How are blessed items not "idols"

[Redeemerslove]

Not without constant controversy. In fact, there was violent controversy about images in the East for more than a century; even Eastern Emperors got involved. And the stance against what was called even called then,“image worship,” produced its own martyrs during those years.

The constant contoversy is from fundamentalists who do not belong to the Church Jesus Christ founded. Peter and Paul both said something about people like this:

“But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand” (2 Peter 2:12b).

“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected” (2 Tim 3:8).

Moses sounds alot like a type of pope in this passage doesn’t he? His word was law. No one could go against him.

There was an iconoclastic Council in Constantinople which condemned images, but then the practice was sanctioned again by the second Council of Nicaea and pronounced “anathema” on all who failed to participate in such exercises. But the image-war still continued after that Council.

But scripture does not say lay people (disciples) are in charge of the Church, it says the Bishops are:

“For the bishop as God’s steward” (Titus 1:7a)

“As for you younger ones, be subject to the presbyters” (1 Peter 5:5).

The Apostles and presbyters signed a letter in Acts 15 with this decree:

“It is the decision of us and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28).

And finally we know who appoints the bishops:

“…the holy Spirit who has appointed you overseers” (Acts 20:28b).

Who is anyone to contradict the bishops since the Holy Spirit has appointed them?

In the West Charlemagne, with the aid of his chaplains, in book form titled “Quatuor Libri Carolini” denounced images stating that to bow or kneel, to salute or kiss, to strew incense and light candles before them was idolatrous and superstitious. It was said that it was better to search the Scriptures which knew nothing of such practices. Images were only to be used to adorn and not to be used in worship.

Charlemange is now a pope and bishop? Who ordained him btw?

**

Agobard

**

, archbishop of Lyons, wrote a book against images and considered its roots to be in the worship of saints.

Minority opinion, one bishop does not a council make:

This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings…(Acts 15:23).

Sounds like there was not a single bishop by himself signing this letter. They did it as a council.

**

Caudius

**

, bishop of Turin, found the Italian churches full of pictures and picture-worshipers. He was told that the people did not mean to worship the images, but the saints. He replied that the heathen on the same ground defend the worship of their idols, and may become Christians by merely changing the name. He even attacked the superstitious use of the sign of the cross. He said if we worship the cross because Christ suffered on it, we might also worship every virgin because He was born of a virgin, every manger because He was laid in a manger, every ship because He taught from a ship, yea, every donkey because He rode on a donkey into Jerusalem. He said we should bear the cross, not adore it. He banished pictures, crosses and crucifixes from the churches as the only way to kill superstition. He also opposed pilgrimages.

Minority opinion. One bishop does not a council make (see quotes above).

Point being, VociMike, the use of images in Christian worship always had its controversy and conflict all the way down to the Reformation period. The extreme reaction by Catholics, yes, Catholics, during the Reformation in the 1500s was proof of this. It never did set well with ALL the people all the time, either with clergy or laymen, either in the East or the West.

Wrong. Just because a few Christians don’t like it does not make them correct, unless they are the pope of course. Paul had this to say about factions:

“I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder” (2 Cor 12:20).

“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:…dissensions, factions…” (Gal 5:19 & 20).

 

[Zooey]

In the West Charlemagne, with the aid of his chaplains, in book form titled “Quatuor Libri Carolini” denounced images stating that to bow or kneel, to salute or kiss, to strew incense and light candles before them was idolatrous and superstitious.

Charlemagne???
Oh, well, that just proves your point beyond all doubt…Let’s get rid of the family photo albums, everybody. Charlemagne was aginst images, so we all have to fall into line…
Oh! Oh!! Wait a minute!! We are:yup: Christians, not :nope: Charlemagnians.
Whew, that’s a :dancing: relief. It’s no fun at all, trying to build a bonfire in a heap of snow…

 

[Zooey]

Oh, yes; did I mention, that “Iconoclasm” was declared as a heresy, by both the Eastern & Western Church??
It was motivated by people who were influenced by Islam. They were not, in fact, Christian any way but technically, in that some of them were baptized.
But they were in rebellion against not only statues, but paintings, tapestries, etc. Anything that had a picture of a living being on it, was considered evil, because that was what their Muslim neighbors believed, & the Iconoclasts were more impressed by Islam than by Christianity…

Laddie, it doesnae sound to me, like something a Christian would want to be part of…Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, I think we can agree that looking to radical Islam for Christian doctrine is a wee bit outside of enough…

 

[apophasis]

What do you make, then, of New Testament stories of a woman being healed just by touching Christ’s robe? Of the fact that Christ himself BLESSED the bread at the Last Supper before he shared it?

This context would fit the subject at hand if a priest claimed they had the actual robe, displayed it and the people kneeled and prayed before it and kissed it.

Of people positioning themselves so that Peter’s shadow would fall on them, and that they were healed thereby? Of Paul ACTUALLY blessing pieces of cloth (‘napkins’ or ‘towels’) that were taken to those who were sick and used to heal them?

This context would fit the subject at hand if a priest claimed they actually had one of the cloths Paul blessed and the people kneeled and prayed before it and kissed it.

Of course blessed objects do have great significance.

On what basis?

Then again, how do you explain Paul’s line in the epistles: “Oh foolish Galatians, before whose eyes Christ was portrayed as being crucified”? Sounds more than anything like Paul and the Galatians used images of the crucified Christ in their evangelisation and worship.

Paul was talking about “the word of the cross” that was preached to them.

 

[apophasis]

Oh, yes; did I mention, that “Iconoclasm” was declared as a heresy, by both the Eastern & Western Church??
It was motivated by people who were influenced by Islam. They were not, in fact, Christian any way but technically, in that some of them were baptized.
But they were in rebellion against not only statues, but paintings, tapestries, etc. Anything that had a picture of a living being on it, was considered evil, because that was what their Muslim neighbors believed, & the Iconoclasts were more impressed by Islam than by Christianity…

Laddie, it doesnae sound to me, like something a Christian would want to be part of…Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, I think we can agree that looking to radical Islam for Christian doctrine is a wee bit outside of enough…

Actually, Christians were being viewed as idolaters by Muslims and others because of their zeal to bow before pictures and relics. Can you show me one example of the Apostles practicing or preaching this kind of behavior?
:bowdown: :whacky:

The point was proved, lassie, that the practice of images was never without controversy in the Church either in the East or West, contrary to claims on this thread.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Paul was talking about “the word of the cross” that was preached to them.

And you have proof that this was ‘just the verbal word’ how?

Considering that we know for fact that symbols such as a drawn fish were used to indicate that a person, household, or business was Christian, why would you think that in a limited literacy society which relied strongly on not just words but on accompanying imagery, there would not be a drawing or art work commemorating Christ’s passion??? Ever been to the catacombs of Rome?

Actually, we Catholics DO claim that we have some very holy objects (relics of the saints, the Shroud of Turin which is believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus). Are we permitted to use them? They were ‘blessed’ appropriately according to your post, right? So where do we draw the line, then–do we ‘stop’ with the 12 apostles and Paul? Since Paul never physically ‘knew’ Jesus, we can’t claim that ‘holiness’ or the power to bless stopped with just those who ‘knew’ Christ in the flesh. In fact, people bless each other to this day, just as was done by the Israelites, over food, over other objects, and over each other. What is so different about blessing any ‘contemporary’ object like a cross or water? We’re not claiming the blessing gives “mystic powers”, or that the object has ‘mystic powers’. Certainly some objects are ‘holier’ than others, based on who blessed or used them, but none of them, not even the burial cloth of Jesus, is to be compared to Christ Himself. None of them is used as an idol or is worshipped–so why the fuss???

As for the apostles ‘teaching bowing or respect before pictures and relics’ not being shown–ahem. You really cannot prove that it was NOT shown, or taught. In fact, judging from the Jewish society of the time, you’d pretty much find that the Jewish people indeed bowed before, venerated, and respected sacred objects as a matter of course. Why would the apostles change?

And as for ‘controversy’ and iconoclassicism–sure, it’s always existed throughout Christian times (and before as well). All the ‘great heresies’ have been around since the beginning. Each new generation simply gives those heresies different names. . .

 

[jack_hawkins]

I have to say I have great concerns that people get focussed on all sorts of good and holy things instead of our Lord. I cringe slightly when I see people wax lyrical about Padre Pio or Divine Mercy cards. I understand the rationale better now, and I even occasionally use the holy water, but for me it is an area where I tread carefully.

 

[sweetirishct]

I have to say I have great concerns that people get focussed on all sorts of good and holy things instead of our Lord. I cringe slightly when I see people wax lyrical about Padre Pio or Divine Mercy cards. I understand the rationale better now, and I even occasionally use the holy water, but for me it is an area where I tread carefully.

That is pretty much where I was going… (Boy, did I not realize the can of worms I was opening!! )
I am concerned about traditions like the Reverence of the Cross (may be the wrong name…) where parishoners approach the altar just like in Eucharist, but bow and kiss the feet of the crucifix. This has always struck me funny…

If such items as crossess and crucifixes, rosaries and statues are only to remind us, why the big deal about having them blessed? And what does it mean when you have to dispose of them, because they are broken, etc. I got started on this because I saw on a website that you could purchase a little statue of a saint (forgot which one) and bury it as protection for your home (I think…) This seems to be superstition… Any wonder why I am confused?

And as far as physical or geographical sites as shrines, I can understand the significance of the older sites, Jeruselam, etc. but I was more thinking about places like Lourdes, and St.Anne de Beaupre (which I visited as a child.) These places don’t have to do with Christ directly, but with Mary, and people seem to go there to worship. They bring home holy water with reputed healing powers (which is sounding like the example of the cloth blessed by Paul).

I don’t know. I guess I think that people should be able to be reminded of Christ in our lives, without items that need to be blessed. I can remember getting a rosary as a child and taking it to the priest the next Sunday to have it blessed. Do you think that Mary wouldn’t hear our petitions if we prayed on an not-blessed rosary? Or that we will get to Heaven more quickly or be on God’s better side if we are wearing a cross or crucifix that is blessed as opposed to one that is not?? This is where I am going here…
I am not trying to be argumentative, but I am trying to figure this out or myself… Like many questions I have asked so far around these boards, the answer may be simple, and I may just be seriously misunderstanding the tradition…

PS… Michael, I am not falling into idol worship, as you can see by my clarification, quite the opposite!

 

[sandusky]

LilyM:

Then again, how do you explain Paul’s line in the epistles: “Oh foolish Galatians, before whose eyes Christ was portrayed as being crucified”? Sounds more than anything like Paul and the Galatians used images of the crucified Christ in their evangelisation and worship.

Interesting eisegesis, however, it is not supported by the text.

Portrayed is from the Gk prōgrafō, literally, written before.

Christ portrayed as crucified in Galations 3 is a verbal portrayal of Christ crucified, not a literal iconic portrayal.

Hope that helps. :tiphat:

 

[heisenburg]

So are you saying it is wrong for us to have any images, Statues, Crucifixes that remind us of Christ?

Keep in mind, we are not “Worshiping a statue” We worship what it represents… God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit…

Where is it written in scripture when properly understood that this is wrong?

In Christ

 

[Brendan]

If such items as crossess and crucifixes, rosaries and statues are only to remind us, why the big deal about having them blessed? And what does it mean when you have to dispose of them, because they are broken, etc. I got started on this because I saw on a website that you could purchase a little statue of a saint (forgot which one) and bury it as protection for your home (I think…) This seems to be superstition… Any wonder why I am confused?

Look at Acts 19:11-12

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Would you consider what those Early Christians did with the handkerciefs to be superstitious?

That items that were blessed can be used as instruments of Grace and healing?

Do you think that those who recieved these articles placed their Faith in the cloth, in Paul or in God?

If God was the source of the Grace, why did He choose to work though material cloth touched with no special properties other than have been touched by a human?

How would you react of someone brought one of these handkerchiefs or aprons to you went you were sick?

Would your reaction be ‘biblical’

 

[Zooey]

Actually, Christians were being viewed as idolaters by Muslims and others because of their zeal to bow before pictures and relics.

.

And again, I ask you: Whose custom are you going to follow? Osama Bin Laden, or Pope Benedict???
Because, you see, that was my point!
Frankly, I don’t care what the Muslims think of me. They can think I’m a horrible idolater bound for their version of hell, for worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ. http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif They can think I’m a total :whacky: :whacky: .
I. Don’t. Care. One. Rap. About. The. Muslims’. Opinion. Of. Me. I guess that’s why I’m a little less than impressed by the Iconoclasts; they look to me, like they wanted to suck up to the [Muslim] powers that be.
I will go with the One Who died on the cross for me…His opinion is the one:yup: I am interested in. But, hey! That’shttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif just me…:twocents:

 

[Church_Militant]

Apologetics 101-05 (Link)

Q: I had a friend ask me why Catholics have Crucifixes in our churches…don’t we believe Jesus has risen? Why do we keep Him on the cross?

A: First of all, you would want to check out 1st Corinthians, chapter 1, verse 23. Paul says, “…but we preach Christ crucified…” Why does Paul preach Christ crucified? Doesn’t he know Jesus has been raised from the dead? Of course he does! But, he knows that it is through the power of the crucified Christ on the cross that the bonds of sin and death are broken. As Paul says in verse 24, Christ crucified is the “power of God”.

1 Cor 2:2, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” Again, didn’t Paul know that Jesus had risen from the dead? Of course, he did.

Paul preaches Christ crucified because an empty cross has no power. The cross that bears the beaten, battered, and bloodied body of Jesus Christ, however, that cross is the “power of God”. This is why, we “keep Jesus on the cross,” because we, too, preach Christ crucified. The Crucifix reminds us not only of God’s power, but also His love for us - giving His only begotten Son up for suffering and death.

Also, here in this life we do not share so much in the glory of the Resurrection, as we do in the suffering of Jesus on the cross; after all, we must take up our cross daily if we are to follow Jesus, as it says in Lk 9:23.

And, we must die with Christ in order to live with Him as Romans 6:8 tells us. Where did Christ die? On the cross. The Crucifix serves to remind us of these things.

One other passage to keep in mind is Galatians 3:1, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Did you catch that? Jesus was publicly portrayed, before their “eyes”, as being crucified. Sounds kind of like they may have been looking at a Crucifix, doesn’t it? Greek text in that one verse notwithstanding (and also what source did you use? Strong’s?) there are other passages that better inform our knowledge of this.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Windmill]

Honoring the saints is simply honoring the work of Christ in the life of that sinner-gone-good. It is much like honoring artwork done by an artist. His greatness is exemplified by his acheivements. God is great in his creation, but even more great in converting, redeeming, and sanctifying prodigal sons. God’s majesty is magnified by his love for us. The fruits of this love are seen in the virtuous lives of those we call saints.

We are not honoring the inherent greatness of the person themselves. If they were present, they’d give God the glory for all the good they’ve done.

Now, as is the case in human weakness, religiosity can get perverted and turn into a one-up competition. Without proper catechesis, people can think they are being pious when, in fact, they are taking saint-honoring to the extreme.

I know in Mexico they have had to remind people to pray before the blessed sacrament before making “the rounds” to all the saint shrines in the side altars.

However, just because something can be abused doesn’t make it inherent’y bad. Alcohol was consumed by Our Lord at the Last Supper, given at the Wedding of Cana, etc… The fact that one can abuse this created good does not change the fact that it is a created good.

Same with the saints. They are a created good. God’s re-creation of this person through baptism has made an enduring symbol of what true devotion to God can do to a person’s life. The fact that some over-honor the saint doesn’t mean we should stop recognizing Christ’s work in the lives of sinners throughout the ages. That’s just silly.

As far as images, I would say that the majority of those who call themselves Christians adhere to a form of Christianity that says this is just fine. Eastern orthodox with icons, Coptics, Oriental Apostolic Churches, and the Cahtolic Church make up 75% of the Christians globally. So, a small Protestant minority that has no history or guidance other than their own private interpretions and rationalizations do not cast one shadow of doubt on my beliefs in this area. I don’t say this in any arrogance at all. I just stand by the history of the Church worldwide, and put more trust in their interpretation of Christian scripture and tradition than modern protestant private interpretations.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Greek text in that one verse notwithstanding (and also what source did you use? Strong’s?)

Louw-Nida: Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. based on Semantic Domains; Lidell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon.

…there are other passages that better inform our knowledge of this.

And what might those be?

From CM’s apologetic resource:

One other passage to keep in mind is Galatians 3:1, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Did you catch that?..

I did.

…Jesus was publicly portrayed, before their “eyes”, as being crucified. Sounds kind of like they may have been looking at a Crucifix, doesn’t it?

”Sounds kind of like…?”

Sounds kind of like he didn’t do his homework; let me offer an appeal to authority as well from one of, if not the best, A. T. Robertson.

Again, what is being spoken of is a “verbal portrayal” through the strength of Paul’s preaching
(cf 1 Cor 1:23; 2:1-5). (Edited by Moderator)

 

[Church_Militant]

Louw-Nida: Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. based on Semantic Domains

; Lidell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. And this would override the plain common sense understanding of a scripture. Sound very much like agenda driven interpretation to me.

And what might those be? They were contained in the post above…and you seem to have ignored them.

From CM’s apologetic resource:I did.”Sounds kind of like…

?”

Sounds kind of like he didn’t do his homework; let me offer an appeal to authority as well from one of, if not the best, A. T. Robertson.Oh…so then to have even a cross is wrong by this logic and interpretation. Yet most of the n-C churches I have seen have them as do most of the n-Cs.

Again, what is being spoken of is a “verbal portrayal” through the strength of Paul’s preaching
(cf 1 Cor 1:23; 2:1-5). (Edited by Moderator)

Ignoring the other passages that John Martignoni cited.

(Oh, and the next time you disrespect our faith like that kaycee I will report you. You really have no cause to make remarks like that and if you can’t discuss and debate without throwing in stuff like that then you don’t belong here at CAF to begin with. That’s the very kind of “witnessing” that makes us Catholics tell people to get lost.)

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

And this would override the plain common sense understanding of a scripture. Sound very much like agenda driven interpretation to me.

That is a very weak and inconsistent argument, CM, in that the accusation of an “agenda driven interpretation” can be used against your position as well.

The “plain common sense understanding” may initially lead one to your interpretation, CM; however, further digging into the historical record makes it plain that no record exists that Paul, or any of the evangelists of that time ever went about “publicly placarding” pictorial iconography depicting the crucifixion, as Robertson says.

So the plain meaning that most closely lines up with the biblical, and extra-biblical data is that the evangelists portrayed Christ as crucified through oral proclamation by preaching the crucifixion (cf 1 Cor 1:23; 2:1-5).
Church Militant:

Oh…so then to have even a cross is wrong by this logic and interpretation. Yet most of the n-C churches I have seen have them as do most of the n-Cs.

My point has nothing to do with the “rightness, or wrongness” of displaying a crucifix, or an empty cross, CM; my point is that the “public portrayal” of Christ crucified in Galatians 3:1, is not a literal iconic portrayal, but an oral portrayal through evangelistic preaching.
Church Militant:

Ignoring the other passages that John Martignoni cited.

I did not ignore the verses that you cited, but cited the same verses in support of my position.

 

[Sixtus]

It is tough to get past the idea that people are praying “to” the item.

Well it should not be. I am zero tolerance on this. I do not know of any catholics who pray to blessed items.

I am also aware of many Christians who criticise us, by their ignorance of the facts, then will not walk under a ladder, look for magpies in pairs, ‘touch wood’. I see a ladder, I deliberately walk under it to prove the stupidity of this superstition and prove our God is greater than the idol worship of superstition.

Many non-catholic Christians are very supersititious. That too is idol worship

 

[jack_hawkins]

Many non-catholic Christians are very supersititious. That too is idol worship

Tu quoque!

 

[sweetirishct]

And what does it mean when you have to dispose of them, because they are broken, etc.

I don’t know. I guess I think that people should be able to be reminded of Christ in our lives, without items that need to be blessed. I can remember getting a rosary as a child and taking it to the priest the next Sunday to have it blessed. Do you think that Mary wouldn’t hear our petitions if we prayed on an not-blessed rosary? Or that we will get to Heaven more quickly or be on God’s better side if we are wearing a cross or crucifix that is blessed as opposed to one that is not?? This is where I am going here…

Just trying to get away from the negativity… I got the picture, so to speak, of the picture thing.
But what about things like rosaries? Does using a blessed rosary when praying for Mary’s intercession make our prayers more “heard” than praying a not blessed rosary?

So another question raised… The cross is “empty” without the body of Christ? It can’t serve as a reminder as only a cross? Personally, I can say for myself that I never look at a cross and think of anything other than Jesus and His dying for our sins… How can it be “empty” if it still causes the same emotional reaction? What is the position does the RCC hold on this? I have never had anyone tell me I shouldn’t wear my cross…