Icons...

[Dorothea]

It was a letter from Epiphanius penned by Jerome and written to John the bishop of Jerusalem in 392

Yes, and that letter was said to be forged by Byzantine iconoclasts at the time.

maybe the recorded experience of the torn curtain as detailed by Jerome happened after his writings on these heresies..

But even if it maybe was not a forgery, the context, as Thekla said, is not really explained well. And since that's the only piece of it, we cannot know for sure. What we do know for sure is that the 7th EC declared him a Father of the Church at the very time they were affirming the use of icons in the Church.

Also, this idea of tearing down the curtain happened after he wrote his 80 heresies, doesn't really work out either because there were images in the Churches and catacombs from the beginning. So, St. Epiphanius was aware of them and around them many times. But this one time, recorded by forgery or not, is supposed to show he was against icons?

 

[Tzaousios]

Yes, and that letter was said to be forged by Byzantine iconoclasts at the time.

I wonder why this is being ignored?

Peanut Gallery: "Dorothea must be making this up because she is Orthodox, not because scholars have forensically and literally determined that the document's authenticity is questionable at best."

Also, this idea of tearing down the curtain happened after he wrote his 80 heresies, doesn't really work out either because there were images in the Churches and catacombs from the beginning.

Exactly. I wonder what the retort against this will be? These images were there since the beginning in the Catacombs. Just recently one of the oldest images of Paul (I think it was him) was uncovered in a catacomb. Will it be said that these images were not venerated and constituted nice pictures to spruce up the rather dank, dark, and moldy walls?

 

[Philothei]

Quite the leap there sister, even your link would not go that far...Instead they left an opening for areas of his teachings which they opposed by stating this,
"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."

Simon ONE father never gave dogma it was the synods that did and the councils...Then Arius must be right? Origen gave us opinions too...they were NOT dogma... You are bringing again Frs to disprove Frs... You only accept the ones who serve your opinion.

 

[Philothei]

I wonder why this is being ignored?

Peanut Gallery: "Dorothea must be making this up because she is Orthodox, not because scholars have forensically and literally determined that the document's authenticity is questionable at best."



Exactly. I wonder what the retort against this will be? These images were there since the beginning in the Catacombs. Just recently one of the oldest images of Paul (I think it was him) was uncovered in a catacomb. Will it be said that these images were not venerated and constituted nice pictures to spruce up the rather dank, dark, and moldy walls?

Plus who can ignore the nice iconography of the Jewish Temples Maybe I need to dig up my old posts hehe...

 

[Thekla]

Compare the number of extant "images" from the early centuries of Christianity with the extent of extant pieces of Scripture ...

 

[simonthezealot]

I wonder why this is being ignored?

Peanut Gallery: "Dorothea must be making this up because she is Orthodox, not because scholars have forensically and literally determined that the document's authenticity is questionable at best."

Well the reason being is that the link she gave was not an academic or historical document, whereas I showed academic documents and ones from even the catholic church recognizing it's authenticity.

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon ONE father never gave dogma it was the synods that did and the councils...Then Arius must be right? Origen gave us opinions too...they were NOT dogma... You are bringing again Frs to disprove Frs... You only accept the ones who serve your opinion.

If you would go back and read you'd see I was simply pointing out the irony in having an icon to Epiphanius whom himself was an iconoclast.

 

[simonthezealot]

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.

This was actually more what i was speaking toward...
“He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.”

 

[Tzaousios]

Well the reason being is that the link she gave was not an academic or historical document, whereas I showed academic documents and ones from even the catholic church recognizing it's authenticity.

What is an "academic document?" I do not remember seeing any statements from reputable scholars that verified the document's authenticity or did not have doubts about it.

Also, just because it comes from a Catholic website does not mean it is authentic or that the particular person commenting on it had their facts straight. Where was it stated that it was authentic without doubt?

 

[Tzaousios]

This was actually more what i was speaking toward...
“He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.”

Which does not mean that Orthodox icons of Christ depict him as particularly handsome or as a runway model or anything. He is depicted as being a rather normal looking Mediterranean male. The only time he is depicted in any kind of exalted manner is the specific types of Christ the King, Christ the Pantokrator, and Christ the Teacher.

 

[Dorothea]

I wonder why this is being ignored?

Peanut Gallery: "Dorothea must be making this up because she is Orthodox, not because scholars have forensically and literally determined that the document's authenticity is questionable at best."

Exactly. I wonder what the retort against this will be? These images were there since the beginning in the Catacombs. Just recently one of the oldest images of Paul (I think it was him) was uncovered in a catacomb. Will it be said that these images were not venerated and constituted nice pictures to spruce up the rather dank, dark, and moldy walls?

Here's some info on the paintings on the catacomb walls: D)

After a Protestant enters an Orthodox church, he will see immediately in front of him, people lighting candles and kissing icons, which are paintings of Jesus, the saints, and of holy events. This may be the first real shock for him. Protestants have been trained to abhor any use of religious images and any connections with them, except for crosses, stained-glass windows, and a few other icon-like depictions. Watching Orthodox people kissing icons is to a Protestant no different than worshipping statues or pagan deities. But the practice of kissing icons goes back to apostolic times, in the catacombs of Rome, where the bodies of dead Christians were entombed with paintings of their faces or of events of their lives depicted on the corpses or walls near them. The first Christians would kiss these paintings and pray for them and ask them to pray for the Christians on earth. Paintings and inscriptions of these practices can still be seen on catacomb walls today. Furthermore, kissing was a normal function of everyday life, as a sign of friendship, much like shaking hands in modern times. But to an early Christian it was also a sign of union with other Christians in the Body of Christ. But most importantly, the early Christians did not believe in a division between Heaven and earth. They believed that the dead saints were still alive, as Jesus teaches in the Gospels, that God is the God of the living, not of the dead. The first Christians considered heavenly beings to be members of the same Body of Christ, that the Church consisted of living and dead Christians, not as though death was a separation, but that both the saints on earth and the saints in Heaven were not divided; they were all alive in Christ. Therefore, kissing icons was treated as a symbolic act of preserving a literal communion between Heaven and earth in the Body of Christ. It was a way to impress on the minds and souls of all true Christians that in Jesus Christ, there is no death and no separation between the saints in Heaven and Christians on earth. This is why there was never a problem with praying to the saints and asking them to pray to God for Christians on earth. Just as Christians on earth pray for each other, so was it accepted without question to ask the saints in Heaven to pray to God for the saints on earth. Indeed, since apostolic times it was never an issue to kiss icons and commune with the saints in Heaven. It only became an issue after the Muslims in the 7th century conquered major regions of Christianity. Islam abhors any use of images in worship, and because Islam demands the persecution of non-Muslims under their domination, many Christians felt pressured to compromise the Faith a little bit by rejecting the use of icons in order to appease the Muslims or because of actual belief in this new doctrine. But the apostolic practice of icons prevailed.

First Introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy

 

[Dorothea]

Well the reason being is that the link she gave was not an academic or historical document, whereas I showed academic documents and ones from even the catholic church recognizing it's authenticity.

Taking bits and pieces from Church Fathers that doesn't have its full context to try to make a point that it doesn't is not my idea of showing academic or historic evidence.

 

[Philothei]

Christ in "extreme humility" icon:

We see the deprivation of His beauty (outside beauty) here ^

 

[simonthezealot]

Taking bits and pieces from Church Fathers that doesn't have its full context to try to make a point that it doesn't is not my idea of showing academic or historic evidence.

Why do you accuse me of snippeting ecf's I ALWAYS( or nearly,anyway) provide a link showing the actual writings and links which attributed to either an official church site or a university site... I rarely see anyone else around here who does that.

 

[Tzaousios]

Why do you accuse me of snippeting ecf's I ALWAYS( or nearly,anyway) provide a link showing the actual writings and links which attributed to either an official church site or a university site... I rarely see anyone else around here who does that.

Because it shows that you are only pressing the Church Fathers into the service of your presuppositions and rhetorical constructions. That appears to be their only worth to you.

Why have you engaged in such selective replying over the past few pages?

 

[simonthezealot]

What is an "academic document?" I do not remember seeing any statements from reputable scholars that verified the document's authenticity or did not have doubts about it.

Also, just because it comes from a Catholic website does not mean it is authentic or that the particular person commenting on it had their facts straight. Where was it stated that it was authentic without doubt?

CCEL and newadvent indicate that they are pseudo when authenticity is in question.

 

[Tzaousios]

CCEL and newadvent indicate that they are pseudo when authenticity is in question.

I understand what the designation "pseudo" before ancient authors means. However, CCEL and the Catholic Encyclopedia are hardly what I would consider scholarly or academic. Not only are both almost a century old and even older, but their primary purpose was philological in nature, not palaeography or manuscript quellenforschung.

Also, Schaft was vehemently Protestant in the Harnakian tradition, which means that he was not particularly fond of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. That is not very trustworthy when it comes to deciding whether or not an Iconoclastic source is authentic.

 

[Philothei]

Plus some doc that were recovered from old ones have not had the authenticity behind them to support them. Also it does not matter what one or two or whatever number of fathers say...as long as they are not part of the decisions of the councils. I think most of us know that the Church did not accept a writing cause so and so wrote it rather it depends WHAT was that doc was about... Not ALL writings of the Fathers are orthodox examples many from Origen to Augustine comes to mind.

 

[Kristos]

CCEL and newadvent indicate that they are pseudo when authenticity is in question.

And you think this is grounds for overturning the 7th Ecumenical Council? This writing isn't even new evidence. It was addressed by the council and by St John Damascene, St Theodore Studite and St Nicephorus. It's going to take a lot more than that to reopen the issue, much less over turn the council.

 

[Philothei]

And you think this is grounds for overturning the 7th Ecumenical Council? This writing isn't even new evidence. It was addressed by the council and by St John Damascene, St Theodore Studite and St Nicephorus. It's going to take a lot more than that to reopen the issue, much less over turn the council.

Yeah right!!!
One Father speaks the whole church has to follow that sounds so familiar does it?