Icons & statues - A stumbling block?

[benidict]

Sure, I get your point, but aren’t we supposed to be sensitive to the individual’s perception? For instance, Paul talks about things being permissible, but not always beneficial in the context of not making others stumble.

I’m not just talking about individuals. I’m talking about whole groups of people within certain religions:

Most Protestants (9% of world population), Muslims (21% of world population), and Jews have a hard time with putting candles in front of a statue in a worship setting (i.e. Church) no matter the explanation, because even though it’s not considered worship by Catholics, it sure looks a lot like it to these people.

Most Buddhists or Hindus may think the statues are just another god or deity of some kind within the plethora of other gods who must submit to some universal reality like Atman or Nirvana.

Israel had no image for God because He is invisible and not created. To them making something with human hands and calling it an accurate representation of God was blasphemy and idolatry. This is what made them distinct from the nations around them.

Okay, I know Jesus is the image of the invisible God, so if God makes an image of Himself, that is not an issue. But how do we know our paintings or statues are accurate portrayals?

Don’t misunderstand me. I completely understand and have accepted the Catholic idea of icons and statues…I’m just wondering if it can be a stumbling block to those who do not. Would a Catholic Church get rid of it’s icons and statues if it was called to reach out to the Muslim community? Or the Buddhist community for that matter? Or the Jews? It may be permissible to drink alcohol, but would drinking it make others stumble? (I’ve often heard in Muslim countries that many go a get alcohol from the Christians…is this a good witness?)

hello my friend. i would point out to my Jewish friend, that in the torah. Moses lifted up a serpent in the desert. that whoever would look up and gaze at it, would be healed of the poison inflicted by the serpents sent as punishment by God. apparently, this did not violate the prohibition of graven images. and it was God who commanded it be put up. then there is the ark of the covenant. it was to go before the people of israel. in full view of them. it was so Holy, only the priest could touch it. interestingly enough, the ark was was a symbol of Mary, but that would be another topic. so we have at least two. visible symbols used by the Jewish people, that did not violate the prohibition. i could name many more. the entire worship system set up by the Creator for them, had many outward symbols. such as the ephod the Priest wore. etc. Peace

 

[benidict]

Not trying to be . I don’t believe Judaism holds the fullness of Truth…they do not believe Jesus is the Christ. I don’t believe Islam holds the fullness of Truth…they don’t believe Jesus is God. I don’t believe Buddhism holds the fullness of Truth…Gautama didn’t really like a God who requires a sacrifice or created a world with suffering and even if he accepted a God he believed that God should reach enlightenment just like every other being.

By True Faith…I mean the Church founded on Jesus.

hi tsering. Gautama was an atheist, was he not? thats my understanding. Peace

 

[tsering]

hello my friend. i would point out to my Jewish friend, that in the torah. Moses lifted up a serpent in the desert. that whoever would look up and gaze at it, would be healed of the poison inflicted by the serpents sent as punishment by God. apparently, this did not violate the prohibition of graven images. and it was God who commanded it be put up. then there is the ark of the covenant. it was to go before the people of israel. in full view of them. it was so Holy, only the priest could touch it. interestingly enough, the ark was was a symbol of Mary, but that would be another topic. so we have at least two. visible symbols used by the Jewish people, that did not violate the prohibition. i could name many more. the entire worship system set up by the Creator for them, had many outward symbols. such as the ephod the Priest wore. etc. Peace

True and I agree with you. But, the argument is not against these objects, because even though God commanded them for use and they were used for transmission of His grace, they were not images of Him and not worshiped. When the snake was worshiped it was removed from Israel and destroyed. So in this sense I see the Catholic teaching…and I believe that if people started worshiping a saint’s statue or image unduly (or representation thereof)…that the Catholic Church would correct this.

The argument for Jews comes down to the 2nd Commandment. There should be no graven image…this was to prevent worship of that image in place of God. It didn’t mean the image made was necessarily going to be worshiped, but they believed that man is prone to this and graven images pose a risk of the person worshiping it. So, rabbinical laws have through the centuries even restricted certain forms of artwork, because they were concerned people would give undo worship or honor to these items.

