I'm sorry but I have to strenuously disagree, David. The passage of veneration from the icon to the Prototype, the Person (or persons) venerated, is not imaginary. This is a mystical REALITY. It is not effected by a "leap of the imagination" but by the will and power of God.
The Fathers of the Second council of Nicaea didn’t say a single word about the human imagination being involved. They were talking about objective, not subjective, mystical realities, and said very clearly that the veneration and worship due to the prototype passes from the icon to the Person (or person). This has nothing to do with human imagination or wish fulfilment.
This comes down, I think, to a difference between the common Byzantine and Latin interpretations of the Council. I refer you to Cardinal Schonborn's God's Human Face, in which he presents the background behind the need for the 7th Ecumenical Council and why the Council's decree needed an additional statement a century later from Theodore the Studite in regard to what constitutes an icon worthy of veneration. His explanation of why this is so, philosophically and theologically, reflects his Aristotelian/Thomistic formation and affirms the Council (without contradicting anything within it), while building on it in light of Theodore's writings. There is a difference between the standard Orthodox/Byzantine and Latin approaches here. You seem to be siding with the former.
I would add that Theodore is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Church (he was the Abbot of the s Studios Monastery in Constantinople) . And his criteria for the validity of Sacred art were adopted across the Eastern Churches too. Schoborn seems to me to be reflecting what was accepted across the whole Church at the time or the 9th century.
Shanks!
I'm sorry but I have to strenuously disagree, David. The passage of veneration from the icon to the Prototype, the Person (or persons) venerated, is not imaginary. This is a mystical REALITY. It is not effected by a "leap of the imagination" but by the will and power of God.
The Fathers of the Second council of Nicaea didn’t say a single word about the human imagination being involved. They were talking about objective, not subjective, mystical realities, and said very clearly that the veneration and worship due to the prototype passes from the icon to the Person (or person). This has nothing to do with human imagination or wish fulfilment.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum07.htm
This comes down, I think, to a difference between the common Byzantine and Latin interpretations of the Council. I refer you to Cardinal Schonborn's God's Human Face, in which he presents the background behind the need for the 7th Ecumenical Council and why the Council's decree needed an additional statement a century later from Theodore the Studite in regard to what constitutes an icon worthy of veneration. His explanation of why this is so, philosophically and theologically, reflects his Aristotelian/Thomistic formation and affirms the Council (without contradicting anything within it), while building on it in light of Theodore's writings. There is a difference between the standard Orthodox/Byzantine and Latin approaches here. You seem to be siding with the former.
I would add that Theodore is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Church (he was the Abbot of the s Studios Monastery in Constantinople) . And his criteria for the validity of Sacred art were adopted across the Eastern Churches too. Schoborn seems to me to be reflecting what was accepted across the whole Church at the time or the 9th century.
ie the 8th century
Beautiful article. Thank you.
Thank you