Author Topic: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary? (Read 9755 times)

Kazimierz · « **Reply #15 on:** October 04, 2018, 11:24:17 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on October 03, 2018, 09:38:49 PM

What a fαɢɢօt! And that wretched overweight trouser suit is representing all men of the U.S. of A. everywhere in the world

Well he did sing Dixie despite aught else. Look away going away gotta be Dixieland ;D :farmer:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #16 on:** October 04, 2018, 11:38:08 AM »

.
The young men in the Virginia seminary are perhaps innocent victims of the gradual slide of the SSPX.
.
But whether they're aware of it or not, they're being slow-boiled like a frog in a cooking pot.
.
I highly doubt that someone like Matthew could manage to audit any of the classes as an observer.
Just to see firsthand what's really going on behind closed doors, IYKWIM.
.
Freemasons hold dear the principle that the fact of being observed changes the content of the thing being observed.
.
The priest giving the lecture in this photo would not say the same things if he knew there was an outsider in the audience:
.

.
If you know any of the seminarians, you ought to find a way to have a conversation with them when they come home to visit.
.
We should all be prepared with a series of questions to ask them.
.
Find out if they're familiar with the basic facts of history which are in the public domain, or, if they deny their existence.
.
See if they know what GREC is, for example or the AFD (Doctrinal Declaration of April 15th, 2012, by Bishop Fellay).
See if they have ever heard the name Max Krah, and if so, if they know who he is and what he has done for the SSPX.
Find out if they know what essential elements are required for a crucifix to be a crucifix (INRI? Nails? Crown of thorns? Clothing?)
.
Be prepared for responses like, "Some think that studying the Summa is sufficient -- we LIVE the Summa of St. Thomas."
.

claudel · « **Reply #17 on:** October 04, 2018, 01:38:45 PM »

To the extent that it can be properly seen, the crucifix in the OP image looks like a typical Christ the King crucifix. In this crucifix, a royally garbed Christ is displayed on a Cross whose four enlarged termini house images of the Four Evangelists. I have no idea how old this form of representation is in the West, but as long ago as my college years (the 1960s), I saw photos of Christ the King crucifixes in German Baroque-era churches (17th–18th centuries). In addition, there was a Christ the King parish church in the New York City borough of the Bronx (near E. 170th Street and the Grand Concourse). I occasionally heard Mass (and later served Mass) there from the time I was a young child (early fifties) straight through my high school years (that school, All Hallows Institute, was situated in Christ the King parish). The sanctuary of the church, built around 1900, was dominated by a life-sized Christ the King crucifix. In those years, when Pius XII was pope, no one ever questioned its traditional Catholicity.

Furthermore, one may find very closely related Eastern church images and icons of the Christ Pantokrator superimposed on the Cross that date from the era of Justinian (6th century).

Taken all in all, while no one is obliged to find the Christ the King crucifix desirable or useful in the present day, especially in the context of conciliar distortion and corruption, it is still one heck of a stretch to claim that this crucifix is yet another Modernist weapon designed to undermine or pervert the True Faith.

klasG4e · « **Reply #18 on:** October 04, 2018, 02:10:11 PM »

As an aside, but perhaps somewhat related to this thread: about 14 years ago full body size (and fairly expensive) authentic copies of the Shroud of Turin were donated to STAS in Winona. Handsome frames were made by Br. Marcel and they were placed within them. The negative and more highly defined images (front and back) were hung in the hallway leading to the chapel while the regular photographic images (front and back) were hung in the big downstairs classroom/lecture hall. When STAS moved to its much more spacious quarters in Virginia all these holy and inspiring images were left behind and as far as I know remain left behind to this day. I wonder why.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #19 on:** October 04, 2018, 02:24:06 PM »

Quote from: claudel on October 04, 2018, 01:38:45 PM

To the extent that it can be properly seen, the crucifix in the OP image looks like a typical Christ the King ~~crucifix~~. In this ~~crucifix~~, a royally garbed Christ is displayed on a Cross whose four enlarged termini house images of the Four Evangelists. I have no idea how old this form of representation is in the West, but as long ago as my college years (the 1960s), I saw photos of Christ the King ~~crucifixes~~ in German Baroque-era churches (17th–18th centuries). In addition, there was a Christ the King parish church in the New York City borough of the Bronx (near E. 170th Street and the Grand Concourse). I occasionally heard Mass (and later served Mass) there from the time I was a young child (early fifties) straight through my high school years (that school, All Hallows Institute, was situated in Christ the King parish). The sanctuary of the church, built around 1900, was dominated by a life-sized Christ the King ~~crucifix~~. In those years, when Pius XII was pope, no one ever questioned its traditional Catholicity. [THEY'RE NOT CRUCIFIXES]

Furthermore, one may find very closely related Eastern church images and icons of the Christ Pantokrator superimposed on the Cross that date from the era of Justinian (6th century).

Taken all in all, while no one is obliged to find the Christ the King ~~crucifix~~ desirable or useful in the present day, especially in the context of conciliar distortion and corruption, it is still one heck of a stretch to claim that this ~~crucifix~~ is yet another Modernist weapon designed to undermine or pervert the True Faith. [IT'S NOT A CRUCIFIX!]

