How are blessed items not "idols"

[VociMike]

Actually, they were not to make those images into religious symbols.

No, they were not to make images and worship them. That is vastly different from a “religious symbol”.

Gee, isn’t the cross in and/or on every Christian church exactly a religious symbol? It is, furthermore, explicitly intended to be a likeness of a thing on the earth.

 

[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…

 

[water]

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?

The Rosary is used to help you keep track of your prayer. When I forget to bring my rosary with me to the church or work, I used my 10 fingers.

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…

I have both type of the Cross: with Jesus and without Jesus. Both reminds me of the Passion of the Cross; however, the one with the image of Jesus helps me visualize His Death on the cross.

 

[Church_Militant]

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. Yep…but that’s the way n-Cs roll.

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.

The only person espousing that theory (and it is…) is your source…which of course totally ignores early Christian art where Our Lord is depicted as crucified.

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).

Of course…you cannot prove this since you were not there, but the early Christian art that has survived does indeed support the Catholic use of Crucifixes and images.

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.Again…you cannot prove that Paul did not use a crucifix as a visual aid in his preaching, now can you? I don’t have to since the literalist interpretation is not my position nor that of the church.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching or use of the crucifix and or any other icons that warrants the opposition of n-Cs unless they are just bound up in the need to bash the Catholic Church for any strawman they can grasp.

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

Yet your interpretation is no more valid than mine by your own belief system.

The other passages in question and the historic record of early Christian art combine to make a better case for Catholic practice than for yours.

 

[LilyM]

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?

It makes the item itself a blessed item, like other blessed items. Slightly different and perhaps more of a conduit for God’s grace than an unblessed item. Rather like Paul’s napkins and aprons were different from ordinary napkins and aprons.

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…

Not at all. I have a cross in my home and used to wear a cross necklace as well. Think of people more around Christ’s time though. They saw people crucified all the time. There were two others crucified even on the same day, and at the same time and place as Jesus. Back in those days they were probably more careful to put Christ on the cross when they portrayed it, to distinguish it.

And I know a lot of non-Catholics were very moved by Mel Gibson’s movie Passion of the Christ, seemingly more so than the Catholics, simply because there is less emphasis in some denominations on the reality of his suffering and death.

Paul also refers many times to preaching ‘Christ, and him crucified’. So we like to follow him in this too.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

The only person espousing that theory (and it is…) is your source…which of course totally ignores early Christian art where Our Lord is depicted as crucified.

Any sources supporting your claim that artistic depictions of the crucifixion were in vogue at the time of the writing of the epistle to the Galatians?
Church Militant:

Of course…you cannot prove this since you were not there, but the early Christian art that has survived does indeed support the Catholic use of Crucifixes and images.

At the time of the writing of the Galatian epistle?
Church Militant:

Again…you cannot prove that Paul did not use a crucifix as a visual aid in his preaching, now can you? I don’t have to since the literalist interpretation is not my position nor that of the church.

Actually yours is the literalist position; namely, in Gal 3:1, Paul used pictorial icons while presenting the gospel; mine is the literal position; namely, Paul’s use of the word prōgrafō in Gal 3:1 is figurative, and what is meant by “portrayal of Christ crucified” is orally preaching Christ crucified (and possibly some writing concerning that, but most likely preaching).
Church Militant:

There is nothing in Catholic teaching or use of the crucifix and or any other icons that warrants the opposition of n-Cs unless they are just bound up in the need to bash the Catholic Church for any strawman they can grasp.

Again, my point has nothing to do with the correctness, or non-correctness of the use of icons, but what is meant by Christ “portrayed as crucified” in Gal 3:1; you have erected a strawman,
not me.
Church Militant:

The other passages in question and the historic record of early Christian art combine to make a better case for Catholic practice than for yours.

You will have to demonstrate that that type of iconography was in use at the time of the writing of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.

 

[Church_Militant]

Prove your own case Sandusky…I’m not doing your homework for you.

Your source says that the Greek is conclusive.

Prove I am wrong. It’s your allegation that your man’s scholarship is correct and makes a valid case, but if there’s even one piece of art depicting Christ as crucified then he’s arguing against a historical fact.

 

[Linda_Marie]

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.

The reason you have an item, such as a rosary or crucifix, blessed is twofold - 1 - the item is therefore dedicated to divine worship or veneration (ie the rosary is used to meditate on the life of Jesus and not as a piece of jewelry or decoration) and 2 - the Church has attached a plenary or a partial indulgence to the praying of certain prayers using the blessed item while meeting certain other conditions such as sacramental Confession and Communion.

