- Sep 26, 2004
- Reaction score
What is the history in regard to why there are icons in the east and not in the west ie: Roman catholic?
ozgeorge said:There are many famous icons in the west, mainly frescoes and mosaics, but some portable ones also. Some examples would be the frescos and mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore and the San Damiano Crucifix in Italy.
This thread is going to degenerate into anti-Roman differentiation, and I would expect someone making the last statement to be able to explain what these two supposedly different meanings are.TruthSeeker said:I didn't know that thanx.........but what I was getting at was why the RC tradition doesn't have icons in the church but rather statues...and these statues don't have the same meaning as the icon in orthodoxy.
Timos is probably pretty correct here. I can't imagine the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople with the full-blown iconostasis we see today. I would think it's development occurred mostly post-787 when the (then Orthodox) Bishop of Rome guided the Church in the east out of the iconoclastic errors.Timos said:In some ways, Western churches (and by this i mean traditional Romanesque basilica) style is more ancient than that of the East. For example, the iconostasion didn't rise up in the Eastern churches until the early-mid Middle Ages..Before the iconostasion became such it was just an altar rail in front of the altar (about kness length) with some icons hanging down it. (Traditional pre-Vatican II ) churches today have this altar rail before the altar. Icons can be hung on the reredoes behind the altar or statues can be on either side of the altar.