[Apologetics] Bigotry in Chicago

[Stephen Korsman]

Hi

I think that's a very good argument ... and I also like the way you manage
to see both sides when it comes to the justification by grace / faith /
works issue.

As for the image of God the Father in the Sistine Chapel ... I don't know.
I know of a lot of icons of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit is often
depicted as a dove.

Trinity
http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm
http://www.comeandseeicons.com/jfl03.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_Icon
http://www.nd.edu/~artslide/sniteicons/htmls/htmls/divine.html - very clear
distinction between the 3 Persons

Holy Spirit:
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/afieromata/pnevma/icons_en.html (lots of them)
http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/holy_spirit.html (modern)

God the Father:
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/Icon.htm (seems modern,
explanation at
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/1st-icon.htm)

"He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9) may have something to do
with it.

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't list this prohibition in the article
on II Nicaea at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm; and the decree
only excludes the Father and the Spirit from the list of icons, and I don't
see an explicit condemnation of such icons -
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/NICAEA2.HTM.  When I look at
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm, I really don't know what I am
reading - some parts seem to be written by the anti-image side, but seem to
fall under the heading of the definition of the council.  Maybe it's just
too late at night for me!

Lastly, at what point does one stop a valid practice in order to accommodate
those we might offend, or to whom we might send the wrong message?  When
does one educate, and when does one compromise?  When do we stop calling our
priests "father" ... when do we make the pope dress like a Protestant
minister ... when do we stop asking saints to pray for us?

God bless,
Stephen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart at bmsi.com>
To: "Stephen Korsman" <skorsman at theotokos.co.za>
Cc: "Apologetics Group" <apologetics at gathman.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Apologetics] Bigotry in Chicago


> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Stephen Korsman wrote:
>
> > I don't believe that the Catholic position is indefensible.  It's simply
a
> > matter of deciding to what extent a spirit God can be worshipped in a
> > physical way.  The Bible - New Testament as well as Old - is filled with
> > physical forms of worship.
>
> The 7th Ecumenical council dealt with this issue.  Their decision was
> that images of God the Father or Holy Spirit were indeed verboten, since
> "no man has seen God [the Father] at any time".  (Why is the image of
> God the Father in the Sistine chapel OK?)  However, images of
> Christ and Mary are needed because Christ took on the form of a man,
> and Mary was a flesh and blood human also.  The Gnostic heresy
> (among other things) claimed that Jesus only appeared to take on human
> form, but was actually only a spirit - hence the beginning of John's
letter:
> "That which eyes have, our ears have heard, and our hands have handled
> concerning the Word of Life."
>
> To ban all images of Christ and the saints of history is to engage in a
> form of Gnosticism (unless your culture bans images of all persons, as
> some do).  The Christian School I went to went so far as to cut
> pictures of Jesus (but not Mary or the Apostles!) out of all textbooks.
> This was clearly out of line in the Gnostic direction.  My Catholic
> friends may disagree, but I believe that giant 200 foot floodlighted
> statues of Mary with the banner "Queen of Heaven" are out of line
> in the other direction, and even if technically acceptable, certainly send
the
> wrong message to those not intimately familiar with Catholic doctrine.
>
> Ok, you say, images are fine.  But not worshipping the image!  This
> is a culturally relative problem.  Would you be comfortable with
> active disrespect of an image or symbol of Christ?  By immersing
> a cross in urine, for instance (to cite a real example)?  For my Catholic
> friends, bowing before a statue of Christ or Mary is showing respect.
> Just as in Oriental culture, failure to bow to another person in greeting
> would be a sign of disrepect, for a Catholic to gaze upon an image of
Christ
> and fail to bow would be tantamount to spitting on it.  In oriental
> martial arts, even in America, students are required to bow to the
> instructors, and to their parents.  This does not mean that
> instructors or parents are worshipped.  Catholics are required to show
> visible respect for holy images.
>
> As a Protestant, you need not bow before the statues, if to you
> that would imply idolatry.  Hopefully, Catholics will have the grace
> not to interpret your lack of visible respect as blasphemy.  Hopefully,
> you will have to grace not to automatically interpret bowing as idolatry.
>
> When my Dad visited Greece, he visited the pagan temple of Zeus.
> Devotees brought tiny silver images of their diseases, and hung them
> on a statue of Zeus to pray for healing.  Then he visited the
> Orthodox church.  Parishioners brought tiny silver images of their
> diseases, and hung them on a statue of Mary to pray for healing.
> Clearly, syncretism is alive and well.  But not all bowing to statues
> is syncretism.
>
> -- 
>       Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
>     Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703
591-6154
> "Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
> a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
>
>