Icons vs. Idols

[Budge]

[quote]"The calf ... a feast of the Lord: from this it is clear that the golden calf was intended as an image, not of a false god, but of the Lord himself, his strength being symbolized by the strength of a young bull. The Israelites, however, had been forbidden to represent the Lord under any visible form." -NAB footnotes[/quote]

And that is why I preach against any use of images in a church.

the second commandment doesnt have endless qualifers.

[Aloysius]

Ancient pagans worshiped images and statues in and of themselves. It is mostly due to Christian influence, or western secular influence (for the two often have the same insights, western secularism merely distorts those insights in dastardly ways to make for horrid interpretations of them) that the image starts to represent the thing they are worshiping instead of being the object of the worship itself. It is treated as 'animated'


"To fashion the idol of a god, to install it in the sanctuary, to treat it as "animated," to anoint it: all of these became major rites...For some, perhaps for the majority, the idol is the god himself, and we can classify this as idolatry; for others, symbolical values are true values and the idol is nothing more than what it is in any form of cult in which the sacred is incarnate in some concrete form." Renou, Louis, ed. [i]Hinduism[/i] 1962. George Braziller: New York: pp 31-32

When he says "perhaps the majority" he refers to the practices of folk Hinduism, which is real historical Hinduism; as opposed to the higher classes of Hindu society influenced by western philosophies who feel they are above all that.

but it is very interesting and telling to me that he uses the word "incarnate"; because this was the reason Christianity accepted icons in the first place: because the Incarnation changed everything. God Himself represented Himself in visible form. God's presence came to dwell with the people; instead of the only place where one could fall down before the presence of God as it was represented in physical form being the ark of the covenant; now all creation could be ordered towards serving him in this manner.

There is nothing new under the sun; the Church already figured out why Iconoclasm is wrong, but these protestant judaizers, attempting to put us back under the proscriptions of the Old Law for a pre-incarnational period, seek to UNDO the incarnation and make icons once again taboo; as if all creation had not been now redeemed.

"The one who granted us the light of recognizing him, the one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy catholic church, [i]having no blemish or wrinkle (Eph 5,27)[/i], promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, [i]I am with you every day until the consummation of this age (Mt 28, 20)[/i]. This promise however he made not only to them but also to us, who thanks to them have come to believe in his name [i](Jn 17, 20)[/i] To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning, and setting themselves against the tradition of the catholic church they faltered in their grasp of the truth. As the proverbial saying puts it, they turned askew the axles of their farm carts and gathered no harvest in their hands. Indeed they have the effrontery to criticize the beauty pleasing to God established in the holy monuments; they were priests in name, but not in reality. They were those of whom God calls out by prophecy, [i]Many pastors have destroed my vine, they have defiled my portion (Jer 12, 10)[/i]. For they followed unholy men and trusting to their own frenzies they calumniated the holy church, which Christ our God has espoused to himself and [i]they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane (Ez 22, 26)

...

To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message." Nicaea II

Iconoclasm reverses the incarnation, pure and simple. It is a specific particular of the nature of fallen creation prior to the incarnation whereby images of creation could not be used in glorifying God; God's presence was cut off from creation and it was given to disorder. When God wonderfully restored creation; when He made all things anew; the moral principal of the commandment (which is the first commandment, by the way remained; just like the moral principals of all the proscriptions of the law remain in force until this day; but the particular no longer needed to be applied; we are liberated from such things because Christ fulfilled it all, and renewed creation so that the situation is entirely different for mankind than it was prior to His coming.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The First Commandment doesn't list endless qualifiers. You're right. However, the rest of the Bible does. I'd take the time to show you where, but you already know where, and you refuse to acknowledge those verses whenever they are brought up, so I don't really see the point.

Budge, if you want a debate, then the best way to do it is to understand what your opponent's position is. Unless you do that, you will get nowhere.

God bless,

Micah

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Budge' post='1249133' date='Apr 19 2007, 10:04 AM']And that is why I preach against any use of images in a church.

the second commandment doesnt have endless qualifers.[/quote]

I thought that you were a "Bible-believing Christian," and yet here you are using [i]footnotes[/i], for goodness sake. Since when were footnotes afforded equal status in matters of faith and morals with sacred scripture?

Or could it be that you're positing [i]your understanding[/i] of scripture as being authoritative, a Magisterium of Budge, if you will?

[Aloysius]

I split this post from a topic in Transmundane since it was debate, just FYI so people don't think Budge just posted a little snippet as a topic-head

[mortify]

What's up with resurrecting ancient issues already solved by the Church?

[Maggyie]

The NAB footnotes are not really... the best, anyway

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1255560' date='Apr 24 2007, 07:09 PM']The NAB footnotes are not really... the best, anyway [/quote]
I thought Budge thought the NAB was a false Bible translation. Yet now she's basing her position on its footnotes!

[RezaMikhaeil]

It's important to note that it's a historical fact that St. Luke drew the first icon of St. Mary the Theotokos and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

[Mercy me]

When did Budge start reading the NAB? She is always quoting the King James.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1255628' date='Apr 24 2007, 10:25 PM']When did Budge start reading the NAB? She is always quoting the King James.[/quote]

Maybe she only reads the footnotes?

Edited April 25, 2007 by Maggie

[Aloysius]

I'm sorry if I have not made it clear: this post was posted in Transmundane Lane. The original poster quoted the NAB, Budge quoted the original poster (I filled in the rest of the quote because I thought it'd help context) and responded.

What your responses do show, if this had been a whole topic thread started by her, is an ad hominem focus. If Budge sources the NAB footnotes, even if she disagrees with most of the NAB, or even if she does not believe in interpretations being authoritative over his faith, the point made by the NAB footnotes still holds; her argument based on that point is an argument to be addressed. You could argue against the correctness of the NAB, you could argue against the correctness of Budge's position, but what you have done is make a red herring issue over Budge's inconsistent agreement with the NAB (it is her right to be in inconsistent agreement with something; that is something us Catholics defend all the time about the Pope's agreement with the UN)

I know her approach gets under skin, and it's irritating, and it's often irrational or counter-rational. But when that is allowed to become the determining factor in our response to her, she has won. Yes, she may remain obstinent and not respond to our responses because she's spammed our board with such a wide array of topics that she cannot keep up with devoting time to all of them. But the beauty of a public forum, which is google-mined on a daily basis, is that the arguments are saved for posterity. If threads start ending with the Catholic side having ad hominem focus and no longer addressing the issue; the google-searcher who happens upon it will begin to think Budge was correct. However, if all the final voices are Catholic ad argumentum valid points, and Budge has no answer; the average google searcher will see a stronger position holding through till the end and be more likely to be convinced.

So I implore you as a fellow Catholic apologist and a fellow phatmasser and even as a regulator, stay steadfast in a majority of pure ad argumentum responses, please.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

To be an iconoclast is to disbelieve in the Incarnation. If Jesus became fully human, and we really accept that for what it truly means, making artistic representations of Him is no more wrong than taking photos of your family. True iconoclastic thought leads to the stance advocated by Salafi Muslims - the belief that cameras are immoral and that artwork should never contain pictures of humans and animals. If you believe that God became man and was born of a woman (the supreme idolatry according to Orthodox Jewish thought) than you should be able to accept religious ikons.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]

[quote name='Budge' post='1249133' date='Apr 19 2007, 11:04 AM']And that is why I preach against any use of images in a church.

the second commandment doesnt have endless qualifers.[/quote]

Images of Jesus and the saints have been used for decoration and devotional purposes since the beginning of Christianity. Today only the most uninformed person gives credence to the accusation that Catholics worship these statues and or pictures.

Several hundred years ago, the Council of Trent, exaplined the practice perfectly: "The images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints are kept and honored in churches not because it is believed that there is any divinity or power in these images, or that anything may be asked of them, or any faith be put in them. The honor shown to them is really being given to the persons who they represent. Through these images which ew kiss, and before which we bow with bared heads, we worship Christ, and not the saints whose likness they display."

Even many Catholics do not realize that the church is very careful about what images are allowed for public veneration. All pictures or sculptures must be approved by the bishop or other proper authority. The reasons most Protestant denominations do not allow images in their churches are varied. One is that in the early Protestant Reformation tyhere was much misunderstanding about the meaning of honoring images of Jesus and the saints. "No statues" became a symbol of protest against the church of Rome. Now, it has involved into Protestants (because of their lack of understanding about the early Church and even their own protestant "reformers") truly believing that Catholics worship these statues, which in fact is false.

Anyway, to actually idolize anything is to worship it. So, for these statues/pictures to be idols that would mean that, as Catholics, we would worship them. The Catholic Church teaches we do not worship them, and that only God is to be worshipped. To worship anything created is to commit the sin of idoltry. So, since we are not worshiping these statues we can't be posssibly making them idols.

[b] But God does not prohibit image-making altogether.[/b] In [b]Ex 25:18-19[/b], God commands Moses to make statues of angels (cherubim). In [b]Num 21:8[/b] God tells Moses to make a bronze serpent (seraph), which the Israelites had to look upon in order to be healed. The Jews also used many carved images in the Temple, including cherubim, oxen, lions, palm trees, and flowers [b](1 Kings 6 and 7)[/b]

[b] The rejection of statues and other images in Church devotional life is a Christian heresy known as "iconolasm." It was first seen in Christianity in the eigth century when the wicked Emperor Leo the Isuarian, influenced by the new religion of Islam, began attacking the use of statues and icons in the CHurch. In the Second Council of Nicea in AD 787, the Church condemned this heresy. This heresy then did not resurface in Christianity until the "Reformation". [/b]

God bless you, Budge!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie