OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 09:25:28 PM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western rite Icons  (Read 41010 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,972


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2008, 09:36:43 AM »

If we cannot reject church bells simply because they came from the post-schism West, on what basis do we reject Western icongography and statues which do not depict heresy? And just as we adopted and sanctified western Church bells, why can't we adopt and sanctify Western iconography?

Because anything that is Western is demonic, at least that's the impression I'm getting.  Tongue
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2008, 11:58:36 AM »

Because anything that is Western is demonic, at least that's the impression I'm getting.  Tongue

The bells aside...

If that's what you believe, then your not reading what he's saying.  What he is saying, is that there is a real pre-schism Orthodox practice and tradition, which ought to be fully restored and practiced.  The original Orthodox practices ought not to be confused with the post schism practices (that are wrongfully represented here) as the genuine Orthodox practice of the West.

 
 
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2008, 12:01:53 PM »

The bells aside...
But why can we pick and choose what we adopt and sanctfy from the post-schism West?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2008, 12:13:04 PM »

Xenia rightly pointed out:

The bells aside...

If that's what you believe, then your not reading what he's saying.  What he is saying, is that there is a real pre-schism Orthodox practice and tradition, which ought to be fully restored and practiced.  The original Orthodox practices ought not to be confused with the post schism practices (that are wrongfully represented here) as the genuine Orthodox practice of the West.

To which Ozgeorge replied:

But why can we pick and choose what we adopt and sanctfy from the post-schism West?

To which I have to point out, yet again.....

The bells are no different from how pre-schism images had a place in the West, but not the place, use or form that they have now; bells also have a rich practice in the pre-schism Orthodox West.  Even the Roman Catholics proudly note that. From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Bells.

The first Christian writer who frequently speaks of bells (signa) is Gregory of Tours (c. 585). We learn that they were struck or shaken, and we find mention of a cord being used for this purpose (funem illum de quo signum commovetur, "De Vitâ Martini", I, xxviii), while as regards the use of these signa it appears that they rung before church services and that they roused the monks from their beds. Again, the word signum appears in the almost contemporary "Life of St. Columban" (615), for when one of his monks was dying Columban is said to have assembled the community by ringing the bell (signo tacto omnes adesse imperavit), Krusch, "Scrip. Merov.", IV, 85). Similar expressions, signo tacto, or cum exauditum fuerit signum, are used in Constitutions attributed to St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 513) and in the Rule of St. Benedict (c. 540). Moreover, if Dom Ferotin's view of the very early date of the Spanish ordinals which he has published (Monumenta Liturgica, V) could be safely accepted, it is possible that large bells were in common use in Spain at the same period. Still it must be remembered that signum primarily meant a signal and we must not be too hasty in attributing to it a specific instead of a generic meaning when first employed by Merovingian writers.

Image Again, the word campana, which even in the early Middle Ages undoubtedly meant a church bell and nothing else, occurs first, if Reifferscheid's "Anecdota Cassinensia" (p. 6) may be trusted, in Southern Italy (c. 515) in a letter to the deacon Ferrandus to Abbot Eugippius. It has been suggested from a Latin inscription connected with Arval Brethren (C.I., L. VI, no. 2067) that it was previously used to mean some kind of brazen vessel. However, no quite satisfactory examples of campana in church Latin seem to be forthcoming before that latter part of the seventh century, and it is then found in the North. It is used by Cummian at Iona (c. 665) and by Bede in Northumbria (c. 710), and frequently elsewhere after that date. In Rome, the "Liber Pontificalis" tells us that Pope Stephen II (752-757) erected a bellfry with three bells (campanae) at St. Peter's. It was probably this name which led Walafrid Strabo in the first half of the ninth century to make the assertion that bells were of Italian origin and that they came from Campania and more particularly from the town of Nola. Later writers went further and attributed the invention to St. Paulinus of Nola, but as St. Paulinus himself in the minute description which he has left of his own church makes no mention of bells, this is extremely improbable.

The word clocca (Fr. cloche; Ger. Glocke; Eng. clock) is interesting because in this case it is definitely known what was meant by it. It was certainly Irish in origin and it occurs at an early date both in Latin and in the Irish form clog. Thus it is found in Book of Armagh and is used by Adamnan in his life of St. Columbkill written c. 685. The Irish and English missionaries no doubt imported it into Germany where it appears more than once in the Sacramentary of Gellone. It is plain that in primitive Celtic lands an extraordinary importance was attached to bells. A very large number of these ancient bells, more than sixty in all -- the immense majority being Irish -- are still in existence. Many of them are reputed to have belonged to Irish saints and partake of the character of relics. The most famous is that of St. Patrick, the clog-an-edachta, or "bell-off-the-will" now preserved in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. There seems no serious reason to doubt that this was taken from the tomb in the year 552. Like most of these bells, it had an official and hereditary custodian (in this case named Mulholland) in whose possession it remained, being handed down for centuries from father to son. Other similar early bells are those of St. Senan (c. 540) and St. Mura; there are several in Scotland and Wales, one at St. Gall in Switzerland, one known as the Saufang at Colonge, and another at Noyon in France. The evidence for the extraordinary veneration with which these bells were regarded in Celtic lands is overwhelming. Even Giraldus Cambrensis notes in the twelfth century that upon them was taken the most solemn form of oath. They were also carried into battle, and even though the earlier specimens are nothing but rude cow-bells, wedge-shape in form and made of iron plate bent and roughly riveted, still they were often enclosed at a later daye in cases or "shrines" of the richest workmanship. The shrine of St. Patrick's bell bears an inscription of some length from which we learn that this beautiful specimen of the jeweler's craft must have been wrought about 1005....

The great development in the use of bells may be identified with the eighth century. It was then, seemingly, that they began to be regarded as an essential part of the equipment of every church, and also that the practice of blessing them by a special form of consecration became generally prevalent. If we interpreted literally a well-known passage in Bede (Hist. Eccl.., IV, xxi), we should have to believe that already in the year 680, the bell (campana) that was rung at Whitby at the passing away of St. Hilda was heard at Hackness thirteen miles off. But the whole setting of the story implies that Bede regarded the occurrence as miraculous and that the distance might as well as have been thirty miles as thirteen. On the other hand, it is clear that in the eighth centurychurch towers began to be built for the express purpose of hanging bells in them, which implies that the bells must have been increasing in size. The case of St. Peter's in Rome has already been noticed. So in the annals of St. Vandrille (cap. x, p. 33) we read that in the time of Ermharius who died in 738 that abbot had a bell made, to be hung in the little tower (turricula) "as is the custom of such churches"; while the "Monachus Sangallensis" (DeCarlo Magno, I, xxxi) tells the story of a monastic bell-founder who asked Charlemagne to give him a hundred pounds of silver with a proportionate amount of cooper to provide materials for a single bell. In any case it is certain from Charlemagne's "Capitularies", as well as from Alcuin, Amalarius, and other writers of the early ninth century that by that time in the Frankish dominions every parish church was expected to have one bell. In the next century Regino of Prüm, providing a programme of questions to be asked at an episcopal visitation, puts in the very first place a question about the church bells. Seeing that the clearest evidence of the popularity of church bells in Carlovingian times is encountered in regions where the influence of Irish or English missionaries had prevailed, it may perhaps be concluded that this development should be traced to Celtic influence. The missionary's hand-bell, with which he gathered his congregation together in the open air, would soon become sacred as a thing immediately associated with him and his work. Moreover, the idea would grow up that no religious service could take place without some preliminary ringing of a bell. Although we have traces of the use of signa and companae in monasteries before the Irish became missionaries, there is no evidence to show that these were bells rather than gongs. On the other hand, semantron, used to announce the beginning of service in Greek monasteries, was a flat plate of metal and its name (from semainein, "to make a signal") is obviously the counterpart of signum. Further we also find in the old glossary of the tenth century that the Greek word tympanon (drum) is given as the equivalent of campanum (Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. III, 24). At the same time, we can trace in Ireland itself a gradual evolution of the shape of the bell, passing from the small cow-bell of riveted iron to the cast bronze instrument of considerable size with which we are now familiar.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 12:26:59 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2008, 12:36:57 PM »

But why can we pick and choose what we adopt and sanctfy from the post-schism West?

And another note I forgot, from my own Hispanic, Western Orthodox tradition:

The historian of the new martyrs of Cordoba, St Eulogius, frequently cited the fact that the Muslim conquerors would not allow them to ring the bells for Church services in Mozarabic Cordoba, cursing in the streets when it did occur, leading to prosecution.

St Eulogius was himself martyred in 859.

Is this another post-schism usage?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 12:37:39 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2008, 12:51:39 PM »

The Virgin of Sokolica Venerated in Kosovo is not a bas relief.  It is a self standing statue. Here is a side view:




http://www.metmuseum.org/special/byzantium/g2_pop_5.R.asp?altView=1

Information on the sculpture:

Sculpture of the Virgin and Child. Byzantine (Serbia), 1312–16. Marble; 106 x 67.5 cm (41 3/4 x 26 5/8 in.). Sokolica Monastery, Kosovo.

    
This sculpture of the Virgin and Child formed part of the former lavish sculptural decoration of the mausoleum church of King Stefan Uro II Milutin (r. 1282–1321), which was dedicated to Saint Stefan, the patron saint of the Nemanjid dynasty. It is also known as "the Sokolica Virgin," after the nearby village and the small church to which it was transferred, probably in the sixteenth century. At present, the sculpture is situated in the bema.

Together with two figures of angels lost long ago, this marble sculpture of the Virgin and Child constituted the main theme of the portal linking the narthex with the naos.1 Like the entire architectural ornamentation of the katholikon of Banjska Monastery, it was modeled after the stone decoration of the Church of the Virgin at Studenica Monastery, the prototype for King Milutin's mausoleum church. The creator of the Banjska sculpture was consistent in following the theme of the seated Virgin with the Child in the lunette of the main Studenica portal, which was itself widespread in Byzantine art and inspired by older models.2 In carving and style, however, the frontal figure of the enthroned Virgin and infant Christ, who confers blessings with his right hand and holds a scroll in his left, differs from its Studenica counterpart. This work was executed in high relief, almost as a full sculpture. The two symmetrically arranged figures are strictly frontal, showing no movement, with the heads slightly tilting back and the gazes fixed. Both figures are short and broad. The faulty proportions of some parts of the body are conspicuous: low brows, small protruding eyes, full puffed-up cheeks. The shallow, carved lines of the drapery folds leave the impression of a stiff drawing. The volumes of the heads and hands are modeled softly and with such sculptural skill that they echo works in ivory. The large, broad-backed throne with a round cushion on the seat is embellished with a relief design of entwined and braided geometric and vegetal motifs. The reliefs are shallowly carved, in the characteristic Byzantine stone-carving technique of the late epoch.3 The sculpture was colored, but only random traces of red and blue survive on the Virgin's cloak, on the throne, and on the arm of the cross on Christ's nimbus, on which the letters IC and X are also visible.

Master masons acquainted with Romanesque architecture and knowledgeable about Byzantine art were engaged for the construction and architectural decoration of the lunette on the church portal. The sculpture of the Virgin with Child from Banjska Monastery clearly points to their aspiration to create a work close in spirit to Byzantine art, that is, to the artistic conceptions of the epoch of its founder, King Milutin.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 12:56:32 PM by nyc_xenia » Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2008, 01:00:20 PM »



http://www.metmuseum.org/special/byzantium/g2_pop_5.R.asp?altView=1

Information on the sculpture:

Sculpture of the Virgin and Child. Byzantine (Serbia), 1312–16. Marble; 106 x 67.5 cm (41 3/4 x 26 5/8 in.). Sokolica Monastery, Kosovo.

    
This sculpture of the Virgin and Child formed part of the former lavish sculptural decoration of the mausoleum church of King Stefan Uro II Milutin (r. 1282–1321), which was dedicated to Saint Stefan, the patron saint of the Nemanjid dynasty. It is also known as "the Sokolica Virgin," after the nearby village and the small church to which it was transferred, probably in the sixteenth century. At present, the sculpture is situated in the bema.

And as we can see, it is a sculpture, not a statue, and AS WE CAN SEE FROM THE ACTUAL BOTTOM, without CHOPPING IT IN PHOTOSHOP, it is not free-standing at all.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2008, 01:00:58 PM »

Get with the times guys.
Here's the Russian Orthodox statue of St. Nicholas Myra in Demre:

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,972


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2008, 01:06:35 PM »

The bells aside...

If that's what you believe, then your not reading what he's saying.  What he is saying, is that there is a real pre-schism Orthodox practice and tradition, which ought to be fully restored and practiced.  The original Orthodox practices ought not to be confused with the post schism practices (that are wrongfully represented here) as the genuine Orthodox practice of the West.

You're right.  We should sanction the heretical use of microphones (and bells?) in the churches because of the post-schism Western influences that are so demonic.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 01:07:00 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2008, 01:09:54 PM »

Get with the times guys.
Here's the Russian Orthodox statue of St. Nicholas Myra in Demre:



So what? I never said there were no statues made by Orthodox Christians. We can find plenty. BUT THEY ARE NOT USED IN THE CHURCH.

And as an Orthodox Christian, faithful to our sacred traditions of the West, I have no interest in "getting with the times".  That's what started this to begin with, isn't it?

I would suggest, Ozgeorge, that you watch a very nice movie. It's called "The Agony and the Ecstasy"; it's about Michaelangelo and the Sistine Chapel.  There is a poignant scene where, in frustration with the iconographic types, he begins looking through taverns for types for the Apostles. Sadly, that actually has a historical basis; as does Raphael painting his not-so-circumspect girlfriends as the madonna, to paraphrase a contemporary writer (he used a term that was far less polite and I am not sure I can say it on the list).

The art of the late post-schism West is not Orthodox in style or spirit, and the Orthodox saints of the West would have been disgusted. It should be abandoned in favor of sacred Western Orthodox tradition, which exists in plenty. Perhaps it would look too "Eastern", or, more properly, more "Orthodox"? Well, that is not our problem, is it? Aren't we supposed to convert to Orthodoxy, whether an Eastern or a Western one? Not continually try to make "God in our own image", as is the mantra of humanism? Are we not supposed to become like Him? Are we not supposed to take up the traditions of our Western Orthodox fathers, and not the "fathers" of our choosing?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 01:13:51 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2008, 01:14:26 PM »

You're right.  We should sanction the heretical use of microphones (and bells?) in the churches because of the post-schism Western influences that are so demonic.

LOL..."I'm right?"  Glad you think so.  Tongue

As for bells, they are not post-schism and microphones have little to do with "praxis". Microphones are simply a modern convenience, which does not alter the liturgical practices of the church anymore than the light bulb.
 
 Wink
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2008, 01:17:19 PM »

There is a poignant scene where, in frustration with the iconographic types, he begins looking through taverns for types for the Apostles. Sadly, that actually has a historical basis; as does Raphael painting his not-so-circumspect girlfriends as the madonna,
I only wish I could see Christ in my neighbour as well as they did. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2008, 01:20:28 PM »

I only wish I could see Christ in my neighbour as well as they did. Smiley

They weren't searching for Christ, they were searching for the "aesthetic" their imaginations wanted.  And Raphael painted his models as the Mother of God as a "prize" for doing what he wanted.  Another movie, "A Season of Giants", shows this well, as dozens of pretty girls clamor around Raphael to be the next "girl in his picture".

I am ashamed by your response.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 08, 2008, 01:33:50 PM »

Another movie, "A Season of Giants",
Do you get all your historical information from Hollywood? Smiley

I am ashamed by your response.
So am I. It shames me that the harlots and the publicans are entering the Kingdom of Heaven before me.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #59 on: June 08, 2008, 01:36:26 PM »

Do you get all your historical information from Hollywood? Smiley

No, and I think I've demonstrated that sufficiently to ignore such a bizarre statement.  I was suggesting for you to watch a movie-- historically accurate flicks are great, and noting historical errors is fun as well. Besides, we've been analyzing pictures for a while now, no?

So am I. It shames me that the harlots and the publicans are entering the Kingdom of Heaven before me.

Not by posing for Raphael's pictures they aren't though.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 01:46:19 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2008, 12:04:54 AM »

But why can we pick and choose what we adopt and sanctfy from the post-schism West?

Hardy-har-har....

That was a good one!
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2008, 12:29:17 AM »

Hardy-har-har....

That was a good one!

What is so funny? People think that there is this completely Black and White distinction when it comes to the West and East schism. There is nothing specifically demonic about the West.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,972


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2008, 12:36:38 AM »

LOL..."I'm right?"  Glad you think so.  Tongue

As for bells, they are not post-schism and microphones have little to do with "praxis". Microphones are simply a modern convenience, which does not alter the liturgical practices of the church anymore than the light bulb.
 
 Wink

I'm sorry.  I'm in a very bitingly sarcastic mood due to recent events.  On the serious side though, I don't feel that certain praxis is "wrong."  Whatever praxis we adopted, it was part of the culture of the people that we "baptized" into our church and turned spiritual.  In fact, a lot of what we adopted was either from a Jewish or a Gentile/Pagan culture.

To add to the praxis something like statues in a Western style liturgy is nothing more than accommodating to the culture of Western people.

In addition, I've expressed over and over again my skepticism to certain Orthodox who reject things simply because of it coming from a post-schism Western Church, or at least that's the assumption and excuse "ultra-Orthodox" use.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes with an argument calling statues the result of the demonic scholasticism that the West suffered.  Things like these truly bother me.  As I continue to live in the States, I am convinced more and more that we should embrace the West, since future generations will be "Westernized" anyway.

It's fun to see the reaction of my father who went to an Antiochian Orthodox marriage and was shocked that the priests did not have beards and long black cloaks, and they drank wine (gasp!).  He wasn't very comfortable with it, but he acknowledged it's just something he's not used to.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2008, 02:45:14 AM »

What is so funny? People think that there is this completely Black and White distinction when it comes to the West and East schism. There is nothing specifically demonic about the West.

Do you see how you "all" tend to quote the word?

The word, you may ask...

"Demonic".


I never made mention of it, yet you "all" have.

Sorry "tale-to-tell".

Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2008, 08:00:47 AM »

To add to the praxis something like statues in a Western style liturgy is nothing more than accommodating to the culture of Western people.
I agree, and I think it could be argued that this is much more honestly "Western Rite" than simply trying to resurrect long abandoned liturgies. The Church meets people where they are now, not where they were 1000 years ago.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,510


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2008, 06:10:12 PM »

The Orthodox Church indeed has voiced its opinion on 3D statues versus 2D icons:

Act 7, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

“We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence, in a manner not unlike that befitting the shape of the precious and vivifying Cross, that the venerable and holy icons, painted or mosaic, or made of any other suitable material, be placed in the holy churches of God upon sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, houses and streets, both of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our spotless Lady the holy Mother of God, and also of the precious Angels, and of all Saints. For the more frequently and oftener they are continually seen in pictorial representation, the more those beholding are reminded and led to visualize anew the memory of the originals which they represent and for whom moreover they also beget a yearning in the soul of the persons beholding the icons. Accordingly, such persons are prompted not only to kiss these and to pay them honorary adoration, what is more important, they are imbued with the true faith which is reflected in our worship which is due to God alone and which befits only the divine nature. But this worship must be paid in the way suggested by the form of the precious and vivifying Cross, and the holy Gospels, and the rest of sacred institutions, and the offering of wafts of incense, and the display of beams of light, to be done for the purpose of honouring them, just as it used to be the custom to do among the ancients by way of manifesting piety. For any honour paid to the icon (or picture) redounds upon the original, and whoever bows down in adoration before the icon, is at the same time bowing down in adoration to the substance (or hypostasis) of the one therein painted. For thus the doctrine of our Holy Fathers, it was the tradition of the universal Church."

Interpretation of the Canon (from The Rudder):

An idol is one thing, a statue is another thing, and an icon (or picture) is a different thing. For an idol differs from an icon in that the icon is a likeness of a true thing and its original, whereas the idol is an image of a false and inexistent thing, and is not the likeness of an original, according to Origen and Theodoret — just as were the idols of the false and inexistent gods of the Greeks. We call those images which embody the whole figure statues and carved or sculptured figures in general. As for this kind of images, namely, the statues, the catholic (Orthodox) Church not only does not adore them, but she does not even manufacture them, for many reasons:

1) because in its present definition this Council says for images to be produced with paints (or colours), with mosaic, or tessellated work, and with any other suitable material (which means with gold and silver and other metals, as Theodosius the bishop of Amorion says in Act 4 of the same Council) upon the sacred utensils, and robes, including sheets and cloths; upon walls and boards, and houses and streets. It did not mention a word about construction of a statue. Rather it may be said that this definition of this Council is antagonistic to statues;

2) because neither the letters written by patriarchs in their correspondence with one another, and to emperors, nor the letters of Pope Gregory to Germanus and of Pope Adrian to the present Council, nor the speeches and orations which the bishops and monks made in connection with all the eight Acts of the present Council said anything at all about statues or sculptured figures. But also the councils held by the iconomachs, and especially that held in Blachernae in the reign of Copronymus, in writing against the holy icons, mention oil paintings and portraits, but never statues or sculptured figures, which, if they existed, could not have been passed over in silence by the iconomachs, but, on the contrary, they would have been written against with a view to imputing greater blame to the Orthodox;

3) because although the woman with an issue of blood made a bronze statue of Christ in memory of and by way of giving thanks for the miracle and the benefaction which it had conferred upon her; and she set it up in the Panead, at the feet of which there sprang up a plant, or herb, which cured various ailments; and, as some say, that statue was smashed to pieces by the Emperor Maximinus, before Constantine the Great, and the bronze was seized by him; or else Julian the Apostate seized it, and put in its place the statue of Jupiter, as an anonymous writer says. Though, I say, the woman who had an issue of blood did make this statue (which the Christians took into the Church and honoured; and people went to see it out of a yearning for the original of it, as Philostorgus the Arian historically records), yet, as a matter of fact, that work of the woman who had an issue of blood was a concession from God, who, for goodness’ sake accepted it, making allowances for the imperfect knowledge of the woman who set it up; and because that was an embodiment and mark not of the grace of the Gospel, but of the old Law, as Pope Gregory II says in writing to St. Germanus (for the old Law had the two Cherubim, which were gold statues and sculptured figures containing all the body of the angelic powers, according to ch. 38 of Exodus, which Cherubim, according to an unknown expositor, had the face of a calf, and adored the Ark of the Covenant (here called the Ark of the Testimony, and by this adoration separated the Israelites from the idolatry of the Egyptians, who used to adore the calf. For the Jews learned from this that if a calf adored the Ark, it followed that the Egyptians were wrong in adoring it as a god).

Not only the old Law, but also the custom of the Greeks fostered the erection of statues and sculptured figures, as St. Germanus writes in a letter to Thomas of Claudiopolis which is to be found in Act 4 of the present Council, and which says: “It being obvious that the Saviour levelled His own grace to condescension with the faith of the woman, and showed what has been made evident to us above, namely, that it is not that what is performed is in general the object, but that it is the aim of the one performing it that is being reduced to experience . . . ." And again: “We do not say this, so that we may find an excuse for exercising the art of making bronze pillars, but merely in order to make it plain that the Lord did not discard the national custom at this point, but, instead, availed Himself of it to exhibit therein for a considerable length of time the wonder-working and miracle-working efficiency of His own benevolence; on which account it is not devout to disparage the custom of a somewhat more pious nature which has prevailed among us.”

You see here three things as plainly as day, to wit: 1) that the erection of the statue of Christ was moral, and that the Lord accepted it as a matter of compromise with the times; 2) that statues ought not to be manufactured; and 3) that it is more pious and more decent for the venerable images to be depicted, not by means of statues, but by means of colours in paintings. For the same saint said above by way of anticipation that in historically recording the facts concerning the statues, he historically recounts the fact that the icons of the Apostles Peter and Paul, painted in colours, were still extant . . . Canon LXXXII of the 6th, moreover, says that we ought to prefer the grace of the Gospel to the legal form, and ought to set up the human character, or figure, of Christ in icons instead of the olden lamb even in oil paintings.

So that from all that has been said it is proved that the Westerners are acting contrary to the definition of this holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council, and contrary to the tradition of the Church in making statues and sculptured figures and plaster of paris replicas, and setting them up in their churches. We said hereinabove those representations which embody the whole of that which they represent are called statues and sculptured work and plaster of paris figures in general, whereas those representations which do not embody the whole of the person or other object which they are intended to represent, but at most merely exhibit them in relief, projecting, that is to say, here and there above the level and surface of the background, are not called statues or sculptured work or plaster of paris figures or any such name, but, instead, they are called holy icons (or, if they are not holy, simply pictures). Such are those which are to be found engraved or stamped or otherwise delineated upon the sacred vessels, on divine Gospels, and other holy books, on precious crosses, of silver and gold, according to Dositheus (p. 656 of the Dodecabiblus); to the same class are assigned also images cast in wax and more or less in relief, that is to say, projecting at various points above and receding at other points below the plane surface of the image, concerning which divine Chrysostom (in his Discourse wherein he argues that one and the same Lawgiver is the author of both the Old and the New Testament; and in Discourse 307 on the vesture of priests, the origin of which is to be found in the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ) says the following:

“I myself have loved the images cast in wax as a matter of piety. For I beheld an angel in an image driving back hordes of barbarians. I saw barbarian troops being trodden underfoot, and the words of David coming true, wherein he says: ‘Lord, in thy city Thou wilt do their image havoc’ (p. 852 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records, in Act 6 of the 7th C.; and p. 647 of the sixth vol. of Chrysostom). Oecumenius, too, accepts and approves this kind of image which is cast in wax in the manner above described (in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews). Hence, in writing to Symeon the bishop of Bostra, Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch says: “though, as a matter of fact, an image is nothing else than a piece of wood and colours mixed and mingled with wax” (p. 845 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records). In the same class with these images are placed also the images which are carved in wooden crosses (crucifixes) and medallions. They, too, likewise are wrought in relief and project above the plane of the level surface, and do not compromise the whole body of the person or thing represented.


The reason and cause why statues are not adored or venerated (aside from the legal observation and custom noted hereinabove) seem to me to be the fact that when they are handled and it is noticed that the whole body and all the members of the person or thing represented are contained in them and that they not only reveal the whole surface of it in three dimensions, but can even be felt in space, instead of merely appearing as such to the eye alone, they no longer appear to be, nor have they any longer any right to be called, icons or pictures, but, on the contrary, they are sheer replications of the originals. Some persons, though, assert or opine that the reason why the Church rejected or did away with statues was in order to avoid entirely any likeness to idols. For the idols were statues of massive sculpture, capable of being felt on all sides with the hand and fingers.

It is clear from the above that, while bas-relief and embossed images are permissible for veneration, fully 3-dimensional statues are not.

Also consider the following:

From Leonid Ouspensky's book Theology of the Icon:

The decisions of the Quinisext Council were signed by the emperor, and a place was left for the signature of the Pope of Rome; following were the signatures of the Patriarchs Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem and George of Antioch. These were followed by the signatures of 213 bishops or their representatives. Among the signatures was that of Basil, archbishop of Gortyna (in Crete), who signed on behalf of the Church of Rome. There were also signatures of other bishops of the West. The authority of these representatives of Western Christianity is contested. Hefele writes: "It is true that the Vita Sergii in the Liber Pontificalis reports that the legates of Pope Sergius, having been deceived by the emperor, signed their names. But these legates of the pope were simply pontifical apocrisiaries living in Constantinople and not legates who had been sent expressly to take part in the council." In any case, as soon as the council had ended, the acts were sent to Rome requesting Pope Sergius' signature. He refused, even rejecting his copy of the acts. He declared that the decisions of the council had no value and asserted that he preferred death to accepting error. The error consisted undoubtedly in some teachings and practices which were condemned by the council, such as, for example, the obligatory celibacy of clergy, the Saturday fast (already forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council), the representation of Christ in the form of a lamb, and others. Yet the Roman Church eventually accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which refers to Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council. Therefore, it can be said that the Roman Church implicitly also recognises this canon. Pope St. Gregory II refers to Canon 82 in his letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Germanus. Pope Hadrian I, for example, solemnly declares in his letter to Patriarch St. Tarasius his adherence to the Quinisext Council; he does the same in a letter to the Frankish bishops in defence of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Pope John VIII spoke of the decisions of the Quinisext Council without voicing any objection. Later, Pope Innocent III, quoting Canon 82, calls the Quinisext Council the Sixth Ecumenical Council. But all this is only the agreement of some popes, whereas there were others who had contrary opinions. On the whole, the West did not receive the decisions of the Quinisext Council.

The teaching of the Church on the christological basis of the icon, therefore, remained foreign to Western Christianity. This teaching could not enrich the sacred art of the West, which even today retains certain purely symbolic representations such as the lamb. The refusal to accept the decisions of the Quinisext Council later had, in the realm of sacred art, a great importance. The Roman Church excluded itself from the process of a development of an artistic and spiritual language, a process in which all the rest of the Church took an active part, with the Church of Constantinople providentially becoming the leader. The West remained outside of this development.

The Orthodox Church, on the contrary, in accordance with the Quinisext Council, continued to refine its art in form and in contents, an art which conveys, through images and material forms, the revelation of the divine world, giving us a key to approach, contemplate and understand it. It seems to us that it is particularly important for Western Orthodoxy, as it emerges in our own time, to be well aware of the significance of Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council. The canon, in fact, is the theoretical basis of liturgical art. Whatever course Western Orthodox art will take in the future, it will not be able to bypass the basic directive which was formulated for the first time in this canon: the transmission of historical reality and the revealed divine truth, expressed in certain forms which correspond to the spiritual experience of the Church.


The above excerpt goes some way in explaining why there is such divergence in content and form of western religious art and that of canonical Orthodox iconography. Despite the church of Rome accepting the rulings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (convened almost a century later), it seems little mind was paid by that church to the prohibitions of that Council to the portrayal of God the Father as a bearded old man, hence the perpetuation of such images to this day. An indirect conclusion could therefore be drawn, that the west also similarly saw no problem with statues as ecclesiastical art.

Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,972


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2008, 12:23:07 AM »

Truthfully, just because the 7th ecumenical council doesn't mention statues doesn't mean it's damnworthy, neither does it mean it's accepted.  It simply was not mentioned.  The interpretation from the Rudder can be easily countered by a different Western interpretation.  Simply put, the idea that statues were condemned does not exist.  In fact, the idea that "simple-minded" people like that woman who had a statue of Christ is an "exception" sounds actually quite suspiciously malarkey.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,510


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2008, 04:14:04 AM »

The fact is, minasoliman, that "Orthodox" statues (fully 3-D) are so exceedingly few, and are not found within the walls of Orthodox churches, nor are they found in people's prayer corners to this day. This has been the life and practice of the Orthodox Church since the beginning.

Even in more recent periods, such as post-17thC Greece, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, etc where iconography soon became almost indistinguishable from western religious painting in artistic style, and (sadly) often content, statues in churches and homes were (and are) essentially non-existent. What does this say? It says the devotional practice of the Orthodox Church has continued to maintain the veneration of 2D painted images, to the practically complete exclusion of fully 3D statues.

As for

Quote
The interpretation from the Rudder can be easily countered by a different Western interpretation.


I would be interested if you, or any Orthodox member of this forum, can draw from the Rudder interpretation of Canon 7 the view that statues are permissible images in the devotional and liturgical life of the Orthodox Church.





Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2008, 04:28:31 AM »

From reading the 7th Ecumenical council (and the Quinisext Council before that, which declared the depictions of Christ as a lamb uncanonical), we can conclude that Statues have always been rare,  have never been considered part of the Holy Traditions of Orthodoxy, and were never considered images worthy of veneration.
Logged
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2008, 11:13:14 AM »

I agree, and I think it could be argued that this is much more honestly "Western Rite" than simply trying to resurrect long abandoned liturgies. The Church meets people where they are now, not where they were 1000 years ago.

It's not "honest" to pass off a non-Orthodox liturgy as if it were "Western Orthodox". It's also not the same thing to use a light bulb and a newly innovated liturgy.  The one innocently illumines a room, the other, well, we can all come to our own conclusions on...
Logged
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2008, 11:23:30 AM »

SNIP>  The interpretation from the Rudder can be easily countered by a different Western interpretation.  Simply put, the idea that statues were condemned does not exist.  In fact, the idea that "simple-minded" people like that woman who had a statue of Christ is an "exception" sounds actually quite suspiciously malarkey.

God bless.

If you can, please reference the interpretation from this passage in the Rudder which can easily be "countered by a different Western" interpretation.

Only please, be sure this interpretation has been done by known Orthodox Saint.

Thanks
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2008, 11:52:45 AM »

It's not "honest" to pass off a non-Orthodox liturgy as if it were "Western Orthodox". It's also not the same thing to use a light bulb and a newly innovated liturgy.  The one innocently illumines a room, the other, well, we can all come to our own conclusions on...

It's also not honest to claim to be Orthodox when in a schismatic group, but hey, that's not stopping anyone. Roll Eyes
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,972


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2008, 12:06:31 PM »

The fact is, minasoliman, that "Orthodox" statues (fully 3-D) are so exceedingly few, and are not found within the walls of Orthodox churches, nor are they found in people's prayer corners to this day. This has been the life and practice of the Orthodox Church since the beginning.

Even in more recent periods, such as post-17thC Greece, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, etc where iconography soon became almost indistinguishable from western religious painting in artistic style, and (sadly) often content, statues in churches and homes were (and are) essentially non-existent. What does this say? It says the devotional practice of the Orthodox Church has continued to maintain the veneration of 2D painted images, to the practically complete exclusion of fully 3D statues.

Again, as I said, just because it didn't exist in the East doesn't mean it's condemned.  You are arguing that it doesn't exist in the Orthodox Church, but that's assuming the Orthodox Church in your definition is solely Eastern in your definitions.  This is what I mean.  You people are so stuck in the mindset that Western "stuff" is evil, heterodox, and yes, demonic.  How do you know the West didn't have statues pre-schism?  The Pope of Rome at the time of the seventh council was allegedly threatened by Iconoclasts to have his bronze statue of St. Peter destroyed (source:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm ).

And just because it's scarcely existed doesn't mean it was unacceptable.  What if we found that an actual church building did not exist in the first four centuries, or that cathedrals didn't exist then, or the use of gold did not exist before then.  Does that mean the Christians sanctioned such use?  Perhaps, the price of such was impossible with the political atmosphere at the time, or the the culture didn't feel it was allowed.  The use and choice of music as well is something to be studied.  The Ethiopians it seems did not develop a unique African rite until the 6th or 7th century with the use of dancing and drums.  This does not exist in Western or Greek cultures, and in these cultures it's understandably objected to, but not grounds for dogmatic rejection.

It's interesting that you use the Rudder, a 17th Century document to interpret the seventh ecumenical council, 10 centuries earlier.  I'm curious to know what St. John Damascus thought of statues, or his disciple for a more accurate scholarly interpretation, not a theological/philosophical speculation.

Quote
I would be interested if you, or any Orthodox member of this forum, can draw from the Rudder interpretation of Canon 7 the view that statues are permissible images in the devotional and liturgical life of the Orthodox Church.

That's not what I said.  I mentioned the canon, not the Rudder.  The Rudder is of no use to me.  It's a document 10 centuries after the seventh ecumenical council.  It's not a scholarly valid or accurate interpretation as of now (perhaps it's valid to use as a study for what 17th and 18th Century Orthodox Christians thought, but not 7th or 8th Century Orthodox Christians).  I mentioned a "Western counter interpretation," and I found something interesting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Christian Archeology, especially the one on sculptures:

Quote
During the first age of the Church a specifically Christian sculpture was almost unknown. Many reasons have been given to account for this circumstance, the chief of which, besides that of cost, is the practical difficulty encountered in producing works distinctively Christian without the knowledge of a hostile public and Government. Only a few statues and sarcophagi with representations inspired by the Scriptures survive from the first three centuries. Christian sculpture, consequently, began its real development in the fourth century, in the age of peace inaugurated by Constantine. The principal sculptured monuments of this period consist of the many sarcophagi, mostly found in Rome, Ravenna, and in various parts of France, in which Christians of the Constantinian and post-Constantinian epochs were interred. Being sepulchral monuments, the symbolic subjects of the catacomb frescoes were equally appropriate on Christian sarcophagi. But Christian sculptors quickly felt the influence of the new development of Christian art first seen in the basilicas erected under Constantine. The triumphant symbols of the basilcas, and the historical scenes depicted on their walls, are also found on Christian sarcophagi, side by side with some of the earliest and most venerable symbols of the catacombs. The transition from symbolic to historic art is, consequently, nowhere better represented than in the carved sarcophagi of the fourth and following centuries.

And then there's claim in the article about Sculpture that sculptures were indeed there during Constantinonian time and particularly Eastern in nature, not Western:

Quote
The current views of early Christian art have very recently been radically changed because through the researches of Strzygowski and others, the Orient has received its just dues. Both in form and in technique Christian sculpture is, generally speaking, identical with the pagan from which it was developed. But what the latest modern research has shown us is this: that it was not Rome which produced the best and most ancient works of Christian sculpture, but the East, which is certainly the cradle of Christian art. In Asia Minor the influence of Hellenistic art was still so strong that many early Christian works present an almost classical character, but in the West, where this beneficent influence was lacking, sculpture fell earlier into decline. In pre-Constantinian times probably few works of sculpture were executed. This is especially true of representations of the Persons of the Trinity, because the Jews who had become Christians were averse to graven images, and the converted pagans were deterred by their remembrance of the innumerable statues of their former gods. But with the Emperor Constantine the production of sculptures in stone and bronze immediately began on a large scale. Few examples of the statuary of this period have been preserved; but among these are a "Pastor Bonus" in the Museum of the Lateran, and a "Christ" in Berlin, both probably Oriental works. On the other hand, numerous reliefs survive, because, after the ancient custom, the sarcophagi, of which a large number survive, were richly decorated with sculptural representations. The surviving Christian sarcophagi belong mostly to the fourth and fifth centuries, and may be classified into an Occidental and an Oriental group. To the latter belong the beautiful sarcophagi of Ravenna, whose art stood in very intimate relation with the Byzantine. Sculpture in wood and ivory, so highly developed in antiquity, was enlisted in the service of the Church, as is proven by the portals of the Basilica of S. Sabina at Rome, and the numerous preserved book-covers, diptychs, and pyxes. For our knowledge of the transition from the early Christian to medieval sculpture we are indebted principally to reliefs carved in ivory, for there is an almost complete dearth of statuary until the tenth century. Sculpture in ivory achieved great importance in the ninth and tenth centuries. In delicacy of execution, in rhythm of line, and in well-considered observance of the laws of composition, the masterpieces of this epoch approach the creations of the early Renaissance. This branch of sculpture flourished especially in France, at Tours, Corbie, and Metz.

I consider this an honest approach that merits and requires more study.  I would hope that Orthodox Christians today understand the value of how to do an accurate scholarly study and not assume pre-conceived ideas into historical decrees like that of the seventh council.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,972


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2008, 12:11:02 PM »

If you can, please reference the interpretation from this passage in the Rudder which can easily be "countered by a different Western" interpretation.

Only please, be sure this interpretation has been done by known Orthodox Saint.

Thanks

I meant the canon, not the Rudder (yes, it wouldn't make sense to have a different interpretation of the Rudder from a non-Orