Moderator: Mark Templet
Though I think that rejection of these Icons is impious and a serious error I am beginning to wonder if it is a heresy in the full sense of the word. I have been wrong before and would welcome anybody showing me that it is a heresy with a capital "H".
Dear Theophan,
The heresy lies in the arguments used to deny these icons. One can often observe those who reject these icons using Arian and Nestorian arguments to defend their impiety. Those who reject these icons demonstrate by way of their fallacious arguments that they hold a number of improper conceptions regarding the nature of the Holy Trinity. It is also manifest that they fail to properly comprehend the distinction between the uncreated divine essence, which is uncommunicable, and the uncreated energies, which are communicable.
Those who venerate these sorts of icons are not "anthropomorphists" as some in their simplicity suggest. They are also in error when they assert contrary to the revelation of the Church that Christ alone is the Ancient of days. Once again this stems from their improper conceptions with regard to the Divine names.
The statement: "Jehovah has always been understood to be the Son and not the Father" is of course patently absurd and cacodox.
"Yet, the Ancient of Days is a symbol of God the Father, just as the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit."
Ahh, here we have an admission from our friend that depictions in icons are merely "symbols".
Why this earlier objection then?
"If it is understood to be an actual icon of God the Father, then yes it is heretical, as the Father is the unknowable Essence of the Godhead."
Who has ever declared in the Church that these icons were depicting the essence of the Father?
Certainly not St. John Damascene. Certainly not St. Theodore of Studium. Certainly not the Holy Ecumenical councils!
Act 6 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: "An icon is not like the original with respect to essence, but with respect to hypostasis".
Our friend states: "We don't believe that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity is a bird."
Yet Holy Church depicts Him in icons this way now doesn't she? Since we are in agreement that the essence of the Holy Spirit is not a bird, and yet the Holy Spirit is depicted in icons in the likeness of a dove, what greater proof is there that the depictions of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity are not according to their essence, which is indeed unknowable, but is a depiction rather of their hypostasis?
Likewise we do not believe the First Person of the Holy Trinity has flesh and blood, and a white beard like a man, and is literally sitting on a throne in heaven -- and yet the Church depicts Him this way!
"We also don't believe that the unknowable, unapproachable Essence of the Godhead, Whom we will never know, is an old man with a white beard. "
Neither do the faithful in the Catholic Church believe such either. But as I just documented from the 7th Ecumenical Council, icons do NOT depict the essence. They depict the hypostasis of the Father.
St. Theodore the Studite explores this in depth in his treatise defending the Holy icons.
Cyprian
Cyprian wrote:The statement: "Jehovah has always been understood to be the Son and not the Father" is of course patently absurd and cacodox.
How on earth can you say something like this, when it has been the teaching of the Church from the beginning? On what authority do you call the teaching that the Son is Jehovah "cacodox?"
"Jehovah" or "Yahweh," is the Hebrew Name of God, and means "I Am."
In the Holy Gospel of St. John the Theologian, we read in Chapter 8, verses 57 and 58:
57. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
In Greek, "I Am" is "O On", which is inscribed upon the cross within Christ's halo in His Holy Icon. In other words, every icon of Our Lord says "Jehovah" around His head.
The Divine Services of the Church, which teach us Church Doctrine attest to this as well:
Idiomel Stichera of the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord.
Tone 4.
God, the supremely good, was not ashamed to be severed by circumcision of the flesh, but gave us himself as a type and example to all for salvation. For the Maker of the Law fulfils the requirements of the Law and the sayings of the Prophets concerning him. You who hold all things in the hollow of your hand and were wrapped in swaddling clothes, Lord, glory to Thee!
At Matins
The Canon of the Feast.
Ode 1. Tone 2. The Irmos.
’Come, you peoples, let us sing a song to Christ God, Who parted the sea and guided the people He had taken from the slavery of the Egyptians; for He has been glorified’.
In the earliest written History of the Church, Eusebius of Cappadocia says of the Old Testament Theophanies:
For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of man or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders with the appearance of some created thing, and if it is unreasonable to suppose, on the other hand, that the Scripture should falsely invent such things, when the God and Lord who judgeth all the earth and executeth judgment is seen in the form of a man, who else can be called, if it be not lawful to call him the first cause of all things, than his only pre-existent Word?
Concerning whom it is said in the Psalms, “He sent his Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”
Eusebius of Cappadocia was a semi-Arian, yet his teachings on Christ in the Old Testament were not disputed by any of the Fathers of the Church. The only one to dispute them was Augustine of Hippo.
Some people prefer cupcakes. I, for one, care less for them...
Cyprian wrote: The statement: "Jehovah has always been understood to be the Son and not the Father" is of course patently absurd and cacodox.
How on earth can you say something like this, when it has been the teaching of the Church from the beginning? On what authority do you call the teaching that the Son is Jehovah "cacodox?"
Greetings Sean,
But of course, I never suggested anywhere that applying the appellation 'Jehovah' to the Son is cacodox. My objection was simply to your claim that 'Jehovah' refers in an exclusive way to the Son, and does not apply equally to the Father and the Spirit as well.
Similarly, the erroneous opinion of some that the appellation "Ancient of days" should be referred exclusively to the Son, and not the Holy Trinity, is likewise absurd.
Cyprian
Sean wrote:Eusebius of Cappadocia was a semi-Arian, yet his teachings on Christ in the Old Testament were not disputed by any of the Fathers of the Church. The only one to dispute them was Augustine of Hippo.
Sean,
Where does St Augustine of Hippo dispute the Orthodox teachings on this in his writings? Why were none of his writings Synodically condemned ever by the Orthodox Church (unlike some of Blessed Theodoret's writings)?
Thanks.
Theophan.