Why Is There No Crucifix At The Altar Of Icksp?

[pdavis]

It appears the crucifix is disappearing from Catholic Church altars.  As Roman Missal # 308 states, a crucifix should be visible at the altar to the entire congregation.  All religious priests and secular canons should venerate and show devotion to the crucified image of Christ, and have a real crucifix above the altar.

 

I noticed a Traditional Latin Mass group, specifically the non-religious apostolic life, secular canons, who do not say religious vows, of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest based in Gricigliano, Italy, lack of crucifix.  On all of their church altars on their facebook page, they have a very, very, small cross with an extremely small image of Christ on it. Above the small cross on their church altars, is a large statue of the Infant of Prague, which all secular canons are shown raising the eucharist and venerating the Infant of Prague statue at Mass.

 

Many religious priests who live a consecrated life through solemn vows, venerate the crucified image of Christ on the crucifix at Mass.  The religious priest raises the eurcharist to the crucified image of Christ on a real crucifix, as it should be. This is the Mass that I have always attended, and always will, veneration to Christ on the crucifix.  We are reminded the extreme suffering Christ made for our sins.

 

The Infant of Prague does have it's place for devotion in the church, however, not at the altar, and it should never take the place of the crucifix with the image of Christ's suffering.

 

Why has the Infant of Prague taken the place of the crucifix at their altar?

[Nihil Obstat]

I am quite sure that whatever the ICRSS does is no cause for concern.

[Maggyie]

Not to be combative, but don't you have something better to do than try to police the liturgy of religious orders, based on viewing their Facebook photo albums?

I mean, seriously?

I think you're also confused about the theology of the Mass. The Eucharist is Christ. When the priest elevates the Host he is not offering Christ up to the Crucifix or somehow venerating the Crucifix with it, although it might appear that way to the uninitiated.

[arfink]

"As Roman Missal # 308 states, a crucifix should be visible at the altar to the entire congregation."

 

From what I can tell, if there is a crucifix on the altar and people can see it, then you're following the rubrics. There are no other clarifying points there, from what I can see, such as an admonition that it needs to be large or that it should be also visible to people who are very nearsighted and sitting in the back. Though I normally think those would be good things, there are legitimate reasons why a Catholic church in complete compliance with canon and rubric wouldn't be decorated in that way.

[HisChildForever]

What's a secular canon? Sort of hard for me to get a definition from the context because the context implies that secular canon=lay people?

[HisChildForever]

This church is in Florence,

 

 

Not Catholic enough for the OP?? lol!

[arfink]

If there was anything more Catholic in the whole wide world, I think I know a few folks who would probably wet themselves in excitement. ;)

[CatherineM]

Could be it's just above the picture.

[BarbTherese]

Crucifix is on a pillar and stand just above the head of the priest, third in from the left.

[pdavis]

This is a Catholic Church altar with a crucifix, and what a Catholic Church altar should look like with the image of Christ on the crucifix.

[Maggyie]

This is a Catholic Church altar with a crucifix, and what a Catholic Church altar should look like with the image of Christ on the crucifix.

Dude, you have an issue with obsessive compulsion or something. There's no rule about the size of the crucifix. It's easily visible. You don't get to determine "what a Catholic altar should look like." That's above your pay grade. Your personal preferences and tics are 100% irrelevant. Edited June 15, 2014 by Maggie

[Selah]

Holy Infant of Prague, have mercy on us

[Perigrina]

Here is GIRM #308:

 

308. Likewise, either on the altar or near it, there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. It is desirable that such a cross should remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations, so as to call to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord.

 

This instruction leaves a lot of latitude.  It does not specify the size or location of the crucifix.  I am sure that the ICKSP is obeying the instruction.

 

My own personal preference is for the crucifix to be larger than any of the decorations and to be visually dominant, similar to what you like.  However, it was a custom at one time for a statue of the patron Saint of the parish to be the largest and in a central location.  I have seen many traditional churches designed this way.  Frankly, I am thankful to see any crucifix at all.  Many modern churches replace a crucifix with a Resurrected Christ image.  I much prefer the old custom of smaller crucifixes over that.

[HisChildForever]

What's a secular canon? Sort of hard for me to get a definition from the context because the context implies that secular canon=lay people?

 

Does anyone know the answer to this? Genuinely curious. Thanks! :)

[Nihil Obstat]

Secular means that they are not part of a religious order. Here is canon:

 

An ecclesiastical person (Latin Canonicus), a member of a chapter or body of clerics living according to rule and presided over by one of their number.

Whether the title as applied to persons is derived from canon (Gk. kanón), a rule, or from the same term meaning a list of those who served a particular church, is much discussed. As however there are various kinds of chapters, each having its own specific rule, rights, and privileges, the most accurate definition of a canon is "a member of a chapter". Some writers have derived the title from the canon or rule of community life that was followed by certain clerics and which distinguished them from others who did not live in community. "A canonis so called from the canon, that is from the regularity of the life which he leads" (Scarfantoni, ed. Lucca, 1723, I, 5). Opposed to this is the opinion that canons were so called from the fact that their names were inscribedon the lists of those who served particular churches for which they were ordained. (For the medieval use of the term see Ducange, Glossar. med et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v. Canonicus.) The latter appears to be the morelogical derivation and is in accord with the arguments of Thomassinus and most other writers, who agree that our present cathedral chapters are the modern form of the ancient bodies of presbyters who in each particularchurch formed with the bishop the senate of that church [Thomassinus, "Vetus ac nova disciplina", pt. I, bk. III, cc. vii-xi, and lxiii-lxx; Binterim, "Denkwürdigkeiten" (1826), III (2), 317-84].