Author Topic: Iconoclastic Heresy  (Read 1674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dismus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Iconoclastic Heresy
« on: August 22, 2006, 10:14:08 PM »
Who was it that fought for the veneration of Icons?
Ironically was it not the POPE and the WESTERN Bishops? The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors?

Or am I wrong?

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2006, 08:31:52 AM »
You are correct, I do believe. See what good an Orthodox Pope did? Be nice if he came home.  ;)
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2006, 08:39:49 AM »
[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9822.msg132725#msg132725 date=1156336312]
You are correct, I do believe. See what good an Orthodox Pope did? Be nice if he came home.  ;)
[/quote]
But YOU have MISSED the POINT which DISMUS is MAKING Αριστοκλής.
It doesn't MATTER that the Pope at the TIME was Orthodox and in communion with the Church. What MATTERS is that HE was WESTERN.
If you NEED a HINT just LOOK at what SHE chose to CAPTITALIZE.  :D
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2006, 09:00:35 AM »
Oh. I guess my 'Popa' post is redundant as well.  :D

Dismus needs to kick back a little and relax some. I know I need to.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,552
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2006, 11:15:53 AM »
Dismus

Quote
Who was it that fought for the veneration of Icons?
Ironically was it not the POPE and the WESTERN Bishops? The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors?

Yes, the Patriarch(s) of Constantinople didn't do so well in that controversy, for the most part. Of course, Rome has also had her slip ups (the most famous probably being Pope Honorius being condemned by an Ecumenical/General Council for the heresy of monothelitism, though there are other examples). Everyone makes mistakes--and "everyone" includes more than two men in Constantinople and Rome.

There is a tendency in modern Catholic apologetics to reduce East-West relations in the ancient Church to Constantinople versus Rome. But when you read a fair and balanced accounting of Church history, it's obvious that the Rome vs. Constantinople thing was hardly a unique situation. I believe a case could be persuasively made that the ecclesiastical battle--the power struggle, the intriques, the deception, the condemntations, etc.--between Constantinople and Alexandria in the fourth and fifth centuries was every bit as acute as that of Constantinople/Rome in the 9th and 11th centuries. And then there were also a great number of ongoing controversies on a smaller scale, such as Jerusalem fighting Caesarea for the right to govern herself (which was not granted for nearly 300 years, after the Romans had demolished the city in the first century).

The tendency also misses the bigger picture: Constantinople was only a small part of the ecclesiastical jumble. I mean, I can understand why RC apologists (or e-pologists) make the distinction: Constantninople obviously fell into error much more often than Rome in the first millenium. However, when the break finally happened, it was not a case of Rome breaking with just Constantinople, or vise versa. It was a case of Rome breaking with all the East. One Patriarch broke with four Patriarchs.

It might be said, and not without some accuracy, that the entire west stayed with the Pope, and thus it was not just the Pope who was disagreeing with the Eastern Patriarchates. However, the Christians in the west had neither the independent political/ecclesiastical power, nor the theological ability (it was in the middle of the so-called "dark ages" of Europe, after all) to refuse Rome's whim. Most of the west had already bowed down to the Pope, and it's hard to stand back up when you are in a bowing position, because the man standing can deliver one swift kick and thwart all your best efforts. It is in this way that Rome forged her own destiny with the rebellions that would take place (not just the major one, the Protestant Reformation, but also minor skirmishes and anti-Roman councils, such as the one that began at Basle, and got morphed into the Ferrara-Florence Council). But I'm going way off course here...

I think you are both right and wrong. About the subject in particular, you are right that those in the West were generally more willing to defend icons than those in the East. However, the East was not without her defenders, such as St. John Damascene and Maximos the Confessor (though, admittedly, Maximos found the situation a bit intolerable and went to Rome... and who could blame him? They were doing things like putting defenders of icons in sacks and throwing them into the river to drown.) However, I think you are wrong if you are under the impression that this chapter in Church history can be used to demonstrate anything about Rome or Constantinople generally. It was one period in time, it was certain men, in certain cities, doing certain things, and saying certain things.
"Sow for yourselves unto justice; reap unto the fruit of life; enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge. Seek the Lord until the produce of justice comes to you." (Hos. 10:12 LXX)

Offline Dismus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2006, 12:27:45 PM »
Good Post.

Actually, the ironic part for me as I look at this is that the very ones who fought for this case, somehow did not make much of (or enough of) an influence on the ones that came after them.
If it was worth fighting for then why such a downplay of usage many years after the battle was won?

As far as the rest of the information, I think it only enhances my postition that both sides have been silly or wrong at different points in time and I don't think one can definatively say one side was less silly than the other.

Maybe all this stems from Cain and Abel. Who knows?
It just seems that being bowling partners is off on the horizion -- possibly too far off to even see at times.


Offline Dismus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2006, 12:30:02 PM »
[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9822.msg132728#msg132728 date=1156338035]


Dismus needs to kick back a little and relax some. I know I need to.
[/quote]

You must have been reading my mind. I'm getting a pedicure this afternoon!
That always helps me change my outlook on things! :)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2006, 12:30:27 PM by Dismus »

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2006, 04:06:14 PM »
You must have been reading my mind. I'm getting a pedicure this afternoon!
That always helps me change my outlook on things! :)

Maybe I should try that!
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,552
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2006, 04:08:00 PM »
Quote
As far as the rest of the information, I think it only enhances my postition that both sides have been silly or wrong at different points in time and I don't think one can definatively say one side was less silly than the other.

Oh, I agree that both sides were being silly...  ;D
"Sow for yourselves unto justice; reap unto the fruit of life; enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge. Seek the Lord until the produce of justice comes to you." (Hos. 10:12 LXX)

Offline Simayan

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2006, 08:59:25 PM »
Who was it that fought for the veneration of Icons?
Ironically was it not the POPE and the WESTERN Bishops? The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors?

Or am I wrong?

Theodora fought for their veneration, a Byzantine Empress.

So yes, thou art WRONG.
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."

Offline JoeS

  • (aka StMarkEofE)
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Global Warming Enthusiast.
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2006, 10:20:25 PM »
Who was it that fought for the veneration of Icons?
Ironically was it not the POPE and the WESTERN Bishops? The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors?

Or am I wrong?

Yes, you are correct and at that time Rome was in many ways more orthodox than the east, BUT the east did see the errors of its ways and it DID form a council to neutralize and defeat the Iconoclasts once and for all. 

Offline Panagiotis

  • Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
  • Advocating Liberty Since 1973
    • The Two-Cent Philosopher
Re: Iconoclastic Heresy
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2006, 01:09:18 AM »
St. Theodora. Incredible intercessor BTW.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises