Also, I would point out that the way Eusebius discusses the practice is very telling. He seems, at least to me, to be introducing the practice of using representational art to his reader, which implies that the reader would heretofore be unaware of such devotional practices. In fact he seems to preemptively, defend it, saying that such things are not strange to the Gentiles. Such a peculiar habit doesn't seem to fit the catholic definition "always, everywhere, and by all". Meaning that it was not something Eusebius received as an Apostolic practice and then passed on to the faithful under his charge. Rather, it was something that some gentile believers in a particular place did that he saw or heard about and then commented on. I think, if we agree that is the case, then that's exactly the kind of cultish innovation Anglicanism tries to stay away from.
Agreed with you there. Of course it is. We are merely discussing the Homily. Homilies and other teaching issuances from the Church in general, like sermons and such, are most often pastoral applications of doctrine, rather than encyclopedic recitations of doctrine. The Homily on Images applies the doctrine of Images to the context of Church as it existed in the Sixteenth century. It also employs a hermeneutic which we know was not entirely correct and later not used by the Church, namely the use of Images among the Hebrews "allowed by a special dispensation." It is possible to charitably say that the Homilist combined this hermeneutic with the real perversions of Christianity of the time, to have made pastoral decisions which a generation later the Church had deemed to be inapplicable to the later generations of Christians under their charge. Just let us remember that the Homily is not the 2nd Commandment.
would the outcome be different? the homily quotes from and is based on the 2d commandment. i would argue that, based solely on its text, the 2d commandment is more severe in its prohibition of images than the homily interprets it. your post is moving us further away from your position, not closer.
The interpretation of the 2nd Commandment, like many passages in Scripture, is not prima facie obvious. It is interpreted by God's revelation in the rest of the Old Testament. Secondarily, and far more inferiorily, it is interpreted by the Fathers of the Church of the First Five Centuries (to use Bishop Lancelot Andrews). I note Jerome, who did not advocate or oppose Images on doctrinal grounds, and many other Fathers like him. For reasons such as these, the Divines like Bishop Andrews, Archbishop Parker, Archbishop Whitgift and the like sought to distance the Church from viewing the Prohibition on Images as doctrinal (as was done by the Protestants on the continent), but rather pastoral, i.e. changeable with the conditions of the age.
excellent point Anglican74. what scriptural evidence mollifies the apparent prohibition of images in worship? can you point me to some passage where a scripture author approves of the use of images in the church? Did an apostle use or approve the use of images of god in worship?
The second commandment does not address itself to the topic of images "during worship." Here is its full text, Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV): Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. The meaning of this text, as best interpreted through the Old Testament revelation, and the New Testament, and secondarily through the Church Fathers and the persistent teaching through Anglican history, was that we must not make an image that functions as an idol, i.e. prayed to, and adored. Other kinds of images can validly exist. From this it follows that the question on images does not center on presence or absence of images during worship, but on presence or absence of prayer and adoration for images... at or outside worship, at any time whatsoever.
Another point in favour of the use of images is the fact that that it has been usage since the very early Church, from more or less apostolic times.Granted there has been protests against its misuse, but I think the acceptance, by Anglicanism ,with limitations and assurances, of the Seventh council is our guide.
What does the church define as idolatory? I'm asking this because I pray the Rosary a lot, and an outsider once claimed that I put my trust in the Rosary and not God. This was her view as an outsider. She had judged what I was doing with no understanding of my intentions. She was shocked when I took her through the prayers. As a non-participant, she only saw the physical beads (probably assumed I was worshiping them).
I'm interested in your description of Cranmer as having been "murdered". If that was true, was it not also true of those whose death he was responsible for?
