I am not trying to evade... I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Sure thing. I've already noted the Images of the 4 Creatures which had existed in the Holy of Holies, easily the most central place in the worship of God, in the entire world. Additionally the religious images of the Hebrews were not found merely on their buildings, but within the Temple: the statues of the Cherubim sitting right on top of the Stone Tablets and the Manna, and the Rod of Aaron (the Ark of the Covenant). When the Hebrews wandered through the desert, the Ark formed the center of worship, and the statues of the Cherubim were central in that worship (prior to the Temple being built, with its 4 Creatures in the Holy of Holies). As for the Church Fathers era, whilst many were concerned that Images could cause idolatry, they also doctrinally allowed images of Christ and the Saints, as the example of Jerome above shows. As archeology shows, many early churches had drawings from New Testament history within them. As for Anglican history the evidence is abundant of the drawings of Christ and scenes from New Testament history in Prayerbooks which would be used by the priests in churches, and were paramount for people's private worship in their homes. To this we may add the addition of stained glass windows (with their depictions) in recent times. We may also add the veritable mound of statues which form the insides of St. Paul's Cathedral, and Westminster Abbey, accumulated over generations. Some parts of these two Churches are so filled with statues and engravings that it is difficult for people to walk through.
"The Feast of Othodoxy was established in the East in 842 AD. to celebratethe final downfall of the Iconoclastic Party and the full restoration of icons. ....this feast became the joyous commemoration of orthodox, true and right faith and its victory by the grace of the Holy Trinity over all heresies. "Whilst I was surprised that Peter Toon wrote in celebration, or at least in favour of the Orthodox approach he seems to me very definite and positive in this move and this as late as 1996. Yesteray, Today and Forever, 7 Ecumenical Councils Peter Toon. pge 19.
Dear HC, I've never read the book you're quoting from, so I wouldn't presume to disagree with your interpretation of Rev. Toon's words. It does appear though that His thinking on the applicability of the 7th Council to Anglicans evolved between 1996 and 2002.
One might say that, tthough I prefer to think that he was guided by the teaching of the Apostolic and Early Fathers. Mind you some people prefer to follow there own strengths as it were!
Ultimately I would like to say that this is not about the 7th Council. Whatever one thinks of the 7th Council, what it sought to establish (that images could be fine doctrinally) was what we already believe in the first place. What's still under discussion is whether there are times and places where pastoral conditions require a removal of images by the Shepherds of God's flock, for the reforming of people's worship back onto God. To this I heartily assent. And thus I heartily agree with the tone and tenor of the Homily. To be honest the current practices of the Orthodox church in kissing and bowing and clasping icons as if they were God is precisely the error which our Reformers had successfully fixed in their own domain.
For myself, I'm not particularly bothered about images, I can take them or leave them.I am bothered about the seventh Council as I understand it. Especially when we have accepted the conditions laid down and lived with them for some several hundred years. I don't worship images , but I see no problems with the Orthodox. To my mind it is trying to come to terms with the teachings of the Church! Trying not to go down the street, the modern church has so blithly taken of ignoring the golden rule of antiquity and following the dictates of our own fancies. In other words pleasing ourselves. I once kissed a huge slab of stone at a Church in Jerusalem. It was claimed to be the slab, that Our Lord was layed out upon. I stood in a patient crowd of several hundred people, in the hot sun. It might not have been the laying out slab, but I saw no harm in it and I'm glad beyond measure of actually being there.
I think some of the defenses of the homily going on here really distort the actual history and theological milieu in which the homily was produced. It is an outright iconoclastic document, introduced in a time when there was a heavy drive in the Church of England to remove all images from churches- sometimes in an orderly, government mandated way, sometimes in a more insurrectionary, zealous way. It is beyond dispute that countless images in England were destroyed throughout the reformation period, and not merely by crazy Calvinists. The distinction between dulia and latreia was known to many of the Anglican divines (as it was the doctrine of Trent) and still rejected by them. We know that even Elizabeth's crucifix was controversial and eventually removed. Some prelates did try to preserve images but a positive affirmation of the doctrine of the Second Council of Nicaea is simply not to be found in the first centuries of Anglicanism. Even the Caroline Divines maintained a soft iconoclasm and were loathe to admit to the use of crucifixes. When asked point blank regarding the acceptability of images, they would reply in the negative, as can be seen, for instance, in Lancelot Andrewes' catechism. The persistence of certain images- crucifixes, stained glass, etc.- must be understood more as one of tolerance or even quiet disobedience rather than advocacy. Even as late as the Tractarian movement, Edmund Pusey was at first uncomfortable in admitting to allowing parishioners to carry crucifixes and his own commentary on the 39 articles affirms plainly the mild iconoclasm that runs throughout the Church of England's history until the Anglo-Catholic movement really took off and squarely rejected iconoclasm. The acceptability of images, even as simple as crosses, today in the Anglican churches must be regarded as a reformation of the Reformation, a return to catholic roots, rather than a consistent thread running through Anglican history.
I think as you'll see the points you strongly opposed weren't proposed here, or at least by me in particular, so I'd be curious to know who are the people you've addressed here. Iconoclasm is not always bad. When the Hebrew reformers and prophets destroyed the golden calf or the statues of God the Father and "his wife" Asherah, they were doing good and holy work wouldn't you say? When Saints Eleutherius and Augustine in the Fourth Century tore down the paintings of Jesus they found people praying to, that was most certainly a good thing in the Patristic judgment. A nonexistent distinction. And that's precisely what @Lowly Layman had been saying earlier in the thread, leading me to ask you whom in particular you were answering to. My point about II Nicea was not to clear or whitewash it in order to show that it has, or can be embraced wholesale. The Church officially has said that it can't. What we can do is appreciate the nuanced interrelationship we have with images in Church History, in the safe parts of II Nicea, which are consonant with Scripture and the Fathers on images. One might wonder how stained-glass windows, which are just about the most visible element of any church interior, could serve as instances of hidden disobedience. On the contrary I think you've misunderstood the whole Anglican doctrine on Images, if you puzzle over the images being removed in one instance and dramatically enshrined in another, in the same era, and often by the same people. In my examples I've even shown that stained-glass wasn't the only or even the primary exemplar of the Anglican imagery, compared to the images of Jesus and the Apostles in the Anglican Prayer Books.
Anglican74, forgive me if I misread you. One post that elicited my response was this one of yours: What you seemed to me to be suggesting was that the homily against peril of idolatry was merely suggesting that images should be removed under certain "pastoral conditions" but were not categorically forbidden. If that's what you meant, that flies in the face of the plain meaning of the homily. The author maintains that any images in a church are temptations to idolatry and should be removed, not under certain circumstances, but everywhere and permanently. He rejects the entirety of the 7th ecumenical council as advocating idolatry and sympathizes with the iconoclasts. Iconoclasm, as applied to Christian images such as the crucifix, is in fact always wrong, always false, because it rests on a fault Christology which divides the natures of Christ. The distinction of dulia and latreia is a valid distinction. Your assertion that the Orthodox treat icons as if they were God is false. Icons receive a relative honor and no one confuses them for God. In fact, many Orthodox churches could be accused of a certain iconoclasm insofar as icons are printed on many disposable items (e.g. church bulletins) which are thrown away. In Anglican churches, one often sees congregants bow or kneel toward the altar. Is this because they worship stone? No. The altar represents, in a special way, the presence of God, and so reverence is given accordingly toward it and ultimately toward God. The difference between this and kissing an icon is one of degree and custom, not of essence. I did not say hidden disobedience, but quiet disobedience- in fact, stained glass images were smashed or removed throughout England at the time of the reformation. They were considered idolatrous, or potentially idolatrous, and therefore forbidden. It was only with much resistance that they were reinstated.
Ok. I seem to have a problem expressing my thought here having run into the same problem with @lowly earlier. That IS what meant, but its not what you read in it. Images can and should be removed when required for pastoral reasons. They are not always a good. They can be a temptation to idolatry. Nor are they always bad. They can be used for edificational purposes, so long as the pastors of the Church determine there is no greater consequence from continuing to have them. You are summarizing. He does not say those exact words, and does not mean that sense, because the Church never did that. If the Church never enacted the principle you recite, then it does not understand it in the way you've said. We can go off on this tangent but I'd rather not. Suffice it to say that I obviously think you are wrong. In church history the veneration to icons has always in practice converted into idolatry. Academicians have created the fictitious distinction between dulia and latreia, where you worship and pray to an object, likewise worship and pray to God, and then come around and say that, hey, you're not actually doing to one what you're doing to the other.
Whether the Church (and Anglicanism, in itself, does not comprise the entirety of the Church) interprets the homily that way is immaterial to what the homily plainly says. In fact I would say the Anglican church has chosen to simply ignore the homily rather than interpret it at all. Here is an excerpt of the homily. I would be curious to see you try and parse it in a way that allows for any use of images in church under any circumstances: But lest any should take occasion by the way, of doubting by wordes or names, it is thought good heere to note first of all, that although in common speech we vse to call the likenesse or similitudes of men or other things images, and not idols: yet the Scriptures vse the sayd two words (idols and images) indifferently for one thing alway. They be words of diuers tongues and sounds, but one in sense and signification in the Scriptures. The one is taken of the Greeke word, an Idol, and the other of the Latine word Imago, an Image, and so both vsed as English termes in the translating of Scriptures indifferently, according as the Septuaginta haue in their translation in Greeke, and S. Ierome in his translation of the same places in Latin hath Simulachra, in English, Images. And in the new Testament, that which S. Iohn calleth eidwlon, S. Ierome likewise translateth Simulachrum, as in all other like places of Scripture vsually hee doeth so translate (1 John 5.21). And S. Ierome, a most ancient Doctor, and well learned in both the tongues, Greeke and Latine, interpreting this place of S. Iohn, Beware of Idols, that is to say (sayth S. Ierome) of the images themselues: the Latin words which he vseth, be Effigies and Imago, to say, an Image (S. Ierome, Liber de Corona Militis). And therefore it skilleth not, whether in this processe wee vse the one terme or the other, or both together, seeing they both (though not in common English speech, yet in Scripture) signifie one thing. And though some to blinde mens eyes, haue heretofore craftily gone about to make them to be taken for words of diuers signification in matters of Religion, and haue therefore vsually named the likenesse or similitude of a thing set vp amongst the Heathen in their Temples or other places to bee worshipped, an Idoll. But the like similitude with vs, set vp in the Church, the place of worshipping, they call an Image, as though these two words (Idoll and Image) in Scripture, did differ in proprietie and sense, which (as is aforesaid) differ onely in sound and language, and in meaning bee in deed all one, specially in the Scriptures and matters of Religion. And our Images also haue beene, and bee, and if they bee publikely suffered in Churches and Temples, euer will bee also worshipped, and so Idolatrie committed to them, as in the last part of this Homilie shall at large bee declared and prooued. Wherefore our Images in Temples and Churches, bee in deed none other but Idoles, as vnto the which Idolatrie hath beene, is, and euer will be committed. Later, he says: Yea, and furthermore the madnesse of all men professing the Religion of Christ, now by the space of a sort of hundred yeeres, and yet euen in our time in so great light of the Gospell, very many running on heapes by sea and land, to the great losse of their time, expence and waste of their goods, destitution of their Wiues, Children, and Families, and danger of their owne bodies and liues, to Compostella, Rome, Hierusalem, and other farre Countreys, to visite dumbe and dead stockes and stones, doeth sufficiently prooue the pronenesse of mans corrupt nature to the seeking of Idolles once set by, and the worshipping of them. And thus aswell by the origine and nature of Idolles and Images themselues, as by the pronenesse and inclination of mans corrupt nature to Idolatrie, it is euident, that neyther Images, if they bee publiquely set vp, can bee separated, nor men, if they see Images in Temples and Churches, can bee staide and kept from Idolatrie. And this: For yee haue heard it euidently prooued in these Homilies against idolatrie, by GODS word, the Doctoures of the Church, Ecclesiasticall histories, reason, and experience, that Images haue beene and bee worshipped, and so idolatry committed to them by infinite multitudes, to the great offence of GODS Maiestie, and danger of infinite soules, and that idolatrie can not possibly bee separated from Images set vp in Churches and Temples, gilded and decked gloriously, and that therefore our Images bee in deede very Idoles, and so all the prohibitions, lawes, curses, threatnings of horrible plagues, aswell temporall as eternall, contained in the holy Scripture, concerning idoles, and the makers, and maintainers, and worshippers of them, appertaine also to our Images set vp in Churches and Temples, and to the makers, maintainers, and worshippers of them. And all those names of abomination, which GODS word in