Does The Orthodox Presbyterian Church use the Crucifix?

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[Gamecock]

Question:

Does the OPC use the crucifix in the church? If not, are they opposed to it?

Answer:

Thank you for your question. The answer is, so far as I know, the crucifix is not used in OPC churches, and here is why:

1.The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6 and Deut. 5:8-10) forbids any picture or image of God, and that would include the Son of God, even as man. At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him.

2.The crucifix will always end up being an object of worship—regarded as holy. History teaches as much. The bronze serpent Moses made became an object of worship and was not destroyed till King Hezekiah did it (Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 18:1-5). Roman Catholics have worshipped it, kissed it and held it to have mystical powers.

3.Christ did not remain on the Cross. In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated. This is heresy; he died once for all—Hebrews 9:25-28.

We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts not to do the same as others have in the past. Hence, no crucifixes are used. So, yes, we are opposed to it.

[Gamecock]

I’ve never understood what Protestants have against the Crucifix.

Perhaps this may help explain our concern.

[hosepipe]

Really.. “for Christ’s sake” I wish they would just be honest..
Parsing the subject just looks too tacky..

At least in South America the RCC is proud of their idolatry.. they do it with “class”..
Pomp and circumstance and the whole nine yards..
I respect that.. Kabuki Theatre on cocaine..
If you dont like it.. lump it..

[The Grammarian]

I take it that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church doesn’t hold to the Seventh Ecumenical Council then (the last one that Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics all acknowledge as a truly “ecumenical” council).

[Mrs. Don-o]

I've never written anything about the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and its practices and beliefs. I am too ignorant to do so. But if I were to write on this topic, I guarantee you I would get my information from some Orthodox Presbyterian source: a website, a book, a pastor --- not some source as ignorant as myself, but one authorized by the OP church.

I would recommend that you follow the same course when writing or reprintng articles which make reference to Catholicism. A good place to start would be to fact check what you write about the RC's with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Searchable Link)

This will give you two advantages:

• it will cause any Catholic reading your article to exclaim, "Whatever else you say about good ol' Gamecock, he sure understands Catholicism." And
• you will avoid triggering the kind of geezing and facepalming which would make it difficult for your reader to take even the good points of your article, as a whole, seriously.

[colorado tanker]

Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s pretend it’s 1517 and fight the Reformation all over again! Throw in the Thirty Years War as a bonus!

[imardmd1]

Do you have "The Old Rugged Cross" in your song book? I find it very difficult to sing the words in its chorus:

"I will cling to the old rugged cross, ..."

So when it is sung, I replace the words with:

"I will cling to the Christ of the Cross, ..."

But then I don't know what to do with the phrase:

"And exchange it some day for a crown."

Can somebody help me with this attempt to promote idolizing the torture instrument of His agony?

[Steve_Seattle]

From the Catholic Catechism":

"Let it suffice to note that all these explanations necessarily lead to impenetrable night, as long as men refuse to believe in the true Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass."

In this passage - a brief excerpt from a very long and complex discussion of "the sacrifice of the Mass" - it is stated that "His bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." Here the Mass is stated to be a "renewal," not simply a memorial, of the sacrifice on the cross.

However, I will concede that the Church also teaches that the original sacrifice on the cross was "once and for all" and cannot be repeated. All I am saying is that the teaching of the "sacrifice of the Mass" really muddies the waters, and you do not have to be a bigot to wonder if it's word-play.

I would also recommend that everyone Google this topic and read the authoritative explanation for yourself. You will see that it is highly complex, and probably far above the ability of the average 1st century Galilean peasant to comprehend. This suggests that it is one of those theological accretions common in religion and PERHAPS straying somewhat from the simplicity and concreteness of the original belief.

[CityCenter]

That line isn’t referring to a crown of thorns. It’s referring to the verses in Revelation.

[IrishBrigade]

Again, I know of no organization, group or entity which teaches this. Seriously. Words mean things.

...what everybody on this thread fails to note; Christ as sacrifice is presented anew, at each celebration, albeit literally in an unbloody manner, as opposed to the bloody, once consummated sacrifice upon Calvary; as the Spotless Victim He is made present under the appearance of bread and wine, i.e. transubstantiation...

...the two manners of sacrifice (bloody and unbloody) are contextually the same...the protestant notion of consubstantiation (spiritually present)was developed as a visceral reaction to the concept of Christ as oblation...

...I know you know all of this...what amuses me is how others purposefully twist that which is not difficult to understand into something that is both silly and wrong...thus, ‘resacrificing’...

[Alex Murphy]

Can somebody help me with this attempt to promote idolizing the torture instrument of His agony?

Dare I ask if you have a stake in that argument?

[hosepipe]

Christ’s words at the Last Supper “This is My Body ...” and earlier in His ministry “He who eats My Flesh and Drinks My Blood ...” make it abundantly clear what is meant.

---

Not so........... it is not abundantly clear..

It was the Passover dinner it was not even clear to some of the Jews present and most were Jews(probably)..
The lamb and wine at THIS dinner meant one thing to a observant Jew something else to a gentile.. (or a religiously ignorant Jew).. and many were at that time..

To my knowledge the RCC catholics that I know know nothing of Jewish religious custom’s of that time or even presently.. Thats why they BUY the bizarre line thats espoused.. They don’t paint their doorposts with “the blood” or fear the death angel.. in communal separation..

A whole nother take is put on the whole affair..

[faucetman]

“”At the last supper Jesus uses the bread and wine to represent his body and blood. He then tells us to, “Do this in memory of me.” That is what the Church is celebrating.””

Define “THIS”/”THAT”. Do WHAT?

I think this is all man’s “interpretation” of what Jesus meant. I think WAY too much has been read into it.

Jesus was resurrected ONCE, not every Sunday.

[bmontang]

Yes the Church does teach that is it the Mass is a “sacrifice” but it is Christ’s sacrifice, not our.

So much fail in this thread on what people think the Catholic church teaches...

By the way, even Christ taught us that the Bread and Wine become his precious body, blood, soul, and divinity. Look at what he said at the time. “Take and it this IS my body, my blood” not this represents, this IS.

Also if it was for show, why did many of the people there leave at that point? Why was it so hard for the people to hear?

[hosepipe]

Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s pretend it’s 1517 and fight the Reformation all over again! Throw in the Thirty Years War as a bonus!

---

Theres not enough popcorn in all of america for that...
But I’ll watch..

[imardmd1]

I’ve never understood what Protestants have against the Crucifix.

Perhaps you do not understand because Roman Catholics do not have the same ten commandments.

[IrishBrigade]

All I am saying is that the teaching of the “sacrifice of the Mass” really muddies the waters...

...thanks for the input, Martin Luther...

This suggests that it is one of those theological accretions common in religion and PERHAPS straying somewhat from the simplicity and concreteness of the original belief...

...ah yes, those darn ‘theological accretions’ again...how dare they get in the way of our being nothing more than 1st century Galilean peasant...

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him. ****

There is a description of him, but it is a middle age fake designed to give artists of the time a baseline to go on.

Years ago, it did not stop the hucksters at TBN from giving this description away IF you sent in a certain amount of money.
Whatz’er name on the show spent a lot of time hawking these descriptions in a way that would have done honor to a medicine show barker.

[Jim Noble]

When I was a Reformed Christian, I was always taught that the empty cross meant that His sacrifice was completed and that His body had risen.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

LMAO. My grandmother says “if you don’t like it,lump it” a lot.

[Springfield Reformer]

Using the verb of being does not, by itself, settle whether a particular analogy is literal, figurative, or something more exotic. Jesus also says He is the door of the sheepfold. Is he merely apparently human in form, but in the deeper reality a physical door? You place too much weight on IS in isolation. Language simply doesn’t work that way. Lots of moving parts, and they all have to work together to arrive at legitimate meaning.

For example, you ask why the people of John 6 suddenly wanted to part ways with Jesus over this. If you would look closely at the response, it provides a giant clue to aid in understanding what he was really saying:

Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. [64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Do you see what happened here? They were repulsed by Jesus’ words because they did not think of them in a spiritual sense, but in a literal, material sense. Jews could not eat human flesh, and God would never command them to do that. But they could not get to the next level of understanding. Jesus says specifically that it is the spirit that gives life, that the flesh profits nothing.

Keep in mind He speaks this in a context where his own literal flesh was the subject of discussion. He is deliberately deflecting his listeners from attaching any importance to the notion of consuming his physical being in some literal sense. He wants them to think of it as a spiritual transaction, not a fleshly one. And then He caps it off by stating the reason why some cannot get to that spiritual understanding; they do not believe, which is tied to the earlier statement he makes near the beginning of this exchange, that only those believe whom the Father has drawn to Him. So he closes the loop, using the inability to comprehend the spiritual nature of his atonement as a live demonstration of the earlier statement about the necessity of being drawn by the Father.