I'm sorry but you've lost me. Where do the best interpretations of the Old Testament, New Testament, Church fathers,and persistent teaching of Anglican teaching tell us images are approved of in worship where not prayed to and adored? Please show me. As for the text of the second commandment, let us consider it by parsing it out. What I see in your quote are 2 independent violative acts and commentary on the motivation for the commandment. Here is how I see it broken down. First violative act: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth:" Second violative act: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: Commentary on the motivation for the commandment: for I the LORD thy God a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Since we have a disagreement about the prohibitions I'll stick to them. I think you have to read them as independent violations of God's law rather than as two dependent parts of the violative act, otherwise you get ridiculous results. You break the commandment when you make graven images OR you break the commandment when you bow down to them or serve them. This seems like a much closer interpretation than to say you are breaking the commandment only when you make a graven image AND bow down or serve it. Does the maker of such images not break the commandment simply because he himself does not personally bow down or serve it? Does the one who bows down or serves an image not break the commandment simply because he did not make the image? In both cases, people are causing, either in their own worship or in the worship of others, the truth of God to be exchanged for for a lie, and for the created things to be worshiped rather than the Creator. Now to your point that the 2d Commandment doesn't address the topic of images in worship. Are we reading from the same text? Of course it does...."graven IMAGES"..."the LIKENESS of anything"....ye shall not bow yourself down or serve them. I must be missing something really precise and implicit here. I'll grant you that clues in the Old Testament show me that not all images are condemned. Only those intended to be used as a depiction of God or of false gods are contemplated in this passage....which is just what the homilist argues. Since the danger of committing idolatry is so great when images are placed in the "Temple", they should be removed. I can see the argument that the use of images and idolatry, while very similar, are not the same. And since idolatry is the sin, not non-idolatrous use of images, as long as we decorate the church with them but don't worship them we have not violated the commandment. Perhaps that is true. But are you willing to bet your soul on it? More importantly, are you willing to bet other people's souls on it? Perhaps we don't bow down or serve the image that we've decorated our sanctuary with, but can you guarantee that the person next to you is just as scrupulous in straddling the fine line of worshiping with images and worshiping the images themselves? I can't . If we did the decorating, knowing the danger, aren't we just as guilty of the first violative act in the second commandment as our neighbor in the pew is for the second violative act? Won't the judgment, absent a hearty repentance be the same? Wasn't Aaron the priest just as guilty for casting the golden calf as the Israelites were for worshiping it? Do we not, as a church, misuse our priestly office if we create conditions solely for aesthetic that run the risk of bringing fellow parishioners into error of the worst kind. I recognize that it is theoretically possible for us to use images in he church without committing but it is at least equally possible for us not to. This situation here is much like the judging one's neighbor. Jesus, in his sermon on the mount explains that the measure we judge by will be the measure by which we too will be judged. Since the danger there is so great, Jesus tells us not to judge at all. Is it theoretically possible to judge perfectly so that the way we judge others will always be the way we ourselves want to be judged? I suppose so. Jesus is a perfect
Judge. I am sure He could also worship in the presence of images and never be tempted into the sin of idolatry. But he is Christ and we are not, nor are our neighbors. We need to remember our frailties and those of others.
True HC, it is an old practice that dates back to the very early church, perhaps even as far back as the ancient times of the Apostles. But does that necessarily qualify it as Apostolic? John Ellis put it this way, "We do not inquire what the Ancients did, but what Christ and his Apostles did." Do we have evidence that Christ or the Apostles used images or approved of their use?
Statement from the 2nd,Council of Niceae. 787 Ad. To make our confession short we declare that we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel: a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, so that the Incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely imaginary and brings us a similar benefit.. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoudtedly , possess one another's message. "We therefore ,folllowing the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church,(for as we know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with full precision and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life giving Cross, so also the precious and venerable holy pictures,(eikonas,) , as well in painting and mosaic as in other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God and on the vestments and sacred vessels and on the hangings and in the pictures, (sanisin) both in houses and by the way side, namely, the picture (eikon) of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady (despoines,) the Holy Mother of God,(theotokos,) of the honorable angels and all holy and pious men. For the more frequently they are seen in artistic representation the more readily are men lifted up the the memory of and the longing after their prototypes; and to these should be given salutation and honorable reverence (aspasmon kai timetiken proskunesin,) not indeed true worship (latreian) which is fitting (prepei) for the Divine nature alone; but to these as to the figure (tupo) of the holy and life giving Cross and to the Holy Gospels and to other sacred objects , incense and light s may be offered according to ancient and pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the picture (eikon) passes on to that which the picture represents and he who reveres (proskunon, ) the picture reveres in it the subject represented." YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity Teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Peter Toon. Accepted ,(eventually, by the Church in England.) (Preservation Press, 1996.pg,18. of 39.) The more intersting because Peter Hoon was not High \church nor Anglo Catholic, but was a Prayer book man.
Dear Colleague, It wasn't Archbishop Cranmer I was alluding to, it was Archbishop Laud, who in my opinion was one of the best Archbishops in the Church's history, Archbishop Sancroft was the other! Howandever, Cranmer was murdered by the Anglo Papists of Queen Mary Tudor's headship of Church in England (1550). Bl.William Laud was murdered by the calvinists in 1645,(or so). As far as I know, he didn't murder anyone, neither did the Anglican Church.Laud was actually tried in court, but the protestants couldn't find anything to prosecute him successfully for. So the Calvinist Parliament took a vote to execute him As for Cranmer being responsible for the death of ,vicims,'. ; who are they? He was the only man who stood up for Henry VIII's second wife! He might have been weak, but.... who isn't?
The late Revd Dr Toon was a prayerbook man, and he rejected the idea that the 7th Council has authority for Anglicans. He wrote, "By the classic Anglican theological method one could never arrive at the doctrine (including theory and use) of icons set forth by the Council of Nicea II (787). Yet by the same theological method one could arrive at and approve the dogma of the Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ of the previous (six) Councils (Nicea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II & III). Further, only by the theological method of the later Greek Fathers can one arrive at the precise dogma of icons as set forth at Nicea II. [The dogma of the Council of Trent of the 16th century on images is similar to but not identical with that of Nicea II.]...An Anglican cannot accept the 7th Council's dogma as binding if he is true to his Anglican method and mindset. To accept the dogma of the 7th Council is to reject the Anglican mindset and method and to adopt some other mindset and method which could be Orthodox or Roman Catholic or another." (Toon, "Icons, Nicer II (787)and Anglican Theological Method", 2002)
Money quote there, @Lowly Layman. Peter Toon was a very holy priest and theologian, an Englishman who at mid-Century moved and served in the United States. He represented the "old Episcopalians" guard, fiercely tenacious and orthodox against the new and creeping innovations, to his last day.
This seems to apply the Regulative Principle (things forbidden unless permitted), whilst we have the leisure to use the Normative Principle (things permitted unless forbidden). Actually I think the underlying grammar doesn't break it down into two independent violations, but one: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," namely "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" However I leave a deeper analysis of the text to another time. The Commandment forbids the worship of images, but it does not say a whit about "images during worship." Do you see? Yes. I am glad you are seeing my point. Two things: the good thing is, you and I don't have to. We don't have the pastoral cure of Souls., but our Clergy do. And secondly, underlying your whole argument is the premise that it's a pastoral issue. You have essentially conceded my point, I hope you see that. What your whole argument boils down to is that "it may be permissible in doctrine but the pastoral implications on the souls may be too large." Aaron's sin came not from making the Calf, but from making it for it to be worshipped. There is always the second stipulation attached (the 2nd Violative Act in your analysis). The two Violations are condemned together, because they are one Violation. We know this because making of images alone is not condemned. Indeed it is even enshrined by God himself, in the use of images on the Ark of the Covenant! I should add that Images were used profusely in the Holy of Holies, where the walls held the images of the 4 Creatures. Later those 4 Creatures and their Images were ascribed to the 4 Gospel writers!
Evasion. I like it. I wasn't applying a principle. I was asking you to show evidence for your claim in the post I quoted. You said, "The meaning of this text, as best interpreted through the Old Testament revelation, and the New Testament, and secondarily through the Church Fathers and the persistent teaching through Anglican history, was that we must not make an image that functions as an idol, i.e. prayed to, and adored. Other kinds of images can validly exist." I asked for the proof of your claim. Show me these best interpretations. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; neither is it evidence. Pony up, where in the OT, NT, CF, and Anglican history is it "best" interpreted that images can validly exist in a worship setting?