ECF's -Which ones were right?

[Rick Otto]

Montalban's not interested in reality, only distortions thereof.

Simon's not interested in answers, I'm afraid. He asked a question on another thread then asked the thread to be closed.

As if he didn't wait until 140 pages had been filled with answers.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Anglian;Dear Simon,
Why posit a dichotomy?
Why can man's artistic talent, given him by God, not be consecrated to His service and glory?

Why posit a strawman?

How very sad it must be not to be able to enter into somewhere like Notre Dame Cathedral and not to feel the love poured out by hundreds of craftsmen to the Lord God.

How very sad it must be to read the words of God & not obey.

We all use what talents we have been given for the Lord.

So "we all" say.

Those who insist on telling others that they are doing wrong when they make a beautiful object to show their love for God, might consider for a moment that they may just have it wrong.

God may just have it wrong?

I think I begin to understand my instinctive recoil from some types of Protestantism; anything which destroys beauty in the name of God makes me uneasy.

I think I begin to understand my instinctive recoil from some types of Orthodoxy; anything which claims to be in the name of God while defying scripture makes me uneasy.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

As I pointed out to Simon, during the iconoclastic controversy all the arguments he and you use were considered by the Church, which eventually decided they were wrong - i.e. not the word of God.

Of course, those who prefer their own opinion will have no problem telling the Church it is wrong; neither will they have a problem with telling those who venerate these objects that they are wrong; nor, yet, will they have a problem destroying these things because they are sure they are right. This is the problem with personal infallibility, you end up telling everyone else they are wrong, and, if you are strong enough, destroying things of beauty because your own personal interpretation of God's word demands it.

The Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues in the name of the same conception you and Simon propound; the English Puritans destroyed thousands of beautiful Church decorations in the name of the same notion. If I ever found myself on the side of those who said that God wanted me to destroy beauty, I really would stop and wonder about either my interpretation - or whose work I was doing.

As has already been established, all your views were considered by the Church - which even accepted them for a while - until better sense prevailed. Of course, those who simply cherry pick one point in Church history to prove their point, are hardly likely to be convinced when it is pointed out that the Church has, for more than a thousand years, been firmly of the opposite opinion.



Peace,

Anglian

 

[Yarddog]

Yea, hath God said, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"? For God doth know that in the day ye graven thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, venerating good.

Hello Rick,
Are you in agreement with Simon on this or just answering for him?

If you are in agreement, what is your understanding of what graven image actually means?

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Anglian]

Dear Yarddog,

It will be interesting to read the answer.

Simon accepts that no one is arguing that the ECFs were infallible. That Holy Tradition is a unity of the Bible, the Liturgy, the ECFs and the Councils, has also been explained to him and to Rick.

The utility of picking on an earlier Council which upheld a position similar to the one they wish to assert, but disregarding the later one which did not uphold that view, is unclear. No one has asserted the Holy Tradition is the equivalent to infallibility, just that what the Church adopts by its guidance and retains, is as close as non-Catholics are going to get.

Going on to then reassert they preferred a view which the Church later declared incorrect no doubt has some utility; what it might be may well be revealed when they answer your post. At the moment it just looks like another futile exercise in cherry-picking.

When Simon clarifies what the OP means, given that he now accepts no one is arguing that the ECFs were infallible, we shall also have a better idea of where this may be heading.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Montalban's not interested in reality, only distortions thereof.

As if he didn't wait until 140 pages had been filled with answers.

He asked a question on the last page. Luckily Anglian got in in time - but even his post he says he's not sure if the thread's been closed.

 

[Montalban]

Jesus Himself is God in the image of Man (for we are in the image of God).

Thus for Jesus to appear in human form is to be a living icon

 

[bbbbbbb]

Anglian,

Please allow me to interject a couple of questions. What would you think if your priest insisted that the spirit of Saint Cecilia spoke through the organ as it was being played and that the beloved saint lived in that organ? Or that the statues in the church contained the spirits of the saints and that the crucifix contained Christ, as evidenced by it shedding genuine tears and blood?

The issue was not that of destroying items of objective beauty, but the same which led King Josiah to destroy all the great works of art in Jerusalem in the name of eliminating idolatry and superstition.

 

[Anglian]

Dear bbbbbbb,

You ask:

Please allow me to interject a couple of questions. What would you think if your priest insisted that the spirit of Saint Cecilia spoke through the organ as it was being played and that the beloved saint lived in that organ? Or that the statues in the church contained the spirits of the saints and that the crucifix contained Christ, as evidenced by it shedding genuine tears and blood?

I've never come across an Orthodox Church with an organ, but if my priest were saying such things, I'd have a nice quiet word with him afterwards, as would the rest of the parish, because he'd need it. The Orthodox do not have statues in their Churches either, neither do we hold with any notion of inanimate objects being possessed.

The issue was not that of destroying items of objective beauty, but the same which led King Josiah to destroy all the great works of art in Jerusalem in the name of eliminating idolatry and superstition.

Yes, these same arguments were advanced by the iconclasts, and eventually rejected by the Church. That's why I am failing to understand Somon's citing of an earlier Council which was overruled by a later one, whose verdict has been accepted by the Church ever since.

Those who feel they have enough insight into the thinking of others to know that they are really 'worshipping idols' worry me; how do they obtain this insight - mind reading - or just some arrogant assumption they know best? Either way, it looks like an ugly phenomenon producing sad results.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

The LXX uses the word idolon (idol), not eikon (image) in the referenced passages. As stated in other threads, the LXX provides a template for the translation of Hebraic concepts into Greek. As God commanded representations used in the Temple, it is not unreasonable to note that the commandement against the making of idols - false gods- is the isuue.

 

[Thekla]

1. according to Hegesippus: in reference to the martyrdom of James the Just,

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

2. from Eusebius :

For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel,22972297 See Matt. ix. 20 sq. received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. 2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself,22982298 οὗ παρὰ τοῖς ποσὶν ἐπὶ τῆς στήλης αὐτῆς. This is commonly translated “at his feet, upon the pedestal”; but, as Heinichen remarks, in the excursus referred to just above, the plant can hardly have grown upon the pedestal, and what is more, we have no warrant for translating στήλη “pedestal.” Paulus, in his commentary on Matthew in loco, maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a representation upon the base of the statue, not of an actual plant. But this interpretation, as Heinichen shows, is quite unwarranted. For the use of ἐπὶ in the sense of “near” or “beside,” we have numerous examples (see the instances given by Heinichen, and also Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, s.v.). is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xix.html

3. both the Synagogue and Church (early third century) at Dura Europas (Syria) have images; this is also a confirmation of the understanding of the commandment as "idolon", not image

4. images in the Catacombs, dating to 2nd and 3rd century

5. the account of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, which includes statements about the reverential treatment of relics

6. the use of relics in worship (Eucharist celebrated on the tombs of martyrs)


Given evidence (above) of what could be construed as idolatry, are there extant rebuttals to the above practices ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you Anglian, for your prompt and gracious response. My reference was not to Orthodoxy, but to the religious practices prevalent at the time of the Protestant Reformation in England, as well as in Europe. You bemoaned the loss of many religious objects of beauty. These objects, which most assuredly contained artistic merit, also were used to further superstitious and idolatrous practices which, sadly, had entered the Catholic Church during the medieval period and, perhaps, earlier.

I hope you can understand the Reformers' actions within this religious context and believe that their motivations were not those of artistic barbarians.

Dear bbbbbbb,

You ask:

I've never come across an Orthodox Church with an organ, but if my priest were saying such things, I'd have a nice quiet word with him afterwards, as would the rest of the parish, because he'd need it. The Orthodox do not have statues in their Churches either, neither do we hold with any notion of inanimate objects being possessed.



Yes, these same arguments were advanced by the iconclasts, and eventually rejected by the Church. That's why I am failing to understand Somon's citing of an earlier Council which was overruled by a later one, whose verdict has been accepted by the Church ever since.

Those who feel they have enough insight into the thinking of others to know that they are really 'worshipping idols' worry me; how do they obtain this insight - mind reading - or just some arrogant assumption they know best? Either way, it looks like an ugly phenomenon producing sad results.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear bbbbbbb,

I appreciate your engagement with this one, and where you are coming from.

What I find difficult to understand is how those Reformer knew what the motives of other people were? I would be fearful of pride being involved here, and a sense of being, if you like, 'holier than thou'. It seems like setting yourself up to judge what others are doing and thinking, assuming that you, yourself, are in some way immune from the sin you attribute to others - but perhaps ignoring the other sin to which you might be succumbing?

I do not doubt the sincerity of iconoclasts - just their humility. If the veneration of a statue of the Blessed Virgin gave people comfort and a way of concentrating their prayer, who were the Reformers to tell them they were worshipping a statue and smash it up? It is this mentality which I have a real problem grasping, I fear.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[katherine2001]

Dear bbbbbbb,

I appreciate your engagement with this one, and where you are coming from.

What I find difficult to understand is how those Reformer knew what the motives of other people were? I would be fearful of pride being involved here, and a sense of being, if you like, 'holier than thou'. It seems like setting yourself up to judge what others are doing and thinking, assuming that you, yourself, are in some way immune from the sin you attribute to others - but perhaps ignoring the other sin to which you might be succumbing?

I do not doubt the sincerity of iconoclasts - just their humility. If the veneration of a statue of the Blessed Virgin gave people comfort and a way of concentrating their prayer, who were the Reformers to tell them they were worshipping a statue and smash it up? It is this mentality which I have a real problem grasping, I fear.

Peace,

Anglian

Personally, Anglian, I would be worried about being judged by Christ Himself for thinking that I know what is in someone else's heart and their motives and judging them on those assumptions. Isn't that exactly what Christ and the apostles warned us about? Only God has the right to judge anyone on those things because He is the only one who can know. It is the same with those who think they know who is saved and who is going to Hell. Not to mention that the Devil is rejoicing because we're looking at others instead of looking into our own hearts and motives. That's where Christ wants us looking, not at others. For most of us, that is probably a full-time job.

I also have trouble with destroying statues or icons and burning books. That is not how Christ handled things, and it is not how people are won to Christ. It's one of the reasons many people want nothing to do with Christ. They make the mistake of thinking that He is like us, when we are supposed to be like Him. Theosis (or becoming like Christ) is the goal of the Christian life. Of course, Christ did destroy the money-changers tables, but that was because of what they were doing at the Temple.

 

[Montalban]

If it was not wrong for Jesus to be amongst us in the image of a man, then I don't understand what the objections to icons are.

 

[Rick Otto]

Jesus was here as a man, not as an image of one. Now do you understand?

Superstition isn't as easily hidden as say, the difference between latria & dulia might be.
Discerning the hearts of others isn't the same as judging them. Be wise as serpents & innocent as doves.

 

[Montalban]

Jesus was here as a man, not as an image of one. Now do you understand?

The fact he 'portrayed' himself, by taking the image, or appearence of a man sanctifies this, because up to then God was 'imageless', or without 'form'... just as Moslems like to pretend he is.

Or, are you now going to pretend that Jesus appeared in the fullness of the unknowable God? How did people then see the fullness of God?

Superstition isn't as easily hidden as say, the difference between latria & dulia might be.
Discerning the hearts of others isn't the same as judging them. Be wise as serpents & innocent as doves.

Perhaps if you read some of John of Damascus' work on the use of images.

Do you have a cross? Does it symbolise anything?

 

[Rick Otto]

He didn't portray himself by taking an image. He incarnated Himself.
I don't pretend to know something the scriptures don't support.
Perhaps if you read what the Bible has to say. Do you have one?

 

[Montalban]

He didn't portray himself by taking an image. He incarnated Himself.

Did he fully portray/appear as God? Yes/No?

I don't pretend to know something the scriptures don't support.

That again! Just pretend again that everything you need to know is in the Bible... speaking of which...

Perhaps if you read what the Bible has to say. Do you have one?

I have many.

They all seem to have this...
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Apparently you're unable to answer my questions.

 

[Thekla]

He didn't portray himself by taking an image. He incarnated Himself.
I don't pretend to know something the scriptures don't support.
Perhaps if you read what the Bible has to say. Do you have one?

John 14:9

He is the image of the Father