What is your view on wearing a Crucifix vs Regular Cross?

[Albion]

Oh yes, the different arrangement of beads changes everything! <laugh>

You don't really know much about Christian Prayer Beads, I take it. The arrangement of the beads is a rather small part of the difference.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

For me, it's the difference between a symbol and a talisman, and the distinction is fine enough for people to miss.

When Moses saw his rod as a symbol of the authority vested in him by God, everything was fine. He performed miracles without incident. When he ascribed magical powers to the rod, apart from God, when God told him to do one thing and he trusted in his rod to do another, then he was punished for his idolatry.

I see a lot of crucifixes treated in the manner of a talisman, but I rarely see a bare cross treated as one, such as in hanging a crucifix over one's bed to ward off bad dreams. I suspect that the bare cross is more stylized, and that makes it a little more of a symbol than a talisman. Perhaps it's that the crucifix is largely endorsed by the Catholic faith, which also trends more toward the talisman use of the cross than the protestants would. Either way, I regard all talismans as idols, no matter whose image is supposedly on it, even if no one's image is on it. Besides, that's not really Jesus on the cross. That's just some stranger who was used as a model for the artist who designed it. I don't need a sculpture of Fred on a cross, hanging from my neck.

 

[Albion]

For me, it's the difference between a symbol and a talisman, and the distinction is fine enough for people to miss.

That the cross is a symbol and symbols have a certain significance that artwork doesn't is a good point.

I regard all talismans as idols, no matter whose image is supposedly on it, even if no one's image is on it.

I can't agree with you on this point, but I still think that the observation about a symbol and what a symbol means or does is worthwhile.

 

[rockytopva]

Did you ever consider "Christian Prayer Beads" instead?

They look similar to the image shown below. Which is Christian enough for me...

 

[Albion]

They look similar to the image shown below. Which is Christian enough for me...

Well, they both have beads. The differences, however, would fill a good-sized pamphlet, and they are important differences. OTOH, I wasn't interested in selling you some or arguing over it; I just thought you might be interested, if you aren't familiar with Christian Prayer Beads.

 

[Goatee]

I wear a Crucifix around my neck, hidden under my shirt which i bought in Rome. I also have a Celtic Cross tattooed on my arm and an image of the face of Jesus and a smaller 'cross' on my wrist.

Crucifix to me makes me realise that Jesus suffered for my sins!! Died a horrible death for 'My' sins!!

I love that i can kiss the crucifix and tell Jesus that i love him

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

They look similar to the image shown below. Which is Christian enough for me...

Luther had no issue with the Rosary but offered the caution that only strong Christians should pray the rosary; he was buried with his.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I can't agree with you on this point, but I still think that the observation about a symbol and what a symbol means or does is worthwhile.

I esteem your intelligence, and I was sorry that you did not give an explanation for your disagreement.

When a man prays to a graven image, like a statue of the family god, he generally does not think that the physical object is the god, but a representation of the god. However, he does ascribe to the physical object supernatural powers. Similarly, I see people kneeling before the crucifix, though we know that they do not think that the statue is God, but a representation of God. When they cross over the line and expect supernatural powers from that physical object it becomes a talisman. At the same time, it also becomes an idol.

I mentioned the psychology of Moses' rod, when he crossed over from seeing it as a symbol of God to seeing it as a thing with its own innate powers, and I could add to that the brass serpent, which was raised up for people to look at for the magical cure to their snake bites. The cure for their bites came directly from God. The physical object had no power to heal, on its own. Looking at the serpent was an act of obedience, only. However, that mentality switched over to idolatry, when they started seeing it as an innately magical thing, and they began to bring sacrifices to it as a god. It eventually had to be destroyed.

I would argue that any religious symbol, even the most sacred, is a risk for that subtle mental shift. No physical object has innate magical power. That power could come from God, or an angel, or a demon, but never the physical object, alone. If that power comes from God, then it is not the object, but God, who grants the miracle. If we recognize that fact, then the object is only a symbol, and not a talisman. If we seek the miraculous from any source other than God, then we commit idolatry. This is not to say that God does not use physical objects in the fulfillment of his miracles. Quite the contrary. Water was used to heal a man of leprosy (2 Kings 5:10). Spittle was used to restore a man's sight (John 9:6). A bowl of salt was used to improve the waters of the land (2 Kings 2:19-22). A coat was used to part the waters for two men to walk across in dry land (2 Kings 2:8). Where did this power come from? It came from God. It did not come from the objects. The objects were incidental. I don't think Elijah picked out any particular coat that day for parting the waters. I don't think the salt had to come from any particular place. The objects, themselves, were not held as intrinsically magical (except, maybe, for Jesus' spittle), which means that they were not talismans. The miracle came from God, and not the object. Looking to the object as the source of power makes it a talisman, and not quite the same as looking to God for that power, and not very different from expecting magic from the family statue (idol).

 

[Albion]

I esteem your intelligence, and I was sorry that you did not give an explanation for your disagreement.

When a man prays to a graven image, like a statue of the family god, he generally does not think that the physical object is the god, but a representation of the god. However, he does ascribe to the physical object supernatural powers.

I appreciate the complimentary words, my friend, but there's not much that I can add. I said I thought that the point about symbolism was good, but I don't think that people who wear a cross or crucifix on a chain are attributing supernatural powers to that artifact. No, I don't.

Similarly, I see people kneeling before the crucifix, though we know that they do not think that the statue is God, but a representation of God. When they cross over the line and expect supernatural powers from that physical object it becomes a talisman. At the same time, it also becomes an idol.

Well, if they did that, you'd be right. But kneeling in a church in front of a crucifix for prayer does not, for most people, mean that they are worshipping the statue. So, if they expected the corpus itself to be able to grant them favors, you'd be right. Only, this is not what normally is done.

 

[Goatee]

I esteem your intelligence, and I was sorry that you did not give an explanation for your disagreement.

When a man prays to a graven image, like a statue of the family god, he generally does not think that the physical object is the god, but a representation of the god. However, he does ascribe to the physical object supernatural powers. Similarly, I see people kneeling before the crucifix, though we know that they do not think that the statue is God, but a representation of God. When they cross over the line and expect supernatural powers from that physical object it becomes a talisman. At the same time, it also becomes an idol.

I mentioned the psychology of Moses' rod, when he crossed over from seeing it as a symbol of God to seeing it as a thing with its own innate powers, and I could add to that the brass serpent, which was raised up for people to look at for the magical cure to their snake bites. The cure for their bites came directly from God. The physical object had no power to heal, on its own. Looking at the serpent was an act of obedience, only. However, that mentality switched over to idolatry, when they started seeing it as an innately magical thing, and they began to bring sacrifices to it as a god. It eventually had to be destroyed.

I would argue that any religious symbol, even the most sacred, is a risk for that subtle mental shift. No physical object has innate magical power. That power could come from God, or an angel, or a demon, but never the physical object, alone. If that power comes from God, then it is not the object, but God, who grants the miracle. If we recognize that fact, then the object is only a symbol, and not a talisman. If we seek the miraculous from any source other than God, then we commit idolatry. This is not to say that God does not use physical objects in the fulfillment of his miracles. Quite the contrary. Water was used to heal a man of leprosy (2 Kings 5:10). Spittle was used to restore a man's sight (John 9:6). A bowl of salt was used to improve the waters of the land (2 Kings 2:19-22). A coat was used to part the waters for two men to walk across in dry land (2 Kings 2:8). Where did this power come from? It came from God. It did not come from the objects. The objects were incidental. I don't think Elijah picked out any particular coat that day for parting the waters. I don't think the salt had to come from any particular place. The objects, themselves, were not held as intrinsically magical (except, maybe, for Jesus' spittle), which means that they were not talismans. The miracle came from God, and not the object. Looking to the object as the source of power makes it a talisman, and not quite the same as looking to God for that power, and not very different from expecting magic from the family statue (idol).

Good post

 

[Jipsah]

You don't really know much about Christian Prayer Beads, I take it.

Have a set of 'em right here, made by the Solitaries of DeKoven. I generally pray it with the "In the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and the Apostle's Creed on the crucifix, the Lord's Prayer on the invitatory bead, the "Jesus Prayer" on the weeks,and the "Glory be..." on the cruciforms. Then when I'm praying for people, instead of the Jesus prayer on the weeks I pray for each person on my list.

I do pretty much the same with the traditional rosary, except that I use either the "Hail Mary" or the "Jesus Prayer" on thr decades.

The arrangement of the beads is a rather small part of the difference.

Not that I can see. I can pray equally as well on one as on the other.

 

[Jipsah]

I take my rosary beads with me, even though the Catholics say they are no good without the priests blessings!

I never heard a Catholic say any such things, although I'm sure there are some, somewhere, who believe such silliness. Beads is beads; it's what you do with them that counts.

 

[Jipsah]

If you want to live like a conspiracy theorist all the time, I suppose so.

So holding with the idea that there are some people who are anti-catholic makes one a conspiracy theorist? Hmmmm...

Surely you aren't saying that there is no reasonable explanation why anyone might not favor a crucifix with corpus EXCEPT THAT they're looking for something Catholic to be upset about.

Tweren't what I said, was it? I said they were afraid of "looking Catholic". "Can't wear a crucifix, my fellow Protestants might think I'm Catholic." It isn't the Catholics they're worried about; the Catholics don't care. "Can't make a public profession of faith by making the sign of the Cross, people might think I'm Catholic." Same thing, it's their own brethren they're worried about.

Maybe that's a conspiracy. I'll bet the Round Table is behind it!

 

[Albion]

Have a set of 'em right here, made by the Solitaries of DeKoven.

Excellent. But then I'm all the more surprised that you'd talk like the difference between them and the Rosary is just the arrangement of the beads.

I generally pray it with the "In the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and the Apostle's Creed on the crucifix, the Lord's Prayer on the invitatory bead, the "Jesus Prayer" on the weeks,and the "Glory be..." on the cruciforms. Then when I'm praying for people, instead of the Jesus prayer on the weeks I pray for each person on my list.

I do pretty much the same with the traditional rosary, except that I use either the "Hail Mary" or the "Jesus Prayer" on thr decades.

Kind of like owning a washing machine but using it to store your books in, isn't it? I mean, why use the Rosary--but not in the prescribed way--when you have a set of the Prayer Beads at hand?

 

[Albion]

So holding with the idea that there are some people who are anti-catholic makes one a conspiracy theorist? Hmmmm...

No.

No offense, but I think I prefer what I wrote to the words you are trying to put into my mouth.

 

[Goatee]

Excellent. But then I'm all the more surprised that you'd talk like the difference between them and the Rosary is just the arrangement of the beads.




Kind of like owning a washing machine but using it to store your books in, isn't it? I mean, why use the Rosary--but not in the prescribed way--when you have a set of the Prayer Beads at hand?

Not sure if 'You' know this but us 'Catholics' also use the Rosary beads for the Divine Mercy Chaplet! Not just for the Rosary!

 

[Albion]

So holding with the idea that there are some people who are anti-catholic makes one a conspiracy theorist? Hmmmm...

Tweren't what I said, was it? I said they were afraid of "looking Catholic". "Can't wear a crucifix, my fellow Protestants might think I'm Catholic."

Fair enough as to your meaning. But can you actually be serious about that "my fellow Protestants might think...." stuff?

Maybe that's a conspiracy.

Doesn't sound like one. It seems more like wishful thinking or something along those lines.

 

[Albion]

I never heard a Catholic say any such things, although I'm sure there are some, somewhere, who believe such silliness. Beads is beads; it's what you do with them that counts.

You may be right about beads are beads. And you might be right that you've never yourself heard a Catholic say what was mentioned above. BUT you are very wrong about what you call " such silliness."

Most Catholics will not use a rosary until it's been blessed by a priest; and they obviously think that such a blessing legitimizes the use of it or makes more likely the effectiveness of the prayers or something else in that vein.

 

[Goatee]

Most Catholics will not use a rosary until it's been blessed by a priest; and they obviously think that such a blessing legitimizes the use of it or makes more likely the effectiveness of the prayers or something else in that vein.

Very true. I always get mine blessed

 

[Jipsah]

Kind of like owning a washing machine but using it to store your books in, isn't it? I mean, why use the Rosary--but not in the prescribed way--when you have a set of the Prayer Beads at hand?

Actually it's kind of like using prayer beads as... prayer beads. That's what they both are, and I tend to usse whichever is handiest.