The primacy of Scripture?

[Hisalone]

Instead of highjacking the Sola Scriptura thread I am beginning this one.

Is there any Catholic or Orthodox that are unconfrtable with this?

Firstly, I am not sure who did that translation. But this is the translation that I found:

***The holy images of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be honored in like manner as the Gospel-book. For, as the words of the Gospel lead us to salvation, so also do the pictures through their colors produce the same effect, ***and all, learned and unlearned, can derive benefit therefrom. The message that comes to us through the written word, the same is brought home to us through the color of the Picture. Since the honor directed toward the picture reverts in intention to the prototype, it follows, in accordance with right reason and ancient tradition, that pictures must be honored in the same manner as the Gospel-book and the picture of the precious cross. If, therefore, anyone does not now honor the picture of Christ, he shall not see His form when He comes to glorify His saints. Likewise do we design pictures and images of His Blessed Mother and of the angels, as also the Sacred Scriptures picture them for us in words; also of the Apostles, prophets, martyrs, and all the saints .

Conclusions:

Point 1: No it does not support Sola Scriptura in any way. We all affirm that the Gospel leads to salvation. The question is whether we follow the Gospel of not

Point 2: If you are saying that we should uphold this canon, then don’t you think we should uphold it in it’s entirety with all it’s implications. So read the rest of the text . Slowly

 

[Hisalone]

My question centers on the statement that icons/paintings are on par with the written word. Are all in agreement?

 

[JMJ_coder]

The key word is “book”. The book of the holy Gospels is not the same thing as the Gospel itself. The Gospel is intangible, it is (in essence) a message, the Good News. The book of the Gospels is one way of conveying that message. Sacred icons are another vehicle of delivering the message. Whether one sees a stained glass of the Visitation or reads the account in the Gospel of Luke, the one and same Gospel message is being proclaimed and transmitted. In fact, the stained glass is superior when dealing with those who are illiterate.

 

[Hisalone]

The key word is “book”. The book of the holy Gospels is not the same thing as the Gospel itself. The Gospel is intangible, it is (in essence) a message, the Good News. The book of the Gospels is one way of conveying that message. Sacred icons are another vehicle of delivering the message. Whether one sees a stained glass of the Visitation or reads the account in the Gospel of Luke, the one and same Gospel message is being proclaimed and transmitted. In fact, the stained glass is superior when dealing with those who are illiterate.

Thank you for your answer
Is the book the book of scriptures ie the bible?

 

[losh14]

My question centers on the statement that icons/paintings are on par with the written word. Are all in agreement?

The passage isn’t stating they’re “on par” - ie, if you have a disagreement over the meaning of the Eucharist, you refer to John 6, not to a painting of the Eucharist. They do not have similar use.

The passage is stating that they deserve similar honor, and that honor often comes in the form of kissing Scripture and bowing before opening it. This is common in the liturgy (and I kiss the Book when I conclude my personal study as well, as a private sign of respect and honor). I should note that images of the saints are not venerated as part of the Mass, where the focus is Christ and Christ alone.

You asked if we were uncomfortable with any of this, and I’m personally uncomfortable with venerating objects because I find it leads others - possibly you included in that group - to think I’m worshipping the objects. Rather than lead others astray, I just abstain from the veneration. The sole exception is the cross or crucifix, and while it was initially difficult for me to participate in the Veneration of the Cross on Holy Thursday, I found peace when I prayed as I kissed the Cross, “Jesus, this is only because I can’t kiss your feet right now. I love you.”

 

[Carlan]

The key word is “book”. The book of the holy Gospels is not the same thing as the Gospel itself. The Gospel is intangible, it is (in essence) a message, the Good News. The book of the Gospels is one way of conveying that message. Sacred icons are another vehicle of delivering the message. Whether one sees a stained glass of the Visitation or reads the account in the Gospel of Luke, the one and same Gospel message is being proclaimed and transmitted. In fact, the stained glass is superior when dealing with those who are illiterate.

JMJ, True, True , True, and there is the Apostolic Commission, Sacred Tradition, from which the written word stems.The teaching authority of the Church, Christ’s Body, He being the head…Peace, Carlan

 

[Hisalone]

The passage isn’t stating they’re “on par” - ie, if you have a disagreement over the meaning of the Eucharist, you refer to John 6, not to a painting of the Eucharist. They do not have similar use.

