Icons and the Second Commandment

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

[Tribune7]

Nothing new under the sun

[HarleyD]

I don't "worship" God's word. How could one worship a bunch of words as divine as they are? Reverence, venerate, nor worship fits. We don't worship words unless you consider the Word incarnate. One should deeply respect God's word for it is the power of salvation. Nothing more.

I'm not being as contentious as I am disagreeable. This article started out by saying that Reformers "...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." I don't find it silly at all. There are solid Biblical reasons for this. Catholics, EO, and others cannot explain it regardless of what the 7th Ecumenical Council states and while I have not read this particular document I have read the perspective on this. The arguments are weak. You cannot succiently explain it so what does that say.

It is interesting to me that people such as Kosta will minimize the Bible to the point of questioning it's authority by saying that it took the Church fathers 400 years to determine if the Bible was inspired. If Kosta doesn't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God then he should throw it out. The early church knew it was inspired so he's going against tradition. Does that make anyone uncomfortable? Probably not. The early church fathers must have known what was inspired and what wasn't. Sorry. No Bible. No traditions.

Yet venerating idols declared in the 8th century was OK? I may be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that you can't point me to one major church father for the first 500 years that would agree with venerating to idols. I certainly can point you to 1st century church fathers about protecting the word of God. But the Bible is wrong and venerating to idols is OK.

Who do you think "blessed" those icons? A priest? Someone in the Church's heirarchy? Really?

[Pr3 5]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Luk 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Just a few verses that came to mind while reading all these arguments.
A true child of God seeks and finds truth in God's word.
When we know the truth we'll easily recognize heresy.
Rom 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar;

[sionnsar]

I don't wish to give the impressions that I don't enjoy cantatas, choirs, stain glass windows, or bell ringing. (Bagpipes are another story.)

You have something against bagpipes???

(Seriously, I'm bookmarking this for a subsequent return...)

[LibreOuMort]

What is happening on this thread is precisely the reason I decline to discuss religion with doctrinocrats. (And I don't mean you)

[kosta50]

It is interesting to me that people such as Kosta will minimize the Bible to the point of questioning it's authority by saying that it took the Church fathers 400 years to determine if the Bible was inspired

The Church took 400 years to canonize the Christian Bible. It took that long because the Fathers were not entirely sure which of the many gospels and epistles were inspired and which profane. There was considerable disagreement among them as to which scrolls to include and which to exclude. It's a historical fact, not fiction you are peddling. It's Church history 101 (apprently you skipped that class).

I believe that everything in the Bible is inspired word of God. But my Bible is not the same as your Bible. That's Church history 102 (you skipped that class too; apparently you ad your fellow Protesters think Christianity started 500 years ago by Martin Luther).

You are also accusing me of questioning the authority of the Bible, and I ask you: Did not Martin Luther do the same thing when he changed the Bible the Church held sacred for practically 1,200 years? Did not Luther consider the Bible of his days to be imperfect? For if the Bible were perfect and true all along, he would have not found a need to change it.

You are questioning also who blesses the icons. The icons are blessed at the altar (they remain on the altar for 40 days). We pray that God would bless them, and we trust that He does. Apparently you don't.

Pecca fortiter...

[HarleyD]

How did they determine what was "inspired" if they were in disagreement? Did they just make it up?

Luther had some issues with some of the books (James and Hebrews) but you will find them in the Protestant Bible today.

[Cronos]

Unfortunately, western Christianity -- while proclaiming Trinity -- does not worship a Triune God.

well, no. Catholicism worships a Triune God and CAtholicism is nearly 90% of the Western Church, so your statement is wrong.

[kosta50]

How did they determine what was "inspired" if they were in disagreement? Did they just make it up?

Simple: they had to be Apostolic (i.e. written by one of the Apostles), and had "evidence of inspiration" (whatever that means). Trouble is, there were many such writings at the end of the 1st century -- almost 300 of them, all bearing names of apostolic authors.

The current books of the New Testament, Hewbrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude and Revelation were disputed, as to whether the authors were indeed who they purported to be, along a couple of hundred-plus others.

These other sources included the so-called "gospels" of Thomas, Hebrews, Peter, and the protoevangelium of James, and a variety of other works. They were rejected because they showed evidence of Gnosticism hidden in gospel-like language, or because they showed things that Jesus would have not taught, or simply because the style of the author purporting to be one of the Apostles was not the style of that Apostle's confirmed writings (which was one of the reasons the Revelation of John was kept out for so long).

The final result was that from all these source the Church selected 27 books as Scripture and rejected the rest. Maybe now you can understand why it took so long for the Church to give you the Bible you trust.

In addition, the Apostles used Septuagint as the OT source. If it was good enough for them, it is good enough for the Church. Unfortunately, the Protestants strayed and replaced the Apsotolic OT source with the Masoretic Text as the Old Testament, so we don't use the same Bible.

[Kolokotronis]

Here's the proclaimation of the Council, Harley:

"To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (aspasmon kai timhtikhn proskunh-sin), not indeed that true worship of faith (latreian) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever."

Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries,2 if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion."

That's what The Church believed for the 1500 years prior to Luther, Harley, and what it still believes. Now it is one thing to say that you personally don't want to venerate icons, that you personally don't need them. Its quite another to take the position of Mohammedans and other ancient heretics and say that the veneration of icons is the worship of idols.

[kosta50]

Catholicism worships a Triune God

That's correct, but not to the extent to which the Orthodox Christianity does. The Catholic mindset usually thinks of God the Father first when you say "God." It is God is Trinity, not Trinity is God order of thinking as with the Orthodox. The East also often uses the term Triune God instead of just God.

But, your correction is noted. Unfortunately half of Europe is Protestant, and certainly most of America. The western societies are goverend by Protestant rather than Catholic morality and weltanschau. It is a mix of paganism and Christian vocabulary as far as I am concerned.

[Cronos]

let's not get into the Filioque debate here. Kosta said that we don't worship a Triune God -- I submit that we do worship a Triune God. The question of the monarchy of the Father is a separate issue.

[Kolokotronis]

"What is happening on this thread is precisely the reason I decline to discuss religion with doctrinocrats. (And I don't mean you)"

I hope she means Kosta, Harley and me, S! :)

LOM, with all due respect, if a few more discussions like this one, and others on FR, had taken place regularly in ECUSA, it might not have spent the past 40 years sleepwalking into apostasy.

[Cronos]

Harley is right -- in a way. While neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Churches have idolatry as part of their dogma, there are individual members whose treatment of the statues borders close on idolatry.

[Cronos]

statues or icons.

[Cronos]

the Bible is one of the most man-made, man-altered, man-(re)designed article of faith.

I disagree with you on that -- it might be reworded or translated but the essence, the meaning, the truth is unaltered and has remained so for millenia. The faith we possess is the faith of our fathers

[Kolokotronis]

"let's not get into the Filioque debate here. Kosta said that we don't worship a Triune God -- I submit that we do worship a Triune God. The question of the monarchy of the Father is a separate issue."

Actually, I was responding to a comment by sionnsar and I think Kosta was speaking to a Protestant when he made his remark. By the way, of course Roman Catholics worship the Triune God, filioque or no filioque.

[Cronos]

But, your correction is noted.

Thank you

Unfortunately half of Europe is Protestant, and certainly most of America. The western societies are goverend by Protestant rather than Catholic morality and weltanschau. It is a mix of paganism and Christian vocabulary as far as I am concerned.

Protestanism is deeply flawed, deeply divided and terribly person dependent. I particularly despise the all-singing-all-dancing-shout-a-lot congregations that you find in the "mega-churches" which are so false, it disgusts one.
For Baptists I wonder, for Anglicans, MEthodists, Wesleyans, Calvinists, Lutherans etc., they mean well, but they don't have the roots and their arguments tend to be incredibly shallow. You're right about the collapse of Catholic morality in places like Spain (how dare those Spaniards forget the blood spilt by their ancestors) but thankfully there are still some places even in Europe like Portugal and Poland that hold firm.

[Cronos]

LOM, with all due respect, if a few more discussions like this one, and others on FR, had taken place regularly in ECUSA, it might not have spent the past 40 years sleepwalking into apostasy.

Ping on that, Libre, while I do disagree with Kosta and Kolokotronis, I have learnt from them and respect their point of view. The Church teaches us to explore our faith -- what is surprising is that Protestants expect us to be hide-bound clinging to the words of the councils, but no, the Church tells us: ask, debate and read and learn. If Luther had read more about the ancient heresies he would have learnt to cleanse the Church's outward image (since the internal dogma was/is Christ's and is pure)

[Cronos]

oh, and I do think these little discussions teach us all a lot --> I'm pinging in some Protestant members whose views I respect (red, rokke, take a bow!)