No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
His chapter title ‘Childish arguments for images at the Council of Nicaea (787)’, in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, suggests the bitter and painful divisions that have arisen in the Church over the issue of image veneration. From Biblical through Patristic to Reformation times, Iconodule, Iconophile and Iconoclast dissension has remained unresolved. Calvin's 'disgust' at Nicaea IPs ‘absurdities’ and Orthodoxy's anathemas against Calvinist ‘heretics’ are symptomatic of the widespread disagreement and divergence in the Church over this fundamental question of the Faith.
1 Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Battles, F. L., The Library of Christian Classics, Vols. 20, 21 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.11.14.Google Scholar
2 ‘You shall not make a carved image … nor the likeness of anything …’ Exodus 20:4, The New English Bible (Oxford: University Press, 1961)Google Scholar. ‘They boast of their wisdom, but they have made fools of themselves, exchanging the splendour of immortal God for an image shaped like mortal man, even for images like birds, beasts, and creeping things.’(Romans 1:22,23; NEB)
3 For a list of Iconoclast and Iconodule precedents see Iconoclasm, ed. Bryer, Anthony and Herrin, Judith (Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies, 1977), pp. 180–182.Google Scholar
4 ‘And let it not be for a sign to be contradicted of those heretics that unjustly calumniate us …’ The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, trans. Robertson, J. N. W. B. (London: Thomas Baker, 1899), p. 173.Google Scholar
5 Kalokyris, Constantine D., The Essence of Orthodox Iconography, trans. Chamberas, P. A. (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross School of Theology, 1971), pp. 7, 95, n. 8Google Scholar. See also Ouspensky, Leonid and Lossky, Vladimir, The Meaning of Icons, trans. Palmer, G. E. H. and Kadloubovsky, E. (Boston: Boston Book and Art Shop, 1952), p. 33Google Scholar, and Ouspensky, L., ‘Icon’, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. McDonald, W. J., Vol. 7 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), pp. 324–326. Hereafter cited as N.C.E.Google Scholar
6 These reverential acts are cited by the Rev. Dr. George Fedoriw of St. Nicholas' Ukrainian Catholic Church, Toronto.
7 Ouspensky and Lossky, p. 33.
8 Iconoclasm, p. 181, gives A.D. 200 as the first precedent.
9 Palrologiae … graeca, ed. Migne, J. P. (Paris: Gamier, 1857–1886), 94, col. 1384B. Hereafter cited as PCGoogle Scholar
10 See his letter to the Empress Constantia in P.G., 20, col. 1548.
11 P.G., 20, coi.680C-D.
12 Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., p. 29.
13 Ibid., p. 35, n. 2.
14 Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1963), pp. 41, 42Google Scholar. See also John, St. of Damascus, ‘The Orthodox Faith’, trans. Chase, F. H., Saint John of Damascus: Writings. The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1958), pp. 37, 175–77Google Scholar. For the cosmological significance of the Incarnation see Fedotov, George, The Russian Religious Mind (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), p. 368Google Scholar. John, of Damascus, On Holy Images, trans. Allis, Mary H. (London: Thomas Baker, 1898), p. 16Google Scholar (P.G., 94, 1245–46B) writes that because of the Incarnation ‘I honour all matter…and venerate it.’
15 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3.
16 Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., pp. 16, 27,42. Kalokyris, op. cit., p. 48.
17 P. G., 99, col. 417C. Cf. the Kontakion of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, The Lenten Triodion, trans. Mary, Mother and Ware, Kallistos (London: Faber and Faber, 1978), p. 306.Google Scholar
18 Matthew 26:65, Mark 14:64. Cf. John 10:33.
19 Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., p. 35.
20 Theodore the Studite comments on Iconoclasm: ‘Surely this is a Jewish faith.’ P.C., 99, col. 1189B.Google Scholar
21 Kalokyris, p. 95, n. 8. Ouspensky and Lossky, p. 34.
22 Mansi, J.D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, el Amplissima Collectio (Florentiae: Expensis Antonii Zatta Veneti, 1765), 11Google Scholar, cols. 977–80. Eng. trans, cited in Iconoclasm, p. 182.
23 For a brief summary of these see Benz, Ernst, The Eastern Orthodox Church, trans. Richard, and Winston, Clara (New York: Anchor, Doubleday, 1963), pp. 6–8Google Scholar. More detailed treatment and bibliography is in Murphy, F. X., ‘Abgar, Legend of’, N.C.E., Vol. 1, pp. 20, 21Google Scholar and in Meagher, P. K., ‘Veronica’, N.C.E., Vol. 14, p. 625.Google Scholar
24 See Wilson, Ian, The Shroud of Turin (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1978).Google Scholar
25 But care would have to be taken that the Shroud did not become established as the iconographic prototype to bolster the Iconodule argument. Such an exaggeration would exclude legitimate manifestations of the Incarnation expressed peculiarly in Christ but not in the Shroud, e.g. human love and the spoken word.
26 Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., p. 34.
27 Creeds of the Churches, ed. Leith, John H. (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar
28 Ouspensky and Lossky, loc. cit.
29 Ibid.
30 The Eucharist was anexception. Ibid., n. 4.
31 Barnard, Leslie, ‘The Theology of Images ‘Ionoclasm, p. 12.Google Scholar
32 The way we treat photographs is helpful in understanding Iconoclast and Iconodule perception of icons. The Iconoclast hears only the question ‘What is that?’ and answers ‘It is a photograph. We do not worship photographs.’ The Iconodule hears only the question ‘Who is that?’ and answers ‘It is Jesus Christ. We worship him.’
33 For images acceptable to the Iconoclasts seej. Goulliard, , ‘Iconoclasm’, N.C.E., Vol. 7, pp. 327–328Google Scholar, and also Freedberg, David, ‘The Structure of Byzantine and European Iconoclasm’, Iconoclasm, pp. 166, 174Google Scholar. One might speculate regarding possible iconoclastic influence in the Roman Catholic adoration of the Host (as contrasted with its eating) and in the appearance of icons depicting the Eucharist as an image of the Lord as a child in the discos. The turning of what is essentially a meal into a visual phenomenon in which Christ is somehow ‘imaged’ points to a visual suppression elsewhere. The question would be, ‘Why is it necessary to “see” Christ in the bread?’ See Kalokyris, op. cit., p. 18 and The Iconography of St. Nicholas' Church (Toronto: St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Parish, 1977), p. 170.Google Scholar
34 Kalokyris, op. cit., p. 43.
35 ’ … Verbum Dei … factus est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod est ipse.’ Irenaeus, St., Adversushaereses, P.G., 7, 1120B.Google Scholar
36 Cavarnos, Constantine, Byzantine Thought and Art (Belmont, Mass.: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1968), p. 74.Google Scholar
37 ‘This art is intended not to reflect the problems of life but to answer them, and thus, from its very inception, is a vehicle of Gospel teaching.’ Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., p. 29. See also Kalokyris, op. cit., pp. 16, 24 and Cavarnos, op. cit., p. 76.
38 Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., p. 41. ‘Byzantine art is for me the art of arts. I believe in it as I believe in religion … In comparison with Byzantine art, all the others appear to me trivial.’ Cavernos, op. cit., p. 74.
39 Kalokyris (p. 75) sees iconography as ‘an art purely idealistic’ (i.e. anthropomorphic), but ‘eschatologically realistic’ (i.e. theomorphic) would be more accurate.
40 Ibid., pp. 24, 29, 38, 43. Kalokyris, p. 5. Paul Evdokimov describes the Holy Spirit as the ‘divine iconographer.’ L'art de I'icône, Thiologie de la beaué (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1970), p. 13Google Scholar. See John, of Damascus, P.G., 94, 1307.Google Scholar
41 Ouspensky and Lossky, p. 44.
42 Kalokyris, p. 98; cf. p. 85. Icons are considered to be reflective of the Church's unwritten traditions and therefore parallel to the proclamation of the Gospel. As such they sometimes provide interesting insights into biblical exegesis. The connection between the virgin birth and the resurrection is made clear in the Orthodox Icon of the Resurrection and the prayers associated with it. ‘Lord, as thou earnest out from the sealed tomb, so also didst thou enter while the doors were still shut to thy disciples.’ ‘Preserving sound the seals (of the tomb), O Christ, thou didst rise from the grave, thou who didst not destroy the locks of the Virgin in thy birth.’ Cited in Kalokyris, pp. 35,36.
43 Ouspensky and Lossky, p. 16. John of Damascus, On Holy Images, op. cit., pp. 76, 77. (P.C.,94, 1303–04A.)
44 Ouspensky and Lossky, p. 44. Cf. John 8:31, 32,1 Corinthians 7:22.
45 Consider much of modern ‘entertainment’ as forever unabsolved confession of ‘natural’ self before ‘god’ defined as the masses. Compare the pressure on Protestant clergy to be ‘popular’, i.e. to seek justification before a ‘god’ defined as the people.
46 Ouspensky and Lossky, p. 43.
47 The Filioque addition to the Nicene Creed was also endorsed at this council. See Héfélé, Charles Joseph, Histoires des Conciles, trans. LeClerq, H. (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910), III, 2, pp. 1067–1085, 1240–46Google Scholar. The climate of hostility between Charlemagne and the East, and the mistranslation and misunderstanding of Nicaea II, left the West devoid of appreciation for the Orthodox theology.
48 Kalokyris, p. 46.
49 Guide de la Cathedrale de Strasbourg (Strasbourg: Éditions Publitotal Strasbourg, 1976), pp. 26, 27.Google Scholar Contrast the same parable in the 6th century Gospel Codex Purpureus of the Cathedral Treasure, Rossano (Calabria), in Grabar, André, Byzantine Painting, trans. Gilbert, S. (Geneva: Éditions Albert Skira, 1953), p. 163 (Plate 80).Google Scholar
50 Matthew 25:1–13.παρθɛ⋯νος is commonly rendered virgo (Vulgate) or ‘virgin’ (King James Version). But in this context it corresponds to 
, ‘virgins as bride's companions’, i.e. ‘bridesmaids’ (Jerusalem Bible) without the biological preoccupation suggested by the modern term ‘virgin’.
51 Kalokyris, pp. 41, 42. Not all sensuality was sexual. There was a corresponding preoccupation with gore. See ‘The Last Communion and Martyrdom of St. Denis’ (ca. 1416) ascribed to Henri Bellechose, Louvre, Paris, in Dupont, Jacques and Gnudi, Cesare, Gothic Painting, The Great Centuries of Painting: collection planned and directed by Skira, Albert, trans. Gilbert, S. (Lausanne: Editions D'art Albert Skira, 1954), p. 147 (Plate 77).Google Scholar
52 Kalokyris, p. 7.
53 Calvin, Institutes; 1.11.7.
54 Ibid., 1.11.
55 Ibid., 1.11.6. He also cites Lactantius, Eusebius, Augustine, Varro, and in 1.11.14, Charlemagne.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid., 1.11.2.
58 Calvin, John, Tracts, trans. Beveridge, Henry (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), III, 423.Google Scholar
59 Calvin, Institutes, 3.20.40.
60 Ibid., 1.15.2.
61 Ibid., 1.12.1.
62 Ibid., 1.11.14.
63 Ibid., 1.11.1.
64 Ibid., 1.11.14.
65 Ibid., 1.11.3.
66 Ibid., 1.11.15.
67 Ibid., 1.11.3.
68 Ibid., 1.11.5,1.11.12.
69 Calvin, John, Institution of the Christian Religion, trans. Battles, F. L., 1536 ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), pp. 27, 28 (1.10).Google Scholar Cf. Institutes, 1.11.9 regarding the golden calf.
70 Ibid., 1.11.8.
71 Ibid.,1.11.3.
72 Ibid., 1.6.2
73 Ibid., 1.11.12.
74 Ibid., 2.12.6.
75 Calvin, John, ‘The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians’, trans. Parker, T. H. L., Calvin's Commentaries, ed. T. F., and Torrance, D. W. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), p. 308 (Col. 1:15)Google Scholar. Cf. Institutes, 2.12.6,4.8.5.
76 Calvin, John, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. Pringle, W. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949), II, 166 (17:3)Google Scholar. Cf. Institutes, 3.2.1.
77 Torrance, T. F., Calvin's Doctrine of Man (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), p. 86Google Scholar. Cf. Institutes, 1.15.4; Dowey, C. E., The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1952), p. 19.Google Scholar
78 Calvin, , John, II, 185 (17:22)Google Scholar. Aoyos is translated ‘speech’ (sermo). ‘John’, p. 149 renders it ‘Word’ but still in an exclusively oral manner. (In this reference and following the Eerdmans 1948–49 commentaries will be italicized and those of the Calvin's Commentaries series indicated by quotation marks.) Torrance, T. F., ‘Knowledge of God and speech about Him according to John Calvin’, Regards Contemporains surjean Calvin: Actes du Colloque Calvin Strasbourg, 1964 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965)Google Scholar, expresses the extremity of Calvin's essentially verbal epistemology. Professor Torrance appears to modify his own position in ‘Memorandum: Orthodox/Reformed Relations’, Reformed World, 35, No. 8 (1979), p. 345Google Scholar. He writes: ‘It would appear that modern scientific understanding of the created universe which cuts away the old damaging dualisms of the past can help us to bridge the gap between icon and word, for example, which is so symptomatic of the divergence between the Orthodox and the Reformed.’ Lossky, , The Meaning of Icons, p. 16Google Scholar, sees λóγoς or λoγíα as applying ‘to all that constitutes expressions of the revealed Truth.’
79 Calvin, John, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, trans. King, J. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948), I, 63.Google Scholar
80 Institutes, 1.6.2.
81 Ibid., 3.2.20. ‘In it [the Gospel] … God shows his unveiled face.’ Calvin, John, ‘The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon’, trans. Smail, T. A., Calvin's Commentaries, p. 50 (2 Cor. 3:18)Google Scholar. Cf. Genesis, I, 94.
82 Institutes, 1.11.7.
83 Ibid., 1.6.2. Cf. 1.11.2. See also Calvin, John, ‘The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter’, trans. Johnston, W. B., Calvin's Commentaries, pp. 254, 55 (1 Pet. 1:25)Google Scholar. Torrance, ‘Knowledge of God’, op. cit., p. 150 cites Luther as urging his congregation ‘to stick their eyes in their ears!’
84 Ibid., 1.11.7.
85 Parker, T. H. L., Calvin's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959), p. 99.Google Scholar On p. 43 he writes: ‘The self-authentication of the Scripture rests upon its function as the living Word of God. The same Holy Spirit who spoke that Word formerly, speaks it to us again, giving us ears to hear, a mind to understand, and a heart to believe.’ See also Torrance, , Calvin's Doctrine of Man, p. 30Google Scholar; Institutes, 3.2.6; Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. T. Myers, II.32(13:19).
86 Calvin, , Tracts, II, 166, 169Google Scholar. Cf. Institutes, 2.9.1,4.14.18, 20.
87 Institutes, 1.15.4.
88 Ibid., 1.15.3,4.
89 Genesis, I, 95 (1:26).Google Scholar
90 Tracts, III, 424.Google Scholar
91 Ibid., p. 423. See also Institutes, 1.15.3,8.
92 Tracts, III, 422, 23.Google Scholar
93 Genesis, 1, 95 (1:26)Google Scholar. See also Institutes, 1.15.3,2.9.1.
94 Institutes, 2.12.6.
95 ‘image…engraven on the heavens’. Calvin, John, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. Anderson, J., 1, 308 (19:1)Google Scholar.
96 Calvin, John, ‘The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians’, trans. MacKenzie, R., Calvin's Commentaries, p. 234 (Rom. 10:18).Google Scholar
97 Institutes, 3.3.9, 3.20.43.
98 Genesis, 1,9(1:26).
99 Commentaries on Daniel, trans. Myers, T., I, 303 (4:37)Google Scholar.
100 Ibid., Institutes, 1.15.4.
101 ‘The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter’, p. 132 (Heb. 10:1).
102 One of the ironies of Iconoclasts — they still have pictures!
103 Cairns, David, The Image of God in Man (London: SCM Press, 1953), p. 131Google Scholar. See Calvin, John, Calvin: Commentaries, trans. Haroutunian, J., Library of Christian Classics, vol. 23 (London: SCM Press, 1958), pp. 340, 41Google Scholar, and Torrance, , Calvin's Doctrine of Man, p. 64.Google Scholar
104 Torrance, Ibid., p. 14. This is in contrast to the Orthodox view. Vladimir Lossky writes: ‘This is the classical via of theognosis traced by St. Basil. ‘The way of knowing God goes from the one Spirit, through the one Son, to the one Father; and inversely, essential goodness, natural sanctity, and royal dignity flow from the Father, through the Only-Begotten, to the Spirit’, he says in his Treatise on the Holy Spirit. (P.G. 32, col. 153B) So also every act of the divine economy follows the descending line: from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the way of the knowledge of God, contrary to that of the manifestation of God, will not be a katabasis, a descent, but an anabasis, an ascent — an ascent towards the source of all manifesting energy.' In The Image And Likeness of God (London: Mowbrays, 1975), p. 16Google Scholar. Do we not reflect the divine economy both ways? Cf. Romans 6:5 in the light of John 15:13. Could it be that the knowledge of God as ‘living’ (anabasis) or as ‘dying’ (katabasis) reflects the Sitz im Leben of the Churches? The suicide rate in concentration camps during the Second World War was virtually nil. The will to survive in captivity sees faith as anabasic, hence the Orthodox view. In the free West the heroic (suicidal) impulse is much stronger, hence the will to die (katabasis) in Roman and Calvinist theology.
105 The sexist use of ‘man’ follows Calvin.
106 Institutes, 12.3.1. Cf. 1.11.9.
107 ‘Calvinism is not a wonder drug, certainly not a tranquilizer. Human nature is disquietude at bottom, for passion rages, anxiety itches, and guilt feelings sting; the self is adorable enough to be worshipped and vile enough to be despised and annihilated.’ Pruyser, Paul W., ‘Calvin's View of Man: A Psychological Commentary’, Theology Today, 26, No. 1 (April, 1969), p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
108 Institutes, 2.2.1. (citing Augustine) Cf. 1.12.3.
109 Ibid., 2.2.10.
110 Augustine, St., ‘On the Holy Trinity’, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Schaff, P. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956), 111, 186 (14.4.6).Google Scholar
111 Calvin, , Genesis, 1, 95 (1:26).Google Scholar
112 Ibid.
113 Institutes, 1.15.4. See also 3.3.9, Niesel, Wilhelm, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Knight, H. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), pp. 81, 127, and Cairns, op. cit., p. 132.Google Scholar
114 Calvin, John, ‘A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, Volume III, and the Epistles of James andjude’, trans. Morrison, A. W., Calvin's Commentaries, p. 292 (James 3:10)Google Scholar. See also Institutes, 2.2.17,2.12.6.
115 ‘Generally, Calvin's inconsistancies, ambiguities, and contradictions are traceable to four sources: (1) the difficulty of maintaining consistency and focus throughout a corpus of some fifty collected volumes; (2) imprecision or incompleteness within his thought; (3) unawareness of conflicts within his thought or reluctance to face these conflicts; (4) the possibility that Calvin's inconsistencies reflect those of the Bible.’ Prins, Richard, ‘The Image of God in Adam and The Restoration of Man in Jesus Christ: A Study in Calvin’, The Scottish Journal of Theology, 25 (1972), p. 33, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116 Calvin, , ‘James’, p. 292 (3:9)Google Scholar. See also Institutes, 3.7.6, Torrance, Calvin's Doctrine of Man, p. 45.
117 In a divinely-created world nothing ever exists ‘in itself’. Such an attitude is destructively hypothetical.
118 Calvin, , Genesis, I, pp. 295, 96 (9:6)Google Scholar. See Farris, A. L., ‘The Antecedents of a Theology of Liberation in the Calvinist Heritage’, The Reformed World, 33 (1974), p. 108.Google Scholar
119 It is referred to as a ‘mirror of divinity.’ Calvin, , ‘Hebrews’, p. 160 (11:3)Google Scholar. See also Genesis, I, pp. 60–62.Google Scholar
120 ‘The Law shows the righteousness of God, and as a mirror discloses our sinfulness.’ Institutes, 2.7.6.
121 There is a greater emphasis on human than there is on cosmic transfiguration in Calvin's theology. ‘He is able to say much about the heavenly glory which is promised to Christians but only little about the new earth over which they are to reign with their Lord.’ Quistorp, Heinrich, Calvin's Doctrine of the Last Things, trans. Knight, Harold (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1955), p. 181.Google Scholar
122 Calvin, Institutes, 3.25.3.
123 Calvin, , ‘l Thessalonians’, p. 340 (1:10)Google Scholar. Cf. Institutes, 1.15.4, 3.25.3. Cairns, op. cit., p. 131 notes that ‘Calvin has followed Luther in his equation of the image with man's original righteousness and restoration in Christ.’
124 Calvin, , Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. Owen, J., p. 371 (2 Peter 1:4)Google Scholar. Cf. Genesis, I, p. 94 (1:26)Google Scholar, Catholic Epistles, p. 59 (1 Pet.l:25).
125 Institutes, 1.15.5.
126 Ibid., 2.2.1.
127 ‘Hebrews’, p. 36 (1:3).
128 ‘l Corinthians’, p. 341 (15:49).
129 Institutes, 3.25.8. Cf. Ouspensky, The Meaning of Icons, op. cit., p. 40.
130 Catholic Epistles, p. 421 (2 Pet. 3:10). In n. 2 the editor comments: ‘All that is said here is, that there will be new heavens and a new earth, and not that the present heavens and the present earth will be renovated.’ Calvin's statements would not appear to permit such a categorical denial.
131 ‘Romans’, p. 174(8:21).
132 Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Owen, J., pp. 337, 38(12:27).Google Scholar
133 Institutes, 4.3.3., 4.1.5, n. 11.
134 Ibid., 4.8.9.
135 See Parker, T. H. L., The Oracles of God (London: Lutterworth Press, 1947), pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
136 For a summary of the historical background and its effects, see my ‘The Eastern Churches and the Reformation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, The Scottish Journal of Theology, 31 (1978), pp. 417–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Eucharistic Milieu in John Calvin and the Eastern Orthodox Churches’, Studies in Religion, 8, No. 4 (1979), pp. 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
137 Calvin, , Tracts, 1, 289, 90.Google Scholar
138 Goulliard, ‘Iconoclasm’, op. cit., p. 327, Martin, Edward J., A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London: S.P.C.K., 1932), pp. 23, 27, 31, 263.Google Scholar
139 ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.’ (New English Bible).
140 ‘l tell you this: anything you did for one of my brothers here, however humble, you didforme.’ (NEB).
141 The Iconography of St. Nicholas’ Church, pp. 87, 113. ‘The Pantocrator in the dome depicts at once the Father and the Son.’ Kalokyris, op. cit., p. 15. See Act 4, the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council, cited in Ouspensky and Lossky, op. cit., p. 34.
142 See Agourides, Savvas, ‘The Social Character of Orthodoxy’, The Orthodox Ethos: Essays in Honour of the Centenary of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, ed. Philippou, A.J. (Oxford: Holywell Press, 1964), p. 211.Google Scholar
143 The threat of Iconoclasm can be seen behind the pointed, compensatory (and thus exaggerated) references to icons, in, for example The Lenten Triodion, op. cit., p. 304. ‘Depicting Thy divine form in ikons …’ ‘So the devils … and the heretics, their fellow-workers lament in shame.’
144 Institutes, 1.11.14.
145 Book of Common Order of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (Toronto: Presbyterian Publications, 1964), p. 354Google Scholar. See also Cairns, David and others, Worship Now (Edinburgh: The St. Andrew Press, 1972), p. 38Google Scholar. But note also Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, p. 18. ‘Contrary to analyses such as philosophy since Plato and Aristotle conceives them, and which end in dissolving the concrete by resolving it into general ideas or conceptions, our analysis leads us finally towards the Truth and the Spirit, the Word and the Holy Spirit, two Persons, distinct but indissolubly united, Whose twofold economy, whilst founding the Church, conditions at the same time the indissoluble and distinct character of Scripture and Tradition.’
146 For consideration of the relation between transcendence and immanence see Bilaniuk, Petro B. T., Studies in Eastern Christianity Volume One (Munich and Toronto: Ukrainian Free University, 1977), pp. 29, 30,115–117.Google Scholar
147 Professor Bilaniuk writes: ‘As a result of an exaggerated view of papal and Roman primacy, the Latin Church developed an unsubstantiated conviction of its superiority and universal validity.’ It ‘remained enclosed within itself and tried in vain to solve its problems by purely juridical and canonical norms, thus facilitating the success of the Lutheran Reformation.’ The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) and the Eastern Churches (Toronto: The Central Committee for the Defense of Rite, Tradition and Language of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the U.S.A. and Canada, 1975), p. 2.Google Scholar
148 Torrance's ‘either-or’ distinction, with regard to images, between ostensive/persuasive and descriptive (‘Knowledge of God’, op. cit., p. 153) is damaging. He writes: ‘Images are not copies or pictorial representations or replicas, but are rather ways of pointing beyond…images…have…a signative relation to divine Truth…as they direct us to look at God or rather to listen to Him, we allow the divine Truth to break through to us apart from images.’ (Italics mine) This renders matter practically valueless, and denies God's identification with it in the Incarnation. The corollary of the de-transcendentalization of matter is modern secularism. The ‘either or’ emphasis on the transcendent fails to appreciate that contact with the divine does not annihilate matter (as in transubstantiation), it enhances it. It is a moot point, however, whether the Filioque is cause, or merely one symptom of a recurrent dualism arising from the schizophrenia of the human condition.
149 Liberal Protestants see this generally in terms of socio-political action, conservatives in terms of evangelism.
150 One is reminded of Mary of Magdala meeting the Lord and being warned: ‘Do not cling to me, for I have not ascended to the Father.’ (John 20:17; NEB) There is an appropriate response to present manifestation that allows us to be open to a future and greater one.
151 e.g. The Sistine Chapel in Rome which glorifies chiefly Michelangelo, and Protestant stained glass windows devoted to donors and deceased relatives under the pretext of honouring Christ and the Saints.
152 The destruction of many modern images (e.g. advertizing) would be very costly, so we pay with the erosion of our souls by accepting them. The quite appropriate desire to destroy one's television set, thwarted by its high price, illustrates the dilemma.
153 Nicolas Zernov, ‘The Worship of the Orthodox Church and Its Message’, The Orthodox Ethos, op. cit., p. 119.