Icons and Scandal

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

 

[Petaro]

Why would we change our devotions to appease the Protestants.
A recent example of this issue came to the fore when a Muslim protest was made at an Australian Catholic hospital, demanding that the Crucifixes in each room be take down as it offended Muslims. The Catholic nuns refused and suggested that those being nursed by Catholics should be respectful of Catholic tradition and devotions.
Why pander to a false accusation of idolatry?

 

[DeniseNY]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding. Icons shouldn’t be venerated (which is not the same as worshipping) because Protestants misunderstand it?

 

[boomerang]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

“Scandal” is when you cause another to sin by your bad example. In no way does the use of icons cause protestants to sin. The use of icons is not a scandal, because it’s not a sin. Many protestants have a very poor understanding of the second commandment. That’s not our fault, but they need to be educated.

 

[pakengkeng]

Why would we change our devotions to appease the Protestants.
A recent example of this issue came to the fore when a Muslim protest was made at an Australian Catholic hospital, demanding that the Crucifixes in each room be take down as it offended Muslims. The Catholic nuns refused and suggested that those being nursed by Catholics should be respectful of Catholic tradition and devotions.
Why pander to a false accusation of idolatry?

During my hospital intership,our professor told our class that day ,that the preceding night an anti catholic soon to be father, ordered hospital staff to remove crucifix above his wife’s bed,as he does not want his child to see it ,when he is brought into this world.to appease him,they did ,only to find out later on ,that the child was born blind.

 

[JerryZ]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

Many protestants unfortunately do not know, certainly not through a fault of their own that they are repeating many many old heresies that were combated by the Church early on.

This one (Icons) is represented here:

Iconoclastic Controversy, a dispute over the use of religious images (icons) in the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Iconoclasts (those who rejected images) objected to icon worship for several reasons, including the Old Testament prohibition against images in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:4) and the possibility of idolatry. The defenders of icon worship insisted on the symbolic nature of images and on the dignity of created matter.

In the early church, the making and veneration of portraits of Christ and the saints were consistently opposed. The use of icons, nevertheless, steadily gained in popularity, especially in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. Toward the end of the 6th century and in the 7th, icons became the object of an officially encouraged cult, often implying a superstitious belief in their animation. Opposition to such practices became particularly strong in Asia Minor. In 726 the Byzantine emperor Leo III took a public stand against icons; in 730 their use was officially prohibited. This opened a persecution of icon worshippers that was severe in the reign of Leo’s successor, Constantine V (741–775).

In 787, however, the empress Irene convoked the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea at which Iconoclasm was condemned and the use of images was reestablished. The Iconoclasts regained power in 814 after Leo V’s accession, and the use of icons was again forbidden at a council (815). The second Iconoclast period ended with the death of the emperor Theophilus in 842. In 843 his widow finally restored icon veneration, an event still celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Feast of Orthodoxy.

Is it not this an example of: ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

 

[7_Sorrows]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

I don’t understand how you believe the use of icons scandalizes protestants.

 

[Errham]

Why should the hospital stop giving blood transfusions because it offends the local Jehovah’s Witness Church?

Icons have been a part of Christianity since the earliest days. We already had a debate on this and the icons came out the winners. They aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, especially not because some people don’t like them.

 

[coachdennis]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

Maybe the onus should be on certain Protestants to learn and understand the proper role of icons in Catholicism instead of relying on their own prejudices, hearsay, and ignorance.

A little knowledge goes far in relieving perceived “scandal”, but hey, never let the facts get in the way of perpetuating stereotypes and prejudice.

 

[Tomdstone]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

 

[Tomdstone]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

It is not the Catholic Church that is wrong, but it is the Protestant who is protesting the use of icons who is wrong and who needs to educate herself on the meaning and function of icons. Why have icons?
“Holy icons serve a number of purposes. (1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.”
See:
orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_function.aspx

 

[agnes_therese]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

And if we do that, what then? Stop honoring Mary? Give up the Eucharist?

 

[Errham]

It is not the Catholic Church that is wrong, but it is the Protestant who is protesting the use of icons who is wrong and who needs to educate herself on the meaning and function of icons. Why have icons?
“Holy icons serve a number of purposes. (1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.”
See:
orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_function.aspx

You forgot (8) There already was an iconoclast controversy, and the universal Church voted in favor of icons.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I understand that the Church has officially declared veneration of icons as lawful.

However, what of the time when this was, indeed, a controversy? Should not the Church have bowed to the will of those who did not wish to have icons because they (even if it was out of ignorance) believed them to be facilitating idolatry?

After all, Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 says that we should abstain from things that would cause a brother, out of ignorance and a weak conscience, to sin (at least insofar as he sees it). Surely there were those during the iconoclastic controversy who felt compelled to venerate images even though their conscience spoke against their doing so because ofthe example they saw in others doing this?

Why would this not have been a similar case to that of some early Christians having problems with eating meat sacrificed to idols? Again, there, Paul advised abstention from meat (at least meat sacrificed to idols) even though, in truth, it would have been lawful for Christians to eat this meat. Paul was submitting to those who, even out of ignorance and erroneous belief thought that it was wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

In the same way, should not the Catholic Church have bowed, as it were, to those who, even though they had ignorant/erroneous opinions, thought that veneration of icons was idolatry?

Indeed, one (admittedly anti-Catholic Protestant) commentary makes this argument and this is what got me thinking about this issue once again. I quote from it below:

It is much the same case at this day as to the business of image worship, or veneration of images, and invocation of saints, amongst the papists. The wisest and most knowing of them will declaim against giving Divine adoration to the image, or to the saint, and tell us that they worship the true and living God upon the sight of the image only, and make use of the name of the saint only to desire him, or her, to pray to God for them. Now not to meddle with that question: Whether in our worshipping the true God, it be lawful to set a creature before us as our motive or incitement to worship, or use any Mediator but Christ? Yet the things are unlawful, upon the same account that the apostle here determines it unlawful for stronger Christians to eat meat offered to idols, though they knew and professed that an idol was nothing; for all people that come so to worship have not that knowledge; there are, without doubt, multitudes of simple people amongst the papists, that, plainly, in this kind of veneration and adoration venerate and adore the creature; and so their consciences are defiled by idolatry, because they have not such knowledge as others have, supposing that what those others did were lawful as to their practice…

from Matthew Poole’s Commentary whic can be found here: biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/8-7.htm

Thoughts on all this? Again, as I understand it, this practice has been declared lawful today, but should it really have ever been an issue in past times? Should not those more knowledgeable on the subject simply submitted to those who were “weaker of conscience” out of erroneous ignorance? Were Catholics of former days wrong to make such a bit deal of their right to use icons?

and, indeed, what of those Catholics today who may indeed still have doubts born of some degree of ignorance about what image veneration really is? Ifthere are those with these doubts, should Catholics not, with Paul, simply give up image veneration because it is a stumbling block to weaker Christians?

 

[1ke]

Salvete, omnes!

Is the Catholic Church’s desire to continue to use icons in their worship causing scandal for non-Catholics? I mean, I myself know what is truly the meaning/use of icons from my own study so I, personally, from what I understand today, have no problem with their use. However, many Protestants do. Why, then, would the Church continue to use icons even if they scandalize Protestants?

Indeed, why was the Church so insistent on continuing to use them even though some even within her ranks objected as early as during the iconoclastic conflict, thinking it sinful/idolatrous? Why wouldn’t this have been considered an issue causing scandal and, thus, have been stopped?

The Church corrects heresy. It neither encourages nor joins in on such heresy.

Iconoclasm is a heresy.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The Church corrects heresy. It neither encourages nor joins in on such heresy.

Iconoclasm is a heresy.

But, how, specifically, do you respond to the claims made in the quotation above?

Could Paul have not considered the ignorance of the early Christians who considered it wrong to partake of meat sacrificed to idols also to be heresy?