X
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
Fair enough - but note the various details involved in the answer you sight above.
The first part of the answer deals with the couple having pre-marital sex.
The second part - giving Scandal - is indeed serious but - there ARE nuances involved in the matter than effect culpability.
That said - -
I will grant you that appearance can cause Scandal and that is not a good thing.
However - as I explained - the video presented does not give scandal within the Catholic community. It does not lead another to sin - and that is the issue with Scandal - the leading of another to sin.
Peace
James
po18guy
Well-known member
Thank you. Remember that these are the carefully reasoned words of a PhD. Those represent his best word choice.
(Edited as off topic)
You say so.
For some reason, you are on idolatry red alert here. Yet, you know basically nothing about the video.
Your video appears to have been taken in a foreign culture. Some foreign cultures are more animated than others. Do you think an assembly of stoic Swedes would react identically to the same incident? If they did not, would this procession be OK there and not where the video was taken?
FYI, here are the appropriate sections from the catechism regarding your fears of idolatrry:
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.” These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. 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."47
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68
2138 Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic.
T
TK421
Guest
@ the OP:
It is not entirely correct to say that those are “just inanimate objects”. Catholics believe that it is a statue, but they do not believe it was just a statue, in the way that a pretty statue in a garden would be just a statue.
There is a divide between how most protestants view a church and how Catholics and Orthodox view a church. A Catholic or Orthodox is going to look at the sanctuary in much the same way that an ancient Jew would view the inside of the temple. As you will notice from reading the Old Testament, there was a tremendous deal of care and reverence given in the construction of the temple and with the sacred objects used within the temple. This was incredibly serious business: violators could literally be struck dead by the Almighty. While of course the Jews did not worship the products of artisans as being divine, they nonetheless were intensely reverent in how the temple and its sacred contents were treated. The way in which Catholics and Orthodox continue to care for the inside of the sanctuary is really just a natural, fairly common sense (or should-be common sense) continuation of that.
In the 16th century, certain more iconoclastic, secularized protestant thinkers very strongly diverged from that view, hence the inside of many protestant churches became striped and baron, and the very concept of sacredness was by and large removed from their conscious. The church essentially ceased to be a church (technically speaking, Catholics and Orthodox do not recognize protestant churches as being churches in the authentic sense of the word) and instead they became sort of a ecclesial community center.
This innovated concept of the church among protestant circles is an immensely different vision from the forms of Christianity before the 1500s and of ancient Judaism. The coming and resurrection of Christ did not arbitrarily mean that the eternal God suddenly did not care about any of that stuff, as though He somehow changed his mind. The way in which we worship, and the way in which we care for the inside of the temple, is an intimate expression of our love and reverence towards the unapproachable God. This is why certain protocols are followed when one receives the Eucharist, or in how the Eucharist is held in the sanctity of the Tabernacle, rather than say, having the leftovers hang out on a table after Mass. In a similar way, it is typical (maybe even standard?) for the statues of the saints within a Church to be blessed, as they are there explicitly for the purpose of adoration and of visual cues to build us up in the faith. When an object is blessed, it is set aside and elevated from regular use. Intentionally desecrating these objects, apart from the evil of destroying property, carries an added offense against God. Of course, what happened in the video was an accident, but the thrust of my point being: having a sacred object smash to the floor is going to carry an added weight to it compared to breaking your favorite glass in the kitchen.
It is not entirely correct to say that those are “just inanimate objects”. Catholics believe that it is a statue, but they do not believe it was just a statue, in the way that a pretty statue in a garden would be just a statue.
There is a divide between how most protestants view a church and how Catholics and Orthodox view a church. A Catholic or Orthodox is going to look at the sanctuary in much the same way that an ancient Jew would view the inside of the temple. As you will notice from reading the Old Testament, there was a tremendous deal of care and reverence given in the construction of the temple and with the sacred objects used within the temple. This was incredibly serious business: violators could literally be struck dead by the Almighty. While of course the Jews did not worship the products of artisans as being divine, they nonetheless were intensely reverent in how the temple and its sacred contents were treated. The way in which Catholics and Orthodox continue to care for the inside of the sanctuary is really just a natural, fairly common sense (or should-be common sense) continuation of that.
In the 16th century, certain more iconoclastic, secularized protestant thinkers very strongly diverged from that view, hence the inside of many protestant churches became striped and baron, and the very concept of sacredness was by and large removed from their conscious. The church essentially ceased to be a church (technically speaking, Catholics and Orthodox do not recognize protestant churches as being churches in the authentic sense of the word) and instead they became sort of a ecclesial community center.
This innovated concept of the church among protestant circles is an immensely different vision from the forms of Christianity before the 1500s and of ancient Judaism. The coming and resurrection of Christ did not arbitrarily mean that the eternal God suddenly did not care about any of that stuff, as though He somehow changed his mind. The way in which we worship, and the way in which we care for the inside of the temple, is an intimate expression of our love and reverence towards the unapproachable God. This is why certain protocols are followed when one receives the Eucharist, or in how the Eucharist is held in the sanctity of the Tabernacle, rather than say, having the leftovers hang out on a table after Mass. In a similar way, it is typical (maybe even standard?) for the statues of the saints within a Church to be blessed, as they are there explicitly for the purpose of adoration and of visual cues to build us up in the faith. When an object is blessed, it is set aside and elevated from regular use. Intentionally desecrating these objects, apart from the evil of destroying property, carries an added offense against God. Of course, what happened in the video was an accident, but the thrust of my point being: having a sacred object smash to the floor is going to carry an added weight to it compared to breaking your favorite glass in the kitchen.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Good for you. Most Catholics I know do not either. However, when an old (non-religious) statue of my mother’s fell off the shelf and shattered, my mother cried. Why? It was something her grandmother left to her after her death. It meant a lot to her. It was neither idolatrous nor materialistic for her to cry about it. It was a reminder of her grandma that she loved very dearly, and it just shattered. It devastated her.
Does that mean she placed too much value in a piece of clay? No, because that piece of a clay was a powerful reminder of someone she loved. She didn’t worship the statue, she didn’t worship her dead grandma either. But this thing was important to her, and she was sad that it was gone. That some people react differently than you would doesn’t automatically imply they are bordering idolatry. That’s a harsh assumption.
But let’s say these people really did go too far in their devotion, and were bordering idolatry. That would be wrong and contrary to the faith, and they need to be corrected. But what does that prove about venerating statues in general? That all Catholics really are idolaters? That having statues in a church or in a home is wrong? No, that doesn’t follow. The practice of using statues is very biblical, and can be a legitimate aid to prayer. No Catholic is required to use a statue by the way.
People can take any devotion too far. This doesn’t make or prove that the practice itself illicit.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
And we’re glad you’re here. :yup:
S
Sultan_Of_Swing
Guest
If the video went on for ten minutes and you saw people wailing and rolling around on the floor, I would agree with you, haha.
But this seems like a generally normal reaction to when anything precious, expensive and large gets dropped on the ground and is broken.
EDIT: And as others have said, we have no idea of the context behind that statue, its history, how old it is, what it means to the parishioners etc.
E
esieffe
Guest
I think you have been given many valid reasons here as to why someone might be upset that a statue might fall and break other than dragging out the Idolatry charge.
This is an old argument that gets trotted out from time to time, usually after some Wednesday night tent revival. It is pretty clear to me now that you are not going to accept any of the perfectly reasonable, rational explanations. Why don’t we just agree that we are not going to agree and move on.
Peace be with you xCortarx
A
Aloysium
Guest
There exists a disgusting piece of modern “art” that to me represents the depths of depravity.
I don’t want to describe it although it is merely an inanimate object.
I am of the opinion that if it does not cause revulsion, there is something wrong with that person.
In a cosmos filled with meaning and beauty, inanimate objects do have value.
I do not believe you have an understanding of what idolatry is about.
This puts you at great risk of becoming the very thing that you are accusing others of being.
I should warn you that idols do not exist solely in material form.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
*** Correct.***(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please stay on the topic of idolatry and avoid diverting into irrelevant areas.
J
JRKH
Guest
Agree that we need to stay on topic…
I think that the OP’s intent - with the co-habitation example - was to illustrate the idea that “appearance of sin” (that which gives rise to scandal) is considered a serious matter in the Church - and in his/her mind, the video gives the appearance of idolatry and therefore should not be practiced…
So perhaps this is what we need to address with the OP…
Thoughts?
Peace
James
I think that the OP’s intent - with the co-habitation example - was to illustrate the idea that “appearance of sin” (that which gives rise to scandal) is considered a serious matter in the Church - and in his/her mind, the video gives the appearance of idolatry and therefore should not be practiced…
So perhaps this is what we need to address with the OP…
Thoughts?
Peace
James
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Does your house not mean more to you than just a collection of sticks? Would you be upset if it burned to the ground? I would assume yes to both and if I saw you upset as it went up in flames and even your continued upset after it was just a pile of ashes–it wouldn’t even cross my mind that you worshiped your house–yet that’s the first thing that pops into your mind when people are upset that something was destroyed–“Oh, their upset–I guess that was more than a piece of clay–they must be worshiping it.” For the record–the statue is more than just a piece of clay–just as your house is more than a collection of sticks. The statue is the work of an artist, hopefully a creation beauty. Your house is the design of an architect. Can you not appreciate these things and attach importance to them without worshiping them?
Finding something to be important and being upset at its loss does not translate into worship of the object. I’d be greatly upset if I lost one of my children and I find it offensive that you might take my grief over that loss–see it and accuse me of worshiping my child and of finding her to be more than a collection of cells. All people respond differently to grief and loss and you have chosen to view someones reaction in the least charitable light it seems.
Do you have the same questions for those who drive more than just the basic car, or live in more than a basic house, chase job promotion after job promotion, greater salary after greater salary? Have they crossed a line and turned these things into more than a mode of transportation, a place to live, a way to pay for food? Where do you draw the line?
The peace of Christ,
Mark
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
Very well said!
I’m quite saddened for the OP if (s)he really doesn’t recognize sentimental value at all. I hope (s)he never loses an heirloom or a wedding ring. I come from a religious tradition that very much dislikes religious iconography, statues, and the like, yet I remember blubbering like a baby when a painting of Jesus that my deceased nephew painted was destroyed. Unless the OP was there when this incident happened or is privy to information surrounding the statue and its sentimental value, I believe (s)he is being unnecessarily cruel.
- Status