M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
![Grinning squinting face :laughing: š](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f606.png)
You made my day.
I think itās because- purely the East Syriac tradition does not have icons or statues. As it is in the Assyrian Church of the East. But the East Syriac tradition is not iconoclast like many of the Protestant denominations. We are open to apostolic churches (Catholic and Orthodox) that have icons and statues.We donāt have specific rules regarding stuff like theseā¦The Syriac tradition is pretty vague when it comes to stuff like theseā¦I like how the Byzantine Tradition is more āexactāā¦
None at all?I think itās because- purely the East Syriac tradition does not have icons or statues. As it is in the Assyrian Church of the East.
Yes, none.None at all?
the historic Church of the East doesnāt exist anymore. so Iām told technically thereās no pure East Syriac church existing today in the world.Thank you for the reply. I had never heard of that before, so I learned something today.
Pax
no my friend that is incorrectā¦Icons were common before Muslims invaded. When Islam was prevalent, the Church of the East adapted to Islamic practices like not using icons, and to save girls from being raped, they introduced the practice of public confessionsā¦in India, Icons, and statue have an older history. There are āmiraculousā icons/statues. Some were pre-Portuguese like the 13-century statue of St. George in Aruvithura , the statue of St George in Edathua (from Edapally church), the Persian statue of St George that is in Angamaly, and the Icon of St. Mary in ManarcadYes, none.
The Chaldean Catholics and SyroMalabars have borrowed many icons and statues from Latin & Greek traditions obviously because we are in communion with Rome.
not the ones in the Greek and Latin styles. The statues were definitely from after the Portuguese Latin Catholic era. Even the Greek East didnāt make statues. Of course Iām not saying the East Syriac tradition is iconoclast. And yes, Islamic invasions might have influenced the church to be that way. maybe.no my friend that is incorrectā¦Icons were common before Muslims invaded
those are all latinizations that have came in post-16th century.in India, Icons, and statue have an older history. There are āmiraculousā icons/statues. Some were pre-Portuguese like the 13-century statue of St. George in Aruvithura , the statue of St George in Edathua (from Edapally church),
nope, they are not. they latinizations you are referring to are the miraculous statues of St Sebastian in Athrimpauzha, Kanjoor, Arthunkal, and more. St George statue is Aruvithura in particular, is ancient.those are all latinizations that have came in post-16th century.
well they donāt have to bring anything. it can just be made in India.that the Portuguese did not bring any st George statueās to Kerala
exactly, and that too around 13th century according to tradition.well they donāt have to bring anything. it can just be made in India.
Alexandria2020 said:āThe images in the churches take the place of writing. The form of writing of each language is different from another language. We depict images in the churches, which takes the place of writing for those who cannot write nor read, such as youngsters or illiterate people.ā
I never said they wereā¦u misunderstood my commentā¦I just said they became less popular thatās allSo images were allowed. And CoE never had anything against it.
The Roman churches (Latin West and Greek East) post-Constantine gained political power of the state. I think that allowed them to explore Christian art more freely and on a more sophisticated level. The Church of the East was still a persecuted group under the Persians (they practiced Zoroastrianism) and post the arrival of Islam, they were under Muslim rule. So this sort of limited them in more fully exploring art. I think.I never said they wereā¦u misunderstood my commentā¦I just said they became less popular thatās all
I get what you meanread the second paragraph