Icons and the Second Commandment

Meam Commemorationem ^ | 12/10/2005 | Jeffrey Steel

[sionnsar]

I have recently read some things on the blogo-world where Christians are actually condemned to Hell for venerating objects within the context of worship. Of course, it comes from many who claim the Reformed Tradition, almost in an iconographic way. To make such rash judgments about Christians who would give honour to the "holy place" of worship by a bow or a bending of the knee is simply silly. To make the claim that Christians in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican Communions are damned to Hell because of this is not helpful in light of what others are doing to them in their own contexts. I find it odd that there were all sorts of "heavenly symbols" in the Temple and on the vestments of the OT priests that were commanded by God to be there and yet these establishments follow the giving of the Second Commandment. Do Christians follow the Temple or the 'Synagogue' model of worship and is this even the right question to be asking? It's interesting that the Second Commandment states "that ANYTHING in heaven or earth" should not be made and yet all sorts of "heavenly beings" are within the Temple. Then we have the Temple and the "icons" in the Holy of Holies. Is this really something to condemn fellow Christians for? Is it really a violation of the Second Commandment?

At the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) - 787 A.D the Council said,

We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of Our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels, and of any of the saintly holy men.

I think the below article on this issue makes more sense than the common "Protestant" condemnation that sends those who disagree to Hell. I have never thought of anything other than the worship of God by any veneration given to the altar, cross, or priest in worship. We cross ourselves in our family, have icons in our home, (large advent wreath now) crosses, crucifixes, statues of saints, and all other sorts or Christian Tradition and we have never worshiped one of these things nor given them the honour that is due to God alone. When I deacon in worship and read the Gospel I cross it and kiss it after the proclamation "This is the Gospel of the Lord." I have never set my will to worship these holy things. Worship is an act of the will and an informed conviction that worship is only to God our Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. This article's point here makes a lot more sense than the broad condemnations that one often finds is being attributed to non-Protestant denominations.

So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to: 1. Be an image of some type, 2. We would have to bow to it, 3. We would bow to it in order to serve it, 4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God. Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment. It seems the real concern of those who hesitate at this point is that they are afraid that if they bow to an Icon and kiss it, that they might find themselves someday falling into worship rather than just veneration and honor. Like one day they would wake up and realize that all this time they had been worshiping Mary instead of just giving her honor. The truth of the matter is that you simply cannot accidently worship an Icon. Worship is intentionally giving veneration to a god. As long as that god is the God, then you have nothing to worry about. No one can accidentally worship a Saint. Worship is a purposefull activity and you do it on purpose and with intent.

The whole article is here. It is a sad day that when brothers, who disagree, over something like this would begin condemning souls to eternal perdition just to let those who disagree with them on other controversial issues know that they are not as bad as those of us who have pictures of Jesus or statues of our favourite saints, crosses or crucifixes in our homes or churches. Can we have a more intelligent and Christian dicussion of these things? Is this now the measure of "Reformed" orthodoxy?

[redgolum]

Forgot to ping you to 120

[stripes1776]

While we revere the word of God, we look upon the method just as paper and ink.

Your wording is ackward. I will assume you mean that the Bible is printed on paper and ink. And writing in the margins of your Bible is a method of getting at the meaning of the words.

The Bible is printed on paper with ink for Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics too. And some people from those confessions do write in their personal Bibles. But the reason I don't is because I am not a nominalist. It isn't enough to recognize the Bible is printed on paper with ink. You also need to go beyond the conceptual nature of language as well. The map isn't the territory you are journeying through.

Revering the Bible isn't revering paper and ink. More importantly neither is it revering concepts of the mind. It is an approach to Divine Personhood. Christians traditionally call that the Trinity.

[annalex]

Thank you, I think someone will buy it for me.

[Campion]

Interesting in that many Roman Catholics claim that they use the same Canon that "The Church always has",

Not quite.

The claim is usually made by Protestants that the OT deuterocanonicals were "added" to the Bible by Trent. The problem with this is that the NT canon and the OT canon were both fixed around the same time in the west -- around AD 400 -- and the OT deuterocanonicals were included at that time. The council of Florence reiterated the same canon 100 years before Trent. That is what people mean by "the same canon the church always used". There was no dramatic "adding" of anything by Trent; they were reaffirming a holding that was widespread, if not universal, for a thousand years.

The east didn't recognize the western local councils which fixed the canon in the west, and fixed their canon much later (1670's) as Kolo notes. But they also included the OT deuteros in the Catholic Bible, plus some others.

[redgolum]

Not really trying to stir things up, but this whole thing interests me a great deal.

I have read all of the deuterocanonicals and the pro and con sides of the argument in the West, but have never really looked into things that much about the Eastern Orthodox canon.

To have it set in that late of a date kind of surprises me.

[kosta50]

If one painted a non-canonical picture of a holy subject, whose relation to Christ would be open to interpretation, and then wanted to pray to it

There are numerous such icons in Greece, and Russia, depicting God the Father as an old man with a long white beard (!). These are various "trinitarian" icons ad well as God Sabaoth icons, a topic which has been discussed on FR earlier. Needless to say, such icons are blasphemy because they portray God the Father in human form, and even the Holy Spirit in human form. God the Sabaoth icons in Russia (around 17th century) show decisive western influence. But in all cases these icons do not correspond to theology based on Scripture.

Whether blessed on not, they should not be displayed any more than we should have copies of the Bible with decidedly heretic content mistakenly or intentionally entered. For sure, we must never assume that such non-canonical icons were painted under the guidance of prayer and the Holy Spirit, for they are deceiving and we know from where deception comes from.

Icons are holy to us because they represent holy people. The only exception, the only icon ever worshiped is that of Jesus Christ, our Lord. But we can represent the image of our Lord because he is fully Human as well as fully Divine.

The icons themselves are blessed and good (profitable in Protestant "lingo"). What we venerate are not the pictures, but the holy people we see through them; not the canvas, the color, the wood...just as we revere the Scripture not for its outward looks and quality of paper or cover, but for the truth God revealed in the words printed in ink on paper. The Bible, like the icons, makes us think of God, allows us to come closer to him, to love and adore Him.

For no words can describe our Lord, just as no icon can picture Him as He really is. So both fall short. To claim that the Bible is perfect in anything but the meaning is to assign perfection to human craft, as it would be if we tried to write a perfect icon of the likeness of Jesus Christ.

When we see a picture of our loved ones, especially if we are far from them, we may smile at the picture, we may even touch it as if reaching for the people in it, or even kiss it. No one for a moment thinks that the photograph of ours loved ones is anything but a paper with an image that reminds us through likeness of them -- we don't see the paper and the in, but we see through the paper and the ink the real people we love and miss.

Thus, icons have a value in that they are true representatives of our theology. They were used for the illiterate masses to learn their faith in pictures. True icons are made "profittable" for out understanding of the Faith, and as such they are blessed. They "do" good in that they bring us closer to the holy people of our faith and to our Lord.

[annalex]

I understand that an icon that teaches wrong theology cannot be redeemed by blessing it. I am wondering at what exact point art becomes icon, assuming it is theologically true art.

Or, the reverse side of it. There are icons, particularly 19c icons, that do not possess any artistic quality of a traditional icon: the technique is too realistic, the facial expression oversentimentalized, etc. But they are true to canon formally: the composition, the inscriptions, the colors are all correct. Does an icon lose its sacramentality when it is done badly in the artistic sense?

[kosta50]

Gee, now you can try to show that I was wrong with a little more than lamentations.

For one, I wasn't looking for a debate, so I don't know what you are lamenting about. I was responding to what you would call a "juvenile" assault by HarleyD, accusing Apostolic Churches of practicing "idolatry." Not exactly an opening line for a debate in good faith, is it?

[kosta50]

Icons are never considered art. There are some rules about icons that I am not fully familair with. One is that the Ever-Virgin Theotokos is never pictured alone but always with the Child (note: contrary to that, the Latin Church will show HVM painted or as a statue alone without the Child).

Such canonical rules assure that icons are theologically and therefore Scripturally correct. The art is not so important but certain colors are.

The Latin Church, on the other hand, has such a phenomenon as "religious art" in addition to icons. The paintings of Michaelangelo are relgious art. His paintings are not revered. We consider it a blasphemy to paint a picture of God as mere art. Our saints are likewise never pictured as mere art. They are holy people, whose theosis is our source of hope and inspiration. They are not decorations. Ever.

