2nd commandment, idols & deification

[Bob Hendry]

Hello,

I am new to the forum. If I ask a question that has already been beaten to death, please point me in the rignt direction. Thanks.

That said, my question has to do with the 2nd Commandment: how do you interpret it? I know that icons are very important to you - how do you square this tradition in light of the commandment?

Thanks.

Bob H.

[Irene]

Dear Bob,

I see you are Presbyterian, I was brought up in the Presbyterian Church. Welcome to Monachos.

Icons have been called windows into heaven, they bring our minds and hearts to God. Saint John of Shanghai and San Franscisco says "Iconography began on the day our Lord Jesus Christ pressed a cloth to His face and imprinted His divine-human image thereon. According to tradition, Luke the Evangelist painted the image of the Mother of God; and, also according to tradition, there still exist today many Icons which were painted by him. An artist, he painted not only the first Icons of the Mother of God, but also those of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and, possibly, others which have not come down to us." read the entire article here (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_discourse.aspx).

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
I brought my children up in the Orthodox Church 3 of them, twins and another 2 years younger on my own since my husband left me just before the third was born. My sister and brother-in-law have been having a little bit of trouble with their two babies and my father turned around and asked me how I managed on my own with the 3. I suddenly saw quite clearly God helped me all the way because there is no way I could have coped on my own.

People come to our Church as visitors, curious because they see the beauty of the Church or they hear the singing from the street and then they notice the children and not all are behaving but most are. The children stand through the services beside their parents. The children stand looking at the icons and thinking about God and Jesus looking at them every minute of the day.

My daughters will be turning 17 in two days time. They carry icons in their wallets. When look at the Holy Icons we think about the lives of the Saints in the Icons before us and we strive to better ourselves. We pray for our family, our friends, our neighbours and people we come into contact with. We pray for our enemies and we pray for those in misfortune and distress that their burdens be lessened and that they be strengthened. We remember that the Saints in the Icons prayed for all this and more and we try to do better.

Icons have been known to weep and they have been known to bleed. In our Orthodox Church I have never seen this happen. What I have seen happen is the myrhh streaming icons, icons with a beautiful fragrance that keep streaming oil. The Orthodox faithfull get annointed by this oil and take the cotton wool home. This cotton wool is kept in special containers or bowls or in icon frames. I have collected a few over the years. The earliest just after the birth of my daughters. I have some on my wedding icons and some in a bowl in front of the icons. The oil on the cotton still smells beautiful after all these years.

We have a copy of an icon in our lounge room that was so dark you could barely make out the features of the Mother of God. Now we can see the colour in the icon, there is red and blue and gold where there was just black and grey before and there is also depictions of two saints on the sides that we never knew were there.

My son has an old icon in his bedroom that was black and grey, I thought it was a kind of black and white icon. Now it is brightening and showing yellow and gold tones. There are small miracles all the time with icons.

Venerating Icons is not worshipping idols. We know they are paint and water and varnish. We use them as a tool to draw our heart and minds out of this world and into the next.

In Christ
irene

[Ken McRae]

Exodus 20:4-5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

Hi Bob,

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but how do you "personally" reconcile the 2nd commandment with the following scriptures?

01 ) Numbers 21:8 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."

02 ) Ex. 25:18": And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

"19": And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

"20": And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

"21": And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

"22": And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel."

03 ) Ex. 26:1 "Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them."

04 ) Ex. 26:31 "And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made:

"32": And thou shalt hang it upon four pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold: their hooks shall be of gold, upon the four sockets of silver.

"33": And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

"34": And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place."

05 ) Ex. 36:8 "And every wise hearted man among them that wrought the work of the tabernacle made ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work made he them."

06 ) Ex. 36:35 "And he made a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubims made he it of cunning work."

07 ) Ex. 37:7 "And he made two cherubims of gold, beaten out of one piece made he them, on the two ends of the mercy seat;

"8": One cherub on the end on this side, and another cherub on the other end on that side: out of the mercy seat made he the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

"9": And the cherubims spread out their wings on high, and covered with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another; even to the mercy seatward were the faces of the cherubims."

Btw, check out the following apology for icons by St. John of Damascus (http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/Joicons.htm).

In Christ's humility,
Theophilus

[Moses Anthony]

Thou shalt not worship any graven image!

This is reasonable , as no one, not even the prophet and God-seer Moses has ever seen the face of God.

What we know of, and about the Almighty is a matter of His self-revelation, that is if you believe that the knowledge of God is beyond human comprehension.

Enter the Incarnation, and "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...I and the Father are one." The Incarnation, if you will, is God's icon, His "window of heaven". There are so many icons in the world, that to worship an icon would (to me), be impracticle, and borders on making of humans a god regardless of their saintliness.

If it's not worship, then something else enters the realm of possiblity, and that as Irene has said is veneration. Remember the Old Testament prophets, and those who went out "in the spirit and power of Elijah", or the mighty men of David, men of renown, but who had "not attained to the exploits of 'the three'. The writer of Hebrews has said that "we have a mighty cloud of witnesses surrounding us, therefore let us run with patience the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus the author and perfector of our faith. These witnesses are none other than those who have gone before us, which through the historical record we have as examples of the faith,i.e., the saints. Therefore we give special recognition , we venerate them who have shown us the way to live so that we too might one day be an example to those who come after us.

Iconoclasm was something which rocked the Church off and on, for centuries until St.John of Damascus made his definitive apologetic, and icons were restored to the life of the Church once and for all.


the sinful and unworthy servant

[Ken McRae]

Bob,

Here's three more passages to consider, which have some bearing on the topic. The first two passages I submit more as contextual background for the third passage. In the first passage, we see that the saints will judge not only the world and all men, but the angels themselves. In the second passage, St. John the Apostle tells us that the saints shall be given to sit upon the throne of God, and in the third passage we're told that the children of wrath will be made to genuflect at the feet of the saints who sit upon the throne of God with Christ.

1 Cor. 6:1-3

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?"

Apocalypse 3:20-21 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Apoc. 3:7-9 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet ... etc."

Editiorial Addition:-

We learn from the Law that the Image of Angels was crafted into the Ark of the Covenant, the curtain(s) of the Holy of Holies, and other aspects of the Tabernacle. And we learn from 1 Cor. 6 that the saints shall judge the angels and that the children of satan shall "worship" at their feet. Thus if it is "lawful" to introduce the image of angels into the worship of God, how much more then the images of the saints who shall judge the angels?

And if the image of man, then the image of the God-man, Christ Jesus, who's the express "image" of the Father. As you know, I'm sure, Scripture teaches that he who has seen the Son has also seen the Father, for they are one:-

Heb. 1:1-3

"1": God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

"2": Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

"3": Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person ... etc.

This passage, (together with several others, like Philippians 2 [and the Gospel(s)], for example,) teaches us that all who honour Christ, that is, the "image" of the Father, in fact honour the Father himself: thus we infer that the respect shown to an image is in effect transferred to its Archetype. IOW, if I show disrespect to the Father's image, that's equal to disrespecting His Person.

Second Editorial Addition:-

The following essay on the Russian Iconostasis intimates that the Icon wall in the front of the Church that seperates the Inner Sanctuary from the outer is patterned after the Iconostasis Curtain of the original Tabernacle built by Moses, (according to the Divine Revelation received on Mount Sinai,) which seperated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Tabernacle.

The Iconography of the Russian Iconostasis (http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/iconostasis.html)

Lisa Kies (Ska Sofya la Rus)
ISU Honors Project
Spring 1996

Since the conversion of the Kievan Rus' to Christianity in the 10th century, the Russian Orthodox church has been one of the primary influences in Russian life. Icons are an important part of Orthodox rites, and the conversion of Rus' coincided with the peak of Byzantine development of icons. This brought the tradition of iconography into Russia where it was developed further as an expression of faith and a tool for instructing the faithful. The iconography of the iconostasis was particularly well developed by Russian Orthodoxy.

The iconostasis is an ancient part of the structure of an Orthodox church and divides the Sanctuary where the Eucharist is celebrated from the nave where the congregation stands. The Sanctuary symbolizes the spiritual man and the Divine world, while the nave represents the physical man and the human world, so the iconostasis represents the boundary between the two, showing the division between them and showing how they can be reconciled. The columns of the iconostasis represent the firmament dividing the spiritual from the sensory, while the horizontal beams represent the union between the heavenly and the earthly through the love of God. (Ouspensky and Lossky 1982.)

The early forms of the iconstasis varied from a solid low wall about chest high to a high latticework with a curtain on the Sanctuary side that was opened or closed during certain parts of the services. Later a triptych was added above it, consisting of a set of three icons: Christ flanked by the Virgin and John the Baptist. This was the form of the iconostasis that came to Russia. In Russia it developed further, until the 16th century, through the addition of more icons and more tiers until it reached it's present five-tiered form. (Ouspensky and Lossky 1982.)

The top tier is called the Patriarchs Tier or Forefathers Tier. It includes icons of saints from Abraham to Moses flanking an icon of the Old Testament Trinity (discussed below) and represents the original Old Testament Church, presaging the New Testament Church ... etc.

In Christ's humility,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 04 February, 2005)

[Antonios Spartan]

Hi,

I have an icon of the Holy Trinity (not the famous one with the three angels), but rather another one with a dove above Jesus and the Father, with the Father represented as an elderly man. I have read in one spot that having the Trinity with the Father represented as a man is not acceptable to the church. Is this true? I have had many deep spiritual moments with this icon and it is the one I kneel in front of when I do my morning prayers. I find that even before I read about this view from the church, I had a natural aversion to looking at the figure of the Father as an elderly man, and now even more so. Now I don't know whether I should replace it with another icon.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios,

I have also heard that it is unorthodox to represent the Father as a human figure in iconography. Nevertheless, I have commonly seen icons of the Holy Trinity as two men and a dove here in Cyprus, in fact there is one such above the iconostasis in my local church.

I am also a bit uncomfortable with representations of God the Father as a human, however dignified, wise and elderly. But I overcome the discomfort by reminding myself that the words "Father" and "Son" really describe a relationship between God and His Word, both of Whom are essentially mysterious Persons, one of Whom took on human flesh in the Incarnation. Therefore any representation of the Divine is just that: a representation, not a photograph.

I´m not a spiritual director, so do talk to your priest about your feelings re this icon. Nevertheless, my opinion, for what it´s worth, is that

"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Ps 50, v.17)

Therefore your prayer is acceptable to God if it is heartfelt and sincere, not because the icon before which you pray is not strictly speaking Traditional. Of course one can take this too far and it´s good to take time to think about Tradition and traditions and how to be faithful to the Holy Faith, but who can say that their prayer is perfect anyway?

ICXC
Byron

[Daniel Jeandet]

In Saint Nikolai's poetic inteperetation of The Lord's prayer, he describes God as immortal power and youth.

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is another take on the "two guys and a bird" icon. It is the opinion that the older man portrayed is NOT God the Father, but the "Ancient of Days", which is a term used in the Old Testament to describe the Christ. Therefore, although trinitarian in form, it is showing two aspects of Christ overshadowed by a conceptual image of the Holy Spirit, which implies the invisible presence of the Father, without actually portraying it graphically? I do not, however, even pretend to the authoritative word on the subject, it is just what I have read elsewhere.

[Janine]

I love that icon. I have one at home myself.

Byron, I love what you say about relationship.

Recently I read the following, so I'm going to put it here.

The first word of the prayer taught to us by Jesus and which, in a way, we
say with Him, in Him, in His Spirit, is indeed Father: _Pater hemon_ ("Our
Father"). Let us pause for a moment at this word which is truly the
first: "Father." It has a strange sound in our day. Contemporary man is
an orphan. He has no roots outside of time and space. He feels lost in an
infinite universe. Having descended from primates he moves toward nothingness.


He has been told that fatherhood within the family, or in a figurative
sense in society, is absurd and "repressive." Without a doubt, it is so if
it fails to convey a spiritual meaning of life: so many fathers are no
more than "begetters."


He has been told that "God the Father" is the enemy of his freedom, a type
of celestial spy, a sadistic, castrating father. One must admit that
historically, Christendom, in the East as in the West, at one time or
another has amply justified this accusation.


Thus, many now turn .... to a kind of interior science that ultimately
evokes an impersonal divinity resembling a sort of cosmic matrix. Yes, we
are _orphans_....The death of the father figure takes shape in our fear of
other people.


That is why, strangely enough, there is a growing nostalgia with regard to
this father figure, and why the Church teaches us this prayer that begins
with the word "Father."


This Father transcends sexual duality. St. John speaks of the "bosom of
the Father," while the entire Bible evokes the "bosom of mercy," _rahamin_,
in the sense of a womb: this father is motherly. He "senses" his children
as a mother "senses" her own, with her whole being, with her flesh and
within her bosom.


Nevertheless, he is called "Father." As this metaphor suggests, the
ultimate end is not assimilation but communion, a liberating communion that
enables us to make our way toward others.


Thus: "Father." How is this significant in our daily lives? it means
that we are never, ever, lost orphans at the mercy of the forces and the
circumstances of the world. We have a _recourse_, we have an _origin_
beyond time and space. This seemingly endless universe (though according
to Einstein time began with the "big bang" and space is curved and
contained) has its place within the word, the breath and the love of the
Father.


Olivier Clement, _Three Prayers_ (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary
Press, 2000) p 6&7

[Janine]

Bob Hendry:

Icons have often been compared to photographs of deceased loved ones. If you have a photograph, say, of your mother who has passed on, or another person dear to you... when you take it out and look at it, you may even kiss the photograph. Is this because you love the photograph? No, it's because you feel love for the person there, and what you kiss is the whole being of that person with your heart.

So, we don't worship icons. We understand that they are windows to the Person we worship, and to the eternity of all that is in that Being, like the photograph you understand is not the person that you love.

Also, "icon" has more meanings than simply the things you are thinking of. "Icon" is also something we each have inside of us: the image we are of our true selves in Christ we also consider "icon." Christ himself in the person of Jesus is also considered "icon" -- he is the "first priest" -- he is the image of ourselves as we are called to be like him. Icon has many different meanings and layers and ramifications to it. If you think about it, the beauty of the world around us is also "icon" as it's a gateway to the beauty of God, to the immanence of God -- his goodness, truth and beauty in all of his Creation.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

You wrote "But I overcome the discomfort by reminding myself that the words "Father" and "Son" really describe a relationship between God and His Word, both of Whom are essentially mysterious Persons, one of Whom took on human flesh in the Incarnation. Therefore any representation of the Divine is just that: a representation, not a photograph."

Not that you have- but I think we have to be careful here not to bring any psychological concepts into our understanding of the Holy Trinity. When the Holy Fathers theologically explained the significance of how "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" refer to the Persons of the Holy Trinity certainly they referred to the interpersonal relationships between the Divine Persons. But much more than this the names Father, Son & Holy Spirit refer to objectively distinct Divine Persons. In other words when we say about a human mother & child that the words "mother & child" describe their relationship this is correct- but we must not overlook the fact that the word 'mother' does not describe the nature or person of the individual woman since a woman can still exist without being a mother. But the Names "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" refers first to the distinct Persons Who encompass their Personal relationships. So the names Father, Son & Holy Spirit do not psychologically refer to a relationship- rather they describe the actual Holy Trinity: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. And it is this which defines their relationship.

Secondly I would say that a representation is a photograph in the sense that an icon seeks to faithfully depict Divine reality. Of course we know that we never (especially in regards to God) completely know or exhaust this meaning- especially in regards to God. But we do know, in so far as we are capable of this in a limited way, & what we know is a faithful experience of the Divine reality. So in this sense the icon is a photograph. (Actually much more since through the icon we participate in Divine grace- whereas a photo can only be an outward depiction of who or what is being photographed). And this is precisely why an icon must be a faithful representation of the original & not subjective.

I say this not as any criticism of what is being mentioned in this thread but only to make a few points to consider.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Janine]

"Photograph" is a metaphor, Fr. Raphael

[Daniel Jeandet]

Once I kissed my icons and I really knew, in that simple, devastating way, that I was really touching the saints depicted. By the way, we do not have to venerate icons, but we cannot reject the veneration of icons. A really good book to read is "Iconostasis" by, I think, Paul Florovsky.

[Bob Hendry]

Wow - you folks are tough! I just asked a simple question, expecting a simple answer in response; but no, you folks are doing your best to FORCE me to think things through. Phew!

Seriously, I indeed appreciate all of your responses, It will take some time for me to peruse each of your posts and respond. (Oh yeah, and to think about them all a bit . . .)

Some years ago, I had a great deal of trouble coping with stess and anxiety. A freind recommended Transcendental mediatation - and I tried it. To my surprise, it was of great help. To this day, when I close my eyes and touch my thumbs to my middle fingers, I can feel the relaxation flowing through my body. Is this not the same sense of 'relief' that some of you have expressed by looking at/meditating on icons of the saints? A conditioned reflex?

I am beginning to understand the practice of intercessory prayer via the saints, and even Mary. I have absolutely no qualms abouting asking my friends and acquaintences for prayer - but I am not sure why I consider asking the saints in heaven to interceede on my behalf to be unacceptable?? (brain cramp?)

I should have been more clear in my original question regarding the 2nd Commandment. I understand that the doctrine prohibits adoration of, or idolizing, the object. Whether or not folks do indeed idolize, is another question. My concern is with the prohibition against the making of images.

I understand that the Orthodox Bible is based on the Septuagint. Can any of you point me toward an authorotative English translation of either Numbers 20 or Deuteronomy 5 from the Septuagint? My perspective is based on the King James Version, which commands that images shall not be made. Period. And that they not be worshiped. Next period. I have no issue with part two.

Again, thank you all for taking the time to respond. I am learning!

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Antonios Spartan]

Thank you everyone. Your insights have been very helpful. For now, I will continue to pray before the icon and pray to God that He could forgive my ignorance. I will also ask my priest for guidance.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Janine]

Hi again Bob. Here's an excerpt from a webpage of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America on the Second Commandment. I hope it helps in some way. BTW, if you enjoy meditation, you may want to consider learning to practice the Jesus Prayer as something you will enjoy and find very helpful.

The Second Commandment
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Ex. 20:4-6.

The Second Commandment is a continuation of the First in guiding the believer not to have for himself a graven image. This utterance is given to protect the believer from the temptation to create images and thus ignore the True God. Some believers worship the means of their own creation, which in itself becomes an idol and graven image. In the religious life of a Christian there are many objects and gestures which absorb his attention and devotion. The Second Commandment forbids anything in Heaven above and the earth beneath from replacing the pure faith in the One Lord. Knowledge, skill, money and works also can become graven images if they are not put to their proper use, that of serving and nourishing the pure faith in the One Lord and God.

This commandment does not prohibit the use of icons or other objects of the Church. These objects help the faithful Christian to express his true faith in God; the believer does not "bow down to them or worship them." The tabernacle with cherubic pictures on the curtains and sculptured cherubs was not considered idolatry, as it is mentioned in Exodus 36:35-38. The use of statues of a non-existing deity in worship is considered idolatry because the worshipper "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles" (Romans 1:23) (cf Psalm 135:15-18).

from
The Ten Commandments (http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article7115.asp)

[Janine]

BTW I understand that prohibition against the likeness of anything that is in "heaven" here means the same as "sky" as it does in Greek. The Greek word "Ouranos" is "sky" as well as "heaven", and this is the primary definition of the plural Hebrew word "shamayim" used here as well (as in "the heavens"). (I think "shams" means sun in Arabic, that's an interesting tie.) Since it's in context of anything on the earth, etc. and since we have the example of the golden calf that was worshipped I think this is referring to images of creatures to be worshipped. This primary definition of "heaven" (or really more accurately, "the heavens" - shamayim) would explain why the cherubs in the tabernacle as mentioned in Exodus were not considered idolatry.

(Message edited by Janine on 04 February, 2005)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

"Photograph" is a metaphor, Fr. Raphael"

I was sure I had a photo of the Holy Trinity somewhere. Hmmm... I wonder where it went?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Janine]

LOL Father Raphael

It just occurred to me, does this mean that the whole of Michaelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel is some kind of problem for some people? I guess that's a dumb question. I just think it's spectacularly beautiful. It just speaks to me of worship, although it's not icon in the sense that Orthodox icons are.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Bob Hendry asked,


"To this day, when I close my eyes and touch my thumbs to my middle fingers, I can feel the relaxation flowing through my body. Is this not the same sense of 'relief' that some of you have expressed by looking at/meditating on icons of the saints? A conditioned reflex?"

The two experiences you have described are quite distinct. The first is a feeling of peace we can experience by calming down, concentrating calmly on some beautiful object or by doing some sort of peaceful activity.

When we venerate an icon however we experience the grace of that saint or the Grace of Christ. And this grace may act differently at different times- it may draw us to venerate the saint, to ask for their intercession, or to emulate their life. So this is a 'spiritual experience' because it is a participation in grace.

The first experience you describe however is psychological; it is from within oneself & is not necessarily connected to the experience of grace, even though it may not be harmful.

There is a great emphasis in Orthodoxy on the subject of experience precisely because it is so easy to mistake the subjective experience for the experience of grace. Orthodoxy warns about this continually. The danger is that the psychological experience can be so pleasureable one mistakes this for grace which always & only operates in the ascetic condition of humility. And precisely because there is nothing much pleasurable about this humble life of taking up one's cross it is easy to see how easily one can fall into desiring pleasureable experiences instead of pursuing an actual life in Christ. One could go on at great length about this crucial topic in the Orthodox spiritual life- but suffice it to say that icons fit into an ascetic context of humility & a life in Christ from within the Church.

Something that may interest you is that the iconographer (the icon painter) is taught by a teacher who has mastered iconography not only in a technical but chiefly in an ascetic-spiritual sense. The iconographer learns iconography while fasting & praying & while humbly learning from a teacher. This is actually what makes what we venerate an icon for otherwise no matter how noble or religious the theme it would only be a religious picture if it was not painted in this fashion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Janine]

That's very beautiful Father Raphael. Thank you.

I should add that when I suggested you learn about the Jesus Prayer, Bob, I did not mean to suggest that it is the *same* as TM or a mere stress-relieving technique. The Jesus Prayer is a meditation prayer practice, but it is one that works to help us to be "Christ-centered". It is not a psychosomatic technique, although as a component it does help the mind to be occupied in order to help us in worship. It is part of worship and spirituality -- the same way as Father Raphael has described how icons help us to experience grace & the relationship inherent in that grace.

[Bob Hendry]

It just occurred to me, does this mean that the whole of Michaelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel is some kind of problem for some people?

Bingo! In fact, many protestants struggle with this - which is why I posed the question. I indeed struggle with it. There have been times when I have been tempted do destroy all photographs in my posession, and to cut-out and burn all images of diety in my bible. But I didn't. Why? That's partly why I'm searching . . .

Father Raphael,

Interesting concept - a photo of the Trinity. But since no man can see the face of God and live, whose 'image' can we put in the photo? The artist's rendition? And, whose image of Christ did Michaelangelo envision while paintint the dome? Is it spiritually honest to present an image on an all powerful but unseen Godhead?

This question has kept me from seeing the Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ. This, I know, is not a very widely help position.

Janine: thanks for the link to the Greek Archdiocese of America page. Most interesting and helpful. Perhaps, after reading it, my spurious questions will subside . . .

Thanks again,

Bob Hendry

[Janine]

Hi again Bob.

First of all, you have to go to Orthodox theology to understand our perspective on icon and "image" of God. All of Orthodox theology is based on apophatic thinking -- meaning that Orthdoxy does not accept generally speaking that God can be spoken of or absolutely defined in positive statements -- because we cannot possibly know God in all God's reality, aspects, completeness, eternity and infinity, etc etc. We can more honestly speak of what God is *not*, but positive statements usually come in the form of what we call "economia" -- that is, what is expedient for now, but with the understanding that we do not have the fullness of understanding. Therefore icons are not pictures - they are windows to eternity, to help us in our relationship to it. I'm probably not explaining that real well, I can find you some webpages that explain better. And I'm sure others here like Fr Raphael and others can refine that some more.

Icon is a window, not a photo (Father Raphael was teasing me http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif). So you have to understand first of all that we do not see icon as a photograph. It is a window to the Person and all that means, which can only be experienced via grace, as Father Raphael has written. Also, we say icons are "written" not painted, to indicate this. So, an icon is not the same thing as the paintings on the Sistine Chapel.

[Theopesta]

hail, the english translation of lxx (septugenta) on the net on:www.onlinebible.net/downloads (http://www.onlinebible.net/downloads). thanks

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Bob Hendry wrote,


"Interesting concept - a photo of the Trinity. But since no man can see the face of God and live, whose 'image' can we put in the photo? The artist's rendition? And, whose image of Christ did Michaelangelo envision while paintint the dome? Is it spiritually honest to present an image on an all powerful but unseen Godhead?"

As pointed out previously iconography is based on the fact of Christ's Incarnation. This does not mean that the icon does not refer to the unseen & pre-eternal Divine Word but rather that we can only know the Divine Word through the One Incarnate Person of Christ. And because Christ is Incarnate He is representable.

It is through Christ that we have come to know the Holy Trinity. Of course not in its fullness but we are after all able to become sons of the Father through Christ & in the Holy Spirit. So we can refer to the Holy Trinity in icons. One of the most beloved of these is the icon called The Hospitality of Abraham. This is based on when Abraham in the Old Testament offered hospitality to the Three Angels. These Three are seen as images of the Holy Trinity.

So that these are true images or icons we have icons that are governed by canonical rules. That is so the image is not just a religious picture coming from the artists' subjective impressions.

This thread has helped me to see something about what makes an icon 'true' that I had not noticed before. The icon is 'true' because it faithfully reflects the Divine reality of what it represents. The icon however is also 'true' in the coinciding sense that it represents that which God enables & calls us to perceive in the Divine. If the icon represents too much or too little it is not an icon because it is not a true window but rather a distorted one.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bob Hendry]

Fr. Raphael,

Thank you VERY much for your enlightening response. It has been most helpful to me, as have all the other responses in this thread. I am humbled by the love and compassion demonstrated here. I'm glad I stopped by!

I think I am beginning to grasp what so many of you have been telling me - (dah!). When I read of the incredible majesty, power, and glory of out almighty God in His word, I conjer up visual images of Him in His steadfst glory. The icon then is a carfeully constructed image of that vision? Much as the "words" are 'windows' into heaven, the icons graphically portray the same vision; much as a map is a visual representation of a portion of the earth's surface??

I wish you all a wonderful weekend. The snow has stopped falling here in Southern Maryland, and the forecast is calling for temps in the high 50's over the weekend.

Please pray for me, and for the success of my search for Truth. I desire only to glorify God the Father, and Christ Jesus His Son, and the Holy Ghost, as fervently, obeidently, and faithfully as I possibly can; and to lead my family to a similar objective.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Janine]

Peace to you Bob!

Janine

[Irene]

You can be sure that we'll be praying for you Bob. .......Irene

[Bob Hendry]

Theophilus,

Exodus 20:4-5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

Hi Bob,

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but how do you "personally" reconcile the 2nd commandment with the following scriptures?

01 ) Numbers 21:8 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."

The references that you have listed all appear to be related to the ceremonial law. As I noted in an earlier response, the cerimonial law was completely fullfilled in Christ and abolished in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

I am deducing that they are part of ceremonial law as they do not seem to be Civil or moral law. (Help, anyone??)

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Bob,

I think the point that Theophilus was trying to make was that the 2nd commandment was not viewed as a strict prohibition against images per se. He supported this point with numerous references to Scripture in which God commanded images to be made, whether that of a serpent, the cherubim, etc. From these Scriptures we can see that the 2nd commandment was not interpreted as a strict prohibition against images, but rather as a prohibition against idolatry.

Aaron

[Ken McRae]

"My concern is with the prohibition against the making of images." - Bob H.

"The references that you have listed all appear to be related to the ceremonial law. As I noted in an earlier response, the cerimonial law was completely fullfilled in Christ and abolished in 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem." - Bob H.

"I am beginning to understand the practice of intercessory prayer via the saints, and even Mary. I have absolutely no qualms abouting asking my friends and acquaintences for prayer - but I am not sure why I consider asking the saints in heaven to interceede on my behalf to be unacceptable??" - Bob H.

Hi Bob -

Take your time working through it all. I know from experience just how overwhelming information overload can be.

As Fr. Raphael notes, the theology of Iconography is based on the Incarnation of Christ, and thus Iconoclasm, as it was addressed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, falls under the category of "Christological" error. This is explained in an Orthodox work entitled, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0913836273/qid=1107561128/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-5513609-2744700). In basic terms, then, Iconoclasm, according to Orthodox teaching, is tantamount to a denial of the Incarnation, or at least the broad dogmatic implications underlying it.

Yes, Bob, I stand in basic agreement with you concerning the ceremonial law. However, Aaron has correctly discerned my intent. I desired you to observe that the right use of images in the worship of God is permitted by the second commandment. As Aaron observes, this is implicitly self-evident from the blue-print that God provided Moses, for the Tabernacle, which explicitly commands the incorporation of "holy images" into His divine worship. This is a fundamental principle that must be established at the outset; as it also lays the ground-work for the New Testament experience and theology of "Image".

While the Ceremonial Law has passed away, neither Scripture nor Tradition forbids the use of ceremony in New Testament worship. This is fundamental as well. Otherwise there would be no place for sacraments in the Church, as they are essentially ceremonial in nature; or a "Christian" sabbath, for that matter. Scripture is quite clear that the early Jerusalem Church continued worshipping God in the Temple, right along side of the Jews; and concerning St. Paul's continued observance of Passover and Pentecost, long after his Christian conversion. This argues for, or on behalf of the legitemacy of "Christianized" ceremonies and rituals.

Thus do we read in Acts 13:2 of St. Paul "ministering" unto the Lord, which word in the original language literally translates as "doing liturgy" unto the Lord; which itself denotes "ceremony". Evidence abounds to show that the nature of Christian worship was "liturgical" from the very beginning, with all that implies; as opposed to some form of unstructured, "free-style" or spontaneous worship "in the Spirit", after the manner or practice of 17th century English Quakers.

More to the point, though: the Old Testament Tabernacle and worship was patterned after the heavenly Tabernacle and reality, according to Hebrews: "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (9:23-24)." While the Old Testament model passed away with, or more accurately, was fulfilled and transfigured by the advent of the New, nevertheless the heavenly Tabernacle abides forever, and continues as the mystery and model upon which the earthly is patterned. And most of what we know about the heavenly Tabernacle derives from the Church's living experience and knowledge of the Mosaical, as transfigured in Christ.

With regard to the question of praying to saints, or rather, importuning them to pray for us, much can and needs to be said. First, it must be generally observed that St. Paul teaches that we can do all things through Christ Jesus who strengthens or enables us. That is to say, we must not try to fathom this mystery according to worldly wisdom, but according to mystical life in Christ.

The holy Fathers teach us that in Christ, God became man that man might become God. This is the summary teaching of Orthodoxy on salvation. Human nature was deified through hypostatic union with the Eternally Begotten; and thus in Christ it is capable of things impossible for fallen humanity. Whatever the humanity of Christ is capable of in union with his divinity, represents the potential of all humanity in mystical union with Him, through the uncreated energies of His Holy Spirit.

If the humanity of Christ is capable of bi-locating, or similtaneously appearing in two or more places at the same time, then each and all of the saints are capable of this as well, through the infinite power of God. Most of all, though, we must not confine glorified saints in eternity to the three-dimensional limitations of time and space. That would be carnally minded of us, and not according to the "super"natural life in Christ.

By carnally minded, I mean viewing it according to "natural" laws, and a purely "natural" way of thinking, after the wisdom of this world. The spiritually minded strive for wisdom not of this world, but that which is born of a supernatural faith in the Eternal Word, Who walked on water, raised the dead, appeared and disappeared before eye-witnesses, ascended upon a cloud with an angelic host, and Who will return again, in a similar manner, upon the clouds, to usher in a New Eden, or a New Heaven and a New Earth. It is nothing for this Word to effect the bi-location of his saints, empower them to know our needs, hear our prayers, and assist in our salvation by their prayers.

"Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." - 1 Cor. 2:5-10

(Message edited by theophilus on 06 February, 2005)

[Ken McRae]

The Tomos of Mount Athos
In Defense of the Hesychasts


AGAINST THOSE WHO, BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND OF FAITH IN THE SAINTS, DENY THE MYSTICAL ACTIVITIES OF THE SPIRIT WHICH, IN GREATER WAYS THAN SPEECH CAN EXPRESS, ARE AT WORK IN THOSE WHO LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPIRIT AND WHICH, THOUGH MANIFESTED IN DEEDS, HAVE NOT YET BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY WORDS.


Teachings that today are daily discussed and common knowledge to all, that are proclaimed with complete freedom, were at one time the mysteries of the Mosaic Law and forseen in the Spirit only by the prophets. The good things promised to the saints in the world to come, however, are mysteries of the Gospel life and are given to and seen beforehand only by those whom the Spirit has made worthy of seeing - and even then only in moderation and, as it were, in partial earnest. Just as the Jew of ancient times would not have gladly listened to the prophets saying that God's Word and Spirit were co-eternal with Him and from before the ages, but would have thought that he was hearing opinions forbidden by piety and opposed to the confession of the devout, by which we mean: "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4);" just so might someone who had not listened reverently feel today regarding the mysteries of the Spirit which are known only to those who have purified themselves for the sake of virtue. But, just as the fulfillment of the prophecies proved that what were mysteries before were in full agreement with what later was made manifest - such that now we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, divinity in three persons, a single simple nature, uncomposed, uncreated, invisible and incomprehensible - so, too, the mysteries of the age to come have been unveiled in our own time in accordance with the inexpressible manifestation of the one God in three perfect Persons, and these latter mysteries shall be shown forth as in harmony with everything that has already been revealed.

We are therefore obliged to consider that, just as the Three-Personhood of the Godhead was later made manifest to the ends of the earth ( with the unity of the Godhead inviolate because of the Father's Monarchy ), but was clearly recognized by the prophets before the events of the Incarnation and was accepted without difficulty by those who believed in them, thus, in the same way, neither do we now avoid confessing the teachings of those things that are proclaimed boldly by the saints made worthy of mystical revelations in the Spirit. Some are initiated into these things by the experience itself. They are as many as have not only renounced the ownership of things for the sake of the Gospel life, and the good opinion of other men, and the doubtful pleasures of the flesh, but have as well confirmed their renunciation by submission to those who have arrived at maturity in Christ. For, having exclusively applied themselves in retreat and in heart-felt prayer to God, they have gone beyond themselves, have entered into God by means of that mystical union with Him that transcends even the intellect, and have been initiated into what is beyond intellection. Others, though, have learned of these things through their reverence for such men, their trust in them and devotion. This is the example that we too follow who listen to what the great Dionysius says in his second epistle, "To Gaius." We are persuaded that God transcends his own gift of deification, that He Who transcends divinity and deity and goodness is also beyond that grace which He bestows on those who are worthy. For God suffers no multiplication. No one says that there are two divinities. Yet, as the divine Maximus says concerning Melchizedek, the deifying gift of grace from God, Who is eternally, is itself revealed as uncreated and existing forever. The same saint often says elsewhere that it appears to the worthy (whenever they do indeed become worthy of it) as an ingenerate and personal light, but never as something created for the occasion. The same also calls this phenomenon the light of ineffable glory and the purity of the angels. The great Macarius calls it in addition the food of the bodiless powers and the glory of the divine nature, the beauty of the age to come, divine and heavenly fire, light ineffable and intelligible, the earnest of the Holy Spirit, the unction of joy which makes us holy.

Therefore, whoever ranks those who call this deifying grace uncreated, unbegotten, and personal, with the Messalians, or else calls them di-theists, whoever this person may be, let him understand that he opposes the saints of God and that, unless he repent, he has cast himself out of the inheritance of the saved and fallen away from the One Who alone is by nature the God of the saints. But, whoever believes in and is persuaded by and agrees with the saints, and who does not make up excuses for his sins, this person will not reject what the saints have clearly said merely because he is ignorant of it. Let him rather, as not knowing the manner of the mystery, not think it unworthy of himself to ask and learn from those who do know. He will learn that there is nothing in these things that is inconsistent with God's word and deeds, but that they are most necessary, and that without them nothing whatever would exist, nor would there be any mystery at all adequate to God.

( Quoted from 'The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain' (http://www.eighthdaybooks.com/cgi-bin/virtualcatalog/CatalogMgr.pl?cartID=b-8360&SearchField=partnumber&SearchFor=0178&template=Htx/item.htx), translated by Hieromonk Alexander [Golitzin], pp. 111 - 113 )

(Message edited by theophilus on 07 February, 2005)

[Ken McRae]

"We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory." - 1 Cor. 2:7


Hi Bob ~

Concerning the case of conscience on importuning the saints in glory for their intercession, the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man may have a lesson or two for us to learn. I assume everyone here is quite familiar with it.

In this parable, Christ teaches us of spiritual mysteries hard for the natural mind to accept. We see the Rich Man in hell importuning not God, but Father Abraham to pray to God for him, that Lazarus might breach the gulf by his presence and bring some relief from the flames. We ought to understand from Abraham's reply that the Rich Man was insincere in his prayer, and sought the suffering of Lazarus in the lower regions, as much as his own relief from the Consuming Fire.

Here are some things to consider, though. How is it that he prayed to Father Abraham and not God? How is it that Father Abraham even heard his prayer? How is it that he did not rebuke the Rich Man for not directing his prayer directly to God himself, but rather to man? Did he say it was impossible for Lazarus to appear to the Rich Man's brothers, or even unlawful? Or just that his brothers, because of their "carnal-mindedness" and blindness of heart, would not believe their eyes and ears, nor receive the warning?

Let us apply our hearts to understanding this parable, so steeped in the wisdom that confounds the wise, and may the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation enlighten us in the ineffable mystery of godliness.

In the Wisdom of Christ,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 07 February, 2005)

[Bob Hendry]

Theophilus,


". . . the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man may have a lesson or two for us to learn. I assume everyone here is quite familiar with it. . ."

I have always been facinated and tormented by this passage. I frequently dream that my deceased brother is the rich man and I am Lazarus . . .

Do you know of a solid online Orthodox or Catholic commentary on Luke 16, or the Bible?

I have several - which to my knowledge, are all protestant, and therefore, probably not acceptable to the Orthodox community?? There are a number of passages for which I would like to understand the Orthodox AND the Catholic perspectives.

Thanks - In Chirist,

Bob Hendry

[Antonios Spartan]

Hi Bob,

After reading your last message, by divine providence I happened upon this site and found something that may interest you:

here (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.00.htm)

In Christ,
Antonios

[Antonios Spartan]

Oops, I mean Divine Providence...

forgive me

[Ken McRae]

Here's something to get you started, Bob, and if I come upon more, by God's grace, I'll add it to this post.


The Haydock Bible Commentary (http://angeluspress.org/sacred_scripture.htm)

Fr. George Leo Haydock

A large-print Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible with a comprehensive Catholic commentary and an illustrated Catholic Bible Dictionary and History of the Books of Holy Scripture. This 2-volume set is the jewel of all Bibles available today in English. This version was reproduced from the 1859 edition. Fr. Haydock’s explanation and commentary make up about a third of every page. A thoroughly handsome gift book necessary for homes, schools, and libraries.

=>> The first four passages below are selected from pages 1376-1377 of the above Commentary.

01 - "Divers interpreters have looked upon this (parable) as a true history; but what is said of the rich man 'seeing' Lazarus, of his 'tongue', of his 'finger', cannot be literal: souls having no such parts. In this parable, which St. Ambrose takes to be a real fact, we have the name of the poor mendicant ... etc." ( Comment on vs. 19 )

02 - "It was an ancient tradition of the Jews, that the souls of the just were conducted by angels into paradise. The bossom of Abraham ... was the place where the souls of the saints, and departed patriarchs, waited the arrival of their Deliverer." ( Comment on vs. 22 )

03 - "It appears from Philo, ( de Execrat. p. 9, 37 b. ) that the Jews not only acknowledged the existence of souls, and their state of happiness or misery after this life, but also that the souls of the saints and patriarchs interceded with God for their descendents, and obtained for them the succour they stood in need of." ( Comment on vs. 25 )

N.B. I have'nt had time to track down this quote from Philo, but here below are some Philo links, nontheless, which may contain its source. I'm not sure if the reference source is available in English translation yet.

=>> Resource Pages on Philo of Alexandria (http://www.torreys.org/bible/philopag.html)

=>> Philo's Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/)

=>> Philo's Writings (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html)

04 - "They would say that the dead man (i.e. Lazarus) was a phantom; that his resurrection was not real; his assertions nugatory. When Christ raised Lazarus (i.e. brother to Mary and Martha) from the dead, the miracle was known, evident, and public; yet we find none of the Pharisees converted by it. They were even so mad as to enter into a design to kill Lazarus, to get rid of a witness who deposed against their incredulity." ( St. John Chrysostom's Fourth Homily; Comment on vs. 31 )

=>> An Orthodox Homily (Commentary) by Blessed Theophylact (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/theo_laz.aspx)

05 - "This is a parable and not, as some have foolishly imagined, something which actually occurred. For good things have not yet been allotted to the righteous, nor punishments to the sinners. The Lord, then, fashioned this story to teach those who show no mercy and give no alms what punishments await them, and to teach those who are suffering what good things they will enjoy on account of the sufferings they patiently endure in this life. The Lord gave no name to the rich man in this parable, because such a man is not worthy to be remembered by God by name. As the Lord says, through the prophet, nor will I make remembrance of their names through My lips. [12] But the Lord mentions the poor man by name, for the names of the righteous are inscribed in the Book of Life. There is a story, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, of a certain Lazarus who lived at that time in Jerusalem, whose lot was one of extreme poverty and sickness. Because he was so well known in the city, the Lord uses his name in the parable." ( Comment on vs. 19-22 )

=>> The Byzantine Greek Divine Liturgy of A.D. 745 (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.1/faithofourfathers.html):-

06 - "The most compassionate Lord and Lover of souls once showed to one of the Holy Fathers who had a disciple who had lived carelessly and had died in that state of carelessness, the same very disciple up to his neck in fire, burning like the rich man in the parable of Lazarus and Dives. Then when the elder afflicted himself with many penitential labors, imploring God with constant tears, he saw the disciple again, this time immersed in the flames up to his belt. After this the elder added penance to penance, and God showed the man to the elder free and completely delivered from the fire" (On Those Who Have Fallen Asleep in the Faith 11; A.D. 745).

This ancient Greek Liturgy, ( assuming it's been accurately quoted,) appears to imply that the Parable teaches a lesson on (what Catholicism would refer to as) the state of Purgatory. However the view of the Rich Man presented in my above post, is not that of a devout Jew who failed to achieve sainthood before death, and must atone for his remaining sins in the next life, but rather of one who lived a life of gluttony and revelry in the lap of luxury; to the complete omission and utter disregard for any kind of alms-giving, whatever, great or small; and thus disqualifying himself for any chance at forgiveness after death.

When I cited this passage, though, I merely did so with the intent to produce scripture in support of the Church's teaching on the intercession of the saints. However, I readily admit that if the Rich Man was entirely without hope, or any chance of receiving relief from his sufferings, by the prayers of his righteous Father Abraham, one could hardly expect him to waste his infernal breath on such utterly futile supplications. Thus, it is not entirely impossible for me to see how someone might see this text as implicitly teaching a doctrine of purgatory.



(Message edited by theophilus on 08 February, 2005)

[Bob Hendry]

After reading your last message, by divine providence I happened upon this site and found something that may interest you: here

Antonios,

Thank you for the link - very interesting and helpful site! It will take awhile to finish exploring it all.

In Chirst,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

"When we venerate an icon however we experience the grace of that saint or the Grace of Christ. And this grace may act differently at different times- it may draw us to venerate the saint, to ask for their intercession, or to emulate their life. So this is a 'spiritual experience' because it is a participation in grace."

Fr Raphael,

I hope all is well with you!

Sorry to go back so far - this is a quote from your post on Feb 4. (at the top of this page, I think . . .)

The concept of grace that you describe is quite different than mine. I understand grace to be the free and unearned favor of God. But grace of a saint?? How can that be - the saint does not possess the qualities and characteristics of diety. Only God does . . .

An earleir post noted that, in Luke 16, the rich man was a metophorical figure, as he is only a ghost, a spirit, the soul of one departed into damnation; and as such, has no ears to hear, or tongue to thirst. Is this not also the case of the saints (with two notable exceptions) before the general resurection?

Let me note that I appreciate your insight. Thank you for your compassion and patience with me!

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Bob,
You asked,


The concept of grace that you describe is quite different than mine. I understand grace to be the free and unearned favor of God. But grace of a saint?? How can that be - the saint does not possess the qualities and characteristics of diety. Only God does . .

Nothing we do is remotely deserving of God's grace. The saints more than anyone know this & this what makes them saints- their humility.

But we all in our own way crave God's favour & grace. Without this we are dead. But again the saints through their extended life in Christ show us that only humility attracts grace. So due to the fact that the saints are so humble and have died to themselves they are filled with & deified by the grace of Christ-God. And indeed in His love God does make the saints & all who follow the path of Christ 'God-like' for they are being re-made in His image & likeness. How could it be otherwise that those who follow Christ become like Christ? That the grace He offers us, which is His Divine Life, makes us indeed grace-filled.

Being in communion with this grace does not make us identical to God however. Such an idea would be blasphemous. There is always a radical distinction between the Un-created God & what is created. And the saints are even more experientially aware of this distinction due to their experience of grace.

Thus the saints are grace-filled due to their humility. We also call upon them in our effort to lead a Christian life for they know much better than we what it means to conform one's life to Christ. When we call upon them the grace we may receive is not their grace but precisely the grace of God that dwells in them; and this they share with us through their active love for us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bob Hendry]

Fr. Raphael,

I agree and understand that aspect of grace which places it out of the bounds of human reach - no one can reach out and acquire grace by himself, for himself. It can only be the underseved gift of God.

To my minds eye, at least, whether of not He conveys His grace to us via an intermediary is a different question, however. You hold that He does - that's a really tough pill for me to swallow. Can you help me 'crush' it, so that I don't choke on it?

Also, in your last response to me:


So due to the fact that the saints are so humble and have died to themselves they are filled with & deified by the grace of Christ-God.

you note that the saints are deified by the grace of God. Can you explain this further for me, and how the Orthodox Church came to the position (doctrine? ) of the deification of the saints PRIOR to the general resurection and the last judgement?

Again, let me thank you up front for your kind and compassionate response.

In Him,

Bob Hendry

[nurse-aid]

It said that there is are many houses in the Fathers Kingdom...It doesn't say they are diferent in degree of Beter or Worst...Just diferent....My husband enjoy some aspect of life...you never know IF it will be changed or NOT...so according to it he will recive his house there...It IS ALL RIGHT! Becuase i'll be bored to be with math-peole...i don't know anything about and i'm bored...

So Holy Virgins(not every) as we saw stay next to Holy Mother of God and help her...they near, others in diferent places...everyone dooing their job in the house...and that is WHY house is sustain...

This is HOW it is...THIS is facts, that is WHY peole get marry in church...to have that EXTRA, HIS blessing/help in that...But this IS not guarantee secsess...

The same here, you doing your job BETER IF IT is become your ONLY one...without serving other masters...NoT guranteee...becuase HE is WHO granted...But this is your effort, what you MUST do...yet according sercomstanses which HE gave you...So i'm in my kithchen...doesn't mean i'lll serve my pots and mops...i'm trying my best...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Bob,
You wrote,


To my minds eye, at least, whether of not He conveys His grace to us via an intermediary is a different question, however. You hold that He does - that's a really tough pill for me to swallow. Can you help me 'crush' it, so that I don't choke on it?

I suppose that the question of an intermediary concerns whether this somehow diminishes the grace of God.

From the time of the Apostles we are told how all Christians were asked to pray for & actively help each other. In the Acts of the Apostles we are even told how people were healed just by coming across the path of the Apostles or by touching their clothes.

Now what is this 'help' & what does it concern? The help is actually the grace of God for it is this which actively saves us from the power of sin & death.

Grace works through others because they are members of Christ's Body which is the Church. The members are grafted by faith & spiritual life into the True Vine Who is Christ. And it is due to this that they can participate in His Life & obtain grace.
Christ's grace works within the Church as a sign of His love. Indeed it is this which draws the Church together & makes it one. So how His grace works- through others as well as directly- is precisely a sign of how His love works within the Church. In a way if you like, by seeing how His love works we can actually begin to understand what this love really is- that no one is saved alone but rather within the Body. And this does not diminish His grace but rather goes to show how it works.

I think I will leave you with this for awhile & come back to your second question later.

In Crist- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Bob,

You also asked about deification prior to the general resurrection & the last judgement. From what was said above we can see that it is due to Christ's grace that we can find victory over death & sin and that it is within the Church, His Body that we can find this. This shows us that deification is not some final state that describes the spiritual life of the saints. Rather deification actually describes the state of the Christian leading a life in Christ now & it describes the process by which he is overcoming sin & death through Christ. And finally deification also describes that state after death when we will go "from glory to glory" for we still are able to grow in Christ after physical death- the denial of this would be saying that death finally does triumph over the life-giving grace of Christ. Deification then is a theological word which describes how in Christ through His uncreated grace we are being remade according to His image.

About this subject there is an immense amount written. It is even at times described as an indication of the essential difference between Orthodoxy & western forms of Christianity. In any case it is through a life within the Church that one begins to understand why the Church teaches that the experience of the life in Christ is the experience of His uncreated energy & not just the experience of 'created grace.' Christ showed us from the beginning that He wished to share His Life with us. As we said before it is this which restored the dead to life & healed the sick- not only physically but mainly spiritually. The early Church experienced this 'Good News' & through the Apostles spread this to many nations. And what they spread was not just an account about Christ (anyone could have done this)- rather they through their deified lives shared the resurrectional experience among others. And this is how the Church grew & spread by others being attracted to the experience of Christ's uncreated grace.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bob Hendry]

Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your responses. Clearly, you 'know your stuff' - I am indeed glad that I ventured here.

Probably, the biggest obstacle to my learning, is the understanding of the words used. I have noted years ago that when talking with Mormons, for example, we all use the same words, but the meanings are often entirely different. I'm starting to think that that may be the case here.

The word "deity" means God to me. One who is "deified" is one who is made into a god. However, I don't think that is the sense in which you use the word, correct? If correct, I think that I would be able to grasp your view more easily . . .

If not correct, would you please explain your meaning of the word?

At anyrate, thanks again - I am really benefitting from this dialogue. I am in your debt!

In Christ's debt as well,

Bob Hendry

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Bob,

Indeed you are correct about how we use the word "deified". The following are some quotes I found from Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church.

"God, although absolutely transcendent, is not cut of from the world which He has made. God is above and outside His creation, yet He also exists within it. As a much used Orthodox prayer puts it: ‘Thou art everywhere and finest all things.’ Orthodoxy therefore distinguishes between God’s essence and His energies, thus safeguarding both divine transcendence and divine immanence: God’s essence remains unapproachable, but His energies come down to us. God’s energies, which are God Himself, permeate all His creation, and we experience them in the form of deifying grace and divine light. Truly our God is a God who hides Himself, yet He is also a God who acts — the God of history, intervening directly in concrete situations...

The gulf between creature and Creator is not impassable, for because we are in God’s image we can know God and have communion with Him. And if a man makes proper use of this faculty for communion with God, then he will become ‘like’ God, he will acquire the divine likeness; in the words of John Damascene, he will be ‘assimilated to God through virtue.’ To acquire the likeness is to be deified, it is to become a ‘second god,’ a ‘god by grace.’ "I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6). (In quotations from the Psalms, the numbering of the Septuagint is followed. Some versions of the Bible reckon this Psalm as 82.)."

This comes from the following link at Bishop Alexander's site (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm) that you may find of interest.

Note that often the word deification is used in the sense of one who is filled with the uncreated Light ie one who has reached the higher stages of sanctification.
I am using the word in the more general sense of sanctification which is the meaning one often encounters in the texts for the daily services.

So we do use words in a unique way in Orthodoxy that often requires coming to completely new understanding of the word. On the other hand when we speak with others not Orthodox this can cause quite a bit of confusion.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[nurse-aid]

I never will say as you do Father...No wonder i'm banned all the time
But IF we understand each other it is what it have to be...

[Bob Hendry]

Fr. Raphael,

I'm having a restless night over this - couldn't sleep. So I got up and checked email and found your most recent response, in which you state:


I am using the word in the more general sense of sanctification which is the meaning one often encounters in the texts for the daily services.

This is most comforting to hear, and puts me at ease.

Do I correctly understand that when you describe one as deified, you are not implying that he shares God's immutable attributes such as His infiniteness in being, His immensity, His eternity, His infinite intelligence, or His omnipotence? Rather, you are describing one who has reachedultimate sanctificatio, i.e., glorification, yes?

Over the past couple of days I have purused a number of your posts here on the forum. I am sincerely appreciative of your labor.

Where in Canada are you located? Are we getting your baseball team this spring?? (I am in the Washington, D.C. metro area - Southern Maryland.

There is a mission church - St Thomas the Apostle (Carpatho-Russian Orthodoc), situated less than a thousand yards from my home. I have been in touch with Fr. Joseph, the pastor there. We will probably show-up there to witness the Orthodox worship service first-hand. My wife is not too interested, but my 14 year old daughter is.

I take seriously my responsibility to shepherd my family as the spiritual leader. That is the major stimulus to me in seeking out the truth and history of the Orthodox tradition. I thank God for your help.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry
Waldorf, Maryland

[nurse-aid]

As a summary of last day conversation...i want to say that you exactly right...that words ARE might be used very diferent...In case of Non Orthodox and Orthodox...the same kinda words will be translated not the same...What i mean IS that those words for me songs like passion/human...Againg this IS how I felt...and maybe becuase I'm that pasion/human person...In case of St.Teresa of Avilla...i felt the same way...Generally is all understandable...personally, her translation of her RELATIONSHIP wit GOD...i cnnot exept...Just her words...i can't..it is PASSION kinda for me...Maybe this is Eglish? But word relationship i woudn't be used in order of explainig my desire to know HIM...
I'm SORRY againg...i kow that this all about words...BUT the meaning is MUCH more important...Just sometimes few words are VERY clear shows us the depest inside...Now i probobly show my depest dark inside...I told you I don't KNOW IF what i felt is truth...BECUASE ONLY HE KNOWS US REAL...OUR HEART....AND WORDS ARE DO NOT SHOW THIS SOMETIMES...

I WANT YOU TO FORGIVE ME...I JUST HUNESTLY SAID TO YOU>>>AS A CONFESSION WHAT I FELT>>>IT IS ALL ABOUT ME ACCUTALLLY>>>MINE INSIDE< NOT YOURS!

[Herman Blaydoe]

Mayhaps I missed it, but I have not seen the oft-used Orthodox term THEOSIS used in this thread yet and it seems most appropriate.

St Athanasius of Alexandria taught that God became man so that man could become God. There is a fairly reasonable definition of theosis at wikipedia: Theosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis).

BTW, I attend St. Thomas, looking forward to meeting you Bob!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes the word theosis is most proper here. Also Bob- the link that Herman has provided is very helpful in understanding the Orthodox teaching.

about:


Do I correctly understand that when you describe one as deified, you are not implying that he shares God's immutable attributes such as His infiniteness in being, His immensity, His eternity, His infinite intelligence, or His omnipotence? Rather, you are describing one who has reached ultimate sanctificatio, i.e., glorification, yes?.

I would ask someone to correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding of the Patristic teachings I would say that God does indeed share His immutable attributes with us. Through His uncreated grace He is indeed in communion with us but this is in accordance with our human limitations. That is why after all we use terms like theosis or deified which means that God shares what He is with us; while on the other hand we do not become God or 'other gods' in like essence as He.

There is no rational way to understand how God is in communion with us because precisely this does not occur on the same level as the created. After all on the created level if you were to cause electricity to flow through your body there would be a change in your body so that it would now include the nature of electricity. But God's grace does not act in this way- He shares His nature with us (not by essence but by energy or grace) but this does not change our nature but rather fulfills it.

What can we say of this? God does not act as created impersonal nature. He acts as the Personal, Infinite, Inexpressible & loving God- and His grace is Him in deifiying activity.

I am in Winnipeg which is in the center of Canada. I'm not too sure about our baseball team. Most of the time the baseball field is covered in 6 ft of snow! I think they play baseball here in snowsuits & with snowshoes on!

God guide you & bless you and your family in your search for His Truth.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

"Do I correctly understand that when you describe one as deified, you are not implying that he shares God's immutable attributes such as His infiniteness in being, His immensity, His eternity, His infinite intelligence, or His omnipotence? Rather, you are describing one who has reached ultimate sanctificatio, i.e., glorification, yes?" - Bob


"I would ask someone to correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding of the Patristic teachings I would say that God does indeed share His immutable attributes with us." - Fr. Raphael

Bob ~

The doctrine of participation in God is grounded in 2 Peter 1:4 - " ... partakers of the divine nature." As far as I understand the question, all God's attributes are immutable, insofar as He Himself is immutable, that is, without any change or shadow of turning; and so it is correct to say that we participate, on some level, in God's "immutable" attributes, though we do not participate in His "immutability", properly speaking, at least not in the same way that He is immutable, and incapable of change.

I've heard it said before that "theosis" does not end in eternity, but continues throughout eternity, in some mystical sense, insofar as the saints continuously move from glory to glory, being changed more and more into His infinite "likeness". The creature can never be "immutable", though, in the sense that God is, even though the saints in glory can never change their estate(s), as it were, falling from glory into damnation.

The Divine Attributes are generally divided into two categories: communicable and incommunicable. One example of each would be His holiness and His independence or self-existence. While man is capable of participating in God's holiness, man is never "self-existent" or capable of existing independently of God, as He is, existing divinely independent, above and beyond the created order.


In the mystery of faith,
Theophilus

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

My understanding of deification is very much in line with how Theophilus explains it. I believe Bob really meant incommunicable rather than immutable. These terms are used mainly in the west, both Roman Catholic & Protestant, to deal with the mystery that the East has handled with different terms etc. but the same issue. We become like God, but not in essence.

God shares His energies with us, is more in line with how the East has expressed it - see St. Gregory Palamas and St. John of Damascus, for instance. They dealt with this issue, in my reading, in more detail than any others. But despite the difference of approach & terminology, I believe East & West are both trying to express a reality that we experience, that God takes us far beyond our dreams and we become more like Him. Incredible! Not just moral actions here, true transformation for us.

Ties in with the intent of God with Adam & Eve - they weren't finished when He created them, but just beginning a life of deification. Their sin was an interruption of this, and our salvation is intended to get us, as humans not just as individuals, back on this path.