Author Topic: Angelus Press promoting crucifix with embed art? (Read 13464 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 12, 2013, 04:31:13 PM »

They just reprinted the Triduum missal -- and right on the front cover a crucifix with "Embed art" -- let's just say it has the same problem as the controversial San Damiano crucifix.

This is a very controversial crucifix -- it uses "embed art" to put in something rather inappropriate. No, that's not strong enough language. Something blasphemous.

The fact that Angelus put this front-and-center: What does it mean? Was it an innocent mistake? A deliberate move? A sign (hidden in plain sight) that "we're on board" the destruction of the Church, along with the Novus Ordo and others?

The bad guys use signs "hidden in plain sight" all the time. So that's not a crazy idea.

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2013, 04:35:37 PM »

My mom has one of those crucifixes in our home or at least one similar to that one. I do not look at it much or like it.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2013, 04:37:05 PM »

I prefer the St. Benedict crucifix..

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2013, 04:37:57 PM »

Vatican II is now offerring crosses without Jesus...

Stella · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2013, 05:05:39 PM »

A little background on the San Damiano crucifix. It has great significance for the Franciscan Order, and even for the whole Church, as being the image from which Our Lord spoke to Saint Francis, telling him to "rebuild my Church, which as you can see, is falling into ruin." Francis, being the humble, simple fellow that he was, thought that the Lord was referring to the little chapel, so he began begging for stones to make the repairs. Of course, the Lord was speaking prophetically, that Francis was to rebuild the Church through his friars, sisters, and layfolk.

Some strange things about the missal, though. One is that it really isn't even a San Damiano crucifix. Here is the original, now hanging in the Basilica of Santa Chiara in Assisi:

So what is the one on the cover? Beats me.

And yes, the San Damiano is an icon of the Risen Christ. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, and any Franciscan would recognize the image and be proud of it. Remember, St. Francis was the first saint to receive the Sacred Stigmata, so he was no Assisi sissy. But why is it on an SSPX publication, where most people probably would not know its history?

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2013, 05:50:40 PM »

I don't know which version(s) of the crucifix were tainted, but I do know that the one on Angelus' new Triduum Missal has the "blasphemous hidden image".

Here is my concern:

Angelus Press is the media organ of the SSPX. Isn't the SSPX famous for knowing and defending Tradition? Doesn't that imply that they're seldom "clueless"?

Am I to believe that NO ONE at Angelus Press is aware of the controversy surrounding the San Damiano crucifix?

They should know better.

I used to have this crucifix in my bedroom at the Seminary. I got it in the Free Room (basically Goodwill for the Seminarians -- the men used to leave stuff there when they left the Seminary for whatever reason). Now I know why.

Domitilla · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2013, 06:10:51 PM »

The crucifix looks more like a version of the Cimabue Crucifix. What is blasphemous about it?

Miseremini · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2013, 06:11:16 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

I prefer the St. Benedict crucifix..

The crucifix is THE symbol of our redemption.

The St. Benedict jubilee medal wasn't struck until the 1880's.

The 101 Foundation was probably the first to bring to the U.S., these crosses at $114.00 (hand made) in the very early 1990's supposedly made by a Benedictine Monk in Europe.

The St. Benedict crucifix (?) didn't appear in North American religious catalogues until the 1990's when it quickly became very popular among charismatics and new agers. Even the head exorsist in Rome is pictured holding one.

For 2000 years the crucifix stood for our redemption and even thought our Blessed Mother suffered with her Son, even she is not depicted on the cross in all that time.

This new cross is called the St. Benedict's Cross, the Cross of St. Benedict, the Cross of a Happy death......everything but the Cross of Jesus Christ. Even on the medal St. Benedict is shown holding a crucifix!

Can someone explain to me how St. Benedict ( a mere mortal) can make the symbol of the Cross of Jesus Christ our Redeemer more powerful??????
What did he have to do with our redemption long, before he was even born??

Could it be sacrilegious?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2013, 06:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

The crucifix looks more like a version of the Cimabue Crucifix. What is blasphemous about it?

IIRC, the controversy arrives with a careful study of Our Lord's torso.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2013, 06:49:26 PM »

Yes, I hate to take away anyone's innocence or blissful ignorance about this crucifix.

All I can say is -- before you buy anything with this crucifix on it, PLEASE do yourself a favor and Google

san damiano crucifix controversy

JMacQ · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2013, 07:34:26 PM »

Unbelievable. I would have never imagined something like that. This must be the work of Satan. Lord have mercy!

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2013, 07:39:19 PM »

Quote from: Stella

A little background on the San Damiano crucifix. It has great significance for the Franciscan Order, and even for the whole Church, as being the image from which Our Lord spoke to Saint Francis, telling him to "rebuild my Church, which as you can see, is falling into ruin." Francis, being the humble, simple fellow that he was, thought that the Lord was referring to the little chapel, so he began begging for stones to make the repairs. Of course, the Lord was speaking prophetically, that Francis was to rebuild the Church through his friars, sisters, and layfolk.

Some strange things about the missal, though. One is that it really isn't even a San Damiano crucifix. Here is the original, now hanging in the Basilica of Santa Chiara in Assisi:

So what is the one on the cover? Beats me.

And yes, the San Damiano is an icon of the Risen Christ. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, and any Franciscan would recognize the image and be proud of it. Remember, St. Francis was the first saint to receive the Sacred Stigmata, so he was no Assisi sissy. But why is it on an SSPX publication, where most people probably would not know its history?

I have one too, as do most Franciscans. (I am a Third Order Franciscan). What is the problem?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2013, 07:43:38 PM »

Ya know, I never noticed the..ummm...problem with the San Damiano crucifix until it was pointed out to me a few years ago. But now I can't seem to "unnotice" it every time I see one. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Zeitun · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2013, 12:11:36 AM »

Hmm....now I know why someone gave one to me that they were going to throw away. I thought it was Trash to Treasure......NOT!

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2013, 12:34:40 AM »

Matthew, the San Damiano crucifix predates the 'problematic' rendering of it.

You should clarify that it is *some* modern renderings that create the problem, but the linea alba is a common feature in period torso renderings.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?