Do churches still believe in the anathemas of Nicaea II?

2,557 Views | 74 Replies | Last: 10 hrs ago by AgLiving06
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 12/31/24
The things which we have decreed, being thus well supported, it is confessedly and beyond all question acceptable and well-pleasing before God, that the images of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, and those of the undefiled Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, and of the honourable Angels and of all Saints, should be venerated and saluted. And if anyone does not so believe, but undertakes to debate the matter further and is evil affected with regard to the veneration due the sacred images, such an one our holy ecumenical council (fortified by the inward working of the Spirit of God, and by the traditions of the Fathers and of the Church) anathematises. Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God.

Let them who do not venerate the holy and venerable images be anathema!

Anathema to those who blaspheme against the honourable and venerable images!

To those who do not diligently teach all the Christ-loving people to venerate and salute the venerable and sacred and honourable images of all the Saints who pleased God in their several generations, anathema!

To those who have a doubtful mind and do not confess with their whole hearts that they venerate the sacred images, anathema!
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:47p, 12/31/24
AG
Yes
Reply Quote
2
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:54p, 12/31/24
AG
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 3:01p, 12/31/24
10andBOUNCE said:
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?


Can't speak for the EO, but it all has to do with invincible ignorance. We would say that if someone is still trying to work out whether or not the Catholic Church is true and trying to understand all of its teachings, but hasn't yet got there, it's not a damnable offense.

For people who have truly investigated the Catholic Church and written it off entirely, no bueno.

The problem lies in the second situation: how many people actually do that anymore? Back in the 1500s when the choice was to remain Catholic or leave it, this was pretty simple. Nowadays when there are 1000 different denominations and we're all tossing around different teachings that create confusion and cause people to pause, it's harder to say that someone is intentionally refusing to believe particular aspects of the faith because of their preformed bias against it prior to inspection.

In other words, it's complicated so no one should be tossing out damnations since we can't know the heart in the matter.
Reply Quote
2
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 3:08p, 12/31/24
AG
And on who's authority would it be "no bueno?"
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 3:08p, 12/31/24
10andBOUNCE said:
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?
Specifically by use of images and icons. Not only must you venerate them (which we can all agree we should), but you must use images. Without doubting the use of images. Confessing with your whole heart. And diligently teach others to do the same. Otherwise, anathema.
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 3:25p, 12/31/24
AG
What does "use images" mean?
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 3:31p, 12/31/24
Prostrate before them. Pray to them. Light candles to them. etc.

You cannot just venerate Mary. You must use an image of her as a medium. A "window into heaven" as they say.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38p, 12/31/24
AG
anathemas do not apply to those outside of the church. an anathema is an expulsion from the church. if you're not in the church already, or never were, it means nothing to you.

anathemas do not condemn you to hell. they put you out of the church, and leave you to the judgment of God.

if you personally were not anathematized by a bishop, you are not anathema.
Quote:
Specifically by use of images and icons. Not only must you venerate them (which we can all agree we should), but you must use images. Without doubting the use of images. Confessing with your whole heart. And diligently teach others to do the same. Otherwise, anathema.
this is not correct.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:41p, 12/31/24
Zobel said:
anathemas do not apply to those outside of the church. an anathema is an expulsion from the church. if you're not in the church already, or never were, it means nothing to you.

anathemas do not condemn you to hell. they put you out of the church, and leave you to the judgment of God.
Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 3:57p, 12/31/24
AG
once again. anathemas do not apply to those outside of the church. if you personally were not anathematized by a bishop, this does not apply to you.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:59p, 12/31/24
I am in the church. I do not venerate images nor diligently teach others to do the same.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 4:05p, 12/31/24
AG
sorry bud, you are not in the Orthodox church, so the Orthodox did not anathematize you.

also, this kind of trolling really is poor form.
Reply Quote
5
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:18p, 12/31/24
How is this trolling? I've never actually read the content of Nicaea II until yesterday.

