Was St. Augustine an Iconoclast?

[spoiltvictorian]

In John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, he quotes St. Augustine several times against iconography in churches. Furthermore he says there were no images in churches before the 5th century. Did he really teach this? Did he always teach this, and if not, how did his thinking progress? What kind of iconoclasm might St. Augustine have been writing against?

And while forum posts are nice, if anyone has a good book recommendation on this kind of specialized early history, I would like it please.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The simple answer is: NO.

St. Augustine was not an Iconoclastic. Icons have been used since before the Church went literally underground in the tombs of the Early Christian Martyrs which only happened after the Jews kicked the Christians out of their Synagogues. If you go to the Catacombs, you will see on the walls all of the Icons that were written on their walls during the time the Church was completely underground. It’s historical fact that Icons have been used by the Church before, during and after it’s persecution by the Roman Empire.

The very first Iconographer, that is the first person to write an Icon, was St. Luke who wrote the Gospel of Luke. The Icon he wrote was of the Holy Mother of God holding Jesus and he presented it to Mary prior to her death and bodily resurrection on the 3rd day. Mary approved of it. St. Luke then sent it to Antioch along with a copy of his Gospel and it remained there until the middle of the 5th Century, then it was taken to Constantinople and was taken to Cyprus during the reign of Emperor Alexius Comnenus and it is currently located in the Holy Royal Monastery of Kykko Founded with a Cross in Cyprus. You can, if you have a passport and travel money, go and see it.

Iconoclasim didn’t begin until around of the early 700’s. The Empress who called the 7th Ecumenical Council together to get the Bishops with the Direction of the Holy Spirit to define the use of Icons in Churches and prayer was Irene and the Council was held in 787 ad in Nicea. As is usual with dissenters, after the Council clearly defined that Holy Icons are to continue to be used, Iconoclasts continued to destroy Icons for a couple more decades before Iconoclasim finally faded out of existence as all heresies eventually do.

As far as reading St. Augustine, people really need to be careful on what they read of his writings. You see, he wrote many things both before and after he left the Heresy he’d been involved in for the majority of his life: Manichaeans. The last book he wrote was “Retractions” and it in, he rejected all of his prior wrongly held beliefs which he’d written about prior to becoming a Catholic and after becoming a Catholic. Certainly, you would not find any indication of St. Augustine being against Icons in “Restractions”, I would venture to guess that this person who told you this was reading one of his former writings in which he held heretical beliefs and being an Iconoclastic is heretical.

As far as the name of a book, I’m not sure.

 

[Asimis]

As far as reading St. Augustine, people really need to be careful on what they read of his writings. You see, he wrote many things both before and after he left the Heresy he’d been involved in for the majority of his life: Manichaeans.

Actually, as far as I know, we have no works of St. Augustine from the time when he was a Manichean. The earliest work that we have may be Against the Academics from 386, written right around the time of his conversion. Before he converted he had already left the Manichean religion for skepticism. The accusation of Manichean influence was one that pelagian heretics leveled against St. Augustine. It is not one that we should level against him.

The last book he wrote was “Retractions” and it in, he rejected all of his prior wrongly held beliefs which he’d written about prior to becoming a Catholic and after becoming a Catholic.

The title of the work is actually “Reconsiderations” and in reality what St. Augustine does there are rather small correctives to how he expressed some things in his works or sometimes he suggests that he could have say the same thing another way. He doesn’t “rejects all of his prior wrong held beliefs” in the sense that he held radically different views at one time and then changed them at another time.

In fact, there is a strong continuity in his writings, even from the book on Freedom of Choice, to the Confessions and up to the City of God and the anti-Pelagian writtings. His view, specially on the subject of grace and free will does develops but in a rather organic manner and he doesn’t radically alter them at any point.

The Popes over time have had nothing but praise for the works of St. Augustine and I have yet to see any condemnation of anything that he said or even a warning about what he wrote coming from them. I don’t think it is fair to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of one of the most prominent saint and doctor of The Church.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Actually, as far as I know, we have no works of St. Augustine from the time when he was a Manichean. The earliest work that we have may be Against the Academics from 386, written right around the time of his conversion. Before he converted he had already left the Manichean religion for skepticism. The accusation of Manichean influence was one that pelagian heretics leveled against St. Augustine. It is not one that we should level against him.

The title of the work is actually “Reconsiderations” and in reality what St. Augustine does there are rather small correctives to how he expressed some things in his works or sometimes he suggests that he could have say the same thing another way. He doesn’t “rejects all of his prior wrong held beliefs” in the sense that he held radically different views at one time and then changed them at another time.

In fact, there is a strong continuity in his writings, even from the book on Freedom of Choice, to the Confessions and up to the City of God and the anti-Pelagian writtings. His view, specially on the subject of grace and free will does develops but in a rather organic manner and he doesn’t radically alter them at any point.

The Popes over time have had nothing but praise for the works of St. Augustine and I have yet to see any condemnation of anything that he said or even a warning about what he wrote coming from them. I don’t think it is fair to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of one of the most prominent saint and doctor of The Church.

I believe you are confused. Because what you are saying in affect is that St. Augustine was a Iconoclast which would make him a heretic.

The Church recognizes St. Augustine as a Saint not a Heretic!

The fact of the matter is…he had been a heretic, but then did retract his falsely held beliefs in his work entitled “Retractions” at the end of his life, after being an orthodox Catholic for years.

 

[srferdave]

The title of the work is actually “Reconsiderations” and in reality what St. Augustine does there are rather small correctives to how he expressed some things in his works or sometimes he suggests that he could have say the same thing another way.

I believe this is incorrect. I just did a little research and everything I found says this work was titled “Retractions”. Please point me in the direction where it says otherwise.

 

[Asimis]

I believe you are confused. Because what you are saying in affect is that St. Augustine was a Iconoclast which would make him a heretic.

The Church recognizes St. Augustine as a Saint not a Heretic!

I don’t think you read my post. I did not said that he was an Iconoclast.

The fact of the matter is…he had been a heretic, but then did retract his falsely held beliefs in his work entitled “Retractions” at the end of his life, after being an orthodox Catholic for years.

The “Retractations” do not include works from the time that he was a Manichean.

 

[Asimis]

I believe this is incorrect. I just did a little research and everything I found says this work was titled “Retractions”. Please point me in the direction where it says otherwise.

It is usually titled that way but “Reconsiderations” is said to be an appropiate rendering of the latin title. It is also more fitting given the nature of the work itself. It is not a retraction of everything he previouosly believed but an overview of his works which admits a flaw here or there. The work also gives the background on which each book was composed.

Here is a bit from an article on Catholic Answers:

*"Augustine never authored a work entitled **Retractions. He did write **Retractationes (also known as *Retractationum) between 426-427. His purpose was not to recant of any Catholic doctrines he held but, rather, to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.

*As the patristic scholar, William A. Jurgens, explains, "English speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of **Retractationes is **Reconsiderations, **Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the *Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings."

Hope that helps!

 

[srferdave]

It is usually titled that way but “Reconsiderations” is said to be an appropiate rendering of the latin title. It is also more fitting given the nature of the work itself. It is not a retraction of everything he previouosly believed but an overview of his works which admits a flaw here or there. The work also gives the background on which each book was composed.

Here is a bit from an article on Catholic Answers:

*"Augustine never authored a work entitled **Retractions. He did write **Retractationes (also known as *Retractationum) between 426-427. His purpose was not to recant of any Catholic doctrines he held but, rather, to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.

*As the patristic scholar, William A. Jurgens, explains, "English speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of **Retractationes is **Reconsiderations, **Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the *Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings."

Hope that helps!

Thank you. That was very helpful.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

The very first Iconographer, that is the first person to write an Icon, was St. Luke who wrote the Gospel of Luke. The Icon he wrote was of the Holy Mother of God holding Jesus and he presented it to Mary prior to her death and bodily resurrection on the 3rd day. Mary approved of it.

What!? I thought Mary was only assumed.

One thing I’m not getting from this thread is how to reconcile these iconoclastic quotes with what you all are saying. I’ll type out some of the quotes:

“When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed.” -De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. c. 31

“The effect produced, and in a manner extorted, by the bodily shape is, that the mind, being itself in a body, imagines that a body which si so like its own must be similarly affected.” -Ps. cxii (not sure what book this is)

Then there is this passage from Calvin:

Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius be read on this subject. These writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all the beings whose images were erected were originally men. In like manner, Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long before decreed by the Elibertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of which is, “There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls.” But the most memorable passage of all is that which Augustine quotes in another place from Varro, and in which he expressly concurs: – “Those who first introduced images of the gods both took away fear and brought in error.” Were this merely the saying of Varro, it might perhaps be of little weight, though it might well make us ashamed that a heathen, groping as it were in darkness, should have attained to such a degree of light, as to see that corporeal images are unworthy of the majesty of God, and that, because they diminish reverential fear and encourage error. The sentiment itself bears witness that it was uttered with no less truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he borrows it from Varro, adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At the outset, indeed, he declares that the first errors into which men fell concerning God did not originate with images, but increased with them, as if new fuel had been added. Afterwards, he explains how the fear of God was thereby extinguished or impaired, his presence being brought into contempt by foolish, and childish, and absurd representations. (Lact. Inst. Div. lib. i c. 15; Euseb. Praef. Evang. lib. iii c. 3,4; also August. De Civitate Dei, lib iv. c 9,31)

1. What is the Elibertine Council?
2. Who’s Varro?
3. What’s really going on here? I feel like Calvin’s putting a curtain between the reader and the whole story.

These quotes are all in the Institutes I.IX, if anyone is interested in reading the whole passage.

I am still looking for a good book recommendation.

 

[Asimis]

“When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed.” -De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. c. 31

I’ll look at this quote in context when I get home in my copy of the City of God. But for know it is good to keep in mind that Book I to X of the City of God aim to examine and refute the ideas of the pagans. In Book IV he is doing that and he is talking about the idols of the pagan cults.

I’ll check this and the rest of your references later and try to respond.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

What!? I thought Mary was only assumed.

No, the longest standing Tradition in both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches is that immediately before her death all of the Apostles were miraculously brought to her bedside to say their goodbyes, except St. Thomas who was in India. She peacefully “fell asleep in the Lord” and she was buried. On the 3rd day, while everyone was still mourning her, St. Thomas was miraculous brought there. He was confused and asked why everyone was mourning and they told him. He couldn’t believe it, ever the doubting Thomas and all! So anyway, he insisted that the he be let into her tomb to see her one last time. They opened her tomb and discovered that she had, like her Son, been taken up into Heaven Body and Soul aka the Assumption. The Catholic Church, in non-Roman Rites, have for century upon century celebrated her “Dormition” that is her death aka falling asleep on August 15th by way of a couple week fast and Divine Liturgy aka Mass on the anniversary. The Roman Rite has mostly just remembered her Assumption rather than the entire story of the end of her life. Both are true and both are Catholic Tradition.

One thing I’m not getting from this thread is how to reconcile these iconoclastic quotes with what you all are saying. I’ll type out some of the quotes:

“When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed.” -De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. c. 31

This is clearly speaking of pagan worship of statues. Not Christian use of Icons.

Remember that if St. Augustine were actually an Iconoclast, he would not have been an orthodox Catholic Christian, he would have been a Heretic.

Then there is this passage from Calvin:

Calvin is at best a Schismatic if not a Heretic, he is not a valid authority to turn to in matters of Church History, early Christian Writings or Theology. You would do yourself a favor by not reading anything by him as it could, and apparently has, caused you confusion.

In the banking industry, to learn the real from the fraud, we had to touch and count real money over and over again, because once we fully knew what real money felt like we were able to instantly know when someone gave us fraudulent money. The same is true with our Christian Faith, we must immerse ourselves completely in the Truth as Jesus has revealed to us through the Church He established which is still being led by the Holy Spirit in all Truths just as He promised. Once we do that, then all false Christianity becomes immediately apparent.

Based on this, I would recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church until you know what paragraph to go to for an answer to a particular issue in other words until you know it inside and out and then when you read false Christians works you immediately recognize their errors.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

This is clearly speaking of pagan worship of statues. Not Christian use of Icons.

Remember that if St. Augustine were actually an Iconoclast, he would not have been an orthodox Catholic Christian, he would have been a Heretic.

Calvin is at best a Schismatic if not a Heretic, he is not a valid authority to turn to in matters of Church History, early Christian Writings or Theology. You would do yourself a favor by not reading anything by him as it could, and apparently has, caused you confusion.

In the banking industry, to learn the real from the fraud, we had to touch and count real money over and over again, because once we fully knew what real money felt like we were able to instantly know when someone gave us fraudulent money. The same is true with our Christian Faith, we must immerse ourselves completely in the Truth as Jesus has revealed to us through the Church He established which is still being led by the Holy Spirit in all Truths just as He promised. Once we do that, then all false Christianity becomes immediately apparent.

Based on this, I would recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church until you know what paragraph to go to for an answer to a particular issue in other words until you know it inside and out and then when you read false Christians works you immediately recognize their errors.

Could you tell me why you know St. Augustine was speaking about pagan iconoclasts? It’s not enough to say he is not a heretic, therefore he was not an iconoclast. I am Lutheran, not Calvinist or Catholic. I am being challenged by some Calvinist friends about whose side Augustine on, and I hope someone here can help me. I would like to think I can spot fake money here, but intuitively - I am not expert enough to detail exactly why the Institutes get it wrong.

Still hoping for a book recommendation…

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Could you tell me why you know St. Augustine was speaking about pagan iconoclasts?

“When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed.” -De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. c. 31

There are 3 things in this quote you’ve provided which immediately clear up the situation that St. Augustine is not an Iconoclast and that he is definately referring to worship of Pagan Idols.

First St. Augustine used the term “images” which could mean a whole range of things from Idols to Statues to Icons to mere paintings, so we need to read more to find out exactly what he is referring to.

Next, he specifically says that he is speaking of images that are placed on “seats” of honor - so now we know that he is speaking of a either a Idols or Statues, not an Icons or Paintings.

Next he says that these images, either Idols or Statues, are looked at by those praying or “sacrificing” - so now we know those are actually Pagans Idols St. Augustine is speaking of because only Pagans sacrifice to Idols and use Idols in their Pagan worship, not Christians.

Christians have always used Statues, and Icons, in Christian Worship as a “windows into heaven” where the prayers are directed to the actual person they represent rather than the physical Statue or Icon itself. Christians pray to God, to the Saints and to Angels, not to Statues or Icons.

Still hoping for a book recommendation…

My recommendation is for you to speak to an Iconographer and sit at their feet so to speak and learn directly from them rather than a book. You can ask them which books they found to be faithful to what they were taught by the Iconographer who taught them.

Fr. Brendan McAnerney, a Dominican Priest, may be a good start for you. He studied icon painting with the Antiochian Orthodox in Pennsylvania, and later with the Russian Master Iconographer Vladislav Andrejev. I believe his phone number may be (916) 920-2900.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Thank you for that clear explanation. I see it was all in front of me from the beginning. That’s what I get for not reading carefully and critically…

I will look up that reference. Thank you!

 

[Among_Strangers]

In John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, he quotes St. Augustine several times against iconography in churches. Furthermore he says there were no images in churches before the 5th century. Did he really teach this? Did he always teach this, and if not, how did his thinking progress? What kind of iconoclasm might St. Augustine have been writing against?

And while forum posts are nice, if anyone has a good book recommendation on this kind of specialized early history, I would like it please.

I just finished reading God’s Human Face by German Bishop Christopher Schonborn, who was the main editor of the Catechism.

I found it completely riveting. Bishop Schonborn takes a very detailed look at the iconoclastic controversy in a rather fresh way and looks at the arguments both for and against in the traditional scholastic theological style. His focus throughout is: “What does it mean to say that Jesus is the image of the invisible God?” He takes a step by step look of the Trinitarian (or lack thereof in some cases), and Christological views of the iconoclasts and their antagonists. He does not delve too deep into the ideas of modern day iconoclasts but keeps to the historical.

Bishop Schonborn addresses specifically the errors in Calvin’s ideas that St. Augustine was an iconoclast.

His conclusions and summary meld into questions about art, and especially sacred art and the lack thereof, in the modern world. I found it to be simply brilliant.

If you’re interested in good theology about this subject, I highly recommend this book. It has a 6 out of 5 stars rating on the Among Strangers Scale.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

I just finished reading God’s Human Face by German Bishop Christopher Schonborn, who was the main editor of the Catechism.

I found it completely riveting. Bishop Schonborn takes a very detailed look at the iconoclastic controversy in a rather fresh way and looks at the arguments both for and against in the traditional scholastic theological style. His focus throughout is: “What does it mean to say that Jesus is the image of the invisible God?” He takes a step by step look of the Trinitarian (or lack thereof in some cases), and Christological views of the iconoclasts and their antagonists. He does not delve too deep into the ideas of modern day iconoclasts but keeps to the historical.

Bishop Schonborn addresses specifically the errors in Calvin’s ideas that St. Augustine was an iconoclast.

His conclusions and summary meld into questions about art, and especially sacred art and the lack thereof, in the modern world. I found it to be simply brilliant.

If you’re interested in good theology about this subject, I highly recommend this book. It has a 6 out of 5 stars rating on the Among Strangers Scale.

Thanks, that looks really interesting. Do you find yourself referring back to it often?

 

[Among_Strangers]

Thanks, that looks really interesting. Do you find yourself referring back to it often?

I finished it in 2 days, for me that’s amazing. I am a sloooooooooow reader. I finished it about 2 weeks ago, so I haven’t used it as a reference just yet. When I saw the thread I thought of it immediately.

It’s one of those books that if you’re turned on by this subject you will eat it up, but if you don’t care it would be a snore fest.

I really enjoy the writing style of Bish. Schönborn. Even though he utilizes the Aquinan approach in this work, it is quite readable. He builds and builds to a fantastic crescendo which was rather enlightening. I think this happened in this work because the good Bishop really knows what he’s talking about rather than pretending to know what he’s talking about. Ya know what I’m talking about?