P
Proletarian
Guest
Personally (as a cCatholic) I’ve never been comfortable with images of God the Father.
- Status
S
ScottishColleen
Guest
Proletarian, thank you.
Militant, I’m not even going to bother because the link title is NOT what I’m assuming. When I stated “use”, I also later clarified that as meaning “have”. Seeing as I have Catholic friends and relatives, I already am aware of the, “do Catholics worship images” question and answers.
The answer in scripture that is contra to what is being stated here is that the Israelites created the golden calf as a Representation of God. An image they could view since they could not see God themselves. Same with Catholics/Orthodox/and many Protestants in having pictures of Christ and Crosses.
I’m not changing my stand. However, I was curious whether this was a variable within the Catholic church as it will most likely become a topic between my father and myself.
Militant, I’m not even going to bother because the link title is NOT what I’m assuming. When I stated “use”, I also later clarified that as meaning “have”. Seeing as I have Catholic friends and relatives, I already am aware of the, “do Catholics worship images” question and answers.
The answer in scripture that is contra to what is being stated here is that the Israelites created the golden calf as a Representation of God. An image they could view since they could not see God themselves. Same with Catholics/Orthodox/and many Protestants in having pictures of Christ and Crosses.
I’m not changing my stand. However, I was curious whether this was a variable within the Catholic church as it will most likely become a topic between my father and myself.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Please do not refer to our churches as RCCs.
You could just as well ask if there are any Catholics who completely cut themselves off from Christian history or who wish to view history through 17 C eyes or through 21 C eyes .
Before the Guttenburg Press and well after, those images, pictures, statues, crosses were educational tools for the illiterate who numbered more than 90% of the Church and for the poor who could not afford the costly hand-copied Bibles.
Scapularkid said he/she does not like God the Father depicted as an old man with a beard. Please note that judgment is the basest form of ‘critiquing’ Art. For an insight into this, read Ideas Have Consequences:
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
If you have not yet attempted to study the context in which Sacred Art was created, then may I suggest you do so if for no other reason than to understand the pre-Reformation Church – the one that Jesus established.
Ecclesiastical Art
A Gospel in Stone: Notre Dame de Paris and the Three Natural Laws of Church Architecture
Statues in Church
Art Renewal Centre
ScottishColleen:
Here are some links which hopefully might enlarge your knowledge of Sacred Art:
Ecclesiastical Art
A Gospel in Stone: Notre Dame de Paris and the Three Natural Laws of Church Architecture
Statues in Church
Art Renewal Centre
If this is a personal matter for you, then why did you start a thread on a discussion forum on this subject?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Similarities between Reformed and RCC? For example?
The Catholic Church does not come in varieties. Moreover we are not called the RCC.
We are the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. One, not 30 000. If you do not want to use our full title, then please be kind enough to refer to us as the Catholic Church, not the RCC. Thank you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
With a brush off like this one, I wonder to myself: Self, has she bothered reading the Forum rules and Banned Topics ?
:ehh:
- Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
- Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
- Proselytizing Catholics or encouraging them to leave the Church is a banned topic.
Since you evidently are not willing to discuss your position, then I am wondering: once you find Catholics who agree with your position, what do you intend to do?
S
ScottishColleen
Guest
RCC was not used out of disrespect. It was a form of short hand. I’m on a religious board where we have MANY acronyms to make reading easier (EP-Exclusive Psalmody, WCF-Westminster Confession of Faith, LBCF London Baptist Confession of Faith, etc…as we also have many for the various churches and denominations out there. RCC simply means Roman Catholic Church, which is what most people here are). Seeing as I have a household to look after and come to check and type quickly, this makes it easier. You also use short hand in references to things as well…that is what Roman numerals are. So, please don’t judge my intent. I have read much on here that would be insulting to me and my beliefs, including many assumptions. But I refused to take insult and tried to understand your perspective. I only request some grace that you do the same rather than assuming some evil intent for simple short hand.
I also did NOT post this in Apologetics…it was moved. I posted it in Traditional Catholicism. As I was asking a specific question, without intent of debate (though there are those that have decided to turn it into that and try to rope me into such rather than simply to give an answer or their reason as to otherwise). Since it was directed towards Roman Catholics, then it would not have fit under Non-Roman Catholic Religions. I placed it where I thought best, and a moderator or administrator thought it belonged better placed here (possibly due to the debatative nature of the subject which I would totally understand).
