Icons...

[simonthezealot]

.46 A suitable example of this can be read in a short treatise forged by the 8th century Byzantine iconoclasts in the name of the 4th century Bishop and Church Father St. Epiphanius of Salamis:

To be clear the writing I quoted was from The Principal works of Jerome... Far as I know no one questions his works.

 

[Fotina]

I get that, but surely you can see the irony of having an icon to a iconoclast?

puzzling

The Seventh Ecumenical Council named St. Epiphanius as a Father and Teacher of the Church. In the writings of St. Epiphanius, the PANARIUM and the ANCHORATUS are refutations of Arianism and other heresies. In his other works are found valuable church traditions, and directives for the Greek translation of the Bible.

In his zeal to preserve the purity of the Orthodox Faith, St. Epiphanius could sometimes be rash and tactless. In spite of any impetuous mistakes he may have made, we must admire St. Epiphanius for his dedication in defending Orthodoxy against false teachings. After all, one of the bishop's primary responsibilities is to protect his flock from those who might lead them astray.

We also honor St. Epiphanius for his deep spirituality, and for his almsgiving. No one surpassed him in his tenderness and charity to the poor, and he gave vast sums of money to those in need.

 

[Dorothea]

To be clear the writing I quoted was from The Principal works of Jerome... Far as I know no one questions his works.

Well, I tend to believe that it was forged as was said in the article, considering all of what I've read up on St. Epiphanius' life and his constant defending of the faith and heresies...80 to be exact. He even wrote a book/documents on the 80 heresies, and if he were against icons and so vocal about it, it would have, no doubt, been listed as one of the 80 heresies.

 

[simonthezealot]

Well, I tend to believe that it was forged as was said in the article, considering all of what I've read up on St. Epiphanius' life and his constant defending of the faith and heresies...80 to be exact. He even wrote a book/documents on the 80 heresies, and if he were against icons and so vocal about it, it would have, no doubt, been listed as one of the 80 heresies.

Even NEWADVENT does not question this letter, here is what they have to say as an introduction to it...

Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. A coolness had arisen between these two bishops in connection with the Origenistic controversy, which at this time was at its height. Epiphanius had openly charged John with being an Origenist, and had also uncanonically conferred priests' orders on Jerome's brother Paulinian, in order that the monastery at Bethlehem might henceforth be entirely independent of John. Naturally, John resented this conduct and showed his resentment. The present letter is a kind of half-apology made by Epiphanius for what he had done, and like all such, it only seems to have made matters worse. The controversy is fully detailed in the treatise Against John of Jerusalem in this volume, esp. §11-14.
An interesting paragraph (§9) narrates how Epiphanius destroyed at Anablatha a church-curtain on which was depicted a likeness of Christ or of some saint— an early instance of the iconoclastic spirit.
Originally written in Greek, the letter was (by the writer's request) rendered into Latin by Jerome. Its date is 394 A.D

 

[Dorothea]

Even NEWADVENT does not question this letter, here is what they have to say as an introduction to it...

Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. A coolness had arisen between these two bishops in connection with the Origenistic controversy, which at this time was at its height. Epiphanius had openly charged John with being an Origenist, and had also uncanonically conferred priests' orders on Jerome's brother Paulinian, in order that the monastery at Bethlehem might henceforth be entirely independent of John. Naturally, John resented this conduct and showed his resentment. The present letter is a kind of half-apology made by Epiphanius for what he had done, and like all such, it only seems to have made matters worse. The controversy is fully detailed in the treatise Against John of Jerusalem in this volume, esp. §11-14.
An interesting paragraph (§9) narrates how Epiphanius destroyed at Anablatha a church-curtain on which was depicted a likeness of Christ or of some saint— an early instance of the iconoclastic spirit.
Originally written in Greek, the letter was (by the writer's request) rendered into Latin by Jerome. Its date is 394 A.D

I'm not sure how your quoting an RCC site is going to make it more believable to me. Btw, I didn't see any links until I quoted your post. I went to both, read over both pages, but could not find the piece you quoted in either of those links. Anyway, there is nothing in EO Tradition or history that shows St. Epiphanius was an iconoclast. Again, he was zealous on defending and combating heresies. If he thought it was a heresy to have images in the Church, it would've been recorded more than in that supposed blurb you quoted.

