jskains Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 The Catholic profession of faith is threefold: We proclaim your death oh Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come again. Three events that are central to our belief. One event does not exist without the other two. All three, considered separately, are unique events, each having profound meaningsI know the position of the Catholic Church. I don't agree with it. Which is why I am not Catholic. The reality is Catholics think they are right and Mormons are wrong, and Mormons think the exact opposite. We might all work together and allow each other to exist these days, but it doesn't change the utimate reality that both religions are incompatible with each other from a "right/wrong" perspective.
Calm Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I don't see people hanging 10 commandments around their necks, or kneeling before an image of the 10 commandments to pray to God with.JMSI've seen plenty of necklaces and bracelets with little charms of the tablets signifying the ten commandments on them.There is a huge difference between using something as a reminder (such as a CTR ring) and as something to worship. Just because you see something as an idol, doesn't mean the person wearing it does.
saemo Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I don't see people hanging 10 commandments around their necks, or kneeling before an image of the 10 commandments to pray to God with.JMSDon't know why we would. We worship Jesus Christ. The images we use are not gods, and we don't worship them.
saemo Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I know the position of the Catholic Church. I don't agree with it. Honestly, I don't know what you are in disagreement with.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 The statue is theoretically not being taken up as a graven image in the actual places of worship. Catholics, for example, take it up as not only part of worship during their ceremonies, but carry it around. That would be taking upon oneself as a graven image.The Lord called for worship through the sacrement. That is not the same as having a gory image of Christ nailed to a cross. I rather worship his resurrection than his execution.Well, again, that confuses the cross with the crucifix. And the cross is more than just the symbol of Jesus' death. It is also the symbol of his sacrifice, and the sacrifice that Christians are expected to make in his name. Besides, what's wrong with carrying symbols around with you? What about temple garments?
Cobalt-70 Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) I would only add that, to my knowledge, there is no LDS prohibition regarding gore. I've seen many Catholic crucifixes (my wife's extended family is Catholic and I served a mission with hispanic people). In my experience, any gore in those depictions pales in comparison to the gore described in the BOM, such as Shiz's head being cut off, the rape/canniablism of lamanite young women, etc. etc.Plus, without going into detail, the temple ceremony used to be pretty gory prior to the 1920s. Edited March 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Pahoran Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Don't know why we would. We worship Jesus Christ. The images we use are not gods, and we don't worship them.Hindus have assured me that they don't worship the images of their gods, either. The gods, they say, are in the Indraloka, not the statuary.Which makes me wonder: has there ever been a group of worshippers who genuinely thought they worshipped their images? They offered sacrifices to them, lit candles and prostrated themselves before them, directed their prayers to them, arrayed them in gorgeous robes on high days and did all manner of other things that outsiders might suppose meant worship, but would they have agreed that that was what they were doing?And if not, have there ever been any genuine idol worshippers, and do the biblical strictures against idol worship actually mean anything?Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Plus, without going into detail, the temple ceremony used to be pretty gory prior to the 1920s.There was never any "gore" in the Temple Ceremony.Regards,Pahoran
volgadon Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Which makes me wonder: has there ever been a group of worshippers who genuinely thought they worshipped their images? They offered sacrifices to them, lit candles and prostrated themselves before them, directed their prayers to them, arrayed them in gorgeous robes on high days and did all manner of other things that outsiders might suppose meant worship, but would they have agreed that that was what they were doing?Many Russian peasents did worship the actual icons.
Pahoran Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Many Russian peasents did worship the actual icons.I don't doubt that that's true. For that matter, many Italian peasants (just as one example) seem to treat religious pictures and statues as something more than mere symbols.There's a famous Madonna-and-child picture that comes with a legend about how it was miraculously saved from Muslim invaders and supernaturally transported across the Adriatic to the safety of Christian Italy, while large numbers of living Christians were left to the tender mercies of the invaders. The picture itself is a very ordinary piece of medieval art.So with educated Catholic and Orthodox believers insisting that icons, statues and other objects are mere symbols and therefore not graven images, does that mean that the elite were not idol worshippers but the unwashed masses were?I'm not trying to be contentious here, I'm just trying to work out at what point overt, ostentatious veneration becomes worship.I guess that, following Krister Stendahl's homily on the subject, we should let educated believers, rather than uneducated ones, speak for their faith traditions. If they say they're not worshipping the statues, then they're not. The question I have is, how could anyone tell the difference?Regards,Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I know the position of the Catholic Church. I don't agree with it. Which is why I am not Catholic. The reality is Catholics think they are right and Mormons are wrong, and Mormons think the exact opposite. We might all work together and allow each other to exist these days, but it doesn't change the utimate reality that both religions are incompatible with each other from a "right/wrong" perspective.This is just plain simplistic. I wish the world really was that way- everything would be much easier
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Simple people are simple people. We have plenty of simple folk ourselves. God must love them- he sure made a whole lot of them. When you work all day in the fields there is no need for a lot of abstract thinking.They are not stupid- it's just a different way of thinking about things. And so we have our literalists too. Edited March 22, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The question I have is, how could anyone tell the difference?Without interviewing each individual I don't think you could, and I am sure there would be variations on each one. I suppose without an education in science- for what that's worth- one would find virtually everything magical. Plant a seed - it transforms into a stalk of wheat. A spark from a two different kinds of rock can burn down a village. Put water in a pot in a fire and the water disappears. Flood a dry field and it grows frogs and fish from nothing. Lightning brings fire from heaven.Why couldn't a rock which makes fire become a god?
volgadon Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I don't doubt that that's true. For that matter, many Italian peasants (just as one example) seem to treat religious pictures and statues as something more than mere symbols.There's a famous Madonna-and-child picture that comes with a legend about how it was miraculously saved from Muslim invaders and supernaturally transported across the Adriatic to the safety of Christian Italy, while large numbers of living Christians were left to the tender mercies of the invaders. The picture itself is a very ordinary piece of medieval art.Russian accounts of chudotvornye (miracle-working) icons are myriad. These icons themselves are considered to posses great power, equal to that of saints.So with educated Catholic and Orthodox believers insisting that icons, statues and other objects are mere symbols and therefore not graven images, does that mean that the elite were not idol worshippers but the unwashed masses were?This was the view of several Jewish authorities in regards to Christians. I'm not trying to be contentious here, I'm just trying to work out at what point overt, ostentatious veneration becomes worship.A thorny question to which I'm not at all certain an easy answer presents itself. The answers so often are polemical.I guess that, following Krister Stendahl's homily on the subject, we should let educated believers, rather than uneducated ones, speak for their faith traditions. If they say they're not worshipping the statues, then they're not. Excluding uneducated views from consideration leads to a skewed view of the subject. That of course holds true when you only take uneducated views as defining a religion. The best thing to do is to consider a range of possible understandings and meanings. The question I have is, how could anyone tell the difference?Regards,PahoranOne can't always tell.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Hindus have assured me that they don't worship the images of their gods, either. The gods, they say, are in the Indraloka, not the statuary.Which makes me wonder: has there ever been a group of worshippers who genuinely thought they worshipped their images? They offered sacrifices to them, lit candles and prostrated themselves before them, directed their prayers to them, arrayed them in gorgeous robes on high days and did all manner of other things that outsiders might suppose meant worship, but would they have agreed that that was what they were doing?And if not, have there ever been any genuine idol worshippers, and do the biblical strictures against idol worship actually mean anything?As I understand it, in Mesopotamia, the idol typically embodied the god. But god was more than just the idol. While part of the god's essence may have been embodied in the idol, in general the god was up in the sky looking down on them, fighting their wars, and manipulating their world. It's like how Jesus was said to be the "image of the invisible god" (Col. 1:15).Also, I believe that the word "worship" as used in the Old Testament generally is synonymous with "bowing." It was the acts of "making," "bowing," and "serving" that were specifically prohibited in the Ten Commandments. Today, we have much more abstract ideas on what it means to "worship" than probably existed when the Ten Commandments were written. People "served" their idols by presenting food, such as animal sacrifices, or things like showbread. The Hebrews pretty much treated the ark of the covenant as an idol, except that the ark evidently did not technically count as an idol. YHWH was supposed to inhabit the empty space between the cherubim, not the cherubim themselves, which technically were graven images.It is hard to argue that a cross, or even a crucifix, is less of an idol than was the ark of the covenant. Nobody today actually believes that God actually inhabits a cross or crucifix. Sometimes Catholics and the Orthodox bow before the cross, and some Protestants have objected to that on the ground that it is idolatry. However, I don't see how using the symbol of a cross could possibly be considered idolatry if you never bow down to it or serve it food.
saemo Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Hindus have assured me that they don't worship the images of their gods, either. The gods, they say, are in the Indraloka, not the statuary.Which makes me wonder: has there ever been a group of worshippers who genuinely thought they worshipped their images? They offered sacrifices to them, lit candles and prostrated themselves before them, directed their prayers to them, arrayed them in gorgeous robes on high days and did all manner of other things that outsiders might suppose meant worship, but would they have agreed that that was what they were doing?And if not, have there ever been any genuine idol worshippers, and do the biblical strictures against idol worship actually mean anything?Regards,PahoranMy understanding of idolotry is a belief that an object is possessed by a god, goddess or powerful spirit.
saemo Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Many Russian peasents did worship the actual icons.Catholics have retained a sense of worship that is different than worshipping God. It is familiar in western culture to a small extent, such as the title given to a person of "your worship", in old stories and tales. But it has fallen out of use. Distinctions for different levels of worship has not fallen out of use among Catholics, east or west. Most certainly we are not confusing this type of worship with the same worship given to God.The same for the veneration of icons or statues, it is a lower level of worship. Catholics know the difference.
Mike Reed Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 My understanding of idolotry is a belief that an object is possessed by a god, goddess or powerful spirit.Apostle Charles W. Penrose acknowledged, "When [a Roman Catholic] bows down before the image of... the Savior upon the cross, he does not profess to worship the picture or the image; these are merely methods to lead the mind to something beyond what the natural eye sees." Charles W. Penrose (1883), Journal of Discourses, 23: 343-44.
saemo Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Apostle Charles W. Penrose acknowledged, "When [a Roman Catholic] bows down before the image of... the Savior upon the cross, he does not profess to worship the picture or the image; these are merely methods to lead the mind to something beyond what the natural eye sees." Charles W. Penrose (1883), Journal of Discourses, 23: 343-44.It is one thing I like about Catholicism, worship is done with the whole body and all the senses can be employed. Sight, sound and the smell of incense....all for one purpose, the worship of God, Three In One, Holy Trinity. 1
volgadon Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Catholics have retained a sense of worship that is different than worshipping God. It is familiar in western culture to a small extent, such as the title given to a person of "your worship", in old stories and tales. But it has fallen out of use. Distinctions for different levels of worship has not fallen out of use among Catholics, east or west. Most certainly we are not confusing this type of worship with the same worship given to God.The same for the veneration of icons or statues, it is a lower level of worship. Catholics know the difference.I was not talking about Catholics.
jskains Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Hmm, one then wonders what all the fuss is about a wooden statue of Christ bleeding at the wrists or crying at the eyes that drives millions of devout Catholics to put various offerings at its feet and the Catholic church sending representatives to such an idol to verify if it is an authentic miracle.I'll avoid comments on grilled cheese sandwiches.JMS
saemo Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Hmm, one then wonders what all the fuss is about a wooden statue of Christ bleeding at the wrists or crying at the eyes that drives millions of devout Catholics to put various offerings at its feet and the Catholic church sending representatives to such an idol to verify if it is an authentic miracle.I'll avoid comments on grilled cheese sandwiches.JMSPeople view them as signs, not as an event of a possession. Signs from God are viewed as miracles. We are to offer our lives to God, sometimes an outward gesture of this offering is given, especially in places where God has given His own gesture.As far as I know a grilled cheese sandwich has never been approved. but seriously, seeing signs of God in everyday things, whether a miracle or not...I think is a better thing than not. Edited March 22, 2012 by saemo
jskains Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I am sorry, Saemo, but I think this is now a symantics issue. Just my opinion though.JMS
Cobalt-70 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Apostle Charles W. Penrose acknowledged, "When [a Roman Catholic] bows down before the image of... the Savior upon the cross, he does not profess to worship the picture or the image; these are merely methods to lead the mind to something beyond what the natural eye sees." Charles W. Penrose (1883), Journal of Discourses, 23: 343-44.I think Penrose captures the basic concept behind idolatry, which has been consistently understood since biblical times: It isn't simply about the fact that it is an image, or that you venerate to it; it is about whether or not, by bowing to or serving the graven image, you are putting another god before YHWH. Thus those faiths that bow to cross or crucifix, or even statues of Mary, are not worshiping idols, any more than Moses was worshiping the burning bush itself, like some kind of Druid, or worshiping snakes when he created the brass serpent.
Recommended Posts