| An Excerpt from an article by Jim Boal concercing statues and images of saints |
[Feb. 21st, 2005|10:52 am] |
I didn't have a better place to post this, so here it is. Probably only a couple of you whom I was having a conversation with will be interested. ~Andrew
**********************************************************************************************************
The use of icons in the Eastern Church and statuary by Rome has always seemed to Protestants a gross violation of the first commandment. I have recently read St. John Damascene's Treatise, On the Sacred Images. While I see some flaws in his theology, I am less interested in his justification for the use of Icons, than determining whether the practice is something that was truly taught by the apostolic church. If Mr. Whiteford is correct then we should see a stream of affirmation from the earliest writings of Christianity onwards. On the other hand, if this is a later tradition of men added to the church, we should find an absence of such data in the earliest documents, and then a later and gradual acceptance.
We know that the use of icons in the church was affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 A.D. after the iconoclastic era in the Eastern Church. This council affirmed the proskunia (veneration), but not the latria (adoration and worship) of the icons. Most theologies of Iconophilia assume that the veneration of icons stems from an affirmation of the incarnation: Since God has come in flesh, and God chose to have an image of himself defined by matter, believers are now free if not obligated to venerate an image we make of Christ or other saints.
Using this logic, the apostles who had the privilege of observing Jesus himself would have been in the unique position of making the most lifelike icons of Jesus. Even a Protestant would love to see such an authentic representation of our Lord. However, archaeology has not provided any such early images of Christ , and this is not particularly surprising since there is no mention of Christians creating images of Jesus in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, or any existent Christian writing before the council of Nicea!
There are on the other hand, many attacks against pagan use of images by the church Fathers:
Athenagoras (177 A.D.)
In Rome, the Historian Varro says that in ancient times the Xoaron of Mars - the idol by which he was worshipped - was a spear, artists not having yet applied themselves to this specious pernicious art; but when art flourished, error increased. That of stones and stocks --- and to speak briefly, of dead matter - you have made images of human form by which you have produced a counterfeit of piety, and slandered the truth, is now as clear as can be; but such proof as the point may demand, must not be declined … You then show yourselves inferior to apes by cleaving to stone, and wood and gold, and ivory images and to pictures … For we are expressly prohibited from exercising a deceptive art: "For thou shalt not make", says the prophet, "the likeness of anything which is in heaven above or in the earth beneath."
Melito (160-170 A.D.)
"There are, however, persons who say: It is for the honor of God that we make the image: in order, that is, that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view. But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He knoweth it not. Yet thou, despicable man! Within whom He is, and without whom He is, and above whom He is, has nevertheless gone and bought thee wood from the carpenter's and it is carved and made into an image insulting to God. To this thou offerest sacrifice, and knowest not that the all-seeing eye seeth thee, and that the word of truth reproves thee, and says to thee: How can the unseen God be sculptured? Nay, it is the likeness of thyself that thou makest and worshippest.
Lactantius (260-330 A.D)
What madness is it, then, either to form those objects which they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the things which they have formed? But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be? What is the meaning of temples and altars? what, in short, of the images themselves, which are memorials either of the dead or absent? For the plan of making likenesses was invented by men for this reason, that it might be possible to retain the memory of those who had either been removed by death or separated by absence. In which of these classes, then, shall we reckon the gods? If among the dead, who is so foolish as to worship them? If among the absent, then they are not to be worshipped, if they neither see our actions nor hear our prayers. But if the gods cannot be absent, - for, since they are divine, they see and hear all things, in whatever part of the universe they are, - it follows that images are superfluous, since the gods are present everywhere, and it is sufficient to invoke with prayer the names of those who hear us…But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze or other material, but man himself
Arnobius (297-303 A.D.)
We worship the gods, you say, by means of images. What then? Without these, do the gods not know that they are worshipped, and will they not think that any honor is shown to them by you? Through bypaths, as it were, then, and by assignments to a third party, as they are called, they receive and accept your services; and before those to whom that service is owed experience it, you first sacrifice to images, and transmit, as it were, some remnants to them at the pleasure of others. And what greater wrong, disgrace, hardship, can be inflicted than to acknowledge one God, and yet make supplication to something else - to hope for help from a deity, and pray to an image without feeling? Is not this, I pray you, that which is said in the common proverbs: "to cut down the smith when you strike at the fuller;" "and when you seek a man's advice, to require of asses and pigs their opinions as to what should be done? "
All these exhortations are against pagan practices, but at no point do they refer to Christian veneration of images nor do they feel the need to contrast the difference between the veneration of icons and the adoration of the pagan images - because the Christians did not produce images. Athenagoras says so himself. I searched every reference in the early Fathers regarding "images" and found only negative arguments against their use. I beg the Orthodox historians to find such references to pre-Nicene icon veneration. I also encourage the Orthodox theologian to compare the provided citations with the arguments of later theologians who support icons. Many of the later arguments are undermined by these early Christian writings against pagan idols. My contention is that it would be an abomination to Athenagoras, Lactantius and the others to see later generations of Christians venerating painted wood.
It is not until the time of St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa do we see references to Christians venerating images, and it is not until the last Ecumenical Council that their use is canonized . Where then did this tradition come from if not from the apostles? The cannons of the seventh council tell us - from the Caesars!
For if the people go forth with lights and incense to meet the "laurata" and images of the Emperors when they are sent to cities or rural districts, the honour surely not the tablet covered over with wax, but the emperor himself. How much more is it necessary that in the churches of Christ our God, the image of God our Saviour and of his spotless Mother and of all the holy and blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted ?
The veneration of the image of Caesar predated the ministry of Jesus. The emperor was viewed as a God, and venerating his image was a sign of loyalty in the Empire. Many Christians died refusing to give homage to this image . Unfortunately, the tradition of venerating the image of Caesar was adopted by Christians after the empire converted to Christianity and was adapted to Christ and the Saints shortly thereafter. This is clear from studying Church history.
Though St. John of Damascus and the seventh council would like to make a difference between the worship (latria) of images and the veneration (proskunia) of them. The first commandment of Moses forbids both. The Septuagint reads:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing 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 [proskunia] thyself to them, nor serve [latria] them
The Holy Spirit forbade the production, veneration and worship of images from the time of Moses through the apostles. The early church fathers maintained this tradition and spoke out vociferously against the pagans who continued to craft images of their gods. A tradition of men - that of venerating images - invaded the church after the first Nicene council and was ratified by a clearly uninspired seventh council and lasted until the Holy Spirit was pleased to cleanse it through the Protestant Reformation.
********************************************************************************************************** |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
astrobe's journal
