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

[MariaG]

Here’s the link. Just scroll down to Chapter 62.

newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm

The new advent site has the works of the Church Fathers. Great site. Keep hoping they’ll add the Catechism.

Nita

Thanks Nita

 

[Nita]

Lactinus
BOOK 2
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7
OF THE ORIGIN OF ERROR
chapter 19

Regarding this passage in “The Divine Institutes” by Lactantius, it is obvious by the title he gives this chapter - Chapter 19. Of the Worship of Images and Earthly Objects. - he is speaking of considering the images themselves to be gods.

 

[tdgesq]

For anyone reading this, just understand, the early Christian church did not venerate images and were opposed to it.

So. You obviously believe that Catholics venerate images, and in that, you are obviously wrong. That is why Origen says what he does here:

Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.i.vi.html

Catholics do not worship images as if they were Gods. In fact, they don’t venerate images either, they venerate what those images represent. Relics are a different matter, but you will be the one who finds yourself on the wrong side of the ECF’s if you want to go there. Origen does not say that holy images are forbidden in the church.

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.

Hold on, you were the one who brought up veneration. These images shouldn’t be there at all if icons and images were forbidden in the early church. If you believe the ECF’s were true Iconoclasts then these images shouldn’t exist. Neither should the Nazarene and Lutheran churches that I drive past everyday have huge crosses hanging on their church buildings.

The ECF’s are very clear on this and Jim is not providing quotes to refute them. Because, they do not exist.

What is it that you think the ECF’s you’ve cited have made clear? Not that there should be no images of any kind in the church. If it is that we shouldn’t worship or venerate images, then Catholics agree. Apparently you didn’t know that.

Just remember that every time you venerate an image.

Again, this isn’t the question, and even if it were you ignorantly misrepresent the Catholic position. You have not shown that the ECF’s clearly condemned images in the church.

 

[I_Leatherman]

BrianH:

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

“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 …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…”

and to worship that which is immaterial by matter,

The Church does not worship images. So Clement is correct, do not make images to worship.

Now the images and **temples constructed by mechanics **are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane;

However…

Bishop of Salamis around the year 400 AD

"…Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray,…"

You see two Bishops apparently at odds about buildings being profane.

Two hundred years separate both Bishops, during that time buildings lost their profane-ness and oddly became places for Christians to pray in.

I sincerely hope your temple has also lost its profane-ness/profanity over the last 1800 years.

 

[BrianH]

From the above link:

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:

Thanks for the informative link Vigis

Much more information available, but as per forum rules…

Vigis did not provide a single quote to refute anything I have said.
Not one.

 

[BrianH]

The Church does not worship images. So Clement is correct, do not make images to worship.

However…

Bishop of Salamis around the year 400 AD

You see two Bishops apparently at odds about buildings being profane.

Two hundred years separate both Bishops, during that time buildings lost their profane-ness and oddly became places for Christians to pray in.

I sincerely hope your temple has also lost its profane-ness/profanity over the last 1800 years.

**Bishop Salamis
and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder **

 

[BrianH]

So. You obviously believe that Catholics venerate images, and in that, you are obviously wrong. That is why Origen says what he does here:

Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.i.vi.html

 

[BrianH]

We also have the Council of Elvira, which prohibited images, as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes:

“

Held early in the fourth century at Elliberis, or Illiberis, in Spain, a city now in ruins not far from Granada. It was, so far as we know, the first council held in Spain, and was attended by nineteen bishops from all parts of the Peninsula. The exact year in which it was held is a matter of controversy upon which much has been written. Some copies of its Acts contain a date which corresponds with the year 324 of our reckoning; by some writers the council has accordingly been assigned to that yearCanon xxxvi (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) has often been urged against the veneration of images as practised in the Catholic Church

.”

 

[BrianH]

Regarding this passage in “The Divine Institutes” by Lactantius, it is obvious by the title he gives this chapter - Chapter 19. Of the Worship of Images and Earthly Objects. - he is speaking of considering the images themselves to be gods.

Nita,
He did not write using chapters, those were added by editors about a thousand years later…

 

[BrianH]

From the above link:

 

[BrianH]

Catholics do not worship images as if they were Gods.

never said they did

In fact, they don’t venerate images either, they venerate what those images represent.

Yes

Hold on, you were the one who brought up veneration. These images shouldn’t be there at all if icons and images were forbidden in the early church. If you believe the ECF’s were true Iconoclasts then these images shouldn’t exist. Neither should the Nazarene and Lutheran churches that I drive past everyday have huge crosses hanging on their church buildings.

Still waiting for an ECF quote that supports their use

What is it that you think the ECF’s you’ve cited have made clear? Not that there should be no images of any kind in the church. If it is that we shouldn’t worship or venerate images, then Catholics agree. Apparently you didn’t know that.

What did the bishop say?

Again, this isn’t the question, and even if it were you ignorantly misrepresent the Catholic position. You have not shown that the ECF’s clearly condemned images in the church.

Ignorantly? So you say…

 

[Turtullian]

Still waiting for an ECF quote that supports their use

What about St. Basil the Great? From Phillip Schaff:

. . . I receive also the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs. Their likenesses I revere and kiss with homage, for they are handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but on the contrary painted in all our churches.

(Ibid., 567; Epist. 205. Comp. his Oratio in Barlaam, Opp. i 515, and similar expressions in Gregory Naz., Orat. 19 (al. 18) ).

 

[BrianH]

What about St. Basil the Great? From Phillip Schaff:

. . . I receive also the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs. Their likenesses I revere and kiss with homage, for they are handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but on the contrary painted in all our churches.

(Ibid., 567; Epist. 205. Comp. his Oratio in Barlaam, Opp. i 515, and similar expressions in Gregory Naz., Orat. 19 (al. 18) ).

The quote is often used because of Phillip Schaff’s use of it in that passage. I have always wanted to find a copy of this but I do not own one and no one I know does either.
If accurate, it would prove that 350 years after the death of Christ,images were used for veneration. I would happily concede that late date, especially since the Ante-Nicene fathers are so opposed to it.

 

[I_Leatherman]

BrianH:

Eusebius
He is referring to a statue of Christ he finds “brazen”

Quote:
Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Savior, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers”

Tertullian:

What about St. Basil the Great? From Phillip Schaff:

. . . I receive also the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs. Their likenesses I revere and kiss with homage, for they are handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but on the contrary painted in all our churches.

These two quotes seem to compliment each other well, I think.

---

Brian, I don’t see how the word ‘indiscriminately’ [above] is a negative thing. It simply says the gentiles had a habit of recording a likeness of people they considered important to them.

And you did’nt say whether or not you pray in a temple/church/building, which are inert, and material, and profane - at least according to Clement.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Eusebius
He is referring to a statue of Christ he finds "brazen"
Quote:
Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Savior, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers”

I’d like to see where he talks about the brazen statue. Thanks, If you can find it.

 

[Turtullian]

I’d like to see where he talks about the brazen statue. Thanks, If you can find it.

some easterners like Origen argue that the only Orthodox iconography to be allowed was paintings/mosiacs rather than statues. Some of the more radical eastern orthodox Christians argue in this type of manner.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Hi Turtullian, Thats interesting. I was wondering about the ‘Brazen’ part of Brians post about the statue. Sculpture is my business for now, so brazen struck a chord. Its a metal working term, obviously.

Originally Posted by BrianH
Eusebius
He is referring to a statue of Christ he finds “brazen”

Brian called the statue a ‘brazen’ statue of Christ, I think he may have seen negative connotations in that term, but I have yet to see what a ‘brazen’ decent cloak looks like, [see below], unless its just referring to the material of the statue.

Eusebius:
"…For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there.

1. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases."

The site I found this quote on is Calvinist? maybe, thinks the statue in question ‘commemorated something different from that which Christian tradition claimed’.

 

[Nita]

We also have the Council of Elvira, which prohibited images, as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes:

“.”

As you can see from the article, this was a regional council, not a council attended by bishops from the universal Church. No papal involvement. Such a council does not establish Church doctrine.

 

[MariaG]

Uh…Origen is saying that Christians do not consider Idols to be actual Gods like the Pagans. He is not saying that Christians use images. He says they did not:

If that is what Origen is saying, he contradicts scripture. Many times in the OT we see the use of images, as well as Paul refering to Christ being portrayed as crucifed before their eyes.

 

[MariaG]

Eusebius
He is referring to a statue of Christ he finds “brazen”

And WHAT does he find brazen? The statue in general or something about this particular statue? If we go back a little from your quote, we can see that it is THIS statue that he finds brazen and is not a general comdenation of all images or statues.

From Christian Classics Etheral Library
2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman.** At his feet, beside the statue itself,**is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

1. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.
2. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things,…

Despite the commentary of the site, this is not a wholesale comdenation of all images, but an dislike of THIS brazen image. The “brazen cloak” indicates the dress of the image was inappropriate (although the possibility was brought up that “brazen” refers to materials used rather that a reference to how it looks?). As well as Eusebius seems to have a problem with the “strange plant” which is a known remedy for curing all kinds of diseases. Instead of possibly seeing it as possibly trying to see the possible symbolism of this, he just finds it inappropriate to compare any creation to Christ at all, or seeming to give any part of the miracle to a plant rather than Christ.

Eusebius’s words are not condemning all images, this is a critique of this particular image.