Why statues are not used in the EOC?

[kx9]

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?

[LBK]

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

[kx9]

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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.


In the New Testament, certain changes were made under the New Covenant, such as the lifting of restrictions regarding Kosher foods, circumcision etc.

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

[kx9]

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to this post.

[LBK]

Some relevant quotes from St John of Damascus on why icons do not violate the Ten Commandments:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

Since the invisible God became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

[Alpo]

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to this post.

I'm not Catholic but IIRC Cardinal Ratzinger has written that the West never really received or adopted the Seventh Ecumenical Council. There is no concept of canonical iconography in the RC tradition and therefore they are free to use statues.

[Cyrillic]

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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.

"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

[LBK]

There was no outright prohibition of images for veneration in Jewish worship. There are numerous references in Scripture, and these images were ordained by God. They were prevalent in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18

On the curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1

On the veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31

Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1 Kings 6:23

On the walls—1 Kings 6:29

On the doors—1 Kings 6:32

And on the furnishings—1 Kings 7:29,36

In short, there were icons everywhere you turned.

Also, Jewish holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them. They contain illustrations of Biblical scenes, much like those found at the synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the church found nearby) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians destroyed that city. The earliest icons of the catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and icons of Christ. The dominance of Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a pagan practice Christianised by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians.

[kx9]

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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.

"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.
Also the Bronze serpent Moses made, was also ordered by God. So it is another exception.

We can't make images or statues for religious purposes without a specific commandment from God.

Please show me in the New Testament, a specific commandment by God that we can make and use images/statues of Jesus and the Saints.

[LBK]

kx9, is there anything in St John of Damascus' quotes I posted that you find problematic?

[Cyrillic]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

[walter1234]

Check 7th ecumenical council.

Orthodox Church depict saints in the Church, it just like Israelities in old testament who depict the angels in the temple of God.Orthodox honor the saint, not worship. Through honor the saints(e.g. the miracle works God manifested through His saints), we give the honors to God who is the source of all honor.

For the image of Jesus , the 7 th ecumenical council approved the Church to depict the  human nature of Jesus . Every man in this earth can be seen, drawn and depicted ,and the JESUS became the flesh/man 2000 years ago.Thus, the church can depict human nature of  Jesus.Depicting the Jesus in the icon is the confirmation of the incarnation of Christ.

[Cyrillic]

Check 7th ecumenical council.

Orthodox Church depict saints in the Church, it just like Israelities in old testament who depict the angels in the temple of God.Orthodox honor the saint, not worship. Through honor the saints(e.g. the miracle works God manifested through His saints), we give the honors to God who is the source of all honor.

For the image of Jesus , the 7 th ecumenical council approved the Church to depict the  human nature of Jesus . Every man in this earth can be seen, drawn and depicted ,and the JESUS became the flesh/man 2000 years ago.Thus, the church can depict human nature of  Jesus.Depicting the Jesus in the icon is the confirmation of the incarnation of Christ.

Pretty much. One correction though: "human nature" cannot be depicted. Persons can be depicted, though.

[LBK]

Pretty much. One correction though: "human nature" cannot be depicted. Persons can be depicted, though.

Hey, cut walter1234 some slack - he's not even Orthodox, and English isn't his native language, but his post shows a level of understanding that even many cradle Orthodox don't have. 

[theistgal]

As a Catholic may I just humbly point out that to those who believe  like the OP, both statues and icons are "images" forbidden by God, so both EO and RC are in the same image-worshipping hell-bound boat. ;-)

[domNoah]

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?

They have in the past,
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/01/more-russian-statues.html

http://www.sculpture.permonline.ru/

[Romaios]

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

[Romaios]

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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.

"Anything that is in heaven above" referred to the tseva'ot hashamayim ("the hosts of heaven"), that is the Sun, the Moon and the stars/planets, which surrounding peoples worshiped. The Hebrews called their God YHWH tseva'ot ("Lord of hosts") to show that he was superior to these celestial deities.   

"What is in the earth beneath" would be fertility (terrestrial/chtonian) deities, while "what is in the waters under the earth" - the gods of the sea and the underworld.

[kx9]

kx9, is there anything in St John of Damascus' quotes I posted that you find problematic?

Yes, I find it problematic... explanation given below.

Some relevant quotes from St John of Damascus on why icons do not violate the Ten Commandments:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

Since the invisible God became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

First of all, if John of Damascus had given this opinion based on what was written in the Bible, then it would be of consideration. But I feel that what he has said is just his opinion on something that is not written in the Bible.


It is best not to go beyond what is written.


Therefore it is not wise to quote someone when they have given their opinion on something which the Bible doesn't say or is silent on the matter.

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

[Asteriktos]

It is best not to go beyond what is written.

St. Paul disagreed (2 Thes. 2:15)

[Cyrillic]

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

Why do you put food in the microwave when the Bible hasn't given permission for it? Better not go beyond what's written.

[kx9]

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

Why do you put food in the microwave when the Bible hasn't given permission for it? Better not go beyond what's written.

You're making me laugh.

This is about religious matters, not our daily life.

[Romaios]

First of all, if John of Damascus had given this opinion based on what was written in the Bible, then it would be of consideration. But I feel that what he has said is just his opinion on something that is not written in the Bible.


It is best not to go beyond what is written.


Therefore it is not wise to quote someone when they have given their opinion on something which the Bible doesn't say or is silent on the matter.

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

Of course you know that Sola Scriptura is an (unbiblical!) principle neither of the two churches agrees with. It is a tenet peculiar to Protestantism and it does not go back any further than the Reformation.

Sola Scriptura is itself an opinion on which "the Bible is silent"...  

[walter1234]

Do bible permiss us to put the image/icon of cross in the Church?

[kx9]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

[kx9]

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?

They have in the past,
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/01/more-russian-statues.html

http://www.sculpture.permonline.ru/

Thanks for the links.


It is strange that the EOC allowed idols, then stopped it again.

[kx9]

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

[walter1234]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

[kx9]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol in Judaism.

[Cyrillic]

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ 

[Cyrillic]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

It isn't plain, really. It would be more obvious that the second commandment means that we're not allowed to create images to worship them.

[Romaios]

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

They might not have felt it necessary for it to be preserved in writing. That doesn't exclude the possibility of transmitting his portrait orally or by other means.

According to tradition, the oldest icons of Christ were the acheiropoietai - "not made by hand" ones, such as the mandylion Veronica used to wipe his face on his way to Calvary or the one Christ impressed his face on and had it sent to king Abgar of Edessa.

[kx9]

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ 

Where is that painting? I haven't heard of it.

[Cyrillic]

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ 

Where is that painting? I haven't heard of it.

Here's the story.

[walter1234]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.

I don't care  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

[kx9]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.

I don'tcare  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.

[Cyrillic]

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.

 

Where does it say in Scripture that we can use symbols? Better not go beyond what's written.

[kx9]

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ 

Where is that painting? I haven't heard of it.

Here's the story.

Good story. But I could not find that painting, or it written anywhere that he painted Christ.

[walter1234]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.

I don'tcare  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.

How do you identify an object is an image or a symbol? Where is the standard? I cannot find the standard it in the Bible.

No matter the cross that Protestant uses is a symbol or an image. The bible does not permiss the Church to put the image or symbol of cross in the church.This practice is beyond what's written.

[J Michael]

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.

I don'tcare  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.

How do you identify an object is an image or a symbol? Where is the standard? I cannot find the standard it in the Bible.

No matter the cross that Protestant uses is a symbol or an image. The bible does not permiss the Church to put the image or symbol of cross in the church.This practice is beyond what's written.

Sola Scriptura?

[freddief]

There was no outright prohibition of images for veneration in Jewish worship. There are numerous references in Scripture, and these images were ordained by God. They were prevalent in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18

On the curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1

On the veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31

Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1 Kings 6:23

On the walls—1 Kings 6:29

On the doors—1 Kings 6:32

And on the furnishings—1 Kings 7:29,36

In short, there were icons everywhere you turned.

Also, Jewish holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them. They contain illustrations of Biblical scenes, much like those found at the synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the church found nearby) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians destroyed that city. The earliest icons of the catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and icons of Christ. The dominance of Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a pagan practice Christianised by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians.

if the cherubim in the tabernacle/temple were 3-dimensional, the why no statues in orthodox churches?  also what evidence do you have that images in the tabernacle/temple were to be/were venerated?

[Frederic]

The best known counter-example is Isaakievsky Sobor in St Petersburg.

http://o-spb.ru/archives/69

It is more a traditional ban than a theological one.

[Wyatt]

Sola Scriptura?

Many seem to adopt that viewpoint when it's convenient.

[TheTrisagion]

if the cherubim in the tabernacle/temple were 3-dimensional, the why no statues in orthodox churches?  also what evidence do you have that images in the tabernacle/temple were to be/were venerated?

Veneration is the act of honoring or showing respect.  I think it is very clear from the OT that a great deal of respect and honor was shown to the items and images that were housed in the tabernacle/temple. I don't know of any Christian or Jew, iconoclastic or not, that would say that the ancient Hebrews treated the holy objects of the tabernacle/temple in a flippant or disrespectful manner.

Sola Scriptura?

Many seem to adopt that viewpoint when it's convenient.

If you read the whole thread, I think he was merely using the sola scriptura argument against the initial author who had first brought it up.

[J Michael]

Sola Scriptura?

Many seem to adopt that viewpoint when it's convenient.

If you read the whole thread, I think he was merely using the sola scriptura argument against the initial author who had first brought it up.

You could be right, but it didn't seem that way.

[LBK]

The best known counter-example is Isaakievsky Sobor in St Petersburg.

http://o-spb.ru/archives/69

It is more a traditional ban than a theological one.

One statue-filled church, built only about 300 years ago, does not prove anything.

[griego catolico]

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to this post.

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

[Shanghaiski]

Statues, like organs, altar girls, clean-shaven priests and bishops, cross-dressing monastics, and joint prayer services with Hindoos are very much the exception, not the rule. Doubtless, one can find anything in an Orthodox church, but that does not mean that such a thing belongs there or is a reflection of Orthodox tradition.

[Alveus Lacuna]

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

One church of thousands which shows obvious latinizations doesn't constitute any real Orthodox tradition.

[griego catolico]

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

One church of thousands which shows obvious latinizations doesn't constitute any real Orthodox tradition.

The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow shows obvious latinizations as well: outdoor statues, westernized iconography, depiction of God the Father as white-haired old man, etc.

[LBK]

There are indeed Orthodox churches and monasteries that use and venerate statues to the present day:

http://www.tervenichi.ru/terv_video/2012_08_28skit  (Video)

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2012_08_28skit

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/uspenskit2011

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009soborbm

http://www.tervenichi.ru/020_photohronyca/2009pokrov (Blessing of outdoor statue)

One church of thousands which shows obvious latinizations doesn't constitute any real Orthodox tradition.

The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow shows obvious latinizations as well: outdoor statues, westernized iconography, depiction of God the Father as white-haired old man, etc.

Erroneous exceptions don't make a tradition, as others have correctly pointed out. God the Father images have been consistently and frequently denounced by the Church as wrong and doctrinally unsound, but human nature, stubborn as it is, continues to perpetuate them.

[ialmisry]

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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.

"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.
Also the Bronze serpent Moses made, was also ordered by God. So it is another exception.

We can't make images or statues for religious purposes without a specific commandment from God.

Please show me in the New Testament, a specific commandment by God that we can make and use images/statues of Jesus and the Saints.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father.  How can you ask 'show us the Father?'"

Btw, in the OT it specifically says not to make a graven image because the Hebrews never saw any form on Sinai.  That changed, even before the Apostles beheld Him on Tabor.

To say that we need a specific commandment from God to portray Him in the Flesh is to deny the Incarnation.  The NT indicates such denial comes not from Christ but the Antichrist.

[ialmisry]

kx9, is there anything in St John of Damascus' quotes I posted that you find problematic?

Yes, I find it problematic... explanation given below.

Some relevant quotes from St John of Damascus on why icons do not violate the Ten Commandments:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

Since the invisible God became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

First of all, if John of Damascus had given this opinion based on what was written in the Bible, then it would be of consideration. But I feel that what he has said is just his opinion on something that is not written in the Bible.

Ah, and your "feelings" are the measure of all things, and not the mind of the Church?

It is best not to go beyond what is written.

The table of contents of the Bible wasn't written, so you "go beyond what is written" every time you appeal to Holy Scripture.

Therefore it is not wise to quote someone when they have given their opinion on something which the Bible doesn't say or is silent on the matter.

Show us where that is written in the Bible.

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

Because we glorify those whom God has glorified.

[Achronos]

Isa, what or whom is the Antichrist?

[theistgal]

Erroneous exceptions don't make a tradition, as others have correctly pointed out.

Maybe, but the problem is that every EO church I've ever visited has at least one of these "erroneous exceptions".

As has every EC church and every RC church, and btw I once saw a Free Will Baptist church with an icon of the Theotokos prominently displayed in their Nativity scene. (two erroneous exceptions for the price of one!).

Maybe the real answer is: there are no perfect churches this side of Heaven. But of course as Father Jack once said, "That would be an ecumenical matter!"

[Papist]

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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.

"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.
Also the Bronze serpent Moses made, was also ordered by God. So it is another exception.

We can't make images or statues for religious purposes without a specific commandment from God.

Please show me in the New Testament, a specific commandment by God that we can make and use images/statues of Jesus and the Saints.

Why? You don't believe that the Old Testament was inspired by God?

[lovesupreme]

kx9, I would remind you that neither the Old nor New Testaments describe the doctrine of the Trinity, yet you (presumably) hold to it. Don't you think that other aspects of the Christian faith also weren't written down?

[88Devin12]

Statues outside the Church? No problem...
Statues inside the Church? Problem...

Statues aren't bad, or evil, or blasphemous. But they shouldn't be inside a Church. Unless they are used to hold a relic for veneration, are kept vague and are essentially holy mannequins. Like (as a silly example) if there's a holy wristwatch worn by a Saint, I'd see no problem putting it on a statue of a hand and wrist.

In the Byzantine Rite... No statues, no organs, no westernized icons.
In the Western Rite... No issue with statues or westernized religious paintings, as long as they aren't treated or venerated like icons.

Also, reliefs, entablatures and engravings aren't an issue in the Byzantine Rite.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Why statues are not used in the EOC?