Brethren, Peace and Good to you in our Lord Jesus Christ. I was asked the following question by a dear Orthodox Christian sister in a forum I participate. I want to share both the question and my answer with all of you:Posted on 02/28/2012 10:31:29 PM PST by Teófilo
Brethren, Peace and Good to you in our Lord Jesus Christ. I was asked the following question by a dear Orthodox Christian sister in a forum I participate. I want to share both the question and my answer with all of you:
…with your suggestion of discussing what happens when we venerate holy icons, and given that we agree that to venerate the icon is to draw near to the person in the image, then the question remains how does drawing near to Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints affect us.
I’ll be brief for a change. I think that becoming holy is to become fully human and that when we become holy, we are able to take off the masks we present to others, the masks of our pretenses, of the ideals promulgated by our Pagan culture. We are able to show ourselves to others as who we are, in all of our depths, in the reality that God meant us to be from eternity.
The iconographer recognizes this fact; he or she has the gift to see the holy ones as they truly are now, shining with inner light in eternity. With economy of form and movement, the iconographer captures the inner depths and the outer symmetries of the holy one who is now fully what God intended him to be.
The iconodule or “icon venerator” (you and me, I hope) recognizes that we are meant to be subjects for a future iconographer. We need to reflect the Glory of God in Jesus in ourselves, by being the man or woman God intended us to be from eternity, before sin marred us. Our duty of sorts is to be a subject for an iconographer and through the exchange, to become examples for others to emulate.
That’s why icons appeal so much to me, why I treasure and venerate them, and become closer in the Body of Christ to those whom the icon re-presents to us on earth.
Arguments from silence are no arguments. Arguments based on the assumption of sola scriptura aren't arguments either, much less binding on Christian consciences, for the assumption is wrong itself.
It’s too bad they missed that. Great that later, wiser, more godly, mature Christians figured it out though, eh?
Exactly. How about that! Isn't our God great?
-Theo
Arguments from silence are no arguments. Arguments based on the assumption of sola scriptura aren't arguments either, much less binding on Christian consciences, for the assumption is wrong itself.
It’s too bad they missed that. Great that later, wiser, more godly, mature Christians figured it out though, eh?
Exactly. How about that! Isn't our God great?
-Theo
B) You left out this section about Hezekiah:
"He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.) (2 Kings 18:3-4)
What I don't understand is, if image veneration to images and prayers to dead Christians were so vital and helpful...why did Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint John, Saint James, ALL of the New Testament writers actually.... and Jesus Christ Himself, neglect to mention such a vital part of the Christian life?
One has to believe that the Church & its tradition is wiser than Jesus and His Apostles.
That is something I will NEVER accept.
Sola what? What are you talking about?
Arguments based on silence do have no merit—that’s my point—you have no argument FOR veneration/worship of idols—in oposition to everything else the Prophets and Apostles taught us—other than empty man-made traditions.
You want to bind the conscience of Christians by something outside, apart from, and in opposition to....God’s Word? That’s a serious argument...from silence.
Or do you also not believe the Bible is God’s Word?
Well, I’m glad at least you admit that you think your human institution and its tradition—is wiser than God’s Word, God’s Apostles, and God Incarnate Himself.
I only hope you repent of your idolatry.
"Sola Sscriptura." You want me to spell it for you? The wrong belief that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for the Christian.
Arguments based on silence do have no merit—that’s my point—you have no argument FOR veneration/worship of idols—in oposition to everything else the Prophets and Apostles taught us—other than empty man-made traditions.
You call it "idol worship." We don't. You are mistaken, we are not. The issue was discussed in the 7th century thoroughly by people better than you and I, following wanton destruction of priceless early Christian art by self-righteous heretics. Iconoclasts ("icon-breakers") lost the argument. I'm quite tranquil that decision the Church reached was the correct one.
You want to bind the conscience of Christians by something outside, apart from, and in opposition to....God’s Word? That’s a serious argument...from silence.
Which I haven't made. What I want to is to free consciences from your narrow, anti-Christian, and unhistorical intepretation of the right veneration of icons. I have nothing against the Word of God, I do against your parochial interpretation of it.
Or do you also not believe the Bible is God’s Word?
The Bible is certainly the Word of God, but your interpretation of it, isn't.
Well, I’m glad at least you admit that you think your human institution and its tradition—is wiser than God’s Word, God’s Apostles, and God Incarnate Himself.
