Using a Cross or Crucifix?

[GodsMercifulLove]

Hi guys, just been doing a bit of thinking and was wondering; do you prefer the use of a Cross or Crucifix and why?

This is not a debate, merely a request for opinions

God bless you all.

 

[bsd058]

Hi guys, just been doing a bit of thinking and was wondering; do you prefer the use of a Cross or Crucifix and why?

This is not a debate, merely a request for opinions

God bless you all.

I don't use either. What would I use it for? A crutch?

 

[MichaelNZ]

Protestants don't generally use crucifixes. My church (Reformed) doesn't even have a cross. We have the symbol of the Reformed Church of New Zealand on the pulpit hanging (Bible and torch).

I remember seeing a Jack Chick tract where a Fundamentalist man removes crucifixes from a Catholic/Santer[FONT=&quot]ía house, saying that the Jesus on the crucifixes is dead, while his Jesus is alive.

Or maybe it's simply due to the prohibition against graven images.
[/FONT]

 

[TwinMommy]

I use to have a necklace with a cross on it. It broke and I haven't gotten another one. I decided against it as so many people wear crosses and it means nothing to them and it i not like someone would look at the cross and rush over and ask me questions.

 

[JM]

I really don't see much use for them if you mean having them somehow used or around a place where the saints gather for worship.

 

[twin1954]

Hi guys, just been doing a bit of thinking and was wondering; do you prefer the use of a Cross or Crucifix and why?

This is not a debate, merely a request for opinions

God bless you all.

In all honesty either one is blasphemy. We do not worship a symbol nor do we worship the cross. We worship Him who died on a cross the subsitute for sinners. More than that to look at the cross alone is to miss the greatest truth of the cross. It is to miss that death could not hold Him who put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. I don't worship a dead savior I worship the living God in the Lord Jesus Christ who right now sits on the throne ruling until He makes His enemies His footstool. He who sits on that throne in absolute sovereign power and authority is my elder brother who loves me and gave Himself for me.

The Lord gave us only one symbol of His death and that is the bread and the wine. Crosses and crucifixes are nothing but man made substitutes for truth.

 

[bsd058]

In all honesty either one is blasphemy. We do not worship a symbol nor do we worship the cross. We worship Him who died on a cross the subsitute for sinners. More than that to look at the cross alone is to miss the greatest truth of the cross. It is to miss that death could not hold Him who put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. I don't worship a dead savior I worship the living God in the Lord Jesus Christ who right now sits on the throne ruling until He makes His enemies His footstool. He who sits on that throne in absolute sovereign power and authority is my elder brother who loves me and gave Himself for me.

The Lord gave us only one symbol of His death and that is the bread and the wine. Crosses and crucifixes are nothing but man made substitutes for truth.

In all fairness, most people who wear these things don't worship them. And personally I don't see anything wrong with wearing such a symbol. As long as it remains a symbol. But if it is going to be "used" then it should be thrown away. Nothing can add to God's grace, let alone a symbol.

 

[twin1954]

In all fairness, most people who wear these things don't worship them. And personally I don't see anything wrong with wearing such a symbol. As long as it remains a symbol. But if it is going to be "used" then it should be thrown away. Nothing can add to God's grace, let alone a symbol.

If they were to find the very wood that the Lord was crucufied on the best thing they could do with it is burn it.

The people of Isreal kept that brazen serpent from the time of Moses until Hezekiah.
2Ki 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2Ki 18:2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
2Ki 18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
2Ki 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

 

[bsd058]

If they were to find the very wood that the Lord was crucufied on the best thing they could do with it is burn it.

The people of Isreal kept that brazen serpent from the time of Moses until Hezekiah.
2Ki 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2Ki 18:2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
2Ki 18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
2Ki 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

It certainly would be bad if people worshiped the cross the way Israel worshiped the brazen serpent, saying prayers to it, but literally, I've never even heard of people doing that.

 

[WisdomTree]

Hi guys, just been doing a bit of thinking and was wondering; do you prefer the use of a Cross or Crucifix and why?

This is not a debate, merely a request for opinions

God bless you all.

Why not both?

