Are Icons Idols?

[Moses Medina]

I’m still just a catechumen, but this idea of icons and praying to the Saints was probably the hardest thing for me to understand and “get past” on my road to Orthodoxy. I found an awful lot that seeemed to make much more sense to me in the Eastern Church than what I had been taught in the West, and there were a lot of “aha” moments, but this was a point of concern.

It partly helped when Fr. Matt in another thread (sorry, I don’t remember which one, but I think it was in St. Basil’s somewhere) was describing how the Orthodox define worship, and I realized that there is a difference between Protestants and Orthodox even in the use of this word. Other readings, like that above, have got me past this hang up.

Not trying to derail topic, just a sode note. Its always interesting to see what the specific hurdles for individuals are going into Orthodoxy. Im a catechuman as well, for me it was the more mystical aspects of Orthodoxy.

 

[CalvinG]

For me, it is the icons also. The mysticism is just acknowledging our limitations as humans when we contemplate the divine.

Orthodoxy is currently holding itself out in the West as an Ancient Faith. Which in general is true. Does anyone know when the first reference historically is to these icons? The first reference to their veneration? The first reference to essentially mandatory veneration?

 

[ArmyMatt]

For me, it is the icons also. The mysticism is just acknowledging our limitations as humans when we contemplate the divine.

Orthodoxy is currently holding itself out in the West as an Ancient Faith. Which in general is true. Does anyone know when the first reference historically is to these icons? The first reference to their veneration? The first reference to essentially mandatory veneration?

we still have icons made by St Luke. as far as veneration, that goes back to the OT.

 

[peregrinus2017]

I am only a catechumen, and have a long way to go, but I remember when I realized that every icon of every Saint is an icon of Christ. In fact every human being is an icon of Christ. When we recognize and honor Christ in those who have gone before, it truly helps us to recognize and honor Christ in those we meet.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am only a catechumen, and have a long way to go, but I remember when I realized that every icon of every Saint is an icon of Christ. In fact every human being is an icon of Christ. When we recognize and honor Christ in those who have gone before, it truly helps us to recognize and honor Christ in those we meet.

yep, and vice versa.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, they are not.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, they are not.

if this is in response to the OP, correct. if this is in response to the post above, incorrect.

 

[CalvinG]

I do not think the objects God Himself told folks to create are of the same nature as today’s Orthodox icons. No one was venerating the angels on the ark of the covenant. They were just there. I don’t think the angels on the ark or in the temple were given names. They seem more like temple art to indicate God’s presence. I also do not think the serpent raised by Moses was an icon in the Orthodox sense. It was raised for a specific divine purpose. No one was trying to use it to connect with the essence of snake. Eventually, it seems the thing was worshipped. And then it was destroyed. Right?

I realize there is some oral tradition that St. Luke made some icons. However, I have been unable to locate much reference to the importance of icons in the early Church. I find myself wondering how well these icons of Luke would stand up to carbon dating. Even if icons were present before the third century, which date I get from some art historians, were they essential to worship? To salvation? Sufficient reason to exclude from communion fellow believers who do not venerate icons?

 

[FireDragon76]

if this is in response to the OP, correct. if this is in response to the post above, incorrect.

No, it's not in response to you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I do not think the objects God Himself told folks to create are of the same nature as today’s Orthodox icons. No one was venerating the angels on the ark of the covenant. They were just there. I don’t think the angels on the ark or in the temple were given names. They seem more like temple art to indicate God’s presence. I also do not think the serpent raised by Moses was an icon in the Orthodox sense. It was raised for a specific divine purpose. No one was trying to use it to connect with the essence of snake. Eventually, it seems the thing was worshipped. And then it was destroyed. Right?

I realize there is some oral tradition that St. Luke made some icons. However, I have been unable to locate much reference to the importance of icons in the early Church. I find myself wondering how well these icons of Luke would stand up to carbon dating. Even if icons were present before the third century, which date I get from some art historians, were they essential to worship? To salvation? Sufficient reason to exclude from communion fellow believers who do not venerate icons?

of course the icons were venerated in the Tabernacle and Temple. how they were venerated changed, but not the fact that they were.

and yes, they were essential. St Athanasius remarks that they were, which puts them as a common existing practice in the 200s.

 

[ArmyMatt]

deleted

 

[FireDragon76]

I consider the idea that Luke painted icons to be pious legends at best.

The early church had a variety of views about icons, and it seems religious images were adopted from the prevailing cultures practices. In Byzantium, it became a big deal, mostly driven by the laity- kissing, touching, etc. were all seen as pious. The west never really made it a big deal until the Reformation, mostly the religious images we had were much more low key in terms of devotion.

 

[FireDragon76]

then you are, not surprisingly, incorrect.

I was stating that I don't see how icons are idolatry.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So icons are idolatry? That's what I was responding to.

ah, bummer, I fired too soon and ask your forgiveness. I didn't see the "not" in yours abs fired my mouth. I will also take down my cheap shot as well.

 

[FireDragon76]

ah, bummer, I fired too soon and ask your forgiveness. I didn't see the "not" in yours abs fired my mouth. I will also take down my cheap shot as well.

Lutherans have nothing against icons. It's exclusively a Reformed thing. We don't typically kiss them, but that's more of a cultural issue.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lutherans have nothing against icons. It's exclusively a Reformed thing. We don't typically kiss them, but that's more of a cultural issue.

yeah, and I shoulda taken that into account. again, I apologize for my comment, it was rude and uncalled for.

 

[FireDragon76]

yeah, and I shoulda taken that into account. again, I apologize for my comment, it was rude and uncalled for.

That's OK father, mistakes do happen.

 

[FireDragon76]

My pastor's last name is Cosmas so he actually has an icon of St. Damian and Cosmas in his office.

 

[ArmyMatt]

thanks, I appreciate it. being an Army guy, sometimes my mouth moves before my brain.

 

[buzuxi02]

Himself told folks to create are of the same nature as today’s Orthodox icons. No one was venerating the angels on the ark of the covenant. They were just there. I don’t think the angels on the ark or in the temple were given names. They seem more like temple art to indicate God’s presence.

They were venerated indirectly in that people faced them as they bowed and worshipped. The Jews also venerated the king in their temple worship (1 Chron 29:20)