Icons

First of all, I would like to thank to those of you who came to our open door meeting tonight! It was a fruitful exchange that made me think more in depth at the meaning of icons. However, since we cannot touch such a broad and vast theme as the icons in a few hours, I hope that you will find the opportunity to take it from where we started it tonight and continue our discussion online.

As far as I am concerned, icons are, as Rachel beautifully expressed it, "tools" that facilitate and at the same time deepen our connection with God.

As I went home, I remembered I had once, not such a long time ago, read a book by Saint John of Damascus, "On the Divine Images", in which he defeats the icons in front of those who rendered them idolatrous, during the Iconoclastic period (read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm):" An image is a likeness depicting an archetype, but having some difference from it; the image is not like the archetype in every way. The Son is a living, natural and undeviating image of the Father, bearing in himself the whole Father, equal to him in every respect, differing only in being caused. For the Father is the natural cause, and the Son is caused; for the Father is not from the Son, but the Son from the Father"

He makes a very strong argument, also, when he further mentions all the "matter" that is present in our veneration of God, apart from the icons: "If the image of Christ is Christ [...] then the power is not divided nor the glory shared, but the glory of the image becomes that of the one depicted in the image". "If you say that God should only be apprehended spiritually, then take away everything bodily, the lights, the fragrant incense, even vocal prayer, the divine mysteries themselves that are celebrated with matter, the bread, the wine, the oil of chrismation, the form of the cross. For these are all material: the cross, the sponge, the reed the lance that pierced the life-bearing side."


What do you think?

Iulia