ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

ah.

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

Thanks for the effort on getting back on track, we have shown that their are differing views in the area of; church fathers, synods/councels and are now awaiting to hear how those who follow them are able to discern which is the right view and which is the wrong view...

 

[Yarddog]

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf...t=wicked demons which have appeared#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.

Hello Simon,
You seem to keep making the same mistakes. Justin Martyr is talking about the idols that were fashion by the pagans. The title of the work that you provide is the "Folly of idol worship." This has nothing to do with icons or paintings of christians depicting Jesus. Also you must also see that the God that Justin refers to is God the Father and no icons or images that I have ever seen depict God the Father.

Yarddog

 

[simonthezealot]

Hello Simon,
You seem to keep making the same mistakes.

Yarddog,
How bout you start with the first father I posted St Epiphanius...

Epiphanius

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LI.html?highlight=place%20to%20take%20the%20curtain#highlight
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

 

[Thekla]

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?

thank-you, I found it:

36. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.
here: http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/elvira.htm

the skopos has been bolded by me. Again, the differentiation between worship and veneration is clear.

As to your second question:

There are local, regional and ecumenical councils. I only know the EO, so my comments cannot be applied to western practice. The local councils produce canons (as the 81 at Elvira) which are pastoral responses to issues or problems arising in the local area. In this sense, they respond to the local community - each arising from/existing in a particular region with a particular pre-existing language, secular culture, customs, etc.

The local council finds its narrow parallel in the relationship with the elder/geronta (discipleship - as in Timothy's relationship to Paul, Marks to Peter, and the known disciples of John in Asia Minor). On a personal level, my "spiritual father" may reccomend, in response to a particular spiritual struggle I am having, that I focus my reading on a particular book of the Bible, or read a particular ECF or monk, etc. Or my sf may reccomend that I give up TV (or the computer ) for a time as it may be compromising my spiritual development. Once the problem has resolved, I may return to watching TV, engage in less narrow spiritual readings, etc. if the problem has resolved.

The local canons act in the same way - they are interpreted/reccomended by the local bishop. They may go in and out of use in response to what is occuring at a particular time and place. Note also, that the local bishop is the sf of the parish priest.

There are also regional councils that act in the same way. The ecumenical councils more concern themselves with dangers that effect the entire Church - as in the Arian heresy. They are attended by as many bishops as are able to attend. And they must be ratified by subsequent ecumenical council to be considered fully valid - not unlike the ratifying of the minutes of the previous meeting as "accepted" into the permanent record in "Roberts Rules of Order". Also note, at least in eastern practice, several previous councils are mentioned, tracing the history backwards to Christ.
The canons, teachings from the ecumenical councils apply to the entire Church, not just the local and regional communities. This same "tracing back" is often used in the ECFs, who will cite the last ECF on a theological point. The previous ECF will have cited an earlier ECF, etc -- and of course, they all reference the Bible and verbal teachings/practice.

In this sense, the local council is not the same as/does not have the same authority as the ecumenical council once the latter has been ratified. And the finding of the ecumenical council can "trump" local canon (though in practice, particular advice aimed at bringing someone "back into" truth may seem to temporarily look at odds - just a guess). As canons are never - as far as I know - "discarded" it becomes apparent that it is impossible to "enforce" all of them, again highlighting their pastoral not legal character.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

I don't quite know what you are trying to do. You can cite as many ECFs as you like, but the answer to your question about which were right and which Council to believe is very simple. The 787 Council's ruling has never been repudiated by the Church - therefore that Council's ruling remains decisive.

If you have the time to spare, by all means cite every Father who you think agrees with you, and you'll be in the position the Church was before 787; what has been accepted by the Church for more than 1000 years seems a pretty long time to maintain one position.

You say it is not sustained by the Scripture; the Church decided that issue in 787, and it disagrees with you on this as on so much else. By all means go on and cover all the areas where you say one thing and the Church decided otherwise a thousand years ago, but quite what you are trying to achieve beyond showing what we already know - which is that you think the Church is wrong and it thinks the same about you - I'm unsure of.

How do we know which Council - because for more than a thousand years the consensus of the Church has held.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"The church historian Eusebius declared himself in the strongest manner against images of Christ in a letter to the empress Constantia (the widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine), who had asked him for such an image.
Christ, says he, has laid aside His earthly servant-form, and Paul exhorts us to cleave no longer to the sensible; and the transcendent glory of His heavenly body cannot be conceived nor represented by man; besides, the second commandment forbids the making to ourselves any likeness of anything in heaven or in earth. He had taken away from a lady an image of Christ and of Paul, lest it should seem as if Christians, like the idolaters, carried their God about in images. Believers ought rather to fix their mental eye, above all, upon the divinity of Christ, and, for this purpose, to purify their hearts; since only the pure in heart shall see God.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

I don't quite know what you are trying to do. You can cite as many ECFs as you like, but the answer to your question about which were right and which Council to believe is very simple. The 787 Council's ruling has never been repudiated by the Church - therefore that Council's ruling remains decisive.

If I were under the potential threat of offending my GOD, i'd want to really understand why they decided Epiphanus Eusibius Clement and others were wrong...On what basis??? Afterall remember the withered hands and smited peoples? But by all means if people want to just straight up say I'll not heed the warning of scripture because these fathers must have known something different than what scripture says who am I to question it...

 

[Thekla]

Simon,

perhaps it is my misapprehension, but you seem disinterested in responding to particular points within and whole posts in general. Forgive me if I misunderstand your silence ! But I make explanations, you fail to engage in discussion on the points, and repeat what you have said. You are certainly welcome to your opinions ! But I would like to discover if there is any value in my making an effort and taking the time to continue a discussion where there is apparently no discussion.

 

[Anglian]

If I were under the potential threat of offending my GOD, i'd want to really understand why they decided Epiphanus Eusibius Clement and others were wrong...On what basis??? Afterall remember the withered hands and smited peoples? But by all means if people want to just straight up say I'll not heed the warning of scripture because these fathers must have known something different than what scripture says who am I to question it...

Dear Simon,

The Council of 787, like the Church today, is very concerned to abide by God's laws. The best guide, for us, is not our unaided personal reading of a part of Holy Tradition - where we are always liable to be led astray by our own sinfulness - but rather the totality of Holy Tradition. When a Council took the iconoclast route it was overturned within a generation; the decision taken by the second Nicene Council was taken after prayer and long consideration of all the arguments on both sides. That decision has lasted for more than a thousand years.

If people wish to use their own unaided intellect to pronounce on what is and is not the word of God, no one can stop them. Their assurance they are right rests on their own reading of Scripture. Our assurance that we are not offending God rests on nearly two thousand years of the consensus of the faithful. When that consensus was challenged in the eighth century, the faithful rose against the clerical arrogance of those who thought they knew best, and an Ecumenical Council pronounced, entirely in accordance with the reading of the Scriptures within the Church.

Anyone could have raised that question again; that has not happened.

We are all concerned that we do not offend the Lord. Some of us think our reading definitive, and thus rely upon ourselves; some think the reading of the Church which defined the canon is definitive; we all make a choice. I am sure you are happy with your choice; we are happy with that of the Church.

So where's the problem - except that you insist your reading is the only correct one - and we prefer that decided more than a thousand years ago?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog,
How bout you start with the first father I posted St Epiphanius...

Hello Simon,

Yes, I saw this when you first put it up and it does show what you have said. This is one of the ECF's that came out against images in the Churches. This also occurred about 390 AD. Are there any other ECFs, from earlier times that you know of with this kind of evidence for your position? Did this arise during the time of Epiphanius?

Archaeologists have uncovered images of Christ on the walls of the catacombs of Rome which date back to the 1st century. These were the meeting places of the christians in those days because of the dangers from the Roman Empire.

Also, maybe our Orthodox brothers can give details of icons that predate Epiphanius. That would begin to show proof.

We have already gone through the part where we know that the ECFs did not always agree, so Epiphanius is not proof against, only evidence.

Yarddog

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon,

perhaps it is my misapprehension, but you seem disinterested in responding to particular points within and whole posts in general.

Maybe I am missing your points and a briefer response on your part is necessary, but til now i've only seen you take the pro-icon side and try and state what is clear to me as being something all together different than you try to explain, all while not responding to my more straight forward posts like the one on epiphanius.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Yarddog,

Short of rehearsing that whole Council here again - and I'm not sure what purpose that would serve - I'm unclear what else we can do here.

No one has ever denied that there were ECFs who agreed with Simon. Their view has not prevailed. We can go over that whole history all over again here, but I doubt Simon would be convinced. Or we could just go to one of the standard histories of the Faith and see in detail why the second Nicene Council decided what has been upheld for more than a thousand years.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

We could cite, bit by bit, the whole of this, or we could ask you to read it, either way, that's what was decided and has lasted.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum07.htm


Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Hello Simon,

Yes, I saw this when you first put it up and it does show what you have said. This is one of the ECF's that came out against images in the Churches. This also occurred about 390 AD. Are there any other ECFs, from earlier times that you know of with this kind of evidence for your position? Did this arise during the time of Epiphanius?

That they were meeting places is pure speculation by only a small handful of theologians, more likely these pics and epitaphs were more of memorials of lost ones which has been a practice in all times for all parts of the world...
I've got tons of ecf's with indications in one manner or another that replications of Christ and saints are not to be done if for no other reason the appearance of "Idol worship" and to this day I am confident that in itself makes good sense to you guys...As it should.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Yarddog,

Short of rehearsing that whole Council here again - and I'm not sure what purpose that would serve - I'm unclear what else we can do here.

No one has ever denied that there were ECFs who agreed with Simon. Their view has not prevailed. We can go over that whole history all over again here, but I doubt Simon would be convinced. Or we could just go to one of the standard histories of the Faith and see in detail why the second Nicene Council decided what has been upheld for more than a thousand years.

Peace,

Anglian

Again Anglian that they decided this is not the question...Why or how did they determine which fathers were right in this instance?
We know prior councels viewed it different..
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH WAS RIGHT?

 

[Anglian]

That they were meeting places is pure speculation by only a small handful of theologians, more likely these pics and epitaphs were more of memorials of lost ones which has been a practice in all times for all parts of the world...
I've got tons of ecf's with indications in one manner or another that replications of Christ and saints are not to be done if for no other reason the appearance of "Idol worship" and to this day I am confident that in itself makes good sense to you guys...As it should.

Dear Simon,

No one has denied there are plenty of ECFs who agree with you. But they aren't infallible, Holy Tradition is as close as we can get, and that comes out against you and against them.

You, of course, can carry on citing ECFs (who I seem to recall you gave little credit to in another thread), but it does not prove your point - only that you continue to insist you are right, when a Church Council took a decision that has lasted for more than a thousand years saying you are wrong.

You can only continue to assert you are right; we can only continue to assert we hold to what Holy Tradition, including Scripture, teaches. You won't accept that, fair enough, since the Church does not accept your position either.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

I GET IT NOW...
Anathemas concerning holy images

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

 

[simonthezealot]

- only that you continue to insist you are right, when a Church Council took a decision that has lasted for more than a thousand years saying you are wrong.

So Anglian what if this council was on how we recieve salvation and after 787 years they changed 2 or 3 times, what of those millions earlier who would have got it wrong...Catholics and orthodox have placed themselves into a very very precarious situation...

Which ones are right? do you really KNOW?

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

No one has denied there are plenty of ECFs who agree with you. But they aren't infallible, Holy Tradition is as close as we can get, and that comes out against you and against them.

Actually Holy scripture is the ONLY thing infallible...After this thread maybe you guys should start to understand why it is the only rule for faith and morals.

 

[Thekla]

Maybe I am missing your points and a briefer response on your part is necessary, but til now i've only seen you take the pro-icon side and try and state what is clear to me as being something all together different than you try to explain, all while not responding to my more straight forward posts like the one on epiphanius.

I responded to you per Epiphanius many months ago, and did not think my position needed reiteration. First, there was some question at the time per the authenticity of the piece. Leaving this first issue aside, however,
1. the letter provides evidence of the (contemporary) use of icons
2. the letter is a matter of local concern
3. it is also recorded that Epiphanius was to make reparation for damage to said image
4. the contents of the letter are clear, but the view is not repeated in other contemporary authors, therefore -
5. it is "singular" in content