Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd say it this way, we may not be Iconodules, but we are Iconophiles; and most certainly are not Iconoclasts.
To accuse us of being Iconoclasts--"Image-smashers"--is slander.
-CryptoLutheran
I'd say it this way, we may not be Iconodules, but we are Iconophiles; and most certainly are not Iconoclasts.
To accuse us of being Iconoclasts--"Image-smashers"--is slander.
-CryptoLutheran
Icons are a late innovation or development of doctrine.
As I'm sure you know, the council was not readily accepted in the West because it lacked the marks of an ecumenical council.
Lastly @JM respectfully, you cannot say that the Augsburg Catholic position is synonymous with Western Orthodoxy.
I will accept that Evangelical Catholic Lutherans are, insofar as their doctrine agrees with the Orthodox church, which is significant, Western Orthodox, but not all Western Orthodox are Evangelical Catholics. There are three other significant groups, two of which appear to have a more consistent and developed approach to iconography than some Lutherans, for instance, the Anglo-Catholics and the Western Rite Orthodox. There are also the traditional Latin Mass Catholics and Old Catholics, and some of them share in an understanding of iconography with the Orthodox and unfortunately others do not, so its a bit hit or miss. Also the original Moravians come to mind, before the Pietist distortions of Graf von Zinzendorf. Specifically, there are problems with some later forms of Roman Catholic iconography, in terms of what to do with it and whether or not it is really iconographic, although traditional Catholics such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewksy have done an admirable job on this issue.
It is my impression of Martin Luther, based on the information I have from our friend @MarkRohfrietsch , that he was an Iconodule, even if the mode of his veneration differs from Eastern Orthodox norms.
Thus, I would urge Lutherans to not reject iconodulism; I think a rejection of iconodulism is a serious problem, because of its lack of consistency with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and what is more, I think it represents a crypto-Calvinist influence in Lutheranism. We know that such influences exist, because several Protestant monarchs were either Calvinist or had Calvinist sympathies, particularly the Calvinist Prussians, but even some of the Scandinavian monarchs. For example, in Denmark, the beautiful icons of the round churches on Bornholm were painted over in the 17th century, which is incompatible with Martin Luther’s approach to icons (fortunately it has been possible to restore these icons).
Lutheran Orthodoxy was a very Orthodox movement, as is Evangelical Catholicism, whereas conversely crypto-Calvinism, which I have discussed with our most faithful and pious friend @MarkRohfrietsch extensively, who first alerted me to it, actually, as I had been unaware of it or the extent to which it was a thing in many of the major Lutheran denominations in North America, is something that Lutherans should struggle against, particularly in the LCMS, which is one of the Lutheran denominations least affected by it, where the opportunity exists for a most pure form of Lutheranism which would be highly ecumenically compatible with the Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic churches.
By the way, lest i be seen as anti-Lutheran or as critical of Lutheranism in this post, I would object to that; my godfather was a Lutheran pastor with the Augustana synod; I am proud of my Swedish and German Lutheran heritage, I loved the LCMS school in which i was raised, and I regard Luther’s stalwart defense of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, and indeed the status of St. Mary as the Mother of God, as all extremely important. Indeed Lutheranism holds a special place in my heart, because in its most pure Evangelical Catholic form, it is extremely anti-Nestorian, because of the stress Lutheran theologians place on the principle of communicatio idiomatum. This principle is absolutely essential for Orthodox Christology, and the two denominations that I feel place the greatest emphasis on this, and on resisting Nestorianism, are the Oriental Orthodox in the East, and the Lutherans in the West.
Thus, I am distressed to see apparent confusion among Lutherans who reject iconoclasm but who are seemingly afraid to embrace iconodulism, despite the fact that this is required by the ecumenical councils and is entirely scriptural and of great importance, eschatologically and in other respects.
What iconodulism represents is love; it is the Gospel expressed through the veneration of those sanctified in Christ and of appreciating in worship the crucifixion of Christ through the veneration of the Crucifix and the Holy Cross, which are worthy of veneration but which cannot be worshipped, but which in venerating these things, we are able to adore Christ our God, who among men, by virtue of His divinity, is alone worthy of adoration. No other human is adorable, because Christ is human and God, united hypostatically, and to God alone is due all adoration and worship, and on the basis of communicatio idiomatum we are therefore able to worship Christ in a unified manner, rather than dividing his humanity from his divinity according to Nestorian principles, which is why those who follow Nestorius usually reject icons altogether or else make only an aesthetic, cosmetic use of them, as opposed to actual veneration.
Lastly I would note that my intervention in this thread has been intended to defend Protestants from what I regard as unfair criticism from my fellow Eastern Orthodox friend @Nagomirov , who I believe is in error regarding Protestants, by overgeneralizing them. Most Anglo Catholics, for example, engage in a systematic veneration of icons according to Western practices, even engaging in the Stations of the Cross and certain other iconodule devotions specific to the Western Church, which are not known in the Eastern churches. And also from the false accusation of iconoclasm, which you, my Lutheran friends, have agreed is in error. But in the process of this agreement, we have stumbled across this issue of iconodulism.
Now, if you disagree with me, fine, but please, at least think about what I have written, because I am an ally of Lutheranism.
Artyom Grigoryan wrote to me: "The Armenian iconoclasts wrote as an argument that the icons in the Armenian Church were all imported from Byzantium. The Armenians themselves did not know how to paint icons. There was no school, unlike Khachkars."
- The Assyrian Church of the East does not currently make use of icons and the interior of its houses of worship are simple. Historically, iconography was present in the Church of the East; but opposition to religious images eventually became the norm due to the spread of Islam in the region, which forbade any type of depictions of saints and biblical prophets. As such, the church was forced to get rid of her icons. History shows that the Assyrian Church of the East is not truly aniconic. Icons are not strictly forbidden, but simply not in general liturgical practice due to historical circumstances.
So what? They’re not iconoclasts. Armenian iconoclasm was never the policy of the Armenian church, unlike in Constantinople, which was officially iconoclast for much of the 8th and 9th century.
The Assyrian Church of the East is not Oriental Orthodox so this issue is entirely irrelevant.
I am not writing that the Armenian Church is iconoclastic, no. I wrote that there was iconoclasm in her story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?