the holy Scriptures giueth to the idoles of the Gentiles, appertaine to our Images, being idoles like to them, and hauing like idolatry committed vnto them. And GODS owne mouth in the holy Scriptures calleth them vanities, lies, deceites, vncleannesse, filthinesse, dung, mischiefe, and abomination before the Lord. Wherefore GODS horrible wrath, and our most dreadfull danger can not bee auoided, without the destruction and vtter abolishing of all such Images and idoles out of the Church and Temple of GOD, which to accomplish, GOD put in the mindes of all Christian princes. If you can find any room for crucifixes, stained glass images, icons, etc. based on these words, I'd be curious to see how. You are, of course, wrong, but the author of the homily agrees with you, which is why he thoroughly forbids images in churches. The Church disagrees, hence the seventh ecumenical council which enshrined the distinction of dulia and latreia.
Do you acknowledge the weight of the Patristic church against your view? St. Jerome interpreted this place of St. John, Beware of Idols, "that is to say" (saith St. Jerome) "of the images themselves" I could add a lot more passages from the Ancient Fathers prohibiting images in precisely the same way the Homily does. @lowly truly has the truth on his side in terms of Scripture and Tradition of the church. However more to the central point that images are not evil but can only be misused pastorally, here the Homilist formulates this very point and deflects your objection: -Part 3
Selective prooftexts taken out of context do not constitute "the weight of the Patristic church." As far as weight goes, Sts. Basil, John Damascene, etc. carry at least as much weight as Jerome, who was little known in the Eastern Church. It has been well established that icons are present in the early church, and that numerous fathers, while ceaselessly denouncing pagan idolatry, had nothing to say about these images. Moreover, the Anglican church has de facto accepted my view, since crucifixes, stained glass images, and icons all appear in Anglican churches throughout the world, the altar is frequently venerated, and sometimes votive candles are even lit. The Anglican churches in my area have lady chapels, rood lofts, etc. So much for the homily then. You do realize that he is referring to non-religious images ("images used for no religion")? What's the title of this thread again? You seem keen on defending iconoclasm while distancing yourself from the inevitable conclusions it entails.
For the authentic catholic understanding of icons, with plenty of patristic evidence, look no further than St. John Damascene's treatise: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.asp
Church Fathers know no nationality. And John of Damascus did not live in the first 3, 4, or even 5 centuries and therefore is not part of the Patristic era but rather is classified as a medieval Byzantine theologian. But if you are so quick to dismiss so holy a Church Father as St. Jerome, perhaps you'll listen to St. Athanasius? “Let them tell, I pray you, how God may be known by an image. If it be by the matter of the image, then there needeth no shape or form, seeing that God hath appeared in all material creatures, which do testify his glory. Now if they say he is known by the form or fashion, is he not better to be known by the living things themselves, whose fashions the images express? For of surety the glory of God should be more evidently known, if it were declared by reasonable and living creatures rather than by dead and unmoveable images. Therefore, when ye do carve or paint images, to the end to know God thereby, surely ye do an unworthy and unfit thing.” Orat. c. Gentes, § 20 Or how about another Greek, St. Epiphanius... “I entered into a certain church to pray: I found there a linen cloth hanging in the church door, painted, and having in it the image of Christ, as it were, or for some other Saint (for I remember not well whose image it was): therefore when I did seek the image of a man hanging in the church of Christ contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, I did tear it, and gave counsel to the keepers of thatl church, that they should wind a poor man that was dead in the said cloth, and so bury him.” Epiphan. Epist. ad Joan. Episc. Hieros. a S. Hieron. Maybe St. Cyril will make headway with you? “Many have left the Creator, and have worshipped the creature; neither have they been abashed to say unto a stock, Thou art my father; and unto a stone, Thou begottest me.” Comment. in Joan. Evang. XI, 5 Fathers like St. Athanasius take a stronger iconoclastic position than me in opposing images even for didactic use! All these quotes (and many others) are found in this same one Homily (Part 2) which if you had considered reading it would certainly convert you on the rightness of the Anglican doctrine.
Eusebius, the historian of the early Church: “It is no marvel if they which being Gentiles before and did believe seemed to offer this as a gift unto our Saviour for the benefits which they had received of him. Yea, and we do see now that images of Peter and Paul and our Saviour himself be made, and tables to be painted: which me think to have been observed and kept indifferently by an heathenish custom; for the heathen are wont so to honour them whom they judged honour worthy” Ecclesiastical History, VII, 14 Decree of Emperor Theodosius: “Valens and Theodosius, Emperors, unto the Captain of the Army. Whereas we have a diligent care to maintain the religion of God above all things, we will grant to no man to set forth, grave, carve, or paint the image of our Saviour Christ in colours, stone, or any other matter; but, in what place soever it shall be found, we command that it be taken away, and that all such as shall attempt anything contrary to our decrees or commandment herein shall be most sharply punished.” Codex Justinianus I, viii.
Obviously not even Anglicans are convinced of the rightness of (what you call) the Anglican doctrine since they regularly employ crucifixes, icons, stained glass images, etc. If you really believe what the homily teaches, then you should be ferociously agitating for your local parish to remove any crosses, crucifixes, stained glass images, etc. as they are vile temptations to idolatry which are utterly corrupting to a Christian house of worship.If you don't think such actions are necessary, then you have refuted the homily by your own deed. I have read the homily, but, as demonstrated above, you evidently have not, except to skim it for proof texts to support your position. It's obvious that you didn't understand the first thing about what the homily teaches until I provided extracts. I could continue this discussion further but, as you don't seem interested in actually examining anything in its context or giving an honest examination of the iconodule position, I leave you to your bungling of prooftexts.
I'm sorry that the quotations from the Church Fathers upset you. The history of the Church does not begin with II Nicea. The original history of the Church wholly opposes the use of images for a religious purpose, and marginally allows them for a didactic purpose (which even that many Fathers did not approve of). Our doctrine is to allow them for a didactic purpose. For this reason I have no objection to the current Anglican practice on this issue. I thank God that I do not see any Anglicans bow and kiss and slobber over icons, or cry clutching the feet of an earthen statue. My conscience rests easy. You have to take up your dispute with the saints and doctors of the Church, or pick the novelties of II Nicea for your new religion. I'm with the saints.
I wish to apologize for any offense or confusion my earlier comments in this thread may have caused. I was a bit too hastey and trenchant in my statements. They no longer represent my opinion on the matter. Images have a godly place in worship, in elevating man's thoughts heavenward and in putting before our eyes symbols of spiritual things. There can be excesses, but good catechesis should curb that. There are a number of voices which show the benefits of images in anglican worship (including this: http://conciliaranglican.com/2015/08/12/ask-an-anglican-are-crucifixes-and-icons-idolatrous/) and, as has already been stated in this thread, it has been a longstanding practice among anglican and the church as a whole. Mea culpa.
I must say, that as much as I a m glad for your return to the middle position o this issue,the article you had linked to is deeply unsatisfactory. Even if one discounts all other problems with Fr. Jonathan's position (such as his bypassing of Anglican and Patristic tradition and trying to go directly 'to the Bible' like the Protestants he resents), he concludes with a most unAnglican position: that we worship the Christ in the Sacrament. No, we worship the Christ, and receive the Sacrament. Receive his Body in the Sacrament. We dont lift it up or carry it around, which would be most idolatrous. He even says that if this be idolatry, then so be it. Well then. So be it! A random priest priest from the 19th century raised up by Fr. Jonathan as a template of heroism is not immune from heresy, and by taking his side against the primitive tradition of the Church, he's taken the side of heresy. I do not support the iconoclasm of images, but nor do I support the worship of created things, in whatsoever shape they may be made. Worship of a created thing cannot, and never has been, in accord with God's own heart.