"The Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (Excerpts)

For more on this topic see "Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers" - https://store.ancientfaith.com/know-the-faith/ Introductory Note: In our age, more than in any other, the crucial question for Christians is: “What and where is the Church?”  This is the question of “ecclesiology” (that which pertains to the Church).  Even after the Protestant Reformation many basic assumptions about what church is and how one is made a member of the church were left intact.  One of these assumptions is that the Church is a tangible and visible body to which one must be joined in order to be considered a Christian.  Another general assumption held by all was that one must hold to the whole body of doctrine and faith of a church in order to receive Communion.  It was also held that the reception of Communion in a church makes one a member of that church and that there were required prerequisites for being allowed to Communion.  Finally, the common belief among most Christians and Christian churches was that there can only be one Church from which a person is either joined to or separated from.  Yet today – as a justification for the existence of thousands of denominations – these ecclesiological assumptions have been abandoned and are no longer even part of the modern Christian worldview.  In 1938 the Anglican, William Palmer, formulated the “Branch Theory” which understands the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches as three legitimate co-existing branches of apostolic Christianity.  The theory breaks with the ancient ecclesiology since it suggests that these three branches make up the one body of Christ.  As a way of justifying the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy the theory of the “two lungs” also appeared, which understands the Catholic and Orthodox churches as two lungs in the same (one) body.  These theories are precursors to the modern idea that the Church can only be whole again if and when all Christian bodies are reunited.  Although not the original intention, these ideas have been promoted by the “ecumenical movement” which began after WWI. [1]   Such theories are unacceptable for the Orthodox who follow the Saint’s teaching that the Church cannot be divided.  Schisms from the Church do not deplete the fullness of the Church.  Our confession of faith in “one, holy, catholic, apostolic church” means that the fullness of the Church is dependent upon God not man.  The Church is “one” because God is one.  She is holy because God is holy.  She is complete (catholic) because He is catholic.  Men can only be brought into communion with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church or separated from Her.  This is the Faith of the Church. What Makes a “Church”? Roman Catholicism:  The Church is dependent upon the Pope, who is understood to be the successor of St. Peter: “After his resurrection our Savior handed her [the church] over to Peter to be shepherded (John 21:27), commissioning him and the other apostles to propagate and govern her. . . . This church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” [2] Classical Protestantism:   The Church is founded on a perceived “purity” of preaching and administration of sacraments. John Calvin: “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists” Evangelicalism:  The Church is founded upon the Bible and the individual believer’s faith.  One Evangelical has defined it in the following way:  An “Evangelical church is a Protestant Christian group that believes in four principles: being “born again” or conversionism, activism (sharing of the gospel), crucicentrism (Jesus death) and Biblicism (teaching the Bible).”  In practice, if one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his or her personal Savior” he/she is a member of the “church,” regardless of church affiliation or lack thereof. Orthodox Christianity:  The Church is founded in God Himself, i.e. the communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [3]    The Church is the created expression of the life of the Holy Trinity which begins with the creation of the angels, continues in muted form in the Old Testament Church, and is perfected through the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, who is the only “Head” of the Church.  A person or a community is part of the Church if he/she/it is grafted into the one Body of Christ and is guided by the apostolic Tradition of the Church through communion with the brotherhood of with bishops who guard and perpetuate this Tradition.  The boundaries of the Church are visible.  One must not only be in historical succession from the apostles but must also hold the apostolic faith they passed on. From “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos Ware: “What then holds the Church together?  Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments….Unity is not maintained from without by the authority of a Supreme Pontiff, but created within by the celebration of the Eucharist.  The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of his flock.  The act of communion therefore forms the criterion for membership of the Church.  An individual ceases to be a member of the Church if he severs communion with his bishop; a bishop ceases to be a member of the Church if he severs communion with his fellow bishops.” The Holy Scriptures on the Church: Unity Expected in the Church 1 Cor. 16:1:   “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also ….” Eph. 4:5:   “…one Lord, one faith, one baptism….” 1 Tim. 2:8:   “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere , lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting….” The Church as the Repository and Fullness of Truth: 1 Tim. 3:15:  “…but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Eph. 1:22-23:   “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Those who have departed (are separated) from the apostolic Church: Acts 15:24:   “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment….” 1 Jn. 2:19:   “They went out from us , but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” The Church’s Divine Power: Eph. 3:10:  “…to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places….” The Church is the Christ’s undivided Body: 1 Cor. 12:17:   “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.” Eph. 3:6:   “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel….” Eph. 4:4-6:   “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in youall.” Col. 1:24:   “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church….” Acts 9:4:  “Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me ?’” Early Church Fathers on the Church: St. Clement of Rome (96AD): The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God.  Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ: in both cases the process was orderly, and derived from the will of God….They [the Apostles] preached in country and town, and appointed their first fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe.  And this was no novelty….Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office.  Therefore…they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep, other tested men should succeed to their ministry. (First Epistle to the Corinthians, xlii-xliv) Tertullian (197AD): The apostles, then, in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches—one after another—borrowed the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine.  And they are every day borrowing them, that they may become churches.  Indeed, it is only on this account that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic—as being the offspring of apostle churches….Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church of the apostles—from which they all [spring]. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different than theirs.  This is our witness of truth. (3.252, 253). St. Irenaeus of Lyons (202AD): By “knowledge of the truth” we mean: the teaching of the Apostles; the order of the Church as established from the earliest times throughout the world: the distinctive stamp of the Body of Christ, preserved through the Episcopal succession: for to the bishops the Apostles committed the care of the church which is in each place, which has come down to our own time, safeguarded without any written documents…. (Against Heresies, iv. xxxiii. 8) Origen (225AD): We cling to the standard of the heavenly church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. St. Cyprian of Carthage: “The episcopate is one….The Church is one….So also the Church, flooded with the light of the Lord, extends her rays over all the globe: yet it is one light which is diffused everywhere and the unity of the body is not broken up.” (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) “This sacrament of unity [the Church], this bond of peace inseparable and indivisible, is indicated when in the Gospel the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ was not divided at all or rent, but they cast lots for the raiment…so the raiment was received whole and the robe was taken unspoilt and undivided.” “…and the Church is made up of the people united to their priest, the flock cleaving to its shepherd.  Hence you should know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop, and that if anyone is not with the bishop he is not in the Church…the Church is catholic and one, and may not be sundered or divided but should assuredly be kept together and united by the glue which is the mutual adherence of the priest.” “Some of our colleagues, by a curious presumption, are led to suppose that those who have been dipped [baptized] among the heretics ought not to be baptized when they join us; because, they say, there is ‘one baptism’.  Yes, but that one baptism is in the Catholic Church.  And if there is one Church, there can be no baptism outside it….Our assertion is that those who come to us from heresy are baptized by us, not re -baptized.”

For more on this topic see "Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers" - https://store.ancientfaith.com/know-the-faith/ Introductory Note: While our topic is “Confession and the Priesthood ” we don’t have time to address the topic of priesthood in a comprehensive way.  Instead we will discuss it primarily as it relates to the Sacrament of Confession. Protestant views on the Sacrament of Confession have been varied from the very beginning.  Martin Luther embraced traditional Confession with a Priest as needful for all Christians (although he did not believe it to be a Sacrament), whereas John Calvin vehemently rejected it, believing that confession to God alone is sufficient.  The other major branch of Protestantism, represented by Ulrich Zwingly, also did away with confession to a Priest.  Confession in the Anglican Church is done primarily in the context of the Eucharist where congregants are asked to confess silently to God.  In regard to a private Confession with a Priest, the saying goes: “All may, none must, some should.” In practice, traditional Confession has become less and less a focus and feature of church life even in those denominations that have not rejected it.  There is typically no formal confession among Evangelical Protestants.  However, Pentecostals do often emphasize a need for public confession of sins. Clarifications: Much of the controversy over Confession originated with the Roman Church’s theology of the Sacrament as it relates to the Priesthood.  Christ had given the Apostles the power to “bind” and “loose” sins, yet in the early Church this was understood as the Priest’s cooperation with God’s action of either forgiving or withholding forgiveness for good reason.  The Priest was merely an agent through which God’s forgiveness was affirmed.  The penitent was forgiven by God through the Priest, not by the Priest.  However, by the time of the Reformation, the power to bind and loose was understood as an authority given to the Priest almost independent from God.  The Priest was not the agent of Christ, but replaced Christ.  So to this day, the Roman Catholic prayer of absolution said by the Priest states, “I forgive you,” whereas in the Orthodox Church it is worded, “God forgives you through me a sinner.”   If the Priest pronounced the words of absolution the penitent received forgiveness.  But if he chose not to, apparently for whatever reason, the penitent remained subject to hell fire.  Thus many abuses of power occurred. And so the issue regarding Confession during the Reformation became the argument as to whether a Priest can forgive sins or whether only God can forgive sins.   In other words it was about who was doing the forgiving, with emphasis on who had the “power” to do so.  And so John Calvin said, “Since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and wipes out sins, let us confess our sins to him in order to obtain pardon.”  This unnecessary dichotomy came about due to the development of the Roman understanding of Confession and the Priesthood. At the time of the Reformation there also existed coercion and abuses tied to Confession.  It was used as leverage or to manipulate or as an exercise of personal power or vendetta.  The link between Confession and indulgences became a great source of abuse.  It was understood (as it still is) that the Clergy dispense the “treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints” to those who fulfill penances received in Confession. [1]   These penances are prayers and/or good works, but also could be financial contributions to certain projects designated by the Pope.  It is in this way that St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome was built. All of this has contributed to the Protestant view that one need not confess sins to a Priest. Confession in the Scriptures: [2] In The Old Testament Numbers 5:7:    “he shall confess his sin that he has committed. And he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong.” Nehemiah 9:2-3:   “Those of Israelite descent separated themselves from all foreigners, and they stood and confessed their sins and the guilt of their fathers. While they stood in their places, they read from the book of the law of the LORD their God for a fourth of the day and spent another fourth of the day in confession and worship of the LORD their God.” Baruch 1:14-18:   “And read out publicly this scroll which we send you, in the house of the LORD, on the feast day and during the days of assembly: ‘Justice is with the LORD, our God; and we today are flushed with shame, we men of Judah and citizens of Jerusalem, that we, with our kings and rulers and priests and prophets, and with our fathers, have sinned in the LORD’S sight and disobeyed him. We have neither heeded the voice of the LORD, our God, nor followed the precepts which the LORD set before us.’” Required by St. John the Baptist Matthew 3:6: “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.” Mark 1:5:   “And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” In The New Testament Church James 5:16:   “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Acts 19:18:   “Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.” 