10andBOUNCE said:
Thaddeus73 said:
Well, this certainly is not ecumenical...What possesses a pastor to do this evil thing?
https://spiritdaily.org/blog/baptist-pastor-lets-kids-smash-statues-of-virgin-mary-angels/
So, what is the correct exegesis of Exodus 20:4 per the Roman Church?
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Is Mary not in heaven above? Make no image or likeness of anything above? Seems simple but obviously it isn't.
There is nothing new under the Christian Sun.
Iconoclasm (from the Greek *eikon*, "image," and *klasein*, "to break") refers to the rejection, prohibition, and often violent destruction of religious images, particularly those depicting Christ, Mary, and the saints. The term is most closely associated with a major crisis in the Eastern Church during the 8th and 9th centuries, though the underlying theological questionwhether it is permissible to depict and venerate sacred imagesrecurs throughout Christian history, including in the Protestant Reformation.
Let's start with the Byzantine Iconoclast Controversy (726843). The crisis began when Byzantine Emperor Leo III banned the veneration of icons in 726, likely influenced by a mix of theological concerns, political pressures, and possibly the aniconic tradition of nearby Islam. His successors, especially Constantine V, intensified the persecution, destroying images, persecuting monks who defended them, and convening a council in 754 that condemned icon veneration as idolatry.
The defense of icons was led most eloquently by St. John of Damascus, who argued that the Incarnation changed everything. Before Christ, depicting the invisible God would have been idolatrous. But because the Word became flesh and was seen, touched, and beheld by human eyes (1 John 1:1), matter itself was sanctified, and the visible humanity of Christ could be legitimately depicted in art.
The controversy was formally resolved at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which restored the veneration of icons. This was briefly overturned by a second wave of iconoclasm (815843) before being permanently settled in 843, an event still celebrated in the East as the "Triumph of Orthodoxy."
Theologically speaking the Church's resolution rests on a crucial distinction preserved in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"The honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone... Whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it" (CCC 2132).
This is the difference between *latria* (adoration owed to God alone) and *dulia* or *proskynesis* (honor given to the saints, and the higher *hyperdulia* given to Mary). The icon is not worshipped as an object; it serves as a window pointing beyond itself to the person represented.
Iconoclasm, taken to its logical conclusion, implicitly denies the full reality of the Incarnation. If Christ truly took on a human nature with a visible, physical body, then that humanity can be painted, sculpted, and venerated, just as a photograph of a deceased parent is treasured not as the parent, but as a meaningful connection to them. This principle also explains why later Protestant iconoclasm (smashing statues and stained glass during the Reformation) represented not just an aesthetic preference but a theological error about matter, sacramentality, and the Incarnation itself.