Brother Adam Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I found this compelling in light of the recent iconoclastic theology that I have had to read for research. I think it could be useful in apologetics as well. "One ought to look not only at what is done, but also at the intention." Germanus, therefore, sees who is depicted in the image as the decisive point. For him, as also for his theological successors, the icon is ever first and foremost the image of a person. Should the image depict a false god, an idol without reality, then it is itself an idol, a graven image. Should the image depict Christ, the Blessed Mother, or a saint, then such images are worthy of veneration, because persons so depicted are worthy of veneration." - Schonborn, God's Human Face, 182. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Icons rock. I think that we should have more of them in our Churches and our homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 It's interesting that icons are considered to be so specific that they "write" icons rather than paint them. I read an article in [i]St. Anthony Messenger[/i] that compared the icons to composing a sonnet or other poetry. Some info: - the tempera paint uses semi-precious and precious materials for pigments, ie ground up lapis for blue and gold for the golden backgrounds - each work's creation is a prayer - the iconographer spends many hours in research on the saint(s) to be depicted, particularly if they're a recent saint or haven't been portrayed in enough icons to have some sort of standard representation - it'd probably be a [i]faux pas[/i] to try and click the icon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 intention intention intention - icons are dope representations of Scripture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 It is a matter of essance and nature in relation. An image is in relation to its original in nature, it depicts a certian reality of the original externally but does not share in its nature, thus no need ban the veneration of images as if an image had to encompass the nature of the original. Through the incarnation we are able to depict the image of Christ and so in by venerating the image we in reality venerate the one who is depicted by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilesChristi Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 “In former times, God, being without form or body, could in no way be represented. But today, since God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I can represent what is visible in God. I do not worship matter, but I worship the creator of matter who became matter for my sake . . . and who, through matter, accomplished my salvation. Never will I cease to honor the matter which brought about my salvation!” ---St. John of Damascus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Right on. John of Damascus' thoughts on matter in relation are completed in Theodore the Studite's arguments of icons as the image of person and not nature. I really like Schonborns text and find myself, as I have said before drawn more and more to Byzantine spirituality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 An icon is a manifestation of the saint or event depicted in it, while it is also a theophany -- because it contains divine energy (i.e., grace). Thus, to touch, kiss, and venerate an icon is to touch, kiss, and venerate the person depicted in it; and by that act of veneration a man receives an infusion of divine energy, which has the effect of purifying, illuminating, and sanctifying his own created existence. As Ambrosios Giakalis said, an icon is ". . . a real bridge connecting the worshipper with the uncreated energies of Christ and of His saints, an open road linking this world in a unique fashion with a reality transcending it." [Ambrosios Giakalis, [u]Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council[/u], page 121] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 JMJ 4/28 - St. Peter Chanel St. John Damascene rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 [img]http://www.stjohnscamberwell.org.au/Images/trinity.jpg[/img][quote name='Brother Adam' post='959084' date='Apr 24 2006, 11:48 AM'] I found this compelling in light of the recent iconoclastic theology that I have had to read for research. I think it could be useful in apologetics as well. [/quote] How about a pro-icons argument a pure pragmatic angle. Conversation: Iconoclast: You gosh darn Catholics/Anglicans/Orthodox. Dont you know icons are bad (blasphemous, idolatry, distracting). Church faithful: Have you ever studdied iconography? Do you know how an icon works? Do you know what stories they hold? Iconoclast: No I have not. Church faithful: Well, take a look at this link. It is about the icon called the Trinity by a 14 century Russian named Rublev. It has been refered to as the one of the best icons ever made. Just reading the description tells Christians much about theology, the trinity, and how God has worked with man in the New Covenant. [url="http://www.stjohnscamberwell.org.au/Sermons/ExplanationofTheTrinityIcon.htm"]http://www.stjohnscamberwell.org.au/Sermon...TrinityIcon.htm[/url] Have you ever pondered just how much teaching is in one of these? Some christians do not like creeds, which usually expound on who Jesus is in relation to God the Father and how the Holy Spirit works into the Trinity. Besides, historically, most Christians could not read. Did you ever consider how wonderful a teaching tool like this one could be? Iconoclast: .... I never thought of that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 [quote name='jswranch' post='963908' date='Apr 28 2006, 10:34 AM'] [img]http://www.stjohnscamberwell.org.au/Images/trinity.jpg[/img] How about a pro-icons argument a pure pragmatic angle. Conversation: Iconoclast: You gosh darn Catholics/Anglicans/Orthodox. Dont you know icons are bad (blasphemous, idolatry, distracting). Church faithful: Have you ever studdied iconography? Do you know how an icon works? Do you know what stories they hold? Iconoclast: No I have not. Church faithful: Well, take a look at this link. It is about the icon called the Trinity by a 14 century Russian named Rublev. It has been refered to as the one of the best icons ever made. Just reading the description tells Christians much about theology, the trinity, and how God has worked with man in the New Covenant. [url="http://www.stjohnscamberwell.org.au/Sermons/ExplanationofTheTrinityIcon.htm"]http://www.stjohnscamberwell.org.au/Sermon...TrinityIcon.htm[/url] Have you ever pondered just how much teaching is in one of these? Some christians do not like creeds, which usually expound on who Jesus is in relation to God the Father and how the Holy Spirit works into the Trinity. Besides, historically, most Christians could not read. Did you ever consider how wonderful a teaching tool like this one could be? Iconoclast: .... I never thought of that.... [/quote] Be careful. Heretics are usually far smarter than most people give them credit for, and very typically start out Catholic! Cardinal Scheonborn always starts by making the case for the heretic, and usually leaves you intellectually sympathetic with the heretic before making the case for the saint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReinnieR Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 [quote name='jezic' post='959091' date='Apr 24 2006, 12:51 PM'] Icons rock. I think that we should have more of them in our Churches and our homes. [/quote] i bought a 6 foot crucifix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jnorm888 Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Why does Rome seem to accept the depiction of God the Father in the 16th chapel? I thought it was wrong to draw a picture of God the Father? INLOVE Jnorm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Cardinal Schonborn is my hero.. 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