PS You should totally get the Orthodox Cross!

 

[bsd058]

Why not both?

PS You should totally get the Orthodox Cross!

I'm interested to know how a Roman Catholic "uses" a cross. What does it help you do?

 

[Cappadocious]

I'm interested to know how a Roman Catholic "uses" a cross. What does it help you do?

If I may give my own answer:

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we believe that the thing you're wearing right now, that body of yours, we believe it's indispensable to your being. "Essential", if you will. Obviously your current one is soulish and will need to be reconstituted, but having one is indispensable nonetheless.

If you're bold enough, you may go so far as to say that you *are* a body. That you cannot hope to encounter anything at all, or perform the Divine Service for which you were created, without your body, being that you are one.

If we have accepted these things, that human existence, and Divine Service to God, involve the body, then what a human being does with the body matters. These acts must have the possibility of being of eternal and essential significance to God and men and creation.

Therefore, when the Scriptures speak of the workings of the inner man, inner wisdom of the heart, the spirit, the soul, these *must*, in the sanctified man, shine forth bodily. And so we cannot embrace dualistic dichotomies between "the soul" and "what is done in the body". Nor can we interpret "heartfelt prayer" to mean "intellectual process" contrasted to what is material, set aside as merely "meaningless ritual" or "stuff made by hands that is therefore garbage".

For the Apostle says: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

And "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your Rational Divine Service."

Now that we have that out of the way, what does the Cross do?

The Cross is made of matter, the symbolon (coming together) through which the salvation of the world, material and spiritual, was performed by Christ. It re-capitulates all of the saving acts of Christ, and his ruling power, and his kingship. So to form a Cross from matter is to sanctify matter through its use in the name of Christ, which is something that is worthy and proper for humans to do.

Now, you have a Cross, which is the symbol and re-presentation (meaning it actually makes present) the ruling and conquering power of Christ. So the Cross is used for the crushing of adverse powers, the sanctification and blessing of matter, the proclamation of the Reign of God, the blessing and coming together of humans in Christ, the call to repentance, the remembrance of the Sacrifice, and many other things that we can attain to through Christ and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God our Father.

 

[bsd058]

If I may give my own answer:

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we believe that the thing you're wearing right now, that body of yours, we believe it's indispensable to your being. "Essential", if you will. Obviously your current one is soulish and will need to be reconstituted, but having one is indispensable nonetheless.


If you're bold enough, you may go so far as to say that you *are* a body. That you cannot hope to encounter anything at all, or perform the Divine Service for which you were created, without your body, being that you are one.

If we have accepted these things, that human existence, and Divine Service to God, involve the body, then what a human being does with the body matters. These acts must have the possibility of being of eternal and
essential significance to God and men and creation.

Therefore, when the Scriptures speak of the workings of the inner man, inner wisdom of the heart, the spirit, the soul, these *must*, in the sanctified man, shine forth bodily. And so we cannot embrace dualistic dichotomies between "the soul" and "what is done in the body". Nor can we interpret "heartfelt prayer" to mean "intellectual process" contrasted to what is material, set aside as merely "meaningless ritual" or "stuff made by hands that is therefore garbage".

For the Apostle says: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

And "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your Rational Divine Service."

Now that we have that out of the way, what does the Cross do?

The Cross is made of matter, the symbolon (coming together) through which the salvation of the world, material and spiritual, was performed by Christ. It re-capitulates all of the saving acts of Christ, and his ruling power, and his kingship. So to form a Cross from matter is to sanctify matter through its use in the name of Christ, which is something that is worthy and proper for humans to do.

Now, you have a Cross, which is the symbol and re-presentation (meaning it actually makes present) the ruling and conquering power of Christ. So the Cross is used for the crushing of adverse powers, the sanctification and blessing of matter, the proclamation of the Reign of God, the blessing and coming together of humans in Christ, the call to repentance, the remembrance of the Sacrifice, and many other things that we can attain to through Christ and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God our Father.