The second idea, is that God is not created. For created man to make a created image of uncreated God the Creator would be to misrepresent Him. Some One so perfect, being portrayed by someone so imperfect. Directly, this is violated (to them at least) by paintings of the Father in Catholic Churches. But also by proclaiming Jesus as God. They believe that by Jesus calling himself God - it was some form of idolatry, because God is not created. This was the stumbling block of course and the reason they rejected Jesus as the Messiah…they believed God wouldn’t show up as a man or anything else created. The Messiah would be a man, but not God Himself in the flesh.

But God chose to make Himself visible…even to Jacob (who became Israel)…in the form of a man (Gen 17:28-30). Eusebius is a great defender of this fact in his The History of the Church.

On the Protestant side: Certain Reformers went into churches and destroyed the images because of their fervor to follow the 2nd commandment. Unlike the Jews, they agreed with the rest of Christendom, that Jesus was the image of the invisible God. But they believed that in no way could we ever accurately create an image of Him…we weren’t there to see what He actually looked like. And, like the Jews, they believed that images of God or saints during that time had been distorted and actually looked too much like worship to be anything good. Many Protestants today still have this thought.

 

[tsering]

hi tsering. Gautama was an atheist, was he not? thats my understanding. Peace

Exactly - Gautama believed in enlightenment and an ultimate - Nirvana, but he did mention God or other Hindu gods in his teachings. He was an atheist though. Even the word a (no) - theist (god) still mentions God in it. And many atheists will have to argue why they don’t believe in God. I remember someone telling me Gautama stated when he realized that the world is suffering he said that if a god created it, he must be an idiot.

Many Buddhists I’ve talked to are allowed to accept God, but He is still within the context of Nirvana. For instance, many Tibetan Buddhists have former Hindu gods who have been “enlightened” and become Buddhas per say or are subject to the Buddhist system. One section of the wheel of life is gods, another demi-gods, and humans, animals, hell, hungry ghosts. Its good if you can be a god through re-birth, but if you can achieve enlightenment, that’s better, because then you escape the wheel of life = suffering.

Most, if not all, Tibetan Buddhist monks I’ve conversed with have a major problem with a God who requires a sacrifice. Watch the intro clip to “Little Buddha” and you will know what I’m talking about as they rejected the Hindu system of sacrifice to appease a god.

 

[benidict]

True and I agree with you. But, the argument is not against these objects, because even though God commanded them for use and they were used for transmission of His grace, they were not images of Him and not worshiped. When the snake was worshiped it was removed from Israel and destroyed. So in this sense I see the Catholic teaching…and I believe that if people started worshiping a saint’s statue or image unduly (or representation thereof)…that the Catholic Church would correct this.

The argument for Jews comes down to the 2nd Commandment. There should be no graven image…this was to prevent worship of that image in place of God. It didn’t mean the image made was necessarily going to be worshiped, but they believed that man is prone to this and graven images pose a risk of the person worshiping it. So, rabbinical laws have through the centuries even restricted certain forms of artwork, because they were concerned people would give undo worship or honor to these items.

The second idea, is that God is not created. For created man to make a created image of uncreated God the Creator would be to misrepresent Him. Some One so perfect, being portrayed by someone so imperfect. Directly, this is violated (to them at least) by paintings of the Father in Catholic Churches. But also by proclaiming Jesus as God. They believe that by Jesus calling himself God - it was some form of idolatry, because God is not created. This was the stumbling block of course and the reason they rejected Jesus as the Messiah…they believed God wouldn’t show up as a man or anything else created. The Messiah would be a man, but not God Himself in the flesh.

But God chose to make Himself visible…even to Jacob (who became Israel)…in the form of a man (Gen 17:28-30). Eusebius is a great defender of this fact in his The History of the Church.

