Posted on 12/10/2005 9:41:54 AM PST by 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?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. (If you would like to be on/off my Catholic Ring List, please send a Freepmail.)
"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."
They, of course, would exempt PowerPoint!
Over the centuries, statues, paintings, and icons have been the poor man's books. Things have changed somewhat, but in most times and places the majority can't read. But they can learn the basics of their faith from visual representations.
I don't know of any Catholic at any time or place who confused a statue for the real person behind it. And I don't know a Catholic who doesn't understand the basic difference between venerating the saints and asking for their intercession and worshipping God. Only God is worthy of worship.
Wrong! Worship is due to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, western Christianity -- while proclaiming Trinity -- does not worship a Triune God. No wonder it is where it is. The Symbol of Faith (i.e. the "Creed"), finalized in 381 specifically states:
Christians do not worship God the Father through the Son. That is heresy. I will leave it at that.
How interesting that both the author of this article and the author (Mark Horne) of the blogspot he refers to are followers of N.T.Wright, who many consider not right at all.
No, it is the manner of the blogosphere.
When some folks visit our sanctuary for the first time and see the icons, they usually have something to say abour venerating images, etc.
My standard reply is: "Gee don't you have photos of living and dead relatives in your home?"
We do.
Interesting. A quick check on the Nicene Creed in our Anglican Book of Common Prayer (aka 1928 BCP) reads:
"And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;"
(I seem to recall there is a difference over the "proceedeth/proceeds" clause?)
Bingo! In the library I have on the wall a sketch of a long-gone predecessor, whose name I carry... politically-incorrect cigarette and all.
"And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;"
(I seem to recall there is a difference over the "proceedeth/proceeds" clause?)"
Yes, an unfortunate and some say heretical innovation you Anglicans picked up from the Romans. The Creed as adopted by the 381 Council in this section reads, in the original of course:
"Kai eis to Pneuma to Agion, to Kurion, to Zwopion, to ek tou PatroV ekporeumenon, to sun Patri kai Uiv sumproskunoumenon kai sundoxazomenon, to lalhsan dia tvn profhtvn"
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets."
This is not a matter of mere words. It goes to the very heart of our understanding of the inner workings of the Trinity. The Latin innovation effectively, if taken literally, denies the monarchy of the Father.
The "inner workings of the Trinity" is quite far beyond us general Anglican laity, K. (And I fear I might speaking as one a wee bit more educated than most, but only a wee bit. Would you explain, please?)
"The "inner workings of the Trinity" is quite far beyond us general Anglican laity, K. (And I fear I might speaking as one a wee bit more educated than most, but only a wee bit. Would you explain, please?)"
Sigh! OK. Here is the classical Orthodox explanation of the Trinity as set forth in the Epistle of +Photios the Great to the Eastern Patriarchs in response to Rome's insertion of the filioque in the Creed:
"They attempted by their false opinions and distorted words to ruin the holy and sacred Nicene Symbol of Faith — which by both synodal and universal decisions possesses invincible power — by adding to it that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Symbol declares, but from the Son also. Until now, no one has ever heard even a heretic pronounce such a teaching. What Christian can accept the introduction of two sources into the Holy Trinity; that is, that the Father is one source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is another source of the Holy Spirit, thereby transforming the monarchy of the Holy Trinity into a dual divinity?
And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete — and it is perfect because He is perfect God from perfect God — then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the divinity, then the unity of the divinity would be destroyed. If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two hypostases would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one hypostasis alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for the Spirit to also proceed from the Son?
If the Son participates in the quality or property of the Father's own hypostasis, then the Son and the Spirit lose their own personal distinctions. Here one falls into semi-Sabellianism. The proposition that in the divinity there exist two principles, one which is independent and the other which receives its origin from the first, destroys the very root of the Christian conception of God. It would be much more consistent to expound these two principles into three, for this would be more in keeping with the human understanding of the Holy Trinity.
But since the Father is the principle and source, not because of the nature of the divinity, but because of the property of the hypostasis (and the hypostasis of the Father does not include the hypostasis of the Son), the Son cannot be a principle or source. The Filioque actually divides the hypostasis of the Father into two parts, or else the hypostasis of the Son becomes a part of the hypostasis of the Father. By the Filioque teaching, the Holy Spirit is two degrees or steps removed from the Father, and thus has a much lower rank than the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, then of the three Divine Hypostases, the Holy Spirit alone has more than one origin or principle.
By the teaching of the procession from the Son also, the Father and the Son are made closer to each other than the Father and the Spirit, since the Son possesses not only the Father's nature but also the property of His Person. The procession of the Spirit from the Son is either the same as that from the Father, or else it is different, in which case there exists an opposition in the Holy Trinity. A dual procession cannot be reconciled with the principle that what is not common to the three hypostases belongs exclusively to only one of the three hypostases. If the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, why then would something not proceed from the Spirit, so that the balance between the Divine Hypostases would therefore be maintained?
By the teaching that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the Father appears partial towards the Son. The Father is either a greater source of the Spirit than the Son, or a lesser source. If greater, the dignity of the Son is offended; if lesser, the dignity of the Father is offended. The Latins make the Son greater than the Spirit, for they consider Him a principle, irreverently placing Him closer to the Father. By introducing a dual principle into the Holy Trinity as they do, the Latins offend the Son, for by making Him a source of that which already has a source, they thus render Him unnecessary as a source. They also divide the Holy Spirit into two parts: one part from the Father and one part from the Son. In the Holy Trinity, which is united in an indivisible unity, all three hypostases are inviolable. But if the Son contributes to the procession of the Spirit, Sonship is then injured, and the hypostatic property damaged.
If, by the begetting of the Son, the power was thereby given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when He, Who Himself has a source, became a source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a granson! If the Father is the source of the Son, who is the second source of the Spirit, then the Father is both immediate and the mediated source of the Holy Spirit! A dual source in the divinity inescapably concludes in a dual result; therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit must be dual. Therefore, the teaching of the Filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father."
Now read this for the history of the controversy and present status of the filioque: http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp
Not according to this guy. He worships God the Father through Jesus Christ...those are his own words. I say he's pretty confused, what say you dear lady?
...ah, those traditions of men...
God is one, but He is not alone. God is a loving communion between the three Hypostases, each of Whom has a separate and distinct but also co-substantial role in the Divine Economy (of our salvation).
God is not just the Father, but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are all one and the same God. Wisdom, Word and Spirit of God. We cannot worship one but not the other; we are not limited to worshiping the Father through the Son, or the Son through the Spirit or the Spirit through the Father, and so on. God is worshiped by saying "God" or "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
Wow! Another heresy. Heaven's gonna be a pretty empty place, what with all the semantical ways to commit heresy.
So, theology to you is "semantics?" That says a lot, indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.