Discussion in 'Faith, Devotion & Formation' started by bwallac2335, Feb 13, 2022.
Are you in favor of them? Are they acceptable in Anglicanism?
Coincidentally, we had a discussion about crucifixes in Sunday School. Someone asked why the RCC uses them, but hardly any other churches do. Our (archdeacon) rector said it's mainly a difference in emphasis, immanence vs transcendence; the Romans emphasize Christ on the cross, their Eucharist emphasizes the physical change of the elements (transubstantiation), and they believe Christ is acting through the priest to continue offering Himself up to the Father as a sacrifice. Our emphasis is on Christ risen and ascended, and our Eucharist emphasizes the finished work of Christ and the spiritual change wrought in the recipients. But he said that there is nothing wrong per se with crucifixes.
I am not personally in favor of them. YMMV.
I have always been OK with what I understopod to be Anglican normality, where the Crucifix was installed near or around the Pulpit for we preach Christ Chucified, and a Plain Cross or a Christis Rex took pride of place in the anctuary for we worship Christ Risen.
I have a St Damiano (Franciscan style Crucifix) in my office.
It’s perfectly fine in theology, in meaning, in everything. A reason why some would have used it less in the past is because it was adopted near-universally by the Jesuits and the rest of the counter-Reformational Roman church. Now that the spirit of Trent is practically disappeared, the crucifixes are coming into more and more usage in Anglican circles.
I have them in all of the bedrooms and the sitting room.
I chanced to wander into the one remaining Christian bookstore in town. It is most certainly Protestant orientated but they did happen to a stock a selection of wall mounted crucifixes.
Those who wander are not always lost, eh?
I do not see any problem with crucifixes. However, I doubt you'd expect any other answer from an Anglo-Catholic.
I have been used to them in church for as long as I can remember. I have no problem with them.
I see no way in which a crucifix would be not an Anglican thing. I would never consider it to be Anglican to avoid doing something simply because Roman Catholics do it.
I sit in wonder as I read these posts. I am amazed at seeing or reading that people frown upon others within the Anglican community that may wear or display a Crucifix. I am an old and uneducated man that has traveled a varied Path of Life. I have seen, heard and participated in many avenues of Christianity and also the Eastern Buddhism. Through all of that, I think I can conclude that God Almighty will NOT have a tally-sheet at Heaven's Gate to check-off if an Anglican wore or displayed a Crucifix versus a barren Cross. Why is anyone dwelling on such things? I am curious as to where the negative vein comes from. I wear and display a Crucifix to remind me of Jesus Christ's sacrifice and suffering for me and all others. I lived and grew up in a very divided family. The paternal-side was Roman Catholic and the maternal-side was Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Neither side would admit that they had much in-common. I grew up being told that non-Lutherans would be damned. I grew up being told that non-RCC would be damned. I sat in awe and wonder thinking about my grandparents, on both sides, being damned, yet believing in the same Jesus Christ as their Savior.
I do not use them, would not use them, and could bring the anger of my bishop if I chose to use them.
Whilst he uses a Cross upon which there is a painted crucified Christ, he, on account of his Eastern influences, is against statuary.
I am quite generic in my aniconic / moderate iconoclast understanding, so would not even use his painted cross.
There was at least one day of the year... maybe Good Friday, I forget... that I recall from my boyhood as a RC, when we would all file forward to kiss the feet of Jesus on a crucifix. Yes, if you asked anyone what they were doing, they would say they were kissing Jesus' feet. They really were kissing an icon.
That memory is a negative one for me. It felt wrong to me then as a young RC. Looking back as an ex-RC, it still feels wrong.
I think that experience and memory figures into my overall disfavor of crucifixes. Just saying this by way of explanation, not trying to change anyone's mind.
Why would he get upset if has one himself?
I am confused abuot why you would get upset with a kiss on the feet of Jesus? It is an act of veneration not worship shown to Jesus. I don't and would not do it in my private worship and would nto want it done in the church but I don't actually see anything wrong about it.
There’s just so much toxicity around the RC use of the crucifix. But as their Trent identity recedes, we can return to our own usages of this most noble (in itself) symbol. But each one at their pace; some perhaps rarely or never, others who were not traumatized by the RC, more so. The point is, the symbol itself, today in 2022, is free from its toxic misuse.
It's because we were not kissing the feet of Jesus, we were kissing a man-made figurine of a human body on a cross. Yet people think to themselves, "I am kissing Jesus."
I didn't say it upset me. It did make me feel uneasy; it felt inappropriate to think of a cast image as God the Son. By that time I had been taught the commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them." There we were, bending our necks and kissing a graven image made in the likeness of Christ.
Maybe I can draw an illustration here to explain what I mean.
Would you reverently kiss your keyfob? Or your cell phone? I don't think you would, because you know they are just things; they are man-made objects. Useful, yes. But not worthy of reverence, even though they represent things far more substantial than the objects themselves (the ability to get in your car and drive, or the ability to communicate near-instantaneously with someone halfway around the globe.
Okay, so a religious icon such as a crucifix represents something more substantial than just the base materials it's made out of. But it is still, fundamentally, a man-made thing. A crucifix may be gazed upon, as we remind ourselves of the ignominy of Christ's suffering and death for our sakes. It becomes problematic, though, when we make the mental transference and begin to relate to the object as Christ in Person. That is what people are tempted to do (and many actually are doing) when they pray to a crucifix, kiss a crucifix, etc.
BTW, I now am curious to know when the church first began using a crucifix (with corpus, as opposed to the bare cross). Searching online, from what I see so far, it appears not to have been a practice of the early church, fwiw.
Even the RC site, newadvent.org, admits that the corpus crucifix did not appear during the first 500 years of the church.
Indeed. I was shopping for a nice watch at the time and the bookstore happens to be on the side of the building where one of the larger jewelry stores is. I ended up parking on that side, saw the little store front, and decided to step in for a look around.
I don’t think you’re wrong. Because of my background in Eastern Orthodoxy, I know that kissing icons can lead to idolatry, and the crucifix in that case functions as an icon. An icon is an image that is venerated. So if a crucifix goes from an image to an icon, that can be extremely dangerous.
The reason I’m not against crucifixes in the general sense is because in other kinds of situations, you see a painting of Jesus in your Bible and you don’t necessarily automatically want to venerate it. Similarly you may have a depiction of Jesus in the crucifix on your wall, and don’t necessarily want to venerate it. The main reason people would want to venerate such things is because of special extra training, typically in E. Orthodoxy and in a few corners of Romanism. So as long as you don’t turn images into icons, it’s fine. We allow images of Christ, so the crucifix is just another case of that, like a drawing of Jesus in a Bible.
I agree that the veneration of icons can be dangerous but not in itself wrong. That is why I don't want it in a church but am ok with it in a private devotion. Also I did not know you were EO at one time. If it was not for Anglicanism I would be EO
I posted my thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy here: