Non-Catholic views on the Crucifix

Jester Minute

I am interested in hearing non-Catholic Christians thoughts and feelings about the Crucifix. I am not interested in a discussion on the place of such symbols in public buildings.

Let me hear what you think about the Crucifix, and please also state your denomination. I am keen to hear the views of a selection of persons, not only their personal opinion but also the general stance of their denomination.

PDN

I'm a Pentecostal, and I feel very uncomfortable having any representations of Jesus Christ (paintings or statues) displayed.

In our churches, if crosses are ever displayed, they would be empty.

JimiTime

Non-Denominational Christian here. Same as PDN really. I don't like religious trinketry of any sort for a multitude of reasons. One of the things is that it encourages 'rabbits foot' type behaviour. People thinking that having a statue or picture or crucifix or medal etc, somehow 'protects' them etc. They are not spiritually healthy IMO.

homer911

Presbyterian here..

Empty cross only

Jesus dieing on the cross was a moment in history. Without trivialising His death and suffering, this would have meant nothing without his resurrection. We have a risen saviour, the cross is and always will be empty!

homer911

I should have added that you probably wont even find a cross in a Presbyterian Church - apparently there are strict rules (somewhere?) on church layout and architecture - for example the norm is not to have a central aisle in a Presbyterian church, someone once told me that the only thing that should be in the centre of a Presbyterian church is the Bible...

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

I should have added that you probably wont even find a cross in a Presbyterian Church - apparently there are strict rules (somewhere?) on church layout and architecture - for example the norm is not to have a central aisle in a Presbyterian church, someone once told me that the only thing that should be in the centre of a Presbyterian church is the Bible...

interesting, never knew that.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

I'm a Pentecostal, and I feel very uncomfortable having any representations of Jesus Christ (paintings or statues) displayed.

Would it be ok if I asked you to expand on that PDN? On why you are uncomfortable with representations of Jesus?

SonOfAdam

I agree with all the above. I feel that a crucifix should be left empty not only because of the fact that Jesus is no longer there but also they generally tend to look like a bloodless, sanitised version of reality (picture shown, case in point). If you need to have one, have a realistic looking one or leave it empty.

Denomination : Child of the Father and co-heir with Christ (:D)

keano_afc

Non-denominational Christian here too.

I wear a cross, as it reminds me of Christ's unconditional love for me and the pain He went through for my sin and the sin of the world. It has to be empty though, I see no sense in portraying his dead\dying body on the cross when it was his ressurection that set me free.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

interesting, never knew that.

Me neither (but the Presbyterian church in Naas has a central aisle - they must have forgot! ).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Me neither (but the Presbyterian church in Naas has a central aisle - they must have forgot! ).

burn them! :pac::P

PDN

strobe wrote: »

Would it be ok if I asked you to expand on that PDN? On why you are uncomfortable with representations of Jesus?

I believe that it can lead to idolatry. That probably isn't the intention, but that's where if often ends up.

Jester Minute

Are there any Evangelicals here who can share their views?

I wondered also about the non-denominational designation. It's not much to go on - if someone can clarify it for me that would be good.

philologos

homer911 wrote: »

I should have added that you probably wont even find a cross in a Presbyterian Church - apparently there are strict rules (somewhere?) on church layout and architecture - for example the norm is not to have a central aisle in a Presbyterian church, someone once told me that the only thing that should be in the centre of a Presbyterian church is the Bible...

There is a cross right at the front of Lucan Presbyterian. Are you sure about that?

OP, I'm Anglican but I largely agree with PDN. There are stained glass windows in a lot of our churches, including the one I attend, but for the most part I think we can't know what Jesus looked like and it's about time we stopped depicting Him as a Western European when he was probably nothing of the sort.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

Are there any Evangelicals here who can share their views?

I wondered also about the non-denominational designation. It's not much to go on - if someone can clarify it for me that would be good.

I think pretty well every Christian that has responded in this thread would be Evangelical?

keano_afc

Jester Minute wrote: »

Are there any Evangelicals here who can share their views?

I wondered also about the non-denominational designation. It's not much to go on - if someone can clarify it for me that would be good.

I would consider myself a bible believing Christian. I use the bible as my only authority on all things.

I believe most people would refer to me as a born again Christian.

gbee

SonOfAdam wrote: »

I agree with all the above. I feel that a crucifix should be left emptyt (:D)

As it was too in the Catholic Church, until they coined up Hell, Purgatory, The Prostitution of Mary Magdalene and the Passion of Christ among others ~ after that the dying Christ appears on the crucifix.

antiskeptic

Non-demoninational Christian. I've no problem with a cross with or without Jesus on it. It can serve as a focus point for meditating on what he did. I know that they can be used in hocus-pocus fashion (I'm reminded of the toes on some or other statue of some or other 'saint' in St. Peters which was worn down to the quick through "rub-of-the-relic'- ism) but misuse of a substance isn't a reason to decry it altogether.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

I think pretty well every Christian that has responded in this thread would be Evangelical?

Well I'm evangelical and I'm Catholic.

gbee wrote: »

As it was too in the Catholic Church, until they coined up Hell, Purgatory, The Prostitution of Mary Magdalene and the Passion of Christ among others ~ after that the dying Christ appears on the crucifix.

The Catholic Church invented the Passion of Christ as well as hell? :eek:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non-demoninational Christian. I've no problem with a cross with or without Jesus on it. It can serve as a focus point for meditating on what he did. I know that they can be used in hocus-pocus fashion (I'm reminded of the toes on some or other statue of some or other 'saint' in St. Peters which was worn down to the quick through "rub-of-the-relic'- ism) but misuse of a substance isn't a reason to decry it altogether.

That's a very Catholic view antiskeptic.

homer911

PDN wrote: »

Me neither (but the Presbyterian church in Naas has a central aisle - they must have forgot! ).

I did say "the norm" - there are definitely Presbyterian churches that do have a central aisle. I've tried googling Presbyterian architecture but havent found anything

(sorry, dragging off topic)

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Non-demoninational Christian. I've no problem with a cross with or without Jesus on it. It can serve as a focus point for meditating on what he did. I know that they can be used in hocus-pocus fashion (I'm reminded of the toes on some or other statue of some or other 'saint' in St. Peters which was worn down to the quick through "rub-of-the-relic'- ism) but misuse of a substance isn't a reason to decry it altogether.

Jester Minute wrote: »

That's a very Catholic view antiskeptic.

It's more ships passing than that I'm afraid. One immediately questions the teaching ability of a church when it produces a mindset widespread enough to wear the toes off stone effigies.

My sense of God isn't that he's got a problem with graven images per se. His problem stems from them being worshipped/consulted instead of him. Praying to 'saints'/mary/the dead hit's the bullseye in that regard.

Jester Minute

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's more ships passing than that I'm afraid. One immediately questions the teaching ability of a church when it produces a mindset widespread enough to wear the toes off stone effigies.

You'll always be welcome aboard the bark of Peter.

Wearing the toes off stone effigies is the least of our concerns at the minute though.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My sense of God isn't that he's got a problem with graven images per se. His problem stems from them being worshipped/consulted instead of him. Praying to 'saints'/mary/the dead hit's the bullseye in that regard.

That's a very Catholic view antiskeptic.

The statues are not idols nor are they to be worshipped or prayed to. They are like reminders, representations of real persons who we believe are in heaven and are friends of God so we can ask for their intercession, just as you might ask a friend on earth to pray for you before a job interview or operation. The statue can help us in this regard.

antiskeptic

You'll always be welcome aboard the bark of Peter

I doubt the reason for abandoning it in the first place will ever change.

Jester Minute wrote: »

The statues are not idols nor are they to be worshipped or prayed to. They are like reminders, representations of real persons who we believe are in heaven and are friends of God so we can ask for their intercession, just as you might ask a friend on earth to pray for you before a job interview or operation. The statue can help us in this regard.

So why do folk rub the toes away? And why the toes?

Jester Minute

antiskeptic wrote: »

I doubt the reason for abandoning it in the first place will ever change.

So why do folk rub the toes away? And why the toes?

Maybe the toes are the only part that they can reach?

lmaopml

Edit: oops..you asked for non Catholic...sorry! I read too quick and take in too little in my enthusiasm with my 'net' time..sorry guys..