[annalex]

Yup.

OK, I am going to enjoy Kolokotronis's book on Christmas.

[kosta50]

If there is one thing that should be more than revered -- as icons are -- it is the Bible. It is through Scripoture that Almighty God speaks to us directly, for that is what we believe. When we open the Book, we are face-to-face with the words and wisdom of God. If you think about it, we should all fall face down at that revelation, but we don't. Our Protestant friends scribble their own profane words on the pages of the Bible. It makes me wonder if there is anything they truly consider holy enough or do they confuse our fellowship with God for a "partnership?"

[kosta50]

OK, I am going to enjoy Kolokotronis's book on Christmas

?

[kosta50]

OK, I am going to enjoy Kolokotronis's book on Christmas

?

[annalex]

See 114.

[kosta50]

Excellent! I may get a copy myself.

[HarleyD]

"I was responding to what you would call a "juvenile" assault by HarleyD"

Wow, it's been a long time since I've been called a "juvenile". I'm honored. Maybe I'm just moving into my crankity senior years. ;O)

[HarleyD]

Our Protestant friends scribble their own profane words on the pages of the Bible. It makes me wonder if there is anything they truly consider holy enough or do they confuse our fellowship with God for a "partnership?"

Generally our "scribbling" consists of:

"Queen of Heaven worshiping (not good thing): see Jeremiah 44"

"Peter NOT Rock: see 1 Sam 2:3, Psalms 18:2, and Isaiah 26:4"

"Idols NO BOW DOWN TO: see Lev 26:1, Psalms 31:6 (VERY BAD).

It helps to speed things along here.

[Kolokotronis]

"The Protestant Church was created by ordinary men, with big egos, not by the Apostles. They took it upon themselves to denigrate, reject, insult, deny, blaspheme and negate all that the Church from the times of Jesus Christ knew to be the truth, and embraced a book that has more man-made innovations and additions to it than any other symbol of Christian faith. They hold Bible study on Sundays and call it a "church." How could they posisble know the difference between what it means to venerate a saint and what to worship God? Obviously, some worship Gof the Father through Jesus Christ, as the author fothe article said. Somebody please turn on the light!"--All this and I'm only supposed to be concerned about comments regarding "heresy"? Is this a defense of iconoclism or a temper tantrum directed toward Protestants? What it isn't is a "constructive" discussion and it typifies much of what these threads devolve into. It is insulting and intended to be so. It is not constructive or educational, and it does absolutely nothing to encourage unity between Christians or encourage others to explore Christianity. It is, exactly as LibreOuMort pointed out, exactly where these threads end up. In the gutter."

Oh, Rokke its apparent you want me to respond to this, and publicly as that is the way you posted it. I'd prefer not to, but I will.

What Kosta has stated is an opinion held by, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox hierarchs, clergymen (and lay people too who have an opinion or have thought about the matter). While we in the "particular churches" which make up The Church do not, at least anymore, view each other as heretics but rather as being in schism, there is little doubt but that other than some Lutheran groups and some Anglican groups, many Protestant beliefs and practices fit squarely within any definition of heresy which the Church employs. That's just a fact, Rokke, as uncomfortable and off putting as that may be.

It is off putting because it challenges a fundamental precept of Protestantism which is what we view as the odd concept of The Church being a communion of all professed Christians, no matter what their beliefs on the doctrinal or ecclesiastical hallmarks of The Church. This, to us, strange theological principle leads to what I see has come to be called "open communion", where, for example, I, as an Orthodox Christian, am welcomed "into communion" with, say Methodists or Episcopalians or Unitarians or Baptists when in fact my beliefs don't even come close to their beliefs. To pretend otherwise while inviting me to partake of their Eucharist or memorial cup or whatever is a fraud, Rokke, a fraud going to the very essence of our beings. Its lying to God, Rokke. To groups which hold this communion of all Christians theology, I suspect it is a blow at the very heart of their worldview to be called a heretic, or to have their beliefs called into question and I don't doubt for a minute that it doesn't lead to an immediate rush to be chrismated in the Latin, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches. It may seem "gutter" like to non-Christians. That's unfortunate. I doubt the pagans and heretics of the Patristic Age were delighted by the fulminations of the Fathers either. But they were singularly effective at evangelization, Rokke, with all their insistence on Orthodox Christianity. That original form of Orthodox Catholicism exists today in Holy Orthodoxy...completely unchanged for almost 2000 years, the past 1400 years of which large portions of The Church surviving and maintaining Orthodox Christianity under a monstrous Mohammedan oppression. In the West, despite the convulsions of the Reformation, the Latin Church has continued to grow across the globe with, until about 40 years ago, a canonical and dogmatic rigidity and absolutism which made Orthodoxy look like a tea party.

You lamented that Kosta observed that Protestantism takes a minimalist approach to theosis. As an Orthodox Christian, I have to agree. I don't know what else to call it. Some Protestants believe that once one "accepts Christ as his personal Lord and Savior", the ticket is punched and no matter what you do, you're "in". Others make a career of defining their faith by making sure everyone knows they're not "Catholics" or "Papists". I can only imagine what they'd say about Orthodoxy if they knew anything about it. No confession for the Protestants, no confession before another human being. Repent, yes, but by all means retain your pride; you don't need to give that up. Make a big deal out of "salvation by faith" alone, then accuse The Church of preaching salvation by works. What a great way to avoid the discomfort and inconvenience of, say, serious fasting or any other practice which has the effect of leading us to die to the self and become open to the fire of the Holy Spirit. What a wonderful theology to have to justify, "God helps them what helps themselves." and then walk past a beggar, or snicker at the struggles of a person with mental retardation who perhaps breaks some eggs he's trying to bag at your local grocery store.

Can it be denied that Protestantism was created by "ordinary men" who got upset at what the Latin Church was doing? I don't see how. I would be far more open to complaints about Kosta's comments if I believed that the Reformers really were trying to cleanse the Latin Church of various medieval accretions and abuses. But I don't believe that at all, Rokke. I don't believe it because when those presented their program to Pat. Jeremias II of Constantinople and, acknowledging that certain practices attributed to Rome were indeed worthy of reform, he pointed out that they were otherwise denying basic tenets of the Faith to which the Church had held fast for 1500 years, they arrogantly scorned the very man they had looked to for validation and respectability. They hadn't gone to him to learn the Faith. They went to him expecting that because the Orthodox Church and Rome were in schism, he'd side with them and tell them what they wanted to hear! He didn't, and rightly so.

So you say that what Kosta said doesn't foster unity. The only unity worth anything is a unity in Truth. Time and again on these threads, as I said earlier, difficult discussions with Protestants have caused me to look deeper into my own beliefs, sending me back to the bible and what the Fathers taught about various passages. That has been an unalloyed good thing for my theosis. It has been a good thing for some of my contestants also; they now get to lump us Orthodox in with the Papists and don't have to be content with assuming we're all Russians and calling us communist stooges.

Bottom line, Rokke, Protestantism in this country, save in a precious few areas (much of orthodox Anglicanism, the LCMS and the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod) is riddled with just about every brand of heresy known to the ancient Christian world, not the least being Sebellianism, which is what started Kosta off in the first place.
Would I have responded the way Kosta did? Probably not, but that may mean that Kosta is a better Orthodox Christian than I am, or put a better way, that the courage of his Orthodox convictions is striner than mine. Kosta and I have responded to each other in almost exactly the way you complain of (as have other orthodox and Latins on these threads) and we're both Orthodox, quite serious about it and ethnically about as close as two can be.

[Kolokotronis]

LOL. You know, when our Orthodox walking concordance Pachomius gets back from the ramparts of Freedom out in Iraq, I'm going to get him to teach me to do that proof texting stuff! :)

He used to be a good little Protestant in a seminary until he fell in with those pesky old God Bearing Fathers and ended up Orthodox!

[Rokke]

"I was responding to what you would call a "juvenile" assault by HarleyD, accusing Apostolic Churches of practicing "idolatry." Not exactly an opening line for a debate in good faith, is it?"

No, and thank you for proving my (and originally LibreOuMort's) description of both the tenor and worth of these threads. Your "well he started it" response is quite in line with the rest of your posts and is worth exactly what it costs to read them.