OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 04:38:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Sacred Heart as I know it.  (Read 23106 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #315 on: October 14, 2011, 06:42:14 PM »

Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #316 on: October 14, 2011, 06:46:28 PM »

Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.

The point is that generally, beyond a certain point, the iconic images begin to take on the aspect of the stories of the faith more so that being images of individual persons.  So that there are variations in what one might call "veneration" depending on what the image portrays and is meant to convey.

Now IF one imagines or asserts that "veneration" means simply a reverence for the truths of the faith told in images, well then we may say that Roman rite Catholics actually DO venerate their sacred art...but then we are moving away from a direct and immediate veneration of a particular person or grouping of persons.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #317 on: October 14, 2011, 06:56:17 PM »

Quote
The point is that generally, beyond a certain point, the iconic images begin to take on the aspect of the stories of the faith more so that being images of individual persons.  So that there are variations in what one might call "veneration" depending on what the image portrays and is meant to convey.

The Orthodox Church celebrates feasts of events in salvation history, as well as sainted and holy individuals. Icons of these feasts are painted as murals, usually in the higher registers of the walls of churches, and on iconostases above the main row, and, of course, displayed on the respective feastday as portable icons for direct, personal veneration. It's all part of the same totality of worship and commemoration.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #318 on: October 14, 2011, 07:02:53 PM »

Quote
The point is that generally, beyond a certain point, the iconic images begin to take on the aspect of the stories of the faith more so that being images of individual persons.  So that there are variations in what one might call "veneration" depending on what the image portrays and is meant to convey.

The Orthodox Church celebrates feasts of events in salvation history, as well as sainted and holy individuals. Icons of these feasts are painted as murals, usually in the higher registers of the walls of churches, and on iconostases above the main row, and, of course, displayed on the respective feastday as portable icons for direct, personal veneration. It's all part of the same totality of worship and commemoration.

Sacred art as story-telling is understood to be as much about the anthropology of the Church as it is the spirituality of the Church.  It was the catechism of the un-lettered.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #319 on: October 14, 2011, 07:08:41 PM »

At its heart, iconography is a proclamation of the Incarnation. The invisible God becoming material for our sake. The iconoclasts were all, without exception, deniers and distorters of the fullness of the incarnation.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 07:09:41 PM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #320 on: October 14, 2011, 08:02:22 PM »

At its heart, iconography is a proclamation of the Incarnation. The invisible God becoming material for our sake. The iconoclasts were all, without exception, deniers and distorters of the fullness of the incarnation.

I think you overstate your point a good bit.  There seems to me to be pretty wide variation even in Orthodoxy concerning the layering of iconography in any give jurisdiction.  Some are more dense than others in their adornment of their temples.   Should we take that to mean that the less densely adorned are not fully full of the fullness of the incarnation?
Logged

Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #321 on: October 14, 2011, 09:30:03 PM »

Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.

Someone did actually venerate the Pantokrator in the dome at my church once. Only once. No one else has ever found a way up there.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #322 on: October 14, 2011, 09:32:29 PM »

Incense rises, EM. And the highest point in an Orthodox church is the icon of Christ Pantokrator, looking down over all from the dome or ceiling.

Someone did actually venerate the Pantokrator in the dome at my church once. Only once. No one else has ever found a way up there.

I love it!!  Good for them!!   

I'd love to have witnessed the climb!
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 09:33:10 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,699



WWW
« Reply #323 on: October 14, 2011, 09:34:23 PM »

Wow. Lucky he.  angel
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #324 on: October 15, 2011, 03:50:33 AM »

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,275


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #325 on: October 15, 2011, 11:39:49 AM »

Quote
I do not mean that icons and iconic murals are decorations, in the way that I am talking about decorations.   I see large iconic murals more as "story telling" sacred art, rather than icons for immediate and direct veneration: Much like the paintings on walls in medieval cathedrals and basilicas.  They are not designed for or situated so that they are available for immediate and direct veneration.

Just because mural icons are out of physical reach of lips and hands does not mean they are not venerated. At every liturgical service they are censed and bowed before. Censing is no less a gesture of veneration than is kissing. It is a small, but very important detail that, all too often, gets missed in people's understanding of iconography.

On stanley123's and J Michael's comments on modern RCC churches:

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member. Never mind the barn-like early-seventies interior, or the pre-recorded modern songs, this was the least of the problem. What shocked and grieved me far more was the almost total lack of reverence and sense of place and occasion, even though the bishop was present. Indeed, at one stage, the bishop himself invited the little ones to stand with him behind the Holy Table. The whole ceremony was all so .... casual. So sad. So very sad.




With regards to the bolded above, this has been discussed many times.  Degree of "reverence, sense of place...." is, I believe, more a function of the tone set by the pastor and the level of catechesis than of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, per se.  I have seen in Orthodox churches (yes, plural) the very same casualness, lack of reverence, etc. that you unfortunately found at the Catholic church you attended.  Lamentable *wherever* it occurs. 


Back to icons--I wonder when icons started to be venerated the way they are today--anyone?  I was always taught that their initial and primary function was, as Mary states, catehesis of an illiterate population.  Did veneration come later or was it always done?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #326 on: October 16, 2011, 07:48:51 AM »

At its heart, iconography is a proclamation of the Incarnation. The invisible God becoming material for our sake. The iconoclasts were all, without exception, deniers and distorters of the fullness of the incarnation.

I think you overstate your point a good bit.  There seems to me to be pretty wide variation even in Orthodoxy concerning the layering of iconography in any give jurisdiction.  Some are more dense than others in their adornment of their temples.   Should we take that to mean that the less densely adorned are not fully full of the fullness of the incarnation?

Again, you miss my point, EM. Here's a seminal quote from St John of Damascus:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.


In other words, the existence of icons and their veneration is nothing less than a declaration of the fullness of the Incarnation of God. It's not how many icons, but their very presence that is important.

On the matter of the variation between churches on the number of icons present within them, it's simply a matter of availability of resources. In  many parts of the world where Orthodoxy is not the dominant faith, local trained iconographers were unavailable until quite recently. In the city where I live, the first Orthodox church to have its walls fully painted with icons had this done barely twenty years ago, with iconographers brought in from Greece. Back then, the cost would have been in the order of $50,000. Since that time, only three more of the approximately twenty Orthodox churches in this city are fully-painted, two of them by locally-trained iconographers. All credit to them.

However, even in fledgling parishes and missions held in rented premises and people's homes, the bare minimum of an icon of Christ and of the Mother of God is required for any liturgical service to proceed (and, in the case of a Divine Liturgy, an antimension). It is simply not possible to conduct an Orthodox service without icons.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #327 on: October 16, 2011, 07:55:32 AM »

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #328 on: October 16, 2011, 07:59:35 AM »

Quote
Degree of "reverence, sense of place...." is, I believe, more a function of the tone set by the pastor and the level of catechesis than of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, per se.

Then can anyone explain such laxity in the presence of, and with the encouragement of, the archbishop himself? This is what I found incomprehensible. I can quite understand the consternation felt by good, pious RCs when such transgressions are allowed to occur, promoted by senior clergy.  Sad Sad
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #329 on: October 16, 2011, 08:06:27 AM »

Quote
Back to icons--I wonder when icons started to be venerated the way they are today--anyone?  I was always taught that their initial and primary function was, as Mary states, catehesis of an illiterate population.  Did veneration come later or was it always done?

Icons, from the very beginning, have been venerated in the same way we do to this day, as were the relics of saints and martyrs. Indeed, the practice of incorporating a relic of a saint into altars and antimensia arose from the catacomb days of conducting liturgies on the tombs of martyrs. These tombs were the original "church altars". Later, particularly after Roman persecution ended, innumerable churches were built over the graves of saints, all over the Christian world. The "theology for the illiterate" explanation is not untrue, but it is only a small part of the reason for the existence and necessity of icons and their veneration.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #330 on: October 16, 2011, 01:35:20 PM »

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
He's referring to comments made on this forum about how it is sinful for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to "pray with heretics."
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #331 on: October 17, 2011, 12:31:54 AM »

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
He's referring to comments made on this forum about how it is sinful for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to "pray with heretics."
Yes. I thought that was against the canons of the Orthodox Church to pray with heretics?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #332 on: October 17, 2011, 03:03:33 AM »

I had cause in recent months to attend the confirmation and first communion of a family member.
I thought it was against the canons of the Orthodox Church for an Orthodox to pray with Catholics in a Catholic Church?

Is your entire family Roman Catholic, stanley123? Are there no mixed marriages in your family?
He's referring to comments made on this forum about how it is sinful for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to "pray with heretics."
Yes. I thought that was against the canons of the Orthodox Church to pray with heretics?

Especially ones that worship body parts, so I guess LBK is SOL. I guess LBK might as well confess now, and receive 20 years of penance for denying the Orthodox faith. Roll Eyes









(it's a great thing that canons aren't a rigid legal code, isn't it?)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 03:06:06 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #333 on: October 17, 2011, 05:12:27 AM »

Yup, just as I thought. Diversions and non-sequiturs. Stanley and Wyatt, you two are incapable of continuing a discussion properly and sensibly because you have no real answers to what I have to say.  Roll Eyes
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,275


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #334 on: October 17, 2011, 10:36:42 AM »

Quote
Degree of "reverence, sense of place...." is, I believe, more a function of the tone set by the pastor and the level of catechesis than of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, per se.

Then can anyone explain such laxity in the presence of, and with the encouragement of, the archbishop himself? This is what I found incomprehensible. I can quite understand the consternation felt by good, pious RCs when such transgressions are allowed to occur, promoted by senior clergy.  Sad Sad

If it was, indeed, as you portray it and the archbishop himself was presiding, well...all I can say is, shame on him!  He is not the first, nor will he be the last archbishop, Catholic or Orthodox, to countenance such behavior.  Appalling and lamentable.  The good news, though, *is* the Good News and that the gates of hell shall not prevail...
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #335 on: October 17, 2011, 12:12:40 PM »

Yup, just as I thought. Diversions and non-sequiturs. Stanley and Wyatt, you two are incapable of continuing a discussion properly and sensibly because you have no real answers to what I have to say.  Roll Eyes
Say something sensible and perhaps we will.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #336 on: October 17, 2011, 02:09:07 PM »

Yup, just as I thought. Diversions and non-sequiturs. Stanley and Wyatt, you two are incapable of continuing a discussion properly and sensibly because you have no real answers to what I have to say.  Roll Eyes
I agree with you on icons and their value in Christianity. Also, I understand that not every religious image would be considered an Orthodox (or orthodox) icon, because there are certain conditions which have to be fulfilled for that, including prayer, fasting, and the image represented icon must be in the long honored tradition and style as is taught and known by the Orthodox Church.
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #337 on: October 17, 2011, 05:40:06 PM »

Quote
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.

The canon is Canon 82, of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It decrees that Christ is to be portrayed in icons in the fullness of His revelation (as God and Man), and not as an abstraction or metaphysical concept. IIRC, I posted the text of this canon earlier in this thread.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #338 on: October 17, 2011, 07:15:14 PM »

Quote
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.

The canon is Canon 82, of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It decrees that Christ is to be portrayed in icons in the fullness of His revelation (as God and Man), and not as an abstraction or metaphysical concept. IIRC, I posted the text of this canon earlier in this thread.
Ok. I am not sure exactly how to interpret that, but would you say it applies to both East and West? Of course, the West also has religious images which may not meet the requirements for a Byzantine iconic image, but are still venerated.
When I spoke about Church canons, I was speaking about what I thought I read on this board (not this thread) concerning a canon which forbids praying with heretics. How seriously are Orthodox supposed to take these canons?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #339 on: October 17, 2011, 08:13:31 PM »

Quote
I personally don't see the problem with the Sacred Heart Image as it represents the love of Our Divine Lord for humanity, so I would not agree with you on that, although obviously it is not in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
I mentioned a canon of the Orthodox Church since I thought it applied in the case you had brought up.
Maybe there is such a canon, maybe not, but we hear about it often enough.

The canon is Canon 82, of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It decrees that Christ is to be portrayed in icons in the fullness of His revelation (as God and Man), and not as an abstraction or metaphysical concept. IIRC, I posted the text of this canon earlier in this thread.

 Cheesy

He may be there mystically in the fullness of his divinty but I'll be darned if it is the "fault" of the iconographer's talent or lack there-of...

So however you cut it...the PRESENTATION of divinity is mystical or abstract in so far as it is impossible to render it in its FULLNESS and it is the PRESENCE that we can HOPE for but to PRESENT it?....I don't think so.

C'mon....
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #340 on: October 17, 2011, 09:07:14 PM »

Quote
Ok. I am not sure exactly how to interpret that,

Here is Canon 82 (bold is my emphasis):

In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth, Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His Passion, His salvific death, and thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

The interpretation of the Canon from The Rudder:

In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth, Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His Passion, His salvific death, and thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

In other words, symbolic or abstracted representations of Christ are inferior in proclaiming the fullness of the revelation of God Incarnate.