Here's only one problem I have with your explanation. You have jumped from the term "the cross" as a description of the act of Christ's sacrifice to save his elect to "the cross" as a symbol formed by constructing wood. I humbly state that I believe there is equivocation being committed on your part, and a logical jump from Christ's saving and the Holy Spirit sanctifying us through His grace (and showing that grace through physical acts) to sanctifying matter by shaping it into the form of what we believe Jesus' cross looked like.

A symbol is a like a shadow, not an actual presence of something, but a form of language that tells our minds what we are to associate our thoughts with when we sense the shape of that form of matter.

I don't think it actually makes present. A representation makes a presentation only in a figurative sense. It presents it in the sense that a movie might recreate history before televisions existed. A movie does not actually present history in the sense that we see actual history before our eyes, it only recreates what happened in the sense that the "shadow" of the movie makes you think about the history the film represents to the viewer. The OP doesn't want us to debate, but that would be only one objection I would have to what you wrote

Further, the man who dies still exists and waits for God to resurrect him. While I understand the body is important to fully glorifying God, and it is a part of us that God will resurrect, I believe we exist apart from our bodies, too. Jesus reminded the Pharisees that God is the God of the living, not the dead. So Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive in some sense, even though the final resurrection hasn't taken place yet. They don't seem to be physically alive, but they are alive in the sense that they are cognitive of things. Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and yet their bodies have not been resurrected (though I'm not sure what the disciples were seeing, it probably wasn't the prophets' resurrected bodies). So they can still exist without their bodies, which kind of proves at least a dichotomy of soul and body, don't you think?

 

[Catherineanne]

I wear a crucifix. I also have crucifixes in my home. They are a reminder to me of the Lord's death on the cross, and also a reminder that he suffers alongside mankind; he is not a distant God but one who bears our sins and understands our frailties.

I don't mind at all if others prefer not to wear a cross, as long as they leave me alone to worship my God as I see fit, which includes wearing a crucifix to remind me of how much I owe him.

 

[Cappadocious]

A symbol is a like a shadow, not an actual presence of something, but a form of language that tells our minds what we are to associate our thoughts with when we sense the shape of that form of matter.
I don't think it actually makes present. A representation makes a presentation only in a figurative sense. It presents it in the sense that a movie might recreate history before televisions existed. A movie does not actually present history in the sense that we see actual history before our eyes, it only recreates what happened in the sense that the "shadow" of the movie makes you think about the history the film represents to the viewer.

I invite you to investigate the history of ideas, the philosophies and cosmologies available to the Jews and Christians of the first millennium. I think you will find that the understanding of symbol and representation you are espousing here post-dates that time period.

Just as you wouldn't expect a first century Jew to hold to a heliocentric cosmology, you cannot expect a first century Jew to have adhered to notions of symbol and representation that do not appear until the turn of the millennium with the advent of a particular form of philosophical realism.

I personally don't see how any Christian could believe that when the Scriptures talk about Christ as the Image of the Father, they mean that he is a mere disconnected figurative reference to the Father.

I believe we exist apart from our bodies, too. Jesus reminded the Pharisees that God is the God of the living, not the dead. So Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive in some sense, even though the final resurrection hasn't taken place yet. They don't seem to be physically alive, but they are alive in the sense that they are cognitive of things. Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration and yet their bodies have not been resurrected (though I'm not sure what the disciples were seeing, it probably wasn't the prophets' resurrected bodies). So they can still exist without their bodies, which kind of proves at least a dichotomy of soul and body, don't you think?

I believe this is a complicated issue that would require its own thread.

It is worth noting that Elijiah was taken up into heaven bodily, and it was believed that Moses's body was recovered by angels. So the two who appeared with Christ had their bodies, according to the tradition of the time.

I prefer to understand the state of the reposed as one of somehow entering into an incarnate state in the Coming Age, which will be realized chronologically at the Second Coming. So I deny any form of "soul sleep" and agree with you that the reposed are not dead.

In any case, the incarnate human has no other experience of reality apart from that which is delivered bodily, and sanctification comes to the entire man. If you are interested, check out what St. Irenaeus of Lyons has to say about how the entire man, and not merely a part, is made in God's image.

 

[bsd058]

I invite you to investigate the history of ideas, the philosophies and cosmologies available to the Jews and Christians of the first millennium. I think you will find that the understanding of symbol and representation you are espousing here post-dates that time period.

