Replies

Heresies simply forced the Church to spell out what it was that the Church disagreed with and why. But the knowledge of the "why" was there all along. Thus, when Aries started to teach that Chrust was a "lesser" God than the Father, that He was a "creature," the Church knew that was wrong.

Of course! I think it is like a gold mine. Christ gave us a gold mine and it is up to the Church to explore its depths. The profoundness of our faith, I believe, still has much to bring forth. I believe there is enough about God that we still do not know about - by definition - but "know" through our liturgy or practice (and not by theological definitions). However, such knowledge remains "hidden", in a manner of speaking, because we haven't reflected on certain things in a certain way. For example, it is only recently that Catholics, led by St. Maximillian Kolbe, have meditated on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Mary in that moment of union that brought about the Incarnation. I believe it is something the Church "knew" about in its heart and soul through its Liturgy, but has never really cataloged and defined it.

I think this is how doctrine develops. I think it is in retrospect that we can say something was "Apostolic".

The filioque was used to convince the Arians that Christ was co-substantial with the Father and not because the Creed was "incomplet" or "wrong."

Actually, the filioque came after Chalcedon - which is why the Greeks disapprove of what they see as a twisting of Leo the Great's Tome... It was 2 Spanish bishops with adoptionist leanings that the Western Church was combating. I have no problem with agreeing with Pelikan's assertion that Latin is not so clear as Greek in noting the distinctions between the theological procession and the economic procession of the Spirit. I have found that Western Fathers did not make that distinction, while it appears that Eastern Fathers, such as the Cappodocians did. What is interesting is that the Syrians propose that Greek is not clear enough in defining hypostasis! Ah, language! But it now makes more sense to me on the disagreement between the Eastern and Western view of the Trinitarian procession of the Spirit.

As for iconoclast heresy, the early documentation shows that the Church as far back to the Apostolic times used pictures of holy people, and that none of the Cappadocian Fathers found it objectionable as neither did any of the Church Fathers before or after them.

There is quotations from the Church Fathers who are disdainful of icons and statues, because they see it as a return to paganism. Reading such quotes from the Fathers superficially, one could come up with the idea that the Fathers were AGAINST icons. Naturally, the Iconoclasts used such verses in their apologetics. It took more than proof-texting of the Fathers to get to where we are at today. It came down to our definitions of Christ which clinched the deal for icons and statues. And of course, as usual, the West was behind the East (in other words, slower) on such matters, because there was no problem to fight against on such matters...

St. John the Damascene defeated iconoclastic movement using the existing knowledge of faith and not adding to it.

I agree. And it is interesting that his writings are more beloved in the West than the East! The trick is trying to determine what the Fathers meant when they wrote such and such. I am only saying that the Fathers were not unanimous on the issue, when looking at this tradition from a literal sense. There was concern that such practices could lead to a return of idolatry or a return to the Jewish practice of worshiping in a particular "place". Later Fathers clarified what was meant and the practice was verified and condoned. Please don't think I am saying that the Church was wrong regarding Icons! Heavens no! I have one (Christ Pantacrator) next to my prayer chair!

Regards

There is quotations from the Church Fathers who are disdainful of icons and statues, because they see it as a return to paganism

Which Fathers? In the 8th century? This is what the Patriarch, the Bishop of Constantinople, Germanos I, wrote following Emperor Leo III's inconoclastic edict of 730 AD had to say:

...The banning of images would only prove that the Church had been in error for a long time and so play into the hands of Jews and Muslims" (The Oxford History of Byzantium: Iconoclasm, Patricia Karlin-Hayter, Oxford University Press, 2002)

From this, it seems that he was under the impression that no one in the history of the Church up to the 8th century questioned holy images.

Pope Gregory III sided with his brother in Christ in Constantinople and condemned Leo III's superstitious folly, feeling the wrath of the Emperor as a result.

The whole thing started with a Byzantine Emperor, in the 8th century, who interpreted the Scriputre for himself, and not because some Fathers wrote against icons.