Use of statues of Jesus -- for the RCC and OC

[ArcticFox]

I have a question I'd like to ask. Concerning the use of statues of Jesus, what is the RCC's response to the criticism that the statues are not realistically Jewish in nature? That is, that they are accused of being 'white' (Anglo- or Germanic in nature).

As for the Orthodox Church, what do you think about the statues in the RCC church? Are they acceptable for worship? Are they flawed but still useful? Please explain.

Thanks guys!

 

[a_ntv]

I have a question I'd like to ask. Concerning the use of statues of Jesus, what is the RCC's response to the criticism that the statues are not realistically Jewish in nature? That is, that they are accused of being 'white' (Anglo- or Germanic in nature).

As for the Orthodox Church, what do you think about the statues in the RCC church? Are they acceptable for worship? Are they flawed but still useful? Please explain.

Thanks guys!

I would like to point out that the Catholics do NOT worship statues or paints, that are simply a remind usefull to focus the mind on Christ, preventing the eyes to get sidetracked.

The paints or staues made in the last ceturies, were made by people that did not traveled: so they were not aware of the semitic men typology.

Anyway the use of statue of Jesus is extremly limitate in our churches, because it is forbidden to place statues or paints of Jesus near the altar: the focus shall be in the Eucharist that is not only a paint of Him, but actualy His Body.

You can find sometime in the aisles some paints/statues of Baby Jesus with Maria, of (very occasionally) statues of Jesus with his big red heart to remind us we shall pray with heart.

 

[Oblio]

We don't use statues and since the RCC is not part of the EOC, we generally do not comment on their praxis.

 

[eoe]

It would not be within Orthopraxis to use statuary in that manner.

 

[Oblio]

From a practical standpoint, the use of statues while perhaps more physically realistic, limits their theological use, which is not centered on physical accuracy. Without a diorama, it is hard to portray the multiplicity of events and word of God in statues as they are in icons. The 'halo' (I forgot the proper term) being a representation of the uncreated Light of the Holy Trinity cannot properly be symbolized in 3 dimensions, likewise the Mandorla cannot be portrayed in sculpture. The Theological caricatures of the Saints used in iconography would, IMO, seem either silly or grotesque if applied to a statue.

These things are not meant to demean statuary, but rather to delineate some of their limitations mitigated by iconography.

 

[a_ntv]

From a practical standpoint, the use of statues while perhaps more physically realistic, limits their theological use, which is not centered on physical accuracy. Without a diorama, it is hard to portray the multiplicity of events and word of God in statues as they are in icons. The 'halo' (I forgot the proper term) being a representation of the uncreated Light of the Holy Trinity cannot properly be symbolized in 3 dimensions, likewise the Mandorla cannot be portrayed in sculpture. The Theological caricatures of the Saints used in iconography would, IMO, seem either silly or grotesque if applied to a statue.

The theology/devotion of the Icons is typical only of the EO Church and was started only in the Middle-Age.
It is a typical theology that can be very usefull for who understand it, but shall not be considered mandatory for any Christian.
It is the same of the theology/devorion of the Holy Heart of Jesus of some Catholics: nice, but not a mandatory.

Said that, consider that the use of statues (or of paints) of Jesus for the devotion is not very a need, because we shall focus on the Eucharist.

The use of stutues of saints in aisles of the church is, on the contrary, very usefull: not for worship, but to remember us that we are not alone during the Mass: also the Saints are attending our same Liturgy.

A last idea.
The Empty Cross: we prefer to have Jesus on the Cross (by statue or paint), not an empty cross.
Looking at HIM on the cross, we understant how much He suffered for us, and we can unit our will and our suffering to His will and His suffering.
I dont like empty crosses: Christ died actually for us, not only spiritually.
An Empty Cross is like to escape from such a moment (well, we are in a good company in this escape from the sufference...only Mary and John were present at the feet of the cross)
Christianity is not a way to forget the suffering, but to give value to the suffering.

 

[metherion]

Also, I have sseen multiple representations of Christ looking like different races depending on where the painting/statuette is. I've seen White Jesuses, Black Jesuses, Arabian Jesuses. Haven't seen an Oriental Jesus yet.
I also think that various Marian miracles have people reporting seeing Mary as whatever race the viewers were.

I don't know what the offical response is, but if seeing Jesus as their own race helps people connect better with Him, I say go ahead! But we do have to remember, the paintings and statues are not Jesus. Jesus is in Heaven. We should use the images to help us pray, not as what is prayed to.

Metherion

 

[Oblio]

The theology/devotion of the Icons is typical only of the EO Church and was started only in the Middle-Age.

That would explain the relief icons in the Byzantine catacombs and those written by St. Luke.

 

[a_ntv]

That would explain the relief icons in the Byzantine catacombs and those written by St. Luke.

As far as I know, them are no older than the VII century: Middle Age

And we speak only of devotion to images (that anyway is surely older than the VII century)

I was speaking of the theology of the icons (that you usd to explain that there is the need of the two dimension, not of three dimension): this theology is later: surely after the 1000.

I do not say it is wrong or useless or not venerable (the contrary!)
I simply say that you can be parfectly a christian without such a theology.

 

[prodromos]

The theology/devotion of the Icons is typical only of the EO Church and was started only in the Middle-Age.

What you mean to say is that the Council definitions regarding icons were only put in writing in response to the iconoclastic heresy during the middle ages.

John

 

[prodromos]

As far as I know, them are no older than the VII century: Middle Age

I'm quite certain that St Luke did not live that long, and there are at least five icons surviving by his hand.

John

 

[a_ntv]

I'm quite certain that St Luke did not live that long, and there are at least five icons surviving by his hand.

John

I'm quite certain that such icons were not made by St Luke.

 

[prodromos]

I'm quite certain that such icons were not made by St Luke.

On what do you base this certainty?

 

[ArcticFox]

On what do you base this certainty?

Good responses by many, thank you.

Prodromos, I believe the burden of proof would be placed on you. It is impossible to logically prove a negative in this case, so you must prove the positive.

For example, how can someone prove that a person did not make something? You would have to supply evidence of every moment of that person's life combined with their activities at every one of those moments.

I think if you'd like to know why some of us are unconvinced that Luke made icons, you should post all of the good evidence and reasoning you have for believing he did make some, list the ones he is believed to have made, and then let us determine whether we find that convincing.

Would you be willing to do that? I'd very much enjoy reading about it. If you redirect me to a website or article, please make sure it is primarily focused on the icons that Luke is supposed to have created (I know that I simply won't read a long article about icons in general).

 

[a_ntv]

What you mean to say is that the Council definitions regarding icons were only put in writing in response to the iconoclastic heresy during the middle ages.

Well, actually the theology of the icons was developed oly after the iconoclastic crisis (VIII century).

Before such a century the icons were not a theological issue at all.

And what you call iconoclastic heresy was born as a reformation against some EO abuses (like to carry the icon of the living EO Bizantine Emperator, who was said 'Vicar of Christ', and praying and kneelining in front of these icons). It was in fact a religious and political rennovation.
Only later this iconoclastic movment took some radical heretical positions, that were heavily fighted by the West Papacy, not by the East that was at the 90% iconoclastic.

The theology of icons, as way to reach the Lord, was born and developed centuries after the end of the iconoclastic period. (even if the EO are quite un-aware of that, there was a heavy (and positive) development also in the East Orthodox theology and Liturgy during the middleage)

 

[Oblio]

The theology of icons, as way to reach the Lord, was born and developed centuries after the end of the iconoclastic period. (even if the EO are quite un-aware of that, there was a heavy (and positive) development also in the East Orthodox theology and Liturgy during the middleage)

This of course explains why the OO also have a rich history of Iconography and theology thereof.

 

[a_ntv]

This of course explains why the OO also have a rich history of Iconography and theology thereof.

When you got a good idea, this idea widespreads.
Also in my catholic parish we have two wonderfull icons placed on stands, Jesus (on the left) and Mary (on the right) that can be kissed when you enter in the chapel of the Holy Sacrament.

(I'm not at all an expert of OO churches, but the first great Coptic icon artist was Pope Macari I, lived in the X century, at least 2 century after the iconoclastic crisis).

Please note that there are Apostolic Churches, like the Assirian Church of the East, that do not use icons.