If the images were removed

[r035198x]

If Catholics were to remove all the images they have/distribute in their churches, how would that affect their doctrine or faith? Is the suggestion completely outrageous to the Catholic faith?

Apologies for my ignorance of Catholicism, the question is actually an attempt to understand it better.

 

[r035198x]

*bump*

Kind regards

r035198x(<---still too lazy to research this himself

 

[Dark_Lite]

If Catholics were to remove all the images they have/distribute in their churches, how would that affect their doctrine or faith?

Iconoclasm (the rejection of icons) was condemned as a heresy, even before the Orthodox and Catholic Churches split. If you simply "remove" them all, there wouldn't be any change. People might find the church building drab, but that's about it. If they were rejected, it would be heretical.

If we were in a hypothetical universe where icons were not part of apostolic worship, I don't see how things would be that much different. There simply wouldn't be any icons, and liturgies that use icons would instead have developed slightly differently. There would still be apostolic succession, Tradition, etc.

Is the suggestion completely outrageous to the Catholic faith?

Yes. Icons have been a part of Christian worship from the beginning, all the way up until the Reformers decided it was a good idea to remove them.

Apologies for my ignorance of Catholicism, the question is actually an attempt to understand it better.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and it's better to learn from the source rather than shady 3rd party sources.

 

[r035198x]

Thanks for the reply. Just a few points I'm still shady on.

...

Yes. Icons have been a part of Christian worship from the beginning, all the way up until the Reformers decided it was a good idea to remove them.
..

What do you mean by 'from the beginning'?


So, yes they would be an outrage if the images were removed and you say the reason for the outrage would be because people are now too used to them to be able to do without them?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks for the reply. Just a few points I'm still shady on.

What do you mean by 'from the beginning'?


So, yes they would be an outrage if the images were removed and you say the reason for the outrage would be because people are now too used to them to be able to do without them?

An over simplification this may be, but let's think about sitting in a very plain "meeting house" such as an Amish or Mennonites have (which may not even have a cross, which BTW is an icon in and of itself) vs. an old ornate RC, or Lutheran Church with beautiful stained glass depictions of Biblical events and/or depictions of the Saints as Christian examples for us to follow and other statues, icons, crosses and crucifixes; or an EO Church with every inch covered in icons. Let's say in both kinds of Churches we either get a bad sermon, or we are having a bad day, and can't get our head into the sermon, and our eyes and mind start wandering. In the ornate Churches the images and depictions keep leading us back to thoughts of faith. In the plain Church, we could very well be thinking: I could be golfing; fishing; sleeping in (not that it can't happen in a beautifully adorned Church, but it is less likely to).

For me, such art leads me back to where I should be; it does not distract or detract from our faith, but adds to it.

God bless,

Mark

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thanks for the reply. Just a few points I'm still shady on.

What do you mean by 'from the beginning'?

I mean from the beginning. As in, from 33 AD up until the Reformation when some of the Reformers decided that images were no longer a good idea, just as they decided that a few other things were not good ideas, and made up new ideas.

So, yes they would be an outrage if the images were removed and you say the reason for the outrage would be because people are now too used to them to be able to do without them?

You said "would it be outrageous?" You didn't ask if there would be outrage. I said yes to "would it be outrageous" because it makes no sense to remove what was already there and is valid. It's like asking to remove the roof of your house. Sure it could be done. You could still live in your house. You could even put a tarp up for when it rains.

You would have something akin to a functional dwelling, but you wouldn't have the full experience of a dwelling. It's also because iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy. If there would be any outrage, it would be because the Church had fallen into heresy (which it cannot do).

 

[r035198x]

.. It's like asking to remove the roof of your house. Sure it could be done. You could still live in your house. You could even put a tarp up for when it rains ...

Interesting, so Catholics liken the images in their churches to the roof on a house?
I appreaciate all the replies I've had but I'm sorry to say that none of them are really answering the part about the effect on the Catholic theology that I was interested about.
It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) the responses have been that people have attached sentimental value to them, they assist when sermons are bad and they have become an important part of the house. I was asking specifically about the effect on the formal doctine.
Is there perhaps somewhere in the doctrine where it's stated that images are as important in the church as a roof to a house? Somewhere that says that we would become uncovered if the images were removed?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting, so Catholics liken the images in their churches to the roof on a house?
I appreaciate all the replies I've had but I'm sorry to say that none of them are really answering the part about the effect on the Catholic theology that I was interested about.
It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) the responses have been that people have attached sentimental value to them, they assist when sermons are bad and they have become an important part of the house. I was asking specifically about the effect on the formal doctine.
Is there perhaps somewhere in the doctrine where it's stated that images are as important in the church as a roof to a house? Somewhere that says that we would become uncovered if the images were removed?

Having worked as a Funeral Director I have been in quite a number of RC Churches. Some big, some small, some old, and some very new, some Congregations that were wealthy, some not. As in our Lutheran Churches, some were very ornate, while others are almost completely devoid of images, other than a simple cross or crucifix on the altar.

I have also been in some reformed protestant Churches which have lots of art; very "catholic" stained glass "iconic" depictions and frescoes. One in particular comes to mind, just a few blocks away from where I live; Knox Presbyterian in Stratford Ontario. It was built as a Presbyterian Church, and has the largest, and among the most beautyful Iconic stained glass in the city. They also have a side altar (which I find strange, since they are not sacramentalists.

I have also attended RC Mass which was held outdoors on a few occasions, where there was only a Cross.

In the plain, unadorned RC Churches, the faithful still gather joyfully to participate in the Word and Sacrament ministry of their Church. So, in a word; no, they are not needed.

Yes, if iconoclasts took away the images from my Church (as happened in the Peasants Revolt in Germany during Luther's life time), we would be as upset as he was.

Would it affect our Doctrine and Worship; NO!

God bless.

 

[r035198x]

Having worked as a Funeral Director I have been in quite a number of RC Churches. Some big, some small, some old, and some very new, some Congregations that were wealthy, some not. As in our Lutheran Churches, some were very ornate, while others are almost completely devoid of images, other than a simple cross or crucifix on the altar.

I have also been in some reformed protestant Churches which have lots of art; very "catholic" stained glass "iconic" depictions and frescoes. One in particular comes to mind, just a few blocks away from where I live; Knox Presbyterian in Stratford Ontario. It was built as a Presbyterian Church, and has the largest, and among the most beautyful Iconic stained glass in the city. They also have a side altar (which I find strange, since they are not sacramentalists.

I have also attended RC Mass which was held outdoors on a few occasions, where there was only a Cross.

In the plain, unadorned RC Churches, the faithful still gather joyfully to participate in the Word and Sacrament ministry of their Church. So, in a word; no, they are not needed.

Yes, if iconoclasts took away the images from my Church (as happened in the Peasants Revolt in Germany during Luther's life time), we would be as upset as he was.

Would it affect our Doctrine and Worship; NO!

God bless.

It's easy to misunderstand people on forums so let me see if I got it right by stating what I got from your reply:

The doctrine does not mandate the icons as evidenced by the churches that you mentioned that do not have them and are still conseidered part of the church?
While some people may feel that they help (e.g when sermons are bad), they are not mandatory for joyful participation in the Word and Sacrament ministry?
Since they are not mandated by the doctrine, removing icons will not affect the doctrine in any way? The removal however might cause outrage in people who were used to them?


Once again thanks for the reply.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's easy to misunderstand people on forums so let me see if I got it right by stating what I got from your reply:

The doctrine does not mandate the icons as evidenced by the churches that you mentioned that do not have them and are still conseidered part of the church?
While some people may feel that they help (e.g when sermons are bad), they are not mandatory for joyful participation in the Word and Sacrament ministry?
Since they are not mandated by the doctrine, removing icons will not affect the doctrine in any way? The removal however might cause outrage in people who were used to them?


Once again thanks for the reply.

Icons are a necessary part of Christian theology. Otherwise iconoclasm, the rejection of icons, would not be condemned as a heresy. They are not mandatory to use, however, unless it be prescribed that their use is mandatory in certain contexts (e.g. liturgy). It's the same thing with praying to Saints. You don't have to pray to the Saints, but you must believe in the Communion of Saints as explained by the Church. That is, believe it is possible to pray to them to ask for their intercession to God.

 

[r035198x]

Icons are a necessary part of Christian theology. ..

It's getting a bit confusing now. I take it you disagree with MarkRohfrietsch?

... They are not mandatory to use, however, unless it be prescribed that their use is mandatory in certain contexts (e.g. liturgy)...

Could you be more specific? Which acts in liturgy require icons so that we can safely conclude that the Catholic doctrine will be incapacitated if the icons are removed?

..It's the same thing with praying to Saints. You don't have to pray to the Saints, but you must believe in the Communion of Saints as explained by the Church. That is, believe it is possible to pray to them to ask for their intercession to God.

Eh, I don't think we want to discuss praying to Saints for their intercession to God in this thread.

I don't know if my question is not very clear.

If Catholics were to remove all the images they have/distribute in their churches, how would that affect their doctrine or faith?

Is there a list of mandatory activities that require the images so that removing them invalidates the Catholic doctrine?

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's getting a bit confusing now. I take it you disagree with MarkRohfrietsch?

I don't know how much clearer I can get. Mark is not Catholic. He is Lutheran, and is mostly answering from the Lutheran perspective, with a bit of his experiences in dealing with Catholicism tossed in.

Could you be more specific? Which acts in liturgy require icons so that we can safely conclude that the Catholic doctrine will be incapacitated if the icons are removed?

Eastern liturgies make use of them frequently. They may also show up sometimes in Western liturgies.

Eh, I don't think we want to discuss praying to Saints for their intercession to God in this thread.

I don't know if my question is not very clear.

If Catholics were to remove all the images they have/distribute in their churches, how would that affect their doctrine or faith?

As I have said several times, iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy. There is a difference between accepting and not making use of, and outright rejection. Iconoclasm is heretical. A Catholic church with no icons or statues is not heretical, but they are not outright rejecting icons. They just simply don't have any.

Your question is not clear because it is vague and incomplete. Why would these icons be removed? What is the intent behind it? If they are removed because of iconoclasm, those churches that remove their icons will have fallen into heresy. If they are removed because of financial reasons, then it would not be a problem--though some might find the church a bit drab.

This is the problem with answering hypothetical questions like this. They are hypothetical, and not reflective of the reality. You can only go so far before they become complete conjecture.

Is there a list of mandatory activities that require the images so that removing them invalidates the Catholic doctrine?

No.

 

[r035198x]

...As I have said several times, iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy. There is a difference between accepting and not making use of, and outright rejection. Iconoclasm is heretical. A Catholic church with no icons or statues is not heretical, but they are not outright rejecting icons. They just simply don't have any.

Your question is not clear because it is vague and incomplete. Why would these icons be removed? What is the intent behind it? If they are removed because of iconoclasm, those churches that remove their icons will have fallen into heresy. If they are removed because of financial reasons, then it would not be a problem--though some might find the church a bit drab.
...

You could have mentioned that my post was vague from the start and perhaps there would have been little confusion.
I didn't start the thread to discuss the heresy or otherwise of iconoclasm. The thread was about understanding the parts of the Catholic doctrine (if any) that mandate the use of icons.
You seem to have answered No to the question even though you earlier said that ".. unless it be prescribed that their use is mandatory in certain contexts (e.g. liturgy).".
It is these certain contexts that I'm asking about. What contexts mandate the use of icons and how important to the Catholic doctrine are those contexts?

 

[ebia]

Just to confuse the issue by throwing in an Anglican perspective:

There are Catholic churches that don't have a lot of images - they aren't central.

However images have value. We live in a world that has been dominated by the written and spoken word and - particularly in many non-Catholic traditions - lost sight of the value of images to teach, to refresh, to focus us,... In an pre-literate culture images are a very powerful teaching tool - you'd have to be a pretty extreme puritan to not have any pictures in a child's bible-story book. We also have a tendency to reduce everything to abstract statements of "facts". Images, stories and other art resists that dreadful tendency and re-personalises God's involvement in the world.

To get your own head around the question, perhaps you should ask yourself what it would do to your theology if all music were removed from your church?

 

[r035198x]

It seems either I'm poor at being specific with my questions (or less likely) I'm asking an impossible to answer question.
I am not stating any position for or against images. I'm not looking for someone to justify or denounce using images.
I'm asking about icons and the Catholic doctrine. Specifically

What activities mandate the use of icons and how important to the Catholic doctrine are those activities?

 

[ebia]

What activities mandate the use of icons and how important to the Catholic doctrine are those activities?

Icons are not manditory.

I think the problem is because you are looking for something that simply doesn't exist. There is nothing in Catholic doctine or essential practice that requires icons.

 

[r035198x]

.. There is nothing in Catholic doctine or essential practice that requires icons.

That is all I was asking. Thanks for answering.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Icons are not manditory.

I think the problem is because you are looking for something that simply doesn't exist. There is nothing in Catholic doctine or essential practice that requires icons.

That depends on what you consider essential practice and doctrine. As I have said, iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy for a reason. If icons did not matter, iconoclasm would have never been a problem.

At the very core of Catholicism, it might be argued that icons are a secondary necessity. However, they are still a necessity.

r035198x, there is no magic list of things that would change in your vague hypothetical universe created by this question. The best examples (as I have stated at least several times) are the veneration of icons and some liturgies. The Eastern Divine Liturgy, I believe, makes use of icons during the ceremony. There is a wall known as the iconostasis that separates the main altar from the rest of the sanctuary. The priests venerate these icons. Remove them, and you have no icons for these priests to venerate.

In the Western Mass, there is generally no veneration of icons during liturgical worship. However, outside of Mass you would have the same problem. If the icons don't exist, no one can venerate them.

Icon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <--- Explains theology behind icons a bit.

 

[ebia]

As I have said, iconoclasm was condemned as a heresy for a reason. If icons did not matter, iconoclasm would have never been a problem.

I didn't say icons don't matter; there's a difference between something mattering and something being essential. There's a world of difference between "we can manage without this" and "this must be smashed and removed".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Scripture says not to make a graven image in order to worship it. There is a big difference between having a picture on the wall and using that picture for religious worship. If images in general were sinful, then all of our photo albums, family pictures, artworks, etc are all illegal, which of course is nonsense.

But if someone sets up a crucifix and then kneels in front of it as if to use it for worship, then that is idolatory. We worship and fellowship with God and Christ directly, as Jesus said, we worship God in spirit and in truth.

Even kneeling before the cross is idolatory, because the symbol is made into an idol of worship. Also the crucifix with Christ hanging on it is inaccurate because Christ is no longer on the cross. He has risen from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Statues of the Virgin Mary can either be statues, or idols depending on whether people kneel in front of them or not. The excuse that they are using the statue as a respresentative of the person being worshipped is not an excuse against idolatory.

It is interesting to note that when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome, the great influx of pagans into the church caused major changes. The pagan temples became ornate Christian temples (or churches), the Vestal Virgins were replaced by Catholic nuns, the multiplicity of Roman gods replaced by canonisation of "saints" which many Catholics pray to, pagan priests were replaced by the Catholic priesthood, and the pagan ceremonies replaced by the Mass. So the RCC has a definite pagan influence from Roman times, and a lot of the worship can be compared with the pagan worship of Romans, including the ceremonies and worship of statues.

Of course, many modern Catholics will not accept this, and there are many who put their faith exclusively in Christ and do not take the worship of Mary and the saints seriously.

But we need to ensure that we are worshiping and serving the God of the Bible and not some deity made up from imagination and fantasy.