A friend of mine was told by a now dead priest who had been lent a rarely used non-Catholic Church for Sunday Mass, whilst his own was full of scaffolding, "Father Dominic, remove that Christless Cross
and put up a proper crucifix in its place".
and put up a proper crucifix in its place". I found these pictures on Cathcon, when I was a seminarian, an often used phrase of our rector Mgr Christopher Budd, now bishop of Plymouth, was, "What does it say about us?"
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments have outlawed these images of of the Crossless Christ, or of the risen Christ as a replacement for the Crucifix in Churches.
So what do these images say? Presumably that we are uncomfortable with a Christ who endures the suffering and humiliation of the Cross. It is the Cross which we are called to boast in, it is the Cross of Christ which is a stumbling block and folly to unbelievers. I am always struck that a third at least a third of all of the Gospels are about Jesus' suffering and death.
These images, remind us of the scandal of the Cross, and show discomfort with it. If we ask what they are saying, the answer is presumably something like, "we want to forget suffering and death, we are people of the resurrection". The problem is that ultimately this is a denial of the incarnation, of the Christ "who did disdain the Virgin's womb", who did not disdain to be born amidst the excrement and urine of the stable. The Crucifixion tells about an impassionate God who transcends, and even contradicts His own Divine Nature, to undergo the passion and to die for us. He does not transcend or stand outside our suffering and humanity, he enters into it.
The great christological heresies of the first millennium can be seen in terms of denial of the Cross.
15 comments:
Amen Fr. about the Christless crosses!
I often think about what was said to me only a few years ago. I had never thought about it.
What's that, you say?
What was said to me was that Christ was crucified naked on the cross.
But all the crucifixes we see have Jesus covered with a demure loincloth!
Was it so?
A most compelling book which I read concerns the Holy Shroud. It is "The Blood and the Shroud" by Ian Wilson. At the end of the book he notes that we actually know virtually nothing about the Roman punishment of crucifixion. There is extant a small fragment of the ankle of such a victim and it shows that the feet were actually pinned though the ankles on either side of the cross. Further, the wounds of Jesus suggest (from the shroud) that he was nailed through the back of his wrists not through the front.
This would suggest that he was placed face down, naked, on the cross, nailed through the back of his wrists and through his ankles on either side of the cross. This would make sense in terms of the parts of the body which could support the body, hanging on a cross.
We know that the garments of Jesus were divided amongst the soldiers, apart from his outer garment, which was seamless and therefore more to be prized as a single item. There is nowhere any mention of Jesus being covered to hide the shame of his nakedness.
To me, this puts a somewhat different picture in my mind of the actaul crucifixion of Jesus.
What do you think?
JARay
JARay
What JARay writes about the Roman execution by crucifixion is most interesting.
Michelangelo often depicts Christ naked.
A good example is his statue of The Risen Christ in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome.
Perhaps this needs to be read in the context of Michelangelo's use of the nude form in art.
After all, he is the artist and sculptor some of whose most famous works include Christ's entombment (in the National Gallery, London), his statue of The Risen Christ (Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome), The "gnudi", Haman, the drunkeness of Noah, etc. on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and also the Last Judgement where even Christ in Judgement and the elect in heaven were depicted nude until, at the insistence of Paul III, concealing drapery was painted a secco over appropriate areas of the great fresco.
I however I am content with the traditional crucifix to represent Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
It is this image which alone is appropriate to the Mass.
This is because the Sacrifice on the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass are one and the same sacrifice.
Christ is both priest and victim.
Only the unbloody manner of the offering is different.
To replace a crucifix with an image of a risen Christ, or Christ ascending, or Christ in majesty would therefore be entirely inappropriate to the Mass.
This is certainly the thinking of the Church, most recently reinforced by the instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship.
It is no more appropriate to use these modern images of a resurrected Christ to replace the image of the crucified Christ than it would be to use, say, Michhelagelo's sculpture of The Risen Christ or El Greco's painting of Christ Ascending.
Christ as a man could not die until he had become Incarnate.
If Christ did not die, then there would be no Resurrection.
You can't have one without the other.
I thought the early heresies went to the Incarnation.
We will all have to face our own cross & suffering & not blowing my own trumpet but coming through 2 severe mental breakdowns it is Jesus on the cross who conmforts..these resurrection & crossless Jesus types must have escaped suffering thus far...
Michael, of course they were Incarnational; but the Cross shows forth the ultimate nature of the God become Man.
Heresy will always try to make the cross disappear, make it less relevant, less arresting. Catholics must always hold the Truth in full colour, not one jot to be changed. Would you join the Good Friday Liturgy with the Easter Vigil Liturgy into one Liturgy? Never. Why would you then use a symbol of a cross with the Christ risen on it. He did not rise on the cross. He died on the cross and he rose from the tomb. The symbol is not telling the Truth.