1 Tim. 6:12:   “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” 1 John 1:9:   “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” Priesthood (Bishops, Priests, Deacons) in the New Testament In our English New Testaments the word “elder” is typically used for the Greek word “presbyter” (presbyteros) from which the word “priest” is derived.  In the earliest Church the title presbyter and bishop (Greek: episcopos) were often synonomous.  In our English Bibles the word bishop is usually translated as “overseer.”  The Bishop, then and now, is simply the head or “eldest” Priest. Acts 14:23:   So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. Acts 15:2, 4, 6:   …they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question….And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them…. Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. Acts 15:22-23:   Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas….They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Acts 16:4:   And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Acts 20:17:   From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. Acts 20:28:   Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Phil. 1:1:   Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: 1 Tim. 3:1:   This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 1 Tim. 4:14:   Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. 1 Tim. 5:17:   Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. Tit. 1:5:   For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— James 5:14:   Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 1 Pet. 5:1:   The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 1 Pet. 5:2:   Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; Rev. 5:8:  Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. The Early Church Fathers on Confession and Penance: [3] The Didache “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” ( Didache  4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).  The Letter of Barnabas “You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” ( Letter of Barnabas  19 [A.D. 74]).  St. Ignatius of Antioch “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” ( Letter to the Philadelphians  3 [A.D. 110]).  “For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).  St. Irenaeus of Lyon “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” ( Against Heresies  1:22 [A.D. 189]).  Tertullian “[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” ( Repentance  10:1 [A.D. 203]).  St. Hippolytus of Rome “[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” ( Apostolic Tradition  3 [A.D. 215]).  Origen “[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” ( Homilies on Leviticus  2:4 [A.D. 248]).  Cyprian of Carthage “The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” ( The Lapsed  15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).  “Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).  “[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” ( Letters  9:2 [A.D. 253]).  “And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20).  “But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22).  St. Aphrahat the Persian “You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” ( Treatises  7:3 [A.D. 340]).  St. Basil the Great “It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” ( Rules Briefly Treated  288 [A.D. 374]).  St. John Chrysostom “Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” ( The Priesthood  3:5 [A.D. 387]).  St. Ambrose of Milan “For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” ( Penance  1:1 [A.D. 388]).  St. Jerome “If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” ( Commentary on Ecclesiastes  10:11 [A.D. 388]).  The Reformers “Confession has two parts: 

First, a person admits his sin. 

Second, a person receives absolution or forgiveness from the confessor, as if from God Himself, without doubting it, but believing firmly that his sins are forgiven by God in Heaven through it.” (Small Catechism, Book 5) “So notice then, that Confession, as I have often said, consists of two parts. The first is my own work and action, when I lament my sins and desire comfort and refreshment for my soul. The other part is a work that God does when He declares me free of my sin through His Word placed in the mouth of a man. It is this splendid, noble, thing that makes Confession so lovely, so comforting.” (The Book of Concord, 15) “Whoever is a Christian or would like to be one is here faithfully advised to go and get the precious treasure….Nevertheless, we strongly urge you by all means to make confession of your need, not with the intention of doing a worthy work by confessing but in order to hear what God has arranged for you to be told. What I am saying is that you are to concentrate on the Word, on the Absolution, to regard it as a great and precious and magnificently splendid treasure, and to accept it with all praise and thanksgiving to God. (The Book of Concord, 20) “When I urge you to go to Confession, I am doing nothing else than urging you to be a Christian. If I have brought you to the point of being a Christian, I have thereby also brought you to Confession. For those who really desire to be true Christians, to be rid of their sins, and to have a cheerful conscience already possess the true hunger and thirst.” (The Book of Concord, 32) Luther’s objections to the Roman Catholic practice of the time: It used to be that we emphasized it only as our work; all that we were then concerned about was whether our act of confession was pure and perfect in every detail. We paid no attention to the second and most necessary part of Confession, nor did we proclaim it. We acted just as if Confession were nothing but a good work by which payment was to be made to God, so that if the confession was inadequate and not exactly correct in every detail, then the Absolution would not be valid and the sin unforgiven. 17] By this the people were driven to the point where everyone had to despair of making so pure a Confession (an obvious impossibility) and where no one could feel at ease in his conscience or have confidence in his Absolution. So they not only rendered the precious Confession useless to us but also made it a bitter burden ( Matthew 23:4 ) causing noticeable spiritual harm and ruin. (The Book of Concord, 16) [1] From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  (Note: The treasury of “satisfactions” or merits are the virtuous acts of Christ and the Saints over and above what was necessary for salvation.). [2] From: http://preachersinstitute.com/2011/04/13/confession-of-sins-in-the-bible-and-beyond.

