ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

Clement of Alexandria said this in regards to images...I agree.
for familiarity with the sight http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf...ges the reverence of what is divine#highlightdisparages the reverence of what is divine

 

[Thekla]

how is it right to say that images have been set up for the purpose of striking terror into the mob, while, besides innumerable forms of crime and wickedness,47484748 Lit., “crimes and wickednesses.” we see that even the temples themselves are attacked by tyrants, by kings, by robbers, and by nocturnal thieves, and that these very gods whom antiquity fashioned and consecrated to cause terror, are carried away47494749 Lit., “go,” vadere. into the caves of robbers, in spite even of the terrible splendour of the gold?4750

(from later in same citation)

per the bolded statements:
1st - not the skopos (purpose) of icons
2nd - icons are not gods/idols*

(as in the Psalms, as mentioned before, icons visually iterate the action of God in history)
javascript:toggle('fnf_xii.iii.vi.xxiv-p5.1');

 

[simonthezealot]

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.ix.html?highlight=wicked%20demons%20which%20have%20appeared#highlight
"And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared." (First Apology, 9)

He mentions the fact that the entities being honored are dead as a reason for not venerating their images. He criticizes attempts to portray God with images that aren't accurate representations of what God looks like. The same reasoning would prohibit Catholics from venerating images of the deceased and making images of God, since they don't know what God looks like.

 

[simonthezealot]

dupe

 

[Anglian]

Clement of Alexandria said this in regards to images...I agree.
for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine

Dear Simon,

Had there been no other opinion on images amongst the ECFs, there would have been no iconoclast council and no decision such as that reached in 754; had the sense of the faithful been that that had been the right decision, it would not have been reversed in 787. Had the 787 decision not been welcomed by the faithful, it would have been overturned by a later Council.

Since that did not happen, the consensus of the faithful has been that those Fathers who wrote in favour of icons more correctly divided the word of Scripture than those who wrote the other way. So, however many quotations you find from the ECFs in favour of your view, the answer to the OP is that the Church holds those right whose writings are endorsed by a Church Council whose view prevails; it prevails because it rightly divides the word of Scripture. The gates of hell will not stand against Christ's Church, nor will the wrong decisions even of a Council.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.ii.ii.html?highlight=walls%20and%20wood%20and%20stone#highlight
Lactantius

"But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be?...Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth." - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 2:2, 2:19)

 

[simonthezealot]

DUPE

 

[simonthezealot]

it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images."
- Origen

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

I refer you to my post 185, which may spare you and us some time.

No one has ever said there were not ECFs of your opinion; but their view did not prevail. That was decided by a Church Council which has been accepted by the faithful for more than a thousand years.

peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

I refer you to my post 185, which may spare you and us some time.

No one has ever said there were not ECFs of your opinion; but their view did not prevail. That was decided by a Church Council which has been accepted by the faithful for more than a thousand years.

peace,

Anglian

So what if that counsel was under the influence of the adversary, which is not that far fetched considering the plethora of early Christians opposed to image veneration as I am showing...
How are you assured which group was right? what is the one thing the pro-image group and the 787 counsel have that guarantee they are in the right?

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

Had there been no other opinion on images amongst the ECFs, there would have been no iconoclast council and no decision such as that reached in 754; had the sense of the faithful been that that had been the right decision, it would not have been reversed in 787. Had the 787 decision not been welcomed by the faithful, it would have been overturned by a later Council.

Since that did not happen, the consensus of the faithful has been that those Fathers who wrote in favour of icons more correctly divided the word of Scripture than those who wrote the other way. So, however many quotations you find from the ECFs in favour of your view, the answer to the OP is that the Church holds those right whose writings are endorsed by a Church Council whose view prevails; it prevails because it rightly divides the word of Scripture. The gates of hell will not stand against Christ's Church, nor will the wrong decisions even of a Council.

Peace,

Anglian

Both views are endorsed by a counsel... both are endorsed by early fathers...Both are not endorsed by scripture..

 

[Thekla]

Simon,

the passages you cite still are in reference to pagan worship of other gods.
I have provide six examples of 'what could be construed as idolatry' in Christian practice from the 1st century on; perhaps you have found citations specifically condemning these ?

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,
Because what was agreed in 787 has been agreed by the Church ever since, .

Claudius bishop of Turin was certainly not in agreement...
And he was in the ever since group...

 

[Thekla]

Clement of Alexandria again: he is clearly speaking of daemon/evil spirits/pagan gods/eidolon

http://www.theoi.com/Text/ClementExhortation2.html

 

[simonthezealot]

Clement of Alexandria again: he is clearly speaking of daemon/evil spirits/pagan gods/eidolon

http://www.theoi.com/Text/ClementExhortation2.html

Have you read Clement of Alexandria? here is rather clear on his view...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.v.html?highlight=works%20of%20art%20cannot%20then%20be%20sacred%20and%20divine.#highlight

Chapter V.—The Holy Soul a More Excellent Temple Than Any Edifice Built by Man.

For is it not the case that rightly and truly we do not circumscribe in any place that which cannot be circumscribed; nor do we shut up in temples made with hands that which contains all things? What work of builders, and stonecutters, and mechanical art can be holy? Superior to these are not they who think that the air, and the enclosing space, or rather the whole world and the universe, are meet for the excellency of God?
It were indeed ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves say, for man, the plaything of God, to make God, and for God to be the plaything of art; since what is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane; and if you perfect the art, they partake of mechanical coarseness.Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine.

 

[Thekla]

Have you read Clement of Alexandria? here is rather clear on his view...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf...t cannot then be sacred and divine.#highlight

Chapter V.—The Holy Soul a More Excellent Temple Than Any Edifice Built by Man.

For is it not the case that rightly and truly we do not circumscribe in any place that which cannot be circumscribed; nor do we shut up in temples made with hands that which contains all things? What work of builders, and stonecutters, and mechanical art can be holy? Superior to these are not they who think that the air, and the enclosing space, or rather the whole world and the universe, are meet for the excellency of God?
It were indeed ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves say, for man, the plaything of God, to make God, and for God to be the plaything of art; since what is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane; and if you perfect the art, they partake of mechanical coarseness.Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine.

yes, the soul is superior to image, and to verbal icon -- this is not what is being opposed. When we say "holy Bible", we do not mean the matter of which the Bible is made is in itself holy, but that it is set aside/agia, to the glory of God. Likewise agia ikona - they are set aside. We kiss the Gospels, we kiss the ikons - to show assent reverence for what is agia to God.

further, as I said earlier, icons are not "aesthetic"; they are not rendered aesthetically ie to give pleasure to the physical senses.

finally, again you miss the skopos/purpose of the piece - Clement is talking to the pagans re: their gods.

Perhaps you can find writings that are specifically addressed to Christians re: contemporary practice -- I have given the list of known practices dating from the 1st century onwards that may be construed as idolatry. Are there extant writings that refer to these practices negatively.

 

[Thekla]

per temples, and use/ownership by Christians
(from the Edict of Milan)

And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals,

from here: http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Bible/milan.stm

 

[Uphill Battle]

ah.

so now that we've yapped about this... what does it have to do with which ECF's were right again?

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Yarddog;In reading his words, he clearly shows he misused the verses. The verses from Exodus shows that the Israelites viewed the golden calf as a God and Simon failed to see that. Icons or images are "not" in any form view as God the Father or the Son.

That's exactly what they are.

Catholics and Orthodox know fully their place with God and his identity, no confusion exists. The confusion is in those on the outside that don't understand the Catholics and Orthodox great love for God.

I was on the inside. I know from experience that the confusion is complete and total.

We are talking about the Israelites, not the Egyptians. But, does this show your inability to understand written scripture and also what was occurring in ancient history.

We're talking about people & you're attempt to redefine the discussion on irrelevant distinctions is weak.

For someone who hasn't experienced the Real Presence it is easy to see why you would say that.

You don'y have any idea what I have & haven't experienced.

A person cannot understand what they have not experienced. We have experienced God and understand the Real Presence. I pray that you will do the same someday.

Save your breath.

You have the Holy Bible, do you worship it? Do you worship the scripture? Do you worship the words?

They aren't images of the kind prohibited.

If you can try and understand your feeling for the Bible and scripture, maybe you can understand the same for images.

I don't confuse my thoughts with my feelings, but I appreciate your approach.

Try to remember that in ancient times, most people could not read. Pictures are what they had to understand. They could hear the words of the priests but images drove the message home.

Ok.

God Bless,
Yarddog

God bless you, too.

 

[simonthezealot]

I have provide six examples of 'what could be construed as idolatry' in Christian practice from the 1st century on; perhaps you have found citations specifically condemning these ?

I've been trying to find a complete outline of this online but yes...
The Synod of Elvira, A.D. 306, condemned the use of pictures in the churches...
So again which councels are right which fathers are right?