I am in the church. I was baptized as an infant and have never been excommunicated. Playing games that I'm not in your church, therefore the anathemas of Nicaea II don't apply to me, is skirting the issue. There is no Orthodox God that I'm being completely separated from. There is one true God. If I were in the 3rd - 8th century and found the practice of venerating images dangerous (which many did), I would have been anathematized by Nicaea II.
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 4:42p, 12/31/24
AG
if you're not trolling then im sorry.

but forgive me, you're not in the church unless you were baptized into a church that considers the seven ecumenical councils to be authoritative. in other words, whatever church pronounced this anathema, you're not in it, unless you were baptized into it. in which case, you should go talk to your priest or bishop.

its not playing games. the bottom line is anathemas function a certain way, and these simply do not apply to you, again excepting the above.

that 'complete separation' is part of a letter written to the emperor and is not in any way a canonical or dogmatic statement. and if you continue you can see what he says later - "For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what has now been decreed, they but kick against the *****s, and injure their own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly show themselves to be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their companions and brethren in ungodliness." in other words, the anathemas here function the same way anathemas against Arius or other heretical teachers did.


here is a bishop's explanation of anathema, written in the 1800s. this is how it works.
https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html

the iconoclasts did not simply find the practice of venerating the holy images dangerous. they destroyed the images, desecrated the communion and altars, and persecuted and murdered the faithful.

further - anathema is not something the church made up or St Paul made up. it follows the Torah - it is the same as what the Torah says for those who continue in rebellion and without repentance:

Quote:
But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.
St Paul was applying the exact same practice to the church, because the church is nothing more than a continuation of the people of God.

so yeah, if you were around in those times, and you were an iconoclast, and after this council decree went out you refused to submit to the church, you would have been cut off from the church. if you're a layman, that would mean you were excommunicated.
Reply Quote
5
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:58p, 12/31/24

Quote:
but forgive me, you're not in the church
Yes, I am.

And not all iconoclasts destroyed images, etc. Many found art as a useful tool for teaching, especially for the illiterate. It was the venerating of the images, which wasn't a practice in the church until the 6th-7th century. Those prior would have been anathematized by Nicaea II, including many saints.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 5:06p, 12/31/24
AG
ok then go talk to your bishop. unless you're not in a church that follow the ecumenical councils, in which case you are not part of the church that pronounced that anathema. if that's the case, then again -- this doesn't apply to you.

your history isn't correct about veneration of holy images.

and your understanding of anathemas is still incorrect. people are not anathematized post-facto. that's not how anathemas work.
Reply Quote
3
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 5:13p, 12/31/24
I'm not really concerned with that. I just wanted to know if churches still declared people "completely separated from God" because they won't bow down or pray before images. I thought it would be an optional thing.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 5:17p, 12/31/24
AG
yes, every year on the first Sunday of lent we remember this, and the anathemas are often re-pronounced.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 5:34p, 12/31/24
Martin Q. Blank said:
I'm not really concerned with that. I just wanted to know if churches still declared people "completely separated from God" because they won't bow down or pray before images. I thought it would be an optional thing.


Do you mind me asking what church you were baptized into?
Reply Quote
2
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 6:06p, 12/31/24
United Methodist Church
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:23p, 12/31/24
AG
Were some early church fathers iconoclastic and others not?

And this second council came to the conclusion that those that were iconoclastic were an anathema?

Just making sure I have the basics right.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 6:49p, 12/31/24
Martin Q. Blank said:
United Methodist Church


I think what Zobel is getting at when he says you were not baptized into the church, is that you were not baptized into a church that accepted the teaching of those councils, and therefore, are not subject to those anathemas. Unless you have since converted to a church that does recognize the teachings of those councils…
Reply Quote
4
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 6:56p, 12/31/24
10andBOUNCE said:
Were some early church fathers iconoclastic and others not?

And this second council came to the conclusion that those that were iconoclastic were an anathema?

Just making sure I have the basics right.


Evidence points to iconography being present in very early Christianity (see the catacombs). A few centuries later, some believed that this practice was denounced in the Bible. The rebuttal was that Christians have been doing this since the beginning, so it can't go against the faith or it would have been shut down long ago.

That didn't matter that those that hated iconography, and there was violent suppressions of icons and all who believed the practice was licit. This was a governmental suppression, not one started by the church.

Therefore the church council reviewed the issue and officially declared that iconography and its veneration has been a part of the church since the beginning and cannot be denounced unless you want to be anathema. In other words, accept what the church has always taught and confirms here today (today meaning the 700s) or be excommunicated.
Reply Quote
1
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 7:49p, 12/31/24
AG
10andBOUNCE said:
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?


The only thing Catholics are required to believe about Mary are perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, virgin birth, bodily assumption and Mother of God.

Second Nicea is the 7th ecumenical council of the church so its promulgations are binding on believers. Of course that begs the question of how we should understand what the council declared.

Here's the detailed report from the council. You can read for yourself what it says.

https://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.asp#:~:text=Seek%20me%20out%2C%20as%20Christ,the%20advocates%20of%20the%20truth.&text=EXTRACTS%20FROM%20THE%20ACTS.,SESSION%20II.
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 9:09p, 12/31/24
AG
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Were some early church fathers iconoclastic and others not?

And this second council came to the conclusion that those that were iconoclastic were an anathema?

Just making sure I have the basics right.


Evidence points to iconography being present in very early Christianity (see the catacombs). A few centuries later, some believed that this practice was denounced in the Bible. The rebuttal was that Christians have been doing this since the beginning, so it can't go against the faith or it would have been shut down long ago.

That didn't matter that those that hated iconography, and there was violent suppressions of icons and all who believed the practice was licit. This was a governmental suppression, not one started by the church.

Therefore the church council reviewed the issue and officially declared that iconography and its veneration has been a part of the church since the beginning and cannot be denounced unless you want to be anathema. In other words, accept what the church has always taught and confirms here today (today meaning the 700s) or be excommunicated.

Maybe I still don't quite understand, but why does this all matter in the big picture of the faith?
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 9:10p, 12/31/24
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
10andBOUNCE said:
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?


The only thing Catholics are required to believe about Mary are perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, virgin birth, bodily assumption and Mother of God.

Second Nicea is the 7th ecumenical council of the church so its promulgations are binding on believers. Of course that begs the question of how we should understand what the council declared.

Here's the detailed report from the council. You can read for yourself what it says.

https://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.asp#:~:text=Seek%20me%20out%2C%20as%20Christ,the%20advocates%20of%20the%20truth.&text=EXTRACTS%20FROM%20THE%20ACTS.,SESSION%20II.

Same question as above, why are all those "requirements" on what to believe about Mary so important?
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 9:14p, 12/31/24
AG
10andBOUNCE said:
Were some early church fathers iconoclastic and others not?

And this second council came to the conclusion that those that were iconoclastic were an anathema?

Just making sure I have the basics right.


No, the early church used icons. There are as far as I know no anti-icon fathers.

It seems that the iconoclasts were probably influenced by Islam, which does not allow images at all.

St John of Damascus wrote against both Islam and a defense of the icons. The defense is reasoned like this:

- when God was not revealed you could not make an image of Him
- Christ Jesus revealed the Father and made Him known, so we can and should make images of Him, because He really was visible
- Jesus also became an actual human with matter, so it is not bad to make images of him using physical matter*
- we don't worship multiple gods when we worship Jesus: the principle is that the worship given to the image (Jesus) passes through to the original or the prototype (the Father). So when we worship Jesus, we still worship One God, the Father almighty.**
- in the same way when we pay honor to an image, that honor passes through to the prototype (the person the image is made like)
- we should not and do not worship humans, even saints. However there is a difference between respect / honor / bowing down (veneration) and worship / adoration / serve (worship).***
- worship, like the offering of food or incense is ONLY for God, and is NEVER offered to icons (like pagans do - this is idolatry)
- Kissing, bowing, etc are not worship and are appropriate both for living humans and images of Jesus and the saints.

* the incarnation is a big part of the pro-icon debate, because there were heresies that denied Jesus was human or actually took matter to His body. Icons are confessions against this

**this principle goes back to theological debates about the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It is also why what we do to humans we do to Jesus, as we are icons of God, make in His likeness. The honor we pay to each other passes to Jesus prototype (whatever you do to the least of these my brothers you do to me…)

***the two words are proskenysis for venerate, and latreia for worship. Latreia is where you get idolatry from: idol + latreia.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 9:30p, 12/31/24
10andBOUNCE said:
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Were some early church fathers iconoclastic and others not?

And this second council came to the conclusion that those that were iconoclastic were an anathema?

Just making sure I have the basics right.


Evidence points to iconography being present in very early Christianity (see the catacombs). A few centuries later, some believed that this practice was denounced in the Bible. The rebuttal was that Christians have been doing this since the beginning, so it can't go against the faith or it would have been shut down long ago.

That didn't matter that those that hated iconography, and there was violent suppressions of icons and all who believed the practice was licit. This was a governmental suppression, not one started by the church.

Therefore the church council reviewed the issue and officially declared that iconography and its veneration has been a part of the church since the beginning and cannot be denounced unless you want to be anathema. In other words, accept what the church has always taught and confirms here today (today meaning the 700s) or be excommunicated.

Maybe I still don't quite understand, but why does this all matter in the big picture of the faith?


That comes down to "what is faith"? Is faith something we "have" (possess) now and forever, no matter what we do? Or is faith something that we "do", and only have so long as we choose to shelter under the safety faith offers us?

If we choose* the faith, these discussions over what the faith is have significant implications. If we are choosing to be faithful to what Jesus gave us, whether or not icons are evil matters immensely.

If the faith is simply given to us with no acceptance on our part**, then any questions about what the faith is are null and void and this is all one big exercise in futility. We have faith, we can not lose faith, so any disagreement on what the faith is are intellectual exercises that don't change anything in the long run.

* choosing is cooperating. We cannot find faith in Jesus on our own. He offers us the faith to either accept or refuse. The only way to choose something is to be offered the option to accept or reject.

** if we cannot accept a thing, by definition we cannot reject a thing.

*** apologies for stealing from Zobel, but I can't believe I didn't think of footnotes before he did it. (Hat tip)
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 9:46p, 12/31/24
10andBOUNCE said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
10andBOUNCE said:
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?


The only thing Catholics are required to believe about Mary are perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, virgin birth, bodily assumption and Mother of God.

Second Nicea is the 7th ecumenical council of the church so its promulgations are binding on believers. Of course that begs the question of how we should understand what the council declared.

Here's the detailed report from the council. You can read for yourself what it says.

https://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.asp#:~:text=Seek%20me%20out%2C%20as%20Christ,the%20advocates%20of%20the%20truth.&text=EXTRACTS%20FROM%20THE%20ACTS.,SESSION%20II.

Same question as above, why are all those "requirements" on what to believe about Mary so important?


The "requirements" are to affirm the Christian faith that was promulgated through the multitude of ages prior to you ever being born. It's an acknowledgment of receiving something you had no part in playing, but will play your part for the good of promulgating Christianity going forward. Especially if you believe that the promulgation of Christianity has an effect on who can come to know God.

Now we can attempt to dive into all of Christian history to figure out if this teaching was there at the beginning, what it looked like and whether or not I should accept it. This puts the impetus for acceptance on us, which I think most Protestants would disagree with. But it's also something that was not available to the vast majority of humans prior to the internet. It was available only to the most educated of humans between the printing press and the internet. It was available to only a handful of humans prior to the printing press. We live in a blessed time, but we also live in a time where many (most?) people view this issue through the lens of being able to figure it out by themselves. So I would ask: if Jesus wanted you to figure it out by yourself, then why did he pick 12 people to go out and teach it to others prior to ever writing a single word down? Why not hand deliver a text for you to peruse and decipher?

So it's not that the requirements about Mary are themselves important. It's more about why it's important to stick with the Christianity even when it has taught things for many centuries that don't always make sense when viewed through a modern lens
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 9:56p, 12/31/24
AG
10andBOUNCE said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
10andBOUNCE said:
So what does this mean I need to do, practically speaking?

And if I do not venerate Mary (and other Saints), I am completely separated from God? Meaning eternal damnation?


The only thing Catholics are required to believe about Mary are perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, virgin birth, bodily assumption and Mother of God.

Second Nicea is the 7th ecumenical council of the church so its promulgations are binding on believers. Of course that begs the question of how we should understand what the council declared.

Here's the detailed report from the council. You can read for yourself what it says.

https://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.asp#:~:text=Seek%20me%20out%2C%20as%20Christ,the%20advocates%20of%20the%20truth.&text=EXTRACTS%20FROM%20THE%20ACTS.,SESSION%20II.

Same question as above, why are all those "requirements" on what to believe about Mary so important?


As a Catholic, my answer is "because the church established by Jesus, through the successor of Peter, who was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose by Jesus, has declared it so."

Truth be known, this is really getting to the ultimate question for all of our discussions on this board: by what authority?

There's a theological and historical explanation for each of these Marian dogmas, but those are topics for another thread.
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 6:22a, 1/1/25
The Banned said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Were some early church fathers iconoclastic and others not?

And this second council came to the conclusion that those that were iconoclastic were an anathema?

Just making sure I have the basics right.


Evidence points to iconography being present in very early Christianity (see the catacombs). A few centuries later, some believed that this practice was denounced in the Bible. The rebuttal was that Christians have been doing this since the beginning, so it can't go against the faith or it would have been shut down long ago.

That didn't matter that those that hated iconography, and there was violent suppressions of icons and all who believed the practice was licit. This was a governmental suppression, not one started by the church.

Therefore the church council reviewed the issue and officially declared that iconography and its veneration has been a part of the church since the beginning and cannot be denounced unless you want to be anathema. In other words, accept what the church has always taught and confirms here today (today meaning the 700s) or be excommunicated.
Art was part of the early church (maybe). Veneration of the art was definitely not. In fact, the opposite is evident. Much less mandatory veneration.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:09a, 1/1/25
AG
Icons, veneration of martyrs relics, the kissing of icons on communion chalices, intercessory prayers to saints are all over Christian history. We have explicit evidence of prayer with images of martyrs east and west (Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine) in the 4th century (which is all icon veneration is). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And quite the opposite…in this case, it is hard to find evidence to the contrary.

Also: if this is the only issue separating you from communion with the Orthodox, no one is going to care if you do not reverence icons. Talk to a priest and let them know you have reservations. This is not an issue.

And if it isn't the only issue and you have a whole host of things you don't agree with - like following the ecumenical councils or ecclesiology or soteriology or whatever - then this really isn't something worth arguing about.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:52a, 1/1/25
https://www.britannica.com/event/Iconoclastic-Controversy

In the early church, the making and veneration of portraits of Christ and the saints were consistently opposed.

The vast majority of scholarly work agrees that icon veneration was a 6th - 7th century invention.
Quote:
Also: if this is the only issue separating you from communion with the Orthodox, no one is going to care if you do not reverence icons. Talk to a priest and let them know you have reservations. This is not an issue.
No one is going to care?? Nicaea II declared anathemas. Which you say you re-pronounce every spring. Why would I want to be in that kind of church? Welcome to our church. By the way, you are completely separated from God because you won't pray and bow down to these images. Good news though, no one here will care.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:09a, 1/1/25
AG
I told you, it doesn't work like that, but believe what you like.
Reply Quote
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.