For more on this topic see "Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers" - https://store.ancientfaith.com/know-the-faith/ Introductory Note: In our day the word “icon” has come back into the lexicon of society due to the advent of personal computers. Those familiar with “windows” software know that an icon is a recognizable visual image by which we enter into a particular world or paradigm known as an application.  Examples are Microsoft Word, Excel, and Photoshop.  When we double-click on our computer icon we enter into something much more than what the eye initially beholds.  These icons are “windows” through which we experience another world.  The same is true of holy icons, the holy images used by the Church to help open up the world of God’s kingdom to us.  They are “windows into heaven” inasmuch as they draw our hearts into the perspective of the spiritual world.  The Church’s icons are designed to portray, not the fallen and distorted world of sin that often becomes in our eyes “normal,” but the creation redeemed and saved by God through Christ in communion with the Holy Spirit.  The icons therefore purposely do not depict what we see with our fallen eyes, but the transfigured and purified creation. Because the holy icons have developed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in God’s Church, and are made with much prayer, they have been shown to be means of His grace and are often the agents of answered prayers or miracles. The attitude of Protestants toward icons (Greek: “images”) is varied and inconsistent.  Today, most Evangelical Christians would officially reject the use of icons and their churches are typically bereft of any pictures or symbols, except the image of a barren cross.  However, particularly in materials for children, it is common to see Jesus and biblical figures depicted in books, posters, and movies.  Yet Evangelicals are mainly taught that the making of any image is directly prohibited by the 2nd of the Ten Commandments.  Before the Great Schism the iconography of the Roman Church was identical to that of the Eastern as attested to, for example, by St. Mark Church in Venice (6th c.).  However, a rather swift and definitive transformation of religious art took place in the West from the 11th to 14th centuries to some extent due to the period called the “Renaissance.”  The flat, non-realistic, spiritualized, inverse perspective of the Orthodox icon was overtaken by a realistic, fleshly style and the use of an external perspective. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Lutherans took a more moderate view of images than did followers of Calvin or Zwingli.  Luther allowed crucifixes and statues as were common among Catholics.  Calvin was vehement in his rejection of the use of religious images, primarily arguing that one cannot depict the Invisible and Divine. In general, the official stance of Protestantism is to reject the veneration of icons as a form of idolatry.  Even those denominations that allow for the existence of holy images typically have no practice of venerating them.  In part this was a reaction against various abuses within the Roman Catholicism of the time. Today there is a revived interest in Orthodox icons among Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and others.  Clarifications: One primary reason for divergent views regarding iconography lies in one’s approach to the Incarnation, i.e. God becoming Man. Orthodox theology teaches that the Incarnation restores and elevates the material creation by it’s being joined to His divine nature.  The material creation is sanctified by Christ and can therefore become a means of encounter with God.  This is the theological understanding of the Church Fathers but is missing in Evangelical Christianity since salvation is merely a legal, positional issue.  But in Orthodoxy salvation is a real participation in the glorified Humanity of Christ.  This is also the basis for our understanding of the Sacraments.  Evangelicals are often influenced by a “dualism” in which the spiritual and invisible is viewed as good and the material as inherently evil. The Protestant doctrine of Solo Scriptura – i.e. that the Bible is the only expression of Christian doctrine – plays a large role in the rejection of icons in that the Bible becomes the only valid “icon” that can communicate spiritual truths.Ironically the Orthodox position agrees with John Calvin that we cannot depict that which is invisible.  The 7th Ecumenical Council forbids attempts to depict God the Father whom no one has seen (Jn. 1:18).  We can depict Jesus Christ because He became Man and was seen, heard, and touched by the holy apostles and others (1 Jn. 1:1-3).While iconographic statues have not been condemned by the Orthodox Church, there is a conservatism and reluctance to use them due to their three-dimensional and realistic nature. As discussed previously, the rejection of icons is often rooted in a lack of distinction between veneration and worship.  As we have seen the veneration of holy people and objects is attested to in the Old Testament Scriptures and is distinct from worship and idolatry.  Even today “the Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration).  A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tallenin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm.  He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue.  No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.” [1] Biblical Evidence Ex. 25:18 “And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat.” [2] Ex. 25:22 “And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, about everything which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel.” [3] Ex. 26:1 “Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine woven linen and blue, purple, and scarlet thread; with artistic designs of cherubim you shall weave them.” [4] Ex. 26:31 “You shall make a veil woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen. It shall be woven with an artistic design of cherubim.” [5] 1 Sam. 4:4 “So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from there the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who dwells between the cherubim. 