Just as you wouldn't expect a first century Jew to hold to a heliocentric cosmology, you cannot expect a first century Jew to have adhered to notions of symbol and representation that do not appear until the turn of the millennium with the advent of a particular form of philosophical realism.

I personally don't see how any Christian could believe that when the Scriptures talk about Christ as the Image of the Father, they mean that he is a mere disconnected figurative reference to the Father.


I believe this is a complicated issue that would require its own thread.

It is worth noting that Elijiah was taken up into heaven bodily, and it was believed that Moses's body was recovered by angels. So the two who appeared with Christ had their bodies, according to the tradition of the time.

I prefer to understand the state of the reposed as one of somehow entering into an incarnate state in the Coming Age, which will be realized chronologically at the Second Coming. So I deny any form of "soul sleep" and agree with you that the reposed are not dead.

In any case, the incarnate human has no other experience of reality apart from that which is delivered bodily, and sanctification comes to the entire man. If you are interested, check out what St. Irenaeus of Lyons has to say about how the entire man, and not merely a part, is made in God's image.

I don't see Christ as the image of the Father in the same sense that I spoke about shadows.

I am interested. I am going to bookmark this page and save it for readings that will interest me. Any particular books you want to recommend that will guide my reading on the subject? Thanks.

 

[Cappadocious]

Any particular books you want to recommend that will guide my reading on the subject? Thanks.

Plato, Aristotle, the continental philosophers. For my St. Irenaeus recommendation, Against Heresies Book V.

 

[JM]

I just happen to blog about Icons and images last night: Feileadh Mor

Using a philosophical framework of categories and causes borrowed from Aristotle John of Damascus argued the Second Commandment was abrogated by the Incarnation of Christ. This is what Cappa wants you to do...borrow Greek philosophy. We cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini. It is true that once the State and church became one it tried to make Christianity more palatable for the Greek pagans by allowing images but this isn't biblical or historical. “If one accepted this vocabulary and Aristotelian framework, then devotion to visual images in Christianity was safe.” (MacCulloch, page 448) William R. Cannon points out, “A custom which primitive Christianity looked upon as idolatry was common practice in the eight century. Consequently what in ancient times had been an innovation was considered during this period as tradition.” (page 105)

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years
Diarmaid MacCulloch
Penguin (2009)
ISBN-13: 978-0141021898

History of Christianity in the Middle ages; From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople
William R. Cannon
Abingdon Press (1960)
ISBN: n/a


also see Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1:14-16

Calvin deals with the so-called "Ecumenical Council" of 787.

 

[JM]

I don't see Christ as the image of the Father in the same sense that I spoke about shadows.

I am interested. I am going to bookmark this page and save it for readings that will interest me. Any particular books you want to recommend that will guide my reading on the subject? Thanks.

bsd, I would recommend reading Augustine on the Trinity to understand what is meant by 'image of the Father.'


On the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cappadocious]

Using a philosophical framework of categories and causes borrowed from Aristotle John of Damascus argued the Second Commandment was abrogated by the Incarnation of Christ.

I am not advocating the adoption of Neoplatonism. But the fact is, the philosophy and cosmology contemporary and immediately following Christ was largely neoplatonic. The Scriptures were composed, largely, by Hellenistic Jews. So if we want to understand what words like symbolon meant to the people of the time, we can't simply read our modern understanding back into the text. That's anachronistic.

The fact is, the Jewish and Greek Christians borrowed from Plato and Aristotle and Heraclitus and whatnot. The ancient Jews borrowed from the Phoenician empires, Babylon and Persia. Everyone borrows. The Jews were called out from among the nations, they were not created ex-nihilo out in the wilderness sometime around 2000 BC.

The question is, how do we deal with borrowing today?

We cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini.

Sure we can. This discussion does not have to do with icons, by the way, it had to do with the use of the Cross.

It is true that once the State and church became one it tried to make Christianity more palatable for the Greek pagans by allowing images

Baseless conjecture that is only contradicted by historical and archaeological evidence.

Thanks for pointlessly derailing the thread.