Bruce S Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote]But someone will state that at least we can depict the humanity of Christ as he appeared upon earth. But who are we to separate his humanity from his divinity! The apostle John states in his Gospel, chapter 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Notice that the apostle states that even while Christ was in the flesh they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. In other words, they beheld his divinity as well as his humanity. This one cannot paint. So one must behold his humanity as separate from his divinity. Then one falls into the ancient error of Nestorius. He stated that Christ consisted of two persons: one human and the other divine. There was, according to Nestorius, a separation between the human and the divine persons. That was the ground on which the Council called by Constantine V condemned paintings of Christ. You see, this question of pictures of Christ was the subject of controversy throughout the eighth century. So Constantine in 753 called a council of three hundred and thirty bishops. Their conclusion was this: [b]“If any person shall divide the human nature, united to the Person of God the Word; and, having it only in the imagination of his mind, shall therefore attempt to paint the same in an image; let him be holden as accursed. If any person shall divide Christ, being but one, into two persons; placing on the one side the Son of God, and on the other side the son of Mary; neither doth confess the continual union that is made; and by that reason doth paint in an image the son of Mary, as subsisting by himself; let him be accursed. If any person shall paint in an image the human nature, being deified by the uniting thereof to God the Word; separating the same as it were from the Godhead assumpted and deified; let him be holden as accursed.”[/b][/quote] I'm having some trouble with this one, found it on the nets, is there an OFFICIAL better explaination for these rules ... anathema's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 That's the iconoclast heresy. It was a tumultuous thing that divided the Eastern Churches back in the 8th century. This should be of interest to you: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Oh, and Constantine V was an excommunicant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Here are the decrees of Nicea II which specifically addressed the iconoclast heresy: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm[/url] God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 (edited) More totally Catholic thoughts on this matter: [quote] 1 John 5:21, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” The Church Fathers and Councils Augustine of Hippo [b]“Thus, they erred, who sought Christ and his apostles not in the sacred writings, but on painted walls.” [/b](Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, 1.10 [NPNF1, 6:83; PL 34.1049]) [b]Council of Elibertine "Pictures ought not to be in churches, nor any object of adoration or praise be painted on the walls."[/b] Synod of Constantinople (Hieria, 753 AD) condemned images of Christ. Indeed, the Synod explicitly rejected the argument - one we often hear today - that such images represented only the flesh of Christ. It was argued that such a separation of the Christ's human nature from His divine nature is the heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorianism did not deny the two natures of Christ, but it failed to see them as a unity, constituting a single Person. Over against Nestorianism - and pictures of Jesus - the human nature of Christ cannot be separated and represented apart from His divine nature. According to the Synod, the only admissible figure of Christ's humanity is the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. For more details of this significant decision, see John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 54-55. Synod of Elvira The 36th canon of the Synod of Elvira (in Spain between 300 and 303) prohibited images as a hindrance to the spiritual worship of God. Clement of Alexandria “It is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you…. It leads you to pay religious honor and worship to images and pictures.” (Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195). “Ages before, Moses expressly commanded that neither a carved, nor molten, nor molded, nor painted likeness should be made. This was so that we would not cling to things of sense, but pass to spiritual objects. For familiarity with the sense of sight disparages the reverence of what is divine” (Clement of Alexandria). Lactantius “The likeness of a man appears to be necessary at that time when he is far away. But it will become unnecessary when he is at hand. However, in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always unnecessary” (Lactantius A.D. 313). Constantinople (A. D. 754) The counsel, appealing to the second commandment and other scripture passages denouncing idolatry (Rom. 1:23, 25; John 4:24), and opinions of the Fathers (Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, etc.), condemned and forbade the public and private worship of sacred images on pain of deposition and excommunication…. It denounced all religious representations by painter or sculptor as presumptuous, pagan and idolatrous. Those who make pictures of the Savior, who is God as well as man in one inseparable person, either limit the incomprehensible Godhead to the bounds of created flesh, or confound his two natures like Eutyches, or separate them, like Nestorius, or deny his Godhead, like Arius; and those who worship such a picture are guilty of the same heresy and blasphemy.” Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987 [1910]), 4:457-458 Irenaeus " The Church Father Irenaeus, writing towards the end of the second century, comments on pictures of Jesus as being a peculiarity of the Gnostics at that time (Against Heresies 1.25.6). Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403) describes how he came across a curtain with an image of Christ or one of the saints, hanging on the doors of a certain church. Epiphanius tore the curtain assunder, lest an image of man be hung up in the church, "contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures." They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown those images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world; that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle and the rest. They also have modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." Irenaeus – Against Heresies I.xxv.6 (ca. 182-188 AD (NB: Irenaeus regarded the possession of images to be a Gnostic peculiarity.) [/quote] So, using the Catholic concept of tradition, it definately would seem, that at various times, Catholics themselves have decided that images [ which would of course include statues ] were not a good idea in our religious use. Edited March 30, 2004 by Bruce S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Read St. John Damascene "On Divine Images". It is awsome and addresses some of what you are asking Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 I'm NOT being two faced here, I've been doing some DEEP research on this on from a Protestant perspective, brought on by second thoughts on the Passion movie. OUR side is really struggling with this one too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Nobody said you were two faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 30 2004, 08:21 AM'] Nobody said you were two faced. [/quote] I think I did once.. j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 The issue has never been with having images or statues. It has always been with the worship of images or statues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 bruce, as is the case when reading anything from the fathers, context is very important. granted, i have not researched every quote you provided to uncover the intent of the words, but it appears to me that the faithful during this time in church history did not have a proper understanding of the purpose for paintings and statues. notice that in many of your quotes, it is the [i][b]worship[/b][/i] of the image that is condemed. also, notice that many of the councils you have quoted are particular to a region, instead of applicable to the universal church. such councils are usually brought to session whenever the faithfu in a particular region are abusing a doctrine, or if there is mass confusion about it. in such a case the church has been known to forbid the object of the confusion. this is so that immediate measures can be taken to end the abuse until the people become properly informed or until the catalyst for the confusion can be resolved. i see this as a perfectly acceptable measure. i hope this helps.............pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Yeah, sacred images have always been used in the Church. The earliest catacombs and things contain religious images. The main question has to do with the veneration and worship of these images. And there were various heresies and controversies regarding images from time to time (particularly in the 8th century), but the Church dogmatically decreed the appropriateness of sacred images and condemned the iconoclast heresy. Rome has spoken, the case is closed. And there are great patristic treatises on the subject. The best one is probably Damascene's text which popestpiusx recommended. There are also contemporary books that get into the controversies and the Theology behind everything. The heretical tendencies regarding images were often linked with heretical Christologies, for example nestorianism, and did violence to the Incarnational principle which is particular to Christianity. Cardinal Schonborn has the best book that I am aware of on the subject, "The Christ Icon", it's cheap and very, very interesting. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 If you want a little glimpse into what is going on with OUR end of this, brought up over the Passion movie... this is the best theological article on it in my collection that is rapidly growing in size... [url="http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1716514,00.html"]http://www.christianity.com/partner/Articl...1716514,00.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 [quote name='Bruce S' date='Mar 30 2004, 01:33 PM'] If you want a little glimpse into what is going on with OUR end of this, brought up over the Passion movie... this is the best theological article on it in my collection that is rapidly growing in size... [url="http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1716514,00.html"]http://www.christianity.com/partner/Articl...1716514,00.html[/url] [/quote] Thanks Bruce, I'll check it out. But its not really much of an issue for me since the Catholic Church worked this stuff out over a thousand years ago. But its still interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Hey! I've read this before! Didn't you post this somewhere before?? 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