I was anathematized today

To those who persist in the heresy of denying icons, or rather the apostasy of denying Christ, and who are not counseled by the Mosaic law to be led to their salvation, nor convinced to return to piety by the apostolic teachings, nor induced by patristic … having cut themselves off from the common body of the Church, ANATHEMA.

This site has a helpful listing of the anathemas.  I actually want to walk through them one day as an exercise.  I am an iconoclast because God himself is the biggest iconoclast.

***Incidentally, this is one of the areas where the Moscow/NSA crowd actually gets it right rhetorically.  One of the reasons they are so dangerous is because they can write well in concrete terminology.  I believe we shouldn’t have icons because of Christ’s corporeal presence in heaven.   That’s well and good and a strong argument. I’ll admit, though, that it does not have the teeth of God’s saying to his angels, “Go trash my sanctuary.”

Advertisements

4 comments on “I was anathematized today

  1. Michael says:

    Anathema’s aside, I hope you don’t mind if I decide to avoid what could become a heated argument until after Lent. Let’s just say for now that while God might be the greatest Iconoclast (though in the verse referenced, the icons He is ordering the destruction of are those icons created on the sixth day- truly the greatest act of iconoclasm) He was also the one who commanded icons to adorn the the holiest part of the Tabernacle. I’ll check in on your response after Bright Week.

  2. John* says:

    Can I endorse Michael’s desire to avoid controversy during Great Lent.Can I therefore merely plant a few cognate questions for rumination during Lent, to be joined after Holy Pascha: I am not expecting a response until after Pascha.

    The basic question underlying all that follows is this: “Do we believe in the Incarnation (and hence the bodily Circumcision, the bodily Baptism, the bodily Ministry, the bodily trial and crucifixion and the bodily resurrection, and the bodily Ascension of Yeshua or do we not?” Is not this basic to all Lenten meditations?

    1: If Yeshua cannot be depicted in an Icon – in a material way with material gifts, must He not also never have Incarnated in a material way in a material body?

    2: Was not Iconoclasm the reappearance of Arianism in a new context with the Iconoclasts having as incomplete a Christology as did the Arians?

    With the collective Iconoclast “council” of 754CE being far worse than the individual Arius and his followers who never convened a “council” of this magnitude? And Iconoclasm also being a reiteration of the anti-Incarnational Rabbinic Judaism post 135CE together with the Islamic opposition to art depicting humanity?

    3: Were not the Iconodules of the seventh and eighth Councils (787CE & 879-880CE respectively) therefore merely reasserting the Incarnational Christology of the first three Councils (325CE ,381CE and 431CE)? And also that of the Gospels – especially as in John’s Prologue?

    4: If Icnonclasm is valid, what then do we do with the Holy Apostle Luke – an employee of the House of St Joseph of Arimathea and the author of the Gospel and Acts bearing his name – who was the Church’s first iconographer? Who started his Icon work during the lifetime of the all-Holy Theotokos (Mother of God) and after Yeshua’s ascension.

    5: Is not the Reformed opposition to Holy Icons merely a continuation of this Arianism in a new suit of clothes? With a comparable elision of all reference to Luke’s Iconography?

    There is clearly more to this, but I think that this will be enough for now.

    Blessings on your spiritually-enlarging spiritual pilgrimage through Lent.
    J.

    • You guys can avoid controversy if you want, but nobody is forcing you to comment here.

      ***1: If Yeshua cannot be depicted in an Icon – in a material way with material gifts, must He not also never have Incarnated in a material way in a material body? ***

      I didn’t make this argument. My specific argument was that his bodily session at the right hand of the Father creates Christological problems for iconodules.

      ***2: Was not Iconoclasm the reappearance of Arianism in a new context with the Iconoclasts having as incomplete a Christology as did the Arians? ***

      Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. I am not making the same arguments as the original iconoclasts, so I can’t be put in the same category.

      ***With the collective Iconoclast “council” of 754CE being far worse than the individual Arius and his followers who never convened a “council” of this magnitude? And Iconoclasm also being a reiteration of the anti-Incarnational Rabbinic Judaism post 135CE together with the Islamic opposition to art depicting humanity?***

      See above.

      ***3: Were not the Iconodules of the seventh and eighth Councils (787CE & 879-880CE respectively) therefore merely reasserting the Incarnational Christology of the first three Councils (325CE ,381CE and 431CE)? And also that of the Gospels – especially as in John’s Prologue?***

      I am sure they were, but that’s not my argument. It is a logical fallacy (at least in method if not in comment) to go from the statement that “matter is good” to the claim that we are warranted in making graven images (fallacy of the undistributed middle).

      ***4: If Icnonclasm is valid, what then do we do with the Holy Apostle Luke – an employee of the House of St Joseph of Arimathea and the author of the Gospel and Acts bearing his name – who was the Church’s first iconographer? Who started his Icon work during the lifetime of the all-Holy Theotokos (Mother of God) and after Yeshua’s ascension. ***

      I see that story as pious fiction and it has no normative authority.

      ***5: Is not the Reformed opposition to Holy Icons merely a continuation of this Arianism in a new suit of clothes? With a comparable elision of all reference to Luke’s Iconography?***

      No.

Comments are closed.