Thank you for the reference. It looks like The English Ritual is also available in the U.S. through Amazon.com .
I wear a cross. However, I think crucifixes are especially appropriate around the altar (table) where the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is offered. I say this because St Paul teaches "that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." In the Eucharist, we are remembering not just the cross, but His death upon the cross which paid the blood debt of our sin. I think it is much more fitting to have the crucifix there as a visual cue than an empty cross. We need reminding that, for our sakes, he was despised and rejected of men unto death on the cross. Empty crosses did not save us from our sin, they only remind us that death cannot claim us forever. It takes Him who gave his life willingly as a sacrifice on our behalf. It takes a corpus. That is what a crucifix reminds us of, and that is what the eucharist is showing till he comes.
Actually, I think the words "as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" are rather against the use of crucifixes in the divine worship that is the Eucharist. Why? We are showing forth His death by our spiritual remembrance of it, by our reception of grace in Holy Communion, and by the very metaphorical similarity of the Elements themselves to flesh (bread) and blood (wine). We automatically show forth His death by the celebration of the Lord's Supper!
I agree with your statement about our spiritual remembrance, but I don't really understand how St. Paul's words oppose the use of crucifixes. Crucifixes, like all ecclesiastical artwork, are, as best as I can tell, mnemonic devices that draw the worshippers focus to aspects of the incarnation that are being celebrated and/or solemnized. The crucifix does that for partakers of the eucharist. At least, it does for this partaker. Having said that. I know of one church that gives parishioners a happy medium. Above the altar is a crucifix but when you turn around to head back to your seat, there is a statue of Christus Rex above the church entrance. I think that's a great way to visualize the full process of God's plan for salvation. Sort of a dramatic way to remember that, as St Paul puts it, "if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him". A very inspirational bit of interior design, imho. UPDATE: Oh wait, I reread it a couple of times and think I get your point. There's no need fro a crucifix as our action is the crucifix, in a manner of speaking. Great point! I'll have to ponder this...
The crucifix, by displaying the alleged body of Christ, would violate the second commandment. A plain cross would be the most adequate.
John Damascene was quite clear in his argument that the Incarnation makes depictions of God the Son legal and worthy. "If God deemed it worthy to possess a body of our flesh, it is the greatest impiety for us to deny it". The eastern Orthodox I've spoken to say iconoclasm is tantamount to a denial of the Incarnation! What can be said in reply to that? We are not thereby depicting the immaterial Father of Heaven, nor the Holy Spirit, but the enfleshed Word in Jesus. I suppose the LORD said that we shall make no graven images whatsoever, not just of Heaven, but of that which is on Earth as well. Doesn't that mean all statues of any sort, religious or commemorative, are wrong?
I have mixed emotions, just being rescued from evangelical America I've heard the crucifix being labeled as "too catholic" and/or out dated post resurrection, but both notions I find ludicrous. We all need daily (or hourly) reminders of what price was paid for our eternal life, but my personal favorite is the Orthodox cross with buds of life on the end. Jeff
I agree. Paul, in Colossians, calls the Lord Jesus "the image ofthe invisible God". Prior to the incarnation, God dwelt as pure, invisible spirit, something that man could not imagine. But at the appointed time, God chose for himself a form of flesh, which could be seen and touched. When I see a crucifix, I am reminded of Pilate's words: "Behold the man." I remember how he was pierced for my transgressions, beaten for my inequities. The whole passion is put on display before me and I am forced to recall the terrible cost of my sins: "the wages of sin is death". I am reminded that the grace that is so freely given to me was not free to Christ. It was purchased by my Lord's own blood and suffering and death. I am also reminded that Our Lord thought I, we, were worthy of so great a sacrifice. I love crucifixes for this very reason. Have they been misused? Sure. What gift of God hasn't in this sin-sick world? But to those who see it, the crucifix is a powerful visual memorial of Christ's incarnation, passion, crucifixion, and his finished work on the cross that put away once and for all the death sentence that every sinner has or ever will bear.
None of the images one paints or carves of Christ are really His true image, it's just something one vainly imagines to resemble Him; nor can these icons or statues represent His divine nature which cannot be encompassed by any human brush or chisel. By making an image of Jesus, one is actually separating His human from His divine nature, since only the human can be depicted, or else confusing the human and divine natures considering them one. Separating the natures was considered Nestorianism and the union of the human and divine natures was considered Monophysitism. Furthermore, the use of icons and statues for religious purposes is an inappropriate innovation in the Church, and a return to pagan practices. In any case, no argument, no matter how cleverly devised, can trump the clear commandment of God.
Fair enough OC, if it is evil in youre eyes, abstain. I'll not pass judgment on you for rejecting the benefits of the crucifix if you don't pass judgment on me for embracing it. "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own masterthat he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." -Romans 14:1-4 God bless!
If making images of God is a violation of the second commandment, Lowly Layman, then it's not merely adiaphora.
There is no record of Christ ratifying the second commandment that I can recall, even when he recited them in the gospels. The apostles did not hoist it upon gentile converts, thus I do not see it as binding. Nonetheless, I do not worship the crucifix, so it does not apply.
Our TSSF profession cross is a nickle type cross with the image of our Lord embossed into it. The cross is presented when a Novice accepts life profession of the order. It is never looked at as an idol it is simply a cross that reminds us that our Lord did sacrifice himself upon the cross for our salvation. In my opinion I think there are many more issues in the world to concern ourselves with then the wearing or the presence of a Crucifix.
I don't understand what you mean by Christ "ratifying" the second commandment. God's commandments stand forever. As for the early church, there was no use of images in religious worship. These things were a much later development, a concession to the world. As for not worshipping the crucifix, that's a slippery slope. If God is not be represented by an image or a statue, as the second commandment enjoins, then it's always a sin to have the crucifix whether or not you think you worship the image. The Jews did not worship the Golden calf per se either but God that was represented by it. Nevertheless, it was still a sin.
Lol...I keep my slopes very dry OC...but bless you for worrying. Besides, your basing you're condemnation on a if...a big if imho...considering how many people in many different denominations use them, heaven must be very exclusive.
Truth is not decided by sheer numbers. There was a time when the majority of the clergy was Arian, another time when the majority of Christians endorsed superstition, etc. Even today we have a large number of self-professed Christians who think that homosexuality is a "gift" rather than a shameful abomination. Indeed, the gate is wide that leads to destruction, as Our Lord prophetically told us. I believe the objection to pictorial representations of Christ is sound and quite unavoidable, unless one downplays the second commandment to such an extent that it loses its plain meaning. Rome has done that with disastrous consequences.
Innocent as they may have seemed, such are condemned by the LORD in nearly every page of the Bible. The most childlike image seems perfectly harmless, but within a generation whole perverse practices may develop around it, such as came out of Israel after the separation from Judah. Practically every king was an idolater of images. It's a very slippery slope by nature, and cannot be dry unless it is swept clear of such idols. That seems very biblical, anyway. Old Christendom, your posts are so strong! You remind me of some recently ex-papist fanatical reformer of Old!