That's not what I said, but I realize that clarifying it would be futile, because you will make whatever you want of whatever I say.
I only hope you repent of your idolatry.
Nothing to repent of in this regard! But thank you for thinking about me. ;-)
-Theo
OR Is it Worship? HMMMMMM
ICONS are SOOOO NOT? HMMMMMMM
MAYBE IT IS JUST TO HONOR
A Picture speaks a Thousand words in any Language.
And The Church Is Universal in Any Language.
So Why would they Dare use images that Honor.
One striving to keep the Jewish commandments should indeed be concerned about this commandment. The target audience of the article is however not the Jews but rather Christians.
Jesus Christ discussed all the commandments of the Jewish Law with His disciples. These conversations are recorded in the Holy Gospels and explained further in the Epistles. Jesus taught to not use the commandments blindly but look into the meaning of them. The Christians were supposed to have a higher order of righteousness than the Pharisees, as you may have read, if you ever do such a thing.
Neither Jesus or His apostles never mention veneration of icons negatively. Positively, they do: it can be seen from Galatians 3:1 that crucifixes were a part of their worship; and here St. Paul expressly tells us that by contemplating the Holy Images (Icons, in the language of the original), we are to become holy ourselves:
we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Cor 3:18)
Nor is it the only example where something doctrinally established by the Jewish Law is rejected by the Christian Church. As you probably know, the eating of pork is prohibited by the Jewish God-given law. Nevertheless, among the first acts of the Christian Catholic Church was to lift the restriction.
The veneration of images was made controversial around 7-8c and this heresy was anathemized by another Church council. You may or may not know that Triumph of Orthodoxy celebrated that very event in the Orthodox Church not long ago.
If anyone presuming to advise us really wants to hold a civil discussion about how to worship God, let him begin by visiting a Catholic Mass or an Orthodox Liturgy. We have worship cervices every day in a church near every one of you. Attend and learn; observe proper worship and proper veneration; stay for coffee and talk to the faithful and learn from them; till such time, I suggest very civilly to all of the Protestants, mind your own business: this is a 2000 year old Church founded by Christ that does not need a Protestant advice.
The misunderstanding is amazing of the true anointing. The enemy does not want any one to know how anointed these items can be.
“Jesus taught to not use the commandments blindly but look into the meaning of them. The Christians were supposed to have a higher order of righteousness than the Pharisees...”
Yes, Christians have a higher law to aspire to than the Jewish laws. The Christian law is, in fact, stricter than the Jewish law: lust is forbidden, not merely adultery; greed is forbidden, not merely theft; hatred is forbidden, not merely murder. We are told to refrain from sinning in our hearts and not just sinning with our bodies. Still, when it comes to moral laws, we cannot commit these sins with our flesh while having a clear heart. I could no more commit murder with a clear heart than I can bow to a statue with a clear heart.
“Neither Jesus or His apostles never mention veneration of icons negatively.”
Well, they certainly mention idolatry and idolators negatively. The current usage of the terms icon and iconography to attempt to distance the Catholic and Orthodox practice from the pagan practice, was developed later, so there is no reason to expect them to refer to these things by those terms.
Galatians 3 doesn’t speak of a crucifix, it merely says that Christ crucified was portrayed to them. Paul talked about preaching Christ crucified all the time, that doesn’t mean he was showing people crucifixes, it means he was preaching the Gospel! The earliest historical reference to a crucifix is from the 3rd century, and they did not become common until the 6th century, though simple crosses without graven images adorning them were used much earlier.
“The Palatine graffito is also important as showing that the Christians used the crucifix in their private devotions at least as early as the third century.”
“Although in the fifth century the cross began to appear on public monuments, it was not for a century afterwards that the figure on the cross was shown; and not until the close of the fifth, or even the middle of the sixth century, did it appear without disguise.”
“It is certain, then, that the custom of displaying the Redeemer on the Cross began with the close of the sixth century, especially on encolpia, yet such examples of the crucifix are rare.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm
2 Cor 3:18 -
You’re taking the entire passage out of context, and then taking the word “icon” out of context as well. The chapter speaks of how the Old Covenant revealed by Moses revealed only a lesser, veiled glory of the Lord, while the work of Christ reveals a greater glory. The final verse speaks of us, beholding, reflected in ourselves (as in a glass or mirror, according to the Greek), this glory, and being transformed into an image of this Glory through the perfecting of the Holy Spirit. If the image were referring to a statue, then the verse would mean that we were being transformed into statues!
“Nor is it the only example where something doctrinally established by the Jewish Law is rejected by the Christian Church. As you probably know, the eating of pork is prohibited by the Jewish God-given law.”
The eating of pork was a completely different kind of law from the law about graven images. The dietary laws were not part of the Moral or Divine Laws, but the 10 Commandments were. The Catholic Catechism recognizes this, and states that the Divine Law is “universal” and “immutable”, so it applies to everyone (Christian, Jew, and Pagan), and cannot be changed:
“Expressed in the Ten Commandments (1955)
This “divine and natural” law and is expressed in the Ten Commandments. The law is “natural” because reason (which decrees it) belongs to human nature. “These rules are written in the book of that light which we call truth and are imprinted on the heart of man as a seal upon wax” (St. Augustine). “Natural law is the light of understanding placed in us by God through which we know what we must do and what we must avoid” (St. Augustine).
Over All Men (1956)
This natural law is universal, and its authority extends to every man, determining the basis for his rights and duties. “This true law is diffused among all men, is immutable and eternal. To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege” (Cicero).
Immutable (1957-1958)
The application of this law varies greatly because it considers many different conditions. Yet, even amid diversity of cultures, the natural law bonds men together and imposes common principles.
Even amid the flux of ideas, this law is immutable and permanent throughout history, with rules which remain substantially valid. Even when rejected, the law is not destroyed but rises again in individuals and societies. “This is the law that iniquity itself does not efface” (St. Augustine).”
http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_moral_law.html
“The veneration of images was made controversial around 7-8c and this heresy was anathemized by another Church council.”
No, it did not become controversial at that time, that was simply the time when Iconoclasm became a great crisis for the church. Iconoclasm was a reaction to the use of images in worship, which had been steadily increasing for years beforehand, but the topic had never been without controversy. Some of the church fathers, spoke out against it, long before the 7th century. Here’s a nice quote from Melito that demonstrates this:
“There are, however, persons who say: It is for the honour of God that we make the image: in order, that is, that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view. But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He knoweth it not. Yet thou, despicable man! within whom He is, and without whom He is, and above whom He is, hast nevertheless gone and bought thee wood from the carpenter’s, and it is carved and made into an image insulting to God. To this thou offerest sacrifice, and knowest not that the all-seeing eye seeth thee, and that the word of truth reproves thee, and says to thee: How can the unseen God be sculptured? Nay, it is the likeness of thyself that thou makest and worshippest.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html
The greatest work of this nature, of course, was Tertullian’s “On Idolatry”. In it, he goes so far as to argue that those who are in the trade of making idols for the pagans shouldn’t be allowed in the church (without abandoning their professions first), since they could use precepts of the Apostles to argue that they be allowed to earn a living at their profession, and would therefore, keep making idols. In Chapter 9, he deals with those whose crafts were tangential to making the idols, such as making materials or adornments for them, and says they should be allowed in, because they could turn these crafts to other purposes:
“If the necessity of maintenance is urged so much, the arts have other species withal to afford means of livelihood, without outstepping the path of discipline, that is, without the confiction of an idol. The plasterer knows both how to mend roofs, and lay on stuccoes, and polish a cistern, and trace ogives, and draw in relief on party-walls many other ornaments beside likenesses. The painter, too, the marble mason, the bronze-worker, and every graver whatever, knows expansions of his own art, of course much easier of execution. For how much more easily does he who delineates a statue overlay a sideboard! How much sooner does he who carves a Mars out of a lime-tree, fasten together a chest!”
Now, if iconography was accepted by the Church, why wouldn’t Tertullian have just advised the pagan idol-makers to start making Christian icons instead of abandoning their profession? Why would he not tell “he who carves a Mars” to carve a saint, Christ, or Mary, instead of a chest? The answer is obviously because, at this time, the Christians had no icons!
I’ve already been to Catholic masses, having been a Catholic at one time, but thanks for the advice.
Besides, you are wrong on matters of fact.
I could no more commit murder with a clear heart than I can bow to a statue
It doesn't follow. Murder is a matter of natural law and condemned by Jesus. Making images of Jesus and His saints and bowing down -- or otherwise praying to them -- is a matter of manner of worship that can defined by the Church. Certainly the Church got away with the lifting of dietetic law, far more critical to Judaism than "bowing down to graven images"
they certainly mention idolatry and idolators negatively
So would I, but idolatry is not a problem for the undivided Church and not Catholic Church today.
attempt to distance the Catholic and Orthodox practice from the pagan practice, was developed later
In response to iconoclasm, by St. John Damascine. The very phenomenon of iconoclasm shows that the veneration of icons preceded it. The belief f St. Luke painting the first icon would not be possible if it were not plausible for the Early Church to write icons.
Galatians 3 doesn’t speak of a crucifix, it merely says that Christ crucified was portrayed to them.
Yeah, when Christ crucified is portrayed it is called crucifix.
The chapter speaks of how the Old Covenant revealed by Moses revealed only a lesser, veiled glory of the Lord, while the work of Christ reveals a greater glory.
Aha. Thanks. You lifted that from St. John of Damascus? This is exactly why this passage is in context pointed support of iconodoulia: the work of Christ revealed the Icon of God to us.
The eating of pork was a completely different kind of law from the law about graven images.
Yes there are differences but the Church -- whose deliberations are written down (Acts 15) -- did not base its decision on any Old Testament distinctions but simply on the recognition that circumcision and abstaining from pork were "unnecessary burdens. So is the idiotic idea that if I prostrate before the Mother of God I commit idolatry against that very God she is the Mother of.
That whole Protestant checking and tsk-tsking over what authentic Christians do is nothing but pharisaism. You are angry people; when you see people with genuine faith you get mad. I understand. Do you understand?
those who are in the trade of making idols for the pagans shouldn’t be allowed in the church [...] Why would he not tell “he who carves a Mars” to carve a saint, Christ, or Mary, instead of a chest?
Yes, of course he wouldn't, since ther presence of artists would confuse the idol-making with iconogrpahy. Also, various artists today who don't fast, don't follow iconographical canons and make whatever they feel the inspiration to do -- like the cheesy graphics found in Protestant settings, -- do not belong in the Catholic Church, regardless of their artistic merit.
It is generally a good idea to understand the matters you try to opine about, especially if you are not qualified to judge on matters Catholic.
This is what you do, please. Go back to the Church and repent of the sin of leaving her and calumniating her. Confessions are usually heard on Saturdays around 4pm. Then -- and not before -- you walk around, stay for coffees, and ask the person who you had noticed bowing to the statue if he thinks he is worshiping anyone other than Christ while doing so. Then write to me your impressions, or, quite simply, address your concerns to the priest outside of the confession booth and take his advice.
If you’re already biased against anything I might have to say, then there’s no point in trying to have a conversation. I’m not sure why you bothered to start a conversation with me, when that is your attitude.
I write for the reader — not for you personally, — and strive to explain the Catholic dogmata, and protect the Church from calumny. You gave me an opportunity with your ignorant posts and I used it. Thank you and may the Good Lord lead you back to authentic Christianity.
When you said "Apparent, meaning it has every appearance of a violation to an outside observer."
All you needed to do was ask one of us and you'd have learned that we are not praying to an idol.
How is saying that something looks, from outside appearance, like a violation of the 2nd Commandment, judging the faith that is in someone’s heart? That just doesn’t follow from the statement that I made. I’ve stated multiple times on this thread that I already know that Catholics and Orthodox don’t believe that they are committing a sin by these actions. I even said as much in very next sentence of that post!
When you say that something looks like a violation when you already know that it isn’t, what would you call that?
It sounds like bearing false witness to me.
“When you say that something looks like a violation when you already know that it isn’t, what would you call that?”
I never said that I know that it isn’t a violation, I said that I know that Catholics and Orthodox don’t believe it is one. I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t agree with that opinion.
Still, how does that mean I am judging their faith? If I thought they were wilfully violating the commandment, meaning that they knew what they were doing was a violation, and they decided to keep doing it anyway, then maybe you would have a point. Instead, I’m simply trying to argue that what Catholics and Orthodox believe is appropriate is clearly in contradiction to the clear statements of Scripture on the matter. That isn’t judging their faith, it’s simply trying to point out where I believe they are in error in their doctrine.
“It sounds like bearing false witness to me.”
Hmm... so you are saying it is an APPARENT violation of a commandment? By your own reasoning, haven’t you just done exactly the thing you are accusing me of?
What I say is true and I stand by it.
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.