Also, remember what was written in the article I posted earlier:

Until fairly recently, it has been a common supposition that St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. AD 310-403) and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. AD 263-339) were, in some sense, “proto-iconoclasts.” This thesis, though, has been sufficiently addressed and dismissed by Bigham, Steven. Epiphanius of Salamis, Doctor of Iconoclasm?: Deconstruction of a Myth. Rollinsford, N.H.: Orthodox Research Institute, 2008. However, even if we permit two dissenting voices, which we nonetheless do not, the honest response is that it doesn't matter. In the famous words of Aristotle (Nicomacaean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter 7), “one swallow does not make a summer.” The point is that even if there were several dissenting voices in the early Church, which we have yet to discover, their trickle of difference is drowned out by the roaring river of the rest of Christendom. They are also unimportant in having had no large or lasting effect; either they were ignored entirely or, more likely, they didn't exist.

Orthodox Apologetics: A Defense of the Holy Icons (Part IV - Necessity of Iconography)

 

[OpenDoor]

Is there any evidence that the Jewish community (before Christ came in the flesh) had icons of Noah, Abraham, or Moses?

Were there icons of the burning bush?

 

[Dorothea]

Is there any evidence that the Jewish community (before Christ came in the flesh) had icons of Noah, Abraham, or Moses?

Were there icons of the burning bush?

That information is in the Icon FAQ link I posted twice in this thread. If you look back, a good amount of the link is posted. . I'd be happy to post it again tomorrow. I'm not on my computer but phone at the moment.

 

[JesusFreak78]

When believers gather as Church, then they become the body of Christ, but this doesn't mean anyone who gathers together.

Wrong. You become the body of Christ when you get saved. To say you become the body of Christ when you gather together in a church is the replace the church with Christ.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Nope, you are applying the method I described above. You take your prooftexts, see "made with hands" and "idols," and then declare that it speaks to the presupposition you have assumed. This is that veneration of icons=idolatry, therefore Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are idolators and heretics. Either this or you take the shortcut, which is the presupposition that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are idolators and heretics because they are not non-catholics.

I would appreciate if you could stop attacking simonthezealot personally and instead show him where you think he is wrong according to the OP topic.

 

[Philothei]

Wrong. You become the body of Christ when you get saved. To say you become the body of Christ when you gather together in a church is the replace the church with Christ.

Really? So when Christ told the Apostles that you are parts of me as I am part of you and gave them to drink the cup and eat the bread he merely was telling them what? Is that not a truth? hmmmm...Think the ramifications of what you are saying for a moment! If we do not become one with his body then we are pretty much not saved at all...Why? Because if cannot be 'assumed into him" then we cannot... be saved. Salvation is upon Christ and His judgment but being one with His body takes place in our lifetime you confuse the two appartently.
Salvation with the "invitation" to participate in His life here on earth are two different things. We are all living in the hope of salvation per HIS words and commandments that He gave us. We are already participating in His Body be part of the Church. The Church is Christ's bride nothing wrong to be part of the Church AND part of Christ's body... Both are correct at the same time.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Really? So when Christ told the Apostles that you are parts of me as I am part of you and gave them to drink the cup and eat the bread he merely was telling them what? Is that not a truth? hmmmm...Think the ramifications of what you are saying for a moment! If we do not become one with his body then we are pretty much not saved at all...Why? Because if cannot be 'assumed into him" then we cannot... be saved. Salvation is upon Christ and His judgment but being one with His body takes place in our lifetime you confuse the two appartently.
Salvation with the "invitation" to participate in His life here on earth are two different things. We are all living in the hope of salvation per HIS words and commandments that He gave us. We are already participating in His Body be part of the Church. The Church is Christ's bride nothing wrong to be part of the Church AND part of Christ's body... Both are correct at the same time.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said you are part of the body of Christ when you get saved. The Church is the body of Christ. If you gather together in a church (building) has nothing to do if you are part of the body of Christ or not.

 

[Thekla]

Even NEWADVENT does not question this letter, here is what they have to say as an introduction to it...

Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. A coolness had arisen between these two bishops in connection with the Origenistic controversy, which at this time was at its height. Epiphanius had openly charged John with being an Origenist, and had also uncanonically conferred priests' orders on Jerome's brother Paulinian, in order that the monastery at Bethlehem might henceforth be entirely independent of John. Naturally, John resented this conduct and showed his resentment. The present letter is a kind of half-apology made by Epiphanius for what he had done, and like all such, it only seems to have made matters worse. The controversy is fully detailed in the treatise Against John of Jerusalem in this volume, esp. §11-14.
An interesting paragraph (§9) narrates how Epiphanius destroyed at Anablatha a church-curtain on which was depicted a likeness of Christ or of some saint— an early instance of the iconoclastic spirit.
Originally written in Greek, the letter was (by the writer's request) rendered into Latin by Jerome. Its date is 394 A.D

Forgery or not, there are several points to consider:

1. As Dorothea mentions, Epiphanius wrote exhaustively on contemporary heresies; iconography is not included.

2. Every writing has a context; we do not know the particular context surrounding this letter. Was the curtain problematic because it placement and thus use considered disrespectful (being constantly pushed aside) ? Was it problematic because of something within the image ? Were there some within the immediate community for whom the image, its presence, or its placement caused a division or temptation ? Again, context is important; without it a full analysis is impossible.

 

[Kristos]

Here is Irony at it's greatest, you guys have an icon to St. Epiphanius...
And yet read his narration by Jerome, and see his view on these things...

"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)

Again this is not new information. This was discussed during the 7th Ecumenical council and the conclusion was that although this does appear to be an early example of iconoclasm, it is not authentically attributed to St Epiphanius. One of the key points for me anyway is looking at Epiphanius's other works and in particular his exhaustive listing of heresies. Many of the heresies he lists are not know by any other writing, they were obscure, perhaps localized, but the point is that he was very thorough - and guess what, icons is not on the list. I suppose one could argue that it was not widespread enough at the time to warrant inclusion, but if the above account was true and Epiphanius really did have this strong emotional encounter, then surely he would have included purely for the sake of completeness. You can look at modern textual scholarship too - there are opinions on both sides, but the case against authenticity is much stronger.

Net - no new information. This was considered by the Church. Icons of Epiphanius are not ironic.

 

[Kristos]

Wrong. You become the body of Christ when you get saved. To say you become the body of Christ when you gather together in a church is the replace the church with Christ.

Obviously, I and the whole Orthodox Church disagree. This is totally off-topic, so maybe you should start a thread if you want to discuss it further.

 

[Kristos]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said you are part of the body of Christ when you get saved. The Church is the body of Christ. If you gather together in a church (building) has nothing to do if you are part of the body of Christ or not.

You inserted the building part on your own. No one said anything about a building.

 

[Kristos]

Forgery or not, there are several points to consider:

1. As Dorothea mentions, Epiphanius wrote exhaustively on contemporary heresies; iconography is not included.

2. Every writing has a context; we do not know the particular context surrounding this letter. Was the curtain problematic because it placement and thus use considered disrespectful (being constantly pushed aside) ? Was it problematic because of something within the image ? Were there some within the immediate community for whom the image, its presence, or its placement caused a division or temptation ? Again, context is important; without it a full analysis is impossible.

\

I guess I should have read the other posts before I replied - at least we are the same page That says a lot!

I believe St John Damascene also talks about this passage, but I don't have time to look it up. In any case, it's certainly true that the fathers gathered at the 7th Ecumenical council knew of this passage, and rejected it as Truth and also did not anathemize Epiphanius, which would strongly indicate that they did not think it was authentic.

 

[Dylan Michael]

I would appreciate if you could stop attacking simonthezealot personally and instead show him where you think he is wrong according to the OP topic.

I would appreciate it if he would stop trying to tell us that we worship idols.

 

[Kristos]

suffering servant.

We have that icon. It is normally reserved for special services during Holy Week. The icon of the nymphios is taken directly from Isaiah 53/54.

 

[Fotina]

I believe St John Damascene also talks about this passage, but I don't have time to look it up. In any case, it's certainly true that the fathers gathered at the 7th Ecumenical council knew of this passage, and rejected it as Truth and also did not anathemize Epiphanius, which would strongly indicate that they did not think it was authentic.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council named St. Epiphanius as a Father and Teacher of the Church.

 

[Tzaousios]

I would appreciate if you could stop attacking simonthezealot personally and instead show him where you think he is wrong according to the OP topic.

See my comments about rhetorically labelling criticisms of a person's method as "attacks on the person." They try to evince sympathy from readers and outside observers by doing this.

My comments have stuck to the spirit of the OP, and told on a number of occasions why simonthezealot is wrong according to his methodology and content of posts. Why haven't you acknowledged this? Is it because you share his views concerning Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?