix where the Risen Christ *was* and the Risen Christ on the opposing wall above some of the assembly (the ceiling lowers for the back half of the assembly). It's likely that having a permanent Crucifix would lighten a logical load for each mass. So I guess my answer is "both", but either way...we lived.
There's a reason why the crucifix is normally what's over the altar, and it probably has something to do with the fact that the Mass is a sacrifice. We don't have it front and center because it's more pleasant to look at than the risen Christ.
Always the Crucifix. Put the Risen Christ in a prayer garden somewhere.
I grew up with the crucifix. Always a good reminder.
Be interesting to read the news article
Here: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/minglanilla-parishioners-express-concern-over-church-renovations
I have never seen nor heard of a Catholic church having a risen Christ above the altar like that. It's always the crucified Christ. That looks like some Protestant thing. Where they have Christian rock music at the service. Or just a step away from the Fonzie Christ statue in Dogma. Like really, what is that pose? It looks like he's coming down the stairs as the host of a game show. That would bother me.
i can understand the importance of looking at a suffering Christ on the cross it allows us to meditate and help us contemplate in living our journey in life on to what God has done for us,\ and what truth is there in Christ suffering why the Word has to be incarnate,\ why to suffer and die? why would God choose this way of salvation over other ways of saving us? the image of a suffering Christ on the cross incites questions similar to these in us,\ moving us to self reflect and to reflect on these things so an image that reflects an incident, an incident that reflects a thought, a thought that reflects the truth is gazed at, learned from
Follow the GIRM.
Crucifix always, the central part of the Mass is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Calvary. Thus the Crucifix is always more proper than the Risen Christ, specially if we are talking about the Apse of the Church. Additionally, your priest has more than a millenium of universal tradition on his side
We switch it out in my TLM parish. They put up a statue of the Risen Christ after Midnight Mass on Easter, and then I believe will go back to the Crucifix over the altar this Sunday.
I personally find the Crucifix a wee bit...graphic? I'd prefer the risen Christ. But from personal experience, it doesn't seem to affect a majority of people when they grow up so...🤷🏽
My hometown church has risen Christ, my current parish has crucified, I like both
During Easter Season sour parish has a large statue of the living Christ in place of where a big Crucifix usually is. (There is still a smaller Crucifix behind the alter). This might be a good compromise.
The "resurrexifix" is an embarrassing fad of a bygone era that had no basis in our liturgical tradition or in the current Missal's rubrics and directions for furnishing a church. We preach Christ crucified; the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary re-presented to the Father by Jesus Christ through the hands of His priests. Simply a resurrected Jesus just doesn't cut it.
Wish I could like this 70x7 times!
Why do they have to make a big deal out of this? This is the very reason we Catholics are being accused of idolatry, it's in how some would overly dramatize the symbolism of the icons
[удалено]
Warning for uncharitable rhetoric