He did not die levitating in mid-air as this Church symbol depicts. This symbol is not telling the Truth.
GK Chesterton said something along the following lines. -we keep black separate from white, that way we know what black is and we know what white is. When we mix them both we get grey. Our ability to know black and white is now lost. Not only that we won't be able to tell if we get blacker or whiter because we have neither black nor white to compare.
This, seems to me, to be the problem of mixing the crucifixion with the resurrection. The crucifixion is about sin and death-dark things. The resurrection is about glory and Life. By holding the two separately we can stay in a healthy balance on the blade of Truth. The temptation to be overwhelmed by the despair of sin and death on the one side is counterbalanced by a hope in sharing in Christ's Life on the other. We can never be complacent about either side of the blade. If we do, we fall into heresy. Justified by faith alone, predestination, justified by works alone, Hell is almost empty, are all fine examples. So, it seems to me that the best thing to do is to hold up the two opposites at the same time but not combined.
I think the phenomenon of "resurecifixes" was something that came about in the late 60s. It is almost symptomatic with the changes in the liturgy, which now go out of their to de-emphasize that the mass is a the sacrifice of calvary represented on our altars and now is just a "gathering of the community" to celebrate the ressurection. The General Instruction of the New Roman Missal of 1970 is a scandal in this regard.
Benfan and Ottaviani both make the very important point :
The crucifix is the image of Christ's sacrifice.
It is therefore the most potent reminder that the Mass is a Sacrifice.
If you want to change, or even deny, the theology of the Mass as a sacrifice, then the first thing to do is get rid of the crucifix.
Martin Luther famously described the Sacrifice of the Mass as "a blasphemous fable and a deceipt."
And the first thing the Protestant reformers did in the sixteenth century was to banish crucifixes, images of the crucifixion, and Signs of the Cross.
Why do some modern liturgists and church designers seek to do the same ?
*sigh* Well - let me say up top I prefer a crucifix mitt loincloth. Though likely naked when crucified a nude corpus would be distracting at Mass.
As far as plain cross vs. crucifix:
of interest might be this article on the archeology of the cross and crucifix, from the Catholic Encyclopedia which can be seen here. Scroll down to the end. Apparently a Christ in Resurrection robes isn't a modern invention by any means. To quote:
"The little metal vases at Monza, in which was carried to Queen Theodolinda the oil from the Holy Places, show clearly how the repugnance to effigies of Christ lasted well into the sixth century. In the scene of the Crucifixion thereon depicted, the two thieves alone are seen with arms extended, in the attitude of crucifixion, but without a cross, while Christ appears as an orante, with a nimbus, ascending among the clouds, and in all the majesty of glory, above a cross under a decoration of flowers. (Cf. Mozzoni, op. cit., 77, 84.) In the same manner, on another monument, we see the cross between two archangels while the bust of Christ is shown above. Another very important monument of this century, and perhaps dating even from the preceding one, is the Crucifixion carved on the wooden doors at S. Sabina on the Aventine Hill, at Rome. The Crucified Christ, stripped of His garments, and on a, cross, but not nailed to the cross, and between two thieves, is shown as an orante, and the scene of the Crucifixion is, to a, certain extent, artistically veiled. The carving is roughly done, but the work has become of great importance, owing to recent studies thereon, wherefore we shall briefly indicate the various writings dealing with it" [followed by a lot of citations.
And there's also this at the very end:
"Here we bring our researches to an end, the field of Christian archæology not extending further. In the artistic treatment of the crucifix there are two periods: the first, which dates from the sixth to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and the second, dating from that time to our own day. We shall here treat only of the former, touching lightly on the latter. In the first period the Crucified is shown adhering to the cross, not hanging forward from it; He is alive and shows no sign of physical suffering; He is clad in a long, flowing, sleaveless tunic (colobium), which reaches the knees. The head is erect, and surrounded by a nimbus, and bears a royal crown. The figure is fastened to the wood with four nails (cf. Garrucci, "Storia dell' arte crist.", III, fig. 139 and p. 61; Marucchi, op. cit., and "Il cimitero e la basilica di S. Valentino", Rome, 1890; Forrer and Müller, op. cit., 20, Pl, III, fig. 6). In a word, it is not Christ suffering, but Christ triumphing and glorious on the Cross. Moreover, Christian art for a long time objected to stripping Christ of his garments, and the traditional colobium, or tunic, remained until the ninth century. In the East the robed Christ was preserved to a much later date. Again in miniatures from the ninth century the figure is robed, and stands erect on the cross and on the suppedaneum.
The scene of the Crucifixion, especially after the eighth century, includes the presence of the two thieves, the centurion who pierced Christ's side, the soldier with the sponge, the Blessed Virgin and St. John. Mary is never shown weeping and afflicted, as became the custom in later ages, but standing erect near the cross, as St. Ambrose says, in his funeral oration on Valentinian: "I read of her standing; I do not read of her weeping." Moreover, on either side of the Cross the sun and the moon, often with human faces, veil their brightness, being placed there to typify the two natures of Christ, the sun, the Divine, and the moon, the human (cf. St. Gregory the Great, Homily ii in Evang.). At the foot of the Cross the female figures are symbolical of the Church and the Synagogue, the one receiving the Saviouir's blood in a cup, the other veiled and discrowned, holding in her hand a torn banner. With the tenth century realism began to play a part in Christian art, and the colobium becomes a shorter garment, reaching from the waist to the knees (perizoma). In the "Hortus deliciarum" in the "album" belonging to the Abbess Herrada of Landsberg in the twelfth the colobium is short, and approaches the form of the perizoma. From the eleventh century in the East, and from the Gothic period in the West, the head droops onto the breast (cf. Borgia, De Cruce Veliternâ, 191), the crown of thorns is introduced, the arms are bent back, the body is twisted, the face is wrung with agony, and blood flows from the wounds. In the thirteenth century complete realism is reached by the substitution of one nail in the feet, instead of two, as in the old tradition, and the resulting crossing of the legs. All this was done from artistic motives, to bring about a more moving and devotional pose. Theliving and triumphant Christ gives place to a Christ dead, in all the humiliation of His Passion, the agony of His death being even accentuated. This manner of treatment was afterwards generalized by the schools of Cimabue and Giotto. In conclusion it may be noted that the custom of placing the crucifix over the altar does not date from earlier than the eleventh century. (See CROSS AND CRUCIFIX IN LITURGY.)"
Sorry for the long quotes, but maybe the whole thing isn't as cut and dried as we might think.
FWIW - the Jesus in the photo makes
really irritates me - it makes it look as if he is jumping on an unseen trampoline - in as much as the "artist?" is wanintg us to supply the background cross with our minds. The artist probably thinks he/she? is making us think. Okay, I think the artist is misguided!
Karen
Methinks that the devil wants nothing more than to blur the Truths of our Glorious Faith by using that old trick 'human pride'. He puffs-up the self importance of a few succeptible individuals who unfortunately hold some degree of 'leverage' within the Church, whether it be liturgists, catechists, musicians, artists, yes and some priests and bishops so that they go on to create this blurring of distinction, this 'greying' (as benfan mentions in his comment) of what should clearly be black and white. The devil will work ceaselessly to muddle, missinform and create dissent and schism. Ultimately people will fail to see the Truth and will believe lies instead. This is exactly what is happening and what we as Catholics must be ever on our guard against. Our weapons are The Holy Mass, The Sacraments, Prayer, Fasting, reading Scripture and good books so that we have a greater understanding and knowledge about our Faith and Blogging - use the internet for the Glory of Jesus.
We need to constantly remind ourselves that we are in a 'supernatural war' against powers and principalities that use human resources for the devil's own ends which are to 'seek the ruin of souls'.
Holy Michael the Archangel protect us and pray for us.
Having just returned from 6 days away I find that I have a lot to catch up on this blog!
Interesting to see the extraordinary 'flying Christ' and read comments on different crosses and cricifixes.
In the church of St Jacques in Reims there is a T shaped crucifix which I have been told was the shape at the time.
Yesterday I visited one of the more 'way out' designed churches in Paris which has perhaps the most extraordinary cross over the altar. It is just a vertical wooden beam but on either side on the wall are two gilded squares so it is up to the brain to 'make' the cross. Having ten minutes to spare before meeting a friend, I had entered out of curiosity. What saddened me was that nowhere could I see a Tabernacle, or Sanctuary light. I walked all round the church but to no avail.
Congratulations on your 100,000 visitor, father - I'm very curious to know how you know this and even where he lives!
Pelerin,
How do I know?
I have a meter thingy, that gives the location of the server, not the blogger of course.
It is a bit big brotherish isn't it?
Yes - Big brotherish is right! I almost feel as if you know that I'm having a coffee right now!
George - know who the enemy is though. It's not those who see a Christ triumphing over death. The sacrifice and the triumph over death are both present now and for eternity. It's one of those "mystery things." The Almighty can multitask through time. At least that's what "they" tell me. We are "made present" at the same "once for all sacrifice" but we do know that Christ IS risen from the dead, and has conquered death. Those two ideas don't really compete in my book.
I have been looking at the website for the unusual Paris church I visited on Monday. There is a large photo of the unusual Cross in the section marked 'histoire et architecture' for anyone interested in modern church architecture. Apparently it is called the Cross of Hope and it was blessed by the late Cardinal Lustiger in 2003.
The church website is:
http://notredameesperance.free.fr/
It is so striking on a first visit - here is a Cross with no Christ whereas the photo shown by Fr. Ray is a Christ with no Cross.
Post a Comment