Hello, I'm a college student that was raised as a Protestant, but in recent years have been on a philosophical and theological quest to uncover the actual Truth. Of course, to do that, I must strip myself of any current beliefs, and view things objectively. Through various philosophical conversations with various people (as well as research in libraries, the Internet, the Bible, and other religious texts), I have come to the unbiased conclusion that clearly Jesus lived an ideal life, and his teachings are to be revered. Beyond that, I will continue to think.

However, I have a question about Catholicism, which, I must admit, I know less that I would like about. Anyway, I have noticed two separate versions of the Catholic crucifix: one which shows Jesus on the cross in what appears to be a likely representation of how he would have appeared, and the other which displays Jesus as being incredibly thin, and hanging far down on the cross. I was wondering if a Catholic could please explain to me the significance of the second type of crucifix? It seems to me that it is not an accurate historical depiction, so why is it the preferred crucifix for the Pope (it's on his staff) than the other crucifix which depicts a more accurate representation of Jesus?

-- Jim Weaver (Olympus19@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003

Answers

Response to What's the meaning of different types of crucifixs?

Actually Jim, I don't think the particular styles you mentioned are really two distinct forms into which crucifixes can be divided, but rather just two examples from among literally hundreds of different styles of crucifixes, limited only by the imaginations of the artists who designed them. There are some specific types of design that differ from the norm in a particular way, such as crucifixes which have the figure of Christ with his arms free and outreaching, rather than nailed to the cross. The intent in such forms is not to be historically accurate, but to emphasize some theological truth, such as the victory of Jesus over death. But I don't know of any specific symbolism intended by the two styles you mentioned.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 14, 2003.

yes paul, as always right on the money.

the second design that you speak of for the crucifix always reminds me of the pain Christ bore to die for our sins. its alot easier to avoid sin if we remember that everytime we sin we join the jews in putting Jesus on the cross. i pray that we never forget what our sin does to our Lord, it saddens God immensly and pains his heart, which aches for us to follow his rightous path. but thats my interpretation of an artists depiction, so i may not be right.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

I don't think we'll see a really 'accurate' crucifix if we don't show the corpus with the skin shredded and with battering and brusing all over.

I agree that it's not a different 'type' of crucifix, only a different artist's version.

I was hoping to learn more about the different TYPES of crucifixes here: the Jerusalem Cross, the Franciscan Cross, the Benedictine Crucifix, among others.

Where are the thoughts of those present of things like the ankh (the Egyptian representation, which has many interpretations; it looks like a loop with a stem from the bottom)?

What about the idea of a person wearing more than one crucifix... does that matter? Should we wear a crucifix? Is there some point in one's life when you should start to wear a crucifix?

What about the crucifix that shows Christ with His arms extended, but there is no cross.. instead, there is a square, or some other background than a cross?

-- Apryl (apryl@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Apryl.

Here are small sketches of 31 common and uncommon cross designs.
Here are 9 cross designs on flags.
Some information about more than 10 of these cross designs can be found near the bottom of this page. For the others, I suggest that you go to www.google.com, enter "xxxxx cross" (substituting one of the types for the xxxxx), and click on "Google Search". Except for very rare designs, you should get a list of sites to visit.

You may enjoy looking at this page about the ankh, although the author is surely wrong in saying that the ankh "is an enduring icon that remains with us even today as a Christian cross." The ankh has nothing to do with the Christian cross, since it has nothing to do with Roman capital punishment nor with Christianity. There is only a vague, coincidental relationship of symbolism (ankh = life, cross of Jesus leads to eternal life). My opinion is that a Christian should not wear an ankh as a substitute for a cross.

I see no valid reason for a person to wear more than one cross.
Wearing more than one crucifix would seem even less proper (and confusing).
Although I have never seen such a thing, a triple-cross (as on Calvary), with one cross emphasized, would probably not be an improper thing to wear.

I think that it would be good for each Christian to wear or to carry a crucifix (from the "age of reason" onward), though we are not required to do so. A crucifix (or a cross) serves as a reminder to us (and, if visible, to others) of the price that Jesus paid for our salvation. It helps us to repent of our sins. It helps us to bear our sufferings.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.

Wearing more than one crucifix would seem even less proper (and confusing). Although I have never seen such a thing, a triple-cross (as on Calvary), with one cross emphasized, would probably not be an improper thing to wear

actually, this question came up in one of my discussions with my priest two years back... he told me that you could wear multiple crucifixes, accept that there really wasnt a reason to. although he did state that too many could be viewed as an attempt to belittle the crucifix by treating it as a trinket.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

Regarding the wearing of crucifixes and the origins of the different forms of crosses, there are large volumes of often differing views on the subject.

The crucifix that we now wear or see in churches are a response to the individual intepretation of thr artist(s) involved. The portrayal of Christ on the cross corresponds to the message or image that needs to be put across. Therefore, we do have for example the image of the Risen Christ on certain crucifixes when we want to identify with the joy of the Lord's resurrection.

The cross that the Holy Father carries portrays the Christ suffering, the act of pain and death by which we are all called to salvation. It is a reminder to all that the price paid by Christ to redeem us is one of ultimate sacrifice.

The development of the arts in the centuries since the cruxifiction has allowed for a myraid of ways by which Christ and the saints are portrayed, we are now far more able to present true emotions from the artisan's tools.

As for different forms of crosses and cruxifixes seen throughout Christiandom, from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to Protestanism, each cross designed carried a differeent message and bears a different cultural or historical background. The first reason for the different forms of the cross, from the traditional tau, roman and greek forms, to the more complex and recent forms of the maltese, jerusalem, and lorraine crosses, is the overall lack of information on the actual cross on which our Saviour died. The Romans of the time had different forms of the cruel form of execution, some of which related to the pattern of the tau cross, the roman cross, or simply a stake in the ground. The form of the cross we see today is more or less engraved into our psyche as the 'practical' form.

The other crosses that we see in the world today, like the jerusalem cross and maltese cross are a response to cultural and symbolic reasons. The jerusalem cross was first seen in the arms of the Latin Jerusalem. The four small crosses symbolised the four Gospels while the large centre cross was that of Christ, from whom the Gospels come.

The maltese cross, the eight pointed star-like crossform relates to the eight beatitudes. Other crosses like the lorraine cross, the papal or orthodox cross were developed out of a artistic nature to portray the act of the crucifixtion.

The cross itself has a development before Christ offered His Life on the wood. Ancient religions and cultures also used the cross as a symbol. Yet most of these symbols have now become identified with Christianity.

The ankh cross, which some see as a pagan symbol dervied from the Egyptian text, has wide usage and adoption within the Christian church, and was first used by the Coptic Church. The ankh, or crux ansata (looped Tau) is a symbol of eternal life, as promised by Christ to all who follow Him.

As for the wearing of crosses or crucifixes, there is no sin in wearing more than one, but for practical reasons and more minor theological reasons, there is no need to wear more than one or to wear particularly large ones. The pratical reasons are easily understood. The theological reason is about the power of God. We wear crosses for two basic reaons, one as an outward sign of our faith and secondly as we believe that the cross is a sign of God's presence with us (or as protection to put it bluntly). Therefore, as God is Almighty, His protection is all reaching and unstoppable, thus wearing more than one cross does not "enhance" or "increase" the "power" of God. To seek to wear more than one cross for the matter of "protection" is to deny that God has power and control over all things.

Hope this helps.

Pax Christi!

-- Br. Alex, ofc (alexispaul@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.