catholics depict God the Father, and the Blessed Trinity. This is Idolatrous (Deut 4) is it not?

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 06, 2002

Answers

Bozo:
Tell us what you know about idolatry. How do you define idolatry?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 06, 2002.

I respond, simply, that the Trinity cannot be idolatry. Idolatry is the worship of that which is not God. God has revealed himself to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, when we worship the Father, we worship God, because the Father is God. When we worship the Son, we worship God, because the Son is God. when we worship the Holy Spirit, we worship God, because the Holy Spirit is God.

The Athanasian Creed We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), October 07, 2002.

I am not knocking the Trinity. Please, don't get me wrong! I'm a Nicæan, Chalcedonian Christian to the back teeth!

In Deut 4:15-19 God argues that <<15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb (Sinai) out of the fire.

Therefore, watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape.>>

What has changed with the Fleshtaking? We have now seen his perfect image (Col 1:15; Jn1:14, 18) in Jesus so we may now represent Him. We have still not seen the Father (except in Jesus) let alone the totality of the Blessed Trinity, so it would take serious brazenness to attempt such a feat.

There is iconography of the Eternal Father (cf Sistine Chapel) and even of the Trinity itself (eg as three angels seated at table, of a man with three faces). Where is there backing from scripture or from tradition for this? and please don't say 'Nicæa II' because they didn't argue for images of the Father/Trinity, but of Jesus, the Theotokos, angels, saints etc.

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 08, 2002.

Mr. Bozo,

Have you ever seen the picture of the last vision of Fatima? Although, it is considered private revelation, the Church does recognize Fatima as valid. In this vision the whole Trinity, as well as our plan for salvation is all revealed in this simple image. I will try to link it for you, if I can, if not follow this link

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), October 09, 2002.

Let me see if I understand you -- it isn't that you are questioning that the Trinity exists, but are saying that it is idolatrous to *picture* the Trinity in artwork, icons, etc. - is that correct?

-- Christine L. (chris_tine_lehman@hotmail.com), October 09, 2002.

That's right. I love the trinity.

-- mr nozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 09, 2002.

Where in scripture or tradition does the Church allow images of the Father/Trinity? The catechism says that the invisible and incomprehensible God isn't depicted! When did the church change her mind?

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 13, 2002.

Private revelation must conform to existing Public revelation. All the presence of the Trinity in that picture from Fatima showed was that Fatima itself was a load of crap, as it very clearly contradicted Holy Tradition. That is, unless someone can show me otherwise.

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 13, 2002.

Greetings in the Names of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His holy Mother Our Lady of Walsingham!

In Mr. Bozo's more lucid moments he did strike a chord in relation to the depiction of the Father. In Orthodox Tradition, the depiction of the Father as anything other than the hand coming out of the cloud (from The Book of Daniel), for instance as an old man, is absolutely prohibited, going back to the Deuteronomic/Leviticus prohibitions, whereas the depiction of the Son, in light of the Incarnation, and the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove is permitted, because Christ Jesus is the Son, the Word of God made flesh

The Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicea II in 787 spoke to this matter, when condemninc Iconoclasm as destructive of the truth of the Incarnation and thus by extension our salvation, when it not only allowed, but commanded the veneration of Icons, especially Icons of Christ Jesus and Mary Theotokos, and the Saints. It did not support the depiction of the Father in any form other than the hand in the cloud. To the best of my knowledge, both Ss. John of Damascus ("On the Divine Images" and Theodore the Studite ("On the Holy Icons") as well as S. Basil ("On the Holy Spirit") mention this in their defence of Icons, that we do not depict the Father Who is uncircumscribed, but only the Son, Who because He took our human natuer upon us became circumscribed according to the flesh, and thus can be rightly depicted.

Just some thoughts from a wayward brother.

Michael

-- Michael H Lilly, Jr. (mhl7818@yahoo.co,), October 17, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Michael.
I believe that you are mistaken in saying, "In Orthodox Tradition, the depiction of the Father as anything other than the hand coming out of the cloud (from The Book of Daniel), for instance as an old man, is absolutely prohibited ..."

All three persons of the Trinity, to emphasize their equality, have been pictured, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, as three identical winged men. Consider, for example, this centuries-old, Russian Orthodox icon, which was actually mentioned above by "mr. bozo."

You said that the Divine Father could not be pictured as anything other than a "hand" -- "going back to the Deuteronomic/Leviticus prohibitions."
I'm sorry, but Christians have not considered themselves bound by such prohibitions of the Mosaic Law, now that Jesus has revealed the deity in a visible, tangible form. That's why the heresy of iconoclasm was crushed.

Everyone knows that the Father is not a man (human being), and everyone also knows that the Holy Spirit is not a dove. Yet it is perfectly permissible -- at least in the Western tradition -- to depict those divine Persons symbolically as an older man and a dove.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

Sorry. Let's try that link again. Please click here.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

You haven't answered the question I asked. My question was: Where in scripture or tradition is such iconography declared to be permissible?

"Everybody knows" is hardly an answer!

Does Nicæa II allow it? Florence? Vatican II? WHERE???

Until this can be answered I will declare myself victorius in this debate. ;)

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 28, 2002.

CORRECTION: I said "'Everybody knows' is hardly an answer"

What I meant to say was more on the lines of: The incarnation did not mean an open season for image production. Nicæa II argues that because God the Son took flesh we can represent that. No more. If everybody knows that the Father doesn't look like an old man, then why wasn't it permissible to represent Him (poetically) as such BEFORE Jesus?

We have not seen the Father except in Jesus, so in that regard, icons of Jesus are enough. That silly old fella with a beard, or that cosmic pope is pure, 100% speculation.

I shall attempt an analogy to show what I mean: It is like a drunken man quoting Psalm 104:15 (where the Psalmist praises God for wine that gladdens the heart) to say that drunkenness is O.K. and calling all who gainsay him "Teetotalers".

Just we can now use images of some things for veneration, does not mean that we can use images of everything!

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), October 28, 2002.

"That's why the heresy of iconoclasm was crushed."

Iconoclasmclasm? :-D

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), October 28, 2002.

Mr Bozo,
What if the Church makes use of imagery and artistic license, to a limited degree? God interacts with men and women, not machines. Our minds resort to conceptual language; the human temerament is prone to imagining what it can't see.

But that isn't to say God has ever ''exposed'' His mysterious essense in any concrete way. Not even the face of Christ Himself is revealing of the mystery, because we could only see Him externally; no matter how divine His aspects might appear. God is unknowable.

Yet, in the Old Testament, prophets and patriarchs ''saw'' the Lord. In the book of Daniel, chapt. 7; an ''Ancient of Days''-- and standing at His right One who was a son of Man; -- visions of an anthropological sort, we have to suppose.

Moses saw a bush burning on the mountain; and Abraham received ''three men'', whom he addressed as Lord. It was the Holy Trinity; yet we know God is more mysterious than this.

But the Church has always realized this, and teaches it to us. There's no need to moan and groan about any ''idolatrous'' imagery. We leave that to ignorant fanatics.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 28, 2002.

You haven't answered the question I asked. My question was: Where in scripture or tradition is such iconography declared to be permissible?< /i>

"Everybody knows" is hardly an answer!

Does Nicæa II allow it? Florence? Vatican II? WHERE???

[W]e declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.

One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message.

Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church -- for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her--

we decree with full precision and care that,

like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and longfor those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly thisis not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other. So it is that we really follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic group and the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received. So it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king is in your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.

Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr's holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people.

Anathemas concerning holy images

1.If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema. 2.If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. 3.If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema. 4.If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

Until this can be answered I will declare myself victorius in this debate. ;)

Sorry Mr. Bozo, victory is denied ;-)

Rerum Novarum

-- I. Shawn McElhinney (ismac@lycos.com), October 30, 2002.

This is a "conversation," not a debate, sir. We are not here to be "victorious," but to learn and share. If you want to clobber people, find another place to do it.

-- Cool it with (Those@Darned.Italics), November 03, 2002.

Mr. Bozo was the first to declare "victorious in this debate".

-- You reap what you sow. (Tit@for.tat), November 04, 2002.

Mr McElhinney, the quote that you have supplied from Rerum Novarum has bolstered my case.

It mentions "Christ our God", "evangelical scenes", "the cross", "any martyr's holy relic", "our Lady without blemish". Where was the invisible and incomprehensible God? It was not there.

I am still waiting for someone to show me from scripture or tradition where iconography of God the Father or the Blessed Trinity was allowed.

Touché!

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), November 04, 2002.

Bozo-San

Does iconography make you upset? Please explain why. I'm curious because my computer wallpaper is a beautiful photo scan of Michelangelo's Pieta. It makes me shiver with delight when I look at it. Other lovely statues by this sculptor are his Moses, and the great David, which to me, doesn't carry the same spiritual wallop. If one looks up at the Sixtine ceiling, however, and sees the artistic treatment he gave the Creation narratives, it makes us appreciate the holiness and majesty of God no end. That's what art is meant to do, Bozo; raise our spirits up to Him. Get a life, dear Boy!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.

Eugene, that was a very Unchristian ending to your message. You have no problem bleating when someone calls u silly, but this person had a serious concern. There are ways to answer questions in a Christian manner bro. Don't tell ppl who have concerns to get a life. How would u feel if you asked your priest about a doctrine and he told you to get a life ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 04, 2002.

Dear Oliver,
Thanks for the fraternal correction. Yes, I hope Mr. Bozo (how serious can he be?) deserves a respectful answer to these preoccupations. Can you offer him a good one?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 05, 2002.

I mean, I should think, not hope.

Up /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 05, 2002.

Bozo, I myself don't go for imagery either. Like you I don't think that statues etc can even come close to represent God in a holy or powerful way. Yes one can argue that Moses lifted the bronze serpent and also the priests were instructed to make the cherubims, but really, you have to get back to God's economy.

I always try to stress this - An excellent example is the Law given through Moses. Look at what it did to the pharisees. They revered the law without seeing Christ Himself. Where is Christ in this age ? In one sense He is seated at the right hand of the Father in the heavens. In another sense He is dwelling within our human spirit.

Remember the people who made a golden calf and they likened it to Jehovah ? This made God extremely furious. To those people , that's what God was to them. This example should show us how limited our concept of God is. Yes we can scoff at those people who made the calf, but you know who was doing it with them ? Aaron ! This was someone serving God, close to God, and yet they came up with something so idolatorus.

Even with the best intentions we need to be absolutely humble and say, oh Lord, what compareth to thee ? How can I liken thee ? God is inexhaustable. A statue can only capture God's humanity, and even that cannot be fully expressed in a statue. Furthermore, a statue cannot talk back to you, and a statue cannot do anything for you. God is in our spirit, that is where He dwells. I don't need any statues to enhance my feelings toward God or to think Him as all powerful, I already feel that way.

However, if Catholics want to do it bro, I guess it's up to them, it makes them happy and they are responsible for themselves before God. Before we do anything, we really need to ask the Lord, this is what it is to deny ourselves, to die to ourselves, and to live Christ that Christ would be all and in all to us.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 05, 2002.

Oliver,
i respect your feelings. But I also know they're the product of a short (?) lifetime of slanted opinions about my Catholic faith.

I've been friends with a simply precious man; a black Christian from the South. No one could accuse him of negativity or a mean spirit. Yet, one day, discussing Christian religion, he reacted to the mention of Catholics as if they just ''couldn't'' be real Christians. His rationale--?

''Gene, says he: I caint't allow with bowin' to statues. No-- them isn't real Christians if they would ''bow'' to a statue.''

His mindset is the result of generations of anticatholic propaganda in the Bible Belt. Catholics adore statues! Is that true? Is it false??? Nobody knows, but it has a weight of its own.

The Big Lie; after you hear it stated as fact a thousand times, no objection any longer registers in a protestant's mind. It becomes true.

Your version of the integrity of artistic figures is the particular one tempered by this bias for hundreds of years. It brands Catholics idolaters against reason. Why would a Catholic adore clay or stone? Very obviously, it is a replica of the person of Christ we see depicted; not Himself. No one has the slightest love or affection for the image. It means something other than what you look at.

Our Lord has His eyes on our heart. Is it the opinion of non-Catholics that someday, at the last judgment, Jesus will really say-- ''Gene; you had idolatrous relations with a clay statue of me. That is why you are now being condemned to eternal damnation.'' This is the obsession and fear of so many non-catholics who, as I've complained before, adore the Holy Bible. They worship a fetish; one which can't be held up to question. Bibliolatry. In their eyes, an artistic representation is idolatry, with no exception, always. It is Pharisaically certain. It's the LAW.

Oliver; you may believe or ''care'' for whatever you wish. You aren't speaking for God, of this I'm reasonably sure. He isn't as narrow-minded about art as you may be. It's a free country; just don't worry about us Catholics. We are free too.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.

I do like iconography of Jesus, the saints, angels, etc. They are not my concern. Has anyone actually read the passage in Deuteronomy 4?

That (Deut 4) did not outlaw images of saints, angels either. Just God in His unseen divinity. Try to find where it was over turned. It was not overturned when Jesus came, and neither Nicea II, nor Rerum Novarum imply that it was.

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), November 06, 2002.

Dear Mr. Bozo: Jesus Himself liberated His followers. He made us see Our Father; certainly not that unseeable, inscrutable unapproachable God of Moses, an I Am of indescribable mystery. MOre than once, Jesus called Him a loving Father-- we're no longer a wild tribe just leaving the wilderness after forty years of wandering.

Oliver thinks we return to a golden calf for a god whenever we conceptualize Him. --Well, are we guilty of making ''graven images''??? Does that image we now love, Our Eternal Father riding atop the Shekinah-- obstruct our view of His infinite perfection? Certainly not.

We know the ''graven image'' taboo of the Israelites had its immediate necessity because the world around them adored a whole swarm of stone idols. Most notably Egypt, where they had been exposed to the evil of plain idolatry. The law against a graven reproduction had nothing to do with artistic expression. It was an injunction against false gods /

For our separated brethren and you to persist in a mythologized concept of a ''jealous God'' who sees a rival in every statue-- trivializes His infinite glory. He's bigger than that!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.

As if anything is about to convince Oliver;
You aren't serious when you tell us: ''Furthermore, a statue cannot talk back to you, and a statue cannot do anything for you. God is in our spirit, that is where He dwells. I don't need any statues to enhance my feelings toward God.'' --I hope.

Did any Catholic ever expect the statues to ''talk back'', or even to ''hear'' us??? God hears us; with or without an image close by. --It might not enhance your feelings; but who ever says we're enhancing our feelings? It enhances your feelings to post in this forum, I presume. Why? Because you feel it will please God in heaven; becoming in here his public servant. --Or is it an idol, the keyboard you press to your heart? No-- it's only an OUTLET. It gives you love for God from where you sit.

Yes, you'll complain that He isn't very far, He lives within your heart. Did I make a mistake, saying you can love Him from afar? The same feeling ''enhances'' our soul's love; in our appreciation of fine art at the service of God. Because that's what those ''holy'' images are: at the service of a loving God. The art shows our appreciation of the One we love. Even as we look inwardly, and find Him in our hearts.

I know that's my own feeling. I don't think yours is in any way more pure or saintly, Oliver.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.

In the Old Testament, God was always a god who dwelt with His people. (Exodus 29:44-46 makes this clear.) I'm not actually sure that God was never refered to as a Father-figure, but was certainly refered to upon many occasions as a Husband. To my mind, the similie of sexual union is even more intimate, than that of a Father.

What changed in this regard, was that God now dwelt as a man, rather than in the Ark, and now dwells in all Christians by His spirit.

With regard to you comment about the idea of God being "jealous" being mythological: it is wrong. God's nature didn't change one jot after Jesus. It can't. He was Tri-une then, he is still Tri-une today. He was compassionate and loving back then, and he still is today.

God told us back then to be careful not to depict what we have not seen, and I see no reason to scrap this.

Was the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-10) the Father? I don't know. What does Holy Tradition say?

Tag.

-- mr bozo (mr_bozo@lycos.com), November 07, 2002.

Mr. B,
In those days God lived amidst His chosen people, in the tent first, later a temple.

You should be informed Christ is living today amidst His people. Not only in spirit, as you think. Our Lord lives in the Blessed Sacrament within the tabernacle (tent) of our Church. Living, aware, body, blood, soul, and divinity. The Body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. That's a subject other than pictorial or graven reproductions. But just so you realize, He isn't ''gone'' from the people He's chosen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 07, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), November 12, 2002.