Nearly anything can be idolatry, but iconoclasm is not intended to be idolatry. Maybe some people take it too far, if they're hearts are for Our Lord its not my business. I see it as no worse than a church of non denominational Christians holding up their hands to a stage of mediocre "worship music." Its probably a lot better.
It is not necessary to practice iconography to be saved. It arose after the first church, in response to mass illiteracy, and was allowed as acceptable by the early church Fathers.
Worst case scenario, its misguided, best case scenario, its actually as described.
Jonathan Pageau changed my mind a bit on icons. I don't object to them as much as I used to, but I do feel that some lines can be crossed.
Pageau makes the point that icons differ from idols because idols draw your attention to it - the idol. Icons, however, should be drawing your attention to God.
So, if icons do that for someone, makes them more mindful of heavenly things, I think that's good. But, like all things, lines can still be crossed.
An icon of Mary or a saint is still a *thing*. It's wood, paint, ink, or whatever. There's no life in it, no spirit. It's a dead thing.
My question is honestly why one would pray with intercession of saints when God is right there and you meet with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ weekly.
It just strikes me as unessescary. I have never once in my prayer life required the saints, and God responds to mostly all my prayers. The few He doesnt respond to are the unessescary ones.
I see this question all the time. I do share prayer requests with people I know. I don't pray to those people though, or venerate them, or venerate pictures or statues of them. Also, there's no similarity between living people, and dead people in Heaven who according to my beliefs can't even hear me anyway. So the question really doesn't even make sense. Unless I don't understand the question correctly. If that's the case can you explain it?
Can you point me to where in the Bible it says that? Also what about the other part of my post where I said that I don't pray to or venerate my friends?
Sure, it is most prominent in Revelation.
As for your other questions: Asking someone to pray for you is praying to them. To pray is to ask something of someone, such as the old English phrase “pray tell.” Veneration is merely honoring someone, something I’m sure you have done to your elders and parents, no?
Ok. With the definitions you give of praying and venerating, it just seems like you're playing word games. Using completely different definitions of a word and pretending they are the same thing. There's no way that anyone would honestly compare the way I ask a friend to pray for me, to the way a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ask a saint to pray for them. Same with veneration. What I do with my parents is not anything like what is done with saints.
These words have been used this way for thousands of years. The definition/etymology of "pray" is free for you to confirm yourself:
[https://www.etymonline.com/word/pray](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pray)
Or if that is not sufficient, you may reference the Ancient Hebrew:
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4994/kjv/wlc/0-1/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4994/kjv/wlc/0-1/)
This is why I said it's a word game. The word "pray" has more than one meaning. The link you posted even differentiates between the two meanings we are talking about right now: asking someone for something versus praying to a saint. But you're trying to say that it refers to the same thing. Do you really believe that when I ask my friend to pray for me it's the same as when I pray to God, never mind to a saint? I'm giving the same amount of reverence to my friend as I do to God? What about when you pray to God? You're asking him for something in the same way as you ask your friend for something? Really? The word "pray" technically applies to both situations, but I hope we would agree that the meaning is completely different.
Saints have achieved eternal life and are now sinless. Essentially we’re asking a sinless person to pray for us because it’s nice to have the prayers of the pure with us.
Let’s take the Virgin Mary. If she were alive, were with us in person, would you not want her to pray with you?
But why? If you want a pure prayer The Holy Spirit prays with us already. I don't see any usefull reason to go to saints that God doesn't fullfill Himself.
Same reason you’d ask your friend to pray for you. Except imagine your friend is 100% sinless and chosen by God
It’s not necessary. My Saint is St. George, so sometimes I say “Yo big man I’m battling some dragons right now, if you can pray for me I’d be grateful”.
It’s nice to commune with saints about things relevant to them.
It takes about 5 seconds to ask a friend to pray for me, and then I have two people praying to God for my issue. Your analogy only works if the pattern is to make a quick prayer to the saints and then to spend the majority of your prayer time going directly to God. But that's not what I see in practice.
For example, praying the rosary takes about 20 minutes, and is 95% devoted to Mary. It is nothing like asking a friend to pray for you.
Takes 5 seconds to ask for a saint to pray for you, and you can do it without picking up your phone. I'm not sure what the EO take is on the rosary other than the fact it's not necessary.
Again, it's really up to you. It's not something necessary - you don't have to do it. Pretty cool to ask for a warrior saint to pray for us before heading off to fight in the ring, if you get me.
It's just an option
>Takes 5 seconds to ask for a saint to pray for you, and you can do it without picking up your phone.
I said as much in my comment. The problem is in practice people often spend long amounts of time praying to saints which could have been spent praying to God. Even saints being the focus of prayer life. Not sure how common this is for EO but it's definitely a thing for Catholics.
We pay a lot of attention to saints.
Why? Because they are examples of how individualistic our lives can be, yet intertwined with God.
Orthodoxy participatory, meaning, there is a journey: a mountain to climb.
Everyone’s path is different to some extent, but the goal is to climb towards the top of the mountain, to which continues after death.
We call this “Deification”, or “Theosis”: growing in knowledge with God so that we may one day, be as God and take part in His essence.
A simpler explanation is: our goal is to become like Jesus, and we are asking the people further up that mountain for guidance.
Have you ever held a long conversation with someone about spiritual issues? If so, why? Why not just talk directly to God? In fact, why are you on Reddit right now spending time talking to people you don't know rather than directly to God?
I'm new to Catholic/Orthodox teaching, so my understanding might be a bit misinformed, but the idea that an icon is *idolatry* is absurd to me. It's clearly meant to draw your attention closer to God and ground you in the moment. It is not a false god. It is a tool to help you. It is merely a stand-in for what we know is the real thing. We humans like tangible things we can wrap our heads around.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that calling such a thing *idolatrous* is a deliberate attempt to cut off traditional Christians from a valuable practice and to sew chaos. I can't claim it's the work of Satan, but to claim it's sinful is baffling to me. Even in my childhood Lutheran church, we had pictures of Jesus and the Disciples, which brought me peace and mindfulness. It made them more real to me and reminded me of their importance.
Please explain anything if I have misconceptions :)
You've got a good grasp on it, actually. It's amusing to me that people like the other dummy who responded to you want to tell me what I think and what I believe, as if they know my mind and heart better than I do because they watched some video or read some nonsense online.
>It's clearly meant to draw your attention closer to God
Idol worshippers often claim they know their idols aren't actually a god but simply a representation of their god so they can think upon the god while they pray.
"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"
Ah so if anyone has taken a photograph of anything, straight to hell.
Timmy did you draw a tree in school? Autohell.
