Good Friday

[presbyter]

The majority view (and my hunch is that it's also the better informed) is that Catholic tradition prefers a crucifix

Well it does depend on the type of Catholic you are. The Western tradition is to venerate the Cross but the Eastern rites venerate the Book of the Gospels, which is 'entombed' towards the end of the rite ..... similarly, in some Western medieval rites ,the cross was placed in a tomb until Easter.

(memories of Rome here - 3.00 pm in college - c.5.00 pm at the Russicum for the Eastern version - then 7.30 pm at the Colosseum for the Papal Stations - then breaking the fast with a pizza)

[mcb]

I know what it's on about but my Latin's not good enough to take a physiology class.

You mean you could handle directing a light opera?

The three missals I have to hand all say "cross".

But 'cross' means 'crucifix'; at least, that's how the argument runs. Do the liturgical books have a word for a cross that isn't a crucifix?

M.

[John Ainslie]

1) Background

a) I agree that Latin does not have a distinctive word for 'crucifix'. Crucifixus means 'the crucified', i.e. the image on the cross. So Crux is image-neutral and can mean a cross with or without an image. However, I cannot think that the rubric writers ever imagined that Crux (capitalised) would be without one, and therein lies the problem.

b) The Latin in the 1970 Missal, literally translated, says 'For the adoration of the Cross, the priest, clergy and faithful pass quasi-processionally and show reverence to the Cross by a simple genuflection or another suitable sign according to regional custom, e.g. kissing the Cross.'

c) The regional custom in most places will have been long established by the more specific rubrics handed down by the pre-Vatican II missal. In the 1956 restoration of Holy Week, these say the following regarding the people's adoration: 'so that the faithful, passing before the Cross quasi-processionally, first the men and then the women [!], may devoutly kiss the feet of the Crucified, preceded by a simple genuflection'. And that (apart from the sexism) is exactly what happens today in many (most?) places.

2) Update

Prior to 2002, the GIRM (para 308) read 'There is also to be a cross either on the altar or near it...' The 2002 revision added, after 'cross': 'with the figure of Christ crucified upon it'. I understand, though I cannot easily check, that the Missal rubric on Good Friday has not (yet?) been updated.

The reported use of a plain cross on Good Friday has surprised me: I have never come across it. It strikes me that, if the custom of the local church is to have its main sanctuary cross or processional cross with a crucified image, it would be very strange and counter-intuitive to use a plain cross on Good Friday. Given the Eastern origin of the rite of Veneration, I would want to ask 'would an icon be figureless?'

[presbyter]

I have just browsed through three erudite articles on 7th/8th century Roman practice and they are not too helpful!

Manifestly, the object which receives papal adoration in 8th century Santa Croce is simply a lump of wood upon which - literally - hung the Saviour of the world: a portion of the True Cross. (cf Egeria's account of the earlier practice in Jerusalem)

The documented practice of the presbyteral churches of Rome (7th century) speaks of a veneration of "the cross". Yet none of the authors I have skimmed through address the question of the possibility of "the cross" being a crucifix. Do they presume that it is or is it more likely to be a plain cross of wood? Personally, I am inclined towards the latter.

JA mentions that an icon would - as it were - de facto cease to be without a figure. I'm not so sure. For example, our sensibilities towards the relics in Santa Croce today might be clouded by a tinge of incredulity - are these things authentic? (I myself found the cross-beam of the cross of the 'Good Thief' spiritually very moving but I confess to being a tiny bit quizzical about the bones of the finger of St Thomas which entered our Lord's side).

Yet might not a stout, plain piece of wood, a large nail (bent over at the point) and a copy of the INRI title be in itself iconic (i.e. - powerfully symbolic)? I might not want to kiss it but it would make me pause in silent contemplation for a moment and force me to utter (silently, perhaps) "We adore you O Christ, and we praise you....etc" Might not a reproduction of a nail used in crucifixion be as powerful on its own?
( http://www.bgst.edu.sg/realia/nail.htm )

(By the way - we always use one large crucifix on Good Friday )

Christ Pantocrator is replaced by Christ Crucified - iconography reflects spirituality and the upper basilica of San Clemente in Rome has (probably) the most famous mosaic of the crucifixion in the world. It's 11th century. ( http://www.basilicasanclemente.com/ )

I'll do a bit more research.........


A music question -

Who breaks up the reading of the Passion with hymns? (Don't say "The Lutherans". I know of one Catholic church that does this on Good Friday and I really don't know why it is done.)

[John Ainslie]

Thank you, presbyter.

To answer your last question: yes, in my parish we have verses of 'O sacred head' (Knox version) interspersing the Passion - have done so for many years. I believe it is beneficial because:

(1) It breaks up a long reading, being read to many who are not regular churchgoers, with an appropriate congregational response. After the words '...he gave up the Spirit' all kneel in silence, then sing quietly unaccompanied 'Since death must be my ending...' before standing for the conclusion of the Passion reading. It's very effective.

(2) It has weened them away from the practice of all saying the 'crowd' part, which I do not believe to be appropriate participation. The Gospel is the proclamation of the Word of God, not play-reading - is crying out 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' the sentiments we want from the lips of our people on Good Friday? And that final 'crowd' sentence, 'Let's throw dice to decide who is to have it'?

I can find no official recommendation for the practice of having the people read the 'crowd' part, even though Missals and Holy Week books printed in this country have distinguished such a part ever since the Council. 'Celebrating Easter', the 1988 official instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, states (no 33): '[The Passion] should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is by three persons.'

And yes, before someone asks, I know of no official recommendation for interspersing the Passion with music. However, the same instruction (no 42) does say that 'Music should be provided for the Passion narrative' and 'Since the purpose of sung texts is also to facilitate the participation of the faithful they should not be lightly omitted; such texts should be set to music. If the text for use in the Liturgy has not yet been set to music it is possible as a temporary measure to select other similar texts which are set to music.'

[presbyter]

Here are three web pages each offering an opinion on whether the Veneration of the Cross in the Good Friday Liturgy should involve a cross or a crucifix..

Here's the second page -

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cf ... awIndex/26

Can somebody please tell me, what is a plain cross with an image of the risen Christ on it? Does the author mean a cross upon which Christ is crowned in glory, wearing full priestly (episcopal) vestments? That's Christ the/our High Priest (see Hebrews) - an object/image which symbolically encapsulates a wealth of theology: the central section of one New Testament book.

Or does the author mean an object such as this

http://www.sculptor-iangb.com/christ.htm

which, to my mind, is an unhappy mixture of confused symbolism - or, as the article puts it - an oxymoron. I have not seen anything like this in a church in the UK. Have you?

Please note the illogicality in the final paragraph of this article. The anonymous author might not be able to see why anyone should want to use a plain cross for the veneration, yet he fails to give his argument the cogency and clout he desires through a back-up from someone "official". The argument is not reinforced by the Associate Director of the US Bishops' Committe on the Liturgy. Dennis McManus is responding to a different question.

[presbyter]

Here are three web pages each offering an opinion on whether the Veneration of the Cross in the Good Friday Liturgy should involve a cross or a crucifix..

Here's the first page -

http://www.totustuus.com/friday.htm

Well at least we have an honest attempt here to look at references to sources and a conclusion that a crucifix is in use in some places in the eleventh century (cf my reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia above).
But what was done in Canterbury might not have been done in Leamington Spa.

Seghers quotes Kaiser:

"........an empty cross runs the risk of becoming an empty and ambiguous symbol. However, the crucifix confronts us with the "scandal of the cross" in the fullest sense and challenges us to make a choice."

Hmmmmm. Does it? Surely not if, as the SCDWDS wants, it is "beautiful".
The problem with most crucifixes, to my mind, is that they are dismally anodyne and I wonder if their manufacturers have ever seen a corpse.
Their inoffensive display is more likely to lessen the impact of the symbolism, rather than enhance it, don't you think?

[presbyter]

By the way, I am not forgetting that the whole tone of the Triduum is set by the Entrance Antiphon on Holy Thursday evening: Nos autem gloriari oportet in cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi, in quo est salus, vita et resurrectio nostra, per quem salvati et liberati sumus. You know where to look that up Nick

[presbyter]

But what was done in Canterbury might not have been done in Leamington Spa.

My apologies to the many residents of Leamington Spa who are members of this forum. I do know there was no such place in the eleventh century and that you reside in what became one of the safe havens to relax in at the time of the Napoleonic wars. Safe enough for Napoleon III to reside in too!

Is this off topic? Nooooooo. St Peter's Leamington (in my youth) celebrated the Triduum splendidly. On Good Friday the entire presbyterium (to use the proper word in GIRM - mistranslated as 'sanctuary') was swathed head to toe in purple - including the mighty reredos. At the Gloria in the Easter Vigil - bells, organ fanfares, lights everywhere coming on - and "wooooomph" - all the purple dropped to the ground - very dramatic. Why shouldn't liturgy be "good theatre"? I hope it still happens.

[Sonoqui]

St Peter's Leamington (in my youth) celebrated the Triduum splendidly. .................. At the Gloria in the Easter Vigil - bells, organ fanfares, lights everywhere coming on - and "wooooomph" - all the purple dropped to the ground - very dramatic. Why shouldn't liturgy be "good theatre"? I hope it still happens.

I suspect it doesn't still happen QUITE like that although I don't really know as I am now a member of another parish in Leamington Spa where I am more than happy with the Easter Triduum, my favourite time of the whole liturgical year. I particularly love the 'Exsultet' which has been sung exquisitely, in candlelight, in our parish for the last few years.

I do, however, well remember MY youth (very early teens) in St Peter's. Of course, in those days the Easter Vigil was at midnight so the 'theatre' didn't happen until about 1am (after all the usual 'twiddly' bits of the occasion).

I'm getting tingles up and down my spine even now (over 45 years later just recalling the bells and the organ breaking forth and the 'purple' dropping to the ground.

Pure 'theatre' but truly wonderful! I never could sleep when we eventually got home.

(Sorry if I'm off topic, bu you started it Presbyter!)

[contrabordun]

in 8th century Santa Croce is simply a lump of wood upon which - literally - hung the Saviour of the world: a portion of the True Cross

I tend to read sentences like this with a raised eyebrow, but go on, tell me my scepticism is due to my ignorance...what's the evidence for this?

[Anne]

I lived in Jerusalem for a few years, and there are enough relics of the True Cross to make several crosses.

[presbyter]

my scepticism is due to my ignorance...what's the evidence for this?

Well I think what we can say is that the relic in Santa Croce is a part of the findings of Saint Helen.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Passion/helena.htm

(a well written article but forget the art work! Helen is aged eighty at the time of the excavations.)

"Wiki" lists the relics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Croce_in_Gerusalemme

[presbyter]

A discussion on the volume of wood in relics of the True Cross is adverted to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

[oopsorganist]

Dear me.

I am very confused.

There's a big crucifix (cross with figure) on the front of a nearby C of E church which is so white that it glows in the dark in the light of car headlamps. I only noticed it last week. I thought, someone ought to tone that down a bit. It's a sort of glow in the dark, whiter than white, neon Jesus. It's OK in the daylight, sort of creamy beige.

Our parish in London thought they had a bit of the real cross. I never believed that, even when I was a little child. It hardly seems necessary to pretend that.

Not sure what we do in our parish. Seem to have blocked it out. Probably very bad whatever it is. P. W. taught us the Reproaches, a version which I really like, but we have never sung them. I have made word sheets, but it's a bit too far for our music group.

Could we get a bit of guidance on this please? I am now sure whatever we are singing is wrong. Probably only two hymns because I have not got a clear idea about what to do. And I need to start now if I am going to sort it out.