The passage is stating that they deserve similar honor, and that honor often comes in the form of kissing Scripture and bowing before opening it. This is common in the liturgy (and I kiss the Book when I conclude my personal study as well, as a private sign of respect and honor). I should note that images of the saints are not venerated as part of the Mass, where the focus is Christ and Christ alone.

You asked if we were uncomfortable with any of this, and I’m personally uncomfortable with venerating objects because I find it leads others - possibly you included in that group - to think I’m worshipping the objects. Rather than lead others astray, I just abstain from the veneration. The sole exception is the cross or crucifix, and while it was initially difficult for me to participate in the Veneration of the Cross on Holy Thursday, I found peace when I prayed as I kissed the Cross, “Jesus, this is only because I can’t kiss your feet right now. I love you.”

Is “the Book” seperate from His word?

 

[Hisalone]

JMJ, True, True , True, and there is the Apostolic Commission, Sacred Tradition, from which the written word stems.The teaching authority of the Church, Christ’s Body, He being the head…Peace, Carlan

Did not Sacred Tradition (VCll) affirm that the bile was the inspired inerrant word of God?

 

[Carlan]

Did not Sacred Tradition (VCll) affirm that the bile was the inspired inerrant word of God?

Yes and all of what is in my Quote.May you be Blessed with the full truth and peace, Carlan

 

[Hisalone]

Yes and all of what is in my Quote.May you be Blessed with the full truth and peace, Carlan

So I guess my original question is answered in that you are not uncomfortable with the statement. :banghead:

 

[eucharisteo]

Hisalone,
Please read **this **link. It is part of the CAF Library, which I’ve found to be rather useful during my conversion. If it helps, I also read some of the writings that argue against these beliefs for background now. I used to buy into the anti writings until I compared the sources for the information to those of the Catholic Church, not to mention that the arguments are much more logical in the Catholic writings. Just my observation.

This link will provide you with some of the answers you seek. Individual Catholics that are not informed may give you answers that are inconsistent to the teachings of the Church. I also hear the same disparity among Protestant Christians and have learned to be charitable as a result of realizing that If Protestants can do it so can Catholics and if Catholics can do it so can Protestants. This also brings up another thing I really hate. I hate the use of the word “Protestant”, but find myself using it so I don’t have to type all the denominations under the umbrella of Protestant. Also, though I understand the arguments given by Catholics in the know, I also especially hate to use the term “Protestant” for my previous faith in the churches of Christ. We used the term “church of Christ” and argued that none other was permitted by God because it is used in the bible. But out of respect for my family and other I try to utilize their terminology as well. I do not proselytize them even when I hear them say things I don’t agree with unless it is directed at me in particular or is a slander towards other Christians. You see, they do not only condemn Catholics but anyone that is not a “member of the Lords” church [defined as the Church of Christ].

So now that I see you attempting to come across as respectful, I will try to elaborate as best I can given the time constraints given. My son just had his wisdom teeth removed an another tooth “exposed” for braces. I’ll also be taking care of my other 2 children and one the their friends. I’m in the middle of getting back to graduate school and working on teacher certification. On top of that I’m grading my yard and fixing a sewer pipe gushing leak under my house in the crawl space. This is only part of it. So I’m a bit busy and this forum is my escape.

NOTE: I took the time to read the link to freshen up my feeble mind. You could benefit also by reading it for this discussion. The work “infallible” is what triggered me to look for this link. I’ll put it simple first. The bible is inspired. The Church is infallible. To understand what I am saying please read the section “A Spiral Argument”. I also recommend reading the material under “Inadequate Reasons”.

