Catholic University painting depicting George Floyd as Jesus

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I don't think that'd be accurate, Marshall doesn't work for Church Militant, he's independent. They might've appeared on each other's shows at one point or another, but that would be the end of it.

Thank you for the correction.

I do think there was collaboration though, I think Marshall had Tschugguel on his show once and they actually discussed what Tschugguel did, Marshall even nicknamed him "the dunker" or something like that.

Planning doesn't automatically determine the deed wasn't righteous or guided by the Holy Spirit, maybe the Holy Spirit inspired them to plan it out. God plans everything, and sometimes we're included in those designs ahead of time.

That's true, but does a Catholic unless directly told by God to so, have a right to walk into a church and knowingly take out something he or she considers evil-- Isn't that stealing? If God commanded it, it wouldn't be because he owns everything.

 

[Gnarwhal]

That's true, but does a Catholic unless directly told by God to so, have a right to walk into a church and knowingly take out something he or she considers evil-- Isn't that stealing? If God commanded it, it wouldn't be because he owns everything.

I think we all have a moral obligation to address blasphemy if we are able to do so. History is full of Saints who responded to such affronts and offenses just like that and it wasn't considered theft or destruction of property or any such thing because the idol and it's placement in a sacred space on a consecrated altar constitutes the violation of a higher law.

Perhaps @Davidnic can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this is the case.

 

[Davidnic]

It's a tricky situation theologically.

I mean go all the way back to St. Boniface chopping a tree worshiped as a false god.

You can also argue that we have other means to address these things in this day and age.

But they're definitely is an argument to be made that such things (removal) are allowable as long as the person understands they would need to face the proper human authorities punishment. Many saints have done what they felt was morally right with this kind of thing but did so realizing there would be human consequences.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I think we all have a moral obligation to address blasphemy if we are able to do so. History is full of Saints who responded to such affronts and offenses just like that and it wasn't considered theft or destruction of property or any such thing because the idol and it's placement in a sacred space on a consecrated altar constitutes the violation of a higher law.

Perhaps @Davidnic can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this is the case.

I agree that everyone has a responsibility to address blasphemy, but the how is what I am wondering about. For instance, those who entered churches to destroy legit icons in the 6-8th centuries did so believing that they were on God's side and that they were purging the church of blasphemy too. As well, they had the backing of some of the bishops. Isn't it better if one wishes to be a reformer, to take Catherine of Sienna's approach?

 

[Davidnic]

I agree that everyone has a responsibility to address blasphemy, but the how is what I am wondering about. For instance, those who entered churches to destroy legit icons in the 6-8th centuries did so believing that they were on God's side and that they were purging the church of blasphemy too. As well, they had the backing of some of the bishops. Isn't it better if one wishes to be a reformer, to take Catherine of Sienna's approach?

Good points

 

[Gnarwhal]

I agree that everyone has a responsibility to address blasphemy, but the how is what I am wondering about. For instance, those who entered churches to destroy legit icons in the 6-8th centuries did so believing that they were on God's side and that they were purging the church of blasphemy too. As well, they had the backing of some of the bishops. Isn't it better if one wishes to be a reformer, to take Catherine of Sienna's approach?

I see your point and I think this is where prudential judgement comes into play. Obviously the iconoclasts were wrong because they were destroying images that were explicitly depicting Christ, Our Lady, or one of the Saints. Their issue came from poor catechesis or exegesis in that they misunderstood the scriptures about graven images to include things like iconography.

The difference with Pachamama is that everyone and their mother knows it's a pagan idol representing some kind of earth goddess, despite some spurious claims that it's supposed to be the Blessed Mother—it's not, that same symbol has been around for ages depicting mother earth or some such thing. It wasn't claimed to be the Blessed Mother until they brought it to the Vatican.

 

[prodromos]

I think we all have a moral obligation to address blasphemy if we are able to do so. History is full of Saints who responded to such affronts and offenses just like that and it wasn't considered theft or destruction of property or any such thing because the idol and it's placement in a sacred space on a consecrated altar constitutes the violation of a higher law.

Perhaps @Davidnic can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this is the case.

St Nicholas punching Arius in the face for his blasphemy immediately comes to mind.

 

[prodromos]

I agree that everyone has a responsibility to address blasphemy, but the how is what I am wondering about. For instance, those who entered churches to destroy legit icons in the 6-8th centuries did so believing that they were on God's side and that they were purging the church of blasphemy too. As well, they had the backing of some of the bishops. Isn't it better if one wishes to be a reformer, to take Catherine of Sienna's approach?

The iconoclasts, however were the ones breaking with a centuries held tradition. Placing a pagan idol in a consecrated space is such a blatant violation of long held tradition that it is a miracle the clergy responsible didn't follow the idol to the bottom of the river.

 

[bekkilyn]

I just saw some guy on YouTube talking about this George Floyd painting. In the video, he mentioned that the University has since put up a smaller version in its place since the original one was stolen. I've been wondering to myself what sort of security measures they put in place to make certain that smaller one wasn't stolen as well, but I'm sure some clever mouse might mistake it for a piece of cheese and make off with it, perhaps accidentally dropping it into the Potomac as well. Stranger things have happened, of course.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I see your point and I think this is where prudential judgement comes into play. Obviously the iconoclasts were wrong because they were destroying images that were explicitly depicting Christ, Our Lady, or one of the Saints. Their issue came from poor catechesis or exegesis in that they misunderstood the scriptures about graven images to include things like iconography.

The difference with Pachamama is that everyone and their mother knows it's a pagan idol representing some kind of earth goddess, despite some spurious claims that it's supposed to be the Blessed Mother—it's not, that same symbol has been around for ages depicting mother earth or some such thing. It wasn't claimed to be the Blessed Mother until they brought it to the Vatican.

I'm not sure I do. I'm still trying to work that out. I don't live anywhere where Pachamama is a thing. When I think of mother earth, I don't think of a goddess, but of the actual earth and the fact that we were created from it. I can sort of see the logic behind believing that she is actually conscious in a limited sense if one views such things from the angle of the interconnectivity of life. But she doesn't have a soul in the sense we do. More importantly, she is God's handmaid, so whatever her consciousness may consist of, she behaves in perfect concert with God's will.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

St Nicholas punching Arius in the face for his blasphemy immediately comes to mind.

Are there any other examples? Because everyone cites either him or Christ turning over the tables to justify vigilantism.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

The iconoclasts, however were the ones breaking with a centuries held tradition. Placing a pagan idol in a consecrated space is such a blatant violation of long held tradition that it is a miracle the clergy responsible didn't follow the idol to the bottom of the river.

I don't know if it is a pagan idol. It's meaning seems to be an amalgam. I agree that it should have never been there simply because it breaks canon. In the same vein I don't appreciate most Catholic art since the Renaissance. I mean, how does a robust, masculine Christ draped in nothing but a loin cloth not incite human passion?

 

[Ezana]

I don't know if it is a pagan idol. It's meaning seems to be an amalgam.

"Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. In Inca mythology she is an "Earth Mother" type goddess, and a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes. She is also an ever-present and independent deity who has her own creative power to sustain life on this earth. Her shrines are hallowed rocks, or the boles of legendary trees… Priests sacrifice offerings of llamas, cuy (guinea pigs), children (The Capacocha Ritual) and elaborate, miniature, burned garments to her. Pachamama is the mother of Inti the sun god, and Mama Killa the moon goddess. Mama Killa is said to be the wife of Inti." (Pachamama - Wikipedia)

I don’t know what that sounds like to you, but that sounds like any other pagan goddess and idol to me. And regardless of our personal opinions or attitudes, holy tradition is not ambiguous with respect to the gods of the nations:

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils, but the Lord made the heavens (Psalm 96:5).

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor 8:5-6).

They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood (Psalm 106:34-38).

They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known (Deut 32:16-17).

For you provoked your Maker with sacrifices to demons and not to God; You forgot the eternal God who nourished you, and you grieved Jerusalem who nurtured you (Baruch 4:7-8).

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. [The following words are significantly relevant in the context of this idol in a Roman church.] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (1 Cor 10:20-22)

There is zero justification for an idol of a pagan goddess—to whom children have been sacrificed—to be placed on an altar consecrated for the worship of the only true and all-pure God and Lord of hosts. Wherefore the worship of all demons would be inconsistent in us who worship the supreme God; and the service of demons is the service of so-called gods, for “all the gods of the pagans are demons.” Hence we are determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death; and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks [or the indigenous people of the Andes] to be rendered to gods at the altars, and images and temples, is in reality offered to demons. (Origen, Against Celsus 7.69)

To think of all the martyrs who refused to offer so much as a tiny pebble of incense at the altar of a false god, lying in the catacombs of Rome, above which a Christian church places not mere incense, but the false god itself on its very altar. Again the words of the Apostle ring loudly: Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?



Or at least that's where we're coming from.

 

[Ezana]

Are there any other examples? Because everyone cites either him or Christ turning over the tables to justify vigilantism.

Glad you asked... A List of Saints Known to Have Destroyed Idols (catalogueofstelisabethconvent.blogspot.com)

From the conclusion of the article:

What to take from this all? As with other miraculous deeds of the Saints, the destruction of the idols can be understood symbolically as the victory of right-believing Christians over all other idols, whether they be demons pretending to be gods or man-made constructs that lead our minds from the contemplation of God. This can be done without denying the historical fact of the Church’s Saints physically destroying non-Christian religious images. Of course, when considering other deeds of the Saints, we try to use their acts as an example for our own conduct. In the case of idol-smashing, most Christians today would shy away from literally following the Saints’ example, even though non-Christian idols abound. Perhaps this is wise, though the courage of these idol-smashing Saints is certainly something worthy of imitation. In striving for this, we can pray to Christ that we may emulate the martyr’s strength:

Thy Martyr, O Lord, in his courageous contest for Thee
Received the prize of the crowns of incorruption
And life from Thee, our immortal God.
For since he possessed Thy strength, he cast down the tyrants
And wholly destroyed the demons’ strengthless presumption.
O Christ God, by his prayers, save our souls,
Since Thou art merciful.

(General Apolytikion to a Martyr)

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

If this is true then the pope himself is an idolater and false Pope bc he called the statues pachamamas himself.

"Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. In Inca mythology she is an "Earth Mother" type goddess, and a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes. She is also an ever-present and independent deity who has her own creative power to sustain life on this earth. Her shrines are hallowed rocks, or the boles of legendary trees… Priests sacrifice offerings of llamas, cuy (guinea pigs), children (The Capacocha Ritual) and elaborate, miniature, burned garments to her. Pachamama is the mother of Inti the sun god, and Mama Killa the moon goddess. Mama Killa is said to be the wife of Inti." (Pachamama - Wikipedia)

I don’t know what that sounds like to you, but that sounds like any other pagan goddess and idol to me. And regardless of our personal opinions or attitudes, holy tradition is not ambiguous with respect to the gods of the nations:

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils, but the Lord made the heavens (Psalm 96:5).

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor 8:5-6).

They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood (Psalm 106:34-38).

They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known (Deut 32:16-17).

For you provoked your Maker with sacrifices to demons and not to God; You forgot the eternal God who nourished you, and you grieved Jerusalem who nurtured you (Baruch 4:7-8).

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. [The following words are significantly relevant in the context of this idol in a Roman church.] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (1 Cor 10:20-22)

There is zero justification for an idol of a pagan goddess—to whom children have been sacrificed—to be placed on an altar consecrated for the worship of the only true and all-pure God and Lord of hosts. Wherefore the worship of all demons would be inconsistent in us who worship the supreme God; and the service of demons is the service of so-called gods, for “all the gods of the pagans are demons.” Hence we are determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death; and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks [or the indigenous people of the Andes] to be rendered to gods at the altars, and images and temples, is in reality offered to demons. (Origen, Against Celsus 7.69)

To think of all the martyrs who refused to offer so much as a tiny pebble of incense at the altar of a false god, lying in the catacombs of Rome, above which a Christian church places not mere incense, but the false god itself on its very altar. Again the words of the Apostle ring loudly: Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?



Or at least that's where we're coming from.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

So essentially, everyone is everyone else's Iconoclast? To bring this back around to the OP, BLM are destroying our icons and instituting their own. In a hundred years, there's will be destroyed and others will raise up theirs.
I understand that Christ is true God. At the same time, I can't help but feel that we are just interacting with pagans on their own level by doing essentially the same thing that they do. Should I go around and smash every statue of Buddha I see (something that is very popular where I live). Even the article suggest that this might not be the best course of action..

Glad you asked... A List of Saints Known to Have Destroyed Idols (catalogueofstelisabethconvent.blogspot.com)

From the conclusion of the article:

What to take from this all? As with other miraculous deeds of the Saints, the destruction of the idols can be understood symbolically as the victory of right-believing Christians over all other idols, whether they be demons pretending to be gods or man-made constructs that lead our minds from the contemplation of God. This can be done without denying the historical fact of the Church’s Saints physically destroying non-Christian religious images. Of course, when considering other deeds of the Saints, we try to use their acts as an example for our own conduct. In the case of idol-smashing, most Christians today would shy away from literally following the Saints’ example, even though non-Christian idols abound. Perhaps this is wise, though the courage of these idol-smashing Saints is certainly something worthy of imitation. In striving for this, we can pray to Christ that we may emulate the martyr’s strength:

Thy Martyr, O Lord, in his courageous contest for Thee
Received the prize of the crowns of incorruption
And life from Thee, our immortal God.
For since he possessed Thy strength, he cast down the tyrants
And wholly destroyed the demons’ strengthless presumption.
O Christ God, by his prayers, save our souls,
Since Thou art merciful.

(General Apolytikion to a Martyr)

 

[Ezana]

If this is true then the pope himself is an idolater and false Pope bc he called the statues pachamamas himself.

Catholics (including those here on OBOB) and non-Catholics alike have spilt plenty of ink over Pope Francis' character and controversies. Respectfully, let's not do that here.

 

[Ezana]

So essentially, everyone is everyone else's Iconoclast? To bring this back around to the OP, BLM are destroying our icons and instituting their own. In a hundred years, there's will be destroyed and others will raise up theirs.
I understand that Christ is true God. At the same time, I can't help but feel that we are just interacting with pagans on their own level by doing essentially the same thing that they do. Should I go around and smash every statue of Buddha I see (something that is very popular where I live). Even the article suggest that this might not be the best course of action..

I specifically quoted the section of the article that I did in order to avoid you coming to the conclusion to which you've seemed to come. You're implying some sort of false dichotomy—destroy all physical idols, or destroy zero physical idols. We do what we can, in the degree fitting to us. Heck, using the language with which you referred to Pope Francis, I myself am an idolater and a false Christian with the way I serve and pedestalize my passions and desires. Fighting against these is smashing the idols. Saint Paul and the Ephesians burning books and scrolls on sorcery is smashing the idols. Roman soldier and martyr Polyeuctus tearing up the edict of Decius requiring everyone to worship idols is smashing the idols. My noticing ads for psychics and other spiritually-deviant practices at bus stops and other public boards and relocating them to a garbage can is smashing the idols. A Christian elsewhere relocating a pagan idol from the altar of his beloved and sacred church to the River Tiber is smashing the idols. We smash idols in our own ways, in the degree fitting to us.

Orthodox Christians are currently undertaking a forty-day fast in preparation for the Feast of the Nativity. We're often reminded by our priests not to look at anyone else's plate but our own; what is fitting to one isn't necessarily fitting to another. In the same vein, twice daily we pray a prayer of St. Ephraim, the final line reading thus: Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou unto ages of ages. Amen.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If this is true then the pope himself is an idolater and false Pope bc he called the statues pachamamas himself.

An idolater and a bad pope. We have had about ten bad popes before and this is another one. I don’t get to say ‘false’ pope yet.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Catholics (including those here on OBOB) and non-Catholics alike have spilt plenty of ink over Pope Francis' character and controversies. Respectfully, let's not do that here.

Well, seeing as how I am trying to discern between Orthodoxy, Lutheranism (both of which consider the papal office the office of the antiChrist) and Rome, this issue is one I need to discuss and cannot be ecumenical about it. But I will take my angst to general theology in the future.