www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Militant Latins or Orthodox

When comparing icons to statues one should always remember that while we may have personal preferences, one is not holier or more sacred than the other.

Amen!

As an Eastern Christian I respectfully disagree. Icons are filled with divine energy because they are written as an act of prayer by the iconographer. Icons are a theological reality, while there is no theological tradition connected to the production of statues.

So are you saying that Western sacramental art, and the veneration thereof, does not impart grace? Or that they lack the holiness of the Eastern tradition?

Do Western Catholics hold, contrary to the teaching of Trent (cf. Council of Trent, 25th Session, Decree on the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and on Sacred Images), that divinity is present in icons?

I think you are using the word divinity in a different context that what the council is saying. The Council is saying not to worship Icons and Statues like gods, not that Statues and Icons aren't a source of Grace (Divine energy) for those who pray before them.

As an Eastern Christian I venerate icons because they are filled with divine energy (i.e., divinity) and power (i.e., virtue), which is precisely what Trent denies.

But Trent, as a Western Synod, is not binding upon Eastern Christians (Catholic or Orthodox), and so it is one of those many sad cases in history where the Latin Church misunderstood the doctrine of the Fathers.

I really think its just a different terminology for the same thing. It really just seems like an arguement over the semantics of whether or not the western Idea of Grace is equivalent to divine energy. I think here Trent is condemning people who pray to Icons and Statues as if they were gods just as the pagens did.

I do not agree that it is merely a semantical difference. Either divinity is or it is not present in icons.

As an Eastern Christian I hold that God as energy is present in icons.

Isn't that what Grace is though? God's presence in something?

Grace is divinity (i.e., divine energy).

So you admit its just a different terminology?

No. It is not merely semantical.

I simply stated that grace is God as energy, but I do not accept the Western Scholastic teachings on grace, because I do not believe in "created" grace.

Now it has already been pointed out that Trent denies that divinity is present in icons, but I affirm that divinity, i.e., the uncreated energy of God, is present in them. Clearly, this is not merely a semantical difference, either God Himself is present in icons or He is not.

Belief that Divinity, as such, is present in an Icon is a violation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:



If Divinity as such was present in an Icon, it could be given the full worship due to the Divine Nature, which the Council denies.

Leaving that aside, however, the fact remains that both East and West teach that the veneration of Sacred Images, whether Icons or statues, bring grace and true benefits to the faithful. There is a communication of Grace and Divinity via such images and their veneration, but the Divine Nature is not held within an Icon, as per Nicaea II.

Trent is simply stating again what Nicaea II did; it's practically a non-statement, really.

God acts through Icons, that much is certain, but we can't go too far in saying the Divine Nature, in Divine Energies, is present in Icons without violating universal Dogma. I, for one, wouldn't be too quick to pit a later stream of Eastern theological thought against an Ecumenical Council.

Peace and God bless!

Alas, you fail yet again to take into account the distinction between essence and energy. The essence or nature of God is not present in icons, but His uncreated energies are (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sixth Sermon on the Beatitudes). Thus, I am not in violation of the decrees of any ecumenical council, although I do dissent from the teaching of the Latin Church's particular synod at Trent on this issue.