Bowing to graven images

  • Thread starter Thread starter exiled
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

exiled

Guest
The moderators closed a thread for having gotten way off topic, so I’d like to start a thread on the topic.
Have any of our SS/Bible Christian friends on CA ever kissed their Bibles? Have you ever read the word of God, and either before or after bowed your head in prayer, touching your forehead to the Holy Book?
If so, how is that practice any different from what we Catholics do that you call “worshipping”?
 
oops, I wasn’t done.
Are you “worshipping” the paper or the book? Or are you showing respect for what it represents?
 
Hi,

I have once or twice kissed my bible, and a few times placed my head on it.

At times if I’ve felt sick or had a part of the body that had medical troubles I’d hold the bible on that part of the body.

Why?

Good question. 👍

I guess truthfully, I believe God’s word might have some power to heal me.

As for the occasional kiss or resting the head on it, I would assume it’s just the natural Christian belief that we want to be as close to God as possible and that we wish we could just once embrace him and rest on him for a moment when times get tough.

I know it’s a protestant no-no, and it can very easy turn into idolatry, and furthermore I must stress that this was a very occasional thing in the past and I’m not sure I’d do it again.

But …

I think we have to remember as humans we show love by being tactile, we all want to touch God but can’t, so the next best thing is his word.

However I don’t condone this practice or encourage it, but I think under certain circumstances, God understands. (hope so)

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16
 
I think we have to remember as humans we show love by being tactile, we all want to touch God but can’t, so the next best thing is his word.

You’ve hit it right here. God did provide the means for us to experience Him through our senses. The Sacraments!
He made us to know and love any and all of His creation by our senses. The OT covenant was renewed by rituals involving the senses, but there was no actual grace involved (ASAIK). In the New Covenant the Lord still teaches and renews us using our senses, but pours out His Grace through them now.
I guess that’s a bit off topic. My point is that protestants go up and down the issue of kneeling in front of statues, etc., and I hope to show that protestants do the same with Bibles. How many of them kneel with the Bible in their hands? Are they worshipping the book itself? No,and any reasonable person would not accuse them of doing so.
 
As for the occasional kiss or resting the head on it, I would assume it’s just the natural Christian belief that we want to be as close to God as possible and that we wish we could just once embrace him and rest on him for a moment when times get tough.

I know it’s a protestant no-no, and it can very easy turn into idolatry, and furthermore I must stress that this was a very occasional thing in the past and I’m not sure I’d do it again.
This is one aspect of some Protestant thinking that I have never understood. There seems to be the fear that without any desire to do so, the individual might accidentally begin to worship something. Unless you think the bible itself has supernatural powers or has its own will you are in no danger of mistakenly transforming an act of reverence to one of idolatry.
 
first off, the Bible is not a graven image. it is the inspired word of God. when people take the stand in court, they put their hand on the Bible and swear on it. so therefore no one is bowing to it.

kissing your Bible or putting your head to it is not an act of worship. it is respect.
 
The Synod of Elvira (about 306) prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God
Tertullian
“For how could he [Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration] have known Moses and Elias, except by being in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade.” (Against Marcion, 4:22)
In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images, the very counterpart of their dead originals, with which hawks, and mice, and spiders are so well acquainted, does it not merit praise instead of penalty, that we have rejected what we have come to see is error?" (The Apology, 12)
Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort–opposed as they are to our religion–shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome’s Letter 51:9)
Irenaues
"
Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6)
Eusebius
"
Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a **brazen **image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers." (Church History, 7:18)
 
Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things…
 
The moderators closed a thread for having gotten way off topic, so I’d like to start a thread on the topic.
Have any of our SS/Bible Christian friends on CA ever kissed their Bibles? Have you ever read the word of God, and either before or after bowed your head in prayer, touching your forehead to the Holy Book?
If so, how is that practice any different from what we Catholics do that you call “worshipping”?
You missed a few. How about those stickers Protestants put on the back window of their cars that portray a person “bowing” before a cross? I guess if “bowing” is in itself “worship” they have a lot of explaining to do!

And they how about the Christmas nativities on Protestant front yards that have Santa Claus “bowing” at a statue or picture of the Holy Family? Oh, that’s right, I almost forgot, Santa Claus is actually St. Nicholas and he’s a “Catholic” so that explains it all 🙂

Oh, and how about Ruth 2:10 where Ruth “bows” down before Boaz? Is she worshipping Boaz?
 
