Thoughts on the Celtic Cross

MandMaud said:

I tend to see hopes and fears as the same thing. I think this is what Amanda's saying, but I'm not sure. The thing that we fear is often the very thing we hope for... both hope and fear involve fascination with the object. So in a way, bringing the two into one concept turns it into something like 'What's on the querent's mind'.

(Which in another spread would be above the central card, as in 'on' the mind - not that I love to be literal with idiom, or anything - and position 9 is fairly "up high" in the CC so I find that satisfying!

Putting it another way: both hopes and fears are wishes. Wishes that a thing will or will not happen.

Anyway, I don't see a need to separate hopes and fears into two positions, or two cards.

Click to expand...

Just a different model, one I learned from Eden Gray's books back in 1972 and have elaborated on ever since. Not a "need" just a variation. I don't believe Gray ever explained why she felt a "need to separate" hopes and fears into two positions, but I'm probably wrong and will have to go look. By the logic you've given, I see "fears" as better positioned low on the "staff" than in the more exalted spot up high. It's why I call the lower position "the deepest part of the Self" (rather than just the "Self" or "himself" per Waite), and the "psychic basement" where emotional "baggage" accumulates. By the same token, many people use Waite's "sign of the cross" model without really thinking too much about it. I try to get "under the hood" more.

MandMaud said:

I tend to see hopes and fears as the same thing. I think this is what Amanda's saying, but I'm not sure. The thing that we fear is often the very thing we hope for... both hope and fear involve fascination with the object. So in a way, bringing the two into one concept turns it into something like 'What's on the querent's mind'.

Putting it another way: both hopes and fears are wishes. Wishes that a thing will or will not happen.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're the same thing at all, which is why they're so useful as 2 different cards for me. Therefore I can see why, when a person thinks they are two sides of the same coin, they would need only 1 card! But...just for an experiment, why not try 2 cards in the next CC you do- first is hopes, second is fears. You have nothing to lose

Barleywine said:

I like the idea of doing this at Card 5 to see what possibilities and options the querent might be able to latch onto. I think I would use 3 cards to flesh out the picture rather than 2. This would also put 12 cards in play, which would match up better with the 3-card elemental dignity sets.

Click to expand...

Which way up/around are you doing cards 1-6?

I go 1 in centre, 2 crossing it, 3 roots beneath, 4 past (left), 5 crowns on top, 6 future to the right.

My regular CC is adaptable- between 11-13 cards depending on question. Actually it looks more like a Celtic Cod than a Cross sometimes

earthair said:

I don't think they're the same thing at all, which is why they're so useful as 2 different cards for me. Therefore I can see why, when a person thinks they are two sides of the same coin, they would need only 1 card! But...just for an experiment, why not try 2 cards in the next CC you do- first is hopes, second is fears. You have nothing to lose



Which way up/around are you doing cards 1-6?

My regular CC is adaptable- between 11-13 cards depending on question. Actually it looks more like a Celtic Cod than a Cross sometimes

Click to expand...

From the central "cross" (Cards 1 and 2), I drop down to the "foundation" (Card 3), then work clockwise (to the left) through Cards 4, 5 and 6, in a circular manner. (I don't pay any attention which way the Significator is facing, if I happen to use one.) It's why I like the "wheel" metaphor. If I added two auxiliary cards to position #5, I'd treat them as 5.a and 5.b. If card 5 "preconditions" future developments as the "stage-setter," I might see 5.a and 5.b as the "curtain-raisers." It will be a fun idea to play with. Thanks!

Celtic Cod! I love that. I don't normally use qualifiers of any kind, so this will be purely experimental for me.

Barleywine said:

From the central "cross" (Cards 1 and 2), I drop down to the "foundation" (Card 3), then work clockwise (to the left) through Cards 4, 5 and 6, in a circular manner. (I don't pay any attention which way the Significator is facing, if I happen to use one.) It's why I like the "wheel" metaphor. If I added two auxiliary cards to position #5, I'd treat them as 5.a and 5.b. If card 5 "preconditions" future developments as the "stage-setter," I might see 5.a and 5.b as the "curtain-raisers." It will be a fun idea to play with. Thanks!

Celtic Cod! I love that. I don't normally use qualifiers of any kind, so this will be purely experimental for me.

Click to expand...

Yup, going down and clockwise is the only thing that makes sense I've never understood how some versions have positions defying gravity and the natural progression of left to right!

Aaaah, no, the 3 extra cards I use aren't qualifiers- they are positions, (one of which is fears, as discussed).

It's funny, Barleywine, that how I learned the CC is basically the same as what you are describing as having evolved into. I did a lot of reading at that time and just put together the things that made sense to me and still work for me today.

One difference for me is position 5 I read more as the "perception of" or "goal of" the querent regarding the situation/question, which may be at odds with position 3, which I read as the foundation but also as the true root (versus perceived root) of the issue. For that reason, I compare 3 and 5. I also compare 5, 6, and 10. Occasionally I compare 7 and 1, to see if their expectations are either out of line or in tune, similar to comparing 3 to 5.

I really love the CC in this way . . . that there are so many aspects of the question that you can compare and contrast to get a very nuanced and informative view. I don't always like positional spreads, but I have gotten so many great readings from the CC, despite its reputation for being too complicated, clunk-a-dunk, or musty. That said, the CC is not great for mundane questions or "small" questions. It is most suited to larger issues and general readings.

(Don't get me going on position 9. That's a whole 'nother essay.)

Just like a certain deck is more appropriate for certain questions, the same applies to what spread you choose.

I am so glad I joined this thread, these posts are helping me to understand the CC better

I also get more why I just can't click with the CC - I kind of know all I need to know from past readings on general & large issues (not done with the CC) that are good enough to last me for months & years. I'm good to go without the tarot on those issues. Also, I know myself enough to not need the CC to tell me certain things...

In my case, the CC would be more useful if I were to read for others. Which I rarely do...

earthair said:

I always deal 2 cards at this position- one for hopes and one for fears! And spookily they always come out the right way around

Click to expand...

I also deal two cards: an extra one after the spread has been laid out. I, too, find it works. I agree it is a really hard area to interpret, so I just let the querent figure out the truth it offers up.

Philistine said:

One difference for me is position 5 I read more as the "perception of" or "goal of" the querent regarding the situation/question, which may be at odds with position 3, which I read as the foundation but also as the true root (versus perceived root) of the issue.

Click to expand...

I've thought quite a bit about the idea that position #5 is "what's on the querent's (conscious) mind," and position #3 is about the querent's subconscious. But ultimately I returned to the paradigm that the "cross" portion of the spread (cards 1 through 6) is about the dimensions of the question and its development, and the "staff" section is about the querent's state of being and its evolution. So I consider positions #7 and #9 to show those aspects of the querent's psyche. Although I don't usually see positions #3 and #5 as a polarity, but rather an extension, I can see how what the querent previously understood to be true (card 3) could be at odds with what currently seems to be true (card 5) based on new information (card 4). Thanks for the nudge.

yannie said:

I am so glad I joined this thread, these posts are helping me to understand the CC better

I also get more why I just can't click with the CC - I kind of know all I need to know from past readings on general & large issues (not done with the CC) that are good enough to last me for months & years. I'm good to go without the tarot on those issues. Also, I know myself enough to not need the CC to tell me certain things...

In my case, the CC would be more useful if I were to read for others. Which I rarely do...

Click to expand...

It is very useful for reading for others, Yannie, and I find it does a superb job if you keep it in the "three to six month's time ahead" time slot. And nail it firmly to a strong question. You will find it speaks quite clearly!

I started using the Celtic Cross when I bought my first tarot deck -- the 1JJSwiss. It even came with a big sheet of paper to put the cards on.

I actually prefer smaller spreads now. Much less confusing, and the answers I get are clearer.