Posted on 12/10/2005 9:41:54 AM PST by sionnsar
LOL! Since I consider myself a blooming idiot on many things with the Faith, that is high praise!
I tend to avoid discussions on Icons for many reasons, mainly to do with the infamous Icon thread that brought us the Religion Mod a few years ago! But I will tell you what I have been taught and what I believe.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with icons. I personally like crucifixes, pictures of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, icons of the Prophets of the Old Testament, etc. They can be a great way to instruct people (most are very visual), and to be honest most of the hymns that I so love to sing could rightly be called "verbal icons".
The danger lies in those, who through ignorance or misunderstanding, start to view the icons themselves as a short of divine thing. I am not very comfortable praying before any statue, because of that danger. While not condoned, I have personally known a few who really believe that unless you pray before a statue of Mary, you will be condemned.
Now I know that no Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglican has ever proclaimed that to be good doctrine, but such things are out there. Those who are knowledgeable about their faith and view icons as depictions of those who have gone before us can use icons in the manner they were intended to be. To aid in the worship of God and to meditate on the example of those who have gone before us to Glory. Those who are badly taught or perhaps still semi pagan can tend to view icons as short of a demi god.
In short, while I probably won't kneel in front of an icon (my knees and back hurt to much to kneel all that much), I won't begrudge those that do. But I sometimes feel that the distinction between the object of plaster and wood and the actual thing can get lost.
"In short, while I probably won't kneel in front of an icon (my knees and back hurt to much to kneel all that much), I won't begrudge those that do."
LOL!I don't kneel in front of icons anymore either and for the same reason. A couple of years back I was going to my sf for confession. He had me kneel before the icon of Christ and put his epipetrahelion over me and I commenced to confess. The pain in my knees got so bad I started to shake all over. I asked if I could stand and he said OK. I explained why and he said, "Oh, good! I was wondering why what you were confessing seemed so awful to you that you would be shaking so much! I thought we'd have to have a long talk about gaining a sense of propostion after the confession!"
As for worshipping icons, I personally have never seen it but I suspect it could happen and probably does. People develop some strange ideas when they are not properly catechised. The concept of the "Evil Eye" is one. In Greece one sees people who wear a little blue eye as a piece of jewelry and they believe that that piece of glass keeps them safe from curses and the devil. Its of course terribly pagan but its there as part of the folk culture of Greece.
"...thankfully there are still some places even in Europe like Portugal and Poland that hold firm."
Two of my most favorite places in Europe, no the least because they are the two most truly and profoundly Catholic places I have ever been!
"Ping on that, Libre, while I do disagree with Kosta and Kolokotronis, I have learnt from them and respect their point of view."
When have you ever disagreed with us, Cronos? :) Seriously, the discussions here on FR have been in accord with what the Pope and the EP have asked us to do and so far as I can see, we have all learned a great deal and that can't be bad. Some of us remember when these discussions were just flame wars. That's not happening much at all anymore, Thank God!
" Nothing like arguing about what divides us to obliterate any focus on what unites us."
Well, I suppose there are two ways to look at that, Rokke. One is what you have proposed. The danger is that in so doing we ignore, or brush under the rug the very real disagreements and thus end up with a very nice, but ultimately sham unity which recognizes "pluriform truths" as ECUSA hierarchs like to put it. The other way to look at the situation is to recognoze that we do in fact agree on a multitude of points and take that as a given. From that point we discuss what we perceive as differences. My experience is that nearly as often as not those differences are only in the way we talk about the Truth, not in what we believe the Truth to be. The consequence of that exercise is one or more issues in the "we agree" column. The converse of course is also true but that has advantages too. None of us want people of other beliefs to "pretend" they believe what we do The only way to definitively discuss what we perceive to be differences is to have doctrinaire discussions, otherwise what we end up with are a bunch of personal opinions. In at least discussions among Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, that just isn't acceptable, unless of course there is some disclaimer to the effect that what we are talking about is simply personal opinion.
The problem is, in most cases nobody "discusses" anything on these threads, and the intent isn't to learn. The intent is to "win". Take a look at this thread from the perspective of a non-Christian who is interested in learning about Christian faith. He has as much chance of learning something constructive about Christianity as he does learning something constructive about marriage by watching the Gerry Springer show. Read Kosta50's post 36 again. If you are really trying to discuss and educate, do you pepper your statements with insults, vindictives and rhetoric. If you are trying to point out to a homosexual why you think his decisions in life are wrong, do you think you'd get very far by starting your discussion with "look you limp wristed pole smoker". And I'm as guilty as the next guy of fighting rather then discussing. The bottomline is, almost nothing constructive comes from these very public threads, and as the introduction of the "religion moderator" indicates, the net result is often very ugly and harmful. How incredibly embarrassing (and revealing) that threads discussing religious topics (usually doctrine) require their own moderator. While at various times I have had incredibly useful and informative discussions with several people on this thread (including you) via Freepmail, public doctrinal discussions seem to be an exercise in the art of verbal warfare (and there ain't a lot of art involved). In my opinion, Christians would be better served, and would serve better by discussing the central truths of Christianity in public, and argue the differences of doctrine in private.
Not really. I do almost no posting but a lot of reading/lurking and I have to say your posts are some of the most enlightening of all...without the vitriol, unless provoked.
The bottomline is, almost nothing constructive comes from these very public threads, ...
Actually I'll speak for myself on that one and say I gain quite a bit of info from many of these threads. Of course you have to sort through a lot a crapola sometimes and you tend to learn over time who is credible and who is not. That certainly speeds up the sorting process.
Merry Christmas.
I believe it was Steve Martin's definition that Hell would be having to listen to 10,000 bagpipers simultaneously playing Ol' Danny Boy in the middle of a football stadium. I can't say that he's far off. :O)
That is (or was I guess) the biggest fault the Anglicans have. The Via Media (spelling) or "middle way" is one that is self defeating at best. Trying to have a sacramental theology in union with some rather anti sacramental theology is a bit schizophrenic.
I enjoy and learn alot from these threads, even if I don't agree with them. I pray for the Church to be unified someday, even though I suspect that will be when Christ comes again. You can not have unity unless you have unity of doctrine.
"The problem is, in most cases nobody "discusses" anything on these threads, and the intent isn't to learn. The intent is to "win"."
Well, an effort at "winning" on these threads is an exercise in futility, except in those cases where someone has posted as doctrine or dogma in another's faith something which simply isn't. Then correction is necessary lest a misapprehension of fact continue. Otherwise I do understand your point, but I must say that even the most difficult discussions, dogmatic and doctinaire, that I have been in here for at least the past year haven't approached the level of a flame war. Now again, I am a trial lawyer so my skin is pretty thick! I must tell you that my conversations with many Protestants here have been, to say the least, enlightening, for me. And I don't mean just with Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans; I mean with true Calvinists and others who are very nearly true Calvinists. For example, I never knew anything about Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism until various Calvinists taught me the terms, what they mean and why they are important in their theology. I've had similar experiences with Roman Catholics, in particular on questions about the Roman formulation of Original Sin, indulgences and Purgatory. My mind hasn't been changed in any dramatic way, but I have in some instances increased my knowledge and in others been self-compelled to re-think old assumptions about what other people believe. And the advantage of a site like this is that it pulls in people from all over the world. The opportunities for me, where I am, to have regular converstaions like this simply don't exist, as I suspect they don't exist for most of us. FR private messaging is OK and appropriate in some instances, but it is necessarily "private" and thus limits participation.
There are bad things which happen here, of course. Right now there is another thread running in response to a piece of Orthodox polemics by a convert from Protestantism which would gag a maggot on a fence post a mile away. And that thread, apparently, is a response to a similar piece of polemics by a similar convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism. The stuff is flame bait, pure and simple and that's just what's happening on that thread. I think most of us who are serious about what we are doing here simply don't post that sort of stuff because it just leads to trouble. When it is posted, its best simply to ignore it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't post apologetic or dogmatic pieces, or even in some instances, provocative, if thoughtful, pieces. That is what I see going on on this thread.
Final thought. I note that you took offense at Kosta speaking about heretics and Protestants in the same breath. You should always take that sort of thing whence it comes when dealing with us Orthodox. We're past masters at heresy; we pretty much invented it so we have shall we say a more refined sensitivity to it than you guys in Western Christianity! :) Its no lie to say that we have been known to sit up nights pondering possible heresy in our own hierarchs. Its actually something we are expected to do. Its one of our roles in the Church. If it wasn't for precisely that mindset, the False Union of Florence might have stuck. One of the favorite passtimes of a chunk of Orthodoxy is to shriek about the the "heresy of the Gregorian Calendar" or the "heresy of ecumenism", usually pointing the finger directly at the Ecumenical Patriarch, so you shouldn't feel singled out.
Been re reading a book about old heresies, and that post LOL funny!
T'wuid be aye loud!
I once played in a stadium with a thousand other pipers (Santa Rosa CA Highland Games). When the 300 drums started it felt like the world was coming apart -- then the pipes started... I was shocked to discover I couldn't hear my own pipes -- not even when I played a wrong note to test. I only knew they were going by the vibrations I could feel in my fingers.
That is amazing. I'm not sure I would be able to hear after that.
Did you all wear kilts? Did you take a poll on who PROPERLY wore their kilts? ;O)
Kilts? We were there for piping competitions, solo as well as band (and only the bands were on the field; it's an event known as "Massed Bands") -- definitely we were wearing kilts!
Yes, that is one of the dogmatic statements of the early church that defines the issue of idolatry with great clarity. For idolatry does not reside in objects. It is a spiritual attitude to objects. Rob an object of its iconic function to point beyond itself and you have turned it into an idol. Anything may become an idol it you approach it in a literal and mechanistic attitude. This includes the Bible, the Eucharistic elements, and dogmatic statements of the church. Render any of these opaque with a mechanistic attitude, and you have created an idol.
Yes, but the faith of the fathers resides in the fathers, in persons. It is a communion of Saints. The Word of God is not a book; it is a living Divine Person. If the words of the Bible point to the experience of that living Person, then it is an image approached in its iconic function. But if your God becomes language, then you have created an idol.
Terrific defense of apostolic Christianity, Kosta.
I have a technical question. Do icons need to be blessed? I have come across a modern Orthodox iconographer's website (did not keep the link) and he explained that icons are blessed by the very act of writing them and any additional blessing is innecessary. Or perhaps he meant that they are blessed intrinsically. Was he wrong?
Medieval Sourcebook, Decree of Second Council of Nicea, 787
"The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images ! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic
"551 "Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about. idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols."
Too much for me to sort out. Indeed, the Protestants were athametized, and it has never been retracted. What is one to do? All I know for certain is that the first Christians did not have icons but only used symbols. They didn't come into use until about two centuries later, and the practice grew more popular, some pointed out for good reason that the common people needed pictorial representations because they could not read. I don't know if that will pass muster up yonder or not.
It should be noted were that the only images used in Jewish worship were commanded directly from God Himself. The common people who introduced other ones were punished severely.
I personally no longer believe that St. Luke painted an icon ; that is no doubt a pious legend.
Personally I've never heard anyone venerating or bowing down in front of the Bible. I will add that the Bible states that greed is the same thing as idolatry (Col 3:5) and insubordination is at the same level as idolatry (1 Sam 15:23). So I think there is some truth to what you state.
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.