On the Protestant side: Certain Reformers went into churches and destroyed the images because of their fervor to follow the 2nd commandment. Unlike the Jews, they agreed with the rest of Christendom, that Jesus was the image of the invisible God. But they believed that in no way could we ever accurately create an image of Him…we weren’t there to see what He actually looked like. And, like the Jews, they believed that images of God or saints during that time had been distorted and actually looked too much like worship to be anything good. Many Protestants today still have this thought.

hello my friend. i find it interesting that you a protestant would state that the objects God commanded the israelites to use, were for transmission of Grace. most would never see this. our lutheran, and anglican friends of course would. you seem to have a better grasp of Catholocism than most. what is your denominational background, if you do not mind my asking. Peace

 

[tsering]

hello my friend. i find it interesting that you a protestant would state that the objects God commanded the israelites to use, were for transmission of Grace. most would never see this. our lutheran, and anglican friends of course would. you seem to have a better grasp of Catholocism than most. what is your denominational background, if you do not mind my asking. Peace

First, I’m sure my grasp of Catholics is limited at best. Knowledge is something, living it is something else. My desire and prayer is know God and His will more fully…and for some strange reason I’m finding a lot about Him the more I discover the Catholic Church.

Second, I don’t know why God is drawing me in this direction…it doesn’t make sense in light of my background. I was changed powerfully from a life of complete sin to a life of desire to obey Jesus in a Pentecostal/Charismatic church. Then I was a missionary. After I met my wife, she came from conservative Reformed background (non-Charismatic) and I was forced to rethink some things. I had a desire to study theology, and picked a very conservative Dispensational school in-line with Moody Bible School and Dallas Theological Seminary because they emphasized the original languages. Then we hesitantly joined a conservative Baptist church. Now I’m wondering how I’m going to make the move to the Catholic Church without stirring up the bee’s hive. I want to be very sure this is something I should do since converting may have some serious social consequences for me.

Counting the cost (with my wife).

 

[benidict]

First, I’m sure my grasp of Catholics is limited at best. Knowledge is something, living it is something else. My desire and prayer is know God and His will more fully…and for some strange reason I’m finding a lot about Him the more I discover the Catholic Church.

Second, I don’t know why God is drawing me in this direction…it doesn’t make sense in light of my background. I was changed powerfully from a life of complete sin to a life of desire to obey Jesus in a Pentecostal/Charismatic church. Then I was a missionary. After I met my wife, she came from conservative Reformed background (non-Charismatic) and I was forced to rethink some things. I had a desire to study theology, and picked a very conservative Dispensational school in-line with Moody Bible School and Dallas Theological Seminary because they emphasized the original languages. Then we hesitantly joined a conservative Baptist church. Now I’m wondering how I’m going to make the move to the Catholic Church without stirring up the bee’s hive. I want to be very sure this is something I should do since converting may have some serious social consequences for me.

Counting the cost (with my wife).

wow! maybe i can help you out. i was raised Christian reformed. had the “born again experience” in the baptist church. was a member for years. completly fell away from Christianity for a period of three years, following my best friends suicide. he was a very close follower of Christ, although nondenominational. my theological training, and background never prepared me for this, and i could not make sense of it. if it were not for Judaism, i would probably become an atheist. in answer to my prayers asking if the new testament was of God, it was a Jewish lutheran who proved to me it was. using the o.t. to do it. he also was a former seminarian with the missouie synod lutheran branch. after bringing me back to the foot of the Cross and repenting, i started having some very strange experiences that could only be described as miraculous that started leading me to Catholocism. long story short, here i am. i then found out a friend of mine who i had lost contact with, had converted to anglicanism. he was a reformed baptist preacher. lost alot of friends. he would have converted to Catholocism, except for his british heritage. but they are very close. he and i both came to our conclusions after having studied the Church fathers. my conversion was somewhat more strange than his. but God works in mysterious ways. id say pray. ask the Holy Spirits guidance. he wont lead you wrong. also you may want to pm Anne Scott. she is currently attending an epicipalian communion and is a former baptist. she may be able to help you out. peace

 

[tsering]

I can explain how I’ve come to accept icons & statues:

