Preparing for Lent and Easter 2012

[Nick Baty]

My view is this: anyone who seriously wants to argue, contra traditional practice and based on a literal (fundamentalist?) reading of the the present Missal, that the Good Friday veneration involves a bare cross with no corpus...

But when did this become "traditional practice"? I've never worked in a parish which used a crucifix. I have always presumed that the crucufix was a modern devotion.

[Peter Jones]

I have always presumed that the crucufix was a modern devotion.

Never seen one of these. I am certainly not devoted to one. Perhaps modernity has passed me by.

[mcb]

But when did this become "traditional practice"?

Seventh or eighth century?

As a liturgical function the veneration of the Cross on Good Friday must no doubt be traced back, as Amalarius already in the ninth century correctly divined, to the practice of honouring the relic of the True Cross at Jerusalem which is described in detail in the "Pilgrimage of Etheria", c. 380 (see TRUE CROSS.) The ceremony came to prevail everywhere where relics of the True Cross existed, and by a very natural development, where relics failed any ordinary cross supplied their place as an object of cultus. As Amalarius again sensibly remarks, "although every church cannot have such a relic, still the virtue of the Holy True Cross is not wanting in those crosses which are made in imitation of it." Neither was this veneration, in the case at any rate, of relics of the True Cross, confined to Good Friday. St. Gregory of Tours uses language which may possibly imply that in Jerusalem the True Cross was honoured every Wednesday and Friday. It is certain that at Constantinople a Sunday in Mid-Lent, the first of August, and the 14th of September were similarly privileged. Even from early times there was no hesitation about using the word adoratio. Thus, St. Paulinus of Nola, writing of the great Jerusalem relic (c. 410), declares that the bishop offered it to the people for worship (crucem quotannis adorandam populo promit), and first adored it himself. (See P.L., LXI, 325.) A curious practice was also introduced of anointing the cross, or, on occasion, any image or picture, with balm (balsamo) before presenting it for the veneration of the faithful. This custom was transferred to Rome, and we hear much of it in connection with the very ancient reliquary of the True Cross and also the supposed miraculous portrait of Our Saviour (acheiropoieta, i.e. not made by the hand of man) preserved in the Sancta Sanctorum of the Lateran, both of which recently, together with a multitude of other objects, have been examined and reported on by papal permission (see Grisar Die römische Kapelle Sancta Sanctorum und ihr Schatz, Freíburg, 1908, 91, 92). The objects mentioned were completely covered in part with solidified balm. Pope Adrian I, in vindicating the veneration of images to Charlemagne, mentions this use of balm and defends it (Mansi, Concilia, XIII, 778). The ceremony of the adoration of the Cross on Good Friday must have spread through the West in the seventh and eighth centuries, for it appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary and is presupposed in the Gregorian Antiphonarium. Both in Anglo-Saxon England and in the England of the later Middle Ages the "Creeping to the Cross" was a ceremony which made a deep impression on the popular mind. St. Louis of France: and other pious princes dressed themselves in haircloth and crept to the cross barefoot. At present, instead of creeping to the cross on hands and knees, three profound double genuflexions are made before kissing the feet of the crucifix, and the sacred ministers remove their shoes when performing the ceremony. The collection now commonly made on this occasion for the support of the Holy Places seems also to date from medieval times.

[Nick Baty]

But "on occasion...." although, apparently, more common in 1908.

[NorthernTenor]

Improperia, Part I.

This is very interesting and has much to commend it. Unfortunately the setting puts the stress on the second syllable of "ischyros". It should be on the first syllable.

Valid point. No sooner made than done (see original link). Thanks, SC.

[mcb]

But "on occasion...." although, apparently, more common in 1908.

I don't understand. The only occurrence in the quoted text of the phrase on occasion refers to the practice of anointing a cross or icon with balsam. I've never seen that on Good Friday!

[quaeritor]

But when did this become "traditional practice"? I've never worked in a parish which used a crucifix. I have always presumed that the crucufix was a modern devotion.

When I was a lad (in Lancashire) a cross without Jesus on it was as much a sign of Proddystentism as a church full of chairs instead of benches, and certainly from 1953 onwards (before that we didn't go because "it wasn't a Holyday of Obligation" and as it was in the afternoon and not Mass it was a bit Protestant anyway! - but that bit is not relevant to the current discussion.) it was always a crucifix. I'm not sure if that's long enough to constitute a tradition yet.

My view is this: anyone who seriously wants to argue, contra traditional practice and based on a literal (fundamentalist?) reading of the the present Missal, that the Good Friday veneration involves a bare cross with no corpus, will need to tell us what the Latin is for 'crucifix' (hint: it's not crucifixus), and for a 'bare cross with no corpus' (hint: it's not crux).

Hmm . . . while I'm with mcb on the main thrust of his argument this assertion does make it a bit difficult to translate both "Crux fidelis" and "Ecce lignum crucis" without what follows in each case becoming just tautology. So what is "the Latin for . . . a "bare cross with no corpus" ?

Q

[Nick Baty]

So is there any precedent for using a crucifix?
And, if there is, why does the missal say cross?

[mcb]

this assertion does make it a bit difficult to translate both "Crux fidelis" and "Ecce lignum crucis" without what follows in each case becoming just tautology.

I don't know about tautology; the point I suppose is that in the Church's documents 'cross' is used to mean both the composite image of the crucified Christ, and the instrument on which the crucified Christ is hanging. (But never, as far as I'm aware, 'the instrument on which the crucified Christ was hanging but can be assumed to have been removed'). In Crux Fidelis, remember, there's the line dulce pondus sustinet - Christ is on the cross.

So what is "the Latin for . . . a "bare cross with no corpus" ?

The truth is the term is simply not used in liturgical documents. If it were, I expect it might be crux nuda (pristina?) sine corpore.

[quaeritor]

Eckky thump! - I know I'm a slow typist but by the time I posted my last the whole topic had moved on!

With a sigh, he posted his last!.

Q
However, a little message I've never seen before advises me that I'm still too slow, and as there has been "another post" while I've been agonising over mine, I "may like to review my post"! (well don't I often wish I had!)

In Crux Fidelis, remember, there's the line dulce pondus sustinet - Christ is on the cross.

I think that is what I was trying to say - "Faithful cross-on-which-Christ-is-hanging, on which Christ is hanging . . . "

Now, can I manage to submit this before it in turn is out of date?

Q

[Nick Baty]

....in the Church's documents 'cross' is used to mean both the composite image of the crucified Christ

So when the priest sings "This is the wood of the cross on which hung the Saviour of the world" he might mean ""This is the wood of the cross on which hangs the image of the Saviour of the world". Apologies – a tad too *beep* to argue logically. (And why that's beeped I've no idea! But I was beeped in work today for using "coarse" because, without the first two letters it's rude – apparently!

[quaeritor]

You guys are just too quick! - and how are you managing to post when apparently I'm the only registered user on line, with 4 guests?

Q

[Southern Comfort]

When I was a lad (in Lancashire) a cross without Jesus on it was as much a sign of Proddystentism as a church full of chairs instead of benches, and certainly from 1953 onwards ...<snip> it was always a crucifix. I'm not sure if that's long enough to constitute a tradition yet.

When I was a lad in the south east, we always had a crucifix (actually we had three, one at the head of each aisle). But having experienced nothing but large and often dark-coloured or black crosses over the past 40 years in different churches, I have come to see that as a much more powerful and stark symbol. I would not willingly return to a crucifix, any more than I would willingly return to some of the ghastly statues of former times.

And if you wanted to see a church full of chairs, you only had to go to Westminster Cathedral, so there was never any Protestant connotation. (I grew up thinking that box pews were the norm for our separated brethren.)

[John Ainslie]

Whether a cross has a figure on it or not is at least partly a matter of local culture and usage. 'Croce' in Italian is, in my experience, always a cross with a figure, even though the literal translation is just 'cross'. 'Crocefisso' refers to the figure, not to what in English we call a crucifix. I rather think that it may be the same in other languages of 'Catholic' countries. (What about German 'Kreuz'?)

This explains why the authors of GIRM, when treating of the cross in the sanctuary, never thought to specify whether it should have a figure or not, and it was only when English usage was pointed out that, in its third edition, they added the words 'with an image of the crucified Christ' (or whatever the words are - I'm away from home so can't give you the reference).

[NorthernTenor]

Without wishing to criticise particular custom, I would have thought that Good Friday, of all days, would be the day on which veneration of Christ on the Cross would be appropriate.