.
You are wrong, claudel. These might be crosses, but they are not crucifixes.
.
To be a crucifix, the INRI is required, it is NOT OPTIONAL. No INRI, no crucifix. Period.
.
The abundance of clothes is not a crucifix. Our Lord was STRIPPED of his clothes before the crucifixion.
.
In your experience, if no Catholics complained, then none of them were informed, or, perhaps they were Catholic in name only.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #20 on:** October 04, 2018, 02:27:52 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on October 04, 2018, 02:10:11 PM

As an aside, but perhaps somewhat related to this thread: about 14 years ago full body size (and fairly expensive) authentic copies of the Shroud of Turin were donated to STAS in Winona. Handsome frames were made by Br. Marcel and they were placed within them. The negative and more highly defined images (front and back) were hung in the hallway leading to the chapel while the regular photographic images (front and back) were hung in the big downstairs classroom/lecture hall. When STAS moved to its much more spacious quarters in Virginia all these holy and inspiring images were left behind and as far as I know remain left behind to this day. I wonder why.

.
Well, let's see:
Not only did they want to leave behind the memory of Bishop Williamson at Winona, they wanted to also leave behind at Winona any recollection or reminder of the passion, death and burial of Our Lord.

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** October 04, 2018, 03:06:47 PM »

Quote from: claudel on October 04, 2018, 01:38:45 PM

Taken all in all, while no one is obliged to find the Christ the King crucifix desirable or useful in the present day, especially in the context of conciliar distortion and corruption, it is still one heck of a stretch to claim that this crucifix is yet another Modernist weapon designed to undermine or pervert the True Faith.

With all due respect, who the #*!@ made such a claim?
Talk about putting words in my mouth!
Go back and read (rather than skim) my OP.

Matthew · « **Reply #22 on:** October 04, 2018, 05:07:19 PM »

Hey Neil --

Where can I find the official Church regulations on crucifixes? I know it hasn't come up yet, but there are also regulations on which leg goes over which leg, and which direction Our Lord's head leans (left vs. right). There are a whole host of rules, some of which you mentioned, and some you did not. But I know that violating certain rules makes a VERY BAD crucifix, possibly even satanic! (not saying this is the case with the Seminary one; I'm just bringing up a related topic).

I know the Church has regulations on how to portray the Trinity in art as well. Let's face it: artists can be very free spirited and creative and get out of control if you don't give them some hard and fast rules. They'll paint/sculpt anything if you collectively give them a chance.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #23 on:** October 04, 2018, 07:32:54 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 04, 2018, 05:07:19 PM

Hey Neil --

Where can I find the official Church regulations on crucifixes? I know it hasn't come up yet, but there are also regulations on which leg goes over which leg, and which direction Our Lord's head leans (left vs. right). There are a whole host of rules, some of which you mentioned, and some you did not. But I know that violating certain rules makes a VERY BAD crucifix, possibly even satanic! (not saying this is the case with the Seminary one; I'm just bringing up a related topic).

I know the Church has regulations on how to portray the Trinity in art as well. Let's face it: artists can be very free spirited and creative and get out of control if you don't give them some hard and fast rules. They'll paint/sculpt anything if you collectively give them a chance.

.
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 Obstat · « **Reply #24 on:** October 04, 2018, 07:37:49 PM »

.
Their plan is manifest: Today the crucifix, tomorrow the doctrine.
.
Or perhaps the doctrine can be done today, too...........

TKGS · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2018, 07:48:07 PM »

Quote from: Kazimierz on October 03, 2018, 07:49:34 PM

Gracious. I though resurrecifixes were the exclusive venue of the conciliar church.

It is.
Think about it.

Maria Regina · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2018, 07:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 04, 2018, 07:37:49 PM

.
Their plan is manifest: Today the crucifix, tomorrow the doctrine.
.
Or perhaps the doctrine can be done today, too...........

Yesterday the Latin prayers in the Mass were exchanged for Lutheran translations;
today the crucifix is exchanged for a lie as the crucifix has become unbearable for so many Protestants;
tomorrow will be the ecuмenical false reunion with Protestants and the canonization of Martin Luther.

Step by step.

claudel · « **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2018, 12:13:56 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 04, 2018, 02:24:06 PM

… NOT OPTIONAL … STRIPPED …

Do you truly believe, Neil, that your childish use of full caps makes you appear less trite and moronic than you are? Sean Johnson characterized you to a T several years ago when he wrote that every comment you have ever made is worthless.

claudel · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2018, 12:30:27 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 04, 2018, 03:06:47 PM

With all due respect, who the #*!@ made such a claim?
Talk about putting words in my mouth!
Go back and read (rather than skim) my OP.

Putting words in your mouth? As you weren't named in the sentence you quoted or indeed anywhere in my earlier comment, am I to take it that your mouth is now coextensive with the mouths of other commenters, Matthew? Let's assume for the moment, shall we, that it isn't? But then, as you ask, who made such a claim? Well, how about Kazimierz? How about cosmas and Neil the Boy Wonder? And to bring things full circle, how about the clear implication of your own second comment on page 1 of this thread? Or am I to be patronizingly read a Neil-like distinction between the Novus Ordo and the Modernists?
Perhaps it's someone other than I who needs to go back and read rather than skim.

Benzel · « **Reply #29 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

Author Topic: What kind of crucifix is THAT at the SSPX seminary? (Read 9755 times)

Kazimierz

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

Neil Obstat

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

claudel

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

klasG4e

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

Neil Obstat

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

Neil Obstat

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?

Neil Obstat

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

Neil Obstat

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

TKGS

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

Maria Regina

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

claudel

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

claudel

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

Benzel

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