Publisher of medieval texts and Christian classics
Joined November 2023
- Tweets4.9K
- Following67
- Followers3.9K
- Likes7.5K
It's treated in our published articles ("On the Authenticity of the Dionysian Corpus"-Part 1) and in Chapter 5 of The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. I also brought it up in my interview with Cleave to Antiquity.
Scriptorium Press retweeted
Certain sections of even the hostile Libri Carolini, in Book III, Ch. 17, the author suggests that the 'learned' can venerate icons properly, but not the 'unlearned', which admits the theoretical point, at least, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
archive.org/details/libricar…
Scriptorium Press retweeted
One of the coolest images in any Old English manuscript is that of King David in the Vespasian Psalter, who is depicted holding a lyre.
It’s interesting per se, but becomes doubly important when we compare it to actual Germanic lyres we’ve found, which look identical to his!
There is a possibility that Epiphanius' position is misconstrued, and his main objection was more against decorative pagan art being used in churches rather than icons per se:
xitter.cf/ScriptoriumP/status/18…
The funniest part is that the Franks actually did venerate icons:
xitter.cf/ScriptoriumP/status/17…
Basil and Chrysostom absolutely do. Look up his Praise of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste and the Encomium of Saint Meletius, respectively. Tertullian also mentions images of the good shepherd on the eucharistic chalice (On Modesty, 7).
That being said, we do have very strong evidence for the existence of portrait icons of Christ and the saints in the earliest centuries, along with prayer directed TO these images, which suggests that "kissing icons" and related devotional acts was indeed part of the primitive deposit of faith, no different than making the sign of the cross.
👇👇
"The veneration of the saints (including their relics and icons of them) is part of the sacramental nature of the universe and to reject it means you are severely distorting reality and salvation. (i.e. If you get Genesis 1 wrong on Creation, then you will get Revelation 21 wrong on the New Creation and everything in between)."
This is precisely it. The point of Nicaea II was never to show that the Apostles literally mandated Christians kiss portrait icons or they would go to hell (which is a ridiculous Protestant straw-man); the council was concerned with the broader principle of how matter relates to God. How we answer this question directly informs how we think of the sacraments, the incarnation, the nature of the Church, and salvation itself.
Here is what Louth says:
"John [of Damascus]'s defence of icons and their veneration is both far-reaching and fundamental: it makes the icon part of the fundamental fabric of Christian belief, and argues that iconoclasm is more than simply an objection to an isolated devotional practice, but threatens to undermine Christianity itself. In this his defence of icons and their veneration is like Irenaeus’s defence of Christianity against gnosticism or Athanasios’s defence of the divinity of Christ against Arians, or, to come closer to John’s time, Maximos’s defence of the integrity of Christ's humanity against the Monothelites: all these oppose heresy not as an incidental error, but as something that undermines the whole faith." (St. John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology(Oxford UP: 2002), p. 219.)
The veneration of the saints (including their relics and icons of them) is part of the sacramental nature of the universe and to reject it means you are severely distorting reality and salvation. (i.e. If you get Genesis 1 wrong on Creation, then you will get Revelation 21 wrong on the New Creation and everything in between)
Ultimately, this icon debate was about two issues "Were icons used for devotional, ritual purposes (i.e. veneration) in the early church?" and "How does the anathema function in councils in relation to heretics and theirr descendents?" So its about the historical record of Orthopraxy as as well the nature of ecclesial authority in relation to heresies.
Of course, the anathema is attached to all sorts of statements of doctrine. (Roman Catholicism has tons of them on very specific details of doctrine such as the nature of the Beatific vision or the Assumption of Mary). Anathematizing heretics is much more focused on them rejecting the true Church and her ancient beliefs/practices.
At the same time, the truth always relates to our participation in Christ (i.e. salvation). This is why we can anathematize those who have a heretical understanding of the Eucharist even if their version is 'close' because the sacraments relate to our salvation and the apostles taught us the way they are to be performed.
Fake quote btw
xitter.cf/ScriptoriumP/status/18…