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

[TK421]

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

This presupposes that not using art is the default stance, but sacred vessels, art, and architecure have been in existence since Moses and the founding of the nation of Israel, and part of their liturgy. It was after defiling the sacred vessels of the temple that the hand appeared, to write on the wall the declaration of King Belshazzar’s death.

It was much, much later in the 7th century with Mohammed and later with protestantism, that certain individuals became aggressively opposed to the use of sacred art.

 

[dcana]

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

They seem more of a “big deal” to Protestants than to Catholics, IMO.

We do not modify our beliefs or practices according to what heretics do or say. We follow Apostolic teaching and practice. The use of statues and icons seems to me to be among the least important differences between Protestants and Catholics.

 

[spiderweb]

I apologize for the length, I hope it’s helpful….

There is one key element that is often overlooked in the verse typically quoted in Leviticus 26:1 that forbids worship of images and statues, and that is “to bow down unto it (statues), for I am the Lord thy God”. According to The Blue Letter Bible, the Hebrew word “shachah” is translated as “bow down” but it is most often translated as “worship”. It is clear from the context itself that the prohibition is to not make images or statues for the purpose of worshipping those statues or what they represent which were false gods, because there is only One “the Lord thy God”. This prohibition does not prevent the making of the angels on the Ark of the Covenant, nor the angels and the 12 oxen statues along with other things in the temple (2 Chron. Chap 3-4). Yet God blessed the temple and filled it with His glory (2 Chron. 7:1). The temple was also a copy or imitation of the heavenly temple (Hebrews 8:5). It seems obvious that there is a difference between making statues for the purpose of worshiping them or what they represent (the golden calf), versus making statues that can be used to glorify God’s creation in the worship of Him (angels and oxen).

The inspired Word of God as recorded in the Bible does make a distinction between “worship” and “veneration” as a general principle. The same Hebrew word for “worship” is also translated as “obeisance” or simply “bowing down” demonstrated in 1 Kings 1:16 and 23, as the “veneration” towards a king or superior. It is also used in “veneration” before angels as depicted in Genesis 19:1 and other places. So the same word is used to describe both worship of God and veneration (but not worship) of others. Even the body language is the same; bow down or lay prostrate, but one is worship and the other is not. This same general principle can be applied to statues and images. Do not worship them, but they may be used for the greater glory of God by “venerating” his creation.

As Catholics, we believe that the saints and angels are truly alive with Christ in heaven. Because they are alive in Christ, we can also have a personal relationship with them through Christ because they now participate in his Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). If there was no problem in “venerating” those people or angels visibly present as recorded in the Bible cited above, then there is no problem in venerating those saints and angels invisibly present and alive in Christ now. Is there a problem falling to ones knees in worship of God? No. Is there a problem falling to ones knees in “veneration” of saints and angels? According to the word of God, as referenced above, No.

Was Jesus fully human and therefore part of God’s creation? Yes. As such, images of Jesus, as part of creation, can be used to glorify God. Was Jesus fully Divine? Yes. As such, images of Jesus can also be used in the worship of God, not in the worship of the image, but in the worship of God whom the image represents. The same applies to angels and saints except they would be used for “veneration” of that angel or saint in the context of the greater glory of God in whom they serve for all eternity.

continued…

 

[spiderweb]

Continued from above…

Why does it matter and why are Catholics so “touchy” about this issue? From a theological standpoint, the use of images (in particular the crucifix), attest to both the humanity of Christ (part of Creation), and the divinity of Christ (used in the worship of God). The use of the image of a crucifix speaks a deep theological Truth. This is also why denying the usage can be called a heresy.

Statues of saints and angels are also a constant reminder of people who have already run the race and won (Heb 12:1) and are alive with Christ in heaven which is another theological truth. There is a reason why advertising is used on television. The more we see something, the more it gets ingrained within us. It helps to make it real, not only the trials that need to be overcome, but the crown of glory waiting for those who persevere to the end. Theological truth matters.

Originally Posted by MysticMissMisty

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?

A. Jesus spoke Truth even when it offended people. His intention was not to offend anyone, nevertheless, people are sometimes offended by truth. We don’t water down our beliefs or practices just so people won’t be offended. The Bible offends some people, but no true Christian would ever advocate giving up the Bible so it won’t be an issue for others.

B. For personal devotions, they do not have to be used. I also do not have to have photographs of my family, but every time I see their picture, I am reminded of them. Using images during the mass or other worship events speaks theological Truths about Jesus, God, salvation history, God’s love, mercy, and the list goes on and on. In a way it’s our Creed displayed visibly for the world to see. Our Creed is a very big deal.

C. A solution shouldn’t involve watering down the faith by chopping out a part of the faith. The solution is to explain and teach the Biblical Truth about images (as I tried to briefly do in my previous post) so that they can understand it and then appreciate it. For the most part, many non-Catholics who oppose images, have never really tried to understand it from the Bible. They quote
Leviticus 26:1 but never look into it any deeper then the surface meaning. Even though many people claim to have a problem with the Catholic view of images, most of them would never defile a cross, crucifix or statue, because on some level they do understand that these images are important and that they represent God, or God’s friends. In fact most Churches have some form of Cross out front and they don’t view it as “just art”, it’s a statement of their Faith. Jehovah’s Witnesses are notorious for destroying any images or statues, yet they routinely depict Jesus and many biblical scenes in their magazines. If what Catholics have is wrong, then what they depict is also wrong on the same principles, most just have never thought about it at all.

What you are suggesting to my mind, seems as though joining the Catholic Church would be more important than knowing The Truth of Jesus Christ, not just on the issue of images, but on any issue that divides. Why not stop teaching the Trinity in order to bring Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses into the fold? No, Truth matters to the extent that I would be willing to risk offending someone in order to bring them to the Truth. But whether they accept the truth, or are offended by the truth, is something that I can’t control.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by MysticMissMisty
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 (1 Corinthians 8). Both issues are arguably quite small ones, so I don’t understand why the one is treated so much differently than the other.

The idea of eating meat sacrificed to idols was a form of worship or even covenant with that particular idol or god. Therefore, Christians who ate food sacrificed to these idols could be seen as worshiping a false god and/or rejecting Christ by other Christians. From this standpoint, Paul says it’s better not to do this and possibly cause scandal, or worse yet for someone to think that it was ok to worship these idols.

On the flip side, Paul also says that there is only One God and that what is represented by these idols does not exist (1 Cor. 8:4). Therefore, as a believing Christian, knowing that these idols are nothing, there is nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to them because to a Christian the worship or covenant relationship with those idols means nothing. It’s just eating food. So whether someone eats that food or does not eat that food, it doesn’t matter (1 Cor 8:8).

So for Paul, to abstain from eating that meat sacrificed to idols in order to avoid misleading someone is better (1 Cor 8:13) precisely because it safeguards the theological truth of one God, and one Lord (8:6). While Paul abstains from that meat to protect and at the same time proclaim theological truth, Catholics will continue to use images and statues to both protect and proclaim theological truths. They are not treated differently, they are treated the same way and for the same reasons, and I would argue they are not small issues. If there are any similar sacrifices to idols occurring today, the Catholic Church would say, “Don’t participate in it, don’t eat the meat” to avoid scandal or misleading people.

These images are a “big thing” not only because they represent our God, our Salvation, our Faith, our Creed, and our One Family in Christ, but because they proclaim these truths to everyone. In a sense, they are a graphical Bible that speaks all languages. You are suggesting that we give up a version of the Bible that unites all Catholics regardless of language, simply because you or others don’t understand it or appreciate it. They are “sacred images” in a similar way that the Bible is “sacred text”.

 

[PJM]

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?

They fall into a category termed “sacramentals”

Their function is to through PERSONAL-Piety, it holds-out the possibility of bringing one into closer union with God.

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?

Because it Can, it SHOULD. I’m unclear by your reference of “fighting for” ; please clarify

If you mean to ask should Catholics abrogate the practice so as to be more like P’s. Definitely NOT. This art is a bridge with our historical past; leading US potentially into the future with Christ.

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?

YOU can [may] say whatever you wish. However, the numbers of miracles worked by GOD through these depictions is enormous. It is indisputable that these images serve a very worthy purpose in Faith formations.

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?

The Idolatry charge, invented as it is to damage Catholic credibility, is no doubt one with traction within the Protestant communions. WHY so? Because it seems quite logical from a PURELY human perspective.

BUT WHAT DOES GOD THINK OF SUCH CHARGES?

Exod.25: 18, 20 And you shall make two cherubim [angels] of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be

Num.21: 8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live"

Here we find God COMMANDING Moses twice to build for HIM< Idols!

Clearly IF one cares to actually take note of the fact; its NOT “Idols”; NO! Its the intended USE of the Idols that makes it a good or a evil.

ANYTHING that can lead one to a closer relationship with GOD is GOOD

Everything that ACTUALLY [not merely charged as such] competes with God is evil:thumbsup:

Yet, images have always (and I mean no offense when I say this) been a “touchy” subject for Catholics throughout the ages

God WILLING [only God can and DOES grant sufficient grace for right understandings] the above discourse will direct you to God’s TRUTH. Please READ prayerfully what GOD commanded Moses to create for HIS Ark of the Covenant

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”.

I confess ignorance on this “war”. I SHALL research it so the next time we chat I’ll be more informed.

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,/

NO, Here’s why

Neither Faith nor Morals can ever be subjected to personal evaluations. TRUTH is, as it must be, singular per defined issue. As Benedict XVI said: “THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH & MY TRUTH OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH”

Are these images in an absolute sense “essential” to one’s salvation? Most-Likely NOT! BUT are they quite possibly beneficial; VERY LIKELY; Yes!

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.

Actually eating meat SACRIFICED to IDOLS [OTHER gods}; done knowingly & freely could easily become a MORTAL SIN Clearly OTHER gods come into competition here.

**NOT so with Catholic Art, whose purpose is to assist, to direct, to AID one in there Faith-path walk with God… Catholic Art is to remind us that others before us have FOUGHT the Good-fight and won; and thereby encourage US, to follow their life’s examples.

Easter Blessings,

PJM

Gratias vobis plurimas!

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

 

[dcana]

BUT WHAT DOES GOD THINK OF SUCH CHARGES?

Exod.25: 18, 20 And you shall make two cherubim [angels] of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be

Num.21: 8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live"

Here we find God COMMANDING Moses twice to build for HIM< Idols!

Clearly IF one cares to actually take note of the fact; its NOT “Idols”; NO! Its the intended USE of the Idols that makes it a good or a evil.

I disagree. Those objects were images, not idols. An idol was an image of one of the pagan “gods”, treated and worshiped as such, such as the golden calf. Those were simply little figures of angels in the one case and a snake in the other, not pagan deities, which is why God allowed and commanded them to be made. God does not command something that He has prohibited.

Certainly, if one made an object of a serpent with the intention of it being a representation of the god “Wu” and worshiped this image as a god, then it would be an idol.

It is the making of images of “gods” and the worship of them that is proscribed by God. Nothing else, unless you want to accuse God of commanding idolatry.

 

[godisgood77]

Apologies in advance for the simplicity of my response. First, icons and images are not a big deal for many, many Catholics. For those that they are, it is simply a way to aid in prayer to God. I reminder of the life and example of Catholics past who have shown themselves to be close to God and serve as templates or examples for us to follow.

 

[Chatter163]

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?

[edited for space constraints]

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?

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.

[edited for space constraints]

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.

So here is what I am seeing on the OP, which I find neither respectful nor impartial. Whether or not the OP intended the post to be that way, that is what I am reading.

Specifically, I see:

• The repeated claim that icons/images are a “big deal” for Catholics. I don’t know that to be the case at all, as most Catholics don’t give them a second thought. I find it to be a "big deal’ only to those Protestants who object to them.
• The absurd implication that since “Protestants have seemed to get along just fine in their worship without recourse to images,” that Catholics should presumably get with the Protestant program and discard them because, after all, there is no way that their presence can be “really significant enough that it should be made into such a big deal.”
• The use of a scriptural verse to first imply that sacred images are a concession to weak-mindedness, if they are tolerated, and even worse, the implication that Catholics and Orthodox should get rid of them because others (read: Protestants) might not like them. "Should Christians who supported reverence of images have not accommodated to those who were ‘weaker’ "? I’m not at all clear as to how or why Catholics and Orthodox might “accommodate” Protestant objections. Frankly, what Protestants have or don’t have in their churches is not my concern, so I don’t know why they should be concerned about what we have in ours.
• The suggestion that ecumenical concerns are so important that Catholics should downplay outward expressions of the communion of saints, which is part of the Apostles Creed, and therefore an unchanging element of our faith. “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)?”

No, the suggestion that the Catholic Church should compromise teachings and practices that predate the Protestant reformation by more than a millennium is actually patently offensive, and not at all a genuine search for understanding. The faith does not get compromised to appease those who are not ready to accept it, Instead the OP comes cross as a veiled attack upon the Church, even if it was not meant that way.

The question could have been worded something like, “I have never understood why images are such an important part of Catholic life. Would someone care to explain this to me?” But that isn’t what happened. Instead, we are given a “question” that proceeds to lecture Catholics on why sacred images are a stumbling block for Protestants, and really should be dropped. Worded that way, it simply does not sound like a sincere inquiry.

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints…”

 

[PJM]

I disagree. Those objects were images, not idols. An idol was an image of one of the pagan “gods”, treated and worshiped as such, such as the golden calf. Those were simply little figures of angels in the one case and a snake in the other, not pagan deities, which is why God allowed and commanded them to be made. God does not command something that He has prohibited.

Certainly, if one made an object of a serpent with the intention of it being a representation of the god “Wu” and worshiped this image as a god, then it would be an idol.

It is the making of images of “gods” and the worship of them that is proscribed by God. Nothing else, unless you want to accuse God of commanding idolatry.

OK And might you have MISSED my point?

The POSTER I replied to the “OP” was maing a POINT that Catholics beliefs & practices were:

[1] wrong!

[2] Counter-productive to converting P’s

[3] Unnecessary as in useless [really]

Easter Blessings,
PJM and I’d LOVE to to hear back form the OP

Easter Blessings,

PJM

 

[mattp0625]

So here is what I am seeing on the OP, which I find neither respectful nor impartial. Whether or not the OP intended the post to be that way, that is what I am reading.

Specifically, I see:

• The repeated claim that icons/images are a “big deal” for Catholics. I don’t know that to be the case at all, as most Catholics don’t give them a second thought. I find it to be a "big deal’ only to those Protestants who object to them.
• The absurd implication that since “Protestants have seemed to get along just fine in their worship without recourse to images,” that Catholics should presumably get with the Protestant program and discard them because, after all, there is no way that their presence can be “really significant enough that it should be made into such a big deal.”
• The use of a scriptural verse to first imply that sacred images are a concession to weak-mindedness, if they are tolerated, and even worse, the implication that Catholics and Orthodox should get rid of them because others (read: Protestants) might not like them. "Should Christians who supported reverence of images have not accommodated to those who were ‘weaker’ "? I’m not at all clear as to how or why Catholics and Orthodox might “accommodate” Protestant objections. Frankly, what Protestants have or don’t have in their churches is not my concern, so I don’t know why they should be concerned about what we have in ours.
• The suggestion that ecumenical concerns are so important that Catholics should downplay outward expressions of the communion of saints, which is part of the Apostles Creed, and therefore an unchanging element of our faith. “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)?”

No, the suggestion that the Catholic Church should compromise teachings and practices that predate the Protestant reformation by more than a millennium is actually patently offensive, and not at all a genuine search for understanding. The faith does not get compromised to appease those who are not ready to accept it, Instead the OP comes cross as a veiled attack upon the Church, even if it was not meant that way.

The question could have been worded something like, “I have never understood why images are such an important part of Catholic life. Would someone care to explain this to me?” But that isn’t what happened. Instead, we are given a “question” that proceeds to lecture Catholics on why sacred images are a stumbling block for Protestants, and really should be dropped. Worded that way, it simply does not sound like a sincere inquiry.

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints…”

That may or may not be true, but that language was likely something the OP heard from church leadership all her Christian life. At least she is trying to find out the truth.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Seventh Ecumenical Council. I have written on it, and I think it will answer many of your questions. You should be able to find the text of the Council online.