Author Topic: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary? (Read 9761 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2018, 03:52:36 AM »

Good to see you back, Claudel. I'm pleased you broke your resolve. I've missed your posts.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** October 05, 2018, 06:58:29 AM »

Quote from: Benzel on October 05, 2018, 01:59:59 AM

Claudel is right. That ~~crucifix~~ [cross] is totally Catholic. For centuries, in Europe it is normal to see that ~~crucifix~~[cross]. For example:
[NOT a crucifix -- this is a cross -- maybe a Catholic cross, but not a Catholic crucifix.]
8th century. Carved cedar. Cathedral of St. Martin, Lucca, Italy. Local legend has it that this crucifix was carved at the time of the Crucifixion by Nicodemus and that it arrived in Lucca miraculously in 782.
http://www.christianiconography.info/iconographySupplementalImages/crucifixion/lucca.html

.
claudel is wrong. And so are you. It isn't a crucifix, and neither is this one you show here, even if it is from the 8th century.
It might be artwork, but it's not a crucifix.
.
The source site you're getting that image from is mistaken. They don't know what a crucifix is. They admit as much:
.

Crosses and Crucifixes

HISTORICAL STUDY

The difference between a cross and a crucifix is that the latter bears a "corpus" or sculpted image of Christ's body. On this website I will also use the term "crucifix" for any cross painted with an image of the corpus. Sometimes a museum will display the corpus only, the cross having been lost (example).

.
For this says that a "crucifix" only needs to be a cross with a corpus on it. WRONG.
A crucifix requires INRI or it's not a crucifix.
A crucifix must have nails or it's not a crucifix.
A crucifix must have a stripped corpus or it's not a crucifix.
.
Just because it's a website doesn't mean it's correct. Websites can be wrong. Wikipedia is famous for being wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** October 05, 2018, 08:25:04 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 04, 2018, 07:32:54 PM

.
Sorry, Matthew, I can't help you there. It's been too long. I'll have to ask a priest.
.
But in the meantime, you ought to ask Ladislaus, especially since he's the resident expert on which longstanding regulations were jettisoned by any of the various Johnny-come-lately enemies of Sacred Tradition, whom he reveres. :)

Neil, sometimes I wonder if you aren't a bit troubled. I simply mentioned in passing that John XXIII in the 1962 version of the Tridentine Mass eliminated the second Confiteor, the one right before Communion. I was merely setting the record straight after a comment suggesting that this was a novelty first introduced by the Novus Ordo.

How does this statement of fact amount to "revering" John XXIII. In fact, I personally believe it likely that he's a Masonic agent who illegitimately usurped the Holy See after Siri was forced out. If that's "reverence", I'd love to see your definition of contempt.

And that had nothing to do with this thread, but you get mentally obsessed with things.

Matthew · « **Reply #33 on:** October 05, 2018, 09:07:19 AM »

Quote from: Benzel on October 05, 2018, 01:59:59 AM

Claudel is right. That crucifix is totally Catholic. For centuries, in Europe it is normal to see that crucifix. For example:

8th century. Carved cedar. Cathedral of St. Martin, Lucca, Italy. Local legend has it that this crucifix was carved at the time of the Crucifixion by Nicodemus and that it arrived in Lucca miraculously in 782.
http://www.christianiconography.info/iconographySupplementalImages/crucifixion/lucca.html

I hate to seem like I'm moving the goalposts here, but that's actually too old.

I think that the Church had to step in and set regulations on various art. For example, the Church forbids depicting the Trinity as "three identical men". I can't remember some of the other examples since I learned this around 2001. But the main point is: Artists are by nature creative. Creativity is by nature without rules. They don't always put enough "reason" into their works, or foresee what ideas people will get when looking at their work.

So I'm sure that certain ancient art violated rules that were later put into place. But often times if the art is really good, or famous, or owned by someone who doesn't feel like destroying it, the older "grandfathered" art survives despite later prohibitions on said depictions.

Another important point: when did the Crucifix even become popular in the Catholic Church? My understanding is that devotion to the sufferings and death of Our Lord, a focus on His sacred humanity, happened during the Middle Ages, specifically during the great time of suffering known as the Black Death.

I know a Traditional Catholic who was drawing computer art for me a few years ago, and the end result looked positively filthy to an objective eye! I broke the news to her, and she was upset of course. She was innocent, but too innocent. If you can draw and present to the public something which "accidentally" looks like genitalia, you are too innocent, I'm sorry. I guess artists go into a different world when they draw and create things, and completely lose self-awareness. But I digress.

Matthew · « **Reply #34 on:** October 05, 2018, 09:13:23 AM »

Let's get right to the point:

Is there anything wrong with Resurrectifixes?

If it's Traditional or OK to depict Our Lord on the Cross clothed in priestly (or kingly) garments, crowned, alive and well, then what is wrong with depicting Our Lord's resurrected form on the Cross as well?

Our Lord, in any depiction, is Priest, King, Victim, Messiah, God and Man. And He rose from the dead. So why not depict the resurrected Christ on the Cross as well?

Those who have defended the Christ-the-King-affix really have no leg to stand on, if they were to condemn the Resurrectifix as being post-Vatican II, Novus Ordo, redirecting attention from the suffering and death of Christ, etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** October 05, 2018, 10:05:23 AM »

While I don't really care for this representation, Resurrectifixes are a bit worse due to the incongruity of placing the Risen Lord on the cross. I could sortof see Christ the King on the cross as an attempt to convey the idea that Our Lord reigns from the cross, that the cross is His throne, as it were. But the Resurrectifix has no such message about it, as it's an obvious attempt to distance people from the "negativity" of Our Lord's Passion. I mean, for most of His Passion, our Lord was still alive, so it's not inherently incongruous to depict Our Lord as STILL alive. But not as returning to the Cross AFTER He had died and risen again. With that said, even Christ the King on the cross should IMO not whitewash Our Lord's suffering. If I had any artistic talent whatsoever, even the notion of Christ the King on the cross would show His suffering.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** October 05, 2018, 10:17:06 AM »

Quote from: Benzel on October 05, 2018, 01:59:59 AM

Claudel is right. That crucifix is totally Catholic. For centuries, in Europe it is normal to see that crucifix. For example:

8th century. Carved cedar. Cathedral of St. Martin, Lucca, Italy. Local legend has it that this crucifix was carved at the time of the Crucifixion by Nicodemus and that it arrived in Lucca miraculously in 782.
http://www.christianiconography.info/iconographySupplementalImages/crucifixion/lucca.html

Well, this one is different from the one at STAS. This still clearly shows the suffering of Our Lord. It merely adorns Him with a crown and regal vestments. But the rest of His body, the posture, facial expression, etc. still shows Our Lord crucified and suffering, whereas the STAS one shows him as just standing there, seemingly in no pain whatsoever, very much like a Resurrectifix.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** October 05, 2018, 10:21:21 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on October 03, 2018, 09:39:23 PM

What's up with all these ugly crosses?

We all know the answer to that. This isn't just about horrible taste in art.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 05, 2018, 10:32:13 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 05, 2018, 09:13:23 AM

Those who have defended the Christ-the-King-affix really have no leg to stand on, ...

There is a difference. There was an actual period during the Crucifixion that Our Lord remained alive, but the Risen Lord was never actually on the Cross. Yet Our Lord SUFFERED while alive on the cross. So they're the same in terms of stripping away the SUFFERING from its depiction of the Passion. As for the clothing, or adding a crown (vs. the crown of thorns), there's nothing to say it couldn't be changed for symbolism. After all, it's not 100% certain what, if anything, Our Lord was wearing.

Benzel · « **Reply #39 on:** October 05, 2018, 10:49:58 AM »

Do not confuse any form of traditional Catholic crucifix (like the crucifix in which Christ is dressed as a priest, or crowned as king, or dressed in robes and alive, etc.) with the "Resurrectifix", which is a modernist novelty. With this false crucifix, the modernists want to highlight the resurrection over the death of Christ, but the truth is that Christ redeemed us by his death, not "by his death and resurrection," as the modernists claim (modernist theology of the "Paschal mystery"). The crucifix of Christ the Priest and King aims to highlight the priesthood and the royalty of Christ, not his resurrection.

Interesting quote:

"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, sleeveless 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"

Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm

Cantarella · « **Reply #40 on:** October 05, 2018, 12:28:39 PM »

POPE PIUS XII WARNS AGAINST THE VATICAN II NOVELTY CRUCIFIXES AND OTHER ERRORS

Quote

“ But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. 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.”

The enemies of Catholicism have always complained of Catholics using the image of Christ suffering . They can’t stand the fact that God left Himself as the eternal Sacrifice.

They preach the bread and wine Memorial meal and the risen Christ only .

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** October 05, 2018, 12:42:19 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on October 05, 2018, 12:28:39 PM

POPE PIUS XII WARNS AGAINST THE VATICAN II NOVELTY CRUCIFIXES AND OTHER ERRORS

The enemies of Catholicism have always complained of Catholics using the image of Christ suffering . They can’t stand the fact that God left Himself as the eternal Sacrifice.

They preach the bread and wine Memorial meal and the risen Christ only .

There's a bit of subtlety here. Pius XII doesn't mean that one cannot PREFER Gregorian chant to polyphony (which I myself do), just that you can't dismiss polyphany as illegitimate simply because it came later in time. This doesn't per se rule out the use of crucifixes/crosses more in line with the earlier usage ... any more than it rules out the use of Gregorian chant.

Cantarella · « **Reply #42 on:** October 05, 2018, 01:01:18 PM »

Quote

It isn't a crucifix, and neither is this one you show here, even if it is from the 8th century.
It might be artwork, but it's not a crucifix.

I think this is what it ultimately boils down to, as Neil said. These are not crucifixes; but only crosses or "artwork".

Cantarella · « **Reply #43 on:** October 05, 2018, 01:04:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 05, 2018, 12:42:19 PM

There's a bit of subtlety here. Pius XII doesn't mean that one cannot PREFER Gregorian chant to polyphony (which I myself do), just that you can't dismiss polyphany as illegitimate simply because it came later in time. This doesn't per se rule out the use of crucifixes/crosses more in line with the earlier usage ... any more than it rules out the use of Gregorian chant.

I think that what is important in crucifixes is that they maintain the visible signs of cruel suffering in Christ's corpus, as Pope Pius XII was stating here. Otherwise, they are just crosses, quite inappropriate in altars where the Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated.

Cantarella · « **Reply #44 on:** October 05, 2018, 01:07:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 05, 2018, 10:05:23 AM

While I don't really care for this representation, Resurrectifixes are a bit worse due to the incongruity of placing the Risen Lord on the cross.

I agree and this is another point as well. There is a deep incongruity between the cross (suffering) and the resurrected Christ (triumph). When you place the two together, it just looks bad, in my opinion.

I love representations of Our Lord triumphant and resurrected, as well. Just not placed on a cross.

Author Topic: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary? (Read 9761 times)

Nadir

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Neil Obstat

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Ladislaus

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Matthew

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Matthew

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Ladislaus

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Ladislaus

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Ladislaus

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Ladislaus

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Benzel

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Cantarella

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Ladislaus

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Cantarella

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Cantarella

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?

Cantarella

Re: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary?