Re: Icons of Christ (was Bishop Dixon Visit)

[barbara wolf <lupa@biddeford.com>]

Can we be on the brink of another Iconoclastic Controversy?  I hope that, if
such be the case, it won't last as long.

It does seem to me that one of the problems here is that the word <icon> has
not been given a generally accepted meaning.  In fact, in terms of the
arguments being presented (which, by the way, have shifted from Bp. Dixon to
women's ordination without anyone stopping to examine why), the use of
<icon> to substantiate the nature of Christian priesthood is very much a
latter-day thing.  I distinctly remember when it started to appear in
General Ordination Exam answers, as if it were the hottest most up-to-date
thing to say about priesthood.  And here it shows up in frail company indeed.

I wonder if anyone out there has read Charles Williams' DESCENT OF THE DOVE?
It would both reassure the anxious and challenge the secure.  I heartily
recommend it to all who feel that the preservation of ecclesiological forms
is Catholic.

I would also recommend a re-reading of the account of the
Transfiguration--now there's the story of a living icon!--especially the
part about Peter wanting to hang on to the moment, to capture the
transfigured Jesus in a familiar "ark"-form.  The point here, IMHO, is the
same that others have made better than I can. We have to be very careful not
to mistake the outward and visible sign for the inward and invisible grace;
we also have to be very careful not to mistake the symbol for the reality,
and the (male) priest for the Christ-figure.

Anyway, to those who haven't read Williams' history of the Church, please do so.