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non-demoninational Christian. I've no problem with a cross with or without Jesus on it. It can serve as a focus point for meditating on what he did. I know that they can be used in hocus-pocus fashion (I'm reminded of the toes on some or other statue of some or other 'saint' in St. Peters which was worn down to the quick through "rub-of-the-relic'- ism) but misuse of a substance isn't a reason to decry it altogether.

I don't buy the whole 'it serves as a focus point' stuff tbh, but I also accept the misuse is no reason to decry. I don't think its intrinsically wrong, but I don't think it a wise practice. As we've both alluded to, it does seem to carry with it that kind of 'good luck charm' thing.

I see all of the stuff as worthless. There is nothing you can do with a stature present, that you can't do without one. Follow that with the fact that statues etc, can lead to the ism's we have talked about and all I see is these things being worthless at best, and encouraging trinketry at worst.

homer911

Hey Jester - now that you've got non-Catholic views on the crucifix, whats your reaction to them?

antiskeptic

Jester Minute wrote: »

Maybe the toes are the only part that they can reach?

Nah, you could reach other bits. And why rub them away in the first place?

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

I see all of the stuff as worthless. There is nothing you can do with a stature present, that you can't do without one.

I dunno. There's a statue outside a Catholic church I pass by occasionally. Because it's at a set of traffic lights you get the opportunity to pause for a moment and reflect. If it wasn't there, there's no reason to suppose I'd reflect at all.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dunno. There's a statue outside a Catholic church I pass by occasionally. Because it's at a set of traffic lights you get the opportunity to pause for a moment and reflect. If it wasn't there, there's no reason to suppose I'd reflect at all.

Some of us are more righteous than that and reflect on Christ all of the time. You mustn't be a real Christian at all.






....Only messin:P:)


Seriously though, I see your point, but the ends don't justify the means IMO. I'm sure that there are many things that cause you to reflect no? i really think the negatives outweigh the positives.

Jester Minute

homer911 wrote: »

Hey Jester - now that you've got non-Catholic views on the crucifix, whats your reaction to them?

The crucifix illustrates for me the price paid by the Lord for our salvation. It shows how much God loves us. It reminds us that we are called to pick up our own cross and shows us that we are not alone in our suffering. It also helps to inspire feelings of sorrow for sin. Those are just a few of my thoughts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nah, you could reach other bits. And why rub them away in the first place?

I dunno. Maybe you should ask them? I do see a few people touching a statue in my church. I don't do it myself, but I have no idea what is going on inside the minds of people who do this. It could be a child-like faith, or it could be superstition. I don't know.

JimiTime

Jester Minute wrote: »

T I do see a few people touching a statue in my church. I don't do it myself, but I have no idea what is going on inside the minds of people who do this. It could be a child-like faith, or it could be superstition. I don't know.

I have issue with this. I perceive lots of RC's, kissing rosary beads, wearing 'holy' medals for protection. Putting a statuette of some saint or another in their car to keep them safe driving etc. In Christian circles, I note that this is pretty much exclusive to the RCC. As the church propagates such trinkets, as it sells them, I don't believe it can wash its hands of responsibility. This witchcrafty style trinketry is rife. Yet I have never seen or heard of such things being discouraged. Do you believe that these things offer protection? If not, don't you think your church has a duty to defend its members from undertaking such idolatrous practice?

Its one thing to say these things are misused (Though what these medals and trinkets are useful for I don't know), but their misuse is pandemic. In such a circumstance, should their not be leadership in the RCC to vehemently oppose such practice?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

I have issue with this. I perceive lots of RC's, kissing rosary beads, wearing 'holy' medals for protection. Putting a statuette of some saint or another in their car to keep them safe driving etc. In Christian circles, I note that this is pretty much exclusive to the RCC. As the church propagates such trinkets, as it sells them, I don't believe it can wash its hands of responsibility. This witchcrafty style trinketry is rife. Yet I have never seen or heard of such things being discouraged. Do you believe that these things offer protection? If not, don't you think your church has a duty to defend its members from undertaking such idolatrous practice?

