| B. Confrontation with Islam. After the Arab conquest of Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, the Byzantine Empire found itself in constant confrontation militarily and ideologically with Islam. Both Christianity and Islam claimed to be world religions, of which the Byzantine emperor and the Arab caliph were, respectively, the heads. But in the accompanying psychological warfare, Islam constantly claimed to be the latest, and therefore the highest and purest, revelation of the God of Abraham, and repeatedly leveled the accusations of polytheism and idolatry, against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the use of icons. It was to the charge of idolatry that the Eastern-born emperors of the eighth century responded. They decided to purify Christianity to enable it better to withstand the challenge of Islam. Thus, there was a measure of Islamic influence on the iconoclastic movement, but the influence was part of the cold war against Islam, not the conscious imitation of it. C. The Heritage of Hellenic Spiritualism. The controversy begun by Emperors Leo III (717–741) and Constantine V (741–775) seems to have been determined initially by the non-theological factors described above. But the iconoclasts easily found in the Greek Christian tradition itself new arguments not directly connected with condemned Monophysitism or with foreign cultural influences. An iconoclastic trend of thought, which could be traced back to early Christianity, was later connected with Origenism. The early apologists of Christianity took the Old Testament prohibitions against any representation of God just as literally as the Jews had. But in their polemics against Christianity, Neoplatonic writers minimized the importance of idols in Greek paganism and developed a relative doctrine of the image as a means of access to the divine prototype and not as a dwelling of the divine himself, and used this argument to show the religious inferiority of Christianity. Porphyry, for example, writes: If some Hellenes are light-headed enough to believe that the gods live inside idols, their thought remains much purer than that [of the Christians] who believe that the divinity entered the Virgin Mary " " s womb, became a foetus, was engendered, and wrapped in clothes, was full of blood, membranes, gall, and even viler things. |
| Good stories like The Lord of the Rings and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader can stretch the minds of the young-at-heart to go beyond the familiar and to understand that reality stretches far beyond the ghastly agoraphobia of scientific materialism. An Unreal Creation Fantasia , however, works quite well within the confines of materialism. It has a long history of regressing from the here and now into extended reveries on “what might have been” and “if only.” It is the turning away of man’s heart from his attention to the Trinity and the reception of grace, and a turning toward an idolatrous desire for the things of this world—a virtualized world divorced from any relationship with God. Fantasia is man’s subjective re-creation of a false reality, which is the only way man can isolate creation from its Creator, man himself from his God. The fantasia world of virtuality is not only an escape from the difficulties of reality: it is the creation by man of an alternative universe where there is no need for repentance from sin and passion. Fantasia reinforces the denial of the Holy Trinity and the rejection of grace. Wherever there is heresy or secularization, there is fantasia, or, if you will, virtual reality. Wherever there is passion—which is the Orthodox word for any addiction (not just chemical)—there must be fantasia already at work, simply because the reality of Creation, of the single time and single universe ordained by God, will not permit idolatrous attachments. Only the alternative images produced by fantasia can become objects of the passions of lust, wrath, gluttony, greed, and self-centeredness. In this sense, then, it is not going too far to suggest that there is something blasphemous at the basis of virtual reality. Time brooks no unreality, and nature admits no lies. But in virtuality, deceptive pleasure (not happiness) is painted in electron-cartoons, floating ephemerally as titillating cyber-mirages that fade in the morning, or disappear (like mirages in the desert in those old |
| This is expressed by the words, in fortitude, and not in confusion, because hope does not deceive them; of which the apostle says, But hope makes not ashamed. Romans 5:5 A psalm also says, For they that hope in You shall not be put to shame. But now the Song of Songs is a certain spiritual pleasure of holy minds, in the marriage of that King and Queen-city, that is, Christ and the Church. But this pleasure is wrapped up in allegorical veils, that the Bridegroom may be more ardently desired, and more joyfully unveiled, and may appear; to whom it is said in this same song, Equity has delighted You; Song of Songs 1:4 and the bride who there hears, Charity is in your delights.Song of Songs 7:6 We pass over many things in silence, in our desire to finish this work. Chapter 21.