Are our artistic interpretations of angels accurate?

[Just_a_fellah]

Well, the Hebrew word pesel originally meant something hewn, carved or fashioned into shape. So if we are going to take the commandment literalistically here, the commandment then is not addressing paintings and other two-dimensional media.

The word pesel appears almost exclusively in the context of ritual and cultic imagery in the OT, however, and thus, is better understood and rendered as, ‘idol’.

Yes, pesel means hewn, carved or fashioned into shape and you could, if one so wished, take it to mean not addressing paintings and other two-dimensional media. And that is why the second line of the Commandment clearly states “or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above” which does address paintings and other two-dimensional media.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, pesel means hewn, carved or fashioned into shape and you could, if one so wished, take it to mean not addressing paintings and other two-dimensional media. And that is why the second line of the Commandment clearly states “or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above” which does address paintings and other two-dimensional media.

Forgive me for being thick, but how can you infer ‘painting’ from temunah?

 

[patrick457]

As an aside, the Ten Words would look like the following if we separate them by the imperatives:

I am YHWH, your God, who brought you out of Mitzraim, from a house of slaves:

There will not be for you other gods upon my face.

You will not make for yourself an idol, and any likeness which is in the heavens above, and which is on the earth beneath, and which is in the waters under the earth.

You will not bow yourself down to them,

And you will not serve them: for I, YHWH your God, am a zealous God, registering the iniquity of fathers on sons, upon the third, and upon the fourth of those hating me, and showing loving-kindness to thousands, of those loving me and keeping my commandments.

You will not take up the name of YHWH your God for a falseness, for YHWH will not acquit him who takes up His name for a falseness.

Remember the day of the Sabbath to set him apart [as holy].

Six days you will serve, and you will do all your work, and the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God.

You will not do any work, you and your son and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant, and your beast, and your stranger who is in your gates, for six days had YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and rested in the seventh day; therefore YHWH blessed the day of the Sabbath, and set him apart [as holy].

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days will be made long on the ground which YHWH your God is giving to you.

You will not murder.

You will not commit adultery.

You will not steal.

You will not answer against your neighbor a lying witness.

You will not crave the house of your neighbor:

You will not crave the woman of your neighbor, and his manservant, and his maidservant, and his ox, and his donkey, and all which is your neighbor’s.

 

[patrick457]

There is no single way of dividing the Ten Words. Three main numbering schemes currently exist:

1.) Philonic

Attested in the writings of Philo (On the Decalogue 12.51) and Josephus (Antiquities 3.89-92): currently used by most Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox.

1.) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.
2.) You shall not make to yourself an idol.
3.) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.
4.) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5.) Honor your father and your mother.
6.) You shall not murder.
7.) You shall not commit adultery.
8.) You shall not steal.
9.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.) You shall not covet.

2.) Talmudic

Attested in the Talmud (Makkot 24a) and other Jewish literature (cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s version of Exodus 20; Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot). Currently used by modern-day Jews.

1.) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2.) You shall have no other gods before me.
3.) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.
4.) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5.) Honor your father and your mother.
6.) You shall not murder.
7.) You shall not commit adultery.
8.) You shall not steal.
9.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.) You shall not covet.

3.) Augustinian

Attested in the writings of St. Augustine (Quaestionum in Heptateuchum 7.2.61). Currently used by Catholics and Lutherans. The medieval Jewish writer Abraham ibn-Ezra (aka Abenezra), in his commentary on Deuteronomy, proposes a similar reckoning.

1.) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.
2.) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.
3.) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
4.) Honor your father and your mother.
5.) You shall not murder.
6.) You shall not commit adultery.
7.) You shall not steal.
8.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. (Lutheran: house)
10.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. (Lutheran: wife)

 

[Just_a_fellah]

Forgive me for being thick, but how can you infer ‘painting’ from temunah?

The simple answer is, I didn’t infer “painting” from “temunah”. I said the word “likeness” as in “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any** likeness** of any thing that is in heaven above” refers to “paintings”. This is not my personal translation; it comes from such versions of The Holy Bible as The King James, American Standard, English Standard and Young’s Literal.

 

[You]

My confusion? Wow, where do I start? This painting was not commissioned by The Medici Family and is so much more than the sweet little Christmas scene you imagine. To go a bit further into it’s history; The painting was commissioned by Gaspare di Zanobi del Lama, a corrupt banker who used it as coinage to to gain political favours from a powerfull family. This painting was created out of greed and dark ambition and uses the Nativity as currency. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God and is exactly what the 2nd Commandment sets out to avoid.

Not so. I am speaking in general terms about patronage, which was very important in the arts. You wish to pick one painting, this one:

Adoration of the Magi of 1475 (Botticelli)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adoration of the Magi

Artist Sandro Botticelli
Year c. 1475-1476
Type Tempera on panel
Dimensions 111 cm × 134 cm (44 in × 53 in)
Location Uffizi, Florence

The Adoration of the Magi is a painting by the Italian Renaissance master Sandro Botticelli, dating from 1475 or 1476. It is housed in the Uffizi of Florence.
The Adoration of the Magi theme was popular in the Renaissance Florence. The work was commissioned by Gaspare di Zanobi del Lama, a banker of humble origins and dubious morality connected to the House of Medici, for his chapel in the church of Santa Maria Novella (now destroyed). In the scene are present numerous characters among which are several members of the Medici family: Cosimo de’ Medici (the Magus kneeling in front of the Virgin, described by Vasari as “the finest of all that are now extant for its life and vigour”), his sons Piero (the second Magus kneeling in the centre with the red mantle) and Giovanni (the third Magus), and his grandsons Giuliano and Lorenzo. The four Medici portrayed as Magi were all dead at the time the picture was painted, and Florence was effectively ruled by Lorenzo.
In his Lives Vasari describes the Adoration in the following way:
The beauty of the heads in this scene is indescribable, their attitudes all different, some full-face, some in profile, some three-quarters, some bent down, and in various other ways, while the expressions of the attendants, both young and old, are greatly varied, displaying the artist’s perfect mastery of his profession. Sandro further clearly shows the distinction between the suites of each of the kings. It is a marvellous work in colour, design and composition.
Del Lama is portrayed as the old man on the right with white hair and a light blue robe looking and pointing at the observer. In the picture is also present Botticelli’s alleged self-portrait, as the blond man with yellow mantle on the far right.
The attention to details, such as the garments rendering, show the acquisition by the Florentine artist of the influences from the Flemish school at this point of his career.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Botticelli_085A.jpg/400px-Botticelli_085A.jpg

You say that Religious art was accessible to everyone. Not so, a lot of the commissioned art was kept in the houses of the patrons who paid for them, accessible only to them and their friends. The art that was accessible was housed in churches where, if you needed proper religious instruction, you could ask a priest. This old argument that it helped to instruct the uneducated has never stood up to scrutiny.
Furthermore you seem to be confusing the water ON the earth, where these unphotogenic dolphins live, with the waters BENEATH the earth upon which the land was made on the 2nd day (Proverbs 8:27) and from which the Great Flood poured (Genesis 7:11)
You then go on to talk about “The next Commandment”, quoting “Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them…” again let me clear up your confusion; This is still the same commandment it is simply hammering home the main notion of the 2nd Commandment which forbids the making of any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above. The “next Commandment” of which you refer is about taking the Lords name in vain and in deference to this Commandment I won’t comment on the rest of your fish-filled response.

Answer each of these questions, please.

1. What about all those frescoes Patrick has posted, have you learned nothing at all from looking at them?
2. What do you think of the stations in your church?
3. In Genesis ‘the heavens’ is the sky, all the way to the stars. So the commandment forbids images of any thing in the heavens - which are birds. Anything in the earth beneath - which is us and other animals. And anything in the waters under the earth - which are fish, etc. Is that not so?
4. Here are the two commandments I am talking about:

You will not make for yourself an idol, and any likeness which is in the heavens above, and which is on the earth beneath, and which is in the waters under the earth.

You will not bow yourself down to them,

1. Do your children draw pictures? Do you bow down to their pictures and serve them?

 

[patrick457]

I’m surprised that no one has brought up medieval mystery plays yet.

 

[Just_a_fellah]

Not so. I am speaking in general terms about patronage, which was very important in the arts. You wish to pick one painting, this one:

Adoration of the Magi of 1475 (Botticelli)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adoration of the Magi

Artist Sandro Botticelli
Year c. 1475-1476
Type Tempera on panel
Dimensions 111 cm × 134 cm (44 in × 53 in)
Location Uffizi, Florence

The Adoration of the Magi is a painting by the Italian Renaissance master Sandro Botticelli, dating from 1475 or 1476. It is housed in the Uffizi of Florence.
The Adoration of the Magi theme was popular in the Renaissance Florence. The work was commissioned by Gaspare di Zanobi del Lama, a banker of humble origins and dubious morality connected to the House of Medici, for his chapel in the church of Santa Maria Novella (now destroyed). In the scene are present numerous characters among which are several members of the Medici family: Cosimo de’ Medici (the Magus kneeling in front of the Virgin, described by Vasari as “the finest of all that are now extant for its life and vigour”), his sons Piero (the second Magus kneeling in the centre with the red mantle) and Giovanni (the third Magus), and his grandsons Giuliano and Lorenzo. The four Medici portrayed as Magi were all dead at the time the picture was painted, and Florence was effectively ruled by Lorenzo.
In his Lives Vasari describes the Adoration in the following way:
The beauty of the heads in this scene is indescribable, their attitudes all different, some full-face, some in profile, some three-quarters, some bent down, and in various other ways, while the expressions of the attendants, both young and old, are greatly varied, displaying the artist’s perfect mastery of his profession. Sandro further clearly shows the distinction between the suites of each of the kings. It is a marvellous work in colour, design and composition.
Del Lama is portrayed as the old man on the right with white hair and a light blue robe looking and pointing at the observer. In the picture is also present Botticelli’s alleged self-portrait, as the blond man with yellow mantle on the far right.
The attention to details, such as the garments rendering, show the acquisition by the Florentine artist of the influences from the Flemish school at this point of his career.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Botticelli_085A.jpg/400px-Botticelli_085A.jpg

Answer each of these questions, please.

1. What about all those frescoes Patrick has posted, have you learned nothing at all from looking at them?
2. What do you think of the stations in your church?
3. In Genesis ‘the heavens’ is the sky, all the way to the stars. So the commandment forbids images of any thing in the heavens - which are birds. Anything in the earth beneath - which is us and other animals. And anything in the waters under the earth - which are fish, etc. Is that not so?
4. Here are the two commandments I am talking about:

You will not make for yourself an idol, and any likeness which is in the heavens above, and which is on the earth beneath, and which is in the waters under the earth.

You will not bow yourself down to them,

1. Do your children draw pictures? Do you bow down to their pictures and serve them?

I’m not sure what the “Not so” at the start of your reply refers to; I have just stated historical facts which are backed up in your wiki pasting. Also the point that a lot of religious art was commissioned for the glorification of the patron, to show off his wealth, rather than the glorification of God is also historically accurate; both in the general notion of patronage of religious art and this specific example. And whilst you are right that patronage was very important in the Arts it is of no relevance when discussing the 2nd Commandment.

And, wearily, here are my answers to your 5 questions.

1. I was familiar with the frescos before they were posted so I don’t feel I’ve learned anything new from seeing them again in low resolution.
2. I think the Stations in my church are wooden carvings that depict the story in of the Crucifixion. But I worry that they contravene the 2nd Commandment.
3. If your question is; is it so that I believe the 2nd Commandment refers to birds, other animals and fish? Then No that is not so.
4. Your fourth question does not contain a question.
5. My children are none of your business.

And now having answered all your questions, I will withdraw from this discussion. But I would like to ask a question of my own.
In all the correspondence I have had with everyone on the subject of the 2nd Commandment did anyone, at anytime consider that I might have a point worth exploring or did you just assume I was wrong and simply concentrated your efforts on explaining where I was wrong?
Thank you

 

[centurionguard]

Theologically, angels are bodiless; they have no visible form. So artists have considerable freedom in representing them artistically.