I’ll chat later. By the way, would be kind enough to tell me about how old and what your career path is. I’ll do the same, but I think I’ve already shared that many times in the past. I went from seminarian, to business, to geology, to petroleum engineering school, joined Army, worked up to the rank of sergeatn (E-5) was on the roster for Officer Candidate School, converted to wife’s faith in 1989 after thinking about returning to seminary, wanted engineering but graduated in Geography with a minor in math and took most of the prerequisites for engineering on purpose. I changed my minor from computer science to math just to finally graduate. Worked in areial photography orthorctifying images as well as demonstrating Geographic Information Systems [my area of concentration] and basically being a “Project Manager” ever since in that field as well as an urban planner and senior engineering technician [doing everything an engineer in training does]. I have worked in the oil and gas industry and have held the title Geographic Information Systems Coordinator and Specialist. I have enough experience that upon graduating with the engineering degree I could take the EIT and the PE for licensure assuming my employers don’t die on me for required references. Now I’m getting certified to teach but still want the advanced degree in engineering for personal reasons. I want to teach and/or do research. I also plan to become a deacon once our program begins again and will most likely take distance learning courses in theology from Franciscan University. The last title “Deacon” is what I really want most out of all of this and if I luck out and find a position in the diocese I will jump on it. The rest is how I support my family. We have to be joyful in all that we do, not just that which we enjoy. I am he husband of but one wife and have believing children [biblical criteria set out in scripture for becoming and “elder” which we used to interchange with bishop. I have a better understanding of that now.] My wife is a new teacher after nearly going stir crazy taking care of children in our home along with our own. My children are 15 [driving permit ], 9 [Pokimon and Star Wars Jedi] and 5 [the never stopping energizer bunny and princess]. See profile picture for me 23 years ago at an unexpected wedding with the only thing I had to wear.

Religious background includes Southern Baptist, Non-Denomination, Church of Christ.

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone,
Please read **this **link. It is part of the CAF Library, which I’ve found to be rather useful during my conversion. If it helps, I also read some of the writings that argue against these beliefs for background now. I used to buy into the anti writings until I compared the sources for the information to those of the Catholic Church, not to mention that the arguments are much more logical in the Catholic writings. Just my observation.

This link will provide you with some of the answers you seek. Individual Catholics that are not informed may give you answers that are inconsistant to the teachings of the Church. I also hear the same disparity among Protestant Christians and have learned to be charitable as a result of realizing that If Protestants can do it so can Catholics and if Catholics can do it so can Protestants. This also brings up another thing I really hate. I hate the use of the word “Protestant”, but find myself using it so I don’t have to type all the denominations under the umbrella of Protestant. Also, though I understand the arguements given by Catholics in the know, I also especially hate to use the term “Protestant” for my previous faith in the churches of Christ. We used the term “church of Christ” and argued that none other was permitted by God because it is used in the bible. But out of respect for my family and other I try to utilize their terminology as well. I do not proselytize them even when I hear them say things I don’t agree with unless it is directed at me in particular or is a slander towards other Christians. You see, they do not only condemn Catholics but anyone that is not a “member of the Lords” church [defined as the Church of Christ].

So now that I see you attempting to come across as respectful, I will try to elaborate as best I can given the time constraints given. My son just had his wisdom teeth removed an another tooth “exposed” for braces. I’ll also be taking care of my other 2 children and one the their friends. I’m in the middle of getting back to graduate school and working on teacher certification. On top of that I’m grading my yard and fixing a sewer pipe gushing leak under my house in the crawl space. This is only part of it. So I’m a bit busy and this forum is my escape.

NOTE: I took the time to read the link to freshen up my feeble mind. You could benefit also by reading it for this discussion. The work “infallible” is what triggered me to look for this link. I’ll put it simple first. The bible is inspired. The Church is infallible. To understand what I am saying please read the section “A Spiral Argument”. I also recommend reading the material under “Inadequate Reasons”.

I’ll chat later.

Hey Eucharisteo the article you linked to appears to written by an apologist which of course is not an official teaching. The original quote I assume would be an offical teaching as that of VCll. the article does address how some may come to the conclusion that the bible is inspired by different routes. To the best of my knowledge there is agreement in how we define inspired. If we define the bible as being breathed by God into existence and we are to give icons the same honor. Tell me exactly what you are saying about icons?

 

[Carlan]

So I guess my original question is answered in that you are not uncomfortable with the statement. :banghead:

It is remarkable to me with all the head bashing you do that you are still here working these forums, what’s the point? In your case, I quickly take the advice of Jesus, I dust off my sandals, Matt10,14…Carlan

 

[benidict]

Hey Eucharisteo the article you linked to appears to written by an apologist which of course is not an official teaching. The original quote I assume would be an offical teaching as that of VCll. the article does address how some may come to the conclusion that the bible is inspired by different routes. To the best of my knowledge there is agreement in how we define inspired. If we define the bible as being breathed by God into existence and we are to give icons the same honor. Tell me exactly what you are saying about icons?

i know we are not as obsessed as protestants with this. tell me my friend. was michelangelo inspired? can you not draw a message from certain paintings? if you could not read, and all you had were drawn representations, would they not be on par with the written word? i see no problem with this. people who are blind, read brail. in a sense brail is symbolic. so is sign language. its meant to convey context and meaning to people who otherwise would not understand. Peace

 

[Joshua27]

[wow! good thread.]

I think there was true legitimacy in pictures to explain the gospels to illiterate…but today, most people in the world can read, and yet images sometimes (…[emphasis] SOMETIMES) hold more weight than what the Word(s) actually describe or say, which I think is wrong…and then - eventually - one’s “image” of the truth gets more easily burned into one’s mind than the truth itself, marrying & mixing itself with tradition…only to be reinforced by further images [paintings, drawings, etc. by new artists] until what was once innocent and necessary is corrupted and twisted into potentially being false (“non-truth”).

Were images also inspired? Sure. But at what point do we say, “OK! We’re straying too far away from the mark now…let’s ease our way back to the target (or original)”, you know?

How long before we start relying more on the “image” itself (for our salvation or “ease of mind”) rather than the source from which the image was inspired? I ask this because what if suddenly [God forbid] the statue of Peter (at the St. Peter’s Basillica) or the statue of Christ (in Brazil) was destroyed? Would those people’s faith waver or weaken, or would they say, “oh well. it’s just a statue…no big deal”? Of course we hope they have the right response, but…

To often, the history has been that people more easily put their faith in (perishable) “things” (creations & creatures) instead of God (creator) [maybe this is why one of the commandments was “do not fashion idols or images”].

 

[eucharisteo]

Hey Eucharisteo the article you linked to appears to written by an apologist which of course is not an official teaching. The original quote I assume would be an official teaching as that of VCll. The article does address how some may come to the conclusion that the bible is inspired by different routes. To the best of my knowledge there is agreement in how we define inspired. If we define the bible as being breathed by God into existence and we are to give icons the same honor. Tell me exactly what you are saying about icons?

I think you’re unintentionally reading into this more than what is being said. Have you ever heard the ancient Egyptian saying? “the eyes are the windows to the soul”. Well, icons are the windows to heaven. It’s a metaphor. A sacred icon is one that is articulated through a theological understanding. Icons in the Eastern Churches are traditionally made by the religious [monks]. There is much praying and contemplating on the mysteries in which the particular icon represents. This is how I interpret what this says. Kissing is a form of venerating in the traditional Catholic culture. Protestant in general freak out about it like I did in the beginning. It felt like I was giving an object a place of honor above people and even God. But that feeling came about through an atmosphere of those teaching against icons, sacramentals. The sacred scriptures can be translated into other languages…right? I personally see pictures and objects made through the contemplative life to be a reflection or even a translation from one language to another. This is my personal view now. So though I used to be in your shoes I really related only because I was once like you but now embrace it. I love art that expresses the beauty of God and those who have served him well. It is undeniable that when you look at a photo of a loved one it conjures up emotion. These photos, picture, object if produced properly also conjure up great emotions in people much like we feel when studying scripture, hearing a good sermon, sifting through family photos, etc. I’ll look at this thread some more and poke my head in from time to time if moved by the spirit.

 

[benidict]

[wow! good thread.]

I think there was true legitimacy in pictures to explain the gospels to illiterate…but today, most people in the world can read, and yet images sometimes (…[emphasis] SOMETIMES) hold more weight than what the Word(s) actually describe or say, which I think is wrong…and then - eventually - one’s “image” of the truth gets more easily burned into one’s mind than the truth itself, marrying & mixing itself with tradition…only to be reinforced by further images [paintings, drawings, etc. by new artists] until what was once innocent and necessary is corrupted and twisted into potentially being false (“non-truth”).

Were images also inspired? Sure. But at what point do we say, “OK! We’re straying too far away from the mark now…let’s ease our way back to the target (or original)”, you know?

How long before we start relying more on the “image” itself (for our salvation or “ease of mind”) rather than the source from which the image was inspired? I ask this because what if suddenly [God forbid] the statue of Peter (at the St. Peter’s Basillica) or the statue of Christ (in Brazil) was destroyed? Would those people’s faith waver or weaken, or would they say, “oh well. it’s just a statue…no big deal”? Of course we hope they have the right response, but…

To often, the history has been that people more easily put their faith in perishable “things” (creations & creatures) instead of God (creator) [maybe this is why one of the commandments was “do not fashion idols or images”].

since when have Catholics ever relied on images for salvation. and why are protestants so upset with Catholic art? plenty of artwork in protestant churches too. i know, i grew up protestant. and we had a really big cross ont the back wall over the pulpit. and also the banners hanging up around the church. with pictures on them! conveying different scenes from the bible. so in the Catholic Church, these are more lifelike. oh, and do you have a nativity scene set up at Christmas? also, how bout a Christmas tree? what about these symbols? are they idolotry?

 

[Joshua27]

since when have Catholics ever relied on images for salvation. and why are protestants so upset with Catholic art? plenty of artwork in protestant churches too. i know, i grew up protestant. and we had a really big cross ont the back wall over the pulpit. and also the banners hanging up around the church. with pictures on them! conveying different scenes from the bible. so in the Catholic Church, these are more lifelike. oh, and do you have a nativity scene set up at Christmas? also, how bout a Christmas tree? what about these symbols? are they idolotry?

I didn’t mean to come off as “non-Catholic against Catholic” (but I understand that I’m a Protestant by default for not being Catholic). I also grew up with both, thoroughly innodated with each…and as you’ve said, BOTH (indeed) do have images, icons and artwork.

But here’s the problem I’m addressing [for both “groups” (so to say)] using some examples:

• Crucifixes are worn and used to cast out possessive demons (from victims). The deacon or priest will point the cross at the target (and at times touch the target), while speaking a chant to expel the invading spirit. Is their power to “cast out demons and devils” found in their cross (or their prayer-water)? If it’s not, why use it? It’s not necessary…unless their faith is found in it.
• Soldiers in war will wear a small cross around their necks in battle. Many will not leave their bunker unless it’s around them. Some even - and this occurs for many non-military too - will kiss the cross around their necks before performing a perilous task. Is their **protection **found in their relic or given directly from God? If from God, why is the relic necessary…unless the relic is the source of protection? I’ve even heard some say “I’m carrying my faith with me into battle”, but why is their faith stored in their jewelry?
• Many sick people will kneel and stare at an old, magnificent painting depicting an image of Christ. They will pray to it; look at it; talk to it, hoping for their salvation. Some will even travel to different lands (like Rome or Jerusalem) to be in old arcitecture that - even though it wasn’t around during the time of Christ - makes them feel closer to Christ if but just to speed up the healing process. Is their healing found in the building, structure or painting…or is it found in faith in Christ?

Now what if - in any of these examples - the object of prayer or “focus” is suddenly destroyed just before the person was about to use it? Would they feel “weakened”, “lost”, “faithless” or that there was no way to achieve their intended result [whether for desiring **Power, Protection, or Healing]?

This is the question I’m asking…I’m not directing it at a specific religion, but at people and their “things”.

 

[benidict]

I didn’t mean to come off as “non-Catholic against Catholic” (but I understand that I’m a Protestant by default for not being Catholic). I also grew up with both, thoroughly innodated with each…and as you’ve said, BOTH (indeed) do have images, icons and artwork.

But here’s the problem I’m addressing [for both “groups” (so to say)] using some examples:

• Crucifixes are worn and used to cast out possessive demons (from victims). The deacon or priest will point the cross at the target (and at times touch the target), while speaking a chant to expel the invading spirit. Is their power to “cast out demons and devils” found in their cross (or their prayer-water)? If it’s not, why use it? It’s not necessary…unless their faith is found in it.
• Soldiers in war will wear a small cross around their necks in battle. Many will not leave their bunker unless it’s around them. Some even - and this occurs for many non-military too - will kiss the cross around their necks before performing a perilous task. Is their **protection **found in their relic or given directly from God? If from God, why is the relic necessary…unless the relic is the source of protection? I’ve even heard some say “I’m carrying my faith with me into battle”, but why is their faith stored in their jewelry?
• Many sick people will kneel and stare at an old, magnificent painting depicting an image of Christ. They will pray to it; look at it; talk to it, hoping for their salvation. Some will even travel to different lands (like Rome or Jerusalem) to be in old arcitecture that - even though wasn’t around during the time of Christ - makes them feel closer to Christ if but just to speed up the healing process. Is their healing found in the building, structure or painting…or is it found in faith in Christ?

Now what if - in any of these examples - the object of prayer or “focus” is suddenly destroyed just before the person was about to reap the full benefit of using it? Would they feel “weakened”, “lost”, “faithless” or that there was no way to achieve their intended result [whether for desiring **Power

, Protection, or Healing]?

This is the question I’m asking…I’m not directing it at a specific religion, but at people and their “things”.thank you for your response. the Power is in God alone. but he does use the ordinary for extraordinary purposes. this is biblical. what about when the apostle paul was healing people, and the Spirit of God was working so much through him, that even the hankerchiefs people touched enacted a healing? how about the prophets bones in the old testament. when a man fell dead into the prophets grave, and happeded to touch the bones, he came alive again. even if the focus of prayer is destroyed, that does nothing to diminish, what is behind the focus. i dont feel anyones faith would be destroyed. but by the same token, since they are just images, such as a cross or a statue of the Blessed Mother, would it then be alright for someone to intentionally vandelize or destroy these images? would you not feel bad, if someone intentionally vandelized a statue of Mary in some poor old persons front yard? there is a reason why i ask this. peace

 

[wmscott]

I didn’t mean to come off as “non-Catholic against Catholic” (but I understand that I’m a Protestant by default for not being Catholic). I also grew up with both, thoroughly innodated with each…and as you’ve said, BOTH (indeed) do have images, icons and artwork.

But here’s the problem I’m addressing [for both “groups” (so to say)] using some examples:

• Crucifixes are worn and used to cast out possessive demons (from victims). The deacon or priest will point the cross at the target (and at times touch the target), while speaking a chant to expel the invading spirit. Is their power to “cast out demons and devils” found in their cross (or their prayer-water)? If it’s not, why use it? It’s not necessary…unless their faith is found in it.
• Soldiers in war will wear a small cross around their necks in battle. Many will not leave their bunker unless it’s around them. Some even - and this occurs for many non-military too - will kiss the cross around their necks before performing a perilous task. Is their **protection **found in their relic or given directly from God? If from God, why is the relic necessary…unless the relic is the source of protection? I’ve even heard some say “I’m carrying my faith with me into battle”, but why is their faith stored in their jewelry?

I will just address this question: As a Vietnam and Desert Storm veteran I can tell you this. Although I was not in country, I did spend my time off the coast supporting the bravest of the brave. I wore crucifix, I had a Rosary, and I had a bible with me. These were the only “Tangible” symbols that provided a “connection” to God in a world of isolation, conflict, desolation, and despair. Do the symbols have supernatural power, no. Do these symbols provide a sense of focus is the midst of chaos? Yes most definitely. I can’t tell you how many times I would reach up to my neck and hold the crucifix and ask “Lord Jesus help me” before any perilous or dangerous task, and why not? You ask, “Why is their faith stored in their jewelry” ever hear of a lightning rod? Just kidding, but think of it as a focusing (coping) mechanism. No, I do not worship them or think they have divine powers.

• Many sick people will kneel and stare at an old, magnificent painting depicting an image of Christ. They will pray to it; look at it; talk to it, hoping for their salvation. Some will even travel to different lands (like Rome or Jerusalem) to be in old arcitecture that - even though it wasn’t around during the time of Christ - makes them feel closer to Christ if but just to speed up the healing process. Is their healing found in the building, structure or painting…or is it found in faith in Christ?

Now what if - in any of these examples - the object of prayer or “focus” is suddenly destroyed just before the person was about to use it? Would they feel “weakened”, “lost”, “faithless” or that there was no way to achieve their intended result [whether for desiring **Power

, Protection, or Healing]?

This is the question I’m asking…I’m not directing it at a specific religion, but at people and their “things”.