Comments on: Iconoclasm, the Eucharist and the Resurrection of the Flesh http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/ Energies of the Trinity © Perry C. Robinson 2004-2009 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:42:15 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: acolyte http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3805 acolyte Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:23:14 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3805 Jonathan, I checked the reference and there is nothing there about icons. I think you mean bk 1, ch 25, sec. 6. Ireneaus doesn't say much there with respect to images per se. He does seem to have a problem with ranking them with pagan philosophers. The problem is the gnostic syncretism mixing paganism with Christianity as the previous sections complain about this kind of practice mixing prayer with invocation to demons, astrology and such. Interestingly enough, Hippolytus of Rome produces the same passage in his Refutation of All Heresies, bk 7, ch 20, which reads somewhat differently. "And they male **counterfeit** images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned by Pilate." Some scholars, though not all, such as Finney, translate Ireneaus in such a way that the offense was the not the image per se, but that the gnostics justified their practice on the supposed fashioning of an icon of Christ by Pilate. See his "Gnosticism and the Origings of Early Christian Art" in in Atti del IX congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana I (Sept 21-27, 1975, pp. 396-398. It should be kept in mind that Gnosticism was quite diverse and some Gnostics mocked the Church for having images because it implied that there was a kind of union between dead matter and ultimate relaity. So in the Gnostic Acts of John written around 150 or so we read "...in brief, when a full set and mixture of such colors [virtues] has come together in your soul, it will present it to our Lord Jesus Christ undismayed and undaunted and rounded in form. But what you have now done is childish and imperfect; you have drawn a dead likeness of what is dead." New Testament Apochrypha II, p. 221. And there is plenty of evidence from Duros Europas and the Catacombs of images in Churches (not to mention Jewish synagoges.) Also, there have been discoveries of images with texts explicitly indicating veneration "the image I adored" of the Theotokos for example, dicovered under the Orthodox chapel of the Annunciation in Nazareth which go back further than the Constantinian period. I hope that helps. Jonathan,

I checked the reference and there is nothing there about icons. I think you mean bk 1, ch 25, sec. 6. Ireneaus doesn’t say much there with respect to images per se. He does seem to have a problem with ranking them with pagan philosophers. The problem is the gnostic syncretism mixing paganism with Christianity as the previous sections complain about this kind of practice mixing prayer with invocation to demons, astrology and such.

Interestingly enough, Hippolytus of Rome produces the same passage in his Refutation of All Heresies, bk 7, ch 20, which reads somewhat differently. “And they male **counterfeit** images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned by Pilate.”

Some scholars, though not all, such as Finney, translate Ireneaus in such a way that the offense was the not the image per se, but that the gnostics justified their practice on the supposed fashioning of an icon of Christ by Pilate. See his “Gnosticism and the Origings of Early Christian Art” in in Atti del IX congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana I (Sept 21-27, 1975, pp. 396-398.

It should be kept in mind that Gnosticism was quite diverse and some Gnostics mocked the Church for having images because it implied that there was a kind of union between dead matter and ultimate relaity. So in the Gnostic Acts of John written around 150 or so we read “…in brief, when a full set and mixture of such colors [virtues] has come together in your soul, it will present it to our Lord Jesus Christ undismayed and undaunted and rounded in form. But what you have now done is childish and imperfect; you have drawn a dead likeness of what is dead.” New Testament Apochrypha II, p. 221. And there is plenty of evidence from Duros Europas and the Catacombs of images in Churches (not to mention Jewish synagoges.)

Also, there have been discoveries of images with texts explicitly indicating veneration “the image I adored” of the Theotokos for example, dicovered under the Orthodox chapel of the Annunciation in Nazareth which go back further than the Constantinian period.

I hope that helps.

]]> By: Jonathan http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3759 Jonathan Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:46:27 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3759 As one seriously looking into the Orthodox Faith, I would be grateful if anyone could provide any helpful historical perspectives or insights on the reasons someone like Irenaeus, writing as early as the middle second century, could just chalk up thehonor of images as a Gnostic contrivance, which he does in "Against Heresies", Book I, Chapter XXIV, sec. 6. When I read it I wasn't sure how to understand the apparent contradiction between Irenaeus' claim, and the opinion of Basil and the Seventh Council, which teaches that relics, images, and veneration had been passed down to the Church from the first century. I would be grateful for any insights anyone can provide here. Thanks. As one seriously looking into the Orthodox Faith, I would be grateful if anyone could provide any helpful historical perspectives or insights on the reasons someone like Irenaeus, writing as early as the middle second century, could just chalk up thehonor of images as a Gnostic contrivance, which he does in “Against Heresies”, Book I, Chapter XXIV, sec. 6. When I read it I wasn’t sure how to understand the apparent contradiction between Irenaeus’ claim, and the opinion of Basil and the Seventh Council, which teaches that relics, images, and veneration had been passed down to the Church from the first century.

