![]() ![]() We were finally presented with a quote attributed to St Epiphanius. And asserting that the Orthodox worship icons as idols or false gods is both absurd and irrelevant. Mixing and matching quotes that are all across the spectrum only muddies the waters. Again, I would truly appreciate it if critiques of iconodulism by iconoclasts would be consistent: either consistently argue against their existence altogether, or consistently allow for their existence, while arguing against their veneration. There is no Patristic critique of icons here - only a prudent and orthodox condemnation of their abuse.īy way of taking inventory up to this point, we have been presented with quotes that both deny the placement of images in churches (Elvira and Tertullian), while also affirming their usage in churches (St Gregory, although the conclusions about Gregory’s beliefs are inaccurate). He was neither a Muslim nor an iconoclast, but was fully orthodox with regards to icons. Additionally, his testimony related to sacred images was relied upon during the deliberations of the 7th Ecumenical Council. However, it has been demonstrated that St Gregory was also an advocate of their veneration, himself carrying an icon of the Mother of God (painted by the apostle Luke) through the streets of Rome in solemn procession. It is claimed that St Gregory only approves of them for “reading,” as an aid to the ignorant or unlearned. In the quote from St Gregory the Great, it is concluded that since St Gregory condemns the abusive worship of images, he was also against their veneration. The tangible evidence outweighs the speculative or inadmissible. This is another “miss” when it comes to demonstrating a cohesive, tangible, Patristic critique of the liturgical use of icons, as sacred images were on both the walls of Spanish churches and the sarcophagi of the Spaniard Christians at this very point in history. ![]() We know for sure that it is not a theological canon, that it says nothing related to the kind of images on church walls, and that it was never obeyed or repeated in future canons in the way that iconoclasts assert. ![]() Given the fact that this canon was ignored (if indeed it means that images should not be in churches), it can reasonably be concluded that this canon bears no Patristic weight, and that it does not mean what iconoclasts imply it means. With regards to the 36th canon of the local synod of Elvira, the finer points of canonical law were disregarded, and we were presented with a poor translation of this obscure, disciplinary canon. There is no Patristic evidence against their liturgical use here, as Tertullian was on the outside looking in. Oh wickedness!” ( On Idolatry, 7). This demonstrates that such artisans were officially sanctioned among the orders of clergy. He laments (as a Montanist, not as a Christian) that the Church accepts painters and sculptors into clerical office: “Idol-artifacers are chosen even into the ecclesiastical order. This is not an insult, but rather an historical assessment of the facts. He was a fanatic - an extremist - and, as a result, an eventual Montanist, attacking the Church on a number of issues. However, Tertullian also equated all images with idols, refusing artists to the catechumenate as a result. His first quote from Tertullian (not an orthodox Church Father, and so not exactly a “Patristic” critique) shows that there are some images allowed for liturgical use namely, the brazen serpent and the images of the tabernacle/temple. By this, I can only assume it means their veneration (honor): carrying them about, kissing them, censing them, and so forth. This would imply an argument against the liturgical use of icons. It was claimed that the liturgical use of icons is both disputed and indebted to a mixed foundation. To help counter-balance this, I will give just a few.” Not only were we not given any exacting Patristic evidence to the contrary (that is, being opposed to the 7th Ecumenical Council and the practice of the Orthodox-Catholic Church), but this post is also not clear in what “critique” it’s attempting to substantiate. Pr Wedgeworth begins by saying that “The liturgical use of icons is one of the disputed points which has a mixed foundation in the early church,” and further “Not as many people, however, know the opposing patristic voices. Part of what often makes the icon debate frustrating is that iconoclasts are almost never consistent in their critiques. The response is necessarily more in-depth than the original post it responds to, because numerous quick claims are made there without much in the way of examination of their context or historic character. Editor’s Note: Following is the final entry in a 5-part series addressing the claim by Presbyterian pastor Steven Wedgeworth that there is significant patristic testimony against iconography. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |