Claifying something about the "Real Presence"

[Knee V]

Woohoo! Some guy on the Internet told me I'm right!

Some guy? I'm significantly more important than I may look. Just ask my dogs.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Sounds to me as if Calvin is falling into the trap of Nestorianism here. I wonder if he also denied that Christ's resurrected body would walk through walls, and appear and dissapear at will?

 

[Scottish Knight]

Sounds to me as if Calvin is falling into the trap of Nestorianism here.

That would be something that Calvin would strenuously deny. He always maintained tht the two natures were united.

"We have a tendency to think that heaven is up there and earth is down here, and the human nature of Jesus is in heaven while the divine nature of Jesus is here on earth. However, that view results in the union of the Incarnation being fractured. Calvin said the body and blood are up there because they are part of Jesus’ human nature, which is localized. But the human nature up there is perfectly united with the divine nature, which is not limited to any one locale. So the presence of Jesus Christ spans all of creation through the divine nature.

Calvin looked at it this way: When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper here on earth, we are communing with Christ in His divine nature. Calvin said that in this act of mystical communion with the divine presence of Christ, the human nature of Christ is made present to us. In other words, when we meet at the Lord’s Table with Christ through His divine nature, that nature is still in perfect union with the human nature. Therefore, we are communing with the whole Christ." (R C Sproul).

 

[Ortho_Cat]

That would be something that Calvin would strenuously deny. He always maintained tht the two natures were united.

"We have a tendency to think that heaven is up there and earth is down here, and the human nature of Jesus is in heaven while the divine nature of Jesus is here on earth. However, that view results in the union of the Incarnation being fractured. Calvin said the body and blood are up there because they are part of Jesus’ human nature, which is localized. But the human nature up there is perfectly united with the divine nature, which is not limited to any one locale. So the presence of Jesus Christ spans all of creation through the divine nature.

Calvin looked at it this way: When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper here on earth, we are communing with Christ in His divine nature. Calvin said that in this act of mystical communion with the divine presence of Christ, the human nature of Christ is made present to us. In other words, when we meet at the Lord’s Table with Christ through His divine nature, that nature is still in perfect union with the human nature. Therefore, we are communing with the whole Christ." (R C Sproul).

Yet he denies that Christ is physically present in the eucharist?

 

[Scottish Knight]

Yet he denies that Christ is physically present in the eucharist?

Yes.

 

[RobNJ]

Yet he denies that Christ is physically present in the eucharist?

Yes.

Definitely incompatible views then. That is an issue on which the Orthodox will accept no lesser positions.

 

[Ignatius21]

That would be something that Calvin would strenuously deny. He always maintained tht the two natures were united.

"We have a tendency to think that heaven is up there and earth is down here, and the human nature of Jesus is in heaven while the divine nature of Jesus is here on earth. However, that view results in the union of the Incarnation being fractured. Calvin said the body and blood are up there because they are part of Jesus’ human nature, which is localized. But the human nature up there is perfectly united with the divine nature, which is not limited to any one locale. So the presence of Jesus Christ spans all of creation through the divine nature.

Calvin looked at it this way: When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper here on earth, we are communing with Christ in His divine nature. Calvin said that in this act of mystical communion with the divine presence of Christ, the human nature of Christ is made present to us. In other words, when we meet at the Lord’s Table with Christ through His divine nature, that nature is still in perfect union with the human nature. Therefore, we are communing with the whole Christ." (R C Sproul).

Yes, he certainly would strenuously deny it. I believe his intent in articulating the position that Sproul summarizes here, was to imply that in believing Christ's physical body to be present in the Eucharist, the Catholics were mixing human with divine attributes, thereby confusing the two natures, and thereby violating the Chalcedonian definition by trending toward monophysitism.

Having followed the discussion on the first and third pages, it would seem that in Orthodox understanding, Calvin's/Sproul's argument about confusing the natures does not apply, because it isn't Christ's body appearing in many places around the world simultaneously, but rather his one body, which is in one place, being manifested around the world simultaneously.

His body is present in heaven, but heaven becomes simultaneously present wherever the Eucharist is being celebrated. I've heard numerous Orthodox compare the Liturgy to the Transfiguration...the eternal reality of the heavenly Kingdom of God "breaks into" the present, and we are given a true communion across time and space, with Christ, who literally feeds us with his body and blood, as well as with his spirit. In the Transfiguration, Christ didn't suddenly become something other than what he was...the Apostles rather were given a momentary glimpse into the reality that already existed in eternity. They beheld the heavenly body and divine light of Christ, through their physical senses.

Having said all that, it seems that Calvin's view of the Eucharist actually wasn't that far off from the Orthodox in a very limited sense...obviously the denial of the real presence in the elements themselves was a major difference, as was his entire understanding of the nature of grace and of sacraments. But in the sense that Christians are "lifted up" into the presence of Christ in heaven...maybe that much aligned...and certainly his view was closer to that of orthodox/catholic than were the later "memorial" views of the Supper. I'm guessing Luther's view was even more orthodox/catholic than Calvin's.

Given that the view of the Eucharist as being the body and blood in both a physical and spiritual manner, really seems to have been the majority view throughout the ages of the Church, I don't see why it would be rejected except in reaction against Transubstantiation...which was then also tied into the entire system of merit, indulgences, Purgatory and the like...all things that don't exist in Orthodoxy.

 

[MKJ]

Given that the view of the Eucharist as being the body and blood in both a physical and spiritual manner, really seems to have been the majority view throughout the ages of the Church, I don't see why it would be rejected except in reaction against Transubstantiation...which was then also tied into the entire system of merit, indulgences, Purgatory and the like...all things that don't exist in Orthodoxy.

I've never thought of transubstantiation as being related to merit etc. How so?

 

[Ignatius21]

I've never thought of transubstantiation as being related to merit etc. How so?

I spoke too loosely. I don't think it's related to merit directly...I was referring more to the place of the Eucharist within the system of merits...the offering of Eucharists for the dead in Purgatory. It was that system that the Reformers were trying to reject, as a whole, and I was just wondering whether the rejection of the system went hand-in-hand with the rejection of Transubstantiation, which led to the rejection of a physical real presence entirely.

Obviously it didn't for the Lutherans and many Anglicans.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think something else too, is that there is a difference between being present in many places at once, like the Body and Blood of Christ, and being everywhere present and filling all things. when the Eucharist is consecrated, yeah the Body and Blood are in Chalices all over the world, and enthroned on high, but His Body and Blood are not (forgive me for being crude) say, in the coffee pot in the parish hall. this seems to be something that Calvin failed to grasp.

so His glorified Human Nature can be in many places at the same time, but that is NOT the same as being everywhere present.

 

[Macarius]

Yes.

If I'm correct (though wturri would have to provide the reference, as I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here from memory), Calvin also denied the use of icons on grounds that bordered on Nestorianism. He repeated the old arguments of the 8th c. iconoclasts who felt that, in depicting Christ, one could only depict His human nature and that, therefore, the icon was dividing Christ.

This is Nestorian because it assumes that one can depict a nature at all. What one depicts is a person, and that person is human (and so can be depicted) yet simultaneously divine. By suggesting that an icon COULD depict only one of Christ's natures, Calvin actually committed the very Nestorianism he sought to avoid and, ironically, the very Nestorianism that icons so powerfully argued against.

I do believe that the issue of the real presence is an issue related to the Incarnation (like icons before it) - I actually rather like the succinct (yes, succinct) way that wturri summarized it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I came across a statement from a user on a catholic forum a while ago that really clarified the real presence for me: (if you want to know the forum and the user please pm me)

"God is no longer just spirit. With the Incarnation he has taken on body, blood and soul as well. We also are creatures of body, blood and soul. So if the Eucharist was to be any different than God's spiritual presence in us (and in the entire universe) then there must be something more involved. That "more" is that God is now present in a fuller way to us. That fuller way includes his body, blood and soul as well as his divinity, and he shares it not just with our soul but with our body and blood also.

To summarize, through the Real Presence in the Eucharist Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, shares the fullness of himself with the fullness of each of us. Since both he and we are now corporeal beings, he shares his corporeal self with our corporeal selves. That is the Real Presence. It is the inevitable outcome of the Incarnation whereby Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, took uponhimself fully and forever our human nature, which is a corporeal nature as well as a spiritual nature."

 

[Ignatius21]

If I'm correct (though wturri would have to provide the reference, as I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here from memory), Calvin also denied the use of icons on grounds that bordered on Nestorianism. He repeated the old arguments of the 8th c. iconoclasts who felt that, in depicting Christ, one could only depict His human nature and that, therefore, the icon was dividing Christ.

This is Nestorian because it assumes that one can depict a nature at all. What one depicts is a person, and that person is human (and so can be depicted) yet simultaneously divine. By suggesting that an icon COULD depict only one of Christ's natures, Calvin actually committed the very Nestorianism he sought to avoid and, ironically, the very Nestorianism that icons so powerfully argued against.

I do believe that the issue of the real presence is an issue related to the Incarnation (like icons before it) - I actually rather like the succinct (yes, succinct) way that wturri summarized it.

It's been a very long time since I read any of Calvin's Institutes, and I certainly didn't study it deeply...more like a massive speed-read. I went back and glanced, and I did find what several sources say was the bulk of his critique on images...mainly critiquing idolatry proper, and then making a smaller critique supposedly on the 7th Council. It's contained in Book I, Ch. 10-12 if anyone is interested (I'll quote it below). Calvin, ever a charmer with his use of language, frequently dismissed contrary points as "stupid," or "childish," or "foolish," or "blasphemous" with a sweep of his hand...seeming to think the "foolishness" of the matter was as plain to any thinking person as it was to him.

He makes a few claims in here that I would seriously challenge...maybe owing to the state of knowledge at the time period in which he wrote...but I think they're just plain wrong by today's knowledge of the early church. He also critiques the "latria" vs. "dulia" argument...I don't know how much his critique of the medieval Roman position would carry over toward the Eastern position. I'll highlight a few of the more...iffy...statements he makes.

I do not know specifically whether Calvin himself used the "Nestorian" argument of dividing the natures, in reference specifically to icons. I have heard that he did, and modern Calvinists absolutely do. This is wandering way off the original topic and maybe deserves to be its own (maybe even in the debate threads).

Ooh, one more edit! I read somewhere that an argument of the iconoclasts in the 7th century was that, since the Eucharist was the true body and blood of Christ, it was enough to be the only icon of Christ in the church. They grounded one of their key arguments in the belief in a "real presence," which the Calvinists deny as such. I have read Reformed writings that make the same argument, saying that the Eucharistic elements are "symbols" and therefore are "icons" of Christ...it seems odd that they would repeat an argument from the Iconoclasts but change even the understanding of why the argument applied (i.e. why do we need a picture of Christ when we really have him here with us physically?) I may have this whole thing wrong...I'm winging it based on scattered things I've read...

13. As long as doctrine was pure and strong, the church rejected images
But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations of any kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations, (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9.) Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness. This is clearly attested by Augustine in these words, (Ep. 49. See also De Civit. Dei, lib 4 c. 31) "When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed," &c. And again, in another passage, (in Ps. 112) he says, "The effect produced, and in a manner extorted, by the bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself in a body, imagines that a body which is so like its oven must be similarly affected," &c. A little farther on he says, "Images are more capable of giving a wrong bent to an unhappy soul, from having mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, than of correcting it, as they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk."
This undoubtedly is the reason why John (1 John 5: 21) enjoins us to beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also of idols themselves. And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still, when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell, to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord's Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the incomparable blessing of images - a blessing, the want of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!

14. Childish arguments for images at the Council of Nicea (787)
Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, "God created man in his own image," and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, "Show me thy face, for it is beautiful." Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, "No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel." Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us." Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, "Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house." But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, "As we have heard, so also have we seen;" therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: "God," says he, "is to be admired in his saints;" and it is elsewhere said, "To the saints who are on earth;" therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

15. Ridiculous misuse of Scripture texts
When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh (Gen. 47:10), the staff of Joseph (Gen. 47:31; Heb. 11:21) , and the inscription which Jacob set up (Gen.28:18).
In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, "Worship at his footstool" (Ps. 98:5) - "Worship in his holy mountain" (Ps. 98:9) - "The rulers of the people will worship before thy face," (Ps. 44:13) seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely.

16. Blasphemous and shocking claims for images
I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, "Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it." Where is now the distinction of latria and dulia with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations,

this is not correct, there have been icons found on the walls in the form of graffiti in the catacombs when the Church was underground (along with prayers to the saints), easliy before the 5th century was over, plus St Luke was an iconographer.

I would say also that Calvin seems to forget that the earliest Christians, like the Apostles after Christ, still worshipped in the Temple, which was adorned with God commanded images of cherubim, animals, and plants. so these arguments are silly, because it is not Biblical to not have images when one worships.

 

[Macarius]

this is not correct, there have been icons found on the walls in the form of graffiti in the catacombs when the Church was underground (along with prayers to the saints), easliy before the 5th century was over, plus St Luke was an iconographer.

I would say also that Calvin seems to forget that the earliest Christians, like the Apostles after Christ, still worshipped in the Temple, which was adorned with God commanded images of cherubim, animals, and plants. so these arguments are silly, because it is not Biblical to not have images when one worships.

Yeah, I don't think wturri was advocating them, but I noticed that error too.

Granted that at the time of Calvin this sort of evidence wouldn't have been readily available to him (with the exception of the usage of images in the Temple). I know that St. John of Damascus specifically uses those images in his defense of icons, but I don't know that Calvin would have had complete access to St. John's argument / text (nor that it would have persuaded him).

What I don't see here, though, is a repetition of the 8th c. christological argument against icons (though wturri said Calvinists today do use that argument, which would make them pseudo-nestorian or semi-nestorian).

 

[Ignatius21]

Yeah, I don't think wturri was advocating them, but I noticed that error too.

Granted that at the time of Calvin this sort of evidence wouldn't have been readily available to him (with the exception of the usage of images in the Temple). I know that St. John of Damascus specifically uses those images in his defense of icons, but I don't know that Calvin would have had complete access to St. John's argument / text (nor that it would have persuaded him).

What I don't see here, though, is a repetition of the 8th c. christological argument against icons (though wturri said Calvinists today do use that argument, which would make them pseudo-nestorian or semi-nestorian).

Yes, these chapters are more concerned with the use of images generally. Calvin advocated the removal of all symbols and signs...so there's really no need to bother with images of Jesus specifically if you've cut off the issue at the knees. I do know he addressed that specifically, though.

Years ago I wandered around "Puritan Board," a forum like this for VERY Reformed people. There was a long discussion there about this very issue, and the charge that painting Jesus separates the human from the divine nature came up repeatedly.

Here's a small snippet from an article at "A Puritan's Mind," another Reformed site related to that forum (articles there are LONG but I think this much applies to the question specifically):

This POV is based on the "regulative principle" that anything "not commanded" for worship in the Scriptures (rightly interpreted, of course!) is not only inadvisable, but is sinful and abominable to God. Sign of the cross? Fie upon the outrage!!!

There is no doubt that some Christians with very “good intentions” (see the WCF above) will challenge the theological statement made by the Confession and alluded to in the preceding paragraph with the fact that Jesus Christ was also man, and that the images or pictures of Him as man are acceptable. This is easily remedied. Biblically speaking, those who hold the view that pictures are acceptable, and can be used in Sunday School literature, in children’s books, in movies, in pictures, in stained glass and the like, may be challenged by defining the nature of the Christ, the Son of God. For orthodox Christians Jesus Christ is God. No one disputes this. The dispute arises from whether we are allowed to display His humanity at the expense of His deity. The answer to this is theological. Let us ask the question this way: Can anyone portray Jesus Christ in a picture or image of Him accurately with the information we have in the Bible? The answer to this is “No we cannot.” First, we have no evidence to assimilate as to the nature of his physical characteristics. But even aside from this, we could not possibly portray Him accurately since, as the creed states, He is very God and very man. Throughout the history of the church heretics have attempted to divide the natures of Christ in one manner or another. Calvin affirms this in his treatise on relics when he says, “I could multiply proofs of this kind without end, but I shall only observe, that even in the fourth century the orthodox Christians considered the worship of every created being as idolatry, because the opponents of the Arians, who considered Jesus Christ as created and not co-essential with God the Father, employed the following argument to combat this dogma: — “If you consider Jesus Christ a created being, you commit idolatry by worshipping him.”[13] Though the Arians saw Christ as “a created being” the point to be made is that the same arguments Christian are using today that Christ was a “man” is the same arguments used by the Arians for the same reason in worship. No image can capture the essence of God. None of them can truly represent His nature or being. Jesus Christ as the God-man (that which is inseparably so) is debased when he is portrayed in an inaccurate light either by false interpretations of his physical stature, or by not exemplifying the reality of His deity as fully God. Christians then may acquiesce to the point and say, “well of course Jesus Christ cannot be portrayed as “fully God”, it is impossible to capture this in something finite like human flesh.” This is part of the argument at hand. But they continue, “What we want to do is try to capture something of His humanity.” Again, two important points must be established, you cannot capture something you have no substantiated proof for (no descriptions or pictures of Him exist) and secondly, you cannot capture Him as He really is, the God-man. Any attempt to do so is always going to be a debasing of the nature of Jesus Christ as the God-man.
So far in summary, we see that the Old Testament and New Testament abhor images representing God; we see that anything added in worship that is not expressly commanded by God is sin (regulative principle); we see that any removal of anything commanded for worship by God is sin (regulative principle); we see that worship is “high thoughts” and that worship first begins in the mind; we see that we have no pictures or images of Jesus Christ anywhere recorded, either in the Old Testament or New Testament; we see that when Christ is portrayed in pictures He is portrayed Semitically inaccurate and sinfully feminine; and we see that none can capture the true nature of Jesus Christ the Son of God as both the God-man.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yeah, I don't think wturri was advocating them, but I noticed that error too.

oh I know, I was just responding to the charge against their use. sorry if it seemed like I thought he was advocating that point.

and the Puritan thing is funny, because they accuse those who use icons as heretics, saying that He should not be depicted because He is both God and Man, well if He is fully Man, then He can be depicted because humans can be shown. so it seems that it is they who deny His humanity in their practice.

and I would point out that we do have a description of Christ, although not in Scripture. a Roman official at the start of Christ's ministry in Palestine describes his physical appearance, and you can find this in St Nektarios' book on Christology

 

[Macarius]

Yes, these chapters are more concerned with the use of images generally. Calvin advocated the removal of all symbols and signs...so there's really no need to bother with images of Jesus specifically if you've cut off the issue at the knees. I do know he addressed that specifically, though.

Years ago I wandered around "Puritan Board," a forum like this for VERY Reformed people. There was a long discussion there about this very issue, and the charge that painting Jesus separates the human from the divine nature came up repeatedly.

Here's a small snippet from an article at "A Puritan's Mind," another Reformed site related to that forum (articles there are LONG but I think this much applies to the question specifically):

This POV is based on the "regulative principle" that anything "not commanded" for worship in the Scriptures (rightly interpreted, of course!) is not only inadvisable, but is sinful and abominable to God. Sign of the cross? Fie upon the outrage!!!

The quote you provided from the article (which doesn't appear when I quick-quote your post) is textbook Nestorian in that it talks about one nature doing something (being depicted) while the other is not, or assumes that the Incarnation was not complete enough in some way (i.e. that we cannot, in depicting the man Jesus, depict His divinity).

The paradox of this view is that in trying preserve the fullness of Christ's divinity (and that divinity's trasncedence) they compromise the very unity of the Incarnation.

They are right that no image can circumscribe the divinity. But God, in Christ, has voluntarily emptied Himself and become man. That's the mystery! If we back away from that (even an inch, as in those who disallow icons on these grounds) then we lose the whole Gospel. If the physical has not been united to the Divine, then we are still separated from God and dead in our sins.

So SMOTHER the Church in icons and proclaim the Eucharist from every corner of the globe, kiss relics and pray to the departed Saints. These RADICAL actions each proclaim unequivocaly that God became man, and as a man conquered death. The material and mortal are now means of unity with the immaterial and deathless. Glory to God!

In Christ,
Macarius