Roman Catholics and Icons

[Michael_M]

Why is it the case that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as Eastern Catholics venerate icons, and make icons a major aspect of the liturgical and prayer life of the faith community, yet the Roman Catholic church does not? It is confusing to me that of the original five patriarchates, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome, Rome is the only one that does not have a place for icons in liturgical life. Can anyone explain this difference to me from an historical and/or theological point of view?

Thanks!

 

[prodromos]

From Fr Michael AkzoulIcons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses.

Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This “naturalism” stems from the medieval idea that “grace perfects nature.”

The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.

Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

 

[dmar198]

Icons are more than sacred pictures. Everything about them is theological. For example, they are always flat, flat so that we who inhabit the physical world will understand that the world of the spirit where Christ, His Mother, the angels, the saints, and the departed dwell, is a world of mystery which cannot be penetrated by our five senses. Customarily, Roman Catholicism has historically employed statues in its worship. The statues are life-like and three-dimensional. They seem to imitate the art of ancient Greece. Both arts are naturalistic. The Latins portray Christ, the Mother of God, the saints, even the angels, as if they were in a state of nature. This “naturalism” stems from the medieval idea that “grace perfects nature.” The person or persons are represented on the icon as deified. He or she is not a perfect human being, but much more: They are transfigured and glorified. They have a new and grace-filled humanity.

His comments on statues do not seem to be very negative; but in case he intends that his explanation about the flatness of icons should undermine statue use, I must say this: the conclusion, “statues are bad,” would not follow from the premise, “flatness reminds us that heaven cannot be penetrated by our five senses.” Moreover, a statue does nothing more or less with our five senses than an icon. In fact, if we could contrast their suitability, it would seem that icons were somewhat worse than statues at reminding us of the glorified state; for icons constrain the Saints to two dimensions, and statues give them three, whereas the Saints, in reality, are far beyond all the dimensions we can portray them with.

Important to remember is the Latin theory of grace: It is created by God for man. Orthodoxy teaches, as we recall, that grace is uncreated, and impacts all creation. It is a mysterious extension of the Divine Nature. Orthodox iconography reflects this truth, even as Roman Catholic statues reflect its idea of grace.

Neither statues nor icons automatically reflect the Catholic or Orthodox doctrines of grace better or worse than the other. It would depend on how they were made, I suppose, but I really can’t see how they would do it even then. I do not see where he gets this idea.

In my experience, icons serve a very important place in Catholic worship. There is a section on icons in the Catechism, Catholic seminarians are given an icon of St. John Vianney, icons of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, and the Divine Mercy, frequently adorn Catholic households, and icons are still made and venerated for Catholic saints. So we still have a major place for venerating icons, we just use statues too, and those have just as ancient a place in Catholic sacred imagery as icons do.

BTW, regarding the Catholic and Orthodox definitions of grace, grace, in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, is uncreated, so this difference may be overstated. In Catholicism grace is divine favor, it is the life of God.

 

[Michael_M]

In my experience, icons serve a very important place in Catholic worship. There is a section on icons in the Catechism, Catholic seminarians are given an icon of St. John Vianney, icons of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, and the Divine Mercy, frequently adorn Catholic households, and icons are still made and venerated for Catholic saints. So we still have a major place for venerating icons, we just use statues too, and those have just as ancient a place in Catholic sacred imagery as icons do.

I’m afraid that whatever usage icons have in the Latin church, you’re majorly over-stating it. I think you’re also over-stating the usage of statues as well. First, I have never seen an icon in a RC church in all my years. I have seen, in one household of Latins I know, a small Byzantine icon of Christ, printed on paper, stuck to the refrigerator door. Second, yes, there are statues in RC churches, and I have, on occasion, seen individuals praying in front of the statute of Mary. However, statues do not play the central role in liturgy and prayer life for Latins in the same way that icons do for Eastern Christians. As the Metropolitan Kallistos Ware points out, icons are completely liturgical, and “how impoverished the prayer life of the Eastern Christian would be without icons” (I have paraphrased him from a talk on icons he gave in Constantinople). I think I can safely say that statues are not the western analogue of icons.

 

[twf]

I’m afraid that whatever usage icons have in the Latin church, you’re majorly over-stating it. I think you’re also over-stating the usage of statues as well. First, I have never seen an icon in a RC church in all my years. I have seen, in one household of Latins I know, a small Byzantine icon of Christ, printed on paper, stuck to the refrigerator door. Second, yes, there are statues in RC churches, and I have, on occasion, seen individuals praying in front of the statute of Mary. However, statues do not play the central role in liturgy and prayer life for Latins in the same way that icons do for Eastern Christians. As the Metropolitan Kallistos Ware points out, icons are completely liturgical, and “how impoverished the prayer life of the Eastern Christian would be without icons” (I have paraphrased him from a talk on icons he gave in Constantinople). I think I can safely say that statues are not the western analogue of icons.

Michael - I don’t know where you live or what dioceses you have experienced, but this is certainly not the universal reality of the Latin Church. In my years as a Catholic worshiping in Canada, Italy, the Dominican Republic, and Argentina, I can testify that icons form a vital part of Latin Catholic spirituality and worship. I have rarely been in a church that does not include icons of some sort (not just statues). Take Mexico - the divinely created icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe plays a central role in the entire spiritual life of the Mexican Catholic Church. Replicas of this divinely made icon, to which many miracles are attributed, can be found in churches throughout the Americas. In the Dominican Republic, likewise, the icon of Our Lady of Altagracia, which was brought to the Dominican from Spain around the year 1500, plays a central role in Dominican Catholic spirituality - as with Guadalupe, many miracles are attributed to this icon and replicas of it can be found in literally every single Catholic Church in the Dominican. Throughout Latin America icons are processed through the streets on feasts. Our Lord Himself asked St. Faustina to promote devotion to Him through the icon of His Divine Mercy - an icon which can be found in virtually every Latin Catholic parish I have ever visited - regardless of the country. Icons have never formed as central of a role in Latin spirituality as they do in Eastern spirituality, but they are hardly absent. I would imagine that in parts of Canada and the US the lack of icons would be more due to Anglo-Saxon / Protestant influence more than anything else.

In terms of the deification of the saints, this is definitely the Latin Catholic understanding as well - the saints do indeed participate fully in the divine life of the Trinity and grace is not created, it is uncreated for it is a direct participation in the Godhead. I find that Orthodox Christians on this forum repeatedly misrepresent Catholic teaching and continue to do so even after being corrected time and time again. For most Orthodox Christians on this forum, I have sadly discovered, the Orthodox teaching of what Catholics believe trumps what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. Grace is only said to be created in the sense in which it interacts with creation in time and space. A particular instance of grace, its affect on the soul, the union of the divine and humanity in time and space is said to be created in the sense that it starts at a certain point in time, but fundamentally grace is God’s divine life and thus without beginning or end.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

EDIT: I see you are in London, Ontario. I have never been there but my experience in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, which has a large Filipino population, is that both icons and statues play a vital role in Latin Catholic spirituality. Any time one walks into the cathedral downtown you will see the faithful kneeling before statues and icons, kissing them, touching them, lighting candles before them… and this is also my experience in Latin America. I myself have rarely entered a Catholic church without approaching at least one statue or icon to kiss it and pray before it. In my home I have both Byzantine icons and Latin statues and venerate both on a daily basis. This is also true of almost all practicing Catholics I have ever known.

 

[Michael_M]

EDIT: I see you are in London, Ontario. I have never been there but my experience in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, which has a large Filipino population, is that both icons and statues play a vital role in Latin Catholic spirituality. Any time one walks into the cathedral downtown you will see the faithful kneeling before statues and icons, kissing them, touching them, lighting candles before them… and this is also my experience in Latin America. I myself have rarely entered a Catholic church without approaching at least one statue or icon to kiss it and pray before it. In my home I have both Byzantine icons and Latin statues and venerate both on a daily basis. This is also true of almost all practicing Catholics I have ever known.

This has not been my experience in the least. And I think the pretense that icons play the same role for Latins as they do for Eastern Christians is false. Perhaps as you say, icons play a big role in some Latin parish communities. Nevertheless, they play an especially important, and central role in Eastern liturgical life. I am yet to receive an answer as to why this difference exists.

 

[livingwordunity]

This has not been my experience in the least. And I think the pretense that icons play the same role for Latins as they do for Eastern Christians is false. Perhaps as you say, icons play a big role in some Latin parish communities. Nevertheless, they play an especially important, and central role in Eastern liturgical life. I am yet to receive an answer as to why this difference exists.

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic, and I have no problem with traditional Christian icons. And there is no prohibition of icons in any part of the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church has condemned Iconoclasm (Eikonoklasmos, “Image-breaking”) as a heresy.

If you are Catholic and considering leaving to join with the Eastern Orthodox, why don’t you become an Eastern Catholic instead? That way you can stay in communion with Rome, and there is practically no difference between the liturgies of the Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Michael_M]

I’m a Latin Rite Catholic, and I have no problem with traditional Christian icons. And there is no prohibition of icons in any part of the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church has condemned Iconoclasm (Eikonoklasmos, “Image-breaking”) as a heresy.

I know there isn’t. The second council of Nicaea confirmed the usage of icons, and the Roman church recognizes that council as ecumenical. That isn’t what I was asking. Once again, I’m interested in the historical and/or theological reasons for the difference in icon usage between east and west.

If you are Catholic and considering leaving to join with the Eastern Orthodox, why don’t you become an Eastern Catholic instead? That way you can stay in communion with Rome

Because my conversion isn’t simply a matter of liturgy. I cannot in good conscience remain in communion with a church that believes mere mortals can be infallible. I believe that the bishop of Rome is merely the Patriarch of the West, and does not have the authority the Latin church believes he does. I have much love and respect for the Latin church; I did much of my spiritual growth as a Latin. However, it is my plan to return home to the Church of Acts.

 

[TRH1292]

I know there isn’t. The second council of Nicaea confirmed the usage of icons, and the Roman church recognizes that council as ecumenical. That isn’t what I was asking. Once again, I’m interested in the historical and/or theological reasons for the difference in icon usage between east and west.

Because my conversion isn’t simply a matter of liturgy. I cannot in good conscience remain in communion with a church that believes mere mortals can be infallible. I believe that the bishop of Rome is merely the Patriarch of the West, and does not have the authority the Latin church believes he does. I have much love and respect for the Latin church; I did much of my spiritual growth as a Latin. However, it is my plan to return home to the Church of Acts.

Have you read “The Orthodox Church” by Kallistos Ware?

 

[Michael_M]

Have you read “The Orthodox Church” by Kallistos Ware?

I haven’t. But interesting that you ask, because I found it last night surfing through Amazon looking for a seminary-level text on Orthodox theology. I read a few reviews on it, and it sounds like a good read. But (and I’m risking my humility here), I don’t think I would get much out of it. It seems like a pretty basic level Orthodox catechism of sorts, though the Orthodox would probably never use such a term. I’ve listened to (probably) days worth of talks and lectures on Orthodoxy, read so many articles, and learned by attending church. I’m looking for something a bit more advanced at this point.

 

[TRH1292]

I haven’t. But interesting that you ask, because I found it last night surfing through Amazon looking for a seminary-level text on Orthodox theology. I read a few reviews on it, and it sounds like a good read. But (and I’m risking my humility here), I don’t think I would get much out of it. It seems like a pretty basic level Orthodox catechism of sorts, though the Orthodox would probably never use such a term. I’ve listened to (probably) days worth of talks and lectures on Orthodoxy, read so many articles, and learned by attending church. I’m looking for something a bit more advanced at this point.

Theology wise it might be a little basic. But as far as history, not as much. The history is really good. Although, he has a very good way of explaining whatever he writes about.

 

[PJM]

=Michael_M;11531970]Why is it the case that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as Eastern Catholics venerate icons, and make icons a major aspect of the liturgical and prayer life of the faith community, yet the Roman Catholic church does not? It is confusing to me that of the original five patriarchates, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome, Rome is the only one that does not have a place for icons in liturgical life. Can anyone explain this difference to me from an historical and/or theological point of view?

Thanks!

The Catholic Church honors and respects icons as much as any other art form. Personally I am very much in favor of them. We often see them in the Stations of the Cross depictions.

 

[Michael_M]

The Catholic Church honors and respects icons as much as any other art form. Personally I am very much in favor of them. We often see them in the Stations of the Cross depictions.

I’m really baffled by all the non-answers I’m getting. It’s a straight-forward question, in principle. I’ll re-state it once again. What are the theological and/or historical reasons for the difference in the usage of icons between east and west? I’m not sure why all the Catholics here are trying to pretend that the usage of icons in the Latin church is the same as in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. It isn’t. Icons in the East are flat, they are not naturalistic, they are constantly kissed in Eastern churches, and most Eastern Christian homes have them in an eastern corner of the house amongst olive oil and burning candles. Icons are much more sparse in Latin churches, they are not treated the same way, and do not have the same level of importance, nor are they fundamental to the Novus Ordo liturgy.

I’d appreciate it if people replying would stop trying to convince me that there aren’t any differences by emphasizing how much they don’t have a problem with icons, or how important icons are in the Latin church. They aren’t treated the same, and the Latin church does not have the same mentality towards them. There are differences, and I’m trying to understand the source of the difference, without any normative implications. Thanks.

 

[Wandile]

I’m really baffled by all the non-answers I’m getting. It’s a straight-forward question, in principle. I’ll re-state it once again. What are the theological and/or historical reasons for the difference in the usage of icons between east and west? I’m not sure why all the Catholics here are trying to pretend that the usage of icons in the Latin church is the same as in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. It isn’t. Icons in the East are flat, they are not naturalistic, they are constantly kissed in Eastern churches, and most Eastern Christian homes have them in an eastern corner of the house amongst olive oil and burning candles. Icons are much more sparse in Latin churches, they are not treated the same way, and do not have the same level of importance, nor are they fundamental to the Novus Ordo liturgy.

I’d appreciate it if people replying would stop trying to convince me that there aren’t any differences by emphasizing how much they don’t have a problem with icons, or how important icons are in the Latin church. They aren’t treated the same, and the Latin church does not have the same mentality towards them. There are differences, and I’m trying to understand the source of the difference, without any normative implications. Thanks.

The short answer is : We are western , that’s why. In the west statues took more importance in liturgical life than icons. Whereas in the east icons were the main source of spiritual art for Christians. Its simply western tradition.

 

[livingwordunity]

The short answer is : We are western , that’s why. In the west statues took more importance in liturgical life than icons. Whereas in the east icons were the main source of spiritual art for Christians. Its simply western tradition.

Well said.

 

[dmar198]

I’m really baffled by all the non-answers I’m getting. It’s a straight-forward question, in principle. I’ll re-state it once again. What are the theological and/or historical reasons for the difference in the usage of icons between east and west? I’m not sure why all the Catholics here are trying to pretend that the usage of icons in the Latin church is the same as in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. It isn’t. Icons in the East are flat, they are not naturalistic, they are constantly kissed in Eastern churches, and most Eastern Christian homes have them in an eastern corner of the house amongst olive oil and burning candles. Icons are much more sparse in Latin churches, they are not treated the same way, and do not have the same level of importance, nor are they fundamental to the Novus Ordo liturgy.

I’d appreciate it if people replying would stop trying to convince me that there aren’t any differences by emphasizing how much they don’t have a problem with icons, or how important icons are in the Latin church. They aren’t treated the same, and the Latin church does not have the same mentality towards them. There are differences, and I’m trying to understand the source of the difference, without any normative implications. Thanks.

You say this because your experience is limited to Western European/American style Catholicism. Deeply intellectual. It goes back to our emphasis on systematic theology as the high point of rational faith, our invention of the medieval university, the development of textbooks – all Western European things that have profoundly influenced the way we do faith. Go into South America or Mexico and your Orthodox devotion to icons will pale in comparison to Catholic devotion to icons.

I will also mention that my experience with Orthodox icons is that they are educative. They adorn the front of the church and serve as reminders of important persons in salvation history and Church history. And that purpose is fulfilled in Catholic churches by our stained-glass windows, which are usually icon-like, if they don’t fulfill the definition of icons, which some do.

 

[Michael_M]

Well said.

Yeah, not so much. It’s just a “that’s the way it is because that’s the way it is” kind of answer. It doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know.

 

[twf]

Yeah, not so much. It’s just a “that’s the way it is because that’s the way it is” kind of answer. It doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know.

Michael - I don’t have a proper answer for you in regards to the historical reasons for the divergence, but I do feel that you are being dismissive of the information that has been communicated to you. I explained in a previous post from first hand knowledge that the veneration of icons is a vital and omnipresent component of Latin spirituality in the Latin American and Filipino cultures. Another poster has since affirmed this. Why do you assume that your experience of Latin Catholicism, which as I said earlier has likely been heavily influenced by the reserved nature of Anglo-Saxon culture and by Protestantism is the norm of the Latin Church? What makes your experience of Latin Catholic culture in London, Ontario, a decidedly Protestant region historically, more authoritative than what others are telling you in regards to Latin Catholicism as it exists in cultures that were historically Catholic? In some countries Latin Catholics will come from miles away to venerate certain icons of great importance. Yes, Latin iconography is different, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important.

 

[josie_L]

I know there isn’t. The second council of Nicaea confirmed the usage of icons, and the Roman church recognizes that council as ecumenical. That isn’t what I was asking. Once again, I’m interested in the historical and/or theological reasons for the difference in icon usage between east and west.

Because my conversion isn’t simply a matter of liturgy. I cannot in good conscience remain in communion with a church that believes mere mortals can be infallible. I believe that the bishop of Rome is merely the Patriarch of the West, and does not have the authority the Latin church believes he does. I have much love and respect for the Latin church; I did much of my spiritual growth as a Latin. However, it is my plan to return home to the Church of Acts.

Holy moly, are you actually suggesting that this is Catholic doctrine?

 

[josie_L]

Yeah, not so much. It’s just a “that’s the way it is because that’s the way it is” kind of answer. It doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know.

You realize these are differences in customs and traditions only (it’s not a matter of salvation), i.e., we are not denying the validity of using icons because we utilize statues more.