2 Sam. 6:2 “And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, whose name is called by the Name, the LORD of Hosts, who dwells between the cherubim. 1 Kgs. 6:23-24 “Inside the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub five cubits: ten cubits from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other.” [6] 1 Kgs. 6:29 “Then he carved all the walls of the temple all around, both the inner and outer sanctuaries, with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers.” 1 Kgs. 6:32 “The two doors were of olive wood; and he carved on them figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread gold on the cherubim and on the palm trees. ” 1 Kgs. 7:29; 36 “…on the panels that were between the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. And on the frames was a pedestal on top. Below the lions and oxen were wreaths of plaited work….On the plates of its flanges and on its panels he engraved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, wherever there was a clear space on each, with wreaths all around.” [7] Col. 1:15 “He is the image [Gk: “icon”] of the invisible God….” Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12 “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” Early Church Fathers Excerpt from “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (69-155AD) (worship vs. veneration) 1 But the jealous and envious evil one who resists the family of the righteous, when he saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and his blameless career from the beginning, and that he was crowned with the crown of immortality, and had carried off the unspeakable prize, took care that not even his poor body should be taken away by us, though many desired to do so, and to have fellowship with his holy flesh. 2 Therefore he put forward Niketas, the father of Herod, and the brother of Alce, to ask the Governor not to give his body, “Lest,” he said, “they leave the crucified one and begin to worship this man.” And they said this owing to the suggestions and pressure of the Jews, who also watched when we were going to take it from the fire, for they do not know that we shall not ever be able either to abandon Christ, who suffered for the salvation of those who are being saved in the whole world, the innocent for sinners, or to worship any other. 3 For him we worship as the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord; and rightly, because of their unsurpassable affection toward their own King and Teacher . God grant that we too may be their companions and fellow-disciples. When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. 2 Thus we, at last, took up his bones, more precious than precious stones, and finer than gold, and put them where it was meet. 3 There the Lord will permit us to come together according to our power in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already contested, and for the practice and training of those whose fate it shall be. (Kirsopp Lake translation;17:1 – 18:3). Eusebius Pamphili (of Ceasarea) (263-339AD): “Even now the inhabitants of those regions near where Abraham worshipped those who appeared to him honor it as a holy place.  Indeed, the oak tree is still to be seen there, and there is a picture of those whom Abraham entertained reclining at table.” [8] St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (296-373AD): “We the faithful do not worship images as gods, as did the heathen Greeks—God forbid!—but our only purpose and desire is to see in the image a reflection of the facial form of the beloved.  Therefore if the image should be obliterated, we would throw it into the fire as so much scrap lumber.  Just as when Jacob was about to die, he bowed down before the point of Joseph’s staff, not honoring the staff but its owner, so also the faithful do not embrace images for their own sake, but kiss them as we often embrace our children or our parents, to show the affection in our hearts.” [9] St. Basil the Great (330-379AD) “Now arise, you renowned painters of the champions’ [martyrs] brave deeds, who by your exalted art make images of the General [Christ].  My praise for the crowned champion is dull compared with the wisdom which inspires your brush with its radiant colors….As I look at the detail in your painting of his struggle, I see his hand among the flames; your image has made his victory even more brilliant for me” [10] * * * “The image of the emperor is also called the emperor, yet there are not two emperors…for the honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype.  Therefore, the One [Christ] whom the image materially represents is He who is Son by nature.” [11] * * * “Both painters  of words and painters of pictures illustrate valor in battle; the former by the art of rhetoric; the latter by clever use of the brush, and both encourage everyone to be brave.  A spoken account edifies the ear, while a silent picture induces imitation.” [12] St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395AD): “Then the father [Abraham] proceeds to bind his son [Isaac].  I have often seen paintings of this touching scene, and could not refrain from shedding tears, so vivid was the scene reproduced by the artist.” [13] St. Ambrose of Milan (330-397AD): “…but I was caught up into ecstasy during which a face was revealed to me, which resembled the blessed apostle Paul, the same face which was painted on the icon which showed him teaching so wisely….” [14] St. John Chrysostom (347-407AD): “And I love this image molded in wax, of him [David] who was full of righteousness.  For I see the angel in the icon fighting the barbarian horde….Not only do you long to call fervently upon his [Christ’s] holy name; but also to look upon the image of his bodily form.  What you do with his name you also accomplish with his image.  For everyone rejoices to put his image everywhere, on rings, goblets, dishes, and on bedroom walls….” [15] * * * “For an image, inasmuch as it is an image, ought to be treated by us in the same fashion as the likeness it represents.” [16] Objections and Responses [17] O:   Doesn’t the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons? R:   The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated “graven images” mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment.  Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as “eidoloi”, i.e. “idols.” Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel  is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general. Let’s look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them…” (Exodus 20:4-5a). Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command.  If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver’s license violates it, and is an idol.  So either every Protestant with a driver’s license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols. Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of “graven images” lets simply look at what this text actually says about them.  You shall not make x, you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x.  If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment.  If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.  O:   Doesn’t Deuteronomy 4:14-19 forbid any images of God?  How then can you  have Icons of Christ? R:   This passage instructs the Jews not to make a (false) image of God, because they had not seen God, however, as Christians, we believe that God became Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, and so we may depict that “which we have seen with our eyes” (1st John 1:1).  As St. John of Damascus said: “Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I 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, 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.” O:   But considering the violent opposition which Jews had to images how could the early Christians have accepted Icons? Not only does one find Iconography throughout Christian Catacombs, but they are also found in Jewish catacombs of the same period.  We also have the well preserved Jewish Icons of Dura-Europos, which were in a city destroyed by the Persians in the mid 3rd century (which of course puts a limit on how recent these Icons could have been made). Also, Jewish holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them.    They contain illustrations of Biblical scenes, much like those found at the Synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the Church found near by) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians destroyed that city (See “The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters,” Final Report VII, Part I, The  Synagogue, by Carl H. Kraeling). It is note worthy that the earliest Icons of the Catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and Icons of Christ.  The dominance of Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a Pagan practices Christianized by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians. To see the images found in the Synagogue of Dura Europos, see the following links: http://www.library.yale.edu/exhibition/judaica/jcsml.2.htmlhttp://www.pitt.edu/~tokerism/0040/images2/213.jpg O:   If Icons are so important, why do we not find them in the Scriptures? R:   Ah, but we do find them in the Scriptures—plenty of them! Consider how prevalent they were in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim: On the Ark—Ex. 25:18On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36 In short, there were Icons everywhere you turned. O:   Why were there only Icons of Cherubim, and not of Saints? R:   The Temple was an image of Heaven, as St. Paul makes clear: “[the priests who serve in the Temple in Jerusalem] serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount” (Hebrews 8:5; cf. Exodus 25:40). Before Christ came in the flesh and triumphed over death by His Resurrection, the Saints of the Old Testament were not in the presence of God in Heaven, but were in Sheol (often translated as “the grave”, and translated as “hades” in Greek).   Before Christ’s Resurrection, Sheol was the destiny of both the just and the unjust (Genesis 37:35; Isaiah 38:10), though their lot there was by no means the same.  As we see in Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31; cf. Enoch 22:8-15 [although the book of Enoch is not included in the Canon of Holy Scripture,  it is a venerable part of Holy Tradition and is quoted in the Epistle of St. Jude, as well as in many of the writings of the holy fathers]) there was a gulf that separated the just from the unjust, and while the righteous were in a state of blessedness, the wicked were (and are) in a state of torment—the righteous awaited their deliverance through Christ’s Resurrection, while the wicked fearfully awaited their judgment.  Thus under the old covenant, prayers were said only for the departed, because they were not yet in heaven to intercede on our behalves.  For as St. Paul said to the Hebrews when speaking of the Old Testament Saints, “And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us” (Hebrews 11:39-40).  In Hebrews 12, St. Paul goes on to contrast the nature of the Old Covenant (12:18ff) with that of the New (12:22ff)—and among the distinctions he makes, he says that in the New Covenant we “are come unto… the spirits of just men made perfect (12:22-23).  As both the Scriptures and the rest of Holy Tradition tell us, while Christ’s body lay in the tomb, His Spirit descended into Sheol and proclaimed liberty to the captives (Ephesians 4:8-10; 1st Peter 3:19, 4:6; cf. Matthew 27:52-53). And these Saints that have triumphed over this world, now reign with Christ in Glory (2nd Timothy 2:12), and continually offer up prayers for us before the Lord (Revelation 5:8; the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, Ch. 7 [St. Ignatius was one of the disciples of the Apostle John, and was made Bishop of Antioch by him]). Thus, while in  the Old Covenant, the Temple imaged heaven with only the attending Cherubim, in the New Covenant, our Temples image heaven with the great cloud of witnesses that now reside in glory there. O:   OK, granted that there are Icons of sorts in Scripture, but where were the Israelites told that they should venerate them? R:   The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it.  In Psalms 99:5, it commands: “bow before the footstool of His feet….”  We should note first of all that the word for “bow” here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols. And what is the “footstool of His feet”?  In 1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant.  In Psalm 99 [98 in the Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who “dwells between the Cherubim” (99:1), and it ends with a call to “bow to His holy hill”—which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is preceded by the statement “We will go into His tabernacles…” and is followed by the statement “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength.” Interestingly, this phrase is applied to the Cross in the services of the Church, and the connection is not accidental—because on the Ark, between the Cherubim was the Mercy Seat, upon which the sacrificial blood was sprinkled for the sins of the people (Exodus 25:22, Leviticus 16:15). O:   But what about the Bronze Serpent? Wasn’t it destroyed precisely because the people began venerating it? R:   If you look at the passage in question (2nd Kings 18:4), you will see that the Bronze Serpent was not destroyed simply because people honored it, but because they had made it into a serpent God, called “Nehushtan.” O:  Weren’t there Iconoclasts in the Church, long before Protestants came along? R: It is important to keep in mind, when considering the question of Icons (and thus also Iconoclasm), that there are two separate questions that are often confused: 1).  Is it permissible to make or to have Icons? 2).  Is it permissible to venerate them? It is clear from the Old Testament that the answer to both questions is, Yes.   While Protestants, however, object to the veneration of Icons, they typically do not object to the making or possession of images.  If they did, they would not have illustrated Gospel tracts, TV’s, or pictures… but aside from the Amish, one would be hard pressed to find another group of Protestants that consistently eschews images.  Protestants do typically object to the veneration of images, but interestingly the arguments and evidence that they use almost always argues against any images of any kind, if the logic of their line of argumentation were consistently followed. The Iconoclasts, who are often cited by Protestants as supporting their position on this question, in fact actually argue against Protestants. On the one hand, the Iconoclasts anathematized all those who “venture to represent…with material colours…” Christ or the Saints—something almost all Protestants do themselves.  On the other hand, they also anathematized all those who “shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as one having confidence in her access to our God since she bare Him…” and they also anathematized anyone who “denies the profit of the invocation of the Saints…” ( NPNF2 , Vol. 14, p. 545f). So as a matter of fact,  Protestants find themselves under more of the Iconoclast’s anathemas than do the Orthodox. Protestants might wish to take solace that at least Iconoclasts opposed the veneration of images, but veneration was never an issue per se with the Iconoclasts.  They only opposed venerating Icons, because they opposed Icons.  They were not opposed to venerating holy things—the Iconoclasts venerated the Cross, and made no bones about it (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974,  p. 110). Protestants also cite some other fathers and early writers of the Church to support their position.  Most of these quotations simply denounce idolatry, and have nothing to do with Icons. In those few cases in which the quotes could plausibly be interpreted as condemning  Icons (some of which are arguably later Iconoclastic interpolations) a consistent interpretation would require that no images be made… because again, the objection found in these texts is to the making of and possession of images.  None of these texts even addresses the question of veneration. The Canon of the Synod of Elvira is often cited in support of an Iconoclast position.   In its 36th Canon, the council decreed:  “It is ordained that Pictures are not to be in churches, so that that  which is worshipped and adored shall not be painted on walls.” Even Protestant scholars concede that the meaning of this canon is not as clear as Protestant apologists often suggest.  For one, it is unclear what was the occasion for this canon, and it is not clear what it was trying to prevent, a fact even Protestant scholars acknowledge: “…no great weight can be attached to this [canon 36 of the council of Elvira], the exact bearing of the canon being unknown” [Edward James Martin, A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1930), p. 19, fn 4]. Because of the wording of this canon, it is almost certainly not a blanket ban on images. What is not clear is what it is banning, and more particularly to what end. Plausible interpretations range from this being merely a ban on images in Church, to a precautionary measure to protect Icons from the Pagans (since the canon was composed during a time of persecution, this is certainly possible). In any case, the fact of the matter is that Icons were in use in Spanish Churches before this Synod, and they continued to be used after this Synod, without any further evidence of controversy. Furthermore, this Synod was of a purely local character, and was never affirmed on an Œcumenical level. 3) How do you know that the Iconoclasts were not the ones who preserved the more ancient Christian view of Icons? For one thing, Iconoclasm would have thrived in Islamic dominated territory… but it didn’t.  The first out break of Iconoclasm began in Moslem territory, though this was not Christians destroying images, but Moslems destroying Christian images (Pelikan, p. 105).  There is also reason to think that Moslem influence inspired the Iconoclastic Emperors (for one, all of them were from parts of the Empire in which Moslems had made inroads), but the fact of the matter is that the only part of the Church in which Iconoclasm took hold was in those areas in which the Iconoclast Emperors could impose their heresy upon the people.  In all areas of the Church beyond the reach of Byzantine arms, the Church opposed the Iconoclasts and broke communion with them.   One of the most vocal opponents of the Iconoclasts was St. John of Damascus, who lived under Moslem rule, and suffered persecution as a result.  If the Iconoclast view were really the traditional view, we should have expected to see this opinion dominate the Christians living under Moslem rule.  At the very least, we would expect some Iconoclasts to speak out from among these Christians, but in fact, the opposite was true—there were no Iconoclastic voices heard from Moslem dominated lands, despite the obvious advantages such Christians would have had with their Moslem rulers. Also, prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, we have extensive archeological evidence that Icons were used throughout the Church, and were this a departure from Apostolic Tradition we should expect to find a huge controversy on the subject from the very moment that Icons first came into use, which would have only intensified as their use became more common.   We find, however, nothing of the sort.  In fact, thirty years prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, the Quinisext council established a canon regarding what should be depicted in certain Icons, but hasn’t the faintest hint of any controversy about Icons per se : “In some of the paintings of the venerable Icons, a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Precursor’s finger, which was taken to be a type of grace, suggesting beforehand through the law the true lamb to us Christ our God.  Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and shadows as symbols of the truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and accept it as the truth in fulfillment of the law.   Since, therefore, that which is perfect even though it be but painted is imprinted in the faces of all, the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world Christ our God, with respect to His human character, we decree that henceforth he shall be inscribed even in the Icons instead of the ancient lamb: through Him being enabled to comprehend the reason for the humiliation of the God Logos, and in memory of His life in the flesh and of His passion and of His soterial death being led by the hand, as it were, and of the redemption of the world which thence accrues” (Canon LXXXII of the Quinisext Council). Aside from this, there are many other things about the Iconoclast which show the novelty of their heresy:  they opposed monasticism, despite the fact that it had unquestionably been embraced by the Church for centuries, they were found of robbing monks, taking their land, and forcing them to marry, eat meat, and attend public spectacles (and those who resisted often were the public spectacles), contrary to well established monastic practice.  Even Protestant historians are forced to concede that the holy men and women of the day were supporters of the veneration of Icons, and that the Iconoclasts were a rather immoral and ruthless lot. “Much has been written, and truly written, of the superiority of the iconoclastic rulers; but when all has been said that can be, the fact still remains, that they were most of them but sorry Christians, and the justice of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin’s summing up of the matter will not be disputed by any impartial student. He says, “No one will deny that with rarest exceptions, all the religious earnestness, all which constituted the quickening power of a church, was ranged upon the other [i.e. the orthodox] side. Had the Iconoclasts triumphed, when their work showed itself at last in its true colours, it would have proved to be the triumph, not of faith in an invisible God, but of frivolous unbelief in an incarnate Saviour.” ( Trench. Mediaeval History, Chap. vii.) The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in NPNF2, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, p. 575, cf. 547f. One can only be an Iconoclast if they believe that the Church can cease to exist—contrary to the Scriptures—because there is no doubt that the Church rejected Iconoclasm and used Icons from at least as far back as its use of catacombs (which are full of Christian Icons).  This is an option that thoughtful Evangelicals generally reject (see, for example,  A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy, Part Two: Guidlines for Doctrinal Discernment, in the Christian Research Journal , Fall 1990, p. 14, section 3, “The Orthodox Principle”). [1] From Fr. John Whiteford, http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx. [2] On the Ark of the Covenant. [3] Not only does the Lord command images of the Cherubim to be made on the Ark of the Covenant, He designates that very spot as the place He will communicate (reveal) Himself to Moses, and through him to all the people.  (see also Num. 7:89; 1 Sam. 4:4). [4] The tabernacle is the place of worship (the “church” structure) for the people of Israel in the wilderness. [5] This is the veil that hung directly in front of the “Holy of Holies.” [6] These huge images were placed in the inner sanctuary of the Temple of Solomon and would have been present at the time of Christ. [7] These images were on the various furnishings of the Temple. [8] Exposition on the Gospels, Fifth Book. [9] Hundred Chapters to Antiochus the Prefect, Ch. 38. [10] Sermon on the blessed martyr Barlaam. [11] Thirty Chapters to Amphilochius on the Holy Spirit, Ch. 18. [12] Sermon on the martyr Gordius. [13] Sermon on the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and on Abraham. [14] Epistle to the Italians. [15] Sermon concerning the single authorship of the Old and New Testaments; and on the garments of the priests. [16] Third sermon on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ch. 17. [17] All of these are taken from Fr. John Whiteford, http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx.