Protestants, Iconoclasts and Four-year old Wisdom
I was thinking. . .
Actually, this post is really about something my wife, Erin, said to me. A little background information first, however, is needed. At our parish during the Christmas season they keep a nativity behind the altar rail on the left side (as you face it) of the altar. We seem to always sit on the opposite side of the church (habits and all of that). The vestibule is out the back, opposite of the altar, but there are several exits in just about every direction (possibly because the architecture dates from the not so pretty fifties roundhouse style of church). Shortly after Christmas, Erin asked our oldest child, John, if he wanted to see the baby Jesus after mass. Of course he wanted to, so after mass was over we crossed the front of the church, genuflected, and knelt at the altar rail in front of the nativity scene. She pointed out the statue in the manger. John seemed very disappointed. He said "that's just a statue, I want to see the real baby Jesus." Explanations followed about history, chronology and the time of Christ.
To quote my wife: "How come a four year old can separate something most adult protestants can't?" Or, to put it more clearly, statues aren't people. Images are not what they represent. No one gets confused and tries to eat a still life painting. Why the lack of a corpus on crosses at protestant churches? Why the iconoclast heresy in all its forms throughout history? Probably because these people, in their erudition, forgot what they knew - when they were four.
The reason children see things that Protestants don't is because Protestants often have axes to grind. They ignore the obvious in order assert a claim which has desirable conclusions
- A Protestant (but you knew that)
Further, I defy you to find a man who does not do that at some point in there life. Oof course, This is not to justify the action
Argued by
Andrew Simone |
11:34 PM
To quote Walter Sobjak:
"Dude, am I wrong?"
and even if it is based solely on an axe to grind, the actions typically "justify" their words. Art and artwork (statues, bas reliefs) do not exist in your typical Protestant (or American Catholic) church. I am of the humble opinion that things should be beautiful - especially churches. Axe to grind or no, every Protestant church I've been into looks like the inside of a barn. (and that is more than a few, thanks)
Argued by
beitiathustra |
11:26 PM
No, you are not wrong. Although, you will find more beauty -at least in liturgy- now than 15 years ago. Protestant sects of all colors are beginning to see some of the doctrine as simply reactionary to Catholic doctrine and so people are beginning to reassess these views.
And yes, churches should be beautiful.
Argued by
Andrew Simone |
4:19 PM
Again, forgive me for being a little overly on the attack, but just by being called "protestant" is a reaction to Catholic. It may agree or disagree with certain points of Catholocism, but the overall is still a reaction (denial) of Catholic doctrine, by definition.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
5:05 PM
true, I would never deny that.
Argued by
Andrew Simone |
4:29 PM