ADORATION OF THE CROSS. A PLENARY INDULGENCE to those who in solemn liturgical action of Good Friday devoutly assist in at the adoration of the Cross and kiss it. (link also contains more information on indulgences and practices which are enriched with indulgences)
catholic.org/prayers/indulgw.php

In particular, there are indulgences attached to using a blessed rosary:

A partial indulgence may be gained once a day by the faithful who kissing a blessed Rosary, which they carry with them, at the same time recite the first part of the Hail Mary up to “Jesus” inclusive. There are others attached to the rosary but I didn’t quote them all in the interest of brevity.
theholyrosary.org/power.html

Also, it is necessary to dispose of blessed items, such as a broken rosary, in the approved manner.
Once a religious object is blessed and dedicated for divine worship or veneration, it must be treated with reverence and not be used in either an improper or profane way (cf. Code of Canon Law, no. 1171).
However, blessed religious objects break or wear from use. The basic rule for the disposition of these items is to burn or to bury them.
cukierski.net/disposingofblessedobjects.shtml (this link has more information on blessed objects and their uses)

 

[Church_Militant]

Sts. Eustachius and Companions (LINK)

Martyrs under the Emperor Hadrian, in the year 188. Feast in the West, 20 September; in the East, 2 November. Emblems: a crucifix, a stag, an oven.

The legend relates that Eustachius (before baptism, Placidus), a Roman general under Trajan, while still a heathen, saw a stag coming towards him, with a crucifix between its horns; he heard a voice telling him that he was to suffer much for Christ’s sake. He received baptism, together with his wife Tatiana (or Trajana, after baptism Theopista) and his sons, Agapius and Theopistus. The place of the vision is said to have been Guadagnolo, between Tibur and Praeneste (Tivoli and Palestrina), in the vicinity of Rome. Through adverse fortune the family was scattered, but later reunited. For refusing to sacrifice to the idols after a victory, they suffered death in a heated brazen bull. Baronius (Ann. Eccl., ad an. 103, 4) would identify him with Placidus mentioned by Josephus Flavius as a general under Titus.

The Acts are certainly fabulous, and recall the similar story in the Clementine Recognitions. They are a production of the seventh century, and were used by St. John Damascene, but the veneration of the saint is very old in both the Greek and Latin Churches. He is honoured as one of the Holy Helpers, is invoked in difficult situations, and is patron of the city of Madrid and of hunters. The church of Sant’ Eustachio in Rome, title of a cardinal-deacon, existed in 827, according to the Liber Pontificalis, but perhaps as early as the time of Gregory the Great (d. 604). It claims to possess the relics of the saint, some of which are said to be at St-Denis and at St-Eustache in Paris. An island in the Lesser Canilles and a city in Canada bear his name.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Prove your own case Sandusky…I’m not doing your homework for you.

Suffice it to say, CM, that I have only read of the depiction of the cross being empty until the fifth century; into and beyond the fifth century is when the crucifix appears.

If anyone can provide evidence of the crucifix being used in the first century, I’ll stand corrected.
Church Militant:

Your source says that the Greek is conclusive.

Indeed he corroborates my study.
Church Militant:

Prove I am wrong. It’s your allegation that your man’s scholarship is correct and makes a valid case, but if there’s even one piece of art depicting Christ as crucified then he’s arguing against a historical fact.

That’s absurd CM; there are many pieces of art depicting Christ crucified, but you must put the crucifix within the time of the writing of the Galatian epistle, and I don’t think you can do that.
Church Militant:

Martyrs under the Emperor Hadrian, in the year 188. Feast in the West, 20 September; in the East, 2 November. Emblems: a crucifix, a stag, an oven.

The legend relates that Eustachius (before baptism, Placidus), a Roman general under Trajan, while still a heathen, saw a stag coming towards him, with a crucifix between its horns…

The legend of a vision of a crucifix might satisfy those desperate to prove a point, but that does not qualify as a proof that the iconic crucifix was in use at the time of the writing of the Galatian epistle.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

But though with the triumph of Constantine…the crucifix as a Christian emblem was as yet practically unknown. For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb. The first representations of the figure of the Saviour nailed upon the Rood, as we see it upon the carved doors of Sta. Sabina in Rome and in the British Museum ivory, belong probably to the fifth century…

Schaff’s History puts it in the sixth century:

The CRUCIFIX, that is the sculptured or carved representation of our Saviour attached to the cross, is of much later date, and cannot be clearly traced beyond the middle of the sixth century. It is not mentioned by any writer of the Nicene and Chalcedonian age. One of the oldest known crucifixes, if not the very oldest, is found in a richly illuminated Syrian copy of the Gospels in Florence from the year 586. Gregory of Tours (d. 595) describes a crucifix in the church of St. Genesius, in Narbonne, which presented the crucified One almost entirely naked. But this gave offence, and was veiled, by order of the bishop, with a curtain, and only at times exposed to the people.

I won’t quibble over the disparity between the two sources of one century as it remains unproven by you that at the time of the writing of the Galatian epistle, Paul used iconic crucifixes to portray Christ crucified.

Again, the meaning of prōgrafō in Gal 3:1 is that to the Galatian Church, and to all of those early churches to whom Paul preached, the portrayal of Christ crucified was done through the preaching of the gospel, and not through the use of icons. :tiphat:

 

[Pax]

The interpretation of Galatians 3:1 is strained if one argues that it can only mean that the gospel was preached and heard concerning Christ’s crucifixion.

The following translations of scripture should be helpful:

– King James
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, **before whose eyes **Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

– American Standard
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

– Revised Standard
Galatians 3:1 O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, **before whose eyes **Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

– New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Galatians 3:1 You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?

– Young’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O thoughtless Galatians, who did bewitch you, not to obey the truth - **before whose eyes **Jesus Christ was described before among you crucified?

– Darby’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you; to whom, as** before your very eyes**, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you?

– Webster’s Bible
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, **before whose eyes **Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Please note that scripture says that it is before a “person’s eyes” that Jesus was portrayed as crucified. This says much more than simply hearing the preaching of the gospel. There is nothing in the text or in the historical evidence that would nullify this understanding. A different interpretation is simply an opinion which is less congruent with the text than the most obvious meaning that comes from the verse. If the perspicuity of scripture, as understood by non-Catholic Christians, has any legs at all then this verse is properly understood by Catholics to mean a visual depiction of Christ crucified.

Wide spread use of pictures or crucifixes is not necessarily a thing that would be noted in scripture or history books. Even common usage in a church or churches would not be necessary as proof. Frequently, commonly used items are not always mentioned historically. I find it hard to believe that no artistic depictions of Christ would have been around during the early Christian era. During the persecutions such things may have not been very public because such would lead the executioners directly to your door and your martyrdom would have occured shortly thereafter.

 

[Michael_Francis]

For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb.

Then if this is the case why do you attempt to refute it?

Further…Where is there anything that condemns crucifixes? There isn’t…and the passages I cited plainly indicate that the depiction of Christ crucified is a valid Christian device.

I don’t really care what that particular scholar says the Greek says because the context of the passage as literally interpreted (LINK) as well as the other passages I cited show that there should be no issue with it.

 

[Church_Militant]

For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb.

Then if this is the case why do you attempt to refute it?

Further…Where is there anything that condemns crucifixes? There isn’t…and the passages I cited plainly indicate that the depiction of Christ crucified is a valid Christian device.

I don’t really care what that particular scholar says the Greek says because the context of the passage as literally interpreted (LINK) as well as the other passages I cited show that there should be no issue with it.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Then if this is the case why do you attempt to refute it?

I’ll post this again, CM; from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

But though with the triumph of Constantine…the crucifix as a Christian emblem was as yet practically unknown. For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb.

You are not comprehending what the Catholic Encyclopedia is saying; namely, at the time of Constantine, the crucifix was practically unknown; notice that in the next sentence, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not equate “some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb," as a crucifix, as you are doing; that is because the crucifix, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was, until the time of Constantine, practically unknown. Read more slowly, and more carefully, CM.
Church Militant:

Further…Where is there anything that condemns crucifixes? There isn’t…and the passages I cited plainly indicate that the depiction of Christ crucified is a valid Christian device.

Here comes your strawman again; let’s stick with Gal 3:1.
Church Militant:

I don’t really care what that particular scholar says the Greek says because the context of the passage as literally interpreted (LINK) as well as the other passages I cited show that there should be no issue with it.

Thank you, CM; again, you prove my point.

It seems to me, that you also do not comprehend your own apologetic link which states:

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

As I said before, you are taking the “literalist” interpretation of Gal 3:1; namely, as your source link states, “that’s what it says, (ie., before your eyes Christ is portrayed as crucified), [and] that’s what it means (portrayed with the use of icons),” rather than preaching. It is you who are the literalist. Read your sources more slowly, and more carefully; your source supports my assertion that you are the literalist in this situation; you are running around in a circle.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

The interpretation of Galatians 3:1 is strained if one argues that it can only mean that the gospel was preached and heard concerning Christ’s crucifixion…Please note that scripture says that it is before a “person’s eyes” that Jesus was portrayed as crucified. This says much more than simply hearing the preaching of the gospel. There is nothing in the text or in the historical evidence that would nullify this understanding.

