Icons as useful aids for attaining holiness

Vivificat - From Contemplation to Action ^ | 29 February 2012 | TDJ

[annalex]

I thought you'd enjoy this.

The soldier on the right is offering the dying Christ a sponge soaked in vinegar, while the other pierces Him. At the same time, two iconoclasts, John VII Grammatikos and Antony I Kassymatas are whitewashing His Holy Icon with a long pole resembling the instruments of Christ's torture. The vessel with the paint is also similar to the vessel with vinegar.

An angel drags an iconoclast by the hair.

The Chludov Psalter (ca. A.D. 850)

May the iconoclast heresy along with all Protestant sects be on the ash heap of history soon, in the name of Christ we pray, amen.

[Teófilo]

Wow. Thanks!

[Teófilo]

Is there an English article for these?

[annalex]

Here: Chludov_Psalter. All available Wikipedia pages have this crucifix miniature, but only the Russian has the one with the angel.

[Teófilo]

Thanks!

[FormerLib]

If it is such a clear statement, wouldn’t that mean that all “graven images” are a sin, including any photos you might own of family or other loved ones?

[Boogieman]

Well, the word “pecel”, or graven image was always understood to imply carved, 3-dimensional images, not 2-dimensional images, such as paintings. It comes from the root word meaning to hew or carve, but it is also used in Isaiah 40:20 to apply to molten images, so it is also equivalent to the word “maccekah”, which specifically meant molten images. Also, specifically forbidden in other verses are “maststebah”, meaning pillar, monument, or standing image.

There’s no equivalent prohibition against 2-dimensional art, such as paintings, mosaics, or modern-day photographs. If there had been a prohibition against those types of images, then we wouldn’t have the Bible, since the written word is a form of imagery as well, with the alphabets deriving from pictograms.

[annalex]

OK

Not OK

Simple.

[Boogieman]

Yes, I think you’ve got the gist of it.

[right way right]

Wow, what a fun thread this is.

Suggested reading.

Ephesians 2

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2&version=NIV1984

It’s in NIV but you can change it.

[annalex]

Especially, the Protestant neopharisees and sundry Judaizing vandals should read:

[14] ...He is our peace, who hath made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh: [15] Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees; that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace;

[16] And might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, killing the enmities in himself. [17] And coming, he preached peace to you that were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh. [18] For by him we have access both in one Spirit to the Father. [19] Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, [20] Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

[21] In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [22] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.

Fellow citizens with the saints and the domestics of God.

[FormerLib]

According to your statement, two-dimensional icons are not an issue?

[Boogieman]

Just making them, no. However, anything can be made into an idol, be it 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional, or even conceptual.

[Boogieman]

“[15] Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees;”

Does the “law of commandments contained in decrees” mean the 10 Commandments or the ceremonial commandments and ordinances?

What does the Catechism say?:

“1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws. “

“1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God’s call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13 “

“1967 The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the “kingdom of heaven.” It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23 “

The Old Law (10 Commandments) is an expression of the Divine Law, it was not “voided”, but fulfilled by Christ, and the New Law does not abolish the moral precepts of the Old Law. Or do you contend that the authors of the Catechism are Pharisees and Judaizers?

[FormerLib]

And as I’ve already explained, the Orthodox do not make icons into idols.

[Boogieman]

If you say so. It’s a matter for Orthodox folks’ conscience, not mine.

[annalex]

The Catholic Church does not regard the “graven images” clause a separate commandment, but rather a part of the first, where it is properly understood as a step toward establishing monotheism. The Church understands the Ten Commandments as Christ explained it in Matthew 5-7, as both revealed law and natural law, that we can discern through reason.

Taken by itself, the “graven images” clause is certainly something the Church considers transient along with the prohibition of pork and circumcision, as is evidenced by the practice of venerating the Holy Images encouraged by the Church.

It is very good that you read the Catechism.

[Boogieman]

Sorry, but the 10 Commandments were inscribed by the finger of God himself. It really doesn’t matter what order the Catholics “regard” them to be in, they can’t change them. The fact that they have tried, simply to justify their iconography, is pretty strong evidence that they love their icons more than they love the word of God. Which of course, would be idolatry in and of itself.

I’m surprised that you have the gall to bring up the Sermon on the Mount, after all, it contains these verses in Matthew 5:
“17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

There you have it! You can’t change the Commandments, and nor teach others to break the Commandments, and then claim moral authority. Christ has already spoken on that matter.

[annalex]

Who's changed them? The commandment not to carve images WAS given to Moses. The Jews were to obey them. We are not Jews. It is not complicated.

The reason I brought up the composition of the commandments is to explain the meaning of the graven images clause. It goes to the first commandment, -- it is meaningless without it.

