Catholic churches shouldn't have statues!

[patrick457]

I’m sure this has already been discussed but which council was it that dealt with the iconoclasts?

It was the Second Council of Nicea in 787.

And, to be brief, we affirm that we preserve all the Traditions of the Church which have been handed down to us in Her, whether whether written or unwritten, without innovation: of which one is the making of representative images, which is perfectly concordant with the history of the preaching of the Gospel in the confirmation of the true and not the imaginary becoming-man of God the Word, and which conduces no less to edification than the other. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message.

These things, therefore, being so, as proceeding on the royal highway and following the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the universal Church - for this we recognize to be from the Divine Spirit who dwells in Her - we decree with all precision and care that, in the same manner as the honored and life-giving Cross, so shall holy images, whether formed of colors or of stones or any other material, be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways - whether images of Christ Jesus, our Lord, our God and Savior, and of our spotless Lady, the holy Theotokos, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.

For, in proportion as these are continually seen in images and pictures, so are the minds of the beholders aroused to the remembrance of and affection for their prototypes. And, further, we define that there be paid to them the tribute of veneration and honor, and not that real adoration which is according to faith, which pertains alone to the Divine Nature. And in the same as to the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, so to these shall be made offerings of incense and lights, as was the pious custom of those of old. For the honor of the image traverses it, reaching the prototype, and he who venerates the image, venerates in it the person of him who is represented thereby.

Thus is strengthened the teaching of our holy Fathers - thus the Tradition of the universal Church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other. Thus we follow Paul who spoke in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, “holding fast to the traditions which we have received (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15).” Thus we write in the hymns of victory which spoke in prophecy of the Church:

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter Sion! Proclaim, O daughter Jerusalem! Rejoice, and be delighted with your heart. The Lord has taken away from you the oppression of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes.
The Lord, the King, is in your midst; you shall see evil no more,” and your peace will be upon you for time eternal. (Zephaniah 3:14-15)

Those who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as accursed heretics to spurn the Traditions of the Church, and to imagine any innovations, or to cast out any of those things which have been brought into the Church - whether it be the Gospel, or the image of the Cross, or any picture, or any relic of a martyr; or to reason perversely or craftily for the subversion of any of the lawful traditions of the universal Church or to use any of the precious things or the venerable monasteries as profane things: if they be Bishops or Clergy, let them be deposed; or if religious or laics, let them be cut off from communion.

The Holy Synod shouted aloud:
"Thus we all believe; we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed!
This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this Faith has made firm the whole world.
Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Three Persons, we salute the honorable images!
Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema; those who do not think with us, let them be driven far away from the Church.
For we follow the most ancient order of the universal Church: we keep the laws of the Fathers: we anathematize those who add anything to or take anything from the universal Church: we anathematize this introduced innovation of the Christianity-detractors.
We embrace venerable images, and those who do not do so we place under anathema.
Anathema to those who apply the words spoken in Scripture against idols to holy and venerable images!
Anathema to those who do not salute holy and venerable images!
Anathema to those who call holy and venerable images idols!
Anathema to those who say that Christians look on holy and venerable images as gods!
Anathema to those who say that any other except Christ our God delivered us from idols!
Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the universal Church received idols!

 

[patrick457]

I didn’t realize that you had a second post when I replied earlier…but yes, I do still believe that there was a significant pagan influence in the Roman Catholic Church. I lived in Italy for 6 years and was Roman Catholic most of my life and I witnessed that many of the practices are more obviously pagan in origin in the villages of Italy than you see here in the USA.

I won’t deny that the Catholic Church (this applies to all, not just the Church of Rome) adopted some things which are ‘pagan’ in origin. For example, our churches are adapted from the Roman basilica, which was a sort of all-purpose public building. And, returning to the example of Julian the Apostate, Christians at his time (especially in the East) were using Greco-Roman literature - which also formed the core of classical education back then - to prove how Christianity was superior to paganism. What did Julian do? He released an edict which required that all public teachers be approved by the Emperor; the state paid or supplemented much of their salaries. The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus explains this as intending to prevent Christian teachers from using non-Christian literature - Julian reasons that “if they want to learn literature, they have Luke and Mark; let them go back to their churches and expound on them.” This was an attempt to remove some of the power of the Christian schools which at that time and later used such works. The edict was also a severe financial blow, because it deprived Christian scholars, tutors and teachers of many students.

