ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

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

Do you deny many early Christians and councils and such took issue with relics and images?

Which ones were right? how do you know?

 

[Thekla]

best to you,

in Christ,
Thekla

 

[Rick Otto]

Ex 32:4 - And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
This is like putting a dollar bill on the table and saying, "this be thy 1st president, O America, which led thee up out of tyranny from England."

 

[Rick Otto]

from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Christian Worship

Notion and characteristics


The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

According to the above definitions, the difference between Church approved worship & idolatry takes place in the mind.
And that is the only place the difference exists,... in the mind.

 

[Montalban]

I was speaking of corporate worship,not individual.

What about if we all gather around the family table and pray?

 

[Montalban]

from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Christian Worship

Notion and characteristics


The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

According to the above definitions, the difference between Church approved worship & idolatry takes place in the mind.
And that is the only place the difference exists,... in the mind.

So your response on what Orthodox think and say about icons is to argue against us by what Catholics say and think about icons?

Why do you insist on straw-man?

 

[Montalban]

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

Origen also believed that creation was as old as the creator.

He's 'dubious'.

 

[Montalban]

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

If this were the case then you've no argument against us using icons, for at best you're now saying that there's enough evidence for us using them.

Nilus of Sinai (d. c. 430), in his Letter to Heliodorus Silentiarius, records a miracle in which St. Plato of Ankyra appeared to a Christian in a dream. The Saint was recognized because the young man had often seen his portrait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons#Images_from_Constantine_to_Justinian


One critical recipient of a vision from Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki (d.306 A.D) apparently specified that the saint resembled the "more ancient" images of him - presumably the seventh century mosaics still in Hagios Demetrios. Another, an African bishop, had been rescued from Arab slavery by a young soldier called Demetrios, who told him to go to his house in Thessaloniki. Having discovered that most young soldiers in the city seemed to be called Demetrios, he gave up and went to the largest church in the city, to find his rescuer on the wall
(Ibid.)

You should also note that Iconoclasm grew up influenced by Moslem ideas on imagery!

Icons were used before Islam

Further, the first Iconoclasm was orchestrated by an emperor, Leo, who was himself closely asscoiated to Moslems, being an Isurian (who are believed to be Kurdish).

Further the Council of Hieria summoned by Leo's son Constantine V is not an Ecumenical Council. No Patriarchs or their representatives were at the Council.

So saying "Both views are endorsed by a counsel (sic)" is a partial truth.

In summary, you've called to the stand witnesses who bear testimony in support of your case, but are themselves known to be in error on matters of faith. Notably, Origen (see errors below)

Next you admit in fact that there's a case for icons!

Thirdly you make use of another half-truth, by reference to "Councils" in support of Iconoclasm!


Errors of Origen
He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Stoic, a Neo-Pythagorean, a Platonic, and a Gnostic.[1] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages before incarnation as a human and after death, eventually reaching God.[1] He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was not Yahweh but the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him.[1] His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_fathers#Origen

 

[Montalban]

Ex 32:4 - And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
This is like putting a dollar bill on the table and saying, "this be thy 1st president, O America, which led thee up out of tyranny from England."

If you're going to quote OT, can you tell me how shall I kill my slaves if they misbehave?

 

[Thekla]

Ex 32:4 - And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Jeroboam does this:

Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

1 Kings 12:28

and through a prophet, God says this to Jeroboam:

But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back:

1 Kings 14:9


note a pattern ? other gods -- molten images/eidolon

if the prohibition were against images in general, why would God command their use in the Temple ?

 

[Montalban]

Jeroboam does this:

1 Kings 12:28

and through a prophet, God says this to Jeroboam:

1 Kings 14:9


note a pattern ? other gods -- molten images/eidolon

if the prohibition were against images in general, why would God command their use in the Temple ?

I half expect a plea that everyone's picking on him, but he loves us never-the-less

 

[Uphill Battle]

What about if we all gather around the family table and pray?

granted. But I think you know what I mean.

Origen also believed that creation was as old as the creator.

He's 'dubious'.

to say the least. Yet quoted frequently by the "holy tradition" people when it serves their purpose.

 

[Philothei]

Jeroboam does this:

1 Kings 12:28

and through a prophet, God says this to Jeroboam:

1 Kings 14:9


note a pattern ? other gods -- molten images/eidolon

if the prohibition were against images in general, why would God command their use in the Temple ?

This is waaaaaaay too much "within" context.... lol...

I think it will get ingored so I thought of bumping it again for the 3rd time Maybe someone will actually respond to it... Let us hope....

 

[Rick Otto]

Jeroboam does this:

1 Kings 12:28

and through a prophet, God says this to Jeroboam:

1 Kings 14:9


note a pattern ? other gods -- molten images/eidolon

if the prohibition were against images in general, why would God command their use in the Temple ?

The prohibition was for men, not God.
Same as the incident where Jesus was criticized for gathering wheatberries on the Sabboth.
And it wasn't against them in general, just for religious purposes.
When god commanded their use in His temple He didn't simply tell them to use them, He told them exactly which ones & how to make & use them, right? I think that's significantly different than saying, "Ok, I know I told ya not use images, but go ahead & put some in my temple."

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

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.

I had thought that had been addressed, but if you missed it, here it is again. Holy Tradition depends on four pillars: Holy Scripture; the writings of the Fathers; the Liturgy; and decisions of councils recognised as Ecumenical. So, quoting ECFs, or Councils, or your own interpretation of Scripture, or of the Liturgy, are all clear signs that one is seeking to assert one's own will rather than trying to discern the will of God by listening to all the sources He has provided. We are all sinners, we all do this; this is why the Church founded by Christ relies on Holy Tradition and not an infallible man - neither a Pope, nor one individual who is convinced that his reading is correct; all are fallible, not one is righteous.

Thus, it is bound to be the case that mistakes are made. How do we know it is a mistake? Usually because whatever has been decided turns out to be unacceptable to the faithful. Thus, the various councils which approved Arian teachings were not received by most of the faithful, and by much of the Church until, in the end, St. Athanasius triumphed against even the might of the Emperors; how so? Because he, and those who supported the orthodox teaching were supported by the Holy Spirit and by the people. Their triumph has been validated by the Church ever since. We believe God is with His Church and will not let error triumph for ever. The same is true of the iconoclastic Council.

Before the Muslim invasions the Church never discussed the issue of icons. Some ECFs didn't like them, some did; but none of the Councils discussed them. In response to the Muslim puritanism on 'idols', this became an issue. It actually only became an issue for the Chalcedonian Church; the non-Chalcedonians never found this an issue, and it is interesting that it should have been a Christian working within an Islamic state, St. John of Damascus, who provided the most cogent arguments against the iconoclasts.

How do we know that the decision of the second Nicene Council was correct? Because it was received by the faithful and has been accepted by them ever since. We do not believe that God would allow His Church to dwell in the wrong for so long; if you do, you do.

I think you mean MULTIPLE views.

No, I mean that in the Church which received the Holy Tradition, the decision remains accepted.

As we have endeavoured to explain, for the Orthodox, no one has infallibility - that's why we give our ancestors a vote. It may be that an individual reading the Bible in twenty-first century America has it all correct and that he is, in effect, personally infallible; but how the rest of us are to determine that is unclear. On the other hand, it may be that a Church which has existed from the beginning, and which has carried the Good News forward despite persecutions, despite errors of individuals, and despite the travails of two thousand years, has more of an insight into these holy mysteries.



Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

granted. But I think you know what I mean.

Well icons are integral part of worship. You see in Orthodoxy worship is experienced. All the senses are touched by it. We smell the incence, we see the icons, we feel, touch, taste etc.

to say the least. Yet quoted frequently by the "holy tradition" people when it serves their purpose.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that we quote him where he's useful to the service of Holy Tradition. We just acknowledge that he is less than perfect as a witness.

Just like I might quote Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" as a great quote for democracy, and yet I accept that he also wanted Britain to retain India as a colonial posession.

For you, this might be 'selective quoting'. For me, there is no problem with that selectivity as the quotes are meant to serve a purpose.

Another way of looking at it is...
"This is the early Christians' wisdom, not mine. I hope not to say anything original. If I do, ignore it."
Mathewes-Green, F (2001), "The Illuminated Heart: The Ancient Chrstian Path of Transformation", (Paraclete Press; Brewster MA), p2.

It is the very essence of 'tradition'.

 

[Montalban]

The prohibition was for men, not God.

Yes, against false gods. You missed that. An icon as used by us is not a depiction of a false god.

The prohibition was against using images to depict false gods.

That's why imagery was not prohibited, in toto - as already exampled many times to you, such as on the Ark of the Covenant.

Selective reading doesn't help

I think that's significantly different than saying, "Ok, I know I told ya not use images, but go ahead & put some in my temple."

Why were Jews allowed to use imagery?

 

[Montalban]

This is waaaaaaay too much "within" context.... lol...

I think it will get ingored so I thought of bumping it again for the 3rd time Maybe someone will actually respond to it... Let us hope....

I'm still waiting for Rick Otto to answer my questions to him.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

You have made some excellent points in helping to explain Holy Tradition, and I'm not sure how much more we have to say.

We are not saying that anyone else is wrong, just explaining why what we do is not wrong. Those who prefer their own reading of Holy Scripture to that offered within the Church are not convinced. Those who remain convinced that we worship blocks of wood will have to be left to their conclusion if they refuse to accept what we say.

Those who simply disagree with our practice of veneration, are, of course, welcome to their view, but in citing ECFs in support of it, they fail to appreciate how the fullness of Holy Tradition works. The Orthodox Church's attitude towards the Faith would seem to cause difficulties for those who feel the need either to hit at some infallible authority, or to assert the rectitude of their own view. We, as you have pointed out, do not presume to say our own personal position must be preferred to the wisdom of the ages.

The OP has now been thoroughly explored, and everyone can now see that the answer for the Orthodox is that where the writings of the ECFs, the reading of the Holy Scriptures, the Liturgy and the Councils coincide and are received by the faithful over time, there we have the best guide we are going to get to understanding our faith. Those who can do it all by themselves will continue to do that. But why they expect us to accept their view against that of the ages is a question perhaps only they can answer.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Dear Montalban,

You have made some excellent points in helping to explain Holy Tradition, and I'm not sure how much more we have to say.

We are not saying that anyone else is wrong, just explaining why what we do is not wrong. Those who prefer their own reading of Holy Scripture to that offered within the Church are not convinced. Those who remain convinced that we worship blocks of wood will have to be left to their conclusion if they refuse to accept what we say.

Those who simply disagree with our practice of veneration, are, of course, welcome to their view, but in citing ECFs in support of it, they fail to appreciate how the fullness of Holy Tradition works. The Orthodox Church's attitude towards the Faith would seem to cause difficulties for those who feel the need either to hit at some infallible authority, or to assert the rectitude of their own view. We, as you have pointed out, do not presume to say our own personal position must be preferred to the wisdom of the ages.

The OP has now been thoroughly explored, and everyone can now see that the answer for the Orthodox is that where the writings of the ECFs, the reading of the Holy Scriptures, the Liturgy and the Councils coincide and are received by the faithful over time, there we have the best guide we are going to get to understanding our faith. Those who can do it all by themselves will continue to do that. But why they expect us to accept their view against that of the ages is a question perhaps only they can answer.

Peace,

Anglian

Unfortunately, when I raised the issue of Jesus being a living icon, although Rick started to voice an objection, I challenged him with a question and he made up something about being trapped/cornered and how everyone hates him, etc. So he prefers instead to straw-man Orthodoxy by presenting a Catholic definition of things and so on.

I really hope someone reading this will be able to look at this and tell me if Jesus 'appeared' as God in his fullness. For if he didn't, then he could be said to not only 'appear' as God, but as a 'representation' of God because he as God who is Man did not appear as God who is unknowable, in the fullness of that unknowness.