Graven Images in the Catholic Church

[Jon_S_1]

Hello Everyone,

It’s been awhile since I posted, but I am hopeful many of you will help me out with this issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand why it is considered acceptable to have graven images of God, saints, angels, etc. in church when the Bible clearly seems to indicate otherwise. I have read some Catholic apologetics on this, but not a lot. I didn’t find any of their arguments very persuasive, so I was wondering if you all could point me in the right direction on this important issue.

Thanks and God Bless!

-Justin

This question comes at an interesting time…When protestants everywhere fill their churches and homes with graven images…

scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10665828_395330700616678_1168652538517214186_n.jpg?oh=59a8433828329e61622e0ab8a1880c3c&oe=550BC3E4

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks. I had already read that source…and while it answers some questions, it definitely does not prove the point.

The crux of the argument seems to be that only worship of graven images or images is prohibited, not the use of them in worship. But nowhere in the text will you find that qualification…and there is no evidence the Jews ever understood this commandment in the way the Catholic Church now teaches it. If the Catholic understanding is right, why didn’t the Jews see it the same way?

If the Jews didn’t understand who the Messiah was, then what makes the Catholic understanding right?

The Church changed…one of the fundamental changes was that God became incarnate in Christ. He made himself visible to us in that way.

If he came today, could we have taken photographs of him? Could we paint a portrait? Why not build a statue.

We do know the Jews built statues of things…the angels on the Ark of the Covenant is one example.

 

[porthos11]

Now that is a good article and on-topic…

Although, you’ll notice nothing about statues, engravings, etc., which was my original point. Your article does seem to conflict with the source I mentioned in another post by a Jewish source that cites the Talmud (and I double-checked the section of the Talmud and it was verified).

It has already been cited to you that even the Israelites used imaged in cultic contexts, the Ark of the Covenant and the massive cherubim in the Temple of Solomon. The cultic use of these images clearly show that the prohibition against the creation of images is not absolute.

But an even more important question is why Jewish sources, such as the Talmud should be used as proof texts against the religious use of images. The Talmud, outside of its historical value, means nothing to us Christians. The Jews can prohibit all they want, and it doesn’t carry an iota of authority for us.

 

[jinc1019]

This question comes at an interesting time…When protestants everywhere fill their churches and homes with graven images…

scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10665828_395330700616678_1168652538517214186_n.jpg?oh=59a8433828329e61622e0ab8a1880c3c&oe=550BC3E4

That’s pretty misleading since many Protestants, such as Lutherans and some Anglicans, do not have a problem with graven images anyway.

 

[Duane1966]

Once again, everything you’re saying conflicts with the entirety of early Jud
ism on these points. If all your interpretations are correct, then you are arguing the Jewish position was always wrong. The Talmud, for instance, clearly argues against it and understands the commandment to forbid the making of any images, flat, sculpted, or otherwise, that depict any humans.

So are you saying the Jews were always wrong about this?

Every Jewish website I visited including several that were ask the rabbi, basically said this about graven images:

What the Torah says is “Do not make a graven image (statue) or any picture of that which is in the heavens above and that is on the earth below and that is in the water beneath the earth.” Interpreted broadly, this statement could seem to be prohibiting any kind of statue or painting of any people or animals. That is NOT the way the commandment has generally been understood, however. We look at this verse in its context: the preceding verse says “you shall have no other gods before me.” So we understand that the commandment is talking about a prohibition against creating idols, things that we might worship.

And from another Jewish site:

• There is much written on this subject in Talmud and other sources.* Two-dimensional pictures are generally not at issue here.* Three dimensional sculptures of humans or animals are potential problems if they are worshipped as gods. So, for the most part, dolls or sculptures of humans/animals that are not worshipped as deities are fine.*

The Talmud clearly argues against it WHEN they are used as idols.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That’s pretty misleading since many Protestants, such as Lutherans and some Anglicans, do not have a problem with graven images anyway.

Smile…its a joke

 

[jinc1019]

If the Jews didn’t understand who the Messiah was, then what makes the Catholic understanding right?

The Church changed…one of the fundamental changes was that God became incarnate in Christ. He made himself visible to us in that way.

If he came today, could we have taken photographs of him? Could we paint a portrait? Why not build a statue.

We do know the Jews built statues of things…the angels on the Ark of the Covenant is one example.

Ok, so you’re saying the Jewish understanding was wrong and that you know this because the Church has told you. I can actually appreciate that position if we assume the Catholic Church has the authority you believe it has.

Second, everyone keeps bringing up the example of the Ark of the Covenant as if that proves the point, but in reality, it does nothing for your position. God commanded that. Even John Calvin himself would agree that if God commands for an image to be made, it ought to be! (By the way, I don’t agree with John Calvin on many issues related to the topic of idolatry).

 

[jinc1019]

Smile…its a joke

I know! But I still felt I needed to point it out!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Ok, so you’re saying the Jewish understanding was wrong and that you know this because the Church has told you. I can actually appreciate that position if we assume the Catholic Church has the authority you believe it has.

Second, everyone keeps bringing up the example of the Ark of the Covenant as if that proves the point, but in reality, it does nothing for your position. God commanded that. Even John Calvin himself would agree that if God commands for an image to be made, it ought to be! (By the way, I don’t agree with John Calvin on many issues related to the topic of idolatry).

Yes…although I am not so sure the Jewish position is what you say it is…I will keep reading the thread, but already some evidence has been posited regarding Judaism and images.

 

[jinc1019]

It has already been cited to you that even the Israelites used imaged in cultic contexts, the Ark of the Covenant and the massive cherubim in the Temple of Solomon. The cultic use of these images clearly show that the prohibition against the creation of images is not absolute.

But an even more important question is why Jewish sources, such as the Talmud should be used as proof texts against the religious use of images. The Talmud, outside of its historical value, means nothing to us Christians. The Jews can prohibit all they want, and it doesn’t carry an iota of authority for us.

Once again, God commanded those images. No one is arguing against God-commanded graven images. No one…not even John Calvin. No one! That’s a strawman argument. We’re talking about non-God commanded images here.

Second, the reason I cited the Talmud is because many are making the argument that the interpretation of the OT should be different that the one I am suggesting, but if that’s true, then the Jews obviously misinterpreted the OT as well! They did not allow graven images EXCEPT when God commanded them.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes…although I am not so sure the Jewish position is what you say it is…I will keep reading the thread, but already some evidence has been posited regarding Judaism and images.

Yes, and I found the pictures to be very, very interesting! But from the multiple Jewish sources I have read, including the Talmud itself, it seems as though images were not allowed.

 

[God_I_Love]

Hello Everyone,

It’s been awhile since I posted, but I am hopeful many of you will help me out with this issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand why it is considered acceptable to have graven images of God, saints, angels, etc. in church when the Bible clearly seems to indicate otherwise. I have read some Catholic apologetics on this, but not a lot. I didn’t find any of their arguments very persuasive, so I was wondering if you all could point me in the right direction on this important issue.

Thanks and God Bless!

-Justin

I think statues are fine. In so far as the person’s mindset is not on the statue but rather what it represents. I have a crucifix for example, not because I worship the cross, but because it brings a ‘‘remembrance’’ of Our Lord’s suffering for our sake. Is this a sinful use? no; as the spirit behind the law was to make sure nothing was worshipped besides God.

 

[jinc1019]

How could they be wrong about the Messiah for much longer than a 1000 years?

Because they don’t accept that the Messiah fits the Messianic description. That’s not the point. The point is…People here were making the argument that the OT allows for images. And my point was that the Jews generally rejected that argument! Further, I can cite multiple early Christian fathers who rejected it as well. Origen, for instance, did. An early bishop of Sardis did. Epiphanius, a bishop in Cyprus, said this in the 4th century:

“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 loath 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.”

Obviously lots of other early Christians disagreed, but the idea that there was a single mind on this is just not true. The Jews at the time of Christ rejected the Catholic interpretation and many early church fathers did as well.

 

[adawgj]

As far as the history goes, the reason why we have so many icons and images was for these three reasons.

1. Images helped the people who were illiterate to know what the Bible was talking about.
2. Catholicism has always been a major patron of the arts.
3. The images are used for veneration not worship. We like to have everybody at Christ’s altar so having statues and pictures of saints and Our Blessed Mother help us remember them, and the example of their actions.

 

[jinc1019]

I think statues are fine. In so far as the person’s mindset is not on the statue but rather what it represents. I have a crucifix for example, not because I worship the cross, but because it brings a ‘‘remembrance’’ of Our Lord’s suffering for our sake. Is this a sinful use? no; as the spirit behind the law was to make sure nothing was worshipped besides God.

I have no doubt that you are not worshipping the statue itself! I would never make that really horrid claim. All I’m saying is…If God has forbidden it, we shouldn’t do it. I think we both would agree on that. You obviously think God has not forbidden it, but I think the evidence is against you. As I already said, the Jews at the time of Christ (at least according to the evidence I have seen) did not allow it. Neither did many early church fathers (although many did allow it; there was a big split on this issue).

