One of my most important friends is Orthodox, and what I wanted to understand was if and how the Western Catholic church settled this issue differently.

Beautiful introduction Jeremy Taylor!

One small quibble though; it is not quite accurate to say that one "venerates" the icon itself, one rather venerates the person whom it represents. This is important because only beings of a rational nature can be the proper objects of veneration; to venerate an image itself is idolatry.

Loosely speaking your language was fine, but I make this distinction because I wanted to make it clear that, in fact, if the respective icon is an icon of Christ, it in fact can be worshiped properly with latria (the same goes for the Cross, at least according to Aquinas in the Summa). So this at least prima facia contradicts what you seem to have stated in your OP, at least if Aquinas can be taken as an authority on this (I doubt he has much different to say than the Fathers on such basic a point as this).

It is sad how much iconography is ignored as an aspect of Christian theology; especially here in the west, where there are all these philosophers obsessed with signification who I'm sure have no idea that this Theology even exists...

Timotheos,

I think you may be technically correct. It is true that one does not venerate an icon, except so far as the icon partakes of its archetype. It is the archetype who is venerated. However, informally it is not uncommon to say one venerates an icon. As long as it is generally understood what is meant, I see no harm in this.

Etzelnik,

From a Christian perspective, one might admit there is little difference, except that the Hindu objects do not represent the true revelation of God. But what is more important is that the theology of the icon, at least to the Orthodox, is bound up with the incarnation itself. Drawing on Platonic and Aristotelian insights, the Fathers (Basil the Great, John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite, amongst others) argue that the archetype is present in the image. The icon and archetype differ in substance but are related in form; they are related in homoios but not in ousia. In the same way that God took on material form in the incarnation, he does so in the icon. The icon, though, does not depict God the Father but Christ in his human nature. To deny this, in Orthodox theology, is to essentially deny the incarnation and the possibility of salvation and union of man and world with God.

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, (Bar. 3.38) I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I [16] worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union (kaq upostasin), it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by a logical and reasoning soul. I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to me. Was not the thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life? Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration [17] and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holy Spirit. Do not despise matter, for it is not despicable. Nothing is that which God has made. This is the Manichean heresy. That alone is despicable which does not come from God, but is our own invention, the spontaneous choice of will to disregard the natural law,--that is to say, sin. - St. John of Damscus, Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images, Part One.

This is why the victory of Iconoclasm was the occasion of the Feast of Orthodoxy, where the triumph of the whole Orthodox faith was celebrated. Iconoclasm was cast with other great heresies like Arianism. The theology of the icons is tightly bound up with the Orthodox perspective on the Christology.

It should be said that the Church certainly is concerned with idolatry. This is why it defines how one should view and behave with icons.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

But what is more important is that the theology of the icon, at least to the Orthodox, is bound up with the incarnation itself.

Ehh. As we say in the Talmud: "Your guarantor requires a guarantee himself".

iwpoe wrote:

If you hold fast to the elevating power of the image and refuse to worship the image as such I don't fret about it- though idolotry for me is mostly limited to the confusion of beings with Being or the complex with the simple, since I have no opportunity to specifically worship saints or angels or their images by mistake.

Here's what Maimonides has to say about this 'confusion' (beginning of Laws of Idolatry):

During the times of Enoch, mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel. Enoch himself was one of those who erred.

Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor. [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king.

After conceiving of this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars and offer sacrifices to them. They would praise and glorify them with words, and prostrate themselves before them, because by doing so, they would - according to their false conception - be fulfilling the will of God.

This was the essence of the worship of false gods, and this was the rationale of those who worshiped them. They would not say that there is no other god except for this star.

I know this is not precisely the same as Christianity, but it is identical in implication.

Last edited by Etzelnik (7/14/2015 12:33 am)

Thanks for starting this interesting topic. From the Sufi perspective in Islam the correct way to approach such "icons" or "symbols" (ayat) of God is to at once, see God in the symbol (tashbih) while at the same time recognize God is beyond all symbols (tanzih). According to Ibn Arabi, one of the greatest mystics of Islam, those who balance tashbih and tanzih achieve the deepest insight into the nature of things.