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

[mercygate]

Two years ago (maybe more recently) I would have argued the RCC was not Christian. Today my wife and I found ourselves defending the RCC in our Sunday School class.

I desperately do not want to be RC, yet when I am honest I know many “unusual” RCC teachings make sense, I am unable to defend Sola Scriptura (I am still trying), and I suspect (I am no historian yet) that the early church didn’t look or believe like an Evangelical one.

A couple of quick questions/requests:

1. Can someone please provide me with the earliest sources regarding the use of Icons. I believe they were official in one of the first seven counsils (700 something?), but what are their earliest references by the fathers?

Thanks,
Tim

The earliest images of Christian origin are in the house church from about 245 A.D excavated at Dura-Europos in eastern Syria. The catacombs also have many images from the third century: some earlier. It stands to reason that images would arise in gentile communities and that they would draw upon art forms familiar to them. Yet, in the catacombs, images of “Christian” themes are remarkably non-specific: shepherd, people in prayer, loaves, fish, vines, mother with baby, teacher with students . . . Remember: being Christian could get you an invitation to the Emperor’s house as lunch for his pet lions; Christians were both expressing and concealing their faith in their art.

Icons emerge as objects of devotion – rather than as scriptural picture-stories – in the second quarter of the sixth century, when a cloth was discovered at Edessa in what is now Turkey. This cloth bore the image of a man’s face, purported to be the face of Jesus** “not made with human hands.”**

The legend is that king of Edessa, a leper, had sent his archivist to the Holy Land, where Jesus was then preaching, to ask Jesus to come to Edessa to heal the king. Jesus did not do that, but he asked for water and a towel, and washed his face. Drying his face on the towel, the image was imprinted on the cloth, which the archivist took back to Edessa. When the king looked at the cloth, he was healed.

That’s the legend. It is easy to see how the idea of using images is transformed by this view of the image, since it was believed to be a “true” image and actually made by Christ himself. This, by the way, is where portrayals of Jesus acquire long hair and a beard. Before that, he was usually portrayed as the good shepherd – looking like any pagan shepherd – with short hair and no beard.

There are virtually no VERY early images – perhaps as much because of the iconoclast controversy, which caused widespread the destruction of images as because they were not used.

The rationale behind the use of images in Christian worship lies in a beautiful statement by St. John Damascene – the great defender of the use of images in Christian devotion. “I do not worship matter; I worship the God who became matter for my sake.” John Damascene’s notion was that before the Incarnation, God was invisible and unseen and could not be depicted in images. With the Incarnation, the Divine acquires a human face. Therefore, we can now use images as aids in devotion.

The Ecumenical council which decided against the iconoclasts (image breakers) was the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 A.D. The decision is known among the Eastern Churches as the Triumph over all heresies" because the iconoclasts rejected images, sacraments, the Communion of Saints, and relics.

 

[MariaG]

never said they did

Yes

Still waiting for an ECF quote that supports their use

What did the bishop say?

Ignorantly? So you say…

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 have to say Brian, I did in fact take your claims seriously. I find it a serious claim if the ECF spoke against this. But upon examination, I find that in fact they are not wholesale comdenation of icons, but rather the comdenation of specific images or words taken out of context.

I know I will not convince you since you prefer to believe that the Church went apostate at around 350AD, but I prefer to rest on scripture, the promises about His Church, and the words about images in scripture. Your interpretation of images would make God commanding people to make images contrary to His word.

“NO IMAGES” says the Lord. But I want you to make an image of…

Clearly it is not “no images” but no GRAVEN images. That is do not make something that is to made to be worshipped as if it were God Himself.

 

[mercygate]

“NO IMAGES” says the Lord. But I want you to make an image of…

Clearly it is not “no images” but no GRAVEN images. That is do not make something that is to made to be worshipped as if it were God Himself.

I think it makes more sense to read that commandment with emphasis slightly shifted: Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image . . .

In other words, in Canaan, images are of purported Gods. The Israelites are not to do what Aaron did with the Golden calf: make for himself a god to worship. The image and the god are considered the same thing and the god is no god at all.

 

[jmcrae]

And WHAT does he find brazen?

“Brazen” just means that the exterior was made of polished bronze. It isn’t a value judgement.

Think of “brazen statue” in the same way that you think of “ceramic tile,” or “wool sweater.” “Brazen” is just a description of the stuff that it’s made of.

 

[MariaG]

“Brazen” just means that the exterior was made of polished bronze. It isn’t a value judgement.

Think of “brazen statue” in the same way that you think of “ceramic tile,” or “wool sweater.” “Brazen” is just a description of the stuff that it’s made of.

Yeah, I did note that someone pointed that out.

But clearly that is not the way Brian was interpreting it. And EVEN IF brazen is not about the material used but a comdenation of, it would be a comdenation of THIS particular statue, not all in general.

 

[Zooey]

The early Christian church wrote about everything under the sun. The early church was not neutral about veneration of images, they were opposed to it. Scholars know it, people who read the Ante-Nicene Fathers know it, and it was not a mustard seed. It was a strongly held conviction

And this trumps the Bible, Brian???

Interesting thinking for a Sola follower…
Dinnae be ye jumping down the throats of Catholics who quote the ECFs then, laddie, or I’ll quote this at you…As will a few other people here, I warrant!!

Hi Tim,

I have been where you are. You are in my prayers.

1. The earliest source for icons would probably be scripture.

:bible1: Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

We see here in scripture that images were used to show how Christ was crucified.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

 

[tdgesq]

Still waiting for an ECF quote that supports their use

Other than Basil the Great? Here you go:

“Even if we make images of pious men it is not so that we might adore them as gods but that when we see them we might be prompted to imitate them; and if we make images of Christ, it is so that our minds might wing aloft in yearning for Him.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Psalms 113B(115):16, Vol. 3 of Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens.

What did the bishop say?

Cyril was a bishop around 412.

Ignorantly? So you say…

Then it is knowing and purposeful, which makes it worse. You are the one who wanted to make this thread about the worship and veneration of images; something that you know Catholics reject at the outset. Of course it isn’t about that, except to the extent that this is what the Early Fathers are talking about in the quotes you provided (and badly referenced I might add). It is about whether the early Church rejected Christian images in the community altogether. The only way you are going to be able to maintain this position is to reject Scripture, condemn your Protestant and Evangelical brethren, and reject the more reasonable interpretation of what the ECF’s have written. I’ll be here as long as it takes to demonstrate all three.

 

[Zooey]

Other than Basil the Great? Here you go:

“Even if we make images of pious men it is not so that we might adore them as gods but that when we see them we might be prompted to imitate them; and if we make images of Christ, it is so that our minds might wing aloft in yearning for Him.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Psalms 113B(115):16, Vol. 3 of Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens.

Cyril was a bishop around 412.

Then it is knowing and purposeful, which makes it worse. You are the one who wanted to make this thread about the worship and veneration of images; something that you know Catholics reject at the outset. Of course it isn’t about that, except to the extent that this is what the Early Fathers are talking about in the quotes you provided (and badly referenced I might add). It is about whether the early Church rejected Christian images in the community altogether. The only way you are going to be able to maintain this position is to reject Scripture, condemn your Protestant and Evangelical brethren, and reject the more reasonable interpretation of what the ECF’s have written. I’ll be here as long as it takes to demonstrate all three.

One of those “brethren” (well, sister, then) here…Waiting with you, for Brian to explain how come, if the Bible says “yes” to images, the Bible is wrong…Whereas, if the ECFs say that images are OK, Brian doesn’t have to listen to them…

( , tdgesq!!!)

 

[mercygate]

Still waiting for an ECF quote that supports their use

Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.) “Painting can do for the illiterate what writing does for those who can read.”

 

[runandsew]

The early Christian church wrote about everything under the sun. The early church was not neutral about veneration of images, they were opposed to it. Scholars know it, people who read the Ante-Nicene Fathers know it, and it was not a mustard seed. It was a strongly held conviction

Well, that is all well and good, but the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit, and guarded from teaching error, infallibly stated later on that it was ok to use images in the church.

And I am not one to argue with the Holy Spirit.

You might want to, but I don’t want to go there.

 

[MariaG]

Hey guys, Brian is looking for a source before 350 AD. But after the NT.

And thanks Zooey. I quoted scripture first thing, but apparently ECF trumps scripture. I found it ironic, but am glad you brought it up first

Unfortunately, that is not Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition. If the words of a ECF contradict scripture, it is not part of Sacred Tradtion. It must NEVER contradict scripture, and clearly, thinking that one can’t even make images contradicts scripture, OT and NT.

But I do find it interesting that a Protestant would choose to ignore scripture and focus on a ECF

God Bless,

Maria