Talk:Crucifix

message: I have a replica of what is called, in Ireland, a Penal Cross, the word "cross" being used, rather than "crucifix." This cross takes its name from the days of the Penal Laws (at their worst in the early 18th century). The Penal Laws was the name given to a body of extremely harsh repressive legislation, aimed at reducing the Catholic Irish to abject misery. In practice, even if the niceties of legal terminology put it otherwise, the Catholic Church was outlawed. Priests found in Ireland faced death as did Bishop (now Blessed) Oliver Plunkett.
My carved bog-oak replica is about 9 inches long, the crossbeam 3 inches wide and the upright, which is slightly curved, varying from 1 and a half to 2 inches wide. Note that it bears no resemblance to Celtic Crosses, although an expert in the field might point out similarities in carving styles. Irish lore has it that its peculiar elongated shape allowed the carrier to slip it up his sleeve when necessary.
The Cross, which is representative, or stylized, rather than realistic, is carved with:
:the letters INRI at the top
:a hammer and 3 nails below the letters
:the sun, moon and stars, presumably referring to the unusual meteorological events reported at the time of the Crucifixion
:the crucified Jesus
:under Jesus's right arm is what I take--perhaps wrongly--to be a fish
:under His left arm are two streaks, which I take--again, perhaps wrongly--to represent a flow of blood
:to Jesus's right, roughly parallel with the legs of the victim, are a spear and a whip, the whip curling around below his feet--4 curved cords
:to Jesus's left, again roughly parallel, is a primitive ladder
: below the feet (and the curled whip) is a stylized representation of a cock, poised just above a cooking pot--perhaps a little irony in this grim representation.
I wish to stress that:
:1) I am no art historian, I am unfamiliar with the technical terms of this discipline and I make no claims to any specialized knowledge in this field
:2) This item is sold as a replica and is available in many Irish shops for tourists.
If anyone can correct my errors, or give more detailed explanations, I will be happy to read it!--PeadarMaguidhir 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Penal Cross 

message: In the beginning of the second section, it says "Also, in the Old Testament, Moses lifted up a snake crucified on a pole-- a kind of symbolic crucifix". This didn't happen in the Torah, which is the original old testament. Could someone please clarify how they got this from the old testament? It's obviously Christian, but which version of the bible is it? Could someone please clarify this for me? thanks. Ilikefood 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  when did this happen? 

message: I am just wondering why were references to Oriental Orthodox (and Anglican churches) have been removed. A large Crucifix is used in all Coptic Orthodox Churches above the altar. Furthermore the Crucifix is used in processions on various major feasts. I am just trying to make a point that it is used extensively in the Oriental Orthodox Church. (Mike Morgan 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used in most of the European protestant churches, as well. See http://www.dorfkirche-bentwisch.de/?page_id=14 for a reference. --62.224.194.7 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote at the top of the article says "It is primarily used...", that doesn't mean exclusively used. In addition to orthodox, many "high-order" protestant denominations use the crucifix. If varies denomination to denomination, but many protestant denominations prefer just the cross. By the way I reverted the edit dealing with atheists using the upside down cross as a protest. It was actually added by an atheist based on a cite.  Not a church going "hate monger"  Please refrain from attacks.  Marauder40 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Crucifix a Catholic Thing? 

message: Anyway -- it should be mentioned that they used to have daggers embedded in their crucifixes.  I'd like to know if that was for self-defense, forceable conversion, both, or neither :)
ClintJCL (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, I have never heard that. References please?Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Random comment

message: I gather that many other religions find the crucifix to be offensive, especially among muslims, jews, seculars and evangelicals, who claim it to be an idol. There should be information on this, since in many occasions crucifixes have been banned in public because of controversies surrounding them.
ADM (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies in other religions

message: : A crucifix (from Latin cruci fixus meaning "(one) fixed to a cross") is a cross with a representation of Jesus' body....
Given the etymology, might it not be a bit more more accurate to say a crucifix is a representation of Jesus' body (on a cross)?  When Jesus is displayed in the same position but without an explicit image of the cross itself, wouldn't that also be a crucifix? —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to qualify as a crucifix there must be both a cross and the image of the crucified Christ.  If either is missing then it isn't a crucifix, it is just a cross or a picture of the Risen Christ.  Marauder40 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, I wouldn't think it represents "Risen" if he has his arms out in cross position. —Tamfang (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it depends on what the artist of the image intended.  If you have seen the San Damiano cross, it is called a cross as opposed to a crucifix because of the fact that Jesus is not actually attached to the cross in the image.  It is because of the fact the artist wanted to represent that Jesus had risen.  When the term crucifix is used, both Jesus (in a crucified image) and the cross must be present. Marauder40 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  which is the essential bit? 

message: The article states, "depictions of the still-suffering Jesus ... are more typical of Western churches". While there are many famous Western crucifixes which show Christ still suffering, I think the majority show him with his eyes closed and his head down to the right (inclined towards St. Dismas). MishaPan (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have rewritten this. It has varied over the centuries, & many larger paintings show the moment of death (with the spear), but not crucifixes normally of course. The presence or absence of the spear wound would traditionally be the mark of whether he is alive or dead, though I wonder how many Catholics today, or artists, are aware of that (now added). "Popular culture" depictions generally show him alive, I think, as did early Western ones (before about 1000). The Baroque, following Michelangelo, often showed him alive too. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stil Suffering?

message: The use of three dimentional religious figures is of ROMAN CATHOLIC origin. Although Rome claims Apostolic Succession from the early Church, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH started after the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism in 1054 AD, when Rome split from THE CHURCH in Constantinople, now Instanbul. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses only an "image" of Jesus on the cross, and an image of Jesus and Saints on icons. That image may be raised like the "profile" on a coin, usually only on metal crosses or icons, but never three dimensional, thereby eliminating any claims of practicing IDOLTRY.
Treckoj (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thats what the article says. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic vs Orthodox use of "Crucifix" 

message: The early history of this page from December 2001 is at the article cross. Graham87 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history of this page 

message: Any items on the veneration of the Crucifix? Seems missing. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Good Friday article has the following quote with references.  It could be put here. "The Veneration of the Cross, has a crucifix, not necessarily the one that is normally on or near the altar at other times, solemnly displayed to the congregation and then venerated by them, individually if possible and usually by kissing the feet of the Corpus, while hymns and the Improperia ("Reproaches") with the Trisagion hymn are chanted.[24]"  Maybe add something about the fact it is done on Good Friday throughout the Catholic Church and other times as local custom dictates. It's up to you. Marauder40 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did not do enough of a search, hoping someone knew. The question was, is there an official Crucifix version of Eucharistic Adoration, even without a ceremony? History2007 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't heard of anything official outside of the Good Friday service.  But that doesn't mean there isn't one.  If you are talking is there a Church-wide one in the rubrics, I don't think so.  Is there a local devotion that has been approved, probably. Marauder40 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will have to do more searching. Alas Google books seems to be cutting back on free material, so life on that front will be less easy. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Veneration

message: This is a very odd motive, and I would like to see it explained and discussed somewhere. __meco (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a crucifix that the artist who created it decided to create bent.  What is there to explain and discuss?Farsight001 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said not much to discuss for the article, but the reasoning I have heard for the reasoning behing the bent crucifix is the implication that nothing could hold the "spiritual" weight of Jesus without bending.Marauder40 (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the bent crucifix? 

message: The article Christian cross is largely a duplication of this article. As the term "Christian cross" is referring to the crucifix that Jesus was put on, I believe that "Christian cross" should redirect to this article as the single article on the topic of Christian crucifix symbol.--R-41 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The content seems totally different to me - just in case you haven't read the first sentence of this article, it reads: "A crucifix (from Latin cruci fixus meaning "(one) fixed to a cross") is a usually three-dimensional cross with a representation of Jesus' body", Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree with John, it is not going to work at all, please see: Coptic ankh Maltese-Cross, Cross crosslet etc. etc. etc. which are not Crucifixes. A Crucifix is a WP:Notable item in its own right and must have a separate article, as does Christian Cross. The issue of any possible overlap in current article texts is in any case a separate issue which may need a separate remedy. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is about the premier Christian symbol that is the crucifix - a cross shaped device of connected wooden boards used in the form of execution utilized by the Romans called crucifixion, Jesus was executed by crucifiction as were other people including other Christians such as Saint Peter. Many images displayed on the Christian cross article are almost all crucifixes, the Coptic ankh has its own article for the symbol of Coptic Christianity - and it has ancient Egyptian origins and appears very different from the standard Christian cross that is a crucifix.--R-41 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in any case you need WP:RS sources to support your assertions, which are, as is personal commentary, and not correct in any case. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's spell it out very clearly: if there's no figure it's not a crucfifix.  A crucifix is a religious image, it is not an "execution device".  Jesus was not put on a crucifix (as you say above), but a cross, and a crucifix is not  "a cross shaped device of connected wooden boards used in the form of execution utilized by the Romans called crucifixion" - that's a cross.  There's no point continuing the discussion until you're clear on that.  I suggest you look at a dictionary.   Most of the images in the cross article are not crucifixes, though the ones in the text near the top are - which should probably be changed. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright I end my proposal to merge the two articles. Howevever I do have a question for Johnbod. What would you call the form of execution that Jesus and other people went through via being nailed to a cross-shaped device? You say that crucifix exclusively means the specific symbol of Jesus on a cross, but the term crucifixion is a term used for that form of execution existing at back at earliest to the 6th century BC, see here: . The crucifix has been referred to as connection of a body to a cross execution device not only for Jesus, but also including others such as the bishop Geno in the 10th century, see here .--R-41 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm sure the article explains, crucifixion is derived from a Latin word made up of "crux, crucis" meaning cross and "fix-" meaning fix, so fixed to a cross. In English crucifixion is a method, that uses a cross, and a crucifix is an image of the crucifixion of Jseus taking place. The Gero Cross is a sculpted crucifixion image (of Jesus) commissioned by Bishop Gero, who died in his bed. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually there is no historical record that a cross was used in Calvary. Some people (and I am not among them) argue that it was a straight pole, but they are in a minority. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the article "Christian cross" into this article 

message: The new language editing system is not cooperating. So I'll just put this information here in case an experienced editor sees it. The Icelandic Wikipedia page for Róðukross should be language linked to the page for Crucifix. https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Róðukross  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.173.224 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Róðukross