Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:52 PM'] Who cares about [i]Western[/i] aesthetic standards?! I've seen and venerated many icons which are scratched, dented, covered with soot, and much worse. I have never seen one that was ugly. [/quote] Nor have I seen them as ugly, but if you wish to continue to reduce them to pieces of art, then at that level, many are not beautiful. We are not going to agree on this topic, but there is no reason why we have to agree. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I find this icon debate rather pointless. It seems there is no actual disagreement here. Personally, I prefer the "crude" obviously symbolic mystical nature of the icon, which points to that beyond itself which it reprents, to much of Western religious art, which, even at its best, tends to draw attention to the particular technique or style of the artist. And much Western religious art has degenerated into saccharine kitsch. Although most "traditional" Catholics seem to take offense at this notion, I really dislike all that sappy, cheesy "holy card"-style art, with its effeminate-looking watery-eyed Jesuses and such. Some of it makes me want to puke. (And much "modern" religious art is even worse, betraying bad taste and bad theology.) As regards this threads main topic, true devotion to the Blessed Mother and the Saints will always lead to Christ, rather than away from Him, since all the Saints do is for the glory of God. The Church also has many different devotions, some of which may be better fro different people than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 06:53 PM'] It is not the perception of any earthly beauty that is central to an icon; rather, it is the energy of God present within the icon that is the cause of all veneration. [/quote] [i]No one[/i] said anything other than the energy of God was "central"! But it's still a false dichotomy. If the energy of God is present, it is beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:07 PM'] I find this icon debate rather pointless. It seems there is no actual disagreement here. Personally, I prefer the "crude" obviously symbolic mystical nature of the icon, which points to that beyond itself which it reprents, to much of Western religious art, which, even at its best, tends to draw attention to the particular technique or style of the artist. And much Western religious art has degenerated into saccharine kitsch. Although most "traditional" Catholics seem to take offense at this notion, I really dislike all that sappy, cheesy "holy card"-style art, with its effeminate-looking watery-eyed Jesuses and such. Some of it makes me want to puke. (And much "modern" religious art is even worse, betraying bad taste and bad theology.) [. . .] [/quote] Overall I agree with you about this "debate" being pointless, because Cathqat and I have different views on the matter, and clearly neither of us is going to change our position any time soon. I also agree with your characterization of much of Western religious art, and yes I will call it art, because it is often used only as decoration. But I disagree with you about one thing: I do not believe that an icon points to a reality that it represents; instead, I hold that an icon contains and manifests that reality. An icon is a living reality hypostatically related to its prototype, and so it forms a single living reality with it. In other words, to touch an icon is to touch the person depicted in it. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 03:30 PM'] As far as icons are concerned, the West does not have a conception of God's uncreated energies as distinct from His essence, and this weakens the Western understanding of icons. Icons and relics of the saints are venerated in the East because they participate in God's own energies, and so they can bestow those sanctifying, illuminating, and purifying energies upon the person who venerates them. I do not know of anything comparable to this doctrine in the West. Normally Westerners venerate an icon as somehow standing for the saint depicted in it, although the saint is actually present only in heaven, and most Westerners wouldn't see the icon as having a hypostatic relation to its prototype either. Ultimately it must be admitted that the East has a much more fully developed theology of icons than the West. [/quote] Todd, I would first like to point out that I completely agree with you - the East has a much more deeply developed theology of icons. That having been said, it seems to me that we in the West need not remain in the dark ages, so to speak. Just because we do not discuss the "uncreated energies of God" as being seperate from His Divine Essence should not mean that we should have a sophomoric conception of icons. We need simply assert that the Saint represented is mystically present in his/her icon, and thus by venerating the icon the Graces one by the Saint in life, and the infinite graces possessed by the Saint in heaven, can be communicated to us in the substance of the icon itself. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:20 PM'] Todd, I would first like to point out that I completely agree with you - the East has a much more deeply developed theology of icons. That having been said, it seems to me that we in the West need not remain in the dark ages, so to speak. Just because we do not discuss the "uncreated energies of God" as being seperate from His Divine Essence should not mean that we should have a sophomoric conception of icons. We need simply assert that the Saint represented is mystically present in his/her icon, and thus by venerating the icon the Graces one by the Saint in life, and the infinite graces possessed by the Saint in heaven, can be communicated to us in the substance of the icon itself. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] Dark ages? I have never said that the West as a whole follows the Augustinian tradition as it concerns signs. As far as the distinction, without a separation, between God's essence and His uncreated energies is concerned, that would be hard for a Westerner influenced by Scholasticism to ever accept. But that is beside the point, and I don't really think it can be adequately settled on the internet. I have not denied that many Westerners hold to some kind of mystical presence of the saint within the icon, but the theology underlying this idea has not be developed in the West. Perhaps one day it will be, but at the present time many in the West see images as decorations, and that is lamentable. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:19 PM'] Overall I agree with you about this "debate" being pointless, because Cathqat and I have different views on the matter, and clearly neither of us is going to change our position any time soon. I also agree with your characterization of much of Western religious art, and yes I will call it art, because it is often used only as decoration. But I disagree with you about one thing: I do not believe that an icon points to a reality that it represents; instead, I hold that an icon contains and manifests that reality. An icon is a living reality hypostatically related to its prototype, and so it forms a single living reality with it. In other words, to touch an icon is to touch the person depicted in it. God bless, Todd [/quote] I'm really not an expert on the theology of the icon. Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. It was not meant as a precise theological statement. As an Eastern Catholic, you know more about it than I do. (Just a clarification.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I agree, it is very regrettable, and I certainly hope western theologians in the future will develop more fully a theology that is in conformity with our traditional theological perspective. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:34 PM'] I'm really not an expert on the theology of the icon. Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. It was not meant as a precise theological statement. As an Eastern Catholic, you know more about it than I do. (Just a clarification.) [/quote] That's cool, and as I said, I agree with the majority of what you said in your post. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:34 PM'] I agree, it is very regrettable, and I certainly hope western theologians in the future will develop more fully a theology that is in conformity with our traditional theological perspective. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] Hope springs eternal. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 hahaha, true, perhaps once I've gotten my Doctorate the two of us can get together and figure something out - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:39 PM'] hahaha, true, perhaps once I've gotten my Doctorate the two of us can get together and figure something out - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedict Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/EldricIV/virginchild600copy.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathqat Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I agree that the debate between me and Apotheoun is pointless, but I disagree about the reason. He thinks we disagree, but I think that we really don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 hahaha, the logician in me can't help it, so I appologize for the following: cathqat, your argument is as follows: Premise 1.) "I disagree about the reason" Premise 2.) He thinks we disagree, but I think that we really don't. " your second premise asserts no disagreement between you and Apotheoun, your first premise asserts a disagreement. Thus you have a contradiction within your premises. As such, your argument is always valid (anything follows from a contradiction) but it can never be sound (there does not exist any world in which the premises and conclusion could be made simultaneously true. Thus, your previous post is unsound. ... ... Yay for logic!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now