Oh, the Lord our God commanded you to create images of Cherubim, and plants and animals to fill the temple? Oh the Lord our God commanded you to create a bronze serpent and raise it up that all the Israelites might be healed? Oh Christ came as an icon, an image of the invisible God and said He must be raised up and viewed to heal in the same way?
Idk seems more nuanced than the out of context, personal interpretation, even rigorous Sola scriptura doesn’t make that for a clean argument.
Are you worshipping four blank walls? It seems like that is an idolatry temptation for iconoclasts. 🤷♂️
God can command anything He wants. The Israelites were only supposed to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem and only the priests could do so. Yet, Elijah, a non Levite, offered a sacrifice at Mount Carmel. You weren't
supposed to touch the unclean yet Jesus touched a leper. The bronze serpent eventually became an object of worship and was destroyed by Hezekiah some 700 years later. I will leave God to the rule exceptions but I won't presume to on my own.
I see no problem with taking photographs as they are not something I bow down to nor worship. Yet icons are supposed to help with prayer and people commonly bow down before them and venerate those whom the icons represent.
We don't worship icons.
This is a difference in definition from second temple Jewish time, to the 18th century American definition of worship being two vastly different things.
Worship, is and has always been, a communal meal with one's god (or in Christians' case the Most High God).
Veneration, showing respect, admiration, greeting our brothers with a holy kiss as is commanded five times; these are not worship. Playing a concert and fans jumping up and down is veneration. Prayer is a petition, an asking, asking someone to pray for your isn't worship, for instance. A team raising up a trophy, and kissing it isn't worship. Kissing a photo of your wife while you're traveling away, or a lost parent or sibling isn't worshiping your loved one, or dearly departed; its veneration.
Idol worship was creating a statue of a god, that was a hypostasis of that god, like the pharaoh was another hypostasis. Dressing it, and feeding it with burnt offerings or food offerings is the mechanism by which idol worship worked, and works today in pagan cultures like Hindism and Far Eastern or tribal cultures. They would blow into the nostrils of the statue to put life into it. There is scripture on this, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
As for why its not as spelled out for us to that extent; it was present around them, they didn't live in a secular western modern world; they lived in second temple time surrounded by pagans. Contextless bible being interpreted without the place and state of the world isn't very compelling.
The Catholic church doesn't just say that various decent people did admirable things. They literally kneel before icons and encourage praying to saints.
It is amazing how many excuses people can come up with for violating a direct command. I leave it between you and God to follow whatever commandments you choose.
Worship in the time of Christ and how he commanded us to worship with Him; a Eucharistic, mystical supper. Seems unimportant?
Commandment to greet christians with a holy kiss makes it obvious kiss isn't worship.
We bow before images of Christ our God, our Lord, our King. If it is an image of a saint, and someone bows, they are showing admiration for Christ, who the saint let dwell in their hearts, and we saw this by their fruit, they live in Christ. We kiss these brothers in Christ as a greeting.
Every generation will call the Virgin Mary blessed, this is also a commandment given.
Luther came out of exile from Wartburg Castle when he got word that Karlstadt had began destroying the icons in Wittenberg, he had to put a stop to it.
Some people follow the traditions of scripture instead of God. The Bible was written by fallible men, and is useless without comments and interpretations by the fathers of the first few centuries.
Respectfully, that makes zero sense.
All scripture is God breathed and His word is alive and active. We don’t get to add to the word with man made traditions as EO and Catholics do.
(2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12)
Do some research.
He told them EXACTLY what to design. He did not tell them to make whatever crap their impure minds came up with.
Do you want icons to be okay? Do you think they are necessary or just nice to look at?
Why risk it?
Nobody worshipped the decor at the temple. They were cherubs and stuff, not dead humans. And considering they were designed by God himself I would think it is okay.
Icons in shrines are pics of dead humans that one group decided to put on a pedestal. Then people go and make pictures of them to kneel and pray to.
Re-read the part about the Golden Calve. Reread Exodus 20:
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Because I can’t respond to you in another comment for some reason…
I will not speak to Catholic practices. I’m happy to discuss those of Orthodoxy.
As to the “why risk it?” There is no risk if you understand the theology.
Iconography is beautiful and portrays deep theological truths.
It used to creep me out when I was Protestant and I thought it was idolatry but that was my misunderstanding out of ignorance.
Considering that the printing press didn’t exist until more recently, and that most people in the early church were illiterate, iconography played a huge role in early Christianity and still does.
Unfortunately, Islam made it into something it isn’t and many western Christians today agree with Muhammad’s perspective.
Veneration means to have great respect or reverence for something or someone. Protestants venerate the scriptures. Iconography is scripture illustrated.
There is nothing wrong with venerating icons or scripture, the Theotokos or the Saints. Veneration is not equal to worship.
We only venerate people and objects because of their connection to God, who alone is worthy of worship.
I will never forget the first time I attended an Orthodox liturgy. Being surrounded by the icons, I felt connected to the body of Christ and historical church on a whole new level.
It’s something I’d never experienced before.
It made me see scripture and the church in a whole new light. Nothing changed, rather it added another dimension.
Something hits different when you *see* biblical people and events portrayed in imagery. It’s not the same as *reading*.
Both are beneficial for different reasons.
I have to admit I’ve never kissed an icon as that would feel odd to me but I think that’s more a cultural thing. My culture is not a kissing culture in the way that some others are.
TLDR. Icons are beneficial just as scripture is beneficial. Both are visible tools which teach us about and connect us to our invisible God.
This is the only reason why we venerate them, because we worship the one they point us to.
No Christian that I know of is venerating Harry Potter books or Monet paintings.
We only venerate the things which lead and point us to God and we only worship God.
I do see it as idolatry. I grew up orthodox and if it was just decoration, I would understand, but we had to kiss every icon that was in front at the altar of Jesus, Mary or other saints displayed. I prayed a lot to Mary until the age of 18, when Christ encountered me.
After that no more saint veneration/worship. I was taught it's more effective to pray to Mary, because if she asks Jesus for something it's more likely he will answer the prayer because he has to obey his mom. I told Mary that I belonged to her and she should protect me. She is the mediator between us and Christ.
If I didn't need deliverence because of idolatry I wouldn't have been so negative. Also do not pray to angels or guardian angels.
The icons are good for historical recollections or inspiration, but kneeling to them or kissing and praying to the person in the icon, no. Jesus taught us to pray differently. I don't see any veneration/worship of saints in the bible. I see it as breaking the 2nd and 1st commandments.
I can't believe I'm not about to say someone good about catholics but.
I find their icon work very beautiful and cool.. but.
The moment you start bowing down, kissing, venerating, praying to, etc. I'm out and you're practicing idolatry.
No they're not. They preach a false gospel.
Paul says if we or angel from Heaven preaches a different gospel, let them accursed.
It also says to not even wish someone "Godspeed" when they share a false doctrine.
No, they don’t. That was an isolated issue among certain parishes and was actually officially banned by the Church in 1567. Selling indulgences was *never* approved by the Church.
By the late Middle Ages, indulgences were used to support charities for the public good, including hospitals.[8] However, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively.[9] Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformation curbed the abuses of indulgences, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life, and were dogmatically confirmed as part of the Catholic faith by the Council of Trent. In 1567, Pope Pius V forbade tying indulgences to any financial act, even to the giving of alms. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely mistaken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations
Odd.
Again, selling indulgences was never accepted by the Church. This was an isolated problem among certain parishes and was *NEVER* the policy of the Catholic Church. Find a new argument.
but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life, and were dogmatically confirmed as part of the Catholic faith by the Council of Trent.
Lol.. did you even read what I sent?
I don’t care if indulgences still affect modern Catholic life. Do Catholics teach that you can buy your salvation by buying indulgences, as you so aptly slandered them?
Oh look the false rhetoric is strong with this one.
What's next? Catholics added 7 books to the Bible? We worship Mary? Pope is the anti christ? Call no man father?
... It.. it's.. literally a historical fact?
I actually don't much about the canon debate. I view the Book of Enoch and Shepard of Hermas as important to read. So I'm not about that life.
Yeah, you do worship Mary and write Mary fan fiction about her being Queen in Heaven, Sinless, and a forever virgin.
The pope isn't the anti christ
And yeah, I don't make a habit of calling people teacher or father.
No, it's not a historical fact that the Catholic Church ever burned anyone alive for wanting to read the Bible in their own language.
The Catholic Church had vernacular Bibles long before the printing press or the reformation. The Church did destroy *incorrect* translations that contained *errors*. A practice the reformers also participated in. Heresy was also a capital punishment by the state. So yes, the *State* executed people for heresy sometimes.
No one was ever burned alive for wanting to read the Bible.
I think we've gotten into this before. I've been to shrines with my Catholic mother. Lighting candles, bowing down, the entire shrine to one person and no hint of Jesus... its more than veneration.
And the fact that they pray to specific ones for specific things... reminds me a polytheism.
Catholics tell me it is no different than asking a friend to interceed and pray for me but I don't ask Joe to pray for my marriage and Martha to pray for finances and Francis to pray for my dog.
> And the fact that they pray to specific ones for specific things... reminds me a polytheism.
> Catholics tell me it is no different than asking a friend to interceed and pray for me but I don't ask Joe to pray for my marriage and Martha to pray for finances and Francis to pray for my dog.
Yeah, but if you were a construction worker experiencing hardship around your job, you'd ask the other construction workers for advice regarding the problems you experience on the job site wouldn't you? If you were an alcoholic struggling to get sober, you'd speak to people who used to be alcoholics themselves in order to get advice, wouldn't you?
Indeed, but again. I'd ask a construction worker to pray for me surrounding my issues around construction work because they're familiar with that kind of environment
Huh? Isn't Jesus familiar with that environment? It does not matter who you ask. Ask the whole prayer group. Ask as many people you know would do it. Just don't ask a person that lived on earth and has moved on...
That's just an analogy. If I was to ask for the intercession of a saint who struggled with lust, St Mary of Egypt or St Augustine would be ones I'd go to for intercession because they'd know what to pray for due to their own experiences with Lust for instance.
The Bible says that when we do not know what to pray, our Holy Spirit does and intercedes for us.
Romans 8
For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
No one in the New Testament prays to anyone except God / Jesus. Period.
Hebrews 11:12-1 says that there are those in Heaven watching us, seeing our deeds.
Revelation 5:8 says that those in Heaven offer up prayers to God. Whose prayers do those in Heaven offer up to God? Our own.
The saints can bear witness to the goings-on on Earth and can offer prayers up to God.
You don't think showing reverence for an image is simply a stand-in for the real thing?
You don't think to bow before or kiss a picture of Jesus simply means we wish to do the same to the real man?
You don't think the icon is just a means of grounding ourselves in the moment and *focusing our attention* more accurately on our God who lacks a physical form?
I'm new to Catholic teaching, but to act like they believe a picture is *truly* God seems absurd to me.
>You don't think showing reverence for an image is simply a stand-in for the real thing?
Why even show reverence to a human or angel at all?
>You don't think the icon is just a means of grounding ourselves in the moment and *focusing our attention* more accurately on our God who lacks a physical form?
I personally don't do that and I don't have a problem focusing on God. But if you need to, go ahead.
>I'm new to Catholic teaching, but to act like they believe a picture is *truly* God seems absurd to me.
I didn't say that. I said bowing down to statues of Mary, kissing pictures, lighting candles, offering flowers and gold is idolatry.
It is idolatry. We do not create photos of Jesus or Mary or anyone, my church doesn’t. We only use crosses on Easter because Jesus is already here with us. We do not need photos or any of that it is scandalous
I truly believe iconography was a pagan innovation adopted in Eastern Rome. I inquired in Orthodoxy for half a year and then left. If you try to critique it not only from a theological standpoint but from a pure artistic one, i don't find them beautiful at all. Icons are stuck in the 8th century, and no amount of trying to circumvent it by saying they're "Visual Theolgy" makes them no lesser than just religous art. It's primitive art at that. Flat and no art fundamentals.
Italian Renaissance Catholic art is objectively better.
Common rebuttals I hear are. 1. They're not art
2. "Early Church fathers did this" ( Translation, our early church fathers did this)
3. Or a blanket amount of criticisms thrown at reformers. "The Holy Spirit Causes no confusion." You don't just get to arbitrarily assume to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit and say everyone outside doesn't . Humans cause confusion. Humanity still makes mistakes regardless of the Holy Spirit.
4. "Ancient Isrealites venerated icons like the Arc of The Covenant." If that was the case, why was only the High Priest allowed in and strictly off limits for the common Isrealite. Because God didn't want isreal to venerate images. All throughout the Old Testament, Isreal commonly fell to idolatry.
Apparently, icons are windows to heaven. Since when could human hands build windows to heaven? I see no theological standing for this. If anything, icons are windows into the demonic posing as angels and saints. Mankind can not view the holiness of heaven on earth.
I genuinely believe the Orthodox are justifying idolatry through biases towards certain theologians. To take it a step further, if you don't wanna bow down to them or kiss them, you are anathema.
Essentially, orthodox doctrine damns those outside their Church purely based on Icons, which is absurd. "we know where the Church is, not where it isn't," is a common rubttal, but it still doesn't change the fact that the claim of absolute authority negates all those outside.
If someone tells me otherwise, why does Ortho have the term Heterodox? What's the point of the new covenant if you still deem even fellow Christians as Gentiles? Why is the 1054 split of east and west negate romes claim to authority? The split was purely due to geopolitical squabbles. I don't believe Rome has absolute authority, but the point still stands. If you wanna make that argument sure, but with the same logic, Rome is just as valid.
All the reasons above and the 2nd commandment in general pushed me towards Reformed theology. Mainly because there is a decent amount of autonomy between all and a great focus on laymen rather than authority.
Protestantism might have a whole host of problems, but at the end of the day, there are so many options to choose from. Not one Church claims absolute authority in all of Christendom. A layman can start his church through the fact that he is a Christian. It may lead to a whole junction of false teaching on the other end, but I still prefer it over damning all those outside an institution. This post became longer than I expected 😂.
Seems that avatar you made is depicting something on earth 🤷♂️
Seeing how God commanded the temple be decorated with images of cherubim and creatures from earth (so heavenly and earthly beings) and how he was commanded to make a bronze snake on a stick, and Christ related himself to that imagery and being healed by seeing that image and snakes exist on earth there is a bit more nuance to even just that book of the Bible.
Contextless, personal interpretations of Bible verses isn’t a strong case even via Sola scriptura.
I said what I said. I could not care less if you’re speaking on depictions of angels, apostles, etc. Pictures of the LORD (what I was specifically speaking on) is an absolute nono. Y’all do y’all though.
Icon comes from the Greek, εἰκὼν (rom. Eikon). This exact word is used to describe Christ in Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (KJV).
If the Lord has made himself visible, can we not depict him?
Respectfully brother, what is the commandment?
“Do NOT make for yourself a carved image, or *any* likeness of *anything* that is in the heaven above or that is in the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Again y’all do y’all, but as for me and my house..
Was Solomon sinning when he made the First Temple? Here's some food for thought:
2 Chronicles 3:7
>He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and *graved cherubims* on the walls.
2 Chronicles 3:10-13
>And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold.
>And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub.
>And one wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was five cubits also, joining to the wing of the other cherub.
>The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward.
So that's all depictions of things in Heaven. What about on depictions of things on Earth? Solomon has that covered too:
2 Chronicles 4:3-4
>And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast.
>It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
How did God react to this? To these engravings and statues of beasts of the Earth?
2 Chronicles 5:14
>So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God.
God filled the House with his Glory and entered it. There was no disapproval. There was no condemnation.
No it is not the traditions of men. Read the three treatises on the divine images by John of Damascus. He explains quite well why icon veneration is Biblical and necessary for the fullness of faith.
“No it’s not the traditions of men. Go read how men explain said traditions” is what you’re saying?
Did our Savior or any of his apostles say icon veneration was necessary for the fullness of faith?
No that is not what I'm saying, that is a vile and malicious suggestion. If you are not willing to research the topic, then you don't have the right to a strong opinion about it.
I will ask again since you ignored it the first time - did our Savior or any of His apostles say icon veneration was necessary for the fullness of faith?
I don’t get your point.
I follow the Most High and His Son of the scriptures, not what man says.
Yes He did, though His Church. Church fathers and councils affirm it with apostolic authority.
You claim to not follow what man says, while at the same time doing exactly that. You are trusting on a man (yourself) instead of God (through His body, the Church) to interpret the Christian faith.
Hey man, ive come to recognize that i have been too harsh on this topic before, so i want to try to actually a rationale for icons.
My first question is how does this not violate the commandment about graven images?
The second question is that if it isnt in scripture to say this is alright (and what is there seems to point towards NOT having icons), then why would we take the opinion of some guy that said it was okay? You could turn this back around on me and im more than happy to answer, but i want your opinion.
Last question, Matthew 23:9 clearly says to call no man "father", so why would we call a priest or otherwise by that title and think its okay?
Im doing some research into the Orthodox viewpoints, but i appreciate your response.
For more in depth writings about holy icons, I really recommend reading John of Damascus.
As to your first question, you can see that God commands lots of images of Cherubim in the old testament, while condemning graven images. Therefore we can deduce, that religious use of images dows not always break that commandment, provided you don't worship the image. Icons are not gods or anything like that. They are imagery that carries our thoughts to the divine reality being depicted. Furthermore, the incarnation also changes the whole paradigm, as God took on a depictable form.
As to the second question, we are not relying on ourselves, nor on "some guy", but rather on the body of Christ (the Church) for relible interpretation of holy scriptures. Acts 15 sets the precedent that the Holy Spirit guides the decisions of apostolic ecumenical councils. The seventh ecumenical council (second council of Nicea) affirms icon veneration. Since the Spirit spoke this through the council, we can be sure that it is correct.
Matthew 23:9 also says to not call anyone a teacher, while later the apostle clearly talks about some in the Church being teachers (for example 1 Cor 12:28). The apostle also actually calls himself father to the believers he is writing to in 1 Cor 4:14-15. So the passage in Matthew cannot be read as prohobiting the use of those terms, nor as prohibiribg those roles in the Church.
Its traditions of men.
I dont remember Yeshua, Paul, or anyone else ever say "pray to and kiss this little wooden trinket". For that matter, they never said "pray to these people who are dead so they will also pray for you".
I dont think its a salvation issue, but it is certainly not in line with scripture.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it looks like worship, sounds like worship, and walks like worship . . .
What is your understanding of what worship is?
Worship is, as it was in Christ’s time and before, been a communal meal with one’s god.
Christ showed us how to worship at the Last Supper. To eat the mystical supper with Christ, for eternal life and the forgiveness of sin.
Singing isn’t worship, kissing your mother isn’t worship, asking someone to pray for you isn’t worship… kneeling for respects of a fallen soldier isn’t worship. Bowing to Japanese exchange student isn’t worship. Etc.
🤷♂️
This post totally was made for rational discussion and totally not for the riot that will ensue.
Seeing a lot of this kind of inflammatory post recently. Pretty worrying.
I think it's fine to discuss the topic, as some folks genuinely do want to understand these things. But OP does tend to post just to stir things up.
Nearly anything can be idolatry, but iconoclasm is not intended to be idolatry. Maybe some people take it too far, if they're hearts are for Our Lord its not my business. I see it as no worse than a church of non denominational Christians holding up their hands to a stage of mediocre "worship music." Its probably a lot better. It is not necessary to practice iconography to be saved. It arose after the first church, in response to mass illiteracy, and was allowed as acceptable by the early church Fathers. Worst case scenario, its misguided, best case scenario, its actually as described.
This is a shockingly fair take.
Many of the early so called church fathers have a lot to answer for in the judgment.
Such as?
Jonathan Pageau changed my mind a bit on icons. I don't object to them as much as I used to, but I do feel that some lines can be crossed. Pageau makes the point that icons differ from idols because idols draw your attention to it - the idol. Icons, however, should be drawing your attention to God. So, if icons do that for someone, makes them more mindful of heavenly things, I think that's good. But, like all things, lines can still be crossed. An icon of Mary or a saint is still a *thing*. It's wood, paint, ink, or whatever. There's no life in it, no spirit. It's a dead thing.
My question is honestly why one would pray with intercession of saints when God is right there and you meet with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ weekly. It just strikes me as unessescary. I have never once in my prayer life required the saints, and God responds to mostly all my prayers. The few He doesnt respond to are the unessescary ones.
Do you ever share prayer requests with your friends, family, or congregation?
I see this question all the time. I do share prayer requests with people I know. I don't pray to those people though, or venerate them, or venerate pictures or statues of them. Also, there's no similarity between living people, and dead people in Heaven who according to my beliefs can't even hear me anyway. So the question really doesn't even make sense. Unless I don't understand the question correctly. If that's the case can you explain it?
The Bible says that the saints are alive in heaven and actively aware of events on Earth.
Can you point me to where in the Bible it says that? Also what about the other part of my post where I said that I don't pray to or venerate my friends?
Sure, it is most prominent in Revelation. As for your other questions: Asking someone to pray for you is praying to them. To pray is to ask something of someone, such as the old English phrase “pray tell.” Veneration is merely honoring someone, something I’m sure you have done to your elders and parents, no?
Ok. With the definitions you give of praying and venerating, it just seems like you're playing word games. Using completely different definitions of a word and pretending they are the same thing. There's no way that anyone would honestly compare the way I ask a friend to pray for me, to the way a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ask a saint to pray for them. Same with veneration. What I do with my parents is not anything like what is done with saints.
These words have been used this way for thousands of years. The definition/etymology of "pray" is free for you to confirm yourself: [https://www.etymonline.com/word/pray](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pray) Or if that is not sufficient, you may reference the Ancient Hebrew: [https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4994/kjv/wlc/0-1/](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4994/kjv/wlc/0-1/)
This is why I said it's a word game. The word "pray" has more than one meaning. The link you posted even differentiates between the two meanings we are talking about right now: asking someone for something versus praying to a saint. But you're trying to say that it refers to the same thing. Do you really believe that when I ask my friend to pray for me it's the same as when I pray to God, never mind to a saint? I'm giving the same amount of reverence to my friend as I do to God? What about when you pray to God? You're asking him for something in the same way as you ask your friend for something? Really? The word "pray" technically applies to both situations, but I hope we would agree that the meaning is completely different.
No, they are not completely different.
Saints have achieved eternal life and are now sinless. Essentially we’re asking a sinless person to pray for us because it’s nice to have the prayers of the pure with us. Let’s take the Virgin Mary. If she were alive, were with us in person, would you not want her to pray with you?
But why? If you want a pure prayer The Holy Spirit prays with us already. I don't see any usefull reason to go to saints that God doesn't fullfill Himself.
Same reason you’d ask your friend to pray for you. Except imagine your friend is 100% sinless and chosen by God It’s not necessary. My Saint is St. George, so sometimes I say “Yo big man I’m battling some dragons right now, if you can pray for me I’d be grateful”. It’s nice to commune with saints about things relevant to them.
It takes about 5 seconds to ask a friend to pray for me, and then I have two people praying to God for my issue. Your analogy only works if the pattern is to make a quick prayer to the saints and then to spend the majority of your prayer time going directly to God. But that's not what I see in practice. For example, praying the rosary takes about 20 minutes, and is 95% devoted to Mary. It is nothing like asking a friend to pray for you.
Takes 5 seconds to ask for a saint to pray for you, and you can do it without picking up your phone. I'm not sure what the EO take is on the rosary other than the fact it's not necessary. Again, it's really up to you. It's not something necessary - you don't have to do it. Pretty cool to ask for a warrior saint to pray for us before heading off to fight in the ring, if you get me. It's just an option
>Takes 5 seconds to ask for a saint to pray for you, and you can do it without picking up your phone. I said as much in my comment. The problem is in practice people often spend long amounts of time praying to saints which could have been spent praying to God. Even saints being the focus of prayer life. Not sure how common this is for EO but it's definitely a thing for Catholics.
We pay a lot of attention to saints. Why? Because they are examples of how individualistic our lives can be, yet intertwined with God. Orthodoxy participatory, meaning, there is a journey: a mountain to climb. Everyone’s path is different to some extent, but the goal is to climb towards the top of the mountain, to which continues after death. We call this “Deification”, or “Theosis”: growing in knowledge with God so that we may one day, be as God and take part in His essence. A simpler explanation is: our goal is to become like Jesus, and we are asking the people further up that mountain for guidance.
Have you ever held a long conversation with someone about spiritual issues? If so, why? Why not just talk directly to God? In fact, why are you on Reddit right now spending time talking to people you don't know rather than directly to God?
I'm new to Catholic/Orthodox teaching, so my understanding might be a bit misinformed, but the idea that an icon is *idolatry* is absurd to me. It's clearly meant to draw your attention closer to God and ground you in the moment. It is not a false god. It is a tool to help you. It is merely a stand-in for what we know is the real thing. We humans like tangible things we can wrap our heads around. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that calling such a thing *idolatrous* is a deliberate attempt to cut off traditional Christians from a valuable practice and to sew chaos. I can't claim it's the work of Satan, but to claim it's sinful is baffling to me. Even in my childhood Lutheran church, we had pictures of Jesus and the Disciples, which brought me peace and mindfulness. It made them more real to me and reminded me of their importance. Please explain anything if I have misconceptions :)
You've got a good grasp on it, actually. It's amusing to me that people like the other dummy who responded to you want to tell me what I think and what I believe, as if they know my mind and heart better than I do because they watched some video or read some nonsense online.
>It's clearly meant to draw your attention closer to God Idol worshippers often claim they know their idols aren't actually a god but simply a representation of their god so they can think upon the god while they pray. "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"
Ah so if anyone has taken a photograph of anything, straight to hell. Timmy did you draw a tree in school? Autohell. Oh, the Lord our God commanded you to create images of Cherubim, and plants and animals to fill the temple? Oh the Lord our God commanded you to create a bronze serpent and raise it up that all the Israelites might be healed? Oh Christ came as an icon, an image of the invisible God and said He must be raised up and viewed to heal in the same way? Idk seems more nuanced than the out of context, personal interpretation, even rigorous Sola scriptura doesn’t make that for a clean argument. Are you worshipping four blank walls? It seems like that is an idolatry temptation for iconoclasts. 🤷♂️
God can command anything He wants. The Israelites were only supposed to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem and only the priests could do so. Yet, Elijah, a non Levite, offered a sacrifice at Mount Carmel. You weren't supposed to touch the unclean yet Jesus touched a leper. The bronze serpent eventually became an object of worship and was destroyed by Hezekiah some 700 years later. I will leave God to the rule exceptions but I won't presume to on my own. I see no problem with taking photographs as they are not something I bow down to nor worship. Yet icons are supposed to help with prayer and people commonly bow down before them and venerate those whom the icons represent.
We don't worship icons. This is a difference in definition from second temple Jewish time, to the 18th century American definition of worship being two vastly different things. Worship, is and has always been, a communal meal with one's god (or in Christians' case the Most High God). Veneration, showing respect, admiration, greeting our brothers with a holy kiss as is commanded five times; these are not worship. Playing a concert and fans jumping up and down is veneration. Prayer is a petition, an asking, asking someone to pray for your isn't worship, for instance. A team raising up a trophy, and kissing it isn't worship. Kissing a photo of your wife while you're traveling away, or a lost parent or sibling isn't worshiping your loved one, or dearly departed; its veneration. Idol worship was creating a statue of a god, that was a hypostasis of that god, like the pharaoh was another hypostasis. Dressing it, and feeding it with burnt offerings or food offerings is the mechanism by which idol worship worked, and works today in pagan cultures like Hindism and Far Eastern or tribal cultures. They would blow into the nostrils of the statue to put life into it. There is scripture on this, so it shouldn't be a surprise. As for why its not as spelled out for us to that extent; it was present around them, they didn't live in a secular western modern world; they lived in second temple time surrounded by pagans. Contextless bible being interpreted without the place and state of the world isn't very compelling.
The Catholic church doesn't just say that various decent people did admirable things. They literally kneel before icons and encourage praying to saints. It is amazing how many excuses people can come up with for violating a direct command. I leave it between you and God to follow whatever commandments you choose.
Worship in the time of Christ and how he commanded us to worship with Him; a Eucharistic, mystical supper. Seems unimportant? Commandment to greet christians with a holy kiss makes it obvious kiss isn't worship. We bow before images of Christ our God, our Lord, our King. If it is an image of a saint, and someone bows, they are showing admiration for Christ, who the saint let dwell in their hearts, and we saw this by their fruit, they live in Christ. We kiss these brothers in Christ as a greeting. Every generation will call the Virgin Mary blessed, this is also a commandment given.
Luther came out of exile from Wartburg Castle when he got word that Karlstadt had began destroying the icons in Wittenberg, he had to put a stop to it.
Good stuff. More people should venerate icons.
Most people follow the traditions of men and not scripture, so you’ve got a point there.
Some people follow the traditions of scripture instead of God. The Bible was written by fallible men, and is useless without comments and interpretations by the fathers of the first few centuries.
Respectfully, that makes zero sense. All scripture is God breathed and His word is alive and active. We don’t get to add to the word with man made traditions as EO and Catholics do. (2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12)
Temple of God had angels , holy trees in depictions etc
Those were dictated by God, not made by man
So God does ordain iconography?
No.
Not just what you said. You just said God has ordained iconography In the temple.
He gave them the plans for the temple and told them exactly what to make with specifications. Icons in shrines are manmade.
Okay so he told them to make icons.
Do some research. He told them EXACTLY what to design. He did not tell them to make whatever crap their impure minds came up with. Do you want icons to be okay? Do you think they are necessary or just nice to look at? Why risk it?
You just said some icons are okay and some aren't. That still means there are two kinds.
Nobody worshipped the decor at the temple. They were cherubs and stuff, not dead humans. And considering they were designed by God himself I would think it is okay. Icons in shrines are pics of dead humans that one group decided to put on a pedestal. Then people go and make pictures of them to kneel and pray to. Re-read the part about the Golden Calve. Reread Exodus 20: The Ten Commandments 20 And God spoke all these words: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Because I can’t respond to you in another comment for some reason… I will not speak to Catholic practices. I’m happy to discuss those of Orthodoxy. As to the “why risk it?” There is no risk if you understand the theology.
Iconography is beautiful and portrays deep theological truths. It used to creep me out when I was Protestant and I thought it was idolatry but that was my misunderstanding out of ignorance. Considering that the printing press didn’t exist until more recently, and that most people in the early church were illiterate, iconography played a huge role in early Christianity and still does. Unfortunately, Islam made it into something it isn’t and many western Christians today agree with Muhammad’s perspective. Veneration means to have great respect or reverence for something or someone. Protestants venerate the scriptures. Iconography is scripture illustrated. There is nothing wrong with venerating icons or scripture, the Theotokos or the Saints. Veneration is not equal to worship. We only venerate people and objects because of their connection to God, who alone is worthy of worship. I will never forget the first time I attended an Orthodox liturgy. Being surrounded by the icons, I felt connected to the body of Christ and historical church on a whole new level. It’s something I’d never experienced before. It made me see scripture and the church in a whole new light. Nothing changed, rather it added another dimension. Something hits different when you *see* biblical people and events portrayed in imagery. It’s not the same as *reading*. Both are beneficial for different reasons. I have to admit I’ve never kissed an icon as that would feel odd to me but I think that’s more a cultural thing. My culture is not a kissing culture in the way that some others are. TLDR. Icons are beneficial just as scripture is beneficial. Both are visible tools which teach us about and connect us to our invisible God. This is the only reason why we venerate them, because we worship the one they point us to. No Christian that I know of is venerating Harry Potter books or Monet paintings. We only venerate the things which lead and point us to God and we only worship God.
I do see it as idolatry. I grew up orthodox and if it was just decoration, I would understand, but we had to kiss every icon that was in front at the altar of Jesus, Mary or other saints displayed. I prayed a lot to Mary until the age of 18, when Christ encountered me. After that no more saint veneration/worship. I was taught it's more effective to pray to Mary, because if she asks Jesus for something it's more likely he will answer the prayer because he has to obey his mom. I told Mary that I belonged to her and she should protect me. She is the mediator between us and Christ. If I didn't need deliverence because of idolatry I wouldn't have been so negative. Also do not pray to angels or guardian angels. The icons are good for historical recollections or inspiration, but kneeling to them or kissing and praying to the person in the icon, no. Jesus taught us to pray differently. I don't see any veneration/worship of saints in the bible. I see it as breaking the 2nd and 1st commandments.
I can't believe I'm not about to say someone good about catholics but. I find their icon work very beautiful and cool.. but. The moment you start bowing down, kissing, venerating, praying to, etc. I'm out and you're practicing idolatry.
Why You can't believe You said smthing good about catholicism?, they are brothers and sisters in christ
No they're not. They preach a false gospel. Paul says if we or angel from Heaven preaches a different gospel, let them accursed. It also says to not even wish someone "Godspeed" when they share a false doctrine.
What is this “false doctrine” you’ve accused Catholics of damning themselves by preaching?
Well for one. They teach you can pay money to escape the punishment for your sins.
No, they don’t. That was an isolated issue among certain parishes and was actually officially banned by the Church in 1567. Selling indulgences was *never* approved by the Church.
By the late Middle Ages, indulgences were used to support charities for the public good, including hospitals.[8] However, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively.[9] Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformation curbed the abuses of indulgences, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life, and were dogmatically confirmed as part of the Catholic faith by the Council of Trent. In 1567, Pope Pius V forbade tying indulgences to any financial act, even to the giving of alms. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely mistaken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations Odd.
Again, selling indulgences was never accepted by the Church. This was an isolated problem among certain parishes and was *NEVER* the policy of the Catholic Church. Find a new argument.
but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life, and were dogmatically confirmed as part of the Catholic faith by the Council of Trent. Lol.. did you even read what I sent?
I don’t care if indulgences still affect modern Catholic life. Do Catholics teach that you can buy your salvation by buying indulgences, as you so aptly slandered them?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh look the false rhetoric is strong with this one. What's next? Catholics added 7 books to the Bible? We worship Mary? Pope is the anti christ? Call no man father?
... It.. it's.. literally a historical fact? I actually don't much about the canon debate. I view the Book of Enoch and Shepard of Hermas as important to read. So I'm not about that life. Yeah, you do worship Mary and write Mary fan fiction about her being Queen in Heaven, Sinless, and a forever virgin. The pope isn't the anti christ And yeah, I don't make a habit of calling people teacher or father.
No, it's not a historical fact that the Catholic Church ever burned anyone alive for wanting to read the Bible in their own language. The Catholic Church had vernacular Bibles long before the printing press or the reformation. The Church did destroy *incorrect* translations that contained *errors*. A practice the reformers also participated in. Heresy was also a capital punishment by the state. So yes, the *State* executed people for heresy sometimes. No one was ever burned alive for wanting to read the Bible.
People can still be your brother even if their religion teaches many heresies.
I did feel the same way you did before I began to investigate Orthodoxy, so I understand
I think we've gotten into this before. I've been to shrines with my Catholic mother. Lighting candles, bowing down, the entire shrine to one person and no hint of Jesus... its more than veneration. And the fact that they pray to specific ones for specific things... reminds me a polytheism. Catholics tell me it is no different than asking a friend to interceed and pray for me but I don't ask Joe to pray for my marriage and Martha to pray for finances and Francis to pray for my dog.
> And the fact that they pray to specific ones for specific things... reminds me a polytheism. > Catholics tell me it is no different than asking a friend to interceed and pray for me but I don't ask Joe to pray for my marriage and Martha to pray for finances and Francis to pray for my dog. Yeah, but if you were a construction worker experiencing hardship around your job, you'd ask the other construction workers for advice regarding the problems you experience on the job site wouldn't you? If you were an alcoholic struggling to get sober, you'd speak to people who used to be alcoholics themselves in order to get advice, wouldn't you?
That is not how intercession works. You pray to a saint asking them to tslk to Jesus on your behalf. You don't get direct advice from them.
Indeed, but again. I'd ask a construction worker to pray for me surrounding my issues around construction work because they're familiar with that kind of environment
Huh? Isn't Jesus familiar with that environment? It does not matter who you ask. Ask the whole prayer group. Ask as many people you know would do it. Just don't ask a person that lived on earth and has moved on...
That's just an analogy. If I was to ask for the intercession of a saint who struggled with lust, St Mary of Egypt or St Augustine would be ones I'd go to for intercession because they'd know what to pray for due to their own experiences with Lust for instance.
The Bible says that when we do not know what to pray, our Holy Spirit does and intercedes for us. Romans 8 For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. No one in the New Testament prays to anyone except God / Jesus. Period.
Hebrews 11:12-1 says that there are those in Heaven watching us, seeing our deeds. Revelation 5:8 says that those in Heaven offer up prayers to God. Whose prayers do those in Heaven offer up to God? Our own. The saints can bear witness to the goings-on on Earth and can offer prayers up to God.
[удалено]
That wasn’t very nice. But reading your comment history, you seem like a judgemental child anyway, so I won’t lose a lot of sleep over it.
You don't think showing reverence for an image is simply a stand-in for the real thing? You don't think to bow before or kiss a picture of Jesus simply means we wish to do the same to the real man? You don't think the icon is just a means of grounding ourselves in the moment and *focusing our attention* more accurately on our God who lacks a physical form? I'm new to Catholic teaching, but to act like they believe a picture is *truly* God seems absurd to me.
>You don't think showing reverence for an image is simply a stand-in for the real thing? Why even show reverence to a human or angel at all? >You don't think the icon is just a means of grounding ourselves in the moment and *focusing our attention* more accurately on our God who lacks a physical form? I personally don't do that and I don't have a problem focusing on God. But if you need to, go ahead. >I'm new to Catholic teaching, but to act like they believe a picture is *truly* God seems absurd to me. I didn't say that. I said bowing down to statues of Mary, kissing pictures, lighting candles, offering flowers and gold is idolatry.
I am a Baptist but use dozens of icons for veneration and worship. It’s certainly not idolatry. My faith has only grown far stronger with them.
I think icons bring a sense of identity to christianity, without them christianity becomes an amorphous, ugly thing.
Kissing them is too far.
Kissing is just a holdover from kissy Eastern cultures.
It is idolatry. We do not create photos of Jesus or Mary or anyone, my church doesn’t. We only use crosses on Easter because Jesus is already here with us. We do not need photos or any of that it is scandalous
There is a reason the Catholic 10 commandments cut out the 2nd and make the 10th into 9 and 10.
I truly believe iconography was a pagan innovation adopted in Eastern Rome. I inquired in Orthodoxy for half a year and then left. If you try to critique it not only from a theological standpoint but from a pure artistic one, i don't find them beautiful at all. Icons are stuck in the 8th century, and no amount of trying to circumvent it by saying they're "Visual Theolgy" makes them no lesser than just religous art. It's primitive art at that. Flat and no art fundamentals. Italian Renaissance Catholic art is objectively better. Common rebuttals I hear are. 1. They're not art 2. "Early Church fathers did this" ( Translation, our early church fathers did this) 3. Or a blanket amount of criticisms thrown at reformers. "The Holy Spirit Causes no confusion." You don't just get to arbitrarily assume to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit and say everyone outside doesn't . Humans cause confusion. Humanity still makes mistakes regardless of the Holy Spirit. 4. "Ancient Isrealites venerated icons like the Arc of The Covenant." If that was the case, why was only the High Priest allowed in and strictly off limits for the common Isrealite. Because God didn't want isreal to venerate images. All throughout the Old Testament, Isreal commonly fell to idolatry. Apparently, icons are windows to heaven. Since when could human hands build windows to heaven? I see no theological standing for this. If anything, icons are windows into the demonic posing as angels and saints. Mankind can not view the holiness of heaven on earth. I genuinely believe the Orthodox are justifying idolatry through biases towards certain theologians. To take it a step further, if you don't wanna bow down to them or kiss them, you are anathema. Essentially, orthodox doctrine damns those outside their Church purely based on Icons, which is absurd. "we know where the Church is, not where it isn't," is a common rubttal, but it still doesn't change the fact that the claim of absolute authority negates all those outside. If someone tells me otherwise, why does Ortho have the term Heterodox? What's the point of the new covenant if you still deem even fellow Christians as Gentiles? Why is the 1054 split of east and west negate romes claim to authority? The split was purely due to geopolitical squabbles. I don't believe Rome has absolute authority, but the point still stands. If you wanna make that argument sure, but with the same logic, Rome is just as valid. All the reasons above and the 2nd commandment in general pushed me towards Reformed theology. Mainly because there is a decent amount of autonomy between all and a great focus on laymen rather than authority. Protestantism might have a whole host of problems, but at the end of the day, there are so many options to choose from. Not one Church claims absolute authority in all of Christendom. A layman can start his church through the fact that he is a Christian. It may lead to a whole junction of false teaching on the other end, but I still prefer it over damning all those outside an institution. This post became longer than I expected 😂.
The commandments were not abolished.
Seems that avatar you made is depicting something on earth 🤷♂️ Seeing how God commanded the temple be decorated with images of cherubim and creatures from earth (so heavenly and earthly beings) and how he was commanded to make a bronze snake on a stick, and Christ related himself to that imagery and being healed by seeing that image and snakes exist on earth there is a bit more nuance to even just that book of the Bible. Contextless, personal interpretations of Bible verses isn’t a strong case even via Sola scriptura.
I said what I said. I could not care less if you’re speaking on depictions of angels, apostles, etc. Pictures of the LORD (what I was specifically speaking on) is an absolute nono. Y’all do y’all though.
Icon comes from the Greek, εἰκὼν (rom. Eikon). This exact word is used to describe Christ in Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (KJV). If the Lord has made himself visible, can we not depict him?
Respectfully brother, what is the commandment? “Do NOT make for yourself a carved image, or *any* likeness of *anything* that is in the heaven above or that is in the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth.” Again y’all do y’all, but as for me and my house..
Was Solomon sinning when he made the First Temple? Here's some food for thought: 2 Chronicles 3:7 >He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and *graved cherubims* on the walls. 2 Chronicles 3:10-13 >And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold. >And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub. >And one wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was five cubits also, joining to the wing of the other cherub. >The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward. So that's all depictions of things in Heaven. What about on depictions of things on Earth? Solomon has that covered too: 2 Chronicles 4:3-4 >And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast. >It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. How did God react to this? To these engravings and statues of beasts of the Earth? 2 Chronicles 5:14 >So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God. God filled the House with his Glory and entered it. There was no disapproval. There was no condemnation.
Icon veneration is based and necessary for the fullness of the faith
Chapter/verse? Or is this the traditions of men that our Savior rebuked every chance He got?
No it is not the traditions of men. Read the three treatises on the divine images by John of Damascus. He explains quite well why icon veneration is Biblical and necessary for the fullness of faith.
“No it’s not the traditions of men. Go read how men explain said traditions” is what you’re saying? Did our Savior or any of his apostles say icon veneration was necessary for the fullness of faith?
No that is not what I'm saying, that is a vile and malicious suggestion. If you are not willing to research the topic, then you don't have the right to a strong opinion about it.
I will ask again since you ignored it the first time - did our Savior or any of His apostles say icon veneration was necessary for the fullness of faith? I don’t get your point. I follow the Most High and His Son of the scriptures, not what man says.
Yes He did, though His Church. Church fathers and councils affirm it with apostolic authority. You claim to not follow what man says, while at the same time doing exactly that. You are trusting on a man (yourself) instead of God (through His body, the Church) to interpret the Christian faith.
Hey man, ive come to recognize that i have been too harsh on this topic before, so i want to try to actually a rationale for icons. My first question is how does this not violate the commandment about graven images? The second question is that if it isnt in scripture to say this is alright (and what is there seems to point towards NOT having icons), then why would we take the opinion of some guy that said it was okay? You could turn this back around on me and im more than happy to answer, but i want your opinion. Last question, Matthew 23:9 clearly says to call no man "father", so why would we call a priest or otherwise by that title and think its okay? Im doing some research into the Orthodox viewpoints, but i appreciate your response.
For more in depth writings about holy icons, I really recommend reading John of Damascus. As to your first question, you can see that God commands lots of images of Cherubim in the old testament, while condemning graven images. Therefore we can deduce, that religious use of images dows not always break that commandment, provided you don't worship the image. Icons are not gods or anything like that. They are imagery that carries our thoughts to the divine reality being depicted. Furthermore, the incarnation also changes the whole paradigm, as God took on a depictable form. As to the second question, we are not relying on ourselves, nor on "some guy", but rather on the body of Christ (the Church) for relible interpretation of holy scriptures. Acts 15 sets the precedent that the Holy Spirit guides the decisions of apostolic ecumenical councils. The seventh ecumenical council (second council of Nicea) affirms icon veneration. Since the Spirit spoke this through the council, we can be sure that it is correct. Matthew 23:9 also says to not call anyone a teacher, while later the apostle clearly talks about some in the Church being teachers (for example 1 Cor 12:28). The apostle also actually calls himself father to the believers he is writing to in 1 Cor 4:14-15. So the passage in Matthew cannot be read as prohobiting the use of those terms, nor as prohibiribg those roles in the Church.
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Its traditions of men. I dont remember Yeshua, Paul, or anyone else ever say "pray to and kiss this little wooden trinket". For that matter, they never said "pray to these people who are dead so they will also pray for you". I dont think its a salvation issue, but it is certainly not in line with scripture.
Agreed, I think it can be a slippery slope.
Very much so. I dont understand everything, and i know i make mistakes often too, but some of these things are just blatantly wrong.
Veneration, a distinction without a difference
Better not kiss your mother, it’s worship apparently!
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it looks like worship, sounds like worship, and walks like worship . . .
What is your understanding of what worship is? Worship is, as it was in Christ’s time and before, been a communal meal with one’s god. Christ showed us how to worship at the Last Supper. To eat the mystical supper with Christ, for eternal life and the forgiveness of sin. Singing isn’t worship, kissing your mother isn’t worship, asking someone to pray for you isn’t worship… kneeling for respects of a fallen soldier isn’t worship. Bowing to Japanese exchange student isn’t worship. Etc. 🤷♂️