SPLIT: Going where I do not want to go? (Part 1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timmy_Z
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Images were in use before there was an official policy. But due to the iconoclasm controversy in the East, the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea addressed the issue in 787.

Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9405fea1sb.asp

Iconoclasm
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea5sb2.asp

Cardinal Ratzinger on Iconoclasm
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0604fea2sb2.asp
So the early decision you mentioned was…when exactly? When did Christians start going against what the ECF’s I quoted believed? Do you have any ECF quotes for me?
 
The earliest decision that I know of is that referenced in the 2nd Council of Nicea that I previously referenced. Of course, a council decision like that only comes about when some practice is disputed, so the Church was obviously using religious art before that time.

I did a quick web search and found the following relating to Christian images used in earlier centuries:

gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Bible/jcart.stm
Early Christian Art

jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/
Early Christian Symbols from the Catacombs

Now you may not consider 787 to be early enough for an official decision. But it’s early enough for me, as I don’t expect the church throughout the centuries to look just like the church of the first century, any more than my teen photos look like my baby pictures.

But since Christians apparently used Christian art in the Catacombs during the persecutions, I’d think that is pretty early for its use.
 
Now you may not consider 787 to be early enough for an official decision. But it’s early enough for me, as I don’t expect the church throughout the centuries to look just like the church of the first century, any more than my teen photos look like my baby pictures.

But since Christians apparently used Christian art in the Catacombs during the persecutions, I’d think that is pretty early for its use.
Pretty early…200 or 300 hundred years after Christ…yeah…the American Revolution seems just like yesterday…:rolleyes:

For anyone reading this, just understand, the early Christian church did not venerate images and were opposed to it. Even if some Christian, 200 or 300 years after the fact, drew pictures, you do realize there is no evidence they venerated them or used them in worship. Read the quote from the bishop and what he thought again. The apostles did not teach this practice!
The ECF’s are very clear on this and Jim is not providing quotes to refute them. Because, they do not exist. Just remember that every time you venerate an image.
 
The earliest references are opposed to them:

Clement of Alexandria, writing around the year 200 AD said:

Around the year 3oo AD, a prolific Christian author named Lactanius from Africa writes the following about images:


“

Perhaps the best example comes from Letter 51, as quoted from Jerome, From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. This letter originates around the year 400 AD. Epiphanius, a bishop, wrote about how he ripped an “icon” of a wall and why:
Could you please identify the works and the location in the works where these quotes can be found - also the quote from Origen in your following post (which Book and which chapter in “Against Celsus”)? I would like to read the passages in context.

Actually, in Origen’s “Against Celsus”, Book I, Chapter 5, (as I understand it) seems to imply that Christians do have images but would never think of worshipping them as gods. That passage however is not the one you are citing.

Nita
 
Could you please identify the works and the location in the works where these quotes can be found - also the quote from Origen in your following post (which Book and which chapter in “Against Celsus”)? I would like to read the passages in context.

Actually, in Origen’s “Against Celsus”, Book I, Chapter 5, (as I understand it) seems to imply that Christians do have images but would never think of worshipping them as gods. That passage however is not the one you are citing.

Nita
All quotes are from the Ante-Nicene fathers. I have the hard and computer version not links but I am sure they would be easy to find. I will find the chapters and so forth give me time 😃
CHAPTER 64
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4
As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;” and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;” and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.
 
Lactinus
BOOK 2
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7
OF THE ORIGIN OF ERROR
chapter 19
Whoever, therefore, is anxious to observe the obligations to which man is liable, and to maintain a regard for his nature, let him raise himself from the ground, and, with mind lifted up, let him direct his eyes to heaven: let him not seek God under his feet, nor dig up from his footprints an object of veneration, for whatever lies beneath man must necessarily be inferior to man; but let him seek it aloft, let him seek it in the highest place: for nothing can be greater than man, except that which is above man. But God is greater than man: therefore He is above, and not below; nor is He to be sought in the lowest, but rather in the highest region. Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth. And this, indeed, may be plain to a wise man from the very name. For whatever is an imitation, that must of necessity be false; nor can anything receive the name of a true object which counterfeits the truth by deception and imitation. But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion. That which is true is therefore to be preferred to all things which are false; earthly things are to be trampled upon, that we may obtain heavenly things. For this is the state of the case, that whosoever shall prostrate his soul, which has its origin from heaven, to the shades beneath, and the lowest things, must fall to that place to which he has cast himself. Therefore he ought to be mindful of his nature and condition, and always to strive and aim at things above. And whoever shall do this, he will be judged altogether wise, he just, he a man: he, in short, will be judged worthy of heaven whom his Parent will recognize not as abject, nor cast down to the earth after the manner of the beasts, but rather standing and upright as He made him.
 
ELUCIDATIONS
BOOK 5
chapter 5

volume 2

And again, “Don’t wear a ring, nor engrave on it the images of the gods,” enjoins Pythagoras; as Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor molded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonor it by sense. Wherefore the wisest of the Egyptian priests decided that the temple of Athene should be hypaethral, just as the Hebrews constructed the temple without an image. And some, in worshipping God, make a representation of heaven containing the stars; and so worship, although Scripture says, “Let Us make man in Our image and likeness.” I think it worth while also to adduce the utterance of Eurysus the Pythagorean, which is as follows, who in his book On Fortune, having said that the “Creator, on making man, took Himself as an exemplar,” added, “And the body is like the other things, as being made of the same material, and fashioned by the best workman, who wrought it, taking Himself as the archetype.” And, in fine, Pythagoras and his followers, with Plato also, and most of the other philosophers, were best acquainted with the Lawgiver, as may be concluded from their doctrine. And by a happy utterance of divination, not without divine help, concurring in certain prophetic declarations, and, seizing the truth in portions and aspects, in terms not obscure, and not going beyond the explanation of the things, they honored it only as certaining the appearance of relation with the truth. Whence the Hellenic philosophy is like the torch of wick which men kindle, artificially stealing the light from the sun. But on the proclamation of the Word all that holy light shone forth. Then in houses by night the stolen light is useful; but by day the fire blazes, and all the night is illuminated by such a sun of intellectual light.
 
cont
For is it not the case that rightly and truly we do not circumscribe in any place that which cannot be circumscribed; nor do we shut up in temples made with hands that which contains all things? What work of builders, and stonecutters, and mechanical art can be holy? Superior to these are not they who think that the air, and the enclosing space, or rather the whole world and the universe, are meet for the excellency of God?
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2
It were indeed ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves say, for man, the plaything of God, to make God, and for God to be the plaything of art; since what is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane; and if you perfect the art, they partake of mechanical coarseness. Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2
And what can be localized, there being nothing that is not localized? Since all things are in a place. And that which is localized having been formerly not localized, is localized by something. If, then, God is localized by men, He was once not localized, and did not exist at all. For the non-existent is what is not localized; since whatever does not exist is not localized. And what exists cannot be localized by what does not exist; nor by another entity. For it is also an entity. It follows that it must be by itself. And how shall anything generate itself? Or how shall that which exists place itself as to being? Whether, being formerly not localized, has it localized itself? But it was not in existence; since what exists not is not localized. And its localization being supposed, how can it afterwards make itself what it previously was?
 
This you should find to be the most helpful:

orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx

This one actually voids many arguements made by those who quote early church fathers who opposed icons.

Also, let me say this. It is obvious that the majority of the Church believed in the use of icons. Otherwise the distruction of icons by the Eastern Roman Empire would have succeeded in destroying this belief. The Church declared it dogma. What makes it more important is that the Church was still one which makes it abundantly clear that even though their were a few famous early church fathers who were opposed this belief, that they were the minority and after a rigorous council they were proven wrong.

God speed.

Vigis
 
BrianH Quote:
All quotes are from the Ante-Nicene fathers. I have the hard and computer version not links but I am sure they would be easy to find. I will find the chapters and so forth give me time
Quote:
CHAPTER 64
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4
As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;” and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;” and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.
Finally found this one. It’s in Book VII. Suggest you read Chapter 62 in that book also.
 
Brian,

By the way, I’m sure you know we do not worship any statue or image, or consider them to be a god. That would be Idolatry. It is idolatry that God forbade, not the making of images for non idolatrous purposes. If you believe God forbade the making of all images, period, then you had best get rid of all photos, paintings and statues that you own.

Nita
 
This you should find to be the most helpful:

orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx

This one actually voids many arguements made by those who quote early church fathers who opposed icons.

Also, let me say this. It is obvious that the majority of the Church believed in the use of icons. Otherwise the distruction of icons by the Eastern Roman Empire would have succeeded in destroying this belief. The Church declared it dogma. What makes it more important is that the Church was still one which makes it abundantly clear that even though their were a few famous early church fathers who were opposed this belief, that they were the minority and after a rigorous council they were proven wrong.

God speed.

Vigis
From the above link:
Protestants also cite some other fathers and early writers of the Church to support their position. Most of these quotations simply denounce idolatry, and have nothing to do with Icons. In those few cases in which the quotes could plausibly be interpreted as condemning Icons (some of which are arguably later Iconoclastic interpolations) a consistent interpretation would require that no images be made… because again, the objection found in these texts is to the making of and possession of images. None of these texts even addresses the question of veneration.
We can see from history, that no one interpreted the early Church Fathers in the manner that BrianH has until the Iconoclasts in the 700’s.

And as already stated, there was iconography in the catacombs of JEWISH, and Christian catacombs

Also from the above link:
Not only does one find Iconography throughout Christian Catacombs, but they are also found in Jewish catacombs of the same period. We also have the well preserved Jewish Icons of Dura-Europos, which were in a city destroyed by the Persians in the mid 3rd century (which of course puts a limit on how recent these Icons could have been made).
Thanks for the informative link Vigis:)

Much more information available, but as per forum rules…😉
 
I do not know much about history of “images” in our Church, but as a Catholic, my faith has benefited much from having religious images around me.

This may be a little off topic, because I think what you are asking is a historical proof as to when images were allowed in RC?

I was wondering if anyone considers The shroud of Turin as proof that God does not prohibit heavenly images. Many Catholics (even Protestants) consider it as the images left behind (through miraculous means) during Christ’s resurrection. Certainly this image, if indeed by Christ is proof that he never meant to prohibit heavenly images from the beginning as He Himself created one.

I know that this matter of the Holy Shroud is still being debated–but after watching a tv documentary on it, I tend to believe that this cloth is the real thing.

I have also been reading a book by Francis Anson entitled, “GUADALUPE What Her Eyes Say”, supposedly the only existing “self-portrait” of Our Lady that exists in the world.

I read about the miraculous nature of the cloth that dates back to the discovery of Mexico by the Spaniards, that still exists to today --with NASA experts conducting a study on it and finding that
"THE WHOLE FACE IS FORMED BY UNKNOWN PIGMENTS
" and the
'IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE PRESENT STATE IN SCIENCE." (as quoted from the book)
The eyes of the image have also amazed well-known eye specialists as it the eyes in the image are like “live eyes” that follows all the laws of optics, in particular the triple image of “Purkinje-Samson” in the optical laws. This plus, the images --on both eyes!—of people (including one that resembled Fray Juan Zumaragga—the bishop of Mexico, based on a painting of him from that time). Anyway, I mentioned the title of the book above, if anyone is interested to about it.

As a Catholic, I believe, that Jesus gave His Mother to us as our own Mother and us to Her as Her children when He said to John from the cross, “Woman Behold Your Son, Then He Said to the Disciple, Son Behold Your Mother.”

Mama Mary, according to the book told Saint Juan Diego during the apparition,
'LISTEN PUT THIS INTO YOUR HEART, MY YOUNGEST CHILD. LAY YOUR FEARS ASIDE. LET NOTHING DISTURB YOU. DO NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT THIS ILLNESS, OR ANY OTHER PAIN OR ANXIETY. AM I NOT HERE, WHO AM YOUR MOTHER? …"
page 51

To me, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is proof that Mama Mary continues to look after us, her children as we have been entrusted to Her by the Lord.

The miraculous nature of the Shroud of Turin and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe makes me think that God does not prohibit holy images.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top