Gracious. I though resurrecifixes were the exclusive venue of the conciliar church. Definitely an overshadowing of the Passion and Death of Our Lord and Saviour, with a wrongly understood theology of the Resurrection.

What ARE they teaching these days on the new seminary farm?

Oh, I can hear the excuses: "Christ is the Eternal High Priest", "Christ rose from the dead", etc. but that doesn't excuse why the suffering Christ has been replaced on the Cross. It's not traditional.

The Novus Ordo wants to downplay the Cross, because it compels us to penance and imitation of the suffering Christ in our own lives. The Novus Ordo, being sentimental, soft, and feminine, would prefer to focus on the more "fun" event of the Resurrection. After all, Lent and suffering are no fun. The partying happens on Easter! Even the modern world can understand and relate to "partying". And the Conciliar Church is all about conformity with the freemasonic Modern World.

Our Lady is traditionally called the Co-Redemptrix. But it wouldn't be traditional to depict her nailed to the cross, and then place that depiction in a home/chapel/seminary where a proper Crucifix should be!

You know, that's what statues and pictures are for. The Resurrection, Christ the King, Christ as High Priest, veneration of Mary and the other Saints, etc. are all noble, praiseworthy, and worthwhile depictions in art. But not on the Crucifix!

I think those who try to excuse this have been frog boiled.

"Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas."

The neo-SSPX has been lying down with the diseased Conciliar Church for some time now...

They are in process of losing their Catholic sense. Give it enough time, and SSPX priests will be saying occasional Novus Ordo Masses just like the FSSP.
Baby steps...

.
Question:  What kind of crucifix is THAT?
.
Answer: THAT is not a crucifix.
.
.
.
In order for a physical object to be a crucifix, it must
--- be first a CROSS (which "that" is okay)
--- have the corpus of Our Lord on it (traditionally that means with minimal clothing, since He was stripped
     before being crucified, but THAT shows Him wearing a robe and full garments, so it fails on that account)
--- show the NAILS in the hands and feet* (THAT is not only missing the nails, it's missing the wounds the nails made --
      On closer look, it appears to have the wounds from the nails, but a real crucifix MUST show the nails themselves)
--- have the letters INRI either carved into the vertical post above His head, or be on a sign or scroll there (THAT has neither)
--- usually show the crown of thorns on Our Lord's head, which He had in fact (which THAT does not have at all)
.
Therefore, it FAILS the test of being a crucifix: it is missing the INRI, no nails/wounds, and way too much clothing.
The fact that the crown of thorns is missing is a demerit, but since it's not absolutely essential, is just a negative, but not a FAIL.


* In exorcisms, the devil taunts a priest when the crucifix he's using is not made of real wood OR does not have nails holding Our Lord to the wood of the cross. In the Good Friday liturgy Catholics actually adore the wood of the Cross.

Still better than this:







What's up with all these ugly crosses?

YES, DEFINITELY HEADING TOWARD ROME AND THE N.O. JUST WAIT TILL YOU SEE THE CRUCIFIX IN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS WITH HALF THE CROSS MISSING ALONG WITH ONE OF OUR LORD'S ARMS,SO SACRILEGIOUS !

Remember that the world has a palpable hatred for Our Lord. Not just "even though" He is good, but specifically because He is good.

And the more we imitate Him in our lifestyle, the more the World will hate us as well.

If the World loves you, you are doing something wrong.

Interesting. I did the same with dogpile.com, but came up with a majority of pictures that were of proper crucifixes.

I'll post a link in men only for those who want to know.