Its one thing to say these things are misused (Though what these medals and trinkets are useful for I don't know), but their misuse is pandemic. In such a circumstance, should their not be leadership in the RCC to vehemently oppose such practice?

I think there is an innate impulse towards idolatry in all human beings - part of our sinful nature, I guess. Something that began for a good reason as a reminder of our faith can easily become an object of veneration, then an object of worship.

A good example of this is the bronze serpent that was used as a focal point for people to be healed in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4-9). The Israelites kept it as a reminder of God's mercy. But by the time of Hezekiah it had become an object of worship and had to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).

Protestants can be just as prone to venerating physical objects. I remember 17 years ago when a friend of mine was preaching at an Evangelical Church on Belfast's Shankill Road. They had the table from which they served communion ('The Lord's Table') at the front of the hall, and obviously felt it was disrespectful to set anything on this 'holy' table. So they put a little notice on the table that read "Please do not set anything on the Lord's Table"!

My friend was half way through his sermon and, without thinking, went to set his Bible on the table. There was a sharp intake of breath from the congregation. My friend read the little notice and then said, "Does anyone here really think that the Lord will be offended if I put His book on His table?"

gbee

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you believe that these things offer protection?

Seeing as we're drifting off topic, I believe a garlic garland keeps away werewolves and vampires.

And what about those gargoyles on cathedrals, prominent on some non RCC buildings.

Jester Minute

JimiTime wrote: »

I have issue with this. I perceive lots of RC's, kissing rosary beads, wearing 'holy' medals for protection. Putting a statuette of some saint or another in their car to keep them safe driving etc. In Christian circles, I note that this is pretty much exclusive to the RCC. As the church propagates such trinkets, as it sells them, I don't believe it can wash its hands of responsibility. This witchcrafty style trinketry is rife. Yet I have never seen or heard of such things being discouraged. Do you believe that these things offer protection? If not, don't you think your church has a duty to defend its members from undertaking such idolatrous practice?

Its one thing to say these things are misused (Though what these medals and trinkets are useful for I don't know), but their misuse is pandemic. In such a circumstance, should their not be leadership in the RCC to vehemently oppose such practice?

Inanimate objects don't offer protection. Our protection is in God. If people studied the Catechism there would be no issue with superstition or excesses, and people would have a proper understanding and use for sacramentals (which have a valid and spiritually healthy place in the Catholic spiritual life). Priests and bishops need to teach obviously, but people can also study the faith for themselves if they so wish. If one has time to watch X-Factor, one has time to study the faith.

JimiTime

Jester Minute wrote: »

Inanimate objects don't offer protection. Our protection is in God. If people studied the Catechism there would be no issue with superstition or excesses, and people would have a proper understanding and use for sacramentals (which have a valid and spiritually healthy place in the Catholic spiritual life). Priests and bishops need to teach obviously, but people can also study the faith for themselves if they so wish. If one has time to watch X-Factor, one has time to study the faith.

As a Roman Catholic yourself, do you get the impression that rather than speak and teach the truth, that some of your hierarchy try appease everyone instead? I get the distinct impression, as I did in my 12 years of Catholic school, that its more about bums on seats, than telling the truth?

Onesimus

Yo yo yo and a ho ho ho, it is Christmas let us put arguments aside at least for Christmas.

God bless you everyone. ( a bit of oliver twist for you but sincere nonetheless )

georgieporgy

I keep a picture of my wife on my desk and a similar pic of my kids in my wallet.(do I have to explain why?)
Likewise I have a picture of my deceased parents and some other relatives in a discreet place.I might even kiss the tattered photo of long dead grandda who I remember fondly from childhood. Some people still have pictures of JFK and his missus, others favour Che or John Lennon.All dead strangers whom they admire for a variety of reasons.

Idolatory is rampant! Or is it our understanding of Sacred Art that is off kilter.

gbee

JimiTime wrote: »

As a Roman Catholic yourself, do you get the impression that rather than speak and teach the truth, that some of your hierarchy try appease everyone instead? I get the distinct impression, as I did in my 12 years of Catholic school, that its more about bums on seats, than telling the truth?

Yer not far off there, you might know what the current Pope said about crimes against children.

My view is the Roman Church was founded by Romans so they could continue their empire in a disguise, I firmly believe that the church of the guy who's birthday is celebrated today, has been lost but was supposed to have been headed by Mary Magdalene after Christ's departure ~ hence her being cast adrift by one celebrated as the 'first Pope' in RCC land, of course he never was and was dead 300+ years at the formation of the RCC.

Jester Minute

JimiTime wrote: »

As a Roman Catholic yourself, do you get the impression that rather than speak and teach the truth, that some of your hierarchy try appease everyone instead? I get the distinct impression, as I did in my 12 years of Catholic school, that its more about bums on seats, than telling the truth?

YES!



Sadly, that is the case. It breaks my heart.

This sums up how I think and feel about it:

Just as Saint Gregory said in his own time, you will find many priests today who fail to preach the truth. They might preach about Christ, but they fail to preach Christ. They might preach about patience and peace, but they are failing in patience and peace because their minds are overflowing with intellectual arrogance while their hearts are lacking in humble charity. And it will break your heart.

You will find many priests unwilling to speak about the need to put aside selfishness, competitiveness, rivalries, lawsuits, partying (“drinking bouts”), sexual promiscuity, lifestyles defiant of chastity, foul language, and angry outbursts. These are the things on which our society is now based. Many bishops and priests have too much to lose (like financial support from arrogant, cut-throat, hard-drinking, licentious patrons) by preaching the truth in its explicit fullness. And it will break your heart.

Full article: http://www.chastitysf.com/q_guide.htm

Jester Minute

gbee wrote: »

Yer not far off there, you might know what the current Pope said about crimes against children.

My view is the Roman Church was founded by Romans so they could continue their empire in a disguise, I firmly believe that the church of the guy who's birthday is celebrated today, has been lost but was supposed to have been headed by Mary Magdalene after Christ's departure ~ hence her being cast adrift by one celebrated as the 'first Pope' in RCC land, of course he never was and was dead 300+ years at the formation of the RCC.

That's a nice theory but it makes a joke of Mt. 16:18 when Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. If Mary Magdalene's 'church' never got off the ground or was annihilated at the start, then so much for the promise.

Happy Christmas to one and all!

santing

I regard the Crucifix as idolatry and a direct violation of the 2nd commandment.

JimiTime

santing wrote: »

I regard the Crucifix as idolatry and a direct violation of the 2nd commandment.

Isn't idolatry in the motive? I agree that it CAN be an idol, but intrinsically so?

Remember the copper serpent. It was not an idol, but it BECAME an idol due to the motives of the people. Intrinsically though, it wasn't an idol.

I personally wouldn't have them anyway btw, as I think they are completely unnecessary and the negatives outweigh any positives people think of.

davebloggs

I am Catholic and believe the cross to be the symbol of Jesus' suffering for us all, however I don't believe it should be santised in any way, the Romans didn't nail you to wood but leave you with a loincloth to preserve your dignity, it was both torture and humiliation and as such any dipiction of the crucifiction should, in my opinion, have Jesus naked on the cross.

As to the point about idolism, there is nothing else in this life, if you are kneeling in front of a cross then Jesus is there before you, take it away and there is nothing.

Rodin

there's one hanging in a surgical theatre in this country.
this hospital is not a religious one
In my opinion, it has no right to be there.But I know if I suggested this it would cause a ruckus. I'd find it quite offensive being a patient of a non-christian denomination.

antiskeptic

Rodin wrote: »

there's one hanging in a surgical theatre in this country. this hospital is not a religious one In my opinion, it has no right to be there.But I know if I suggested this it would cause a ruckus. I'd find it quite offensive being a patient of a non-christian denomination.

If the only thing you can figure to get worked up over when entering surgery is a crucifix on the wall then you need to get out more.

lionmqj

Evangelical.
Skipped to the end.
Empty cross, because He is risen "it is finished".
He lives.

Jester Minute

lionmqj wrote: »

Evangelical.
Skipped to the end.
Empty cross, because He is risen "it is finished".
He lives.

We get to the resurrection through the crucifixion. We must imitate the Lord by picking up our own cross, dying to ourselves, and following Him. The crucifix is a reminder of this.