ECF's -Which ones were right?

[Thekla]

I am interested to know, Simon - do you agree with the (we say robber Council) Council of Hieria that the only icon of Jesus is the Eucharist ?

 

[Philothei]

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?

We explained before that each council "approves" of the one before it... It works as any meeting...apporving the minutes from the previous one...The Holy Spirit always shows the right way...as some councils were condemned as wrong. We fully trust its active participation in the life of the Church.

 

[simonthezealot]

Thanks for you POV on epiphanius.
There are other similar incidents in particular I believe James in Jerusalem but I need to check my books tonight.

 

[simonthezealot]

I am interested to know, Simon - do you agree with the (we say robber Council) Council of Hieria that the only icon of Jesus is the Eucharist ?

My view on the catholic eucharist can be paraphrased by reading Isaiah 44 again...

Not sure if i've gleaned over Hieria priorly, when i've a chance I shall peruse it.

 

[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've responded to the Epiphanius piece.

As to the above, I offer the following in summary:

1. post #31
2. the LXX rendering as eidolon, the interpretation (translation) supported by a. the persistent OT reference to eidolon as other gods
b. the persistent falling back in the OT to worship of other gods
c. the command by God to include images/sculptures in the Temple (which would on the face of it directly defy the first part of the commandment)
3. Jeroboam chastisement by God through a prophet for introducing the worship of other gods
4. Clement's clear reference on the matter to other gods/daemon/evil spirits (not reference to Christian practice; clear evidence exists for the concurrent use of both Churches - the Edict of Milan and earlier - and images)
5. post #204

 

[Thekla]

My view on the catholic eucharist can be paraphrased by reading Isaiah 44 again...

Not sure if i've gleaned over Hieria priorly, when i've a chance I shall peruse it.

why do you appeal to a Council you don't agree with

 

[simonthezealot]

SIDENOTE from the council which was linked above...

I found this canon offensive...Their is NOTHING in scripture stating we should venerate RELICS, yet they quote the great apostle and essentially label prior "Saints" like Epiphanius as heretics. I am not sure how anyone can be associated with a church that promotes the use of relics and other manners of superstition...ARRRGGHH.

7

The divine apostle Paul said: The sins of some people are manifest, those of others appear later. Some sins take the front rank but others follow in their footsteps. Thus in the train of the impious heresy of the defamers of Christians, many other impieties appeared. Just as those heretics removed the sight of venerable icons from the church, they also abandoned other customs, which should now be renewed and which should be in vigour in virtue of both written and unwritten legislation. Therefore we decree that in venerable churches consecrated without relics of the holy martyrs, the installation of relics should take place along with the usual prayers. And if in future any bishop is found out consecrating a church without relics, let him be deposed as someone who has flouted the ecclesiastical traditions.

 

[simonthezealot]

why do you appeal to a Council you don't agree with

What do you mean?

 

[Thekla]

What do you mean?

you appeal to the Council of Hieria for support of your position, yet you seem not to agree with the finding of said Council that the Eucharist is the only acceptable icon of Jesus

 

[Yarddog]

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

Hello my brother in Christ,

I'm not sure which thing that you refer to. Simon has given some ECF's opinion dating to the 4th century. If you can provide icons dating to an earlier date, such as what I said about the catacombs, we can show that the ECF's from the 4th century certainly do not talk for the whole Church.

Can we show an answer to what Epiphanius wrote from another writer?
I'm not sure where each of the ECF's that Simon provided were from, except Eusebius-Caesarea.

Yarddog

 

[Philothei]

SIDENOTE from the council which was linked above...

I found this canon offensive...Their is NOTHING in scripture stating we should venerate RELICS, yet they quote the great apostle and essentially label prior "Saints" like Epiphanius as heretics. I am not sure how anyone can be associated with a church that promotes the use of relics and other manners of superstition...ARRRGGHH.

7

The divine apostle Paul said: The sins of some people are manifest, those of others appear later. Some sins take the front rank but others follow in their footsteps. Thus in the train of the impious heresy of the defamers of Christians, many other impieties appeared. Just as those heretics removed the sight of venerable icons from the church, they also abandoned other customs, which should now be renewed and which should be in vigour in virtue of both written and unwritten legislation. Therefore we decree that in venerable churches consecrated without relics of the holy martyrs, the installation of relics should take place along with the usual prayers. And if in future any bishop is found out consecrating a church without relics, let him be deposed as someone who has flouted the ecclesiastical traditions.

You want to start a thread on the relics ...sure got ahead... open one

 

[Thekla]

SIDENOTE from the council which was linked above...

I found this canon offensive...Their is NOTHING in scripture stating we should venerate RELICS, yet they quote the great apostle and essentially label prior "Saints" like Epiphanius as heretics. I am not sure how anyone can be associated with a church that promotes the use of relics and other manners of superstition...ARRRGGHH.

7

The divine apostle Paul said: The sins of some people are manifest, those of others appear later. Some sins take the front rank but others follow in their footsteps. Thus in the train of the impious heresy of the defamers of Christians, many other impieties appeared. Just as those heretics removed the sight of venerable icons from the church, they also abandoned other customs, which should now be renewed and which should be in vigour in virtue of both written and unwritten legislation. Therefore we decree that in venerable churches consecrated without relics of the holy martyrs, the installation of relics should take place along with the usual prayers. And if in future any bishop is found out consecrating a church without relics, let him be deposed as someone who has flouted the ecclesiastical traditions.

there is no need to continue the discussion in another direction until you have engaged in the discussion at hand; I copy my previous post:

1. post #31
2. the LXX rendering as eidolon, the interpretation (translation) supported by a. the persistent OT reference to eidolon as other gods
b. the persistent falling back in the OT to worship of other gods
c. the command by God to include images/sculptures in the Temple (which would on the face of it directly defy the first part of the commandment)
3. Jeroboam chastisement by God through a prophet for introducing the worship of other gods
4. Clement's clear reference on the matter to other gods/daemon/evil spirits (not reference to Christian practice; clear evidence exists for the concurrent use of both Churches - the Edict of Milan and earlier - and images)
5. post #204

 

[Thekla]

Simon,

you may have missed my previous post in response to your request that I respond to your point re: 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

 

[simonthezealot]

Thanks for you POV on epiphanius.
There are other similar incidents in particular I believe James in Jerusalem but I need to check my books tonight.

I responded above...

Simon,

you may have missed my previous post in response to your request that I respond to your point re: Epiphanius

What else can be said, someone using a curtain and a saint getting mad means someone used it and he got mad...Not that it was acceptable...

 

[simonthezealot]

They are lifeless, dead things, that can make no man holy.
-Martin Luther on relics

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

You ask:

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 wrongCatholics and orthodox have placed themselves into a very very precarious situation......

well, it wasn't, was it, so your hypothetical situation didn't arise. If millions got it wrong then, like those who got it right, everyone will be judged by the Only Just Judge; we will all abide in His justice; in that we trust.

Which ones are right? do you really KNOW?

As we have told you many times, nothing and no one outside of God is infallible; Holy Tradition is the best guide we get, and the 787 Council has never been overruled. We'll stick with that, you stick with your opinion. We're not telling anyone they're wrong; you seem to be; we're cool with that: you or the Church - no prob.

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.

Indeed, when rightly interpreted. You think your own interpretation is correct; we think the reading offered within the Church which canonised the NT is preferable.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

They are lifeless, dead things, that can make no man holy.
-Martin Luther on relics

Hi, Simon -

if you are disinterested in continuing the present discussion and responding to my post, please let me know.

its getting to the point that there is no discussion, just diatribe directed at Orthodoxy under the guise of a thread on the ECFs

if my observation is wrong, let me know

otherwise, I see no point to continue

in Christ
Thekla

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

Like Thekla, I am wondering where this is going.

You are telling us how you interpret Holy Scripture, which is of interest. We are telling you that the Church, which has been doing this for nearly two thousand years, has taken another view. Indeed, it has thoroughly examined the position you take up and, although briefly accepting it, decided it was wrong. You then offer an ECF quotation, as though any number of ECFs can contradict the settled view of the Church. We tell you they can't. You tell us we're wrong, all of us.

The implication here is that you are right. Fair enough, but you offer no reason we should accept what Simon says when the Church says otherwise - except that you insist on your view.

We are not trying to get you to agree with us, just explaining why more than a billion Christians today, and billions across the ages have accepted and accept a view different from your own. You've explained your position; we've explained our position. I'm really not sure there's much else to be said here.

peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

As long as neither of you desire to address HOW you or your councils determine which ecf's are right I will keep posting things in opposition to their final decision.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

Like Thekla, I am wondering where this is going.

You are telling us how you interpret Holy Scripture, which is of interest. We are telling you that the Church, which has been doing this for nearly two thousand years, has taken another view.

I think you mean MULTIPLE views.