1. Most Protestant churches at least have pictures or books or cartoons of Jesus and others from the Bible. Many enjoy movies about Jesus, with an actor who plays Jesus, and have no problem with this. Logic says, if Catholics/Orthodox use images for teaching spiritual truths or reminding us of wonderful people including Jesus our Lord, then it’s a little hypocritical to argue against it, unless your church is completely void of images or completely rejects any attempt to paint or picture someone in the Bible to teach spiritual truth. Those that do use this imagery, actually owe a lot of thanks to the Catholic Church and its tradition for giving them the image of Jesus they have today (long hair, beard, etc). I thought Orthodox grow beards because they want to imitate Jesus?
2. The Bible is full of literary imagery! God, through the Spirit, inspired the writers of the Bible to use vivid words to describe our perfect God and His saints with imperfect languages. Language is certainly created, and it is used to paint a picture of our uncreated God. I would think any attempt of an artist to paint a visible picture of our God would be in line with what the Bible (and Tradition) already portrays him as and thus inspired. The artist is just using a different method of communication. Example:

Read Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14: Here we see the Ancient of Days (the Father) and the Son of Man (the Christ). The Ancient of Days is described as wearing clothing white as snow and hair like pure wool. God has hair? Well that’s the way He choose to reveal himself to Daniel. As an artist, I could very well draw a picture of this event, because the picture has already been drawn - in words.

1. Once someone realizes that Catholics/Orthodox don’t actually worship these pictures, but venerate them or honor them for what they represent, then there is no argument. Because many today honor and show very special respect for a lot of things including cars, movies, sports stars, family members, etc. You might even be able to accuse those who cling to the later of idolatry, because those things may be replacing their relationship with God, where as Catholics/Orthodox believe icons/statues draw them closer to God because the lives of the people they represent point to God. Many Protestants also hold the Bible in very special honor, but like I said because it portrays God and the saints to them in very beautiful language. You can say Catholics/Orthodox also hold the Bible, and icons, in special honor because both portray God through two very beautiful art forms.
2. I don’t think a Protestant would argue against the Bible being a means of grace to better know, love and serve God. So if the Bible is a linguistic art form that God’s uses as a vessel of grace through Jesus, why can’t icons in visible art form be the same?
3. Far better than an image, is the actual person. Jesus was the image of God in the flesh. There is nothing better. That’s why the Eucharist is so powerful. It combines all our senses to actually experience Him in His fullness. I can’t wait 'till the day I can participate!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s more appropriate to say that Siddhartha Gautama was an agnostic. Just read either Walpola Rahula’s bios and analysis of the life of Siddharta and all the sutras but also John Blofeld and D.T. Suzuki’s treatments of his life and you’ll see he was agnostic.

The Buddha’s position is that there may be a god, there may not be. His teachings taught a path to enlightenment and the ultimate goal being disattachment and inner peace. He claimed that how the world was created or destroyed didn’t play into the equation of ending suffering. He never said anyone who believed in gods to be an idiot. He simply believed that if he cannot see something and tangiably touch it or comprehend it then it wasn’t useful to the Eightfold Path and the goal of nibbana.

The Brahmans of Siddhartha’s day were 100% geared toward a caste system, sacrifice, and polytheism which Gautama found unnecessary. He was a great proponent of the “Middle Way,” the ultimate agnostic.

Exactly - Gautama believed in enlightenment and an ultimate - Nirvana, but he did mention God or other Hindu gods in his teachings. He was an atheist though. Even the word a (no) - theist (god) still mentions God in it. And many atheists will have to argue why they don’t believe in God. I remember someone telling me Gautama stated when he realized that the world is suffering he said that if a god created it, he must be an idiot.

Many Buddhists I’ve talked to are allowed to accept God, but He is still within the context of Nirvana. For instance, many Tibetan Buddhists have former Hindu gods who have been “enlightened” and become Buddhas per say or are subject to the Buddhist system. One section of the wheel of life is gods, another demi-gods, and humans, animals, hell, hungry ghosts. Its good if you can be a god through re-birth, but if you can achieve enlightenment, that’s better, because then you escape the wheel of life = suffering.

Most, if not all, Tibetan Buddhist monks I’ve conversed with have a major problem with a God who requires a sacrifice. Watch the intro clip to “Little Buddha” and you will know what I’m talking about as they rejected the Hindu system of sacrifice to appease a god.

 

[jmcrae]

If you asked a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Chinese, a Hindu if they really worshiped the image…they would say of course not. I would think some Hindus would say they don’t worship the statue, but the god it represents. But the Buddhist or Taoists or Chinese would say they were not worshiping the person it represented, but instead reflecting on that persons merits and meditating on their life for more personal merits.

I would believe them. Actually, the idolatry of the Old Testament no longer exists in the world - I don’t know if we have “evolved” but certainly, we don’t think like that any more.

The pagans of the Old Testament actually did believe that the things they made from stone, clay, and wood had their own spirits (that is, that they were not representations of something unseen; that they were, themselves, actual gods) and had actual power over various aspects of nature and daily life.

We see something like this when we see children talking to their dolls, but even the smallest child knows that she is only pretending - the ancient pagans actually thought their “dolls” (their idols) could hear and answer them.

This is such a totally foreign concept to us today, that we mistakenly think that any kind of image is an idol, when in fact, I would venture to say that in modern times, there are very few, if any, actual idols out there.

 

[tsering]

It’s more appropriate to say that Siddhartha Gautama was an agnostic. Just read either Walpola Rahula’s bios and analysis of the life of Siddharta and all the sutras but also John Blofeld and D.T. Suzuki’s treatments of his life and you’ll see he was agnostic.

The Buddha’s position is that there may be a god, there may not be. His teachings taught a path to enlightenment and the ultimate goal being disattachment and inner peace. He claimed that how the world was created or destroyed didn’t play into the equation of ending suffering. He never said anyone who believed in gods to be an idiot. He simply believed that if he cannot see something and tangiably touch it or comprehend it then it wasn’t useful to the Eightfold Path and the goal of nibbana.

The Brahmans of Siddhartha’s day were 100% geared toward a caste system, sacrifice, and polytheism which Gautama found unnecessary. He was a great proponent of the “Middle Way,” the ultimate agnostic.

Thanks Gurney. Agnostic is a better word! When I’ve talked to Buddhist friends about God and creation, they’re pretty much saying, “what’s the point?”

 

[AmateurPianist]

Dear Christians:

Even though icons & statues are permitted as objects of veneration, do you think that they may be a stumbling block for some to come to the True Faith?

Being an ex-missionary in a predominantly Buddhist and/or Taoist nation, I have seen many man made images and statues used for the so called profitable purposes of meditation and merit.

After asking a friend (who is an ex-Tibetan Buddhist monk now turned evangelist for Christ) what he thought of the Tibetan Catholic community - he stated they looked too much like the religion he left to follow Christ. “They worship Mary, they have statues they worship, their monks are like Buddhist monks, they believe in merits, etc.” I asked if maybe he misunderstood them by saying they “worship” Mary and maybe it’s okay to honor her for her very special role in God’s plan of redemption, he said that was good, but that to him it looks like they’re worshiping her and the statues in their Churches.

Once when having a very intense conversation with an Israeli, he stated that Muslims were better than Christians, because at least Muslims still believed God was one and that they didn’t allow idols and images for worship.

This has also been (other than the trinity) a major objection of Muslims who I’ve tried to share the Gospel with during my travels.

Personally, I know the argument that they are not worshiped and are like pictures of passed away family members, but hey, Chinese also burn incense in front of passed away family members and call it ancestor worship.

If you asked a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Chinese, a Hindu if they really worshiped the image…they would say of course not. I would think some Hindus would say they don’t worship the statue, but the god it represents. But the Buddhist or Taoists or Chinese would say they were not worshiping the person it represented, but instead reflecting on that persons merits and meditating on their life for more personal merits.

I played at a funeral at a Catholic church 2 weeks ago. At the back of the church they had two statues. One was of Mary whom I recognized. I had to ask who the other statue was of and I was told St. Theresa,

Hey, I just look upon it as artistic expression in a church. Not all that different from a church having a painting in it (or having great organ music). Some churches may do this and others may not. Not a biggie.

Again my one and only biggie is the notion that the church of Jesus Christ from God’s perspective exists in one and only one organization, and that there are graces and benefits that God provides to this one organization that He can/will not provide to others. Sorry, but I don’t view God as a respector of organizations.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, but I don’t view God as a respector of organizations.

