It is said that this has been clarified and that "all liturgical references to the cross mean a cross with a corpus". However I have not yet seen a source referenced. If true I would regret the loss of the desolate experience of gazing at something like this in our Cathedral. But we had a relic of the true cross to venerate as well.

isn't JESUS on the cross the one whom we adore, crucify daily in the Mass, and take into our beings?

On this very day of days in which we remember what Christ has done for us, For God's Sake and Yours, find a real crucifix.

I may be wrong, however, I may be correct, but a Crucifix without a corpus is a novelty of very late. We have always kissed the feet of Jesus in veneration.

cru·ci·fix
ˈkro͞osəˌfiks/
noun
a representation of a cross with a figure of Jesus Christ on it.

If I ever approach a relic of the true cross, that would be an entirely different matter.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to know what the VO has always prescribed in its theology and practice as compared to the NO and its theology and practice.

Francis, I am sorry, but I don't know what you are asking me.

There is no meaning to the Cross except for Christ! And we (the Catholics) do place an image of Christ upon the Cross, and so we should continue to do. Also those (protestants? Not sure) who say that the Cross should always be depicted without Christ's body "because he is risen", are wrong. Also those (hmm, some Catholics too) who prefer a so-called "Resurrection crucifix" with a welcoming Christ-figure wide alive and arms open in welcome.. well that's not the theology of the Cross either, that they prefer.

But it's easy to find historical and ancient images of the Cross without the body of the Lord. Because the Cross itself was and is venerated. Read, if you will, the acts of Second Nicaea, wherein the icon of the Cross is pretty clearly described and allowed, separately from the icons of the Saviour.

The quote is from the current Missal, translating Fortunatus's superni membra regis mite tendas stipite. Clearly it addresses the personified Cross, of whom Christ is the King as He is of all.

We venerate a large plain cross with a documented relic of the true cross in the center.

If one wants to see a corpus in our church one need only look at the giant crucifix atop the rood screen. You can't miss it.

For us a bare cross that lives most of the year in the choir staircase.

I noticed something new (or maybe newly noticed?) this year: at each of the three "Ecce lignum" intonations a bit of the shroud was peeled back, from each arm and last from the top-piece. Is this, um, drama a widespread tradition?

Furthermore, it would be interesting to know what the VO has always prescribed in its theology and practice as compared to the NO and its theology and practice.

Perhaps you should research and answer this question yourself!

From Roman Missal 2010, Good Friday, Veneration of the Holy Cross, First Form:

T he Deacon accompanied by ministers, or another suitable minister, goes to the sacristy, from which, in procession, accompanied by two ministers with lighted candles, he carries the Cross, covered with a violet veil, through the church to the middle of the sanctuary. The Priest, standing before the altar and facing the people, receives the Cross, uncovers a little of its upper part and elevates it while beginning the Ecce lignum Crucis (Behold the wood of the Cross). He is assisted in singing by the Deacon or, if need be, by the choir. All respond, Come, let us adore. At the end of the singing, all kneel and for a brief moment adore in silence, while the Priest stands and holds the Cross raised...
...
Then the Priest uncovers the right arm of the Cross and again, raising up the Cross, begins, Behold the wood of the Cross and everything takes place as above.
Finally, he uncovers the Cross entirely and, raising it up, he begins the invitation Behold the wood of the Cross a third time and everything takes place like the first time.

Emphasis mine.

from The Cross and the Crucifix by former Protestant Steve Ray

Ecumenical Considerations
Most Protestants, I am convinced, don’t “cross themselves” and reject the crucifix in favor of a bare cross, simply because these practices are Catholic--period. They do not think deeply on this matter, they simply try to avoid “Romish ritual”. They say cute things like “Jesus is risen and not on the cross, so why do you Catholics leave Him on the cross?”, but that is not really the reason they shun the crucifix. They shun the crucifix in principle because it is Catholic and in their heart they believe Catholic teaching and practice is unbiblical, and therefore to be avoided or rebuked, certainly not encouraged or practiced. I know, I was there as an Evangelical Protestant Christian.

This may not be the conscious action of modern Protestants, but it is certainly their heritage as the progeny of the “Reformation”. It boils down to principle, intolerance, and even pettiness. Catholics should not take down their crosses or their crucifixes to please Protestant friends. Instead, they should educate their Protestant friends to the history of the subject and expose the silly inconsistencies of the Protestant position. Protestants tend to be uninterested in church history and while they criticize Catholics for following tradition and the Pope, they slavishly follow their own Fundamentalist traditions and believe everything their pastors tell them. The difference is that the Catholic has 2,000 years of history, exegesis, and precedent, whereas the Protestant makes it up as he goes along, reinventing the wheel in thousands of differing styles and shapes with each generation.

If we as Catholics are so ready to give up our Catholic distinctives, customs passed down to us by the Fathers, then Protestant brethren will conclude that the Catholic distinctives are irrelevant, even to the Catholic. They will then conclude that the sacraments, Holy Tradition, the Magisterium, and other “Catholic things” are just unnecessary appurtenances. For example: a Catholic goes to pray with a group of Protestants. The Protestants are watching very carefully. The Protestants don’t sacrifice a single thing--they pray like Protestants, like they do in their exclusively Protestant circles. The Catholic, on the other hand, does not cross himself with Protestants, does not begin “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and does not mention Mary, the Saints, and never quotes from the seven books the Protestants removed from the Bible

What does the non-Catholic think? “We gave up nothing to pray with the Catholic, we stuck to our principles. The Catholic gave up his Catholic distinctives, in other words, the Catholic left his Catholicism at the door with his hat and coat. He is willing to give up his Catholicism to “become Protestant” for an hour, like us, so why is it necessary for us to consider Catholicism as anything singularly important? If he is willing to give up as unnecessary his Catholic customs, then probably the other distinctively “Catholic things” are also dispensable: the Real Presence, regenerative baptism, infant baptism, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, Mary and the saints, sexual mores, Purgatory, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.”

If we Catholics so willingly to set aside practice (Catholic distinctives), the Protestants assume we will just as easily dispense with the dogma. They will assume this because they don’t understand the difference between the two. This conclusion is the inevitable, though not necessarily factual conclusion, and it does great harm to the Church and to Christian unity. In the practice of “compromising unity,” a false unity, we have the potential to damage true unity under the successor of Peter. These Catholics should put the crucifix back on your wall, cross yourself proudly, and wear their Catholicism proudly, unabashedly, without apologizing to anyone.

I don’t believe it is an exaggeration to say that the bare cross is a sign of Protestantism in many cases, like the crucifix is to the Catholic. “Ecumenically-sensitive” Catholics have in the past removed their crucifixes (and other distinctly Catholic symbols) to accommodate their Protestant brethren [Endnote 25]; does the Protestant take down their Protestant symbols and statement, the bare cross or others, out of sensitivity to their Catholic brethren, or do they leave their stripped down statements boldly in place?

This has been a brief overview of the situation with images, the cross and the Crucifix. It has gone through many stages and various controversies have swirled around the great sign of the Christian and the Catholic Church. The best we can do is learn our history, correctly understand Scripture, trust in the Church of God, “the pillar and foundation of the truth,” and be bold and confident about Her faith and practice.