– Of the Kings After Solomon, Both in Judah and Israel. The other kings of the Hebrews after Solomon are scarcely found to have prophesied, through certain enigmatic words or actions of theirs, what may pertain to Christ and the Church, either in Judah or Israel; for so were the parts of that people styled, when, on account of Solomon " s offense, from the time of Rehoboam his son, who succeeded him in the kingdom, it was divided by God as a punishment. The ten tribes, indeed, which Jeroboam the servant of Solomon received, being appointed the king in Samaria, were distinctively called Israel, although this had been the name of that whole people; but the two tribes, namely, of Judah and Benjamin, which for David " s sake, lest the kingdom should be wholly wrenched from his race, remained subject to the city of Jerusalem, were called Judah, because that was the tribe whence David sprang. But Benjamin, the other tribe which, as was said, belonged to the same kingdom, was that whence Saul sprang before David. But these two tribes together, as was said, were called Judah, and were distinguished by this name from Israelwhich was the distinctive title of the ten tribes under their own king. For the tribe of Levi, because it was the priestly one, bound to the servitude of God, not of the kings, was reckoned the thirteenth. |
| Then let him look upon His Church, joined to her so great Husband in spiritual marriage and divine love, of which it is said in these words which follow, The queen stood upon Your right hand in gold-embroidered vestments, girded about with variety. Hearken, O daughter, and look, and incline your ear; forget also your people, and your father " s house. Because the King has greatly desired your beauty; for He is the Lord your God. And the daughters of Tyre shall worship Him with gifts; the rich among the people shall entreat Your face. The daughter of the King has all her glory within, in golden fringes, girded about with variety. The virgins shall be brought after her to the King: her neighbors shall be brought to You. They shall be brought with gladness and exultation: they shall be led into the temple of the King. Instead of your fathers, sons shall be born to you: you shall establish them as princes over all the earth. They shall be mindful of your name in every generation and descent. Therefore shall the people acknowledge you for evermore, even for ever and ever. I do not think any one is so stupid as to believe that some poor woman is here praised and described, as the spouse, to wit, of Him to whom it is said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a rod of direction is the rod of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of exultation above Your fellows;that is, plainly, Christ above Christians. For these are His fellows, out of the unity and concord of whom in all nations that queen is formed, as it is said of her in another psalm, The city of the great King. The same is Sion spiritually, which name in Latin is interpreted speculatio (discovery); for she descries the great good of the world to come, because her attention is directed there. In the same way she is also Jerusalem spiritually, of which we have already said many things. Her enemy is the city of the devil, Babylon, which is interpreted confusion. Yet out of this Babylon this queen is in all nations set free by regeneration, and passes from the worst to the best King, – that is, from the devil to Christ. |
| For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. And this kind of prophecy, as it were compacted and commingled of both the others in the ancient canonical books, containing historical narratives, is of very great significance, and has exercised and exercises greatly the wits of those who search holy writ. For example, what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith. And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are pilgrims in this life. But if this be so, then the utterances of the prophets, or rather the whole of those Scriptures that are reckoned under the title of the Old Testament, will be not of three, but of two different kinds. For there will be nothing there which pertains to the terrestrial Jerusalem only, if whatever is there said and fulfilled of or concerning her signifies something which also refers by allegorical prefiguration to the celestial Jerusalem; but there will be only two kinds one that pertains to the free Jerusalem, the other to both. But just as, I think, they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything more than that they so happened, so I think those very daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents lies in allegorical significations. Therefore I have said they are threefold, not two-fold. Yet, in holding this opinion, I do not blame those who may be able to draw out of everything there a spiritual meaning, only saving, first of all, the historical truth. For the rest, what believer can doubt that those things are spoken vainly which are such that, whether said to have been done or to be yet to come, they do not beseem either humanor divine affairs? Who would not recall these to spiritual understanding if he could, or confess that they should be recalled by him who is able? Chapter 4.– About the Prefigured Change of the Israelitic Kingdom and Priesthood, and About the Things Hannah the Mother of Samuel Prophesied, Personating the Church. |
| This persecution continued on into the reign of Emperor Constantine Copronymus, who succeeded Leo to the throne. The name Copronymus (“dung-named”) comes from coprus meaning manure, i.e. feces. He was called Copronymus because he defecated in his baptismal font. These two emperors were in power for many years and brought great affliction upon the Church. Following these, there were other Iconoclast emperors, who continued the work of their predecessors and tormented the Church for years. We can not begin to describe the suffering endured by the Church during the years of Iconoclasm, and especially the monks who were in the frontline in the battle for holy icons. The Iconoclast emperors closed many monasteries and turned many churches which had icons into shells. The monks were savagely beaten: they took out their eyes, noses were cut off, icons were broken on their heads. They burnt the fingers of icon-painting hagiographers with burning irons. The persecution only stopped when Empress Irene came to the throne of the Byzantine Empire, but this was not yet final. In 787 Irene convened the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which set down Orthodox teaching on the veneration of holy icons. But even after this Council Iconoclast emperors still existed, for example, Michael and others. The heresy was crushed only under the God-fearing Augusta, Theodora, when a local council was convened in Constantinople in 842, which upheld the Orthodox teaching. The council pronounced an anathema on all those who dare to say that the veneration of holy icons is idolatry and that Orthodox Christians are idolaters. And here various sects still tell us exactly this thing. They dare to call our icons idols and call us idolaters. And with what nerve? I will tell you of an incident that took place recently in a city in Siberia. During the Liturgy two Baptists walked into the church and started shouting that the Orthodox are pagans idol-worshippers and that the icons are idols. What nonsense! How dare they open their mouths and say these words dripping with venom, calling us pagans and our icons idols? This shows that they have not understood correctly the second commandment of Mosaic Law: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image —any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;”(Ex. 20.4). |
| Indeed, the spirit of the second commandment forbids worship of anything or regard of anything more than God. When any relative object becomes for a person something to which he dedicates all his thoughts, time and energies, that object becomes an idol. Not only unbelievers but many contemporary Christians as well are mostly concerned about gathering material wealth and worldly fortunes, about making a successful career, achieving physical happiness and physical gratifications. There are many who give themselves up to political ideas or adore worldly leaders, movie or music stars, and because of their own little temporary gods, they completely forsake the true God and the salvation of their souls. For some, contemporary science has becomes the supreme authority by which they judge and even reject the God-revealed truths. In general, anything material and temporal that becomes the most important object for a person to the detriment of his soul has become his false god. Also, such strong passions as sex, drug addiction, drunkenness, smoking, gambling, gluttony, greed, vanity, pride, et cetera, have become the cruel masters of many. When the book of Revelation predicts the increase of paganism toward the end of the world, it certainly means this indirect form of idolatry: “They worshipped idols of gold, silver, brass, stone and wood which can neither see nor hear nor walk” (Revelations 9:20). The Apostle Paul labels greed as idolatry, and regarding gluttons he comments that “their god is their belly” (Colossians 3:5; Philippians 3:19). Comments: God does not prohibit in His second commandment the fine arts of sculpture and paintings in themselves, because this would be a contradiction to all that He has said elsewhere about the decoration of the Temple. It is wrong to assume that the second commandment forbids the Orthodox honoring of holy icons or other religious items. Orthodox Christians do not perceive icons as deities, but rather as reminders of spiritual truths – of God as He has appeared to Prophets, of the Incarnate Savior, of angels and miraculous biblical events. |
| Are all religious depictions idolatry? This is a question that plagued the Roman Empire near the end of the eighth century, and again in the ninth. And though our patristic forebears no doubt assumed this aversion to iconography was settled once and for all—as celebrated most pointedly on the Sunday of Orthodoxy near the beginning of Great Lent—the aniconic spirit reared its ugly head again in the Protestant Reformation. In my first article on this topic, I briefly examined the rhetoric of the Reformation and how this rhetorical style was used to influence the commoners on the subject of spiritual artwork: relics, icons, crucifixes, illuminated Gospel books, and so on. And while not all Reformers have the same position on this question, those who adopt the neo-iconoclastic notions of heretics past are most dependent on the arguments set forth by John Calvin. For Calvin, not only was the veneration of icons and other religious relics forbidden, but also their very existence and placement in the homes and churches of faithful Christians. His arguments rest upon two basic assumptions: 1. All images of God/gods are idols, and 2. Christian images are therefore indistinguishable from pagan idols. Let’s take a closer look. All Images of God are Idols As mentioned in the first post, the eleventh chapter of the first book of Institutes is where Calvin directly addresses the subject of religious imagery. He begins his discussion by explaining how the scriptures distinguish “the true God from the false” by contrasting him with “idols” (1.11.1). From this point of view, even images or statues meant to represent the one true God are idols, for they erect something other than God for mankind to direct their worship: God’s glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood whenever any form is attached to him. Therefore in the law, after having claimed for himself alone the glory of deity, when he would teach what worship he approves or repudiates, God soon adds, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor any likeness.” By these words he restrains our waywardness from trying to represent him by any visible image, and briefly enumerates all those forms by which superstition long ago began to turn his truth into falsehood. (1.11.1) |
| eccl. 6,2,2–6). Esa fue la primera «exhortación al martirio» de Orígenes. El libro que escribió sobre el mismo tema el año 235 demuestra que su entusiasmo no había cedido en nada. Sin embargo, en los capítulos 45 y 46 advierte, no sin intención, que este deseo del martirio no es compartido por todos. Había quienes consideraban indiferente que un cristiano sacrificara a los demonios o invocara a Dios bajo un nombre distinto al verdadero. Había otros que no veían crimen en consentir en el sacrificio mandado por las autoridades paganas, juzgando que basta con «creer en tu corazón.» Para esta clase de gente escribió Orígenes su tratado. La introducción de la obra hace pensar en el comienzo de una homilía. El autor cita a Isaías 28,9–11 y aplica estas palabras bíblicas a sus dos destinatarios, Ambrosio y Protecto. Su fe, sometida a prueba, ha sido hallada fiel. Les exhorta a permanecer firmes en las tribulaciones, porque, después de un corto tiempo de sufrimientos, su premio será eterno (c.1–2). El martirio es un deber para todo cristiano verdadero, porque los que aman a Dios desean unirse a El (c.3–4). La entrada en la bienaventuranza eterna se concede solamente a los que han confesado la fe con valentía (c.5). La segunda parte previene contra la apostasía y la idolatría. Negar al verdadero Dios y venerar a los dioses falsos es el mayor de los pecados (c.6), porque es una insensatez adorar a las criaturas en vez del Creador (c.7). Dios quiere salvar a las almas de la idolatría (c.8–9). Los que cometen este crimen entran en unión con los ídolos y serán severamente castigados después de la muerte (c.10). La tercera parte contiene la exhortación al martirio propiamente dicha (c.11). Se salvarán solamente los que llevan la cruz con Cristo (c.12–13). El premio será en proporción a los bienes terrenos que uno haya abandonado (c.14–16). Pues renunciamos a las divinidades paganas cuando éramos catecúmenos, no nos está permitido violar nuestra promesa (c.17) La conducta de los mártires será juzgada por todo el mundo (c.18). Por lo tanto, debemos aceptar cualquier clase de martirio, si no queremos que nos cuenten entre los ángeles caídos (c.19–21). |
| 8). Por consiguiente, cuando Tertuliano escribió este tratado no consideraba pecados irremisibles los pecados de fornicación e idolatría, sino susceptibles de perdón, como cualquier otro pecado. El De pudicitia demuestra que sus opiniones habían cambiado. Ahora afirma que, sobre todo, el pecado de fornicación es irremisible, pero también la idolatría y el homicidio. Del tono particularmente enfático que emplea Tertuliano en este libro se ha deducido que, anteriormente, en la Iglesia universal la costumbre era rehusar la absolución a esta clase de pecados, pero que en la época de Tertuliano sus adversarios empezaron a no reservar más que los dos últimos y a admitir a la penitencia a los culpables de fornicación. Pero esta conclusión no se apoya en las fuentes. La distinción de Tertuliano entre peccata reniissibilia e irremissibilia nos pone ante algo enteramente nuevo, sin precedente en la disciplina primitiva. Es en Tertuliano donde los tres pecados llamados capitales aparecen por primera vez formando grupo aparte. En el De paenitentia no aparecen aislados, ni tampoco en la literatura anterior se diferenciaban de los demás pecados. No se puede, pues, sostener que antes de Tertuliano se les considerara como irremisibles. El De pudicitia prueba solamente que en algunas comunidades iba ganando terreno la tendencia rigorista, debido a la influencia del montañismo, que afirmaba que la apostasía y el homicidio únicamente podían ser perdonados a la hora de la muerte, si es que podían serlo. Es interesante observar en este tratado que, para oponerse a estas tendencias, los católicos recurrían a argumentos sacados de la Escritura. Aducían el ejemplo de Cristo, que perdonó toda clase de pecados , hasta los de fornicación y adulterio. Tertuliano respondía sosteniendo que e] Salvador hacía esto en virtud de un poder exclusivamente personal, que no transmitió plenamente a la Iglesia: ¿No es verdad que el Señor, aun por sus mismos gestos, promulgó esta disposición en favor de los pecadores, por ejemplo, cuando permitió que le tocara su cuerpo la mujer pecadora, le autorizó que lavara sus pies con sus lágrimas, los enjugara con sus cabellos y comenzara su sepultura por la unción; o bien cuando a la Samaritana, que no era adúltera, estando casada por sexta vez. sino prostituta, le reveló quién era, cosa que raramente hizo a nadie más? Ninguna ventaja se sigue para nuestros adversarios, aun si (Jesús) hubiere concedido su perdón en estos casos a pecadores ya cristianos, porque decimos: Esto le fue permitido solamente al Señor (De pud. 11). |
|
|