Rather than saying that paganism has ‘infiltrated’ Christianity, I would rather say that Chrisitanity has ‘infiltrated’ paganism. The Catholic opinion is that “just because it’s ‘pagan’ does not mean it’s ‘bad’.” After all, all that God created is good, but could be ‘good’ or ‘evil’ depending on the circumstances and meaning given to it. In many cases, this could also be applied to ‘pagan’ practices, if they are not objectively or inherently immoral in and of themselves.

Take for example, a tree. Many pagans may hold this tree as a god or as a manifestation of sorts; that does not make the tree an evil thing by itself. Just because people were worshipping this tree or that shrub does not make plants intrinsically evil. So what if the pagans worshipped this tree in a sense foreign to use Christians? Outward gestures and things merely represent whatever meaning we choose to give them: for example, one culture may think of black cats as unlucky, but that does not mean that black cats are evil by themselves. In fact, another culture may not see anything wrong with them. The tree itself is a neutral object: a part of God’s creation, which is good. To say that this tree is ‘evil’ by itself would be to fall into that which one accuses Catholics of: superstition.

Sure, those pagans we were talking about worshipped this tree as a god, but we Christians can take this tree, give to it a new meaning, and so reclaim it for God, because the key to true worship is the inner attitude and disposition. We can say that this tree symbolizes our Lord and His cross on which He was crucified (the “Tree of Life”). We can say that the tree is not a god by itself, rather that it is one of God’s good and beautiful creations - therefore showing the might of God, who can create a tall, strong tree such as this if He so wills it.

Yes, there were other practices or Christmas customs which seem to have been adapted from pagan customs, thus ‘Christianizing’ them and making them vehicles for the Truth (the customs you mention in Italy may be reflective of this). The Catholic way is to take whatever is not sinful and ‘baptize’ it, using it to point to the true God.

St. Paul himself used ‘paganism’ as a launchpad for the Truth when he used the altars dedicated to the agnostos theos to start a discussion about the true God: this “unknown god”, he says, is actually the God of Israel (Acts 17). While attempting to prove this, he also cites Epimenides of Crete (also cited in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (17:28) and expands upon them (17:29).

 

[patrick457]

Finally - I’ve said this a number of times in other threads already - the decorations in Solomon’s temple itself is clearly modeled on the decorations in other temples and iconography of the Ancient Near East (good examples are the Syro-Hittite Ain Dara temple in Aleppo and Tell Tayinat in Turkey), which is likely since Solomon received aid from Hiram, the King of Tyre, in the construction of his buildings, both by receiving raw materials and architectural direction and skilled craftsmen. The book of Kings describes the decorations thus:

…On all the walls around the House round about, he carved engravings of carvings of kheruvim, palm trees, and open flowers, inside and out. And the floor of the House he overlaid with gold, inside and out.
For the entrance of the Devir he made doors of olive wood; the pillar, doorposts, a fifth part. On the two doors made of olive wood he carved carvings of kheruvim, palm trees, and open flowers, and he overlaid with gold; and he beat the gold on the cherubs and the palm trees. And thus he did at the entrance of the Heikal, doorposts of olive wood, from a fourth.
And two doors of cypress wood; two of the leaves of the one door were folding, and two of the curtains (sic, corruption of “leaves”) of the other door were folding. He carved kheruvim, palm trees, and open flowers and overlaid them with gold; evenly applied on the carvings.

-1 Kings 6:29-35

Now, compare the descriptions to the following ANE art:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
An 8th century BC ivory box from Nimrud depicting a hybrid lotus-papyrus plant with palm branches, flanked by human-headed winged sphinxes (the “cherubim”?)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Drawing of a 8th-7th century BC Phoenician platter found in Greece, depicting sphinxes and the lotus-papyrus hybrid

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Detail of a 5th century BC tablet found in South Arabia, again depicting sphinxes, date palms, and that lotus-papyrus hybrid

http://www.medinaportal.net/portal/multimedia/image/8qj3d6fxsrk0r.jpg
A sphinx carving from Ain Dara (10th-8th century BC).

But we have no records of God ever complaining, “Hey! How come my temple has all this pagan decoration in it!” Rather, we are told that:

And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the House of YHWH. The priests were not able to stand to serve because of the cloud; the glory of YHWH filled the House of YHWH. Then Solomon said, “YHWH said He would dwell in the thick darkness. I have built you an exalted House, a place for you to dwell in forever.”

-1 Kings 8:10-12

I’m very sorry for once again engaging on a very long post.

 

[patrick457]

P.S. These pictures are nice, do you research history?

I like history and researching all that stuff (I’m big on “historical accuracy”, especially in art and film ) - when it comes to history I often start a longwinded sermon about this or that. Unfortunate, I think.

 

[imjustme]

I won’t deny that the Catholic Church (this applies to all, not just the Church of Rome) adopted some things which are ‘pagan’ in origin. For example, our churches are adapted from the Roman basilica, which was a sort of all-purpose public building. And, returning to the example of Julian the Apostate, Christians at his time (especially in the East) were using Greco-Roman literature - which also formed the core of classical education back then - to prove how Christianity was superior to paganism. What did Julian do? He released an edict which required that all public teachers be approved by the Emperor; the state paid or supplemented much of their salaries. The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus explains this as intending to prevent Christian teachers from using non-Christian literature - Julian reasons that “if they want to learn literature, they have Luke and Mark; let them go back to their churches and expound on them.” This was an attempt to remove some of the power of the Christian schools which at that time and later used such works. The edict was also a severe financial blow, because it deprived Christian scholars, tutors and teachers of many students.

Rather than saying that paganism has ‘infiltrated’ Christianity, I would rather say that Chrisitanity has ‘infiltrated’ paganism. The Catholic opinion is that “just because it’s ‘pagan’ does not mean it’s ‘bad’.” After all, all that God created is good, but could be ‘good’ or ‘evil’ depending on the circumstances and meaning given to it. In many cases, this could also be applied to ‘pagan’ practices, if they are not objectively or inherently immoral in and of themselves.

Take for example, a tree. Many pagans may hold this tree as a god or as a manifestation of sorts; that does not make the tree an evil thing by itself. Just because people were worshipping this tree or that shrub does not make plants intrinsically evil. So what if the pagans worshipped this tree in a sense foreign to use Christians? Outward gestures and things merely represent whatever meaning we choose to give them: for example, one culture may think of black cats as unlucky, but that does not mean that black cats are evil by themselves. In fact, another culture may not see anything wrong with them. The tree itself is a neutral object: a part of God’s creation, which is good. To say that this tree is ‘evil’ by itself would be to fall into that which one accuses Catholics of: superstition.

Sure, those pagans we were talking about worshipped this tree as a god, but we Christians can take this tree, give to it a new meaning, and so reclaim it for God, because the key to true worship is the inner attitude and disposition. We can say that this tree symbolizes our Lord and His cross on which He was crucified (the “Tree of Life”). We can say that the tree is not a god by itself, rather that it is one of God’s good and beautiful creations - therefore showing the might of God, who can create a tall, strong tree such as this if He so wills it.

Yes, there were other practices or Christmas customs which seem to have been adapted from pagan customs, thus ‘Christianizing’ them and making them vehicles for the Truth (the customs you mention in Italy may be reflective of this). The Catholic way is to take whatever is not sinful and ‘baptize’ it, using it to point to the true God.

St. Paul himself used ‘paganism’ as a launchpad for the Truth when he used the altars dedicated to the agnostos theos to start a discussion about the true God: this “unknown god”, he says, is actually the God of Israel (Acts 17). While attempting to prove this, he also cites Epimenides of Crete (also cited in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (17:28) and expands upon them (17:29).

I didn’t mean to say that all pagan traditions are bad - only that some of them are/were contrary to early Christian teachings and should have been kept out of Catholicism.

As someone said earlier, even some OT traditions originated from pagan tradition. There is nothing wrong with that. I’m not dissing paganism per se. What I object to is allowing certain pagan traditions to infiltrate the Christian customs when they are contrary to what Jesus taught.

For example, to me the bible is clear that baptism is meant for those who have accepted Jesus as their savior and are willing to repent from sins. This clearly indicates being of age to reason and repent. Also, it is by full water immersion. On the other hand, pagans practiced a form of infant baptism and sprinkling of water. So by adopting this variation, the Catholic Church is allowing an unbiblical baptism which may not be valid (only God will know for sure in the end, right?)…is this fair to Catholics? As a former Catholic, I didn’t think so and am planning to be baptised again sometime soon in the more traditional way. I wish I could have it in the Jordan River but instead it will be in the Pacific Ocean

I have read that one of the first laws passed by Emperor Constantine when he made ‘Christianity’ the official state religion of Rome, was the law decreeing infant baptism in 416 A.D. I don’t know if this is 100% accurate (I’m not a historian) but do you have any proof that infant baptism was done earlier than 100 AD (when Jesus or the apostles were still alive)?

Anyway, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and opinions and hope you understand that I don’t mean any disrespect when sharing mine. Sometimes that can be difficult to express through the monitor.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for those kind words. How very kind of you. In order not to derail this thread further however, I’ll try to answer that post in PM later.

 

[paperwight]

Everyone, ignore this man, Zundrah.

His purpose here is to disprove Catholicism with tired arguments that we’ve all heard before. Go back and read his previous posts. He’s been in R.C.I.A. for a long time it seems and has rejected most of what he has learned. He makes no effort to reconcile Church teaching with his personal prejudices. He is not interested in learning as much as he is trying to get us to see things his way. Don’t waste your time and effort on him.

A shepherd must tend his flock and, at times, fight off the wolves.

No, don’t ignore her. She’s a young woman, called Jennifer, and has only had 4 or so weeks of RCIA. She plans to go back in September. She was a Methodist for a few months, from which she has gained such knowledge of Christianity as she has, but of course, from a Protestant viewpoint. She is also interested in Mormonisn.

If you click on her name, then ‘statistics’ then ‘show all posts’, you can track her rather stormy progress n this board.

She needs our prayers as she finds many docrines confusing and as yet unacceptable. But she feels drawn to the Catholic church all the same, and needs our support.

 

[Zundrah]

No, don’t ignore her. She’s a young woman, called Jennifer, and has only had 4 or so weeks of RCIA. She plans to go back in September. She was a Methodist for a few months, from which she has gained such knowledge of Christianity as she has, but of course, from a Protestant viewpoint. She is also interested in Mormonisn.

If you click on her name, then ‘statistics’ then ‘show all posts’, you can track her rather stormy progress n this board.

She needs our prayers as she finds many docrines confusing and as yet unacceptable. But she feels drawn to the Catholic church all the same, and needs our support.

LOL, my progress is stormy?

P.S. I am not interested in mormonism!!! I just lead the mormons on and terrorize them every now and then… what’s wrong with that!?

I will never leave my catholic church! I love my church and my priest’s and you at CAF!

 

[juliamajor]

I didn’t mean to say that all pagan traditions are bad - only that some of them are/were contrary to early Christian teachings and should have been kept out of Catholicism.

As someone said earlier, even some OT traditions originated from pagan tradition. There is nothing wrong with that. I’m not dissing paganism per se. What I object to is allowing certain pagan traditions to infiltrate the Christian customs when they are contrary to what Jesus taught.

For example, to me the bible is clear that baptism is meant for those who have accepted Jesus as their savior and are willing to repent from sins. This clearly indicates being of age to reason and repent. Also, it is by full water immersion. On the other hand, pagans practiced a form of infant baptism and sprinkling of water. So by adopting this variation, the Catholic Church is allowing an unbiblical baptism which may not be valid (only God will know for sure in the end, right?)…is this fair to Catholics? As a former Catholic, I didn’t think so and am planning to be bapwheretised again sometime soon in the more traditional way. I wish I could have it in the Jordan River but instead it will be in the Pacific Ocean

I have read that one of the first laws passed by Emperor Constantine when he made ‘Christianity’ the official state religion of Rome, was the law decreeing infant baptism in 416 A.D. I don’t know if this is 100% accurate (I’m not a historian) but do you have any proof that infant baptism was done earlier than 100 AD (when Jesus or the apostles were still alive)?

Anyway, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and opinions and hope you understand that I don’t mean any disrespect when sharing mine. Sometimes that can be difficult to express through the monitor.

A “form” don’t mean squat . there are plenty of stuff the resmbles this or that.Like&similarity and same as are all different in meaning
when and where did pagans have an infant baptism.I’m curious.As far as ritual cleansing, purifications,washing away- there are examples of that all over the world.Lustral water is common in every, place at every time.Baptism is a whole different. thing.unless a Trinitarian formula is used it isn’t a christian baptism

 

[ipul]

so… what is the answer. its kinda sad it doesnt seem possible to just give a clear answer in a few sentences or less to this question.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

so… what is the answer. its kinda sad it doesnt seem possible to just give a clear answer in a few sentences or less to this question.

It is certainly possible to give a clear answer in a very few sentences to this question.

Jesus gave authority to the Church to bind, loose, and teach. The Church says that statues are permissable. End of discussion.

 

[rocketrob]

so… what is the answer. its kinda sad it doesnt seem possible to just give a clear answer in a few sentences or less to this question.

There have been several very detailed posts in this thread, but there have also been some that give a basic answer.

The short answer is that the originally referenced scripture forbids the creation and worship of false gods and/or idols…its basically a repetition of the first commandment that appears in Exodus. The statues in a Catholic Church are not idols, nor are they worshipped. If anything, they focus prayer and rememberance on the One Almighty God, everything that He’s revealed and done for us throughout salvation history, and how we’re all part of His family if we only accept the gift of salvation that he’s given us.

The thing is that protestants either disagree with, or (more likely) don’t understand Catholic teaching regarding Mary, the communion of saints, and intercessory prayer. This disagreement sparks the debates which take a thorough understanding of Sacred Scripture and Tradition in their entirety to address correctly, and can therefore lead to more detailed and lengthy answers.

rocketrob

 

[Zundrah]

It is certainly possible to give a clear answer in a very few sentences to this question.

Jesus gave authority to the Church to bind, loose, and teach. The Church says that statues are permissable. End of discussion.

This is a very good point!

 

[WonderfulLife]

Catholics do NOT worship statues. Statues and images are often appreciated as a sort of focal point of meditation for prayer or communing with God. I’ll repeat: we do NOT pray to statues or pretend some art image is actually God.

We can ask the saints for intervention and to offer up prayers on our behalf to God. That is what the rosary is all about, in regards to asking Mary in particular to intercede or consider us. Yet you do not have to have a statue of Mary or a set of rosary beads to say the rosary. It just makes it nicer and perhaps more intimate, perhaps easier to concentrate. No one is worshipping rosary beards, saint medallions or statues AS God.

Does this help?

 

[imjustme]

so… what is the answer. its kinda sad it doesnt seem possible to just give a clear answer in a few sentences or less to this question.

The short answer is that the Roman Catholic Church believes it has authority to change the Lord’s laws and ignore the 10 commandments as given to Moses and as confirmed by Jesus. It has an elaborate chatechism that attempts to explain the how and why they do so, but the bottom line is that they are not being obedient to the Lord.

 

[imjustme]

This is a very good point!

**Is it?

“Scripture cannot be broken” John 10:35

The grass withers, the flower fades: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

…blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. Luke 11:28**

 

[patrick457]

**Is it?

“Scripture cannot be broken” John 10:35**

Please don’t cherry-pick quotes out of context, however correct they may be.

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not perform the works of my Father, do not believe me! But if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in Him.”

-John 10:34-37

 

[Newbie2]

I’m probably rehashing points here, but in response to the OP:

Consider the cross. Devout Christians wear them, Protestant Churches have them, people have them in their houses. What is the difference between the cross and the statues? Or how about the altar? Priests and Ministers bow to the altar, no? We do not worship any of them. They are merely symbols there to remind us of Mary’s great example of obedience, Joseph’s role as a husband/caregiver to our Lord, the Saints examples of faith as inspiration to us.

That is the message in the scriptures, have no other false gods before the Almighty. It’s not OK to worship the images or the statues themselves, the cross, the altar, etc.

 

[Zundrah]

It is certainly possible to give a clear answer in a very few sentences to this question.

Jesus gave authority to the Church to bind, loose, and teach. The Church says that statues are permissable. End of discussion.

Newbie2

I think that really this has done it for me, I wont complain about statues any more!
Why did no one else on this thread think of this!? I can’t believe that I forgot about this scripture!
xxx zundrah xxx

 

[rocketrob]

The short answer is that the Roman Catholic Church believes it has authority to change the Lord’s laws and ignore the 10 commandments as given to Moses and as confirmed by Jesus. It has an elaborate chatechism that attempts to explain the how and why they do so, but the bottom line is that they are not being obedient to the Lord.

This just simply isn’t true. The very thorough Catechism of the Catholic Church has a complete section devoted to the ten commandments and their application to Christian life. For those interested, go to the following link and then page down to Part 3, section Two: The Ten Commandments:

usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.shtml

rocketrob