ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

From the general tenor of your comments in other threads we have been on, I had gained the impression that you thought that those of us who venerate icons and statues were worshipping them.

If this was incorrect, I apologise, and accept your word that you do not think that veneration is the same as worship; indeed, I am delighted to be wrong on this.

peace,

Anglian

You have not been reading the general tenor of my posts then...I am about obeying the written word of God and I find GREAT issue with anyone or group who places themselves into such a pious position and then promotes things that are clearly spoken against in scripture.

Anglian, Aarons golden calf along with the ones at Bethel and Dan were created as an image of the living God YAHWEH, and it TICKED Him off.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Dear Thekla,

Since we seem to have established that neither Rick nor Simon have any problem with our veneration of icons, perhaps we can move on to see exactly what the point of the OP is?

We seem to have established to every one's satisfaction that no one round here is claiming the ECFs were infallible, so I am still struggling to understand what the OP is asking? We can know which of them are correct in so far as what they write is consonant with the entirety of Holy Tradition; that's the Orthodox answer. Let us see what others have to say.

Peace,

Anglian

that, my friend, is circular.

How do you derive Holy tradition? what the ECF's taught, (and supposedly has been taught from the start.) How do we verify the ECF's? Make sure they match with Holy Tradition.

It's going to work every time. It's still "pick the things that confirm what we believe."

 

[Anglian]

You have not been reading the general tenor of my posts then...I am about obeying the written word of God and I find GREAT issue with anyone or group who places themselves into such a pious position and then promotes things that are clearly spoken against in scripture.

Anglian, Aarons golden calf along with the ones at Bethel and Dan were created as an image of the living God YAHWEH, and it TICKED Him off.

Dear Simon,

This illustrates why I may have problems understanding what you are trying to say. Where, in the written word of God does it say we can't venerate icons? Your first paragraph implies you think there is such a prohibition. Your second paragraph appears to equate icons with the golden calf. Yet you tell us you have no problem with our venerating icons; that's why I'm a little confused - your signals are very confusing.

peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Thekla,

Since we seem to have established that neither Rick nor Simon have any problem with our veneration of icons.

The use of images in general even for worship of our Lord and God IS precisely an issue for me. As I mentioned prior He had a problem with Aaron, Bethel and Dan...What makes you think it's okay?

 

[Anglian]

that, my friend, is circular.

How do you derive Holy tradition? what the ECF's taught, (and supposedly has been taught from the start.) How do we verify the ECF's? Make sure they match with Holy Tradition.

It's going to work every time. It's still "pick the things that confirm what we believe."

Dear Uphill Battle,

How do we derive Holy Tradition? I hope those who were on the other thread where this was explained will forgive the repetition, but your good question deserves a full response.

The Orthodox Church holds four main sources of Christian tradition:
- the Holy Scriptures themselves, which did not fall from the skies at Pentecost, but were written within the tradition carried on from Christ Himself, who were inspired by God, and which were collected and canonised by the Church he founded.
- the Liturgy, which is the 'common work' of the people. In this public witness you may see what the Church believes: what we believe is what we pray. Our liturgies date from the early Church itself.
- the Councils. Many of these have met down the centuries, some are recognised as Ecumenical, some local. The Nicene Creed, produced at the first Ecumenical Council is recognised as the common expression of our Christian Faith.
- the Saints and the Fathers, whose lives and teachings offer edification.

These sources of tradition hold together as a unity, and we do not use one in isolation from the other. Every heretic who ever existed claimed to find support for his heresy in the Holy Scriptures. Taking one element in isolation is to end up with an unbalanced view.

To quote our sister in Christ Thekla (if she will allow it):

because Holy Tradition is "Kata holos" of the whole (wholeness as in healed, made whole, in Christ) catholic means healed, healthy -- and this comes only from our true physician, Christ. Any part that does manifest the spirit and ethos of "the whole/all of it" is either misinterpreted or not of it.

Hope that helps.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

This illustrates why I may have problems understanding what you are trying to say. Where, in the written word of God does it say we can't venerate icons? Your first paragraph implies you think there is such a prohibition. Your second paragraph appears to equate icons with the golden calf. Yet you tell us you have no problem with our venerating icons; that's why I'm a little confused - your signals are very confusing.

peace,

Anglian

I dont think you worship, worship and venerate are 2 different things, and I do know you use them to worship our Lord...But this is where I personally take issue as it is against scripture...Understand?

 

[Anglian]

The use of images in general even for worship of our Lord and God IS precisely an issue for me. As I mentioned prior He had a problem with Aaron, Bethel and Dan...What makes you think it's okay?

Dear Simon,

So you do have a problem with the veneration of images, even as part of the worship of God?

We end up back where we were. I see no Scriptural warrant for your position, and have provided chapter and verse for that. What is the Scriptural justification for your objections?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

"having no problem with it" is simply an expression of belief in freedom of religion.
We believe God has a problem with it, but we are not God's policemen.

 

[Thekla]

then perhaps the Amish are the only ones who are going to heaven.

hilighted the relevant bit.true enough. it would seem that some find that to be a very fine line to tread.

Though it now seems that no-one here is bothered by the use of iconography, I did want to point something out; as you highlighted, referring to the Gospel as a verbal icon of Christ is indeed our tradition. It is within the context of this tradition that iconography in general should be considered; a fair disagreement with the use of visual icons must first understand the context.

As for the Amish practice per their understanding of the commandment, I have great respect for their integrity on the matter. They certainly live their belief.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What things did they place in the Ark in the OT? Were they icons? If so, were they venerated?

 

[Anglian]

I dont think you worship, worship and venerate are 2 different things, and I do know you use them to worship our Lord...But this is where I personally take issue as it is against scripture...Understand?

Dear Simon,

This is why I think you are claiming some insight into what is in the hearts of others. Where is it against Scripture to worship God through whatever means we wish?
Peace,

Anglian

 

[Uphill Battle]

Though it now seems that no-one here is bothered by the use of iconography, I did want to point something out; as you highlighted, referring to the Gospel as a verbal icon of Christ is indeed our tradition. It is within the context of this tradition that iconography in general should be considered; a fair disagreement with the use of visual icons must first understand the context.

As for the Amish practice per their understanding of the commandment, I have great respect for their integrity on the matter. They certainly live their belief.

me too. What I said was tongue firmly in cheek. None of them are around to join the disscussion anywho.

What things did they place in the Ark in the OT? Were they icons? If so, were they venerated?

The staff of Aaron, some Manna, and the tablets.

and no, I don't see any instances of the Isrealites taking them out and praying to/through them.

 

[simonthezealot]

So I would ask what it is that seems to be "missing" from the proclamation of the inspired Word?
Do you find a reason to be "looking" for something else, something in the icons that is more attractive than the spiritual, miraculous, incredible activity of His written Word working in the hearts and minds of believers?

 

[simonthezealot]

Your first paragraph implies you think there is such a prohibition. Your second paragraph appears to equate icons with the golden calf. Yet you tell us you have no problem with our venerating icons;

I think God has a BIG problem with it and yes the golden calf mirrors your use of "holy" icons

 

[Thekla]

Of late, much has been made of the various "learning styles" in educational circles. It is, I think, important to note for the purpose of this discussion that Orthodox worship provides for all these 'learning styles' well before said recent discovery.

Secular societies tend to select certain inherent human strengths (gifts, in Christian nomenclature) and then reward them in reference to their practical value. Those, for example, with leadership ability tend to be rewarded with managerial positions and pay commensurate with the results of that ability. Mathematical ability, scientific acuity ... those who excel in these areas are deemed valuable to our economy. Others who do not share these abilities, per our reward system, do not benefit to the same extent.

The Church is to serve all who come to Christ, not only those who excel in verbal learning. In worship, Orthodoxy appeals to all learning styles; iconography is part of this.

 

[Uphill Battle]

that being true, Thekla, then the "iconography" should be more modern, hmmm? If it's really all about teaching, then it should be in a medium that can be understood by the layman. For instance, the Icon of christ, with it's one eye different the other, symbolizing I think the compassionate eye, and the all seeing judging eye, if I'm not mistaken... is indecipherable without a full course in Iconograp.....

oh, wait. I get it now. It's the "elixir of life" kind of thing. Get it, but you can only get it here!

 

[simonthezealot]

Sure...Just skip the "true" inspired word and go to mans created image to try and understand it, Jesus "opened the book" Jesus NEVER paused in front of an icon to try and take in Man's version of the heavenlies.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

Thank you for illustrating exactly why it is so difficult to be sure what it is you are saying - except that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So I would ask what it is that seems to be "missing" from the proclamation of the inspired Word?
Do you find a reason to be "looking" for something else, something in the icons that is more attractive than the spiritual, miraculous, incredible activity of His written Word working in the hearts and minds of believers?

No one is looking for anything else; why should you imagine they are. We worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness in our way; you do in yours; you seem to have a problem with what we do; there is no scriptural warrant for your problem, so while I am sorry you have a problem, unless you are attempting to tell others how they should worship the Lord, there is no more to be said here.

I think God has a BIG problem with it and yes the golden calf mirrors your use of "holy" icons

Earlier, you asked whether there was any need for my implication that you have a tendency to confuse the word of Simon with the word of God; this is a perfect example. You think God has a problem - you get such an insight, denied to others, where?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Where is it against Scripture to worship God through whatever means we wish?
Peace,

Anglian

32:7 The Lord spoke to Moses: “Go quickly, descend, 23 because your 24 people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have acted corruptly. 32:8 They have quickly turned aside 25 from the way that I commanded them – they have made for themselves a molten calf and have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt.’”

------------------------------------------
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

[Thekla]

that being true, Thekla, then the "iconography" should be more modern, hmmm? If it's really all about teaching, then it should be in a medium that can be understood by the layman. For instance, the Icon of christ, with it's one eye different the other, symbolizing I think the compassionate eye, and the all seeing judging eye, if I'm not mistaken... is indecipherable without a full course in Iconograp.....

oh, wait. I get it now. It's the "elixir of life" kind of thing. Get it, but you can only get it here!

the Bible is a "theology/theos logos/God words about" - there is an inherent constraint in the way this theology is expressed, a tone or timbre. Icons are no different in this regard; their visual language is instructive and (to the visually sensitive) their 'timbre' is intuitively understood. Just as (reading/language) instruction is needed to read the Bible, and the deepening of faith reveals more, this can be said of iconography as well. As our culture has moved to a verbal understanding, visual language is less understood. Yet most "modern images" of Christ show him with long hair, beard, robe. I have not yet seen one that shows Him in a business suit, clean shaven and short hair all at once. In this sense, something yet remains of the visual language of iconography.

Some of the language of icons is not so difficult to learn; red denotes the spiritual, blue the human. Christ's inner robe is red (He is divine), His outer robe is blue (incarnated in flesh). The Saint's inner robe is blue (they are human) and the outer robe is red (clothed in the divine by grace, not nature). This is not unlike the doppler shift - as the divine/red (Christ), not in our nature and "distant" from our fallen state, came to us, he took on flesh (blue).

It would take about three minutes of "verbal instruction" to cover the basic language of icons."