The latest issue of the British Church Newspaper has an article about the Abp York giving an icon to a school. The article is very critical of the whole idea - but prints a picture of said icon being handed over, the picture clearly shows the front of the icon. Am I correct in thinking that this picture, even though it is merely a news story and critical, is in itself a breach of the second commandment.
Second commandement query
- Thread starter Somerset
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Is it attempting to picture a divine person? If so, yes. If it is merely an icon of a figure from church history, while not perhaps wise, is itself no more of a violation than my avatar.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That is a controversial icon even by iconodulic standards. It seems to be Andrei Rublev's painting. Romanism has no problem portraying God the Father. EO, on the other hand, generally frowns on said icon, though there is no official opinion.
The line between reporting something and engaging in it can be quite fine, and I think the media often crosses it. But I don't think that having photographic evidence of a 2nd Commandment violation is itself necessarily a violation, because that is not true with regard to other commands. For instance, the Bible records instances of blasphemy (e.g., Acts 12) but does not thereby countenance or promote blasphemy. The icon breaks the 2nd Commandment, quite egregiously; I'm not persuaded that documenting that in order to demonstrate the basis for criticism does. But just as one is careful in photographing violations of the 6th and 7th Commandments, it is wise to be cautious on this point as well.
- Status