 

[porthos11]

Once again, God commanded those images. No one is arguing against God-commanded graven images. No one…not even John Calvin. No one! That’s a strawman argument. We’re talking about non-God commanded images here.

Second, the reason I cited the Talmud is because many are making the argument that the interpretation of the OT should be different that the one I am suggesting, but if that’s true, then the Jews obviously misinterpreted the OT as well! They did not allow graven images EXCEPT when God commanded them.

So my question still stands. Why should we even care what the Jews think? They are wrong about this, as they are about many other things.

The primary reason Christians should have no trouble interpreting the OT the way we do is because Christ became visible. This can be treated in-depth, but it should suffice to say that we now use images because Christ inaugurated the economy (oikonomia) of images, by his being an image (eikon) himself. The OT is always interpreted in the light of Christ, not according to a Jewish compilation that post-dates the Temple.

 

[jinc1019]

As far as the history goes, the reason why we have so many icons and images was for these three reasons.

1. Images helped the people who were illiterate to know what the Bible was talking about.
2. Catholicism has always been a major patron of the arts.
3. The images are used for veneration not worship. We like to have everybody at Christ’s altar so having statues and pictures of saints and Our Blessed Mother help us remember them, and the example of their actions.

I don’t dispute anything you said here. You’re exactly right.

The question is, are all of these actions in accordance with God’s law or not?

 

[jinc1019]

So my question still stands. Why should we even care what the Jews think? They are wrong about this, as they are about many other things.

The primary reason Christians should have no trouble interpreting the OT the way we do is because Christ became visible. This can be treated in-depth, but it should suffice to say that we now use images because Christ inaugurated the economy (oikonomia) of images, by his being an image (eikon) himself. The OT is always interpreted in the light of Christ, not according to a Jewish compilation that post-dates the Temple.

What about the numerous early church fathers who disagreed? They were wrong too? It seems like you are starting with the assumption you are right and working backwards. Why must the Jews have been wrong? You never gave a single reason other than because they are Jews and therefore COULD be wrong.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Because they don’t accept that the Messiah fits the Messianic description. That’s not the point. The point is…People here were making the argument that the OT allows for images. And my point was that the Jews generally rejected that argument! Further, I can cite multiple early Christian fathers who rejected it as well. Origen, for instance, did. An early bishop of Sardis did. Epiphanius, a bishop in Cyprus, said this in the 4th century:

Obviously lots of other early Christians disagreed, but the idea that there was a single mind on this is just not true. The Jews at the time of Christ rejected the Catholic interpretation and many early church fathers did as well.

This of course was discussed a lot in the early church…it seems the early church came to the consensus that since God allowed us to view him in the flesh, we could make an image of that remembrance of what we saw with our own eyes…Basically he gave us the gift to do so by the incarnation.

As for other images…of other people.

I have no problem seeing a bust of Abraham Lincoln in a museum…so I see no problem with a statue of a saint.

I have no problem taking photographs and hanging them on my wall, or carving crosses out of wood to display and remind me of what this life is about.

I also see no reason in the old testament to say such things are wrong.

 

[Mintaka]

The Temple menorahs were lampstands designed to look like a stylized almond tree in flower. (The olive oil lamps and their flames being the almond flowers. This comes into the Book of Zechariah with the two trees and stuff like that.) The “bronze sea” was a picture of the ocean. The Temple was a sort of sacred diagram of the entire universe plus Heaven. God commanded these things be made.

Jewish history had a lot of different interpretations of “no graven images.” The idea of “no pictures at all” got popular whenever the rabbis wanted to “fence in” the Law by prohibiting much more than what was asked for. But when the Temple was around, full of statues and pictures of God’s Creation, there was not much shyness about creating mosaics and wall paintings of God’s Creation in synagogues. But even today, even in synagogues, there will often be designs and pictures somewhere around. Only in the really, really strict groups are there no pictures at all of any kind.

But if you’re using writing, you’re using images. The letters of the Hebrew (and Greek, and Latin) alphabet are pictorial in their origins, even if they are very stylized now. And writing with a pen is definitely graven (which is why it’s graphein in Greek).

Since the Lord did not forbid Israel to adopt the Phoenician pictorial alphabet for secular or sacred purposes (which they did VERY early on), and since God did not scorn to have the Bible written in such graven images, He clearly doesn’t forbid all graven images.