Originally posted by Church Militant;Yeah… It’s called Iconoclasm
It is clear that the prohibition is not iconoclastic as some preach, but based upon the intent of the one making and using the image. Since NO CATHOLIC EVER kneels down before any image to worship it we are not idolaters at all. We are not stupid enough to confuse a mass of rock, plaster, metal, or any other created thing with the almighty and ever living God of the Universe.
This is exactly why you guys have to answer questions on idol worship. I could see if these people were bowing before a statue of Christ, but they are bowing before a man. Pictures like this are the reason I like many others are not convinced.
Most likely the statue inspired their spirituality and they are praying to Jesus.
If on the other hand they are worshiping the pope or the statue of the pope, then they are in direct disobedience to Catholic doctrine. They would be committing a sin and only they are responsible for the sins they commit.
You may find it hard to believe but Catholics are not all joined at the hip. There will always be some Catholics do misinterpret doctrine and who commit sins… just as there are in other denominations.
Why is it that you and other non-Catholics get to define what is and isn’t worship for Catholics?
We’ve explained, over and over again, including at the excellent discussion of Church Militant regarding iconoclasm, and you’re not convinced. There’s really not much more we can do, and we really don’t have to answer to or explain ourselves to you or anyone else for what’s in our hearts when we kneel and pray.
I wonder why Protestants get testy when I ask how they’ve been gifted with the ability to read the hearts of the people they’re accusing of idol worship.
Closely associated with the veneration of the Saints is the honor paid to their relics and images. The principle underlying the veneration of relics is set out by St. Thomas of Aquinas: “It is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of God as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor every relic of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies which were temples of the Holy Spirit dwelling and operating in them, and as destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God himself fittingly honors such relics by the working of miracles at their presence.”
A similar reason justifies the veneration of their images. The images recall the Saints to our minds, and the reverence we pay to them is simply relative, as the images themselves, considered materially, have no virtue in them on account of which they should be honored. The honor paid to them passes to the rational persons, the Saints, whom the images represents. The purpose of the practice is explained by the second Council of Nicea in its decree concerning sacred images: “that all who contemplate them may call to mind their prototypes, and love, salute and honor them, but not with true ‘latria,’ which is due to God alone . . . For honor paid to the images passes to the prototype, and he who pays reverence to the image, pays reverence to the person it depicts.”
This question was answered centuries ago. You need to bone up on your history.
Why is it that you hold all Catholics accountable for the perceived errors (remember, these are just errors in your interpretation, as you have no way of knowing what the people in that photo are really doing) of everyone in the Catholic Church? Do you think that the pope, bishops and priests have the ability to police each and every action undertaken by each and every one of the 1 billion Catholics on this planet?
Should I regard your pastor and church as completely errant because someone in your congregation does something in direct contradiction to your church’s doctrines? See how ridiculous this could become?
Excellent point, Tomster. I wonder why people like NonDenom think they can come along centuries after something has already been addressed by the Church and then nail her on it, as if this will catch us all by surprise and cause us to flee the Church in horror.
So is that the level of proof that is needed to convince someone of a position nowadays? Thats awesome because now I can just look at that site real quick and say that whoever made it is racist because theres a poor looking mexican in his pictures and I can assume all mexicans are poor and chubby. I can also deduce from the picture that he has his hands out so he must either be getting ready to attack someone or wanting for someone to give him money. Or eventhat he got caught trying to steal that truck behind him!!:rolleyes:
Of course, everyone knows that’s what chubby Hispanic men are all about. I mean, I once saw one speak loudly to his wife in public, so I know for a fact that all chubby Hispanic men dishonor their wives by berating and embarrasing them in the same manner. Why isn’t the Hispanic hierarchy doing something to stop this? They’re obviously complicit in the crime, and can’t be trusted to teach us anything!
The answer may be that individuals like NonDenom do not have a grasp of Incarnational Theology.
In case you are reading these posts NonDenom, the Iconoclasts of the eighth and ninth centuries saw the veneration of images as a relapse into paganism. Against them St. John Damascene (+ 749 A.D.), the Patriarchs Germanus (+ 733 A.D.) and Nicephorus (+ 829 A.D.) of Constantinople and the Abbbot Theodor of Studium (+ 826 A.D.) defended the Church’s practice. They stressed above all the relative character of the veneration and also pointed out the educational value of the images.