As Church Militant does, so you too take the “literalist” position; namely, as your CM’s link states, “that’s what it says, (ie., before your eyes Christ is portrayed as crucified), [and] that’s what it means;” the apostle used some iconic portrayal, rather than preaching. It is you who are the literalist. (See Church Militant’s link for a fuller explanation).

It seems that, contrary to the link provided, “literalist interpretations” are not the sole domain of “fundamentalists,” but of Roman Catholics as well.

Pax:

A different interpretation is simply an opinion which is less congruent with the text than the most obvious meaning that comes from the verse. If the perspicuity of scripture, as understood by non-Catholic Christians, has any legs at all then this verse is properly understood by Catholics to mean a visual depiction of Christ crucified.

That is the literalist view, and is less congruent with the text, and it may initially be an obvious meaning, but upon further examination, it is not even remotely close.

Read the accounts of Paul’s travels in Acts 9:20; 13:5-43; 14:1ff; 17:1-3; 10-13; 22-34; 18:4, 19, 26; 19:8; Paul :spoke, reasoned from scripture, and preached Christ; nothing is said concerning the use of icons.

Pax:

Wide spread use of pictures or crucifixes is not necessarily a thing that would be noted in scripture or history books. Even common usage in a church or churches would not be necessary as proof. Frequently, commonly used items are not always mentioned historically. I find it hard to believe that no artistic depictions of Christ would have been around during the early Christian era. During the persecutions such things may have not been very public because such would lead the executioners directly to your door and your martyrdom would have occured shortly thereafter.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

But though with the triumph of Constantine…he crucifix as a Christian emblem was as yet practically unknown. For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “at the time of Constantine, the crucifix was practically unknown;” as I said to CM, notice that in the next sentence, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not equate “some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb as a crucifix; that is because the crucifix, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was, until the time of Constantine, practically unknown.

How much plainer must your own Catholic sources be for you to understand that the portrayal of Christ crucified in Gal 3:1 was done by the preaching the Gospel without the use of icons?

:tiphat:

 

[hosemonkey]

Sandusky, protestant that you are, if you cannot humble yourself to venerate the crucifix of Our Lord or honor our Blessed Mother with a rosary, then by all means do not do so, but do not (name removed by moderator)ugn the faith or motives of those who do. It is a Catholic thing, you do not understand.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’ll post this again, CM; from the Catholic Encyclopedia

:You are not comprehending what the Catholic Encyclopedia is saying; namely, at the time of Constantine, the crucifix was practically unknown; notice that in the next sentence, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not equate “some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb," as a crucifix, as you are doing; that is because the crucifix, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was, until the time of Constantine, practically unknown. Read more slowly, and more carefully, CM.

Here comes your strawman again; let’s stick with Gal 3:1.

Thank you, CM; again, you prove my point.

It seems to me, that you also do not comprehend your own apologetic link which states:As I said before, you are taking the “literalist” interpretation of Gal 3:1; namely, as your source link states, “that’s what it says, (ie., before your eyes Christ is portrayed as crucified), [and] that’s what it means (portrayed with the use of icons),” rather than preaching. It is you who are the literalist. Read your sources more slowly, and more carefully; your source supports my assertion that you are the literalist in this situation; you are running around in a circle.Oh so this one verse means that all the other passages, which DO say what they mean are not relevant.

I think you just want to argue over something. You have your case, you’ve made it such as it is but the fact that other passages cited don’t agree with your source means that they are not considered?

That’s bunk…but it’s also fairly typical of n-C theological gymnastics. I’m not going there. It’s wrong.

Have fun with your guy and Galatians 3:1 and remember to keep on ignoring the rest of the New Testament when it either agrees with the Catholic Church or doesn’t condemn our beliefs. This is one reason that I am no longer n-C and will never return to it.

We can’t be right…ever. We’re Catholics. [SIGN]SSDD[/SIGN]

 

[clmowry]

Well, While we’re quoting stuff.

Here’s a reasonable explanation of why a surviving Cross/Crusifix might me relatively rare from the very early days of the Church.

That said if there was somebody that wouldn’t have a problem carrying one around with him on display for all to see, I’m guessing it would be Paul.

