www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Holy Name Society?

Great point, John.

Gordo

If I was building a church tomorrow, and it was a style which would accept the San Damiano or Cimabue or some ancient form of crucifix, and more importantly was able to afford to do it, I would. Whenever I've done school teaching, I have loved taking children into the the parish church (Roman Catholic) to point out all the symbolism in the ceiling murals, or altar sculptures (the children and teachers particularly love the pelican symbol (Pie pelicanae - of St. Thomas' Adoro te devote)

I can only imagine all the things that can be seen from the icon-style crucifix such as the one you attached.

The unfortunate occurance of replacing the crucifix - which, by definition of the church, is the cross with an image of Christ Crucified is gladly officially ended. The latest Institutio stated that a Crucifix - and even to that the Church added, so that no debate may remain, "with an image of the crucified Christ" is to be placed "On or near the altar."

The Institutio has also recommended that the processional cross may serve as this cross. Now it is my understanding then, as the rubrics also presuppose a free-standing altar, so that Holy Mass may be said facing the people, the processional cross could be placed behind the altar so that both priest and people may face the crucifix which leads them into worship and is the focus of worship. This also calls to mind the setup of many Byzantine churches!

Here we see, as Benedict-as-Ratzinger has even said that when the Church is notoriented toward the East (geographically) then what has traditionally substituted for the actual orientation is the the altar cross. The altar of the Church (and the present RC rubrics state there is, as a rule, to be only one altar on which Mass is to be celebrated in a Church) is not dedicated to a saint but dedicated to the Cross. This is why RC altars are not to have images of saints located above them which may give any appearance that Mass is celebrated to the Saint...

Why an image of the crucified Lord? Though this may be to the choir, but in the RC understanding, Holy Mass is that re-presentation of Calvary, where man's sin was expiated and redemption wrought.

Are images of the risen Christ bad, and to be stripped from our churches? Not necessarily, and I believe it bad pastoral practice to jerk the People of God around without explanation, especially when they paid for the more unfortunate looking pieces of art back in the dark ages (70s). But these pieces of art could be taken into other areas of the church for veneration.

An excellent and well known example of a Risen Christ and the Altar Cross providing orientation is the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in D.C. Though the Shrine is not oriented toward the East, the free-standing main altar (the stationary, rubrical one under the ginormous baldachin) is fitted with six candlesticks and the altar cross, which provides that symbol-reality of Calvary and of eschatology/end-times. Above that is the gloriously risen and (some say) angry-looking Jesus, seated in Judgment.

Someone here has got to organize a massive Divine Liturgy for the upper Church...

But to keep on the Holy Name thread: Another good example is to have a Holy Name Society retreat for men: So that the members may have time, even for only a day, of prayer and reflection on the meaning of Christian manhood and especially fatherhood. The Christian retreat is something all too often overlooked nowadays, something which may indeed help in the sanctification of their family, and thus of the world.

As an Orthodox, I really love the San Damiano cross. It is so iconographic. I bought one when I was in Italy.

Fr. Michael Scanlon wrote that this cross is called an icon cross because it contains images of persons who have a part in the meaning of the cross. The tradition of such crosses began in the Eastern Church and was carried by the Serbian Monks to the Umbrian district of Italy. The Byzantine style was common in Italy before Cimabue and Giotto. The San Damiano Cross was one of a number of crosses painted with similar figures during the 12th century in Umbria. The purpose an icon cross was to teach the meaning of the event depicted and thereby strengthen the faith of the people.

Ray
www.theologyincolor.com [theologyincolor.com]

I fail to see the difference in this case.

Michael

The difference is that in the San Damiano crucifix, He is nailed to the Cross and not yet dead. A "resurrection" crucifix has a clothed, resurrected Christ, post tomb, set against a cross with arms outstretched (in blessing presumably?). Not a crucifix at all. Does that help??

Ok, I'll accept that explanation. It's not a distinction I given much thought to, I always saw the San Damiano Cross as depicting a resurrected Christ, not a dying or suffering one.

I still don't see what is wrong with a Resurrection Crucifix, honestly.

Of course, there is no accounting for taste, if it is a poor piece of art it could be junked for that reason. Thematically I have no objection to it though.

Michael

Brother Michael,

If you look closely there are visible blood ripples from the wounds on hands, feet and side, and facial bruises, the resurrected body would not reflect these.


james

Michael--

I definitely agree with you--bad art of whatever ilk, has no place in a church. I've seen awful crucifixes and awful "resurrection" crucifixes and good ones of both as well. There is nothing wrong with an image of a resurrected Christ on the cross, but the instructions clearly state that a crucifix is to be used as the primary image near the altar.

That being said, I have no objection to a resurrected Christ elsewhere in the church, especially if the people are attached to it, or it was donated by good hearted parishioners.

The San Damiano is clearly a suffering and dying, though noble Christ. A difference from a resurrected, glorious Christ.

John K

My brothers James and John,
Thanks for the education!

Michael

Sons of Thunder

For an excellent study on much of the theology of the San Damiano Cross, you might consider this text, which I own and read a few years ago. It is well worth the time to read:

http://www.marymediatrix.com/bookstore/academy/index.php?l=product_detail&p=18

Virgo Ecclesia Facta - The Virgin Made Church
The Presence of Mary in the Crucifix of San Damiano and in the Office of the Passion of St. Francis of Assisi

An in-depth scholarly study of the presence of Mary in the vocation, spirituality, thought and work of St. Francis and St. Clare of Assisi. Point of departure for this study is the Crucifix of San Damiano and the Office of the Passion composed by St. Francis in the framework of his famous Marian antiphon. Thoroughly documented, with exhaustive bibliography, this study shows how totally Marian St. Francis is and how Marian he intended his Order and movement to be in order to "repair the Church". Praised by Pope John Paul II as the best mariological study published in 1998.

Dear Friends,

The San Damiano Cross is a classical Eastern icon of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of OLGS Jesus Christ.

The icon of the Resurrection is actually placed directly above the Head of our Lord and the figure of our Lord is depicted in such a way as to indicate that he is "Master of the situation" and that His Passion is entirely voluntary, undertaken for our salvation. If I'm not mistaken, it is also a three-bar Cross.

At the very bottom of the Cross the patron Saints of Umbria are depicted.

Alex