And this analysis, from chapter 7 of Leonid Ouspensky's Theology of the Icon:

The first sentence of the canon explains the situation existing at that time. It speaks of St. John the Baptist (the "Precursor") pointing out Christ, who is represented as a lamb. We know that the realistic image of Christ, His adequate portrait, existed from the beginning, and it is this portrait which is the true witness of His incarnation. In addition, there were also larger cycles representing subjects from the Old and New Testaments, particularly those of our major feasts, where Christ was represented in His human form. And yet symbolic representations replacing the human image of Christ also existed in the seventh century. This attachment to the biblical prefigurations, in particular to the image of the lamb, was particularly widespread in the West. It was necessary, however, to guide the faithful towards the stand adopted by the Church, and this is what Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council does.

Because it is the truth which came through Jesus Christ, it is not a matter of translating a word into images, but of showing the truth itself, the fulfilment of the words. Indeed, when he was speaking of "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world," it was not a lamb at which St. John the Baptist was pointing but rather Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God who became Man and came to the world to fulfil the law and to offer Himself in sacrifice. It is He who was prefigured by the lamb of the Old Testament. It is this fulfilment, this reality, this truth which had to be shown to everyone. Thus the truth is revealed not only by the word, but it is also shown by the image. The text of the canon implies an absolute denial of all abstractions and of all metaphysical conceptions of religion. Truth has its own image. For it is not an idea or an abstract formula, it is concrete and living, it is a Person, the Person, "crucified under Pontius Pilate." When Pilate asks Christ, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), Christ answers by remaining silent before him. Pilate leaves, without even awaiting an answer, knowing that a whole multitude of answers can be given to this question without one of them being valid. For it is the Church alone which possesses the answer to the question of Pilate. Christ says to His apostles: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). The correct question is not "What is truth?" but rather "Who is the truth?" Truth is a person, and it has an image. This is why the Church not only speaks of the truth, but also shows the truth: the image of Jesus Christ.

The council orders that the symbols of the Old Testament, used in the first centuries of Christianity, be replaced by direct representations of the truth they prefigured. It calls for the unveiling of their meaning. The image contained in the symbols of the Old Testament becomes reality in the incarnation. Since the Word became flesh and lived among us, the image must directly show that which happened in time and became visible, representable and describable.

Thus the ancient symbols are suppressed because a direct image now, exists and, in relation to this direct image, these symbols are belated manifestations of "Jewish immaturity." As long as the wheat was not ripe, their existence was justified, even indispensable, since they contributed to its maturation. But in "the wheat ripe with truth," their role was no longer constructive. They even became a negative force because they reduced the principal importance and role of the direct image. As soon as a direct image is replaced by a symbol, it loses the absolute importance it embodies.

The Fathers and the Christological councils had found clear and precise dogmatic formulas to express, as much as it was possible to do in words, the teaching of the Church on the incarnation of God. But words were not enough: The truth still had to be defended for a long time against those who did not accept it, in spite of the extreme clarity of conciliar decrees and patristic formulas. It was not only necessary to speak the truth, it was also necessary to show it. In the realm of the image, it was also necessary to make a rigorous confession which would stand up against the obscure and confused doctrines which everyone could accept equivocally, but which were not true. It was not a matter of finding a compromise to satisfy everyone, but of clearly confessing the truth, so "that this fulfilment might be seen by all," according to the words of Canon 82.

Thus Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council expresses, for the first time, the teaching of the Church on the icon and simultaneously indicates the possibility of conveying a reflection of the divine glory through the means of art and with the help of some symbolism. It emphasises all the importance of historical reality, acknowledging the realistic image, but only one which is represented in a special way, with the help of a symbolic language that reveals the spiritual reality which only the Orthodox teaching conveys. It considers that the symbols, "the figures and shadows," do not express the fullness of grace, although they are worthy of respect and may correspond to the needs of a given epoch. The iconographic symbol is therefore not completely excluded. But its importance is seen as secondary. Our own contemporary iconography still retains several of these symbols: for example, the three stars on the robe of the Virgin, which denote her virginity before, during and after the nativity, or else a hand descending from the sky to designate the divine presence. But this iconographic symbolism is relegated to its secondary place and never replaces the direct image.

Canon 82 expresses, for the first time, what we call the iconographic canon, i.e. a set criterion for the liturgical quality of an image, just as the "canon of Scripture" establishes the liturgical quality of a text. The iconographic canon is a principle allowing us to judge whether an image is an icon or not. It establishes the conformity of the icon with Holy Scripture and defines what this conformity consists in: the authenticity of the transmission of the divine revelation in historical reality, by means of what we call symbolic realism, and in a way that truly reflects the Kingdom of God.


Quote
but would you say it applies to both East and West?

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?


« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 09:12:57 PM by LBK » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #341 on: October 17, 2011, 09:11:02 PM »

May I add that one aspect which distinguishes iconography from other religious art is its depiction of feasts of the Church, particularly with the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, and the Resurrection. The composition of proper Orthodox icons of these feasts is very different to the common western depictions.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 09:11:20 PM by LBK » Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #342 on: October 17, 2011, 10:01:43 PM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #343 on: October 17, 2011, 10:07:22 PM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #344 on: October 17, 2011, 10:39:12 PM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #345 on: October 17, 2011, 11:20:53 PM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?

Always.  These canons were written with the pratices of the Latin and in some cases the Armenian and Syriac Churches in mind.  A local synod, in this case a Byzantine one, saw fit to tell other Churches what they should or should not be doing exhibiting the same arrogance the Byzantine Church accused the Latin Church of.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #346 on: October 17, 2011, 11:26:04 PM »

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #347 on: October 18, 2011, 12:53:57 AM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the canons of the Quinisext Council?

Not canons 13,32,36,52,55,56,81,82,90.
That's interesting. When did the RCC explicitly reject these canons?

Always.  These canons were written with the pratices of the Latin and in some cases the Armenian and Syriac Churches in mind.  A local synod, in this case a Byzantine one, saw fit to tell other Churches what they should or should not be doing exhibiting the same arrogance the Byzantine Church accused the Latin Church of.
Ea Semper.

The Latin church created its Byzantine church.

As for the Church of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (II-III) held in Trullo
Quote
Hefele.  Hist. of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 222.)

The year 6199 of the Constantinopolitan era coincides with the year 691 after Christ and the IVth Indiction ran from September 1, 690, to August 31, 691.  If then, our Synod, in canon iij., speaks of the 15th of January in the past Indiction IV., it means January 691; but it belongs itself, to the Vth Indiction, i.e., it was opened after September 1, 691, and before September 1, 692.

As this is not a history of the Councils but a collection of their decrees and canons with illustrative notes, the only other point to be considered is the reception these canons met with.

The decrees were signed first by the Emperor, the next place was left vacant for the Pope, then followed the subscriptions of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, the whole number being 211, bishops or representatives of bishops.  It is not quite certain whether any of the Patriarchs were present except Paul of Constantinople; but taking it all in all the probability is in favour of their presence. Blank places were left for the bishops of Thessalonica, Sardinia, Ravenna and Corinth.  The Archbishop of Gortyna in Crete added to his signature the phrase “Holding the place of the holy Church of Rome in every synod.”  He had in the same way signed the decrees of III. Constantinople, Crete belonging to the Roman Patriarchate; as to whether his delegation on the part of the Roman Synod continued or was merely made to continue by his own volition we have no information.  The ridiculous blunder of Balsamon must be noted here, who asserts that the bishops whose names are missing and for which blank places were left, had actually signed.

Pope Sergius refused to sign the decrees when they were sent to him, rejected them as “lacking authority” (invalidi) and described them as containing “novel errors.”  With the efforts to extort his signature we have no concern further than to state that they signally failed.  Later on, in the time of Pope Constantine, a middle course seems to have been adopted, a course subsequently in the ninth century thus expressed by Pope John VIII., “he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome,” a truly notable statement!  Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod.  “All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.”  Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan Canon LXXXII.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #348 on: October 18, 2011, 12:55:20 AM »

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #349 on: October 18, 2011, 12:59:19 AM »

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #350 on: October 18, 2011, 01:14:19 AM »

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.
It's not the only case for the Vatican: Orthodox Rome accepted Constantinople IV (879), until the late 11th century, when the Vatican decided it would rather have the voided council of Constantinople of 869 and its canons in its Investiture Controversy.

Odd that Deacon Lance should bring it up, as Quintsext/Pentheke is one of those things guarenteed in the "unions," and cast aside for Latinization (e.g. the Apostolic practice of married clergy).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #351 on: October 18, 2011, 01:17:54 AM »

More importantly, why did the RCC reject them? The rejection, if this is the case, of Canon 82 would explain very well the gulf between Orthodox iconography and western religious art, in form, function, and understanding.

Canon 82 proscribes the image of the Lamb of God which had traditionally been used in the Roman Church for some time.  One may also ask what power or right a local Synod had to proscribe the uses of other Churches not under their jurisdiction. 
Simple. It wasn't a local synod.  (btw, in contrast, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I was convened as a local council).

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.
It looks like the split between East and West was already in place by this time with EO accepting the canons of Trullo but RC rejecting them, at least to some extent.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #352 on: October 18, 2011, 01:18:11 AM »

How very interesting. So it seems that an Ecumenical Council is not really ecumenical, according to the RCC? Or that the RCC still regards the Quinisext Council as ecumenical, but has chosen to not abide by some of its canons? Hmmm.

Rome does not regard the Trullan synod as ecumenical although it does not proscribe the majority of its canons.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #353 on: October 18, 2011, 01:20:28 AM »

Odd that Deacon Lance should bring it up, as Quintsext/Pentheke is one of those things guarenteed in the "unions," and cast aside for Latinization (e.g. the Apostolic practice of married clergy).

Married clergy is much older than the Trullan synod.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #354 on: October 18, 2011, 01:22:11 AM »

Odd that Deacon Lance should bring it up, as Quintsext/Pentheke is one of those things guarenteed in the "unions," and cast aside for Latinization (e.g. the Apostolic practice of married clergy).

Married clergy is much older than the Trullan synod.
yes, and the Trullan Council has kept it that way.  That is the purpose of a Council, to keep things the same.  The idea of councils innovating is a Vatican invention.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 01:26:05 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #355 on: October 18, 2011, 01:24:25 AM »

Simple. It wasn't a local synod.

Good luck convincing the Latins, Armenians, or Syriacs of that.  Are the Oriental Orthodox to obey the suppression of their customs from this Byzantine synod?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,632


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #356 on: October 18, 2011, 01:31:36 AM »

Simple. It wasn't a local synod.

Good luck convincing the Latins, Armenians, or Syriacs of that.  Are the Oriental Orthodox to obey the suppression of their customs from this Byzantine synod?

You'll have to ask the OO which councils after Chalcedon they accept, and which of their decrees they accept.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 01:32:22 AM by LBK » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #357 on: October 18, 2011, 01:40:14 AM »

Simple. It wasn't a local synod.

Good luck convincing the Latins
for the WRO, done.

Armenians, or Syriacs of that.
Not any different from Chalcedon through Nicea II. You want to make them local too?


Are the Oriental Orthodox to obey the suppression of their customs from this Byzantine synod?
What Byzantine synod?  Florence is a byzantine synod. Trullo is not.  The Creed wasn't sealed at "Byzantium I."

It's been a while, but I only recall something about Armenian clerical dynasties (in which case yes, at least as far any canon is authoritative) and sacrificing animals in the Church. Don't recall any Syriac customs.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #358 on: October 18, 2011, 01:51:10 AM »

It's been a while, but I only recall something about Armenian clerical dynasties (in which case yes, at least as far any canon is authoritative) and sacrificing animals in the Church. Don't recall any Syriac customs.

The Trullan canons proscribe the Armenian use of an unmixed chalice and the Syrian use of "who was crucified for us" in the Trisagion, now common to all the Oriental Orthodox I believe.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #359 on: October 20, 2011, 04:07:16 PM »

Yes, it is forbidden, in the Orthodox Church, to pray together with those of a different faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, by far the largest and most predominant Orthodox Church in the world, has clarified this recently and it is on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian whether Russian Orthodox or not.

But attending some event at a non-Orthodox church is not the same as the sin of praying with the non-Orthodox. I'm sure the fellow who attended his family member's chrismation did not actually say the prayers together with the Roman-Catholic people, or sing along on anything. If so, it was a sin. But doubtless he was simply showing respect for his family, not (God forbid!) seeking some kind of spiritual nourishment from the heretical church.

One can show love, without sacrificing the truth of Christ. Due to heresies having entered in, we cannot all participate in Sacraments together, but we can participate, without asking any blessing or waiting on anyone else, jump in and participate in the Sacrament of Love for one another.

Just because someone does something wrong, or picks up a wrong belief, is not a reason to cease loving him.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.153 seconds with 73 queries.