My Idolatry Pickle

[MrsLeviathan]

Hello all,

I am used to defending the Catholic use of sculpture and imagery as a spiritual mnemonic, and being an artist myself, am extremely appreciative of this aspect of our church. But lately, after some lengthy conversations with non-Catholics, a few worries have popped into my head and won’t go away.

On Good Friday, at the Veneration Of The Cross, I found myself unable to go up the front and kiss the crucifix. The priest intones “This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world” and we reply “Come, let us worship”. Which we then do, in various physical ways. Now I know very well what allegories, references, allusions, metaphors and mnemonics are, but the above situation really leaves little wiggle room, and I would have been hard pressed to explain a supposed lack of idolatry to a confused non-Catholic. The wood is the active subject, not the Saviour. Now, if we were actively practising idolatry, worshipping a lump of wood, how much less ambiguous could we possibly make it??

I usually go up respectfully with the rest of the congregation, though feeling uncomfortable, but this year I felt it was… not quite right. The priest gave us the option of remaining in our pews and kneeling in quiet prayer, which I did. By myself. I apologised to Jesus for perhaps being difficult, and I can only trust He could see I meant no ill.

I have a statue of the Infant Of Prague, and an old print. They are beautiful, but the story behind them also worries me. A voice, prompting someone to restore the hands of a statue and to honour the statue, in exchange for blessings? How is my statue not idolatry- or even idolatry of idolatry? It would require extreme abstraction to somehow connect this effigy of an effigy with Christ’s message.

Things like this make it very hard to defend our faith to detractors who want to play the “idol worship” card. Explaining the difference between latria and dulia is of no use when discussing a wax doll who supposedly distributes largesse, or when a priest clearly tells us to worship wood.

Am I being disobedient or sinful in questioning these things?

Am I alone in this? Does anyone have a sacramental that they’re a little “iffy” about? What, and why?

 

[VociMike]

Note in the first place that the wood is not the cross on which Jesus was crucified. And everybody in the church understands that. The corpus on the crucifix is not Jesus, and the cross is not the cross on which Jesus died. So we are already many levels removed from the reality of which is being spoken, and the people know that.

But really the idolatry question is very simple. What do you think that idolatry is, and why do you think God forbids it? Answer those questions correctly and your worries will vanish.

BTW, many were cured by touching the fringe of Jesus’ garments. Were they worshiping idols by doing this?

 

[Spirithound]

Note in the first place that the wood is not the cross on which Jesus was crucified. And everybody in the church understands that. The corpus on the crucifix is not Jesus, and the cross is not the cross on which Jesus died. So we are already many levels removed from the reality of which is being spoken, and the people know that.

But really the idolatry question is very simple. What do you think that idolatry is, and why do you think God forbids it? Answer those questions correctly and your worries will vanish.

These are good points. The word “worship” is a little ambiguous in that in the Good Friday Liturgy, its use contradicts how we often use it on these fora. So, we must be wrong in restricting “worship” only to God, but we still know that God deserves, and receives a different kind of worship than Mary, the saints, and even a replica of a second-class relic like the cross used on Good Friday.
We do what we do with the Cross on Good Friday because of what Jesus did with it on the first Good Friday.

 

[True_Believer_1]

It sounds to me like you are allowing yourself to be convinced of something that just isn’t there, by people who just do not understand. Pray, Pray, and Pray somemore for help.

Again, I cannot say it any more clearly then to state that as Catholics we do not worship statues, we do not worship pictures, we do not worship Mary or any of the other saints or angels. We worship the one true God who has shown Himself to us as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We are the One True Church, founded by Christ. There has been, and will continue to be, corruption. Many have broken off and fallen away. We have been, and continue to be, attacked from all sides. But yet, The Church goes on! Why? Because Christ founded Her, and promised that nothing, not even Hell, would prevail aginst Her.

So, do not be swayed. Keep the Faith. And May God Bless You and Keep You Always!

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

 

[Eucharisted]

Catechism of Trent says on veneration of sacred images:

**They Do Not Forbid Images Of Christ And The Saints **
But to make and honour the images of Christ our Lord, of His holy and virginal Mother, and of the Saints, all of whom were clothed with human nature and appeared in human form, is not only not forbidden by this Commandment, but has always been deemed a holy practice and a most sure indication of gratitude. This position is confirmed by the monuments of the Apostolic age, the General Councils of the Church, and the writings of so many among the Fathers, eminent alike for sanctity and learning, all of whom are of one accord upon the subject.

Usefulness Of Sacred Images
But the pastor should not content himself with showing that it is lawful to have images in churches, and to pay them honour and respect, since this respect is referred to their prototypes. He should also show that the uninterrupted observance of this practice down to the present day has been attended with great advantage to the faithful, as may be seen in the work of Damascene on images, and in the seventh General Council, the second of Nice.

But as the enemy of mankind, by his wiles and deceits, seeks to pervert even the most holy institutions, should the faithful happen at all to offend in this particular, the pastor, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent’s should use every exertion in his power to correct such an abuse, and, if necessary, explain the decree itself to the people.

He will also inform the unlettered and those who may be ignorant of the use of images, that they are intended to instruct in the history of the Old and New Testaments, and to revive from time to time their memory; that thus, moved by the contemplation of heavenly things, we may be the more ardently inflamed to adore and love God Himself. He should, also, point out that the images of the Saints are placed in churches, not only to be honoured, but also that they may admonish us by their examples to imitate their lives and virtues.

Source: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm01.htm

 

[tonsofquestions]

Hello all,

I am used to defending the Catholic use of sculpture and imagery as a spiritual mnemonic, and being an artist myself, am extremely appreciative of this aspect of our church. But lately, after some lengthy conversations with non-Catholics, a few worries have popped into my head and won’t go away.

On Good Friday, at the Veneration Of The Cross, I found myself unable to go up the front and kiss the crucifix. The priest intones “This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world” and we reply “Come, let us worship”. Which we then do, in various physical ways. Now I know very well what allegories, references, allusions, metaphors and mnemonics are, but the above situation really leaves little wiggle room, and I would have been hard pressed to explain a supposed lack of idolatry to a confused non-Catholic. The wood is the active subject, not the Saviour. Now, if we were actively practising idolatry, worshipping a lump of wood, how much less ambiguous could we possibly make it??

I usually go up respectfully with the rest of the congregation, though feeling uncomfortable, but this year I felt it was… not quite right. The priest gave us the option of remaining in our pews and kneeling in quiet prayer, which I did. By myself. I apologised to Jesus for perhaps being difficult, and I can only trust He could see I meant no ill.

I have a statue of the Infant Of Prague, and an old print. They are beautiful, but the story behind them also worries me. A voice, prompting someone to restore the hands of a statue and to honour the statue, in exchange for blessings? How is my statue not idolatry- or even idolatry of idolatry? It would require extreme abstraction to somehow connect this effigy of an effigy with Christ’s message.

Things like this make it very hard to defend our faith to detractors who want to play the “idol worship” card. Explaining the difference between latria and dulia is of no use when discussing a wax doll who supposedly distributes largesse, or when a priest clearly tells us to worship wood.

Am I being disobedient or sinful in questioning these things?

Am I alone in this? Does anyone have a sacramental that they’re a little “iffy” about? What, and why?

I always fear that I’m doing something idolatrous. I tend to go a little overboard with it, trying not to have anything to do with statues, not keeping statues in my house or yard etc. For me, I always worried abut it. One thing I thought of a lot is the bronze serpent. The bronze serpent show Protestants that the idea of great things happening through a statue is not that far out. But I think it is also a reminder to Catholics, because how did the bronze serpent meet its end? People started worshiping it, so God had it destroyed. And no, most people who pray in front of a statue or something are not worshiping the statue, but ever since reading about the destruction of the bronze serpent, I’ve been very anti-statue. In my opinion, while using a statue in worship may help some people, it is not necessary for salvation, so I choose not to risk it. Some people may find it useful to use statues, but I don’t see the risk vs. reward being that good. Anyway, I’m rambling, but I just thought I’d give my 2 cents :twocents: .

 

[Reynardus]

I always fear that I’m doing something idolatrous. I tend to go a little overboard with it, trying not to have anything to do with statues, not keeping statues in my house or yard etc. For me, I always worried abut it. One thing I thought of a lot is the bronze serpent. The bronze serpent show Protestants that the idea of great things happening through a statue is not that far out. But I think it is also a reminder to Catholics, because how did the bronze serpent meet its end? People started worshiping it, so God had it destroyed. And no, most people who pray in front of a statue or something are not worshiping the statue, but ever since reading about the destruction of the bronze serpent, I’ve been very anti-statue. In my opinion, while using a statue in worship may help some people, it is not necessary for salvation, so I choose not to risk it. Some people may find it useful to use statues, but I don’t see the risk vs. reward being that good. Anyway, I’m rambling, but I just thought I’d give my 2 cents :twocents: .

I think it was because the bronze serpent was worshipped APART from God. It was worshipped for what it was, no longer connected to the power behind it. In the case of kissing the crucifix on Good Friday, it is NOT apart from God, rather you kiss it as a show of your love and allegiance to Christ and His sacrifice.

I acutally had the same doubts some years ago. I decided to hold off my doubts and mediated for a while why it was so. I’m not sure how it happened but on the last two Good Fridays, I found it so easy and liberating with nary a doubt. Like a cloud was lifted without knowing the reason why.

 

[VociMike]

I always fear that I’m doing something idolatrous. I tend to go a little overboard with it, trying not to have anything to do with statues, not keeping statues in my house or yard etc. For me, I always worried abut it. One thing I thought of a lot is the bronze serpent. The bronze serpent show Protestants that the idea of great things happening through a statue is not that far out. But I think it is also a reminder to Catholics, because how did the bronze serpent meet its end? People started worshiping it, so God had it destroyed. And no, most people who pray in front of a statue or something are not worshiping the statue, but ever since reading about the destruction of the bronze serpent, I’ve been very anti-statue. In my opinion, while using a statue in worship may help some people, it is not necessary for salvation, so I choose not to risk it. Some people may find it useful to use statues, but I don’t see the risk vs. reward being that good. Anyway, I’m rambling, but I just thought I’d give my 2 cents :twocents: .

Without questioning anything you’ve said here (as you note, statues etc are not necessary for salvation), I’m curious what you think the thought process would be of somebody who actually turned a statue into an idol. What would be going on in their minds?

 

[Gem]

Hi Mrs. Leviathan,

I’ve had similar concerns in the past. It seems so clear, right? “You shall not make unto thee any graven image of anything on the earth, etc.” But there are a couple things to remember:

1. “Worship” in English has different meanings. In England, they call judges “your Worship” or “your Lordship”. Obviously, they are not divine. It means “you who are worthy of respect”. We obviously do not venerate, worship or adore a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice for us in the same may or to the same degree as God Himself. I know you understand that. Helping others understand that as well can be difficult, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
2. God Himself dictated the creation of the bronze sepent which was a conduit for healing if people only looked upon it in faith (in God). He also dictated creation of cherubim for the temple. Though superstition is a danger (e.g. the need for destruction of that same bronze serpent), God does allow, even commands, lawful use of images.
3. Christ became man. In the Incarnation, He took on a visible physical form. Where, in the past, it was forbidden to confine God the Father to a limited physical representation, God the Son took on exactly that (I’m not saying Jesus’ divine nature was limited. Nor was His human form exactly like ours in that Jesus could reveal his transfigured body. I’m just saying He had a normal-appearing body, present in physical space, part of our reality, made of matter.) If you could have been there with Jesus 2000 years ago with a camera and taken his picture, don’t you think everyone would value that? We are physical people and we need physical contact with God, who now, through Jesus, is also physical. That’s why all the sacraments have a physical component. Matter is not evil (some Protestants take Paul’s division between the flesh and spirit too far), it is part of God’s creation and therefore good. How we use it is important and yes, it can be abused, but God has revealed through His Church what is proper.
4. Different devotions are given to us at different times in history or in specific places based on what we need to become closer to the Lord (Sacred Heart, Divine Mercy, etc). Some devotions involving images seem strange to us as modern Americans (and to me, too). But I think as long as the worshiper understands that all power comes from God, then it is ok.

This is only my opinion and perhaps off-topic, but I think people who argue with Catholics over their beliefs have a more basic problem with external (i.e. Church)authority. They would rather decide for themselves how to interpret the bible and who their pastor (one person with their own unique opinion, not a Church or the true body of Christ given to us as a guide) at a given point in their life will be. When you cut yourself off from the wisdom and correction of 2000 years of faith, confusion is bound to result. All these questions have been asked and answered many times hundreds of years ago.

 

[BWNM]

What is so interesting about this is that same critics have no problem admiring paintings in Louvre or in other Museums of Art, as well sculptures, ancient buildings etc… Furthermore, while caring photographs of their love ones in wallet or having them in car etc… Doesn’t produce worshiping idols (after all picture is presentation of something) or as some say… Well I love them and it keeps me close to them. This debate is very old and can be debunk many different ways. One for sure knows difference of presentation in physical form and other with worshiping, for these are two huge differences.

Kind of way, you always need a critic that is how art of conversation is born.: cool:

God Bless

 

[regression]

What is so interesting about this is that same critics have no problem admiring paintings in Louvre or in other Museums of Art, as well sculptures, ancient buildings etc… Furthermore, while caring photographs of their love ones in wallet or having them in car etc… Doesn’t produce worshiping idols (after all picture is presentation of something) or as some say… Well I love them and it keeps me close to them. This debate is very old and can be debunk many different ways. One for sure knows difference of presentation in physical form and other with worshiping, for these are two huge differences.

Kind of way, you always need a critic that is how art of conversation is born.: cool:

God Bless

The problem I see about saying, “don’t you have pictures of your loved ones in your wallet”, is the next verse in Exodus says do not adore them or server them. So if I carry a picture of my family in my wallet and do not adore it or server it, I’m following what is in Exodus. I can just say I carry it with me to remind me of my family, or even, to show who my family is to others who may ask…

I have always thought it enough to say I do not worship a picture or statue if someone asks. They can say yes you are, but they cannot really know. Only the person who is using a picture / statue knows truly what their intentions are, to worship it or use it to help them worship God.

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=2&ch=20&l=4&f=s#x

4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:

 

[promethius]

On Good Friday, at the Veneration Of The Cross, I found myself unable to go up the front and kiss the crucifix. The priest intones “This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world” and we reply “Come, let us worship”. Which we then do, in various physical ways. Now I know very well what allegories, references, allusions, metaphors and mnemonics are, but the above situation really leaves little wiggle room, and I would have been hard pressed to explain a supposed lack of idolatry to a confused non-Catholic. The wood is the active subject, not the Saviour. Now, if we were actively practising idolatry, worshipping a lump of wood, how much less ambiguous could we possibly make it??

I disagree with you on the point that the wood is the active subject here. I think you’ve made a false connection between two seperate statements: the priest saying that this is the wood of the cross and the people saying let us worship. I have never interpreted it that way at all. In fact, I think that “come, let us worship” refers to an act of worship towards Christ. The following acts of respect for the cross are not worship to the cross, simply respect for the sweet and terrible sacrifice… but that respect we have for the crucifixion in turn constitutes worship to Christ Himself.

I have a statue of the Infant Of Prague, and an old print. They are beautiful, but the story behind them also worries me. A voice, prompting someone to restore the hands of a statue and to honour the statue, in exchange for blessings? How is my statue not idolatry- or even idolatry of idolatry? It would require extreme abstraction to somehow connect this effigy of an effigy with Christ’s message.

No it wouldn’t require extreme anything. The statue brings glory to God, and if God so chooses to have a follower restore an item that brings glory to Him, then that is God’s choice, along with any blessing conferred by such an act. In fact, as above, performing such an act to repair an item which is for the glory of God could be construed as an act of worship TO God.

 

[promethius]

The problem I see about saying, “don’t you have pictures of your loved ones in your wallet”, is the next verse in Exodus says do not adore them or server them. So if I carry a picture of my family in my wallet and do not adore it or server it, I’m following what is in Exodus. I can just say I carry it with me to remind me of my family, or even, to show who my family is to others who may ask…

That’s exactly the point that catholics are trying to make… protestants misinterpret the commandment intentionally to say that having statues, paintings, relics, etc constitutes a violation of the commandments. That simply isn’t the case because, as you noted, the commandment requires that we do not WORSHIP graven images, not that they can’t be made or used as reminders of people who have brought credit to God or even as reminders of God Himself.

 

[regression]

That’s exactly the point that catholics are trying to make… protestants misinterpret the commandment intentionally to say that having statues, paintings, relics, etc constitutes a violation of the commandments. That simply isn’t the case because, as you noted, the commandment requires that we do not WORSHIP graven images, not that they can’t be made or used as reminders of people who have brought credit to God or even as reminders of God Himself.

I guess part of it is which translation of the bible you read. The one I quoted was from the online Douay-Rheims bible. It says we shouldn’t adore or serve them. However, the King James bible says we should not bow down to them OR serve them. So, if that is the bible you use, if someone sees a Catholic bowing in front of a statue, that goes against what the King James bible says and you are violating God’s commandments.

I guess the question about which translation is “correct” or more accurate should be the topic in another thread…

etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvExod.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=20&division=div1

4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

[MrsLeviathan]

Thankyou everybody,

the word “worship” can be applied to both latria (devotion allowed only for God), hyperdulia (for Our Lady) and dulia (that appropriate to His saints and angels). Saying worship isn’t really worship, and that it is all a matter of degree, will not convince a skeptic.

VociMike- of course I know that the Good Friday cross and the corpus upon it are not the real deal. Our parish would not be able to afford a “Sliver Of The True Cross”.

People got cured by touching Christ’s hem, most likely because He was wearing the robe at the time. Also, to touch someone’s hem and not the person seems to be a gesture of respect and supplication, rather than one of fascination with a particular weave and make of garment. They wanted to touch something about Him, of Him. Touching copy of a wax dolly in a fancy frock that was made in the middle ages isn’t quite the same.

Tonsofquestions- glad I’m not entirely alone in my quandary. Yes, the bronze serpent is a good lesson. The use of images is a slippery slope. B Some Catholics, a lot of Catholics, do end up worshipping these things. There is no way that I won’t end up sounding condescending when I say this, but a lot of people are not capable of the mental gymnastics required to separate an object from its concept. We have the gift and benefit of being able to use these things as aids to devotion, but an unthinking person could quite easily become devoted to the image itself.

VociMike again- it’s a very short step to worshipping idols. One prays fervently before an image, to God. Some sort of blessing is effected, and one (one who is not terribly, terribly clever like us, eh) naturally attributes the blessing to that particular image, rather than to the force behind it. Bam- instant idol. It may not even necessarily be a conscious thought process. Go to Mexico or Spain. Think “lucky rabbit’s foot” or any other popular talisman. Just saying “God’s behind it” doesn’t make it less fetishistic.

BWNM- I have pics of my loved ones in my wallet. I don’t even pretend to communicate my love for them through the photo. The pictures are a spark to memory. This is how I, personally, approach imagery in the church. All is a spark to memory, a catalyst for a frame of mind… but I am wary to suppose that the images might be a conduit for my prayers. I would not put a picture of my husband at his place at the table and serve it dinner, and talk to it as I would to him.

The pictures in the Louvre etc. are just there for looking at. Nobody asks you to kiss them. (I got arrested last time I tried…)

Anyway… I think the upshot of it all is very positive, despite my sometime discomfort. In investigating these things, a person is forced to pay attention to what they’re actually doing, and why. Then they can continue to do whatever it is, or not do it, with a more clear conscience. For me, my own personal jury is still out, despite the counsel offered. I shall continue to pray, and respect… and wonder.

 

[James224]

MrsLeviathan

On Good Friday, at the Veneration Of The Cross, I found myself unable to go up the front and kiss the crucifix. The priest intones “This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world” and we reply “Come, let us worship”.

My Resonse: I read this as calling us to worship God.

I have a statue of the Infant Of Prague, and an old print. They are beautiful, but the story behind them also worries me. A voice, prompting someone to restore the hands of a statue and to honour the statue, in exchange for blessings? How is my statue not idolatry- or even idolatry of idolatry? It would require extreme abstraction to somehow connect this effigy of an effigy with Christ’s message.

My Response: This is part of the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints. We honor the saint because God honors the saint. The blessings come from God through the saint because we can communicate with them. They are part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Things like this make it very hard to defend our faith to detractors who want to play the “idol worship” card. Explaining the difference between latria and dulia is of no use when discussing a wax doll who supposedly distributes largesse, or when a priest clearly tells us to worship wood.

My Response: Many non-catholics have problems with anything to do with images or statues, however, God ordered the Israelites to build the temple FULL of images and statues (1 Kings 6:29; 1 Kings 9:1-3). They usually Quote Ex 20:4 which has to do with worshipping statues but this we don’t do.

May God bless,

James224

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m not sure you will take my two cents considering I don’t believe in God.

But, if I were to and a person ever asked me about statues or about icons or about any (this would apply to the person who challenged you most likely) illustration or image of Jesus or anyone who is in heaven, then I think their argument using the passage in the old testament is a very poor argument after the incarnation of Christ.

It’s one of the weakest attacks against catholics of the few I am starting to see now.

 

[VociMike]

VociMike again- it’s a very short step to worshipping idols. One prays fervently before an image, to God. Some sort of blessing is effected, and one (one who is not terribly, terribly clever like us, eh) naturally attributes the blessing to that particular image, rather than to the force behind it. Bam- instant idol. It may not even necessarily be a conscious thought process. Go to Mexico or Spain. Think “lucky rabbit’s foot” or any other popular talisman. Just saying “God’s behind it” doesn’t make it less fetishistic.

I just don’t accept the “naturally attributes the blessing to that particular image” part. I think most people would naturally say “thank you, Lord!” I think you may not be giving those unclever people enough credit.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If a person does not believe in the communion of saints and does not believe in intercession, and does not agree that it is only God who answers prayers no matter who’s intercession is sought, there is not much you can do with that.

I think the factors in play here would be these:
Belief in the incarnation
Belief in the communion of saints

If a person believes in the above two things, then this is not even an issue on the table unless there are people who do not understand these things and are confused about them and actually do cross the line into what could be called idol worship.

When protestants and catholics alike discount so many of the passages in the old testament being applicable today, why would this be one that still is?

 

[VociMike]

I’m not sure you will take my two cents considering I don’t believe in God.

But, if I were to and a person ever asked me about statues or about icons or about any (this would apply to the person who challenged you most likely) illustration or image of Jesus or anyone who is in heaven, then I think their argument using the passage in the old testament is a very poor argument after the incarnation of Christ.

It’s one of the weakest attacks against catholics of the few I am starting to see now.

This is perceptive. Once God has become Incarnate and delivered his full revelation (not to mention his own Person), which of the OT laws do we keep, and which do we disregard? Given that there are hundreds of OT laws that Protestants do not keep, why the focus on this one? How is it not rank hypocrisy to attack Catholics for not following one OT law, while at the same time the attacker is not following hundreds of OT laws?