Why are icons/images such a big deal for Catholics?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

Why have images/icons always been such a big deal for Catholics over all these years, so much so that there were major political/religious fights over them, particularly in the 8th/9th centuries?

I mean, really, they’re just art, right? This is not to diminish the important role that art plays in society and can play in religious life. Sure, it is beautiful. Sure, it can help to elevate the mind heavenward. Sure, it can help us more fully to relate to the Divine Mysteries, to the Saints, etc, but was it really such a big deal that it was worth fighting over? After all, the Protestants have seemed to get along just fine in their worship without recourse to images and, while it may have some effect on their worship, is that effect really significant enough that it should be made into such a big deal?

Could we not say with Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 that using or not using images, like eating or not eating meat, will not commend us to God? Can we not say that each person, whether he use images or not, is doing so ultimately to God?

Indeed, this particular issue presents one of the major stumbling blocks for Protestants to become Catholics because of their fear, even if imagined, of idolatry. Wouldn’t it ultimately have been in the 8th and 9th centuries, and, indeed, wouldn’t it be best today for purposes of Church unity, simply for those who use images either a) to give them up so that it won’t be an issue for Protestants, b) concede that images aren’t such a big deal and that you can either use them or not or c) some other solution that would bring Protestants more readily into the fold? AGain, are images really so important that Catholics would have Protestants not come into what they understand as the fullness of Truth because Protestants can’t get past the idolatry issue (again, whether real or imagined)? What if this issue for some Protestant or other is the only thing standing between them and converting to Catholicism? Wouldn’t, say, giving up images be best again for Church unity and even for the conversion of souls into fuller Truth?

Yet, images have always (and I mean no offense when I say this) been a “touchy” subject for Catholics throughout the ages. They have seemingly always been a rather big deal to them. I’m just trying to understand why this is the case and, indeed, whether it should be.

As I understand it, there have always been certain Christians who have objected to one degree or other to religious (and even secular) images/icons/art but the whole matter blew up bigtime during the 8th/9th centuries with the “iconoclast heresy”. Again I ask why this all has to be such a big deal, even to the point of calling it a “heresy”. Honestly, I just don’t understand even its being defined as such, especially if it is just about art and not about some far more important spiritual issues which could legitimately be called “heresies”. What made iconoclasm so bad that it was ultimately deemed a “heresy”? Why could there not have been (and still be) some accommodation to the (even erroneous) opinions of those who are on the non-image side of the issue?

Again, we might take the exaple of men who erroneously though that an idol was anything in the world in 1 Corinthians 8. Yes, Paul says that their consciences were “weak”; he acknowledges that they were in error. However, he seems to try to accommodate them by advising those Christians who “had knowledge” )(of the truth) to be careful about eating meat sacrificed to idols around them. Granted, thsi was primarily to prevent the weaker brother from sinning (at least as he saw it), but the other points raised in this passage are arguably relevant to our present issue under discussion. Even further, though, there may have been Christians throughout time who, because they saw others with “knowledge” or even because they felt pressured to do so, revered images with a guilty/unclean conscience (that is, even though they thought doing so was idolatrous). Should Christians who supported reverence of images have not accommodated to those who were “weaker”? What makes the issue of images/icons/art any different from that encountered by Paul with regard to the eating or not eating of meat, especially that sacrificed to idols?

I am asking all of these questions sincerely and not to antagonize in any way. I am just really confused about why images are such a big thing and why they are any different from issues like eating meat or not eating it. Both issues are arguably quite small ones, so I don’t understand why the one is treated so much differently than the other.

Gratias vobis plurimas!

P.S. If I have placed this thread in the wrong forum, please feel free to move it!

 

[1ke]

Why have images/icons always been such a big deal for Catholics over all these years, so much so that there were major political/religious fights over them, particularly in the 8th/9th centuries?

Religious statues and images predate Christianity and are part of our Jewish heritage, vis-à-vis the temple and the Ark of the Covenant.

The iconoclasm of those centuries had its origins in the heresy and non-Christian religion of Islam. {and some other various Christian heresies of a dualist bent}

I mean, really, they’re just art, right?

No.

They are sacramentals.

but was it really such a big deal that it was worth fighting over?

Yes.

After all, the Protestants have seemed to get along just fine in their worship without recourse to images and, while it may have some effect on their worship, is that effect really significant enough that it should be made into such a big deal?

Yes.

Could we not say with Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 that using or not using images, like eating or not eating meat, will not commend us to God? Can we not say that each person, whether he use images or not, is doing so ultimately to God?

No.

Protestants and non-Christians also have trouble with many other Catholic teachings. Should we abandon them to make it easier? No. They are essential to the faith.

You seem to view veneration of images as non-essential. It is not. Veneration of images is as much a part of the deposit of faith as anything else.

Indeed, this particular issue presents one of the major stumbling blocks for Protestants to become Catholics because of their fear, even if imagined, of idolatry. Wouldn’t it ultimately have been in the 8th and 9th centuries, and, indeed, wouldn’t it be best today for purposes of Church unity, simply for those who use images either a) to give them up so that it won’t be an issue for Protestants, b) concede that images aren’t such a big deal and that you can either use them or not or c) some other solution that would bring Protestants more readily into the fold? AGain, are images really so important that Catholics would have Protestants not come into what they understand as the fullness of Truth because Protestants can’t get past the idolatry issue (again, whether real or imagined)? What if this issue for some Protestant or other is the only thing standing between them and converting to Catholicism? Wouldn’t, say, giving up images be best again for Church unity and even for the conversion of souls into fuller Truth?

no.

Yet, images have always (and I mean no offense when I say this) been a “touchy” subject for Catholics throughout the ages. They have seemingly always been a rather big deal to them. I’m just trying to understand why this is the case and, indeed, whether it should be.

No, they have not “always been a touchy subject”. They were problematic in the Eastern Byzantine Empire, never in the Western Church, and this problem was a result of the rise of Islam. Islam is considered a Christian heresy arising out of Arianism by some scholars and a pagan/non-Christian religion with some Christian and Jewish elements incorporated into it by others.

Whichever, it is false.

 

[HelenRose]

You said, "I mean, really, they’re just art, right? "

That is where I lost you. Music is just art? Paintings are just art? Literature is just art? Sculptures are just art? Art is just art? Human expression just art? The beauty of God’s world just art? God the supreme artist just art?

We just don’t speak the same language.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

First of all, thanks for the explanation/information.

Any other (name removed by moderator)ut would be awesome as well, of course.

They are sacramentals.

Could you explain this in greater detail? How are they considered sacramentals? I am genuinely not clear on this.

Thanks again.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

You said, "I mean, really, they’re just art, right? "

That is where I lost you. Music is just art? Paintings are just art? Literature is just art? Sculptures are just art? Art is just art? Human expression just art? The beauty of God’s world just art? God the supreme artist just art?

We just don’t speak the same language.

I honestly think that I have as much appreciation for art as you do! In fact, I am pretty sure of it!

When I said “just art”, I meant it in a relative sense, in comparison to more important spiritual/moral issues which may have been more worth fighting for/over than images.

Yes, I love and treasure all forms of art. It is a huge part of my life, in fact. I’m just saying that, like the Pauline issue of food sacrificed to idols (food will not either cause God to reject or accept you), it might be a smaller matter than many would have it to be.

What I’m asking is, is this issue really worth the Church disunity that it inevitably engenders/engendered throughout much of history?

 

[1ke]

Could you explain this in greater detail? How are they considered sacramentals? I am genuinely not clear on this.

Thanks again.

Sacramentals can be actions or they can be objects.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c4a1.htm

 

[1ke]

What I’m asking is, is this issue really worth the Church disunity that it inevitably engenders/engendered throughout much of history?

yes.

 

[Alex_H]

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

 

[sallybutler]

Many of the icons and images that we now treat as art were originally a way to help people learn and remember the tenets of the faith. Remember that widespread literacy is a recent development.

They often contain symbols that we now longer are used to, but people during the time that they were originally created would. Children would have heard their parents telling the stories of the Gospels based on what those images reminded them of. Additionally, people would have felt reassured that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, etc were with them, much like we do when we were a cross or a crucifix or when we put up pictures of Jesus with the little children in our babies rooms.

 

[edward_george]

The point of the Second Council of Nicaea was not simply to allow mere art. Rather, it was too combat the rejection of images used in worship on the basis of a rejection of the Incarnation. If God became man, then images of the God-man, and by extension the saints, cannot be evil. And these images are not what’s worshipped, but they point beyond themselves to a higher reality. So it’s not just about art, it’s about the relationship of God to the world and properly understanding how that works and its implications.

-ACEGC

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Many of the icons and images that we now treat as art were originally a way to help people learn and remember the tenets of the faith. Remember that widespread literacy is a recent development.

^This. A phrase you may hear sometimes is that stained glass and other church images are the “poor man’s Bible,” ie they givethose without the time and means to be educated in literacy a visual means to learn the Scriptures and Christian history/teachings. Some would say that in a time and place (like the US, for instance) where literacy is widespread that this would render images unnecessary. Yet many Catholics these days do not understand their faith, and in my small experience (though I know correlation does not necessarily equal causation) the Catholic Churches that have been built or “restored” with visual minimalism and lack of images tend to be the ones with the most watered-down theology.

 

[gus]

I suggest you move this thread to Eastern Catholic forum for a deeper understanding of iconography.
One of the things the post Vatican II Western Church has been accused of
Is a creeping iconoclasm. To a degree we have been sadly guilty.

 

[mattp0625]

Salvete, omnes!

Why have images/icons always been such a big deal for Catholics over all these years, so much so that there were major political/religious fights over them, particularly in the 8th/9th centuries?

I mean, really, they’re just art, right? This is not to diminish the important role that art plays in society and can play in religious life. Sure, it is beautiful. Sure, it can help to elevate the mind heavenward. Sure, it can help us more fully to relate to the Divine Mysteries, to the Saints, etc, but was it really such a big deal that it was worth fighting over? After all, the Protestants have seemed to get along just fine in their worship without recourse to images and, while it may have some effect on their worship, is that effect really significant enough that it should be made into such a big deal?

Could we not say with Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 that using or not using images, like eating or not eating meat, will not commend us to God? Can we not say that each person, whether he use images or not, is doing so ultimately to God?

Indeed, this particular issue presents one of the major stumbling blocks for Protestants to become Catholics because of their fear, even if imagined, of idolatry. Wouldn’t it ultimately have been in the 8th and 9th centuries, and, indeed, wouldn’t it be best today for purposes of Church unity, simply for those who use images either a) to give them up so that it won’t be an issue for Protestants, b) concede that images aren’t such a big deal and that you can either use them or not or c) some other solution that would bring Protestants more readily into the fold? AGain, are images really so important that Catholics would have Protestants not come into what they understand as the fullness of Truth because Protestants can’t get past the idolatry issue (again, whether real or imagined)? What if this issue for some Protestant or other is the only thing standing between them and converting to Catholicism? Wouldn’t, say, giving up images be best again for Church unity and even for the conversion of souls into fuller Truth?

Yet, images have always (and I mean no offense when I say this) been a “touchy” subject for Catholics throughout the ages. They have seemingly always been a rather big deal to them. I’m just trying to understand why this is the case and, indeed, whether it should be.

As I understand it, there have always been certain Christians who have objected to one degree or other to religious (and even secular) images/icons/art but the whole matter blew up bigtime during the 8th/9th centuries with the “iconoclast heresy”. Again I ask why this all has to be such a big deal, even to the point of calling it a “heresy”. Honestly, I just don’t understand even its being defined as such, especially if it is just about art and not about some far more important spiritual issues which could legitimately be called “heresies”. What made iconoclasm so bad that it was ultimately deemed a “heresy”? Why could there not have been (and still be) some accommodation to the (even erroneous) opinions of those who are on the non-image side of the issue?

Again, we might take the exaple of men who erroneously though that an idol was anything in the world in 1 Corinthians 8. Yes, Paul says that their consciences were “weak”; he acknowledges that they were in error. However, he seems to try to accommodate them by advising those Christians who “had knowledge” )(of the truth) to be careful about eating meat sacrificed to idols around them. Granted, thsi was primarily to prevent the weaker brother from sinning (at least as he saw it), but the other points raised in this passage are arguably relevant to our present issue under discussion. Even further, though, there may have been Christians throughout time who, because they saw others with “knowledge” or even because they felt pressured to do so, revered images with a guilty/unclean conscience (that is, even though they thought doing so was idolatrous). Should Christians who supported reverence of images have not accommodated to those who were “weaker”? What makes the issue of images/icons/art any different from that encountered by Paul with regard to the eating or not eating of meat, especially that sacrificed to idols?

I am asking all of these questions sincerely and not to antagonize in any way. I am just really confused about why images are such a big thing and why they are any different from issues like eating meat or not eating it. Both issues are arguably quite small ones, so I don’t understand why the one is treated so much differently than the other.

Gratias vobis plurimas!

P.S. If I have placed this thread in the wrong forum, please feel free to move it!

Hi there,

So as previously noted, Catholics like our icons because they serve as reminders to us. We don’t see beauty in our place of worship as a bad thing. It’s rather normal for us.

In Galatians 3, Paul admonishes the Galatians for being so focused on the law despite the fact that Christ is portrayed as crucified before their eyes - e.g. they have reminders of Christ’s sacrifice.

Again, for us this is normal and not a big deal. This only becomes a big deal when Protestants use it as anti-Catholic propaganda.

The following interview from The Journey Home program, in part, indicates that many Protestant denominations intentionally develop their theology in a way that seems “not Catholic”:

youtube.com/watch?v=mYSp9Q3CsEU

This is a cute short video about Protestant and Catholic views on icons:

youtube.com/watch?v=2X7AmJm6MAU

Enjoy!

 

[dmar198]

Why are icons/images such a big deal for Catholics?

First, I think you might like the following articles:

Sacred Images and the New Testament
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/five-arguments-for-sacred-images-from.html

Sacred Images and the Early Church Fathers
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/sacred-images-and-pre-nicene-fathers.html

The reason sacred images are such a big deal is because they are a part of the faith, as shown above. We are prepared to die even for the smallest article of faith. St. Francis de Sales discusses this in his book The Catholic Controversy, in reference to Scripture:

“Are not the Holy Scriptures the true testament of the eternal God, drawn by the notaries deputed for this purpose, duly sealed and signed with his blood, confirmed by death? Being such, how can we alter even the smallest point without impiety? … Our Lord by the Holy Scriptures shows us what we must believe, hope for, love, and do, and this by a true expression of his will; if we add, take away, or change, it will no longer be the true expression of God’s will. … If it be a true statement, whatever right have we to alter it? Our Lord puts a value on the iotas, yea, the mere little points and accents of his holy words. How jealous then is he of their integrity…!” source

In light of that, you must see why it is so important to Catholics. We see our Whole Faith that way: even the jots and iotas are important. We can’t deny sacred images even if they are considered a tiny part of the faith; rather we are prepared to die for them, because Scripture says they can be holy.

Regarding the political fights of the 700s and 800s, do be aware that the iconoclast heresy was not simply that some people didn’t want to use images. They actively went into Catholic churches and smashed our sacred images, and they denied that God’s grace can be conferred through sacred images. We had to defend the Church’s faith because sacred images have been a part of our heritage from the beginning, and we had to defend our churches because they are sacred. So we met in council and said the iconoclasts were wrong.

That being said, if someone doesn’t want to use sacred images in their personal, private devotions, I do not think the Church says they have to. Perhaps there is an exception for the Cross. St. Paul says we should glory in the Cross in Galatians 6:4, and the Church honors the Cross in the liturgy. Since the Church has defined that sacred images can confer grace if contemplated prayerfully, I believe Catholics must accept that doctrine. But we don’t have to use them in any particular devotion, as far as I’m aware, other than having the cross displayed prominently at Mass.

I hope this helps. Please let me know. God bless!

 

[Mintaka]

Well, first off, all of us humans were made “in the image and likeness” of God. So rejecting all images would mean killing all humans.

Problematic, eh?

Then there’s Jesus, the ultimate image and likeness of God.

Then there’s the technology called writing, which consists exclusively of making symbolic images of spoken speech. And the Bible is written.

So yeah, it would seem that images are extremely important to all Judaism and Christianity. Nobody is as iconoclastic as all that. That means that the real question is what kind of images are permitted by God, and which ones are not.

From very early on, many of the early Christians seem to have believed that it was not wrong - and in fact, was very good - to create images of Jesus and of Biblical figures, because Jesus had come to earth to reveal Himself as a living image of the invisible Father. At almost the same time, we begin to hear about miraculous images not made by human hands, and about saints who were also artists. St. Luke was famous not just as an evangelist, but also as someone who allegedly drew a portrait of the Virgin Mary. And so on.

There are some exceptions (like St. Epiphanius, who became shocked by the innovative idea of woven tapestry images of Biblical scenes being used as a sort of iconostasis veil for the altar area of an Egyptian church he was visiting, ripped them up in a moment of concern, and then agreed to pay back the parish for his destruction), but usually iconoclasm or a disapproval of images was associated with a dislike of all popular devotion, a dislike of large tracts of the Bible, a downgrading of Jesus to a limited being who is not God, and other less than fun things. In the East, the later Iconoclastic Controversy was also linked to a belief by iconoclast Byzantine emperors that this would somehow appease Muslims, or that Muslims were more pious than Christians because they didn’t have icons. Neither of these beliefs worked out.

It is also worthwhile to note that many Jewish synagogues from Jesus’ time have been found by archeologists to have included many mosaics and paintings of Biblical subjects, mostly animals and plants, but sometimes humans too. As long as people weren’t worshipping these images as gods, they had no problem with it. There is also a long tradition of medieval Jewish manuscripts which include drawings of Biblical scenes and people.

(I once saw an awesome medieval Jewish Bible illumination of an Egyptian house full of hopping frogs.)

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Salvete, omnes!

Why have images/icons always been such a big deal for Catholics over all these years, so much so that there were major political/religious fights over them, particularly in the 8th/9th centuries?

I mean, really, they’re just art, right? This is not to diminish the important role that art plays in society and can play in religious life. Sure, it is beautiful. Sure, it can help to elevate the mind heavenward. Sure, it can help us more fully to relate to the Divine Mysteries, to the Saints, etc, but was it really such a big deal that it was worth fighting over? After all, the Protestants have seemed to get along just fine in their worship without recourse to images and, while it may have some effect on their worship, is that effect really significant enough that it should be made into such a big deal?

Could we not say with Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 that using or not using images, like eating or not eating meat, will not commend us to God? Can we not say that each person, whether he use images or not, is doing so ultimately to God?

Indeed, this particular issue presents one of the major stumbling blocks for Protestants to become Catholics because of their fear, even if imagined, of idolatry. Wouldn’t it ultimately have been in the 8th and 9th centuries, and, indeed, wouldn’t it be best today for purposes of Church unity, simply for those who use images either a) to give them up so that it won’t be an issue for Protestants, b) concede that images aren’t such a big deal and that you can either use them or not or c) some other solution that would bring Protestants more readily into the fold? AGain, are images really so important that Catholics would have Protestants not come into what they understand as the fullness of Truth because Protestants can’t get past the idolatry issue (again, whether real or imagined)? What if this issue for some Protestant or other is the only thing standing between them and converting to Catholicism? Wouldn’t, say, giving up images be best again for Church unity and even for the conversion of souls into fuller Truth?

Yet, images have always (and I mean no offense when I say this) been a “touchy” subject for Catholics throughout the ages. They have seemingly always been a rather big deal to them. I’m just trying to understand why this is the case and, indeed, whether it should be.

As I understand it, there have always been certain Christians who have objected to one degree or other to religious (and even secular) images/icons/art but the whole matter blew up bigtime during the 8th/9th centuries with the “iconoclast heresy”. Again I ask why this all has to be such a big deal, even to the point of calling it a “heresy”. Honestly, I just don’t understand even its being defined as such, especially if it is just about art and not about some far more important spiritual issues which could legitimately be called “heresies”. What made iconoclasm so bad that it was ultimately deemed a “heresy”? Why could there not have been (and still be) some accommodation to the (even erroneous) opinions of those who are on the non-image side of the issue?

Again, we might take the exaple of men who erroneously though that an idol was anything in the world in 1 Corinthians 8. Yes, Paul says that their consciences were “weak”; he acknowledges that they were in error. However, he seems to try to accommodate them by advising those Christians who “had knowledge” )(of the truth) to be careful about eating meat sacrificed to idols around them. Granted, thsi was primarily to prevent the weaker brother from sinning (at least as he saw it), but the other points raised in this passage are arguably relevant to our present issue under discussion. Even further, though, there may have been Christians throughout time who, because they saw others with “knowledge” or even because they felt pressured to do so, revered images with a guilty/unclean conscience (that is, even though they thought doing so was idolatrous). Should Christians who supported reverence of images have not accommodated to those who were “weaker”? What makes the issue of images/icons/art any different from that encountered by Paul with regard to the eating or not eating of meat, especially that sacrificed to idols?

I am asking all of these questions sincerely and not to antagonize in any way. I am just really confused about why images are such a big thing and why they are any different from issues like eating meat or not eating it. Both issues are arguably quite small ones, so I don’t understand why the one is treated so much differently than the other.

Gratias vobis
P.S. If I have placed this thread in the wrong forum, please feel free to move it!

You confuse icons with art. They are not the same. Also, a lot of RC churches don’t have icons but rather they have sacred art. When we venerate an icon, our veneration is transferred to the Saint the icon represents. By banning icons, you are effectively denying the incarnation. Christ can be depicted because He became visible. It would only make sense not to venerate the image if Christ never assumed manhood.

 

[1ke]

You confuse icons with art. They are not the same. Also, a lot of RC churches don’t have icons but rather they have sacred art.

In the East, icons.

In the West, statuary.

Both are venerated.

Many other sacramental objects have images either sculpted or painted on them-- medals, sacred images, stations of the cross, the tabernacle, altar, etc.

 

[HelenRose]

I honestly think that I have as much appreciation for art as you do! In fact, I am pretty sure of it!

When I said “just art”, I meant it in a relative sense, in comparison to more important spiritual/moral issues which may have been more worth fighting for/over than images.

Yes, I love and treasure all forms of art. It is a huge part of my life, in fact. I’m just saying that, like the Pauline issue of food sacrificed to idols (food will not either cause God to reject or accept you), it might be a smaller matter than many would have it to be.

What I’m asking is, is this issue really worth the Church disunity that it inevitably engenders/engendered throughout much of history?

I am glad to hear that you appreciate art forms.

When Catholics hold the Rosary in their hands and pray the Rosary together we are united.

Catholics are united in their devotion to Mary. Catholics are united with appreciation of Joseph. When I walk into any Catholic Church and see the beautiful works of art that symbolize our love for the Mother of God, the love Jesus felt for His step father, the angels and the history, I am united with all Catholics everywhere.

If other Christians want to use our art and devotions for reasons of disunity, that is their problem.

 

[EveningSkye111]

You said, "I mean, really, they’re just art, right? "

That is where I lost you. Music is just art? Paintings are just art? Literature is just art? Sculptures are just art? Art is just art? Human expression just art? The beauty of God’s world just art? God the supreme artist just art?

We just don’t speak the same language.

Exactly!

 

[TK421]

Hi Misty,

That isn’t something the Church is ever going to do, and not because it isn’t willing to sacrifice, but because it would be cause tremendous spiritual harm and be submitting itself to what is false. God is not a minimalist and it would be a holocaust upon human creativity to remove the countless treasures of sacred art throughout the world, and all the sacred art that is yet to be produced.

“Art” in its complete sense includes any visuals, architecture, dance, song, chant, or other creative human expression. It was an indispensable way of human’s expressing adoration & zeal for God in the Old Testament, Psalms, Early Church, and throughout the centuries, and always will be. With visual sacred art, such as statues or icons, these can be blessed and become sacramentals. A sacramental is something you use in order to edify yourself and point you to towards God. So a physical rosary, a cross or crucifix, a statue, etc, are all common sacramentals.

Islam and certain sects of Protestantism have an iconoclastic philosophy towards sacred art, but this isn’t the sole reason that they are kept away from the Catholic Church. There are many, many other critical points of doctrine that distinguish them from the Church.

Even setting all of the above aside, there is a more immediate question: how would one even go about doing this? If an artist – in love – produces an icon of Jesus & Mary and wants to have it hung up in the sanctuary, does the Catholic Church send a squad in order to prevent this from happening? Does the artist get reprimanded for this? Or the priest? Or the parishioners? Would it become “illegal” for parishes to have pictures or statues that are made? What about private homes or rectories or retreats? Would this become sinful or disobedient? And what about the centuries-old art that already exists? Would Notre Dame need to be destroyed and rebuilt? Or St Peter’s?

The answer is of course no. Sacred art is an act of love and therefore a treasure. The solution to this problem is to discuss this topic as it arises in an articulate, compassionate, and orthodox manner, and allow the Holy Spirit and human reason to work together in removing a person of these scruples.