Orthodox and statues etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlie_Zeaiter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlie_Zeaiter

Guest
Catholics love to have holy pictures and status etc in our culture.

I understand that Orthodox reject these statues. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Prior to the schism, were the Catholics and Orthodox united in the area of pictures and statues? Was there a defining moment which caused a division in this aspect of our cultures?
 
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
I understand that Orthodox reject these statues. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
Click to expand...
Correction then: Orthodox do not reject statues. There is at least one Western Orthodox parish I know that has a shrine of Our Lady (of Glastonbury?) in which the image of the Mother of God is a statue.

You had it right when you said it was merely cultural divergence.
 
Have you never seen the wonderful Orthodox icons, which are holy pictures done in a particular artistic style/ group of styles?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Have you never seen the wonderful Orthodox icons, which are holy pictures done in a particular artistic style/ group of styles?
Click to expand...
Yes I have. I can see that the Orthodox love their holy pictures (icons etc). But I noticed that there were no statues.

Is it just a cultural and traditional thing that the Orthodox do not have statues? Or is it somthing specific to their faith (as in the way Protestants reject holy pictures and statues)?

Maybe DoxRox above answered my questions already.
 
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
Yes I have. I can see that the Orthodox love their holy pictures (icons etc). But I noticed that there were no statues.

Is it just a cultural and traditional thing that the Orthodox do not have statues? Or is it somthing specific to their faith (as in the way Protestants reject holy pictures and statues)?

Maybe DoxRox above answered my questions already.
Click to expand...
Statues are only a Western practice, from what I have seen. Holy Icons are more of an Eastern Christian thing. In fact, tradition holds it that St. Luke painted the first icon. Statues are completely foreign to Eastern Christianity.

Maronites themselve had their own iconography and are working on bringing it back. Check it out.

I myself like both, but I prefer icons.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Is there any record of the earliest statues in the Christian West?
 
Peter_J said:
Is there any record of the earliest statues in the Christian West?
Click to expand...
Apparently there was a statue of Christ in the Pantheon in Ancient Rome - must’ve been before the collapse of the Western Empire in the 400s at least.
 
and what would be the difference between an statue and a picture, if they both depict an image?

peace,
 
I know that in modern times we see Orthodox as being Greek as well while centuries ago it was not so clear sut between east and west, but the Greeks made all kinds of statues, some of which exist today and are legendary art. What caused the change in Greece?
 
LilyM said:
Apparently there was a statue of Christ in the Pantheon in Ancient Rome - must’ve been before the collapse of the Western Empire in the 400s at least.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
 
The change was a result of the Iconoclastic Controversy around the 7th century. In short (and greatly simplified), the growth of Islam was starting to impact the Byzantine Empire, and some groups of Christians in the east though that if the church abandoned images altogether, they might be able to win back some of the souls which had converted to Islam, since this was among their major objections to Christianity at the time. Rome declared that this was a heresy (that images MUST be rejected), and a compromise was reached. All types of images (stained glass, statues, paintings, relief, etc.) would be used in the West, and (generally) only icons would be used in the East. These icons would be full of symbolism and highly stylized, so that people would be less tempted to worship the icon itself. Icons would be portrayed as “windows into heaven”, where people would peer though the frame and see the image of the saint on the other side (making it clear that they were venerating the person, not the image). This rigid interpretation helped the East overcome many objections to idolatry at the time.
 
I prefer the Eastern Church’s view of the “windows into heaven”. It was this that helped me come back home to the Catholic Church. However, initially I was trying to convince my wife to seriouisly consider Orhtodoxy with me. There were only a few things that bothered me about Catholicism. Papal primacy, papal infalibility and the Immaculate Conception. I can’t think of anything else off hand that wasn’t ironed out in my conscinece after coming to a better understanding. The Nicene Creed Filioque clause was an issue at first too. So I guess I named 4.

The first was generally understood anyway, but not to the level Catholics understand it. The second is similar, but also falls in line with the first. Immaculate conception is different…a little freaky too to hear to Latin explanation. However, it does make sense. And the Nicene Creed…that’s silly to me now. Why of course Christians beleive that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father and the Son. Even scripture indicates that I believe. Jesus promised to send the helper.

I prefer to Icon over the statue, but my home is full of both. My wife’s doing… That’s a huge step for a lady who’s father was an elder in the Church of Christ. We have to take down most of it before her mom comes to visit. That group rejects symbols…even a cross…though her mom is not a freaked out by empty crosses and since I was Catholic when we met she assumes I’m still Catholic…funny thing…I’ve always been Catholic in her eyes even though she condemns all Catholics to hell along with Muslims. We’re pagans she says. Pray for her. She’s 82 with an 8th grade education living in a predominantly poor protestant area of Oklahoma.
 
Hi vocatio,
vocatio said:
And the Nicene Creed…that’s silly to me now. Why of course Christians beleive that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father and the Son. Even scripture indicates that I believe. Jesus promised to send the helper.
Click to expand...
On a side note, I’d like to point out that the Orthodox aren’t so silly as to deny that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father. The issue is whether the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone.
 
Peter_J said:
Hi vocatio,
On a side note, I’d like to point out that the Orthodox aren’t so silly as to deny that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father. The issue is whether the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone.
Click to expand...
Good question…at least for me. I’m always thinking about this one…since I nearly moved towards Orthodoxy instead of back to Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top