I would be grateful for any insights anyone can provide here. Thanks.

]]> By: fatherstephen http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3552 fatherstephen Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:20:24 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3552 When I did my thesis at Duke on the theology of icons, the issues seemed to me not to concern energies, per se. The issue was making an image of the divine essence, which even the iconodules agreed cannot be done. St. Theodore the Studite maintained in an Orthodox manner that icons are Hypostatic Representations.They do not transform the matter involved at all and this is the Orthodox faith. It is supersition to treat the matter of the icon in a manner similar to the Eucharist, though some supersititious priests have done so. But for icons Theodore the Studite is an easy and necessary read. Very little interest in energies at the time... Thanks. When I did my thesis at Duke on the theology of icons, the issues seemed to me not to concern energies, per se. The issue was making an image of the divine essence, which even the iconodules agreed cannot be done. St. Theodore the Studite maintained in an Orthodox manner that icons are Hypostatic Representations.They do not transform the matter involved at all and this is the Orthodox faith. It is supersition to treat the matter of the icon in a manner similar to the Eucharist, though some supersititious priests have done so.

But for icons Theodore the Studite is an easy and necessary read. Very little interest in energies at the time… Thanks.

]]> By: Greg DeLassus http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3459 Greg DeLassus Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:45:34 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3459 Fair enough. No rush. I would be obliged for the info whenever you get around to it. Fair enough. No rush. I would be obliged for the info whenever you get around to it.

]]> By: Perry Robinson http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3435 Perry Robinson Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:33:26 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3435 Greg, I'll dig up some references after July 4th. Greg,

I’ll dig up some references after July 4th.

]]> By: The One and the Many Simplified! « Andrea Elizabeth’s Wordpress Blog http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3414 The One and the Many Simplified! « Andrea Elizabeth’s Wordpress Blog Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:02:32 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3414 [...] July 3rd, 2007 in Essence and Energies, creativity, Christianity Over at Energetic Procession and in this place, I have been struggling to grasp the Essence (the One), and the Energies (the [...] [...] July 3rd, 2007 in Essence and Energies, creativity, Christianity Over at Energetic Procession and in this place, I have been struggling to grasp the Essence (the One), and the Energies (the [...]

]]> By: Greg DeLassus http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3399 Greg DeLassus Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:08:24 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3399 <a href="http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3386" rel="nofollow">Re:</a> <i>statues which are generally not permitted by 2nd Nicea...</i> Forgive me if this is a distraction from the main point of this entry, but I have seen this claim made elsewhere on the internet and am somewhat puzzled by the claim. I am unaware of any precise condemnation of statues is in the canons of Nicea II. Is this in some disputed portion of the canons not found on the <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.html" rel="nofollow">Fordham Univ medieval sourcebook</a>, or some such? In other words, whence does the claim that Nicea II forbids statues arise? I would be obliged for any info which anyone might be able to furnish. Re: statues which are generally not permitted by 2nd Nicea…

Forgive me if this is a distraction from the main point of this entry, but I have seen this claim made elsewhere on the internet and am somewhat puzzled by the claim. I am unaware of any precise condemnation of statues is in the canons of Nicea II. Is this in some disputed portion of the canons not found on the Fordham Univ medieval sourcebook, or some such? In other words, whence does the claim that Nicea II forbids statues arise? I would be obliged for any info which anyone might be able to furnish.

]]> By: Andrea Elizabeth http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3397 Andrea Elizabeth Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:13:14 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3397 oh, maybe you're saying he was right about that but tried to maintain his ADS at the same time. oh, maybe you’re saying he was right about that but tried to maintain his ADS at the same time.

]]> By: Andrea Elizabeth http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3396 Andrea Elizabeth Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:11:14 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3396 Andrew said: “In saying that the attributes of God are truly communicated to the human nature of Christ, while EMPHATICALLY denying that in such communication the essence of God is communicated to the human nature, he lends himself to some confusion. But one has only to see how heavily he draws on Eastern Fathers to understand that he’s truly trying to be faithful to the patristic tradition. If only he’d been able to throw off the shackles of ADS.” I'm feeling similarly beshackled. aren't attributes not essences but energies? So how can you say he shouldn't deny that the essence is communicated? Andrew said: “In saying that the attributes of God are truly communicated to the human nature of Christ, while EMPHATICALLY denying that in such communication the essence of God is communicated to the human nature, he lends himself to some confusion. But one has only to see how heavily he draws on Eastern Fathers to understand that he’s truly trying to be faithful to the patristic tradition. If only he’d been able to throw off the shackles of ADS.”

I’m feeling similarly beshackled.

aren’t attributes not essences but energies? So how can you say he shouldn’t deny that the essence is communicated?

]]> By: Andrea Elizabeth http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3395 Andrea Elizabeth Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:28:15 +0000 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/iconoclasm-the-eucharist-and-the-resurrection-of-the-flesh/#comment-3395 Steven Todd Kaster said: “The person of the Word is most certainly divine from all eternity, but as St. John Damascene said in connection with the assumption of human nature by the eternal Logos: “. . . the Word Himself became flesh, having been in truth conceived of the Virgin, but coming forth as God with the assumed nature which, as soon as He was brought forth into being, was deified by Him, so that these three things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by the Word” [St. John Damascene, “De Fide Orthodoxa,” 3:12]. Thus, in connection with the assumption of human nature, Christ can be described as “deified.”” Isn’t deification accomplished by God’s energies? A creative act? So Christ deified his own assumed, and by extension our, human nature. I’m still having trouble with seeing the energies as less than God, though through listening to you all, I’m starting to see them as one with God in intent and presence, but power? Doesn’t He hold back in creating? I guess I don’t see them as God. Was Christ’s human nature God in essence, realized in His Person? Which brings me to the Eucharist. It is His flesh, emphasis on His humanity, right?, but His deified humanity, which is energized into becoming God. And how close does the Eucharist come to being God? Is it deified to His level? From Father Hopko’s “The Orthodox Faith” on the Presanctified Liturgy - song of entrance: “’For behold the King of Glory enters.’ Our Father is sung and the faithful receive Holy Communion to the chanting of the verse from Psalm 34: "0 taste and see how good is the Lord. Alleluia.“” There are a lot over verses in the Bible that say things similar to ‘in as much as you do this to the least of my brethren, you’ve done it unto Me’ implying an “as” similarity, or maybe more. “Is” is a little scarier term. However, Saint Athanasius wasn't afraid of it. Steven Todd Kaster said: “The person of the Word is most certainly divine from all eternity, but as St. John Damascene said in connection with the assumption of human nature by the eternal Logos: “. . . the Word Himself became flesh, having been in truth conceived of the Virgin, but coming forth as God with the assumed nature which, as soon as He was brought forth into being, was deified by Him, so that these three things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by the Word” [St. John Damascene, “De Fide Orthodoxa,” 3:12]. Thus, in connection with the assumption of human nature, Christ can be described as “deified.””

Isn’t deification accomplished by God’s energies? A creative act? So Christ
deified his own assumed, and by extension our, human nature.

I’m still having trouble with seeing the energies as less than God, though through listening to you all, I’m starting to see them as one with God in intent and presence, but power? Doesn’t He hold back in creating? I guess I don’t see them as God. Was Christ’s human nature God in essence, realized in His Person? Which brings me to the Eucharist. It is His flesh, emphasis on His humanity, right?, but His deified humanity, which is energized into becoming God. And how close does the Eucharist come to being God? Is it deified to His level?

From Father Hopko’s “The Orthodox Faith” on the Presanctified Liturgy – song of entrance: “’For behold the King of Glory enters.’

Our Father is sung and the faithful receive Holy Communion to the chanting of the verse from Psalm 34: “0 taste and see how good is the Lord. Alleluia.“”

There are a lot over verses in the Bible that say things similar to ‘in as much as you do this to the least of my brethren, you’ve done it unto Me’ implying an “as” similarity, or maybe more. “Is” is a little scarier term. However, Saint Athanasius wasn’t afraid of it.

]]>