If I had been wanting to look into Roman Catholic Traditions and Theology for my own conversion purposes, this attitude would have run me off. In fact, it is what keeps most people away from most churches to begin with.
From all the generousity I’ve read on other threads (mom with children being criticised, etc), I have to say, I am completely shocked at the response I received for asking a simple question.
I do appreciate the links, thank you. I am a history enthusiast and enjoy reading. Thank you.
As for the Roman Catholic Church being varied or all the same, I do differ from my own observations. There are traditional masses and contemporary masses…parishes where the people are encouraged more in an intimate relationship with Christ and parishes where the priest is there to perform mass and otherwise ignores those that enter into mass…parishes where Noah’s Flood is taught as a myth and parishes where it is taught as a fact. There are those that have told me that they don’t pray to any saints, only to Christ and God the Father…others have insisted that they pray to the saints (and yes, I do understand that they are simply asking a part of the church to pray for them when they do this)…I have also seen some that are very superstitious (planting St Joseph upside down in the yard to sell a house).
I would say that these are just people, but I have seen prominance of one thing in one parish and prominance of other things in some other parish. This is why I state that there are variances.
If anyone would like to explain that, then I would be willing to listen. But please do not accuse me of having ill intent for noting my own observations…they may be under some form of misunderstanding, as many Catholics are about Protestants, and therefore in need of correction…but they are my observations.
I also did NOT post this in Apologetics…it was moved. I posted it in Traditional Catholicism. As I was asking a specific question, without intent of debate (though there are those that have decided to turn it into that and try to rope me into such rather than simply to give an answer or their reason as to otherwise). Since it was directed towards Roman Catholics, then it would not have fit under Non-Roman Catholic Religions. I placed it where I thought best, and a moderator or administrator thought it belonged better placed here (possibly due to the debatative nature of the subject which I would totally understand).
If I had been wanting to look into Roman Catholic Traditions and Theology for my own conversion purposes, this attitude would have run me off. In fact, it is what keeps most people away from most churches to begin with.
From all the generousity I’ve read on other threads (mom with children being criticised, etc), I have to say, I am completely shocked at the response I received for asking a simple question.
I do appreciate the links, thank you. I am a history enthusiast and enjoy reading. Thank you.
As for the Roman Catholic Church being varied or all the same, I do differ from my own observations. There are traditional masses and contemporary masses…parishes where the people are encouraged more in an intimate relationship with Christ and parishes where the priest is there to perform mass and otherwise ignores those that enter into mass…parishes where Noah’s Flood is taught as a myth and parishes where it is taught as a fact. There are those that have told me that they don’t pray to any saints, only to Christ and God the Father…others have insisted that they pray to the saints (and yes, I do understand that they are simply asking a part of the church to pray for them when they do this)…I have also seen some that are very superstitious (planting St Joseph upside down in the yard to sell a house).
I would say that these are just people, but I have seen prominance of one thing in one parish and prominance of other things in some other parish. This is why I state that there are variances.
If anyone would like to explain that, then I would be willing to listen. But please do not accuse me of having ill intent for noting my own observations…they may be under some form of misunderstanding, as many Catholics are about Protestants, and therefore in need of correction…but they are my observations.
S
ScottishColleen
Guest
I would be willing to discuss it with those that KNOW me and would be willing to understand and respect my beliefs just as I try to do those. That is where it is personal…between my friends and my father and myself.With a brush off like this one, I wonder to myself: Self, has she bothered reading the Forum rules and Banned Topics ?
:ehh:
If you are already aware of the “do Catholics worship images” question and answers and if you not going to change your stand, what exactly is the purpose of this thread?
- Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
- Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
- Proselytizing Catholics or encouraging them to leave the Church is a banned topic.
Since you evidently are not willing to discuss your position, then I am wondering: once you find Catholics who agree with your position, what do you intend to do?
If there was any that were of similar view on the one issue then I could use that as comparison for better understanding and I could use Catholic resources. I have done the same with the headcovering and in fact have a Catholic friend that now covers her head during mass, because I was able to bring forth teachings from the Catholic church. I use many of the Church Fathers’ writings on this subject (headcovering). My purpose on images would not be to convince them, however, but to produce understanding…just as they wish for me to understand their beliefs.
THIS was the purpose of the thread. For knowledge (was there anyone?) and for understanding (between myself and those close to me…NOT to debate and definately NOT for proselytising). It was a SIMPLE question, nothing more. I did NOT place this in this Forum…it was moved.
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, the Second Council of Nicea taught that icons (two-dimensional images) could be used. Whether one could be Catholic and reject three-dimensional images I’m not sure. I think not but I’ll let the Catholics answer.
More to the point, I’m curious as to why you ask especially about images of Christ. Images of Christ are, I think, the most clearly defensible. What images would you allow if not images of Christ?
I don’t think one can condemn images of Christ without having an unorthodox view of the Incarnation.
Edwin
V
VociMike
Guest
Christ himself, through the Incarnation, made it impossible to avoid images of himself. One cannot spend a lifetime contemplating the life and teachings of Christ and not form at least mental images of him as a boy or as a man. I say again, it is absolutely and totally impossible to avoid such mental images.
And the (Old Testament) scripture is very clear: no images are allowed. It does not just say no physical images.
Thus the Church understands that with the Incarnation, the dangers of misrepresenting God in images is no longer with us, since we now have the perfect (God-created) image of God, and it is one we know very well, since it is man.
And the (Old Testament) scripture is very clear: no images are allowed. It does not just say no physical images.
Thus the Church understands that with the Incarnation, the dangers of misrepresenting God in images is no longer with us, since we now have the perfect (God-created) image of God, and it is one we know very well, since it is man.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
For information without discussion, folks can use the CAF library or ask a question on the Ask an Apologist forum. In addition, we have now given you quite a few good links.
And since it was moved, then it was deemed to be matter for discussion, which includes your participation in that discussion.
I’m really not getting this. You are a Reformer. Why would you want to use points of view put forward by Catholics who agree with your point of view on this matter? Catholics who agree with your point of view on this matter are going against the teaching of the Church.
For there to be a fair discussion involving the Church’s position on Sacred Art, then the Church’s position on Sacred Art must be represented accurately – obviously – not through the filter of Reformism or through those Catholics who agree with Reformism on the matter.
What do Reformers have to say about Sacred Art? That should be sufficient to bring to your discussion with your father and friends. If they disagree with you, then they disagree with you. And if they simply don’t know then they should be going to a Catholic source to find out, not to a Reformist source.
If you are a Reformer, then why not refer your Catholic friends to CAF where they can get their information without having it processed through a Reformist filter?
How can they understand your beliefs by us giving you our beliefs and you saying that you are not going to change your stand on this?
It sounds to me that there is some triangulation going on and that should not be happening among friends.
Discussion is not debate.
F
FCEGM
Guest
No, it’s not at all the same; Christ is depicted as a man, which He was/is. He is sometimes also depicted as a lamb standing and wounded - a la Revelation.
Why did the Law forbid graven images? It was because the God of Israel could not be imaged by anything in creation - anything “on the earth, in the sea, or in the heavens.” If the Israelites made anything like this, they would be worshipping an element of Creation (which is what paganism does) and not the God Who is beyond all creation Who authored all that is. But, in the New Covenant, this same God became part of that Creation in the Incarnation of Christ. As it says in Colossians 1:15, Jesus is the visible IMAGE of the invisible God! This event changed everything, for not only were Christians free from the specific legal limitations of the Law, but they could now see the Father in the Person of Jesus Christ (see John 14:8-9), and Jesus Christ CAN be imaged. If you had a camera, you could have taken a photo of Him. You could also paint a picture of Him or make a statue of Him (as artistic Greco-Roman people were naturally prone to do).
In the context of the New Covenant, the saints who are in true union with Christ are images of Him by extension (see 2 Cor. 3:18, etc.). This is why it was permissible and possible for the early Christians to have icons of Jesus and His saints (check out the wall paintings on the 1st Century level of the Catacombs of St. Sebastian in Rome). The glory of God is now “incarnated” in His Church through the Person of Jesus Christ. This is a fundamental principal of the New Covenant, and most Protestants do not appreciate it, at least not fully.
The Incarnation of Christ is not emphasized in Protestant theology, as it is in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology. Protestants tend to view the Incarnation as a “means to an end”; i.e., “He became a man just so He could die.” Catholics and Eastern Orthodox understand that the Incarnation is far more profound that this - that it is the central and eternal principal of the New Covenant, a one-Flesh Covenant between God and man (Ephes 5:25-32). For Christ rose in the Flesh, and is still fully-man (as well as fully-God) today, and for all eternity!
So, in having statues and paintings of Christ and the saints, we Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) are not violating the Commandment or the righteousness behind the Commandment at all. We are celebrating the central principal of the New Covenant -God became man: part of His Creation, in order to make a New Creation. What’s more - and this must be admitted, despite the specific wording of the Commandment, not all “graven images” were prohibited by the Mosaic Law. Under the same Mosaic Law, they made the Bronze Serpent in the desert and the two cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant, and the two giant cherubim in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This shows that the Commandment has a specific meaning - referring to images of alien gods to be worshipped, not to things that applied to the authentic worship of the God of Israel. We Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not worship our religious imagery, nor do we worship anyone other than God.
continued. . .
F
FCEGM
Guest
All kinds of “idols” are bad things. We Catholics reject IDOLS too. But our statues and paintings are not idols, and are not intended to be used as idols. Now, it is true that anything can be abused; and even a good thing can become an idol, i.e., something that takes away from God. It is a good thing for a man to passionately love his wife. But, if he loves her too much, to the point of putting her even before God, he has made her into an idol, and that is wrong.
Likewise, a Protestant may love the Bible. But if he placed his Bible study before feeding and taking care of his children, then he has made the Bible into an idol! An idol is not the thing itself, which can be naturally good or bad. An idol is created when someone places someone (good or bad) before God. If a Catholic treats a statue like this, then that Catholic is sinning. Our statues are not meant to be treated that way (but to be venerated in the correct Faith, a Faith directed toward Jesus), just as the Bible is meant to be treated in a certain way by Protestants.
What’s more, the specific wording of the Commandment says “graven image” - a representational image fashioned by man. If we take this Commandment literally (as some Orthodox Jews do), this means that we are not permitted to create or use ANY kind of man-made image, including book illustrations, TV shows, etc. This would be the case if we were under the Mosaic Law. We Catholics do not interpret the Commandment (i.e., the righteousness behind the Commandment) in that way, however. But, that’s not what the Commandment literally says.
Likewise, a Protestant may love the Bible. But if he placed his Bible study before feeding and taking care of his children, then he has made the Bible into an idol! An idol is not the thing itself, which can be naturally good or bad. An idol is created when someone places someone (good or bad) before God. If a Catholic treats a statue like this, then that Catholic is sinning. Our statues are not meant to be treated that way (but to be venerated in the correct Faith, a Faith directed toward Jesus), just as the Bible is meant to be treated in a certain way by Protestants.
What’s more, the specific wording of the Commandment says “graven image” - a representational image fashioned by man. If we take this Commandment literally (as some Orthodox Jews do), this means that we are not permitted to create or use ANY kind of man-made image, including book illustrations, TV shows, etc. This would be the case if we were under the Mosaic Law. We Catholics do not interpret the Commandment (i.e., the righteousness behind the Commandment) in that way, however. But, that’s not what the Commandment literally says.
S
ScottishColleen
Guest
Ani Ibi, thank you for your response. It shows though, that you are unaware of the areas that Catholics and the Reformers agreed and the fact that the Reformers do look towards earlier church writings in defense of their views. When speaking with a Catholic, they generally ask, “did the church fathers speak on this?” I give them the information…directly, not through some “Reformed filter”. In fact, I HAVE directed one to articles and information on CAF. Mostly though, we will talk about and deal with early writings rather than modern ones, thus a source that we can both agree with and communicate on. On modern sources I will direct them here for the Catholic view and to a Reformed website for our view (letting them know, okay this is what the Catholic church says and this is what this church father says and this is what this Reformer says)…for their own comparison and knowledge. This is a form of respect. They cannot just take what the Church says the Reformed believe…instead, to be honest, you must go to a Reformed source. I do the same thing. I ask them questions directly, come here and read, and was even willing to ask a question here. If I have a question about the Jewish people, I don’t ask a Baptist or a Mormon or a Catholic…I ask a Jew.
As to my “knowledge” that moving the thread meant opening to debate and my participation, I did not realise it had been moved till sometime this morning, as I have been coming directly to the thread unaware (no pm or other message informing me) that it had been moved.
As to my “knowledge” that moving the thread meant opening to debate and my participation, I did not realise it had been moved till sometime this morning, as I have been coming directly to the thread unaware (no pm or other message informing me) that it had been moved.
S
ScottishColleen
Guest
Frances, I want to thank you! Your post was possibly the most CLEAR in understanding why a Catholic believes images of Christ are acceptable. That has helped me greatly in understanding others. 
(The Reformed do take the Incarnation of Christ very seriously…not just a means to an end…but I do understand, due to others, how that can be presumed)
(The Reformed do take the Incarnation of Christ very seriously…not just a means to an end…but I do understand, due to others, how that can be presumed)
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Neither am I judging, nor am I looking at intent. The behaviour is covered here:
Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best. forum rulesRCC is an abbreviated term. Since we do not call Reform churches PCs, I would assume it is fair to ask that the Catholic Church not be called the RCC. btw some of us have taken to using the term ‘Reform’ because some folks did not like their churches being called Protestant churches.
Which is a discussion forum just like this one.
Discussion is not debate.
Forum rules and history would have run you off?
Rules and history are what keeps most people away from most churches to begin with?
I am puzzled that the answers we have given do not seem adequate to your ‘simple’ question, particularly the Church’s view that iconoclasm is heresy and that therefore there would be no ‘variety’ in Catholic teaching on the matter. This is the clincher really.
I am also puzzled why someone would start a thread on a discussion forum – whichever one that may be – with no intent to discuss anything. However, I am willing to entertain the idea that you missed the Ask an Apologist forum or the CAF Library. It’s easy to miss things when you first come here because the website is so huge.
continued… edit: I have to finished this later, because I have to run. My server hung and I got delayed. Catchya later.
L
Linnyo
Guest
Please stop Ani Ibi, you are not being pleasant. If RC people are offended by the church title bein abbreviated they will say so but they will say with love and patience. Please show some respect to people posting here. Most of us are NOT here for an argument.
Neither am I judging, nor am I looking at intent. The behaviour is covered here:
Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best. forum rulesRCC is an abbreviated term. Since we do not call Reform churches PCs, I would assume it is fair to ask that the Catholic Church not be called the RCC. btw some of us have taken to using the term ‘Reform’ because some folks did not like their churches being called Protestant churches.
Which is a discussion forum just like this one.
Discussion is not debate.
Forum rules and history would have run you off?
Rules and history are what keeps most people away from most churches to begin with?
I am puzzled that the answers we have given do not seem adequate to your ‘simple’ question, particularly the Church’s view that iconoclasm is heresy and that therefore there would be no ‘variety’ in Catholic teaching on the matter. This is the clincher really.
I am also puzzled why someone would start a thread on a discussion forum – whichever one that may be – with no intent to discuss anything. However, I am willing to entertain the idea that you missed the Ask an Apologist forum or the CAF Library. It’s easy to miss things when you first come here because the website is so huge.
continued… edit: I have to finished this later, because I have to run. My server hung and I got delayed. Catchya later.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
In addition to what else has been written, I do not believe you will find such a Catholic parish – Or if you did it would be quite irregular and likely in disobedience.
The GIRM, under “The Altar and Its Appointments”, includes:
tee
S
ScottishColleen
Guest
Thank you…that is all I meant…to abbreviate, not to use some offensive slang. I will be careful not use abbreviations in the future.
Thank you to those that also gave grace in trying to understand and give answer.
I do believe in rules and strongly look toward history as well as scripture in my walk and strengthening my spiritual understanding.
And now that I look at it, I am surprised that it was moved here instead of to “Ask an Apologist”
A
adrift
Guest
No one should question the motives of the OP. This is a simple question. The Answer is no.
Question answered. Since the OP does not wish to discuss it no one else should try to force her. Thread should be closed.
- Status