The fulfillment of the law is something the meaning of which is explained in the scripture very well (see for example Eph 2:15 or Romans 3:28); canons 1967-1968 summarize that well also. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ teaches based on the Ten Commandments but He makes us think of the meaning and get the eseence rather than form. This is right after the "one jot or tittle" remark:

You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. [22] But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. [...] [27] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. [28] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery [...] [33] Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all

Observe: the text of the Commandments is alluded to and its meaning is revealed. This is the fulfillment: Christians are no longer children who are told to memorize the Decalogue, not run with scissors, eat the vegetables, etc. They are reasoning adults to whom "thou shalt not kill" or "though shalt not commit adultery" has a specific and expanded meaning. Observe also that it is the content of the heart that determines compliance with this new law that fulfills the old, -- in direct contradiction to your pharisaism where you interpret the outward gesture of bowing to a statue of a saint as idolatry without concern with the content of the prayer to the saint that is in the heart of the one doing the prayer. Protestant objections to heartfelt prayer are what the pharisees did when they counted how many times the Holy Apostles washed their cup, and just as comical. Christ laughs at you guys (Luke 11:39, several similar).

On the First commandment specifically, this is the discourse in the Sermon:

when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. [4] That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.[...] [6] But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. [...] [14] For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. [15] But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.[...] [17] But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; [18] That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee. [...] [24] No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. [25] Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. [...]your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. [33] Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

(Matthew 6)

Here is the jot and tittle: avoid pride; be merciful; celebrate fasts; avoid greed; rely on Divine Providence for your needs (Protestant work ethic rolls in its grave). This is the meaning of the First Commandment. Nothing is said about important distinctions of carved versus painted or ceremonial law versus moral law. Think and be guided by the love of God. That is the Orthodox Catholic teaching and it is the teaching of Christ; it contradicts the Protestant pharisaic legalisms profoundly. Do not walk, run away from this horrid heresy. Protestantism really kills souls. This is the law and the Prophets; learn:

[Boogieman]

“The Jews were to obey them. We are not Jews. It is not complicated.”

No, they are the Moral Law, which is an expression of the Divine Law, which is eternal and binding on all men. That’s in your own Catechism. It is not complicated.

Your argument that Christians aren’t bound by the clause concerning graven images and idolatry is nonsense. The Church Fathers discussed it at length, always condemning it. One of the accusations laid against the Christians by the Romans was that they had no images. You can’t demonstrate that it was otherwise in the church until centuries later.

The New Covenant law is an extension of the Old Covenant laws, but nothing of the Moral Law was abolished, the New Testament and your Catechism both testify to this. Jesus’ expounding of the New Law clearly shows that the New Law is a higher standard, in every case, not a lessening of it. Having the law written on our hearts means, in this case, to even want to make an image is a sin, not that we are free to make and bow to images as long as we think we are doing something pleasing to God. God has told us many times that he hates those images, so, unlike the pagans, we cannot appeal to ignorance to excuse us and claim to have an innocent heart. At best, we’d be guilty of a lax attitude towards knowing the Scriptures, and more likely an intentional attempt to rationalize our way around them and mislead others into doing the same.

“Protestant objections to heartfelt prayer are what the pharisees did when they counted how many times the Holy Apostles washed their cup, and just as comical. Christ laughs at you guys (Luke 11:39, several similar).”

Again, you try to conflate the ceremonial laws, which Christ abolished, with the Moral Law, which he did not. You’re comparing apples and oranges. If your contention is correct, and the Moral Law is abolished, and we have only what is in our hearts to guide our actions, then a sociopath who doesn’t feel their is anything wrong with killing people would be guiltless. That’s a sentiment that is comical.

“This is the meaning of the First Commandment. Nothing is said about important distinctions of carved versus painted or ceremonial law versus moral law.”

I guess your entire position relies on the fact that Christ didn’t repeat every part of the Commandments that were still binding in the Sermon on the Mount. Even though, he says that every part is still binding, forever, in the beginning, you require him to list every sentence and expound on them, or you will feel free to disobey? Did you ever stop to consider that Christ’s audience were Jews and not a one of them would have needed to be reminded not to make graven images or what the definition of graven image meant? To his audience, that would have been self-evident, and if ever there was a man who did not waste his breath unnecessarily, it was Jesus. On the other hand, if the restrictions of the commandment had been lessened, that would have been an important thing to communicate, since it was such an important law that the Jews had been punished many times for disobeying.

Still, we know with a certainty that the commandment against idolatry couldn’t have been abolished, even if He did not spell it out for you in that passage, since His apostles clearly denounce it in the epistles, and I’m quite content that they understood Christ’s message better than you or I. I’ll take their word for it over any of your hollow protestations.