Tertullian

Irenaues
"

Eusebius
"
Hi Brian, Its difficult to answer your post as I don’t have the book available to me that you got the quotes from. .

Reading through your examples, I am confused as to what they have to do with the subject at hand. It would help more if you took each example and put your own thoughts afterwards. For example, the below account doesn’t seem for or against Catholic practices. It is only commenting that a statue of Jesus and the woman who was healed from blood loss was erected by Gentiles. The author seems to be saying that the people erecting the statue weren’t necessarily Christian simply pleased with a story about Jesus.

*Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a **brazen **image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers." (Church History, 7:18) *
 
Tertullian

Irenaues
"

Eusebius
"
Again, Brian, I don’t see the relevance to the subject. The Gnostic’s were not Christians but had a variety of strange beliefs. If I’m not mistaken using magic was among their beliefs. Some Gentiles believed that the Gods were actually present in the statues so I would imagine that this is the comparison that Irenaues is mentioning.

***Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers." (Church History, 7:18) ***
 
The Synod of Elvira (about 306) prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

Regarding Synod of Elvira:
Long before the outbreak in the eighth century there were isolated cases of persons who feared the ever-growing cult of images and saw in it danger of a return to the old idolatry. We need hardly quote in this connection the invectives of the Apostolic Fathers against idols (Athenagoras “Legatio Pro Christ.”, xv-xvii; Theophilus, “Ad Autolycum” II; Minucius Felix, “Octavius”, xxvii; Arnobius, “Disp. adv. Gentes”; Tertullian, “De Idololatria”, I; Cyprian, “De idolorum vanitate”), in which they denounce not only the worship but even the manufacture and possession of such images. These texts all regard idols, that is, images made to be adored. But canon xxxvi of the Synod of Elvira is important. This was a general synod of the Church of Spain held, apparently about the year 300, in a city near Granada. It made many severe laws against Christians who relapsed into idolatry, heresy, or sins against the Sixth Commandment. The canon reads: “It is ordained (Placuit) that Pictures are not to be in churches, so that that which is worshipped and adored shall not be painted on walls.” The meaning of the canon has been much discussed. Some have thought it was only a precaution against possible profanation by pagans who might go into a church. Others see in it a law against pictures on principle. In any case the canon can have produced but a slight effect even in Spain, where there were holy pictures in the fourth century as in other countries. But it is interesting to see that just at the end of the first period there were some bishops who disapproved of the growing cult of images. Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 340), the Father of Church History, must be counted among the enemies of icons. In several Places in his history he shows his dislike of them. They are a “heathen custom” (ethnike synetheia Hist. eccl., VII, 18); he wrote many arguments to persuade Constantine’s sister Constantia not to keep a statue of our Lord (see Mansi XIII, 169). A contemporary bishop, Asterius of Amasia, also tried to oppose the spreading tendency. In a sermon on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus he says: “Do not Paint pictures of Christ he humbled himself enough by becoming man.” (Combefis, “Auctar. nov.”, I, “Hom. iv in Div. et Laz.”). Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) tore down a curtain in a church in Palestine because it had a picture of Christ or a saint. The Arian Philostorgius (fifth century) too was a forerunner of the Iconoclasts (Hist. Eccl., II, 12; VII, 3), as also the Bishop of Marseilles (Serenus), to whom St. Gregory the Great wrote his defence of pictures (see above). Lastly we may mention that in at least one province of the Church (Central Syria) Christian art developed to great perfection while it systematically rejected all representation of the human figure. These exceptions are few compared with the steadily increasing influence of images and their worship all over Christendom, but they serve to show that the holy icons did not win their place entirely without opposition, and they represent a thin stream of opposition as the antecedent of the virulent Iconoclasm of the eighth century.
After the storm of the eighth and ninth centuries (see ICONOCLASM), the Church throughout the world settled down again in secure possession of her images. Since their triumphant return on the Feast of Orthodoxy in 842, their position has not again been questioned by any of the old Churches. Only now the situation has become more clearly defined. The Seventh General Council (Nicaea II, 787) had laid down the principles, established the theological basis, restrained the abuses of image-worship. That council was accepted by the great Church of the five patriarchates as equal to the other six. Without accepting its decrees no one could be a member of that church, no one can today be Catholic or Orthodox. Images and their cult had become an integral part of the Faith Iconoclasm was now definitely a heresy condemned by the Church as much as Arianism or Nestorianism. The situation was not changed by the Great Schism of the ninth and eleventh centuries. Both sides still maintain the same principles in this matter; both equally revere as an oecumenical synod the last council in which they met in unison before the final calamity. The Orthodox agree to all that Catholics say (see next Paragraph) as to the principle of venerating images. So do the old. Eastern schismatical Churches. Although they broke away long before Iconoclasm and Nicaea II they took with them then the principles we maintain – sufficient evidence that those principles were not new in 787. Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts, and Abyssinians fill their churches with holy icons, bow to them, incense them, kiss them, just as do the Orthodox.
 
So many items that can be found in our homes, cars and public places can turn into items of worship.

Also just look at the Christian bookstores and all the items they sell.

So the “worship” of idols and other objects is not unique to any one religion.
 
Thank you for your responses, just attempting to get a handle on what the earliest Christians did. How about this? What is the earlies pro veneration of images comment we have from Christians? It is a rather fine point I understand, for example, our church has images, but for better or worse, no veneration. Likewise, early churches could contain images without they being venerated. I have never explored this area from an argument that shows a positive side to venerating images. So any ECF quotes that are PRO veneration of images.
Thank you.
Brian
 
Oh my Mannyfit! It seems your quotes show the early church was opposed to venerating images! How can this be a tradition from the Apostles!?!?!
How many times have I witnessed Protestants deep in prayer kneeling before their open Bibles?

Am I to conclude that they are worshipping a book?

And a paraphrased version at that?

No, the Bible is an aid to prayer as is a statue of Jesus or Mary or Joseph, etc.

I pray thee, BrianH, is all prayer offered to God alone?
 
How many times have I witnessed Protestants deep in prayer kneeling before their open Bibles?

Am I to conclude that they are worshipping a book?

And a paraphrased version at that?

No, the Bible is an aid to prayer as is a statue of Jesus or Mary or Joseph, etc.

I pray thee, BrianH, is all prayer offered to God alone?
Personally I have never seen anyone praying to their bible.
But a bible is not a graven image, is it?
The bible is the unerring Word of God.
Personally I pray to God the Father Almighty who is omnipresent. So if I am kneeling, God is right in front of me and I am worshipping and serving Him, no matter what physical thing(e.g.bed,bible,etc.) may be in front of me at the time.
Mary and the saints are NOT omnipresent. Their sprit or presence is not in the concrete statue.
The statues have NO power. The saints and Mary have NO power.
 
QUOTE=Randy Carson;1880854]How many times have I witnessed Protestants deep in prayer kneeling before their open Bibles?

Am I to conclude that they are worshipping a book?
If they were to direct a prayer at the Bible…
Nevertheless, the answer is often yes, I feel like many do.
And a paraphrased version at that?

No, the Bible is an aid to prayer as is a statue of Jesus or Mary or Joseph, etc.

I pray thee, BrianH, is all prayer offered to God alone?
Does that mean you do not have any pro veneration quotes from the early Christians?
 
I’d like to know what is the difference between you being present at the crucifixion and seeing an image of God made man hanging on a cross;
And reading an account of the crucifixion - which [reading] is really just a way of forming a second-hand image in your own mind of the event;
And looking at a three dimensional visual depiction of the crucifixion.

The question is: what is your attitude whilst you are standing at the real crucifixion - as it is happening.
What is your attitude whilst you are reading a second-hand account of the crucifixion and accepting the mental images created.
What is your attitude whilst you are looking at a three dimensional image of that same written account.

Is it possible that you would treat the real three dimensional event as it is happening with the disrespect or disinterest you might show to an image of the crucifixion, whilst applauding a second-hand image formed in your mind of the crucifixion provoked by that written account.

The point is that the Crucifixion and its Meaning somehow penetrate into your mind and your soul, - which of your five senses is used to transmit that message does not matter.
 
Ink printed onto Bible pages tells the story of Jesus with words.

Statues and paintings tell the story of Jesus with pictures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top