Chuck

It is probable, though we have no historical evidence for it, that the primitive Christians used the cross to distinguish one another from the pagans in ordinary social intercourse. The latter called the Christians “cross-worshippers”, and ironically added, “id colunt quod merentur”, i.e. they worship that which they deserve. The Christian apologists, such as Tertullian (Apol., xvi; Ad. Nationes, xii) and Minucius Felix (Octavius, lx, xii, xxviii), felicitously replied to the pagan taunt by showing that their persecutors themselves adored cruciform objects. Such observations throw light on a peculiar fact of primitive Christian life, i.e. the almost total absence from Christian monuments of the period of persecutions of the plain, unadorned cross (E. Reusens, “Eléments d’archéologie chrétienne” 1st ed., 110). The truculent sarcasms of the heathens prevented the faithful from openly displaying this sign of salvation. When the early Christians did represent the sign of the cross on their monuments, nearly all sepulchral in character, they felt obliged to disguise it in some artistic and symbolical way. One of the oldest of the symbols of the cross is the anchor. Originally a symbol of hope in general, the anchor takes on in this way a much higher meaning: that of hope based on the Cross of Christ. The similarity of the anchor to the cross made the former an admirable Christian symbol. Another cruciform symbol of the early Christians, though not very common and of a somewhat later date, is the trident, some examples of which are seen on sepulchral slabs in the cemetery of Callistus. In one inscription from that cemetery the symbolism of the trident is even more subtle and evident, the instrument standing erect as the mainmast of a ship entering port, symbolical of the Christian soul saved by the Cross of Christ. We must note, too, the use of this peculiar symbol in the third century in the region of Tauric Chersonesus (the Crimea) on coins of Totorses, King of the Bosporus, dated 270, 296, and 303 (De Hochne, “Déscription du musée Kotschonbey”, II, 348, 360, 416; Cavedoni, “Appendice alle ricerche critiche intorno alle med. Costantiniane”, 18, 19 – an extract from the “Opuscoli litterari e religiosi di Modena” in “Bull. arch. Napolit.”, ser. 2, anno VII, 32). We shall speak again of this sign apropos of the dolphin. On a picture in the Crypts of Lucina, artistically unique and very ancient, there seems to be an allusion to the Cross. Turned towards the altar are two doves gazing at a small tree. The scene appears to represent an image of souls loosed from the bonds of the body and saved by the power of the Cross (De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea Cristiana, I, PL. XII).

 

[sandusky]

hosemonkey:

Sandusky, protestant that you are, if you cannot humble yourself to venerate the crucifix of Our Lord or honor our Blessed Mother with a rosary, then by all means do not do so, but do not (name removed by moderator)ugn the faith or motives of those who do.

hosemonky, had you read any of my posts on this thread, you would not have read any stated opinion by me, one way or the other, concerning the Catholic veneration of icons; if you want to venerate icons, that’s your business; my discussion pertained to Gal 3:1.

hosemonkey:

It is a Catholic thing, you do not understand.

As an ex-Catholic, I have more than an adequate understanding of your Catholic things, hosemonkey.

 

[apophasis]

Pax:

Please note that scripture says that it is before a “person’s eyes” that Jesus was portrayed as crucified. This says much more than simply hearing the preaching of the gospel. There is nothing in the text or in the historical evidence that would nullify this understanding. A different interpretation is simply an opinion which is less congruent with the text than the most obvious meaning that comes from the verse. If the perspicuity of scripture, as understood by non-Catholic Christians, has any legs at all then this verse is properly understood by Catholics to mean a visual depiction of Christ crucified.

Then based on your reasoning you could not argue against someone saying that Paul and his companions probably put on a puppet show or a street theater depicting “before their eyes” Christ being crucified.

But the truth is he did no such thing. In all the cities he entered on his missionary journeys he “preached” the gospel message:1 Cor. 15:1-4 "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"We see the “word” of the gospel being spoken in the historical book of Acts:Acts 8:4 “Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.”

Acts 10:36 “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)”

Acts 11:1 “Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.”

Acts 11:14 "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’

Acts 13:7 “This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.”

Acts 13:49 "And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region."Paul took the “word of the cross” to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:18) - and it was this “word” that was preached also to the Galatians. God at times gave them miraculous powers as a sign to validate the truth of the “word” they “preached,” – but not pictures, not puppet shows and not street theaters. Christ portrayed as crucified was through the spoken “word.”

Frequently, commonly used items are not always mentioned historically. I find it hard to believe that no artistic depictions of Christ would have been around during the early Christian era.

You’re missing the whole issue of this thread. It’s not about symbols, or even having symbols adorn a Church building, but how they’re used in worship. Should they be bowed before? Prayed before? Kissed? Mystically blessed to give it some extraordinary significance? The point has already been made that you find no such behavior “portrayed before your eyes” in the N.T. Scriptures. Why? Because the age of “shadows” was passed. Messiah had come. This Church age is an age of FAITH - “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”