It is God who established the Catholic Church, though. Human beings established all the rest of them.

Surely, God will have more respect for the organization that He established for Himself, than for organizations not established by Him, even if they are trying to do the same things.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It is God who established the Catholic Church, though. Human beings established all the rest of them.

Surely, God will have more respect for the organization that He established for Himself, than for organizations not established by Him, even if they are trying to do the same things.

And this is where we respectfully disagree.

When I read Matthew 16, and Jesus establishing His church, Jesus just does not identify one unique organization out of all of the organizations that we see today as uniquely His church. If that is in fact in this passage, then I must really be reading comprehension challenged, because it just does not read that way to me.

If God has specifically revealed to all of mankind that one and only one Christian organization is His church and that God provides some benefits exclusively to this one organization, I must be really dense because I have missed it.

Of course that is not the topic of this thread. So that will be the last word from me on this.

 

[jmcrae]

And this is where we respectfully disagree.

When I read Matthew 16, and Jesus establishing His church, Jesus just does not identify one unique organization out of all of the organizations that we see today as uniquely His church. If that is in fact in this passage, then I must really be reading comprehension challenged, because it just does not read that way to me.

Well, of course not, since none of the rest of them existed yet, and would not exist for more than a thousand years. Look at history. Which Church did Peter become the leader of? Which Church carries on being led by his successors, even until now?

If God has specifically revealed to all of mankind that one and only one Christian organization is His church and that God provides some benefits exclusively to this one organization, I must be really dense because I have missed it.

Before the Eastern schism, it would have been really easy to see, because there was only one. After that point, it was the West who continued to be led by Peter’s successors; not the East.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Antioch!

**Look at history. Which Church did Peter become the leader of? **
Before the Eastern schism, it would have been really easy to see, because there was only one. After that point, it was the West who continued to be led by Peter’s successors; not the East.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi tsering. No problem! Yeah, I hear you with the “what’s the point?” comments. Buddhists seem to be more atheist these days. There are a lot of Americans now who blather on with that “I’m not religious, man, uh, I’m spiritual!” tripe that makes me get sick to my stomach. So with a lot of these eastern-flirting yoga-practitioners or Buddhists or what have you, they are either full on atheists or deist “spiritual but not religious” goof balls.

Thanks Gurney. Agnostic is a better word! When I’ve talked to Buddhist friends about God and creation, they’re pretty much saying, “what’s the point?”

 

[jmcrae]

Antioch!

That was the local Diocese of which he was Bishop, for quite a long time. Which Church was he the chief shepherd of, throughout that whole period of time, when he was in Jerusalem, and continuing on to Antioch, and then on to Rome, where he finally died?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Fascinatingly enough, it seems Paul had far more influence and clout in shaping the Church at Rome than St. Peter. Some feel that just because Peter died there doesn’t necessarily make it eternally infallible, but that’s not obviously the opinion of all. It was also the Imperial capital, a megalopolis and the center of power as well as influence in the Roman world. Makes sense that it had street cred! It’s like New York City vs. Minneapolis, Fort Worth, and Fresno!

That was the local Diocese of which he was Bishop, for quite a long time. Which Church was he the chief shepherd of, throughout that whole period of time, when he was in Jerusalem, and continuing on to Antioch, and then on to Rome, where he finally died?

 

[jmcrae]

Fascinatingly enough, it seems Paul had far more influence and clout in shaping the Church at Rome than St. Peter.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Some feel that just because Peter died there doesn’t necessarily make it eternally infallible, but that’s not obviously the opinion of all.

It’s not the city itself that’s infallible - if St. Peter had died in Antioch, it would have been the Bishops of Antioch who inherited the promises made to him - as it turned out, though, he died in Rome, so it was the Bishops of Rome who inherited them.

It was also the Imperial capital, a megalopolis and the center of power as well as influence in the Roman world. Makes sense that it had street cred! It’s like New York City vs. Minneapolis, Fort Worth, and Fresno!

I have read where the ante-Nicene Fathers appreciated God’s sense of humour, in making the most sinful city on earth to be His headquarters.