Pictures of Jesus.

[Bible Highlighter]

Prodromos does not need to do that because of the positions clearly set out at Nicea II which you continue to ignore; in the Orthodox Church ensuring veneration takes the correct forms is the responsibility of the clergy.

~STAFF EDIT~ Are you saying nobody in your church pictures Jesus in their mind when they pray or praise Him?


...

 

[MrMoe]

The Respect Bees Have For Holy Icons

In the region of Kapandriti near Athens, a wonderful thing happens. Ten years ago, a devout beekeeper named Isidoros Ţiminis, thought to place in one of his hives an icon of the Crucifixion of the Lord. Soon thereafter, when he opened the hive, he was amazed that the bees showed respect and devotion to the icon, having "embroidered" it in wax, yet leaving uncovered the face and body of the Lord. Since then, every spring, he puts into the hives icons of the Savior, the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and the result is always the same.​

Are you sure they are "respecting" them or Avoiding them. Something to think about.

What I'd like to know is:
1. Why did he decide to cover a Christian icon in bees anyway?
2. Does the icon cover the entire frame or is it just a small icon in the centre?
3. Has he tried using other icons like an ordinary person or even one of a demon to see if he gets the same effect?

 

[Wgw]

English please. Are you saying nobody in your church pictures Jesus in their mind when they pray or praise Him?

...

If they do this it is simply due to ignorance on their part as the use of the visual imagination during prayer is emphatically discouraged in the vast amount of Orthodox literature on the subject, as being potentially inductive to various forms of demonic delusion.

The Philokalia, a collection of ascetic treatises on prayer that is essentially unsurpassed in its splendour, and which spans a period from the late fourth through I believe the seventeenth century (volume 5 alas has not yet been translated into English, also there is a slightly different Romanian edition), spends a fair amount of time on this issue.

One included treatise is from St. Symeon the New Theologian, on the Three Methods of Prayer:

"The distinctive features of the first method of prayer are these. When a person stands at prayer, he raises hands, eyes and intellect heavenwards, and fills his intellect with divine thoughts, with images of celestial beauty, of the angelic hosts, of the abodes of the righteous. In brief, at the time of prayer he assembles in his intellect all that he has heard from Holy Scripture and so rouses his soul to divine longing as he gazes towards heaven, and sometimes he sheds tears. But when someone prays in this way, without him realizing it his heart grows proud and exalted, and he regards what is happening to him as the effect of divine grace and entreats God to allow him always to be engaged in this activity. Such assumptions, however, are signs of delusion, because the good is not good when it is not done in the right way.

"If, then, such a person is pursuing a life of stillness and seclusion, he will almost inevitably become deranged. And even if this does not happen to him, it will be impossible for him to attain a state of holiness or dispassion. Those who adopt this method of prayer have also been deluded into thinking that they see lights with their bodily eyes, smell sweet scents, hear voices, and so on. Some have become completely possessed by demons and wander from place to place in their madness. Others fail to recognize the devil when he transforms himself into an angel of light (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14); and, putting their trust in him, they continue in an incorrigible state of delusion until their death, refusing to accept the counsel of anyone else. Still others, incited by the devil, have committed suicide, throwing themselves over a precipice or hanging themselves.

"Indeed, who can describe all the various forms of deception employed by the devil? Yet from what we have said any sane person can understand the kind of harm that may result from this first method of attentiveness. Even if someone who has adopted this method may perhaps avoid the evils we have mentioned because he lives in a community - for it is solitaries who are especially subject to them - none the less he will pass his entire life without making any progress. "

So when we cross reference this text from St. Symeon, the most recent person to be honored as a Theologian, e.g. one wih experiential knowledge of God (the other two being St. John the Beloved Disciple and St. Gregory Nazianzus) by the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the anathemas at the Second Council of Nicea against those who worshipped or accused the Churc of worshipping icons as gods, we see compelling reason to reject as calumny the proposition that the Orthodox are in any sense idolaters.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If they do this it is simply due to ignorance on their part as the use of the visual imagination during prayer is emphatically discouraged in the vast amount of Orthodox literature on the subject, as being potentially inductive to various forms of demonic delusion.

The Philokalia, a collection of ascetic treatises on prayer that is essentially unsurpassed in its splendour, and which spans a period from the late fourth through I believe the seventeenth century (volume 5 alas has not yet been translated into English, also there is a slightly different Romanian edition), spends a fair amount of time on this issue.

One included treatise is from St. Symeon the New Theologian, on the Three Methods of Prayer:

"The distinctive features of the first method of prayer are these. When a person stands at prayer, he raises hands, eyes and intellect heavenwards, and fills his intellect with divine thoughts, with images of celestial beauty, of the angelic hosts, of the abodes of the righteous. In brief, at the time of prayer he assembles in his intellect all that he has heard from Holy Scripture and so rouses his soul to divine longing as he gazes towards heaven, and sometimes he sheds tears. But when someone prays in this way, without him realizing it his heart grows proud and exalted, and he regards what is happening to him as the effect of divine grace and entreats God to allow him always to be engaged in this activity. Such assumptions, however, are signs of delusion, because the good is not good when it is not done in the right way.

"If, then, such a person is pursuing a life of stillness and seclusion, he will almost inevitably become deranged. And even if this does not happen to him, it will be impossible for him to attain a state of holiness or dispassion. Those who adopt this method of prayer have also been deluded into thinking that they see lights with their bodily eyes, smell sweet scents, hear voices, and so on. Some have become completely possessed by demons and wander from place to place in their madness. Others fail to recognize the devil when he transforms himself into an angel of light (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14); and, putting their trust in him, they continue in an incorrigible state of delusion until their death, refusing to accept the counsel of anyone else. Still others, incited by the devil, have committed suicide, throwing themselves over a precipice or hanging themselves.

"Indeed, who can describe all the various forms of deception employed by the devil? Yet from what we have said any sane person can understand the kind of harm that may result from this first method of attentiveness. Even if someone who has adopted this method may perhaps avoid the evils we have mentioned because he lives in a community - for it is solitaries who are especially subject to them - none the less he will pass his entire life without making any progress. "

So when we cross reference this text from St. Symeon, the most recent person to be honored as a Theologian, e.g. one wih experiential knowledge of God (the other two being St. John the Beloved Disciple and St. Gregory Nazianzus) by the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the anathemas at the Second Council of Nicea against those who worshipped or accused the Churc of worshipping icons as gods, we see compelling reason to reject as calumny the proposition that the Orthodox are in any sense idolaters.

But why promote something that could tempt people to think that way? What of those who are not informed? In other words, it would be like serving alcohol at an AA meeting.

...

 

[Wgw]

But why promote something that could tempt people to think that way? What of those who are not informed? In other words, it would be like serving alcohol at an AA meeting.

...

The iconography of the Orthodox Church does not induce people into idolatry, but rather has the opposite effect of promoting piety and humility. Anyone who doubts this should study the actual idolatry of Hinduism and then compare it with Orthodoxy, in particular how Hindus relate to and actually worship idols.

What is more, iconography is not in any sense optional, but rather exists in consequence of the incarnation; to not venerate the humanity or in EO terms the human nature of the Lord is to be thrice-anathematized. To suggest that iconography is idolatrous is to be thrice-anathematized. In the Byzantine Rite, these anathemas are sung while each member of the congregation holds an icon of their patron saint at the end of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil on the first Sunday of Lent, an event that has the effect of instructing the Eastern Orthodox in the correct understanding and veneration of icons.

The Oriental Orthodox do not go to those lengths, but the OO also never succumbed to iconoclasm in the manner that befell Constantinople; there were isolated outbreaks in Armenia which were efficaciously contained and suppressed by the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin.

 

[thecolorsblend]

As I said before, the Commandment was in reference to things created that would be a representation of God or other gods.

...

Except it isn't. The commandment says things in heaven, on Earth and under it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

First, truth should not be hidden. We should be discussing truth so as to help others. Second, I was not asking the difference of the veneration of man versus the worship of God. The topic of discussion here is one wrongfully worshiping Christ (God). I was asking if there was a difference between the veneration of God versus the worship of God. Personally I do not think there is a difference. In my view, the veneration of God would be an act or form of worshiping God, too. For if one bows before God so as to venerate Him, it is a form of worship. Anything we do for God so as to honor Him is a form of worshiping Him. For God deserves nothing less than our complete adoration and respect of Him as God.

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." (Colossians 3:17).


....

Personally, I don't believe anyone can wrongfully worship Jesus(God), if their purpose is to worship him. To do so, they must know and follow His teachings to worship him, in other words murdering someone as a sacrifice would be wrong worship, but any worship of Him in line with His word is fruitful.
Also, we do not venerate God, we worship Him, and that's what wgw was saying. We venerate God's creation(s), not God.

 

[Wgw]

Except it isn't. The commandment says things in heaven, on Earth and under it.

A valid point; it would seem our iconoclastic interlocutor is confusing interpretation with the text itself. At the very least this hopefully reduces the prospect of our august personages being forced to contend with him in future regarding the most disagreeable error of sola scriptura.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I believe all pictures of Jesus in existence today are fakes. Why? Because I believe one of the biggest things God desires from His creation is for us to walk by faith and not by sight.


...

So THAT's why he came in the form of man???
There are two pictures that are not fakes. Why? Because Jesus HIMSELF left them. Both have been determined to be not painted (one on linen, one on sea silk). The two images were both created in the tomb between Good Friday and Easter. Both have the same facial dimensions, the same details, and features. All true icons are images of the sea silk image, showing the same details.
Nobody is required to believe that these two images are real, or anything. I, personally, know in my heart that they are, as do many, many people who have studied them much closer than I have.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The shroud of Turin? Like the "host", is it worshipable?

The Shroud is one. You may venerate it if you wish, but worship, as we keep showing you, is too strong. It is not God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nah, it's from the folks who rejected a commandment that said "keep the Sabbath". Reject one and reject the other one that said "no graven images". And then really keep "honor your mother".

In what way, do you judge, that we do not 'keep the Sabbath'? Because we worship Christ on Sunday, does that mean we don't keep the Sabbath?
That said, the Christian Sabbath is Sunday, the Lord's day, the resurrection day of Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Except it isn't. The commandment says things in heaven, on Earth and under it.

Context is key. The idols are in reference to not making anything whereby they would bow down and worship it (As if it was a god). For Exodus 20:5 says he is a jealous God. Bowing down before God was many times done in prayer for the believer. Also, the 2nd Commandment is a continuation from the 1st Commandment mentioned in Exodus 20:3.

3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, "


...

 

[Wgw]

So THAT's why he came in the form of man???
There are two pictures that are not fakes. Why? Because Jesus HIMSELF left them. Both have been determined to be not painted (one on linen, one on sea silk). The two images were both created in the tomb between Good Friday and Easter. Both have the same facial dimensions, the same details, and features. All true icons are images of the sea silk image, showing the same details.
Nobody is required to believe that these two images are real, or anything. I, personally, know in my heart that they are, as do many, many people who have studied them much closer than I have.

There is also the Image of Edessa which predates the crucifixion making three consistent images.

 

[Wgw]

Context is key. The idols are in reference to not making anything whereby they would bow down and worship it (As if it was a god). For Exodus 20:5 says he is a jealous God. Bowing down before God was many times done in prayer for the believer. Also, the 2nd Commandment is a continuation from the 1st Commandment mentioned in Exodus 20:3.

3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, "

Verse 4 if interpreted in the crypto-Islamic manner that you propose would prohibit, for example, your avatar.

At any rate, context is indeed key, and you are ignoring the theological and interpretive context provided by the Second Council of Nicea. You are choosing simply to ignore the actual position of the apostolic Chuch in favor of a strawman Church, in ignorance of the anathemas that are imposed upon idolatry by the Church and in ignorance of the voluminous instructions provided by the Church on the correct mode of prayer.

Now my Roman Catholic friends know how much I love them and enjoy arguing alongside them for the sake of Truth, so it pains me also to have to mention that in our zeal to avoid the faintest whiff of idolatry, to the extent that Orthodox such ss St. Seraphim of Sarov have used the Rosary, the visual contemplations of the various mysteries engaged in by Roman Catholics are not employed, as Orthodox have an instinctive fear of any employment of the visual-imaginative faculties during prayer.

This fact should highlight the very clear distinctions Orthodoxy makes between the veneration of icons and the worship of God.

However I am not inclined to view the Roman Catholic practice as idolatrous. But if one were to suspect the Orthodox of idolatry, there exists very formidable evidence to the contrary, to the point that John Calvin made a mockery of himself in daring to accuse us of being the worst of idolaters.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Context is key. The idols are in reference to not making anything whereby they would bow down and worship it (As if it was a god). For Exodus 20:5 says he is a jealous God. Bowing down before God was many times done in prayer for the believer. Also, the 2nd Commandment is a continuation from the 1st Commandment mentioned in Exodus 20:3.

3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, "

Ahhhh, now we're getting down to nuance. Excellent!

Basically graven images are not to be worshiped. And indeed Catholics, like-minded Anglicans and (as far as I know) Orthodox do not worship graven images. Or icons for this discussion. The objects are used for various purposes but worship? Any Catholic (or the others) worth talking to will tell you those items are not to be worshiped.

So either the text I quoted forbids all graven images of all kinds no matter their use (which I don't think anybody believes) or else the Protestants have once again thrown the baby out with the bathwater in their effort to "not be Catholic".

 

[Wgw]

Ahhhh, now we're getting down to nuance. Excellent!

Basically graven images are not to be worshiped. And indeed Catholics, like-minded Anglicans and (as far as I know) Orthodox do not worship graven images. Or icons for this discussion. The objects are used for various purposes but worship? Any Catholic (or the others) worth talking to will tell you those items are not to be worshiped.

So either the text I quoted forbids all graven images of all kinds no matter their use (which I don't think anybody believes) or else the Protestants have once again thrown the baby out with the bathwater in their effort to "not be Catholic".

Actually, whereas Anglicanism has suffered from the corruption of liberal theology resulting in incidents of idolatry, there have been no such incidents in Orthodoxy. Some Orthodox partisans are known to bristle at the statuary in some RC parishes like the omnipresent Lourdes statuary; I am inclined not to bristle as I do not see people performing metanies before it.

Essentially Orthodoxy is like Eastern Catholicism albeit wihout the Bishop of Rome being commemorated in the diptychs (hopefully we can work out a solution to that so as to restore communion in the near future).

 

[thecolorsblend]

Actually, whereas Anglicanism has suffered from the corruption of liberal theology resulting in incidents of idolatry, there have been no such incidents in Orthodoxy.

Be that as it may, please understand that I have zero personal experience with Orthodoxy. So if I use conditional phrases such like "as far as I know" or "to my knowledge", it's basically cover for my ignorance of and lack of experience with Orthodoxy. No offense is intended. Speaking of which...

Essentially Orthodoxy is like Eastern Catholicism albeit wihout the Bishop of Rome being commemorated in the diptychs

I'd figured as much but thank you anyway for wanting to educate me. Much appreciated.

(hopefully we can work out a solution to that so as to restore communion in the near future).

Indeed. That would be wonderful.

 

[Wgw]

Good stuff. So having established an ecumenical understanding as it were, and having made at least as much progress as our respective hierarchs at Ravenna in 2006, I shoukd like to direct my polemical emergies at Jason0047 using a human silhouette as his avatar despite adhering to an interpretation of Exodus 20:4 which seems to have the effect of disallowing it.

The problem with arguing theology bereft of theologocal erudition is that one almost invariably runs into the problem of implicit theological distortions contradicting ones explocit positions. These contradictions are almost the bane of Patristic theologians I believe, since in each of the ecumenical councils we see heresies anathematized as much on their implications as on the stated beliefs of their opponents.

 

[DamianWarS]

Iconography is Biblical; aside from the examples of it in the Old Testament (in the decoration of the Ark, and the Temple), iconography conveys the reality of the incarnation and is entirely indispensible. To not have icons of Christ is to deny the incarnation, which is integral to the Gospel message. Orthodox theology (specifically Soteriology) is inherently incarnational: God became man, restoring our corrupted nature to its precorrupt condition, and then glorifying it..

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You say iconography is biblical yet your examples only support tradition laced with biblical themes. You might as well construct an empty tomb, or bronze snake and also say it "conveys the reality of the incarnation and is entirely [indispensable]. Just because you can find a place in the bible where something existed doesn't make it a requirement of faith. I know within orthodox your pretty set in these things and they hold a lot of meaning to you put let's call a spade a spade here the modern orthodox church only mimics and themes their faith after the early church but they are vastly different. Biblical support for such practises are missing and the bible would actually lean more toward these things being misfocused.

Rites and ceremonies in the Orthodox Church are highly symbolic down to some very fine details. They are like a dance of many biblical imageries put into one. But however clever and fine the details are they are closer to theatrics that are biblically themed rather than biblical valued. It's a very neat thing to analyze all the things happening like mixing red wine and water together to symbolize the blood and water that flowed out of Jesus when he was pierced in the side with a spear. Very cool detail and I like it but it is a missing value in the bible. Because the act of mixing water and wine taken during the Lord's supper is missing from the bible it is not biblical. But clearly it is biblically themed and has lots of meaning it. This makes it a tradition by definition and you do it not because the bible says so but because your tradition says so.

Tradition is inherently contextually based. It starts to communicate a message that it's audience can fully embrace as core values. The gospel transcends such things and cannot be locked into a tradition and saying so would be counter-gospel. Orthodox values tradition from the early church and perpetuates it today but that doesn't make it the best expression of the church. Even still the HS works through it as he works through thousands of other contextually based traditions. This is your icon expressed through a pallet of many traditions that can look very different but we all are here to glorify God. The tradition is only a tool.

 

[Wgw]

Actually we do in fact have iconographic tombs which figure prominently in the Good Friday - Holy Saturday - Paschal liturgical cycle. We also have bronze snakes on our Bishops crosiers. I am not sure these could be regarded as essential as opposed to part of the local liturgical traditions of the East, but we do have these items in case anyone asks, so that has the amusing effect of unwittingly bypassing your first argument. Orthodox liturgical accessorizing is actually quite epic: in the different Eastern rites one will find spears for piercing the bread to be consecrated in the Eucharist, metal stars placed atop the carefully prepared bread, a variety of different types of veils and corporals, in the Syriac rite, liturgical slippers; there exist in Ethiopia replicas of the ark of the covenant and the ten commandments which function in place of the Antimension of the Byzantine Rite or the Tablitho of the West Syriac. There are various paraments that cover the antimension or tablitho.mmThe Ethiopians have liturgical umbrellas. Then, there exist a fairly vast assortment of materials for use on various liturgical occasions, some of which are perishable.

One could spend an infinite amount of time and money documenting the vast array of acoutrements which exist, which is a reason why the Islamic destruction of Christian churches in Syria and Iraq is so tragic; these are not cookie cutter institutions but rather, individual parishes might have distinct liturgical heritage, and the hardware to support that heritage.

However you are quite wrong to accuse the Orthodox of being theatrical. Actually a huge amount of the vast arraybof liturgical hardware I just alluded to is never really seen by the laity; for example, Coptic priests keep the instruments used for handling the Eucharist out of sight in a linen bundle on the altar table and are reticent to discuss its content. The Byzantine Rite Liturgy of Preparation occurs in silence, behind the iconostasis. These liturgies are not ritual magic, but they are important and extremely solemn forms of prayer. The majority of what a parishioner sees and hears on a given Sunday is invariant.

Now, on the point of tradition being Tradition because we say it is, this is of course correct because the Orthodox Church is the Apostolic Faith. It is by all practical definitions both foolproof and error-proof. Such objections as yours have been raised before, and they have always been due to human error.*

* I will readily admit to paraphrasing HAL 9000 with a certain relish.