Icons and communion with the saints

[TomUK]

The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God

I'm a fan of icons for a variety of reasons such as an aid to focus prayer, and was wondering if it is possible to reconcile the use of them with the above article of religion. The same goes for communion of saints. Thanks

[PaladinValer]

Remember that our AC went through a time when Calvinism had a powerful influence in our Church. We lost a lot of our traditions that, today, we have back and hold most dear. One of those was the beautiful icons and statues of saints and martyrs.

Today, we aren't Calvinistic (no offense to Calvinists) and I don't believe we ever should be again. We believe in the Communion of the Saints; we say so at our baptisms and reaffirm it at our confirmations. However, we do reject the idea of saint-worship, which is what Calvinists think Catholics do. That was the entire reason for that particular article.

Today, I would think most ACers disregard its authority altogether or reinterpret it as against saint-worship and a proclaimation that we ACers reject the Catholic's understanding of Purgatory.

[Colabomb]

Remember that our AC went through a time when Calvinism had a powerful influence in our Church. We lost a lot of our traditions that, today, we have back and hold most dear. One of those was the beautiful icons and statues of saints and martyrs.

Today, we aren't Calvinistic (no offense to Calvinists) and I don't believe we ever should be again. We believe in the Communion of the Saints; we say so at our baptisms and reaffirm it at our confirmations. However, we do reject the idea of saint-worship, which is what Calvinists think Catholics do. That was the entire reason for that particular article.

Today, I would think most ACers disregard its authority altogether or reinterpret it as against saint-worship and a proclaimation that we ACers reject the Catholic's understanding of Purgatory.
I have a Pantokrator in my bedroom. I do not think it is sinful to use Icons as an aid to meditation, as long as you do not worship them.

[PaladinValer]

Exactly; the original meaning of this article is truly (IMO) no longer binding; for the AC and obviously for the Reformed Episcopal Church. Either we accept it as a reminder against idolatry and saint-worship (not as pro-iconoclasm) or disregard it as a historical document that, unlike the Creeds (including the Creed of Chalcedon, which is also quite valid), it doesn't necessarily state anything truly official anymore.

IMO, it would be a shame to toss out so much beauty. I love the icons in my rector's office and I want to get one myself.

[prodromos]

I have a Pantokrator in my bedroom. I do not think it is sinful to use Icons as an aid to meditation, as long as you do not worship them.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any christians who do worship icons?

I don't.

John.

[TomUK]

The topic of icons is very interesting, but my original question was asking something slightly different. Assuming that the book of common prayer remains the corner stone of our Anglican faith (i'm aware that there are many Anglicans here who would disagree with that, but i'm just speaking from my perspective), can someone still use icons without violating the 22nd article of religion?

[PaladinValer]

I don't believe Colabomb was suggesting Catholics or the Orthodox worship icons/statues/saints, although I also haven't heard of any orthodox Christian worshipping an icon since that would be idolatry.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Using Icons violates the most basic elements of the Bible:
Exodus 20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


No image of anything for the purposes of bowing down to, worshipping, or aiding worship is scriptural.

[TomUK]

So when God commanded Moses to decorate the tabernacle with designs of cherubim, was Moses breaking one of Gods commandments?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Moses was not commanded to worship the cherubim

[TomUK]

And nobody worships icons. We only idolise God- no-one else

[countrymousenc]

Using Icons violates the most basic elements of the Bible:
Exodus 20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


No image of anything for the purposes of bowing down to, worshipping, or aiding worship is scriptural.

You might want to reread (in Exodus) the instructions for making the tabernacle and the items used in it for worship. There you will find instructions to make images of the cherubim, horns on the four corners of the altar, and almond branches and flowers on the menorah (lampstand). There is a difference between men and women making images (to aid in worship) for themselves and making images and items that God has authorized. Also please recall that Aaron's rod that budded was kept as a relic, as was the serpent on the pole that Moses made. The Church uses icons because she has the authority to do so, and we do not worship them. We worship only God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

There is, then, no harm in these icons. If, however, you visualize them while praying, that is almost like praying to them, and thats dangerous ground. As for having them around, no problems with that at all.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Quite correct, Countrymousenc. God has authorized a lot of images to be made as a riminder. As long as they serve ONLY as a reminder, they are ok. The instant someone, maybe a weaker believer, prays with them in his mind, as if to them, then it becomes a problem. If you are doing this privately, there should be no risks however.

[BAChristian]

Today, I would think most ACers disregard its authority altogether or reinterpret it as against saint-worship and a proclaimation that we ACers reject the Catholic's understanding of Purgatory.
I guess I'm confused -- where does Purgatory fit into alleged saint worship?? :scratch:

[Polycarp1]

I guess I'm confused -- where does Purgatory fit into alleged saint worship?? :scratch:
See the quote from the Articles of Religion in the OP. However, as pointed out, the Articles were written at a time when Calvinism was a strong influence in Anglicanism, and must be taken with a grain of salt as regards modern Anglican beliefs. Insofar as I'm aware, they are not binding statements of belief on anyone in the Anglican Communion any more (CoE members -- is that true?).

[PaladinValer]

Bizzlebin Imperatoris, are you Anglican? If not, please realize that no Anglican (or Catholic or E/O Orthodox) in any way worships icons and statues of saints or martys. This is condemned as idolatry.

However, equally as problamatic is iconoclasm, which was declares a heresy in the Seventh (and last) Ecumenical Council.

No orthodox Christian (or Anglican for that matter) can worship saints/martyrs or their physical representations. However, they cannot go around denouncing those who revere the saints/martyrs as sinful and smash icons or statues. However, a icon is much like a sacrament; it is a visible symbol of an inward spiritual Godly presence. The saints and martyrs were devouted men and women and in seeing their earthly representations, we can be inspired ourselves. No grace is imparted from them; we have only One True Mediator (Jesus of Nazareth, Messiah of the World), but we can be uplifted by the stories of their lives and, in many cases, if it weren't for them, Christianity could have died out in Rome or afterwards. We owe these people much, and so, we honor their memory and revere their faith in the Lord. That is it though; once we worship them, we have made a grave sin.

We firmly believe, as we Anglicans are a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the Communion of Saints as per the Apostle's Creed. This is a standard of the orthodox Christian faith, and I therefore (nor would any of my Anglican brothers or sisters) forsake it.

[countrymousenc]

Quite correct, Countrymousenc. God has authorized a lot of images to be made as a riminder. As long as they serve ONLY as a reminder, they are ok. The instant someone, maybe a weaker believer, prays with them in his mind, as if to them, then it becomes a problem. If you are doing this privately, there should be no risks however.


BI, there is no danger in using icons in ways that are in keeping with the Church's doctrine and practices. In the Orthodox Church, we experience them as "windows to heaven." If you are familiar with the Apostle's Creed, you've heard or said "I believe in the communion of saints." In apostolic teaching and practice, a reality and it's symbol are not separate the way they are in Western thinking (which is rather dualistic).

You are right that we must understand the difference between worship that belongs to God, and the honor that is proper to give the saints. By the way, our prayers to the saints are petitions for them to pray for us and help us, and are different from the prayers offered to God. It's like asking a friend to pray for or with you. I hope that makes sense.

[prodromos]

I don't believe Colabomb was suggesting Catholics or the Orthodox worship icons/statues/saints, although I also haven't heard of any orthodox Christian worshipping an icon since that would be idolatry.

I didn't think so, it just seemed an odd disclaimer to make, since it implies that some people do worship them.

BTW, for those Anglicans who have icons, you will be pleased to know that you are in good company.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1214522,00.html
According to friends and associates of the prince, the future head of the Church of England has become enamoured of the Orthodox faith to the point that he has adorned a section of his home at Highgrove with prized Byzantine icons. Many are believed to originate from the Mount, the Orthodox world's holiest site.


John.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The influence of Orthodoxy in the CofE, especially with regard to Icons, cannot be overestimated. I was overjoyed to discover from a Orthodox priest that my reproduction of the Arrest of Christ in Gethsemane from the Book of Kells is itself an Icon.

Many of us are finding this sort of thing very useful these days.

Moving on to the 39 Articles - indeed, they are not binding. They are a historical document that very much reflects where the church was at a particular point in time, but the Anglican church does not claim any doctrine as distinctively Anglican, and required of its members, that is not common to the whole of Christendom. As the 39 Articles are not common to the whole of Christendom, they cannot be made binding. I'd agree with previous posters that some of them are a very poor guide to mainstream Anglican belief. Most Anglicans, I suspect, are Arminian rather than Calvinist.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Using Icons violates the most basic elements of the Bible:
Exodus 20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


No image of anything for the purposes of bowing down to, worshipping, or aiding worship is scriptural.


Actually, it doesnt violate the Old Testament in any way. The Third Commandment commands man to not make graven images of creation and fall down before them and the book of Exodus also tells man that he can make no image of God for man has never seen the Father. However, a deeper study of the Old Testament will reveal that contrary to the iconoclast claims, the Old Testament commands man to make a beautiful temple in which to worship God. God did in fact command man to make images to be placed on the Ark of the Covenant and in the Temple which was built by Solomon. Two cherubim each 10 cubits high were placed in the inner sanctuary of the temple, each overlaid with gold and both the inner and outer sanctuaries of the temple were carved with palm trees, flowers and cherubim (1 Kings 6:23-35). Exodus chapters 35-37 discuss the intricate detail which was put into the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, including the two gold cherubim which sat on top of the ark. These things were done in order to facilitate the adoration of the then unseen God by the Israelites. They could not make images of the face of Christ for the Word had not yet become flesh, and yet God still commanded them to make holy images to adorn his temple and his ark. The Old Testament is not iconoclast, it simply insists that adoration be given to God alone and that veneration be given only to those sacred things which God ordained.

[Polycarp1]

The Church of England adopted the 39 Articles at a time when there was strong Puritan (internal reform in a Calvinist direction, not separatism) influence on its thinking. And they are largely directed against abuses in medieval Catholicism, in England and elsewhere, which were condemned not only by the Reformers but also by the Council of Trent. So the language in them is very much polemic and directed against abuses, not against proper use of the things whose abuse is condemned. A very good example is that Anglicanism has preserved private sacramental confession and reconciliation of the penitent straight down through time since the Six Articles of Henry VIII's time, yet the 39 Articles are outspoken against indulgences or the idea that only through priestly absolution may sins be forgiven.

And, as has been mentioned in other threads that brought them up, the 39 Articles are not considered official magisterial teachings to which Anglicans must conform, but guidelines against error with some unfortunate language incorporated in them due to the stresses of the time when they were promulgated.

[Rilian]

I think the 39 articles were only ever binding on the clergy of the Church of England anyway, they were not something that had to be subscribed to by the laity.

[I would also add that when the worst of the image smashing occurred during the English Reformation it was against the wishes of a good deal of the laity.]

[PaladinValer]

Even in the Church of England, the 39 Articles of Religion are more historical than authoritative.

Some Articles are still valid positions of the AC (Example: our position on the Real Presence of the Christ in the Eucharist)

Other Articles are somewhat valid positions of the AC (Example: our position on the "Apocrypha" has changed to the point that many of us consider them Deuterocanonical and inspired and also accept the Orthodox-recognized Deuterocanon too)

And yet other Articles are basically a snapshot in time and are no longer valid (Example: we are catholic Protestants, not Calvinists; 99% of us will probably find the Article stating a pro-predestination belief a little strange and even a little heterodox)

[Rilian]

99% of us will probably find the Article stating a pro-predestination belief a little strange and even a little heterodox)

Even Wesley, who lived and died a priest in the Church of England, I'm assuming didn't go along with that one. ;)

[pmcleanj]

Secular law passed by Parliament in 1571 and since withdrawn required clergy to "subscribe" to the Articles. Even "subscription", however, might not be considered "binding":

"We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, `without which there is no salvation;' nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed." (Archbishop Bramhall)

"The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity." (Bishop Bull)