Topic: Here's an Icon with Something for Everyone

[Fr. George]

Oh yes it does. Icons depict what has been revealed about God and the Holy Trinity, not what springs from the imagination of the painter. Icons, at their very core, are representative of the Incarnation of God, the most potent act of Divine revelation.

I think AMM was saying that he made his point specifically to be irrelevant to the discussion.

[soufliotiki]

On another Orthodox forum a lady (Olga) who posts there regularly (and who is a highly experienced iconographer) posted the following on the thread called "The Ark of Salvation" about this "picture":

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4612&highlight=Ark+of+Salvation

In particular, post #8 describing the picture is of great interest:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=59206&postcount=8

[ChristusDominus]

The pointy hat on the pointy hatted heretic isn't pointy enough.   

HaHa.. I guess BOTH of our Catholicoses should be depicted outside the boat

[Iconodule]

My wife and I were on vacation in Moscow this summer and we visited the Tretyakov gallery. In the section devoted to icons, I did indeed come across an "Ark of Salvation" icon very similar to the ones under discussion. It was dated to the 18th century. It did not, of course, have Lenin or "ecumenists" depicted but there was an array of figures on the shore menacing the Ark, including a figure firing a musket and someone enthroned whom I guessed was the Pope. And there was also a turbaned man, whom I assume to be Muhammad, aiming a bow, as well as other figures. I don't think there were labels attached to identify them, and I didn't have much time to examine the icon, but I think it can surely be said that these contemporary "Ark of Salvation" icons have precedent- which is of course a separate question from whether they are legitimate.

[jah777]

This Ark of Salvation icon is from Zographou Monastery on Mt. Athos and dated 1817:

[LBK]

My wife and I were on vacation in Moscow this summer and we visited the Tretyakov gallery. In the section devoted to icons, I did indeed come across an "Ark of Salvation" icon very similar to the ones under discussion. It was dated to the 18th century. It did not, of course, have Lenin or "ecumenists" depicted but there was an array of figures on the shore menacing the Ark, including a figure firing a musket and someone enthroned whom I guessed was the Pope. And there was also a turbaned man, whom I assume to be Muhammad, aiming a bow, as well as other figures. I don't think there were labels attached to identify them, and I didn't have much time to examine the icon, but I think it can surely be said that these contemporary "Ark of Salvation" icons have precedent- which is of course a separate question from whether they are legitimate.

Jah has helpfully posted an image I have on file, which is probably a cartoon (an artist's draft), with the annotation "after a fresco of 1817, Zographou Monastery". The crucial word here is after: is this image a faithful copy of the Zographou fresco, or not? It could well be that the composition of the Zographou fresco is the same as the drawing by Rallis Kopsidis I reproduced earlier in this thread, a perfectly acceptable didactic image, and that the presence of the figures on the shore are a deliberate addition, thus perverting the intention of the original.

Even if the Zographou fresco does portray the "enemies of Orthodoxy", it does not make such an image suitable for veneration, for the reasons I expressed in earlier posts. The presence of such an image in an Athonite monastery, or in the Tretyakov Gallery, does not automatically confer legitimacy or canonicity to it.

[jah777]

^ All very good points, LBK.

[Iconodule]

My wife and I were on vacation in Moscow this summer and we visited the Tretyakov gallery. In the section devoted to icons, I did indeed come across an "Ark of Salvation" icon very similar to the ones under discussion. It was dated to the 18th century. It did not, of course, have Lenin or "ecumenists" depicted but there was an array of figures on the shore menacing the Ark, including a figure firing a musket and someone enthroned whom I guessed was the Pope. And there was also a turbaned man, whom I assume to be Muhammad, aiming a bow, as well as other figures. I don't think there were labels attached to identify them, and I didn't have much time to examine the icon, but I think it can surely be said that these contemporary "Ark of Salvation" icons have precedent- which is of course a separate question from whether they are legitimate.

Jah has helpfully posted an image I have on file, which is probably a cartoon (an artist's draft), with the annotation "after a fresco of 1817, Zographou Monastery". The crucial word here is after: is this image a faithful copy of the Zographou fresco, or not? It could well be that the composition of the Zographou fresco is the same as the drawing by Rallis Kopsidis I reproduced earlier in this thread, a perfectly acceptable didactic image, and that the presence of the figures on the shore are a deliberate addition, thus perverting the intention of the original.

Even if the Zographou fresco does portray the "enemies of Orthodoxy", it does not make such an image suitable for veneration, for the reasons I expressed in earlier posts. The presence of such an image in an Athonite monastery, or in the Tretyakov Gallery, does not automatically confer legitimacy or canonicity to it.

LBK- First, please note that I said "...which is of course a separate question from whether they are legitimate." I am not saying I support the veneration of this icon, just pointing out that it has precedent.

Second, the icon I saw was definitely a few centuries old and was definitely not a drawing or a fresco- it was painted on wood and it was Russian. Chances are that this icon and the Zographou fresco had a common ancestor.

[LBK]

My dear Iconodule, precedent is of no consequence if an image is not legitimate. It remains simply a piece of art, not an icon. The danger of the presence of such images in prestigious establishments such as the Tretyakov (which houses, among other treasures, the Holy Trinity painted by St Andrei of Radonezh) is that unsuspecting folks could easily and honestly assume they are proper icons suitable for veneration, unless such images are clearly labeled or annotated as not being venerable images.

Historical precedent could also be invoked for images such as the NT Trinity, Angel of Holy Silence, Paternity, and others, which the Church has repeatedly denounced as deficient, false and uncanonical. Yet, to this day, copies of these images are still being painted, and historic examples hang in galleries with no associated caveat. It is bad enough that certain contemporary artists (including some Orthodox) paint "icons" according to their own whims and imaginations; "precedent" can be just as subversive.

[Iconodule]

My dear Iconodule, precedent is of no consequence if an image is not legitimate.

Am I crazy or is this the same point I was making?

[yeshuaisiam]

The irony in Orthodoxy is not even the Orthodox agree with the Orthodox.

This is one of the main reasons I have in falling away from the church.  If Orthodoxy was Orthodox, then more would be traditional, such as what the Holy Metropolis Greek Orthodox Church in America.  Also I give Gregory of Colorado a lot of credence because he dumped ROAC over ecumenism.

Sure lots of allegations fly, but if Orthodoxy really cared about Orthodoxy, it would all be old calendar because it would not have allowed change.

I had to get out of Orthodoxy "mainly" (of course there are some other issues) because the closest Metropolis Greek church was a 7 hour drive from my house.  Can't be hauling my wife & five kids to that, especially when I would have to have long deep talks with a priest or bishop with heavy knowledge of the faith (that I take most metropolis priests have given the reasons they are in that).   

It's a mess, even evidenced by many people here that are slandering this icon which absolutely is within the "boundaries" of the Eastern Orthodox church.

[Schultz]

The irony in Orthodoxy is not even the Orthodox agree with the Orthodox.

This is one of the main reasons I have in falling away from the church.  If Orthodoxy was Orthodox, then more would be traditional, such as what the Holy Metropolis Greek Orthodox Church in America.  Also I give Gregory of Colorado a lot of credence because he dumped ROAC over ecumenism.

Sure lots of allegations fly, but if Orthodoxy really cared about Orthodoxy, it would all be old calendar because it would not have allowed change.

I had to get out of Orthodoxy "mainly" (of course there are some other issues) because the closest Metropolis Greek church was a 7 hour drive from my house.  Can't be hauling my wife & five kids to that, especially when I would have to have long deep talks with a priest or bishop with heavy knowledge of the faith (that I take most metropolis priests have given the reasons they are in that).   

It's a mess, even evidenced by many people here that are slandering this icon which absolutely is within the "boundaries" of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Did anyone else hear something?  I thought I heard some inane babbling in this thread somewhere, something like a toddler trying to speak to the adults, using big words he can't quite say correctly or even understand what they mean...

[Asteriktos]

Also I give Gregory of Colorado a lot of credence because he dumped ROAC over ecumenism.

The only things that he might be applauded for are producing fine icons, and publishing books that give a more traditional view of things. Past that, however... his ecclesiology is nonsense, as is his claim to be an Orthodox bishop (even you call him "Gregory of Colorado," and not "Archbp. Gregory").

[LizaSymonenko]

yeshuaisiam, you left the Church because of these little discrepancies that you found between the various jurisdictions, between various churches/parishes, orthodox faithful and posters on an internet forum?

You left because everyone didn't play nicely in the sandbox of Orthodoxy?  Seriously?

Let me know what you have found out there, outside of Orthodoxy.  I'm interested to see if you find this peaceful utopia where everyone holds hands and sings in unison.

This is earth, not Heaven.  People are people.   We are fallen and imperfect.  I am truly sad to hear that you have left the True Path to wonder in the wilderness.

I hope you will find that the 7 hour drive really wasn't all that bad when you realize what you have lost, and what your 5 children are being kept from.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Sure lots of allegations fly, but if Orthodoxy really cared about Orthodoxy, it would all be old calendar because it would not have allowed change.

Yep, calendars are dogmatic and binding. The Nativity of the Holy and Life-Creating Julian Calendar is commemorated on December 25th, which is on January 7th according to the Satanic ecumenists.

As someone who is a member of a church on the Old Calendar, I can honestly say that I'm sorry to see you have such a static view of the Church and her relationship to the world around her. She's a living organism, not a fossil or a museum piece. I guess that explains why you're looking for some fossil of the "New Testament" church as well. You must like digging up dead things that never grow ("change").

[Shiny]

That has to be one of the most fascinating icons I've seen.

[LBK]

That has to be one of the most fascinating icons I've seen.

It is not an icon, folks. It is a piece of angry ecclesiopolitical propaganda, painted in an abstracted, non-naturalistic style by a rather skilled hand. Nothing more.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

Ah this one.     I've read that it is a re-working and updating of an earlier icon that did not have such things as "New Age"  or the historical anachronism of Martin Luther with a rifle.

Well, Elisha, Dormition Skete (DS) *used* to be ROAC, but now it is separated and is the domain of Gregory of Colorado.  He split from ROAC not quite 3 years ago iirc.  It was in the summer.  So this icon is from Gregory's mindset it seems likely.

Ebor

This monastery?  every time I visit Holy Protestion monastery in Lake George, CO, the nun there talks about this monastery.

are they schismatic or what?

What is the "Genuine Orthodox Church of America"?

[biro]

http://www.gocamerica.org/

This is their website.

[LBK]

are they schismatic or what?

Yes, Trevor, they are schismatic, and do not even recognise other similar groups such as the Cyprianites. A look at "Bishop" Gregory's pronouncements on the website, including his listing of apostolic succession (the same ploy used by vagante groups), further illustrate why he favours the image of the so-called "ark of salvation". It perfectly expresses the mentality of his "church" and its virulent hostility to anyone outside it, including the canonical Orthodox.

The "ark of salvation" has become a leaking, two-man dinghy.

[Alveus Lacuna]

The "ark of salvation" has become a leaking, two-man dinghy.

Nicely niced.

[yeshuaisiam]

The irony in Orthodoxy is not even the Orthodox agree with the Orthodox.

This is one of the main reasons I have in falling away from the church.  If Orthodoxy was Orthodox, then more would be traditional, such as what the Holy Metropolis Greek Orthodox Church in America.  Also I give Gregory of Colorado a lot of credence because he dumped ROAC over ecumenism.

Sure lots of allegations fly, but if Orthodoxy really cared about Orthodoxy, it would all be old calendar because it would not have allowed change.

I had to get out of Orthodoxy "mainly" (of course there are some other issues) because the closest Metropolis Greek church was a 7 hour drive from my house.  Can't be hauling my wife & five kids to that, especially when I would have to have long deep talks with a priest or bishop with heavy knowledge of the faith (that I take most metropolis priests have given the reasons they are in that).   

It's a mess, even evidenced by many people here that are slandering this icon which absolutely is within the "boundaries" of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Did anyone else hear something?  I thought I heard some inane babbling in this thread somewhere, something like a toddler trying to speak to the adults, using big words he can't quite say correctly or even understand what they mean...

You will know them by their fruits.  I was kind, stated facts of why I am where I am, and pointed out relevant facts about Orthodoxy.  Your text tries to insult me, but doesn't.  You are only burning in your own anger, so if there was anybody throwing a fit like a toddler....

Look, tell me what I said is wrong.  Orthodox disagree with Orthodox.

The OP posted an icon that some embraced, some did not.

1) My argument is that the Orthodox who claim to be the one true church completely disagree with each other on many levels.
2) My argument is that the Holy Metropolis of the Greek Orthodox Church in America is practically the only church I have found in America that sticks to traditional ORTHODOX values.  Old calendar, Non-Ecumenism, Real Succession.

Of course, you can always enjoy your ecumenism bishops if you want.  Any real Orthodox who actually held the Canon of the Holy Apostles as VALID would be running to the Metropolis of the Greek Orthodox Church in America rather than venerating those who celebrate worship with the non-Orthodox in direct defiance. 

Facts are facts, like them or not.  Orthodox disagree with Orthodox in regards to religious things.  Even churches "in communion" with each other.

If what I say is right, why do you insult me?

If you can't handle this then I would heavily consider giving up your moderator access.  I do believe that insults like these should be made noted by site administrators.