|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Should the Cross be the Church's symbol?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I did some reading over Christmas, and no doubt some of it is a little over-simplified. However, the point is made that the cross and crucifix was not a Christian symbol until the 4th century. The point is further made that the death (Passion) with all the emphasis on suffering was not at all central to Christianity and much less emphasized.
Particularly the crucifix with the dead body of a mutilated Christ would seem problematic if the consideration is that he is not supposed to be dead and the cross should be empty. That aside, the images of the Good Shepherd, the fish (icthys), and various letter combinations appear to have been more used earlier.
Does the use the cross give us an excessive focus on suffering and pain, of violence, and defocus from the images of a loving God and example from Christ's life? I think it does.
[ 10. April 2013, 05:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I did some reading over Christmas, and no doubt some of it is a little over-simplified. However, the point is made that the cross and crucifix was not a Christian symbol until the 4th century. The point is further made that the death (Passion) with all the emphasis on suffering was not at all central to Christianity and much less emphasized.
Particularly the crucifix with the dead body of a mutilated Christ would seem problematic if the consideration is that he is not supposed to be dead and the cross should be empty. That aside, the images of the Good Shepherd, the fish (icthys), and various letter combinations appear to have been more used earlier.
Does the use the cross give us an excessive focus on suffering and pain, of violence, and defocus from the images of a loving God and example from Christ's life? I think it does.
I don't have a problem with any of the symbols but it does seem possible, if not probable, that staring at just one too long may distort one's focus.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I did some reading over Christmas, and no doubt some of it is a little over-simplified. However, the point is made that the cross and crucifix was not a Christian symbol until the 4th century. The point is further made that the death (Passion) with all the emphasis on suffering was not at all central to Christianity and much less emphasized.
You might find it worthwhile to consider how much of each Gospel is devoted to His arrest and execution. It seems out of proportion to the rest of His life if it was "not at all central to Christianity."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE]You might find it worthwhile to consider how much of each Gospel is devoted to His arrest and execution. It seems out of proportion to the rest of His life if it was "not at all central to Christianity."
--Tom Clune
I may be thick, but not that thick. We didn't have only a collection 4 gospels at the time, with the firming up of what was accepted as "canon" until about the same time as the use of the cross became regularized. We also did not have a uniform creed (like Nicene). Thus we had a diversity of opinions. So we cannot use the 4 gospels as more than another argument. And it is probable that the 4 gospels as accepted as telling the version of the story as they do were a reason for the adoption of symbol and orientation to death, cross, etc.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does the use the cross give us an excessive focus on suffering and pain, of violence, and defocus from the images of a loving God and example from Christ's life? I think it does.
I agree. My church does not feature the cross in any way, and the Cathedral where I preach does not even have a cross in it anywhere except on the baptismal altar.
The symbol of the church should be the Word of God, enlightening humanity.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I would be very interested to know what book you were reading and to find out what its author thought about Paul's own writings; especially:
"...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..."
1 Corinthians 1 v 23
"...May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."
Galatians 6 v 14
The cross is the central focus of the Christian faith. Without it there isn't even any hope of salvation.
Your book is wrong.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your book is wrong.
The book is right about the non-use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity in the early period, at least.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
But Paul has not been the centre of my Christianity after I gave up the puritanism of my maternal family some 40 years ago. Progressively, and accelerating recently, the life of Christ, with his death as a feature of it, but not as the centre of it, have been the focus. Just like when I consider the lives of my parents in law, I consider their deaths as merely a coda to the lengthy music of their lives. Instead of glorying in their deaths, I think of their lives and talking to them, remembering what they did, and what they said. I can conjure up the details of their dying, what they looked like, how they breathed at the last, but it is certainly not the focus of my thoughts of them.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
But Paul has not been the centre of my Christianity after I gave up the puritanism of my maternal family some 40 years ago. Progressively, and accelerating recently, the life of Christ, with his death as a feature of it, but not as the centre of it, have been the focus.
It seems to me, then, that the question should be whether the cross is a symbol you adopt for yourself as a Christian, not whether the cross should be the symbol of the Christian church.
You may surely choose not to accept the cross as a symbol for yourself. But the weight of Christian tradition and history is against you on that matter, and you ought not to pretend that it is not. Do with that what you will.
[ 11. January 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
We always have a cross carried in front of everyone, the choir, the vicars etc, with two lights beside the cross, which is much bigger. It ends up behind the chalice area, and stays there till there is a Matthew, Mark, Luke, John reading and it's carried there, and also when we collect money and deliver the bread and wine to the vicars. And it leads again as they all leave where they stay while we always stand up as they pass us. So it definitely feels normal for everyone in that church.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
It's true the cross wasn't quite the ubiquitous symbol it is today for the first 400 years or so--and that's 20% of the time the church has existed.
Even from Mudfrog's points, there is no particular reason why it would be the cross--it seems to me the empty tomb is a much better symbol (or at least as good) for representing what he is trying to say. Except it would probably look like a dinner roll...
So why the Cross? Maybe because it's a better graphic symbol than the empty tomb, or a fish. Constantine's vision (whether it happened or not...) probably has something to do with it, too. The best symbols--for anything--tend not to be too complex. Any village woodworker or blacksmith could fashion a cross for a church.
At this point, though, it has the weight of 1600+ years of reverence and worship behind it, regardless of why it may initially have become so widespread. That's a lot of baby to throw out with the bathwater.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE]You might find it worthwhile to consider how much of each Gospel is devoted to His arrest and execution. It seems out of proportion to the rest of His life if it was "not at all central to Christianity."
--Tom Clune
I may be thick, but not that thick. We didn't have only a collection 4 gospels at the time, with the firming up of what was accepted as "canon" until about the same time as the use of the cross became regularized. We also did not have a uniform creed (like Nicene). Thus we had a diversity of opinions. So we cannot use the 4 gospels as more than another argument. And it is probable that the 4 gospels as accepted as telling the version of the story as they do were a reason for the adoption of symbol and orientation to death, cross, etc.
Do you engage in anything other than "special pleading" on this messageboard?
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Part of the original post was about the question of an empty cross versus a nonempty cross. Some churches prefer an empty cross to emphasize the risen Christ. In particular, this is the practice in American United Methodist churches.
It is interesting to speculate about what we would have in our churches if Jesus had been executed in some other fashion: a hangman's noose (with or without effigy), a stake for burning with a perpetual flame, a chopping block, a bullet-riddled wall, a gurney with straps and IVs? At some point, doesn't this sound rather grisly?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Related song on this same topic:
La Saeta sung by Camaron De la Isla
Relevant Quote:
quote:
..no puedo cantar, ni quiero
a este Jesús del madero
sino al que anduvo en la mar!
...I cannot sing, nor do I want to
not to this Jesus of the wood (suggesting the Jesus nailed to the cross)
But rather He who walked on water.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I have heard that the crucifix, as opposed to the cross, did not become a widespread symbol until the late Middle Ages.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
And I suspect that the empty cross has more to do with iconoclasm and the avoidance of [the appearance of] idolatry than with any re-emphasis on the risen Christ. The Methodist tradition draws heavily from Lutheran pietism in its emphasis on the Passion and Crucifixion.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clemency
Shipmate
# 16173
|
Posted
What about the foliate cross? I happen to be an archaeologist of sorts; the cross shown on medieval grave slabs is usually a foliate one (or cross fleury, the heraldic term), the cross becoming a flower, life coming through death - sometimes very elaborate, sometimes with foliage covering the whole stone. I love them. People cite the influence of the Persian Tree of Life motif for these - again a fitting connotation. Apparently there is a link as well to the old tradition of throwing fresh foliage onto a coffin at the burial. At the Reformation, or under the 17th century Puritans, people deliberately smashed these stones as the cross itself was seen as a superstitious symbol, which is why some market 'crosses' of this period are simply shafts with a ball on the top, nothing like a cross at all...
The power of symbols - we cannot get away from it (look at all the current hoohah over flags in Northern Ireland)
--------------------
Who knows where the Time goes?
Posts: 90 | From: Northumberland, UK | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
The cross is the central focus of the Christian faith. Without it there isn't even any hope of salvation.
No, the Incarnation is the central focus of the Christian faith. Hundreds, if not thousands of people were crucified, not just Jesus.
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It is interesting to speculate about what we would have in our churches if Jesus had been executed in some other fashion: a hangman's noose (with or without effigy), a stake for burning with a perpetual flame, a chopping block, a bullet-riddled wall, a gurney with straps and IVs? At some point, doesn't this sound rather grisly?
Saints are traditionally depicted with the objects of their martyrdom. It can get pretty grisly, yes.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
No, the Incarnation is the central focus of the Christian faith.
Well actually, Jesus is the central focus of the Christian faith. Most crucially (*cough*) his birth, crucifixion, and resurrection (without which, St. Paul tells us, our faith is in vain).
If the antiquity of the cross as a Christian symbol has any bearing on this (and I believe it does), we ought to note that as early as 215 or so St. Clement of Alexandria was calling it the "Lord's sign". At the same time, Tertullian calls Christians "devotees of the Cross."
I don't doubt that the cross as the public symbol of a widespread religion (placed on church steeples, and such like) was due at least in part to Constantine's dream (in hoc signo...) and the finding of the True Cross, and still other influences as well. But to deny that the cross carried particular meaning to believers since the earliest days of the church is just silly.
[ 11. January 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
No, the Incarnation is the central focus of the Christian faith.
Well actually, Jesus is the central focus of the Christian faith. Most crucially (*cough*) his birth, crucifixion, and resurrection (without which, St. Paul tells us, our faith is in vain).
Quite right, John in the Nati. Incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, used as terms on their own, are all synecdoches (I had to look that one up, but it means a figure of speech in which one term is taken to include more.) There is no point in the incarnation if it doesn't mean the incarnation of God in human form in order to die and rise again. It's meaningless to talk of resurrection without implying a death, and a life to which it is the conclusion.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.
Is Christianity about what is unique about Christ, or what is salvific about Christ?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The cross shouldn't be the symbol. As others have pointed out,tThe point of Jesus was birth death and rebirth.
But, lacking any coherent other item that is both easy to understand and verifiable, its hard to see how the church as a whole could take anything else.
Now as for individual denoms and groups, that's another matter.
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.
Some do.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.
Some do.
Really? Who?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
It makes perfect sense to me that Christians might not depict a cross or crucifix while crucifixions were still going on. Too painful, probably.
But as the writings of St. Paul demonstrate, the Cross is a very subversive symbol for many reasons - not least because the fact that Jesus had been crucified would, to the mind of most non-Christians, at least, rendered him ineligible to be God, Christ, or even much of a man. (Getting beaten up, penetrated in any way, sexual or otherwise, or even getting made a fool in public would demote a man to "girly-man" status.)
The famous Alexamenos graffito in fact shows us just what pagan Rome thought of the whole thing!
Add to that the fact that we know Christ rose from the dead. The Cross became a sign of Christ's victory over death.
I think it's vital that we maintain this symbol, rather than choosing a more humanly triumphalist symbol, such as the images "masculine Christianity" produces. The whole point of calling Jesus "Lord" is not just that someone else isn't (as if you popped Caesar out of that role and plopped Jesus in). It's that Jesus defines Lordship, upending our ideas about what power, authority, even victory.
Wanting a different symbol, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of understanding of all that. It often gets presented, though, as if the person championing it has discovered something more original to Christianity than the rest of us know about.
Also, the crucifix is a stumbling block to those of us who are comfortable and enjoy privilege. It is a great comfort to many who are suffering, because in it they can see that God has chosen to join them in their suffering. I suspect that's why, as we veil statuary and images during Lent or Holy Week, we also veil crosses and crucifixes. It's been explained to me, anyway, that the veiling is to deny ourselves the consolations of the various icons and images. If the Cross were all about throwing Christ's suffering and death in our face, we wouldn't veil it during that liturgical season!
ETA: Sorry, I knew I was forgetting something... In his book, The Beauty of the Cross: The Passion of Christ in Theology and the Arts from the Catacombs to the Eve of the Renaissance, Richard Viladesau claims that the orans position might have been a cruciform gesture.
[ 12. January 2013, 02:03: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
I don't see why you and Mudfrog take this to mean the literal cross. I rather presume Paul was rejoicing in the risen Christ and everything else symbolized by the cross.
Yes, indeed - something else I forgot! We should also keep in mind the power of such a simple symbol, particularly because of its similarity to the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (X). It's a form of shorthand on top of everything else. It should be thought of as standing in for Christ, his whole person, agency in creation, divinity, humanity, birth, life, ministry, death, descent into hell, resurrection, ascension, sending of the Holy Spirit, action in the Church, and remaining with us to the end of the world. (Am I forgetting anything in there? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, indeed - something else I forgot! We should also keep in mind the power of such a simple symbol, particularly because of its similarity to the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (X). It's a form of shorthand on top of everything else. It should be thought of as standing in for Christ, his whole person, agency in creation, divinity, humanity, birth, life, ministry, death, descent into hell, resurrection, ascension, sending of the Holy Spirit, action in the Church, and remaining with us to the end of the world. (Am I forgetting anything in there?
The plain cross (as in Presbyterian churches) speaks to me of all these things; for me, the crucifix adds nothing. I was taught as a child that the cross is empty because Christ has risen.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The cross is the symbol because it is at the heart of 'salvation story.'
Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The incarnation is the means by which God in Christ was able to 'be' that sacrificial lamb.
The event on Calvary/Golgotha was the real, actual and effective demonstration of a truth that eternally exists in the heart and mind of God - that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. Christ came to demonstrate that and then fulfil the sacrificial system.
The resurrection was the event that authenticated the cross - proved that it was a victorious act in itself and proved that this man, hanged on an accursed cross, was in fact both Lord and Christ.
As far as the empty cross as an object/picture in churches is concerned, yes that is probably as a result of the Reformation where all images of Christ/saints, etc were removed. The image of the cross was a simple reminder that it was on a cross that Jesus suffered and that it is now an empty cross to show his victory over death and his divinity.
I am more and more aware and appreciative of this truth that in the heart of God there is an eternal experience of death and sacrifice - he 'lives with it' as it were. There is a Methodist hymn that we often use in The Salvation Army (being good Wesleyans), that has the line:
quote:
He suffers still, yet loves the more,
And lives, though ever crucified.
It may be true that a physical cross set up on an altar, or painted on a mural, is a rare thing in the first few centuries of the church but it cannot be denied that from the days of the apostles they preached about it (Peter), they wrote about it (Paul), they sang about it (the hymn quoted by Paul in Philippians 2), they offended and puzzled people by talking about it (stumbling block and foolishness).
Therefore the cross should indeed be the church's symbol because it represents fully the USP of our faith - grace provided through sacrifice. If the cross is reduced in prominence or importance then Christianity becomes just another philosophy.
People have hated the cross - even to the extent of denying that Jesus died on it (Thanks Mohammed) - let's not play into the hands of an unbelieving world. The cross is central.
[ 12. January 2013, 08:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).
I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).
I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).
Well that might be the inference of someone who may not know fully, but to those who put the things up in church, they knew that it meant the resurrection.
[ 12. January 2013, 08:35: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).
I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).
Maybe "Yes" a plain cross does show that Christ was both killed and then came alive and up to Heaven, because we all are told about Jesus being killed to rescue us, and we have sadness and thanksgiving about Jesus.
We also have a big picture in our church of a cross behind Jesus and Jesus alive again and happy and beautiful - that's also useful to have.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The good thing about symbols is that they can be given different meanings. I'm happy with the cross as long as I can see it as a refusal to have a symbol that sums up the heart of Christianity. So I'd interpret an empty cross as an empty symbol, one that refuses to say what it's about.
I once went round a museum in Barcelona full of 15th Century crucifixes, painted wood, life sized, many showing Jesus with, oddly, an exaggerated number of bloodied ribs: it was grim. But if I had to live with that as the symbol, again I would say that it's a refusal to have a symbol you can like or be happy with. It's a deliberate frustration of our desire to fixate on some nutshelled expression of our faith, some twee distillation. It revolts and confuses us in order to reject our devotion.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).
I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).
Maybe "Yes" a plain cross does show that Christ was both killed and then came alive and up to Heaven, because we all are told about Jesus being killed to rescue us, and we have sadness and thanksgiving about Jesus.
We also have a big picture in our church of a cross behind Jesus and Jesus alive again and happy and beautiful - that's also useful to have.
Of course: and it's good that the cross is in the picture because the picture of just a smiley man looking healthy wouldn't actually convey much - other than that we focus on a man who, we hope, was indeed a smiley man ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 12. January 2013, 10:07: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The good thing about symbols is that they can be given different meanings. I'm happy with the cross as long as I can see it as a refusal to have a symbol that sums up the heart of Christianity. So I'd interpret an empty cross as an empty symbol, one that refuses to say what it's about.
I once went round a museum in Barcelona full of 15th Century crucifixes, painted wood, life sized, many showing Jesus with, oddly, an exaggerated number of bloodied ribs: it was grim. But if I had to live with that as the symbol, again I would say that it's a refusal to have a symbol you can like or be happy with. It's a deliberate frustration of our desire to fixate on some nutshelled expression of our faith, some twee distillation. It revolts and confuses us in order to reject our devotion.
I would say that you are interpreting the art of those crucifixes with 21st century eyes.
The graphic nature of bloodied anatomical statues, popular before the Victorian squeamishness and piety that still effects us today, took hold, people lived lives that were bloody and brutal, lacked privacy or decorum. They died publicly and painfully and so, a bloodstained and 'grim' crucifix would not have had the shock-value that it may have today. in fact it's quite probably true that had those crucifixes not been like that people wouldn't have looked at them twice, inferring that the death of Jesus was pleasanter then their own and therefore irrelevant.
Maybe we should look at our society with its gory, obscene, in-your-face, foul-mouthed and PG rated art and media industry and reassess how we portray Jesus.
Maybe we should get Tarantino and Hurst to redesign our crucifixes and pictures and see whether the Gospel reconnects with our more 'gothic' culture.
Oh wait, Mel Gibson did that and upset people - that film was an excellent moving crucifix: it caused the greatest offence, was a huge stumbling block and was an artistic folly.
Ta da!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
In his book "Anam Cara" John O'Donohue has an interesting comment about the Celtic cross:
"... the Celts even transfigured the Cross by surrounding it with a circle. The Celtic Cross is a beautiful symbol. The circle around the beams of the Cross rescues the loneliness where the two lines of pain intersect; it seems to calm and console their forsaken linearity."
Nen - disturbed at the concept of Jesus being constantly crucified.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
In his book "Anam Cara" John O'Donohue has an interesting comment about the Celtic cross:
"... the Celts even transfigured the Cross by surrounding it with a circle. The Celtic Cross is a beautiful symbol. The circle around the beams of the Cross rescues the loneliness where the two lines of pain intersect; it seems to calm and console their forsaken linearity."
Nen - disturbed at the concept of Jesus being constantly crucified.
Not 'constantly', it's 'ever' crucified. As I suggested it's because Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It's a way of saying that there is sacrificial pain in the heart of God- he is always self-giving in order to heal us and redeem us. The crucifixion is the physical demonstration of that eternal truth. He isn't physically crucified - that was once and for all (which is why Protestants reject both the crucifix and the reenacted 'sacrifice' of the Mass).
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
(which is why Protestants reject both the crucifix and the reenacted 'sacrifice' of the Mass).
Like all Protestants believe the same.
I am a Protestant, and you are not speaking in my name. I kiss a crucifix each Sunday at church.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
(which is why Protestants reject both the crucifix and the reenacted 'sacrifice' of the Mass).
Like all Protestants believe the same.
I am a Protestant, and you are not speaking in my name. I kiss a crucifix each Sunday at church.
A 'High Anglican Quaker with Orthodox tendencies' is a slightly unusual Protestant maybe don't you think?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Several people have mentioned Constantine seeing a vision of the cross. Years ago I read a book on this subject, supporting the view that the crucifix was not widespread in the first centuries of Christianity. That author (forgotten now, I'm afraid) suggested that the sign that Constantine saw was probably the Chi Rho, as that would have been the Christian symbol he was most familiar with.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The Christus Rex crucifix, portraying Christ as priest and king, reigning from the cross is a theologically powerful statement that obviates the putative problems both with a crucifix portraying a suffering Christ and an empty cross that many find iconographically null and inspirationally and devotinally lacking. The Christus Rex can only be seen as an image of the Risen Christ who has overcome evil and death, thus also implicitly emphasising a Christus Victor atonement theology.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Several people have mentioned Constantine seeing a vision of the cross. Years ago I read a book on this subject, supporting the view that the crucifix was not widespread in the first centuries of Christianity. That author (forgotten now, I'm afraid) suggested that the sign that Constantine saw was probably the Chi Rho, as that would have been the Christian symbol he was most familiar with.
That is what I also understood to have been the case. Didn't he then order his troops to paint the Chi Rho on their battle shields?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.
Is Christianity about what is unique about Christ, or what is salvific about Christ?
Both, really
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I think, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus' Incarnation and Proclamation of the Kingdom would have been sufficient to confer salvation. If the Romans did not crucify him and he died of natural causes, and understandably, God raised him afterwards, salvation would still be procured. The means of death is less important than the fact that he died.
Yes, I know, Paul talks about the glory of the Cross. But that glory is understood within the context of the Resurrection. The Resurrection shows that no death, even if inflicted violently by other human beings, can overcome the will and power of God. Crucifixion is then rendered powerless so when Paul talks about the "glory of the cross", IMHO, there is a hint of ironic comedy. The Resurrection renders the crucifixion powerless and ironically, this means that the death becomes a means for glory. Crucifixion which supposed to shut the Son of God up for good, ended up in leading to his glory.
This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.
I do have a crucifix in my room in my family room. For me, it represents the power and horror of human evil, that the One who offers life and grace, received violence and hate from humanity. The Resurrection, especially in the stories of Christ offering grace and peace to his disciples, is about Christ overcoming that violence and hate with love.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Here the prevailing symbol of Christianity for a very long time was the fish and the bell - a tradition that persists to a degree even today. However, it wasn't to the exclusion of the cross as a symbol either. We had a habit of erecting huge crosses with the depiction of the crucifixion on one side and the resurrection on the other (both having figures). The best ones had the whole history of faith carved on them. One symbol that did die a death that we used was the snake as a symbol of resurrection; although it did persist for a while.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Here the prevailing symbol of Christianity for a very long time was the fish and the bell - a tradition that persists to a degree even today. However, it wasn't to the exclusion of the cross as a symbol either. We had a habit of erecting huge crosses with the depiction of the crucifixion on one side and the resurrection on the other (both having figures). The best ones had the whole history of faith carved on them. One symbol that did die a death that we used was the snake as a symbol of resurrection; although it did persist for a while.
Coming from a place packed with Celtic crosses and early conversion Viking crosses the image of the snake in Christianity is quite enduring in my mind... I have a beautiful reproduction of a Celtic cross which bears out the entirety of salvation history from creation, it is quite profound really to sit and consider the symbols and the interlocking of all of history leading upto, and after, the cross...
Saying that there is something rather stylish about the way the Ethiopian Orthodox Church presents the cross - it is not a plain cross or cruicifix as in Europe but stylised, almost a piece of art IMO... set in to an icon it has made a really powerful backdrop to my family 'altar' and has helped me in my journey to greatly appreciate how the word beautiful can be properly attached to the Cross at Calvary...
But anyway, enough of my ramblings...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
...an empty cross that many find iconographically null and inspirationally and devotinally lacking.
I do not think so at all!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.
Is Christianity about what is unique about Christ, or what is salvific about Christ?
Both, really
I think, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus' Incarnation and Proclamation of the Kingdom would have been sufficient to confer salvation. If the Romans did not crucify him and he died of natural causes, and understandably, God raised him afterwards, salvation would still be procured. The means of death is less important than the fact that he died.
No, he had to give his life as a ransom for many.
He also had to be 'the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world' and therefore needed to die 'prematurely' as a sacrifice.
His death was the final Mosaic sacrifice.
There can be no redemption with sacrifice and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.
This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.
Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.
Jesus suffered as God not because of God.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