The cute-baby or childlike aspect emphasizes the innocence of Heaven; but doesn’t portray the fearsomeness of these beings. Sometimes a bodiless head on wings is drawn, to portray bodilessness.

Ultimately, it’s all just interpretation.

ICXC NIKA

Traditionally I would have shared the same sentiments you have from a Theological standpoint.

But are God’s Angels visiting the earth as seen in the Old Testament always thought to be in bodiless form? Being supernatural beings and as God’s Messengers they too likely possess the power under God’s permission to transform themselves in bodily form in an instant.

Hebrews 13 Verses 1-2
13:1 Let the charity of the brotherhood abide in you.
13:2 And hospitality do not forget: for by this some, being not aware of it, have entertained angels.

 

[centurionguard]

Conversely; as many artists have tried to capture the imaginations and beauty of depicting God’s Angels; there have been Saints who have given horrifying depictions of Demons (Fallen Angels) in their vile and despicable form.

On such Saint, Saint Anthony of the Desert gives an account in his full story of being visited and seeing so many numerous demons prowling the earth to deceive or tempt a poor human soul. He goes on to say if you could see all the demons that prowl the earth at once they would completely darken the sky east to west from horizon to horizon.

Here’s a brief outline about the Saintly monk. benedictinemonks.info/page5.html

His book is well worth the read.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

St. Thomas Aquinas maintained that each individual angel is its own separate species. No angel, then, is like another. So, when we talk about “depicting” angels, we are necessarily constrained by the artist’s desire to let us know what he is trying to depict, knowing as he might, that no two would “look” alike or perhaps even resemble each other.

Angels are pure spirits. We are told that they are immensely wise and complex beings. They stand in the presence of God and have tasks; some in praising God, some in guiding men, some in communicating, some in working with the operations of the universe.

I recall reading where some saint opined that if we could “see” an angel as he is, we would be absolutely convinced it was God, so wonderous it would be. I have wondered how we could “see” a purely spiritual being. Likely we could not. We could perhaps have its nature infused into our brains in all its complexity and magnificence. I recall that nobody is certain whether St.Francis of Assissi’s vision in the night sky was that of Jesus or simply an angel. Whatever it was, it covered the sky.

Could we even withstand knowing an angel’s full nature in this life? I have had my doubts. We cannot stand fully in the Face of God and live. Could we if we fully apprehended an angel?

 

[JCMeg56]

I was accompanied by an angel during an out-of-body experience just before I was healed of a broken neck (quadroplegic paralysis) during an MRI at a hospital back in August of 1987 (result of a high speed collision on the interstate as a passenger in a van full of women on the way to a prayer retreat).

This Being was of incredible, intense light energy and had a form of some sort but I was unable to look directly at it to discern the form due to the brightness of the light. It was at my right side and was “touching” my right forearm as we zoomed along silently through space on a trip to the gates of heaven. It communicated with me telepathically 3 specific messages that have been the highlight of my Christian experience to date. Since becoming Catholic two years ago, I know now that this was what is called a “private revelation.”

When I “reconstituted” about 40 minutes later back in my body, I knew I was healed. Amazed the doctors and staff when I awoke and announced I was healed and could walk again! Walked out of the hospital on my own a few days later. Absolutely incredible experience that was so real to me that ever since then, this material world is what seems unreal. The presence, power and immediacy of the spirit realm all around us, in us, and through us, is what is real to me.

Margaret Miller
Chillicothe, Ohio

• …We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written:
  

  “ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
  Nor have entered into the heart of man
  The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[c]

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.* (I Corinthians 2:7-11).

 

[GEddie]

Traditionally I would have shared the same sentiments you have from a Theological standpoint.

But are God’s Angels visiting the earth as seen in the Old Testament always thought to be in bodiless form? Being supernatural beings and as God’s Messengers they too likely possess the power under God’s permission to transform themselves in bodily form in an instant.

Hebrews 13 Verses 1-2
13:1 Let the charity of the brotherhood abide in you.
13:2 And hospitality do not forget: for by this some, being not aware of it, have entertained angels.

They can assume the form of a body, but it is not a live body, nor (as with you or me) an intrinsic part of the being. You need a body to be “you” since you do not have a body, you are a body. An Angelic being does not; pure spirit is their nature, although they assume bodily form to interact with us.

Since most artists have never seen an angelic appearance, it is still up to them how to depict them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ridgerunner]

They can assume the form of a body, but it is not a live body, nor (as with you or me) an intrinsic part of the being. You need a body to be “you” since you do not have a body, you are a body. An Angelic being does not; pure spirit is their nature, although they assume bodily form to interact with us.

Since most artists have never seen an angelic appearance, it is still up to them how to depict them.

ICXC NIKA

I have sometimes thought about the fact that angels have tasks. Those tasks are, along with immortality and being in the presence of God, of varied sorts. Some, we understand, participate somehow in the operation of the universe. I have wondered, perhaps, if some angel or other is “in charge” of keeping in operation by its knowledge, obtained by being in God’s presence, and the power bestowed on them by God, to, for example, govern every last aspect of particles and energy, from the “Big Bang” (and perhaps before) to the present. Every last formula. Every last equation. Every particle and part of a particle; where it is, what it’s doing, how it will change a million years from now from the nature of the thing itself, and so on. “Charm” and “strangeness”, whether there is a “Higgs boson” or not, and what it’s made of and what it does, and all of that, plus things we don’t know and can never know, all in its intellect and its will simultaneously.

Magnificent! Simply magnificent! And perhaps that’s only one of them. And time, perhaps, and how, exactly, it exists. Might that be another one? If we encountered such a being “exactly as it is”, I suspect we could no more sustain that “vision” it in our present earthly form than we could sustain a solar storm from ten feet away.

And so, I think, when angels appear to humans (and I think sometimes they do) they must, of necessity, tone down their full reality and at least implant in our minds something that will not cause our hearts to explode from too much adrenalin; something that eases and comforts, yet communicates majesty and purpose.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t know if it really matters much but I have to wonder why angels are so often depicted as fluffy winged, soft-featured humans, and even sometines cute babies, when every time (that I can remember) they appear to a human the first thing they say is “Be not afraid” or “Fear not.” The Biblical figures who are approached by angels are usually afraid of their appearence. To me this would suggest that when angels appear in physical form they are actually very intimidating (even terrifying) beings much like the ones described in the Book of Revelations.

Thoughts?

Angels are spirit beings: minds without physical bodies. When angels do appear, most often they take on familiar human form in order to do their work without frightening us. The Bible does not explain how spirit beings can assume bodies. It simply teaches that they do and that we do not recognize them as angels because they look like ordinary people.

The angels who appeared to Abraham and Lot in the book of Genesis looked like and were dressed as ordinary people. How often do angels come in human form? Probably more often than we realize. “Do not forget to entertain strangers,” Hebrews 13:2 admonishes us, “for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” The passage suggests that at any time it is possible that we may have encountered angels without our being conscious of their supernatural nature.

 

[centurionguard]

I have sometimes thought about the fact that angels have tasks. Those tasks are, along with immortality and being in the presence of God, of varied sorts. Some, we understand, participate somehow in the operation of the universe. I have wondered, perhaps, if some angel or other is “in charge” of keeping in operation by its knowledge, obtained by being in God’s presence, and the power bestowed on them by God, to, for example, govern every last aspect of particles and energy, from the “Big Bang” (and perhaps before) to the present. Every last formula. Every last equation. Every particle and part of a particle; where it is, what it’s doing, how it will change a million years from now from the nature of the thing itself, and so on. “Charm” and “strangeness”, whether there is a “Higgs boson” or not, and what it’s made of and what it does, and all of that, plus things we don’t know and can never know, all in its intellect and its will simultaneously.

Magnificent! Simply magnificent! And perhaps that’s only one of them. And time, perhaps, and how, exactly, it exists. Might that be another one? If we encountered such a being “exactly as it is”, I suspect we could no more sustain that “vision” it in our present earthly form than we could sustain a solar storm from ten feet away.

And so, I think, when angels appear to humans (and I think sometimes they do) they must, of necessity, tone down their full reality and at least implant in our minds something that will not cause our hearts to explode from too much adrenalin; something that eases and comforts, yet communicates majesty and purpose.

Interesting; I have read a book buy Tan Publishers

https://www.tanbooks.com/images/0504/0504x.jpg
tanbooks.com/index.php/Saint-Michael-Angels

where it speaks of Gods Angels being assigned to every aspect of the Universe, Stars, Supernovas, Planets, Countries, Cites, Towns, Houses and Buildings, Individual People, Etc, etc. Fascinating to say the least. Saint Alphonsus Liguori also goes into great detail about Angels especially how they congregate and fill the entire Church at every Mass around people and especially around the Altar during consecration in Adoration. To behold such wonder would be stunningly awe inspiring.

 

[marine13]

I’m not sure what the “Not so” at the start of your reply refers to; I have just stated historical facts which are backed up in your wiki pasting. Also the point that a lot of religious art was commissioned for the glorification of the patron, to show off his wealth, rather than the glorification of God is also historically accurate; both in the general notion of patronage of religious art and this specific example. And whilst you are right that patronage was very important in the Arts it is of no relevance when discussing the 2nd Commandment.

And, wearily, here are my answers to your 5 questions.

1. I was familiar with the frescos before they were posted so I don’t feel I’ve learned anything new from seeing them again in low resolution.
2. I think the Stations in my church are wooden carvings that depict the story in of the Crucifixion. But I worry that they contravene the 2nd Commandment.
3. If your question is; is it so that I believe the 2nd Commandment refers to birds, other animals and fish? Then No that is not so.
4. Your fourth question does not contain a question.
5. My children are none of your business.

And now having answered all your questions, I will withdraw from this discussion. But I would like to ask a question of my own.
In all the correspondence I have had with everyone on the subject of the 2nd Commandment did anyone, at anytime consider that I might have a point worth exploring or did you just assume I was wrong and simply concentrated your efforts on explaining where I was wrong?
Thank you

Wow, I never really considered this thread going the way it did. It has been very interesting read so far and has made me do some hard thinking and investigation. At first glance it would seem like the CC is “ignoring” the 2nd Commandment but with some quick research I can easily see that it has not. The 2nd Commandment states that we are prohibited from fashioning and worshiping anything as divine and the Catholic Church clearly adheres to this. Many people would argue that Catholics worship the crosses, statues, paintings, and other images found in Churches and homes but this is simply not the case. The religious works of art are in no way considered holy and divine in their own right and Catholics do not worship them. The images serve as visual reminders of the important people, figures and themes of our faith and those deserve respect. Bowing is a sign of respect which is why many bow before the image of Mary. They are not worshiping the image of Mary but showing respect to her.

Where the biggest misconception stems from is breaking up the 10 Commandments and focusing on only the first few words… The 2nd Commandment reads: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex. 20:4–5) We can’t simply look at the first part that says no graven images of likeness of anything. We have to read the whole thing in context. In context the 2nd Commandment is saying that the creation and worship of any image is idolatry and therefore a sin. It does not prohibit the making of artist representations of God, Jesus, angels, etc. so that we may have visual reminders of their goodness and example.

Here’s a quote from Catholic Answers concerning this topic:

"Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, “[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).

“Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’” (CCC 2114).

The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible."
catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

 

[centurionguard]

Wow, I never really considered this thread going the way it did. It has been very interesting read so far and has made me do some hard thinking and investigation. At first glance it would seem like the CC is “ignoring” the 2nd Commandment but with some quick research I can easily see that it has not. The 2nd Commandment states that we are prohibited from fashioning and worshiping anything as divine and the Catholic Church clearly adheres to this. Many people would argue that Catholics worship the crosses, statues, paintings, and other images found in Churches and homes but this is simply not the case. The religious works of art are in no way considered holy and divine in their own right and Catholics do not worship them. The images serve as visual reminders of the important people, figures and themes of our faith and those deserve respect. Bowing is a sign of respect which is why many bow before the image of Mary. They are not worshiping the image of Mary but showing respect to her.

Where the biggest misconception stems from is breaking up the 10 Commandments and focusing on only the first few words… The 2nd Commandment reads: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex. 20:4–5) We can’t simply look at the first part that says no graven images of likeness of anything. We have to read the whole thing in context. In context the 2nd Commandment is saying that the creation and worship of any image is idolatry and therefore a sin. It does not prohibit the making of artist representations of God, Jesus, angels, etc. so that we may have visual reminders of their goodness and example.

Here’s a quote from Catholic Answers concerning this topic:

"Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, “[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).

“Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’” (CCC 2114).

The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible."
catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

Interesting that you would bring these quotes and notations up about idolatry.
newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm

I once had a Jehovah Witness who knew I was Catholic. He argued that my Church (the Catholic Church) worshiped idols. I asked him if he would mind taking out his wallet.
I asked him if he had pictures of loved ones in his wallet to which he replied yes he did.
I asked him why he went through the trouble of carrying an image picture of a love one in his wallet. He answered; That’s ridiculously obvious…they remind me of my loved ones.

I said really is that so. Isn’t a 3-D statue of someone people have loved from past centuries any different than the picture in your wallet? Naturally he failed to make the connection.

 

[Just_a_fellah]

Wow, I never really considered this thread going the way it did. It has been very interesting read so far and has made me do some hard thinking and investigation. At first glance it would seem like the CC is “ignoring” the 2nd Commandment but with some quick research I can easily see that it has not. The 2nd Commandment states that we are prohibited from fashioning and worshiping anything as divine and the Catholic Church clearly adheres to this. Many people would argue that Catholics worship the crosses, statues, paintings, and other images found in Churches and homes but this is simply not the case. The religious works of art are in no way considered holy and divine in their own right and Catholics do not worship them. The images serve as visual reminders of the important people, figures and themes of our faith and those deserve respect. Bowing is a sign of respect which is why many bow before the image of Mary. They are not worshiping the image of Mary but showing respect to her.

Where the biggest misconception stems from is breaking up the 10 Commandments and focusing on only the first few words… The 2nd Commandment reads: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex. 20:4–5) We can’t simply look at the first part that says no graven images of likeness of anything. We have to read the whole thing in context. In context the 2nd Commandment is saying that the creation and worship of any image is idolatry and therefore a sin. It does not prohibit the making of artist representations of God, Jesus, angels, etc. so that we may have visual reminders of their goodness and example.

Here’s a quote from Catholic Answers concerning this topic:

"Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, “[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).

“Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’” (CCC 2114).

The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible."
catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

If your premise is this;
God tells us “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” We make a likeness of a thing that is in Heaven above and when asked why we disobeyed God we reply “But God told us we could not make and serve that likeness.”

Consider this;
A father tells his son and daughter “Do not talk to strangers, even if they honour me with their words: Do not go with them or do their bidding.” The son talks to a stranger. His sister asks why he disobeyed their Father and the son replies “But our father told us we could not talk to and do the bidding of strangers.” Has the son disobeyed his father? Is he right to talk to strangers?

 

[You]

If your premise is this;
God tells us “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them” We make a likeness of a thing that is in Heaven above and when asked why we disobeyed God we reply “But God told us we could not make and serve that likeness.”

Consider this;
A father tells his son and daughter “Do not talk to strangers, even if they honour me with their words: Do not go with them or do their bidding.” The son talks to a stranger. His sister asks why he disobeyed their Father and the son replies “But our father told us we could not talk to and do the bidding of strangers.” Has the son disobeyed his father? Is he right to talk to strangers?

You are not thinking about why someone would make an image of a bird or a fish. That why is the whole point of the commandment. The image of the fish or the bird is made for the purpose of serving it as if it were God, or a god.
If you made an image of a bird and put it away and forgot about it according to your idea, you have broken the commandment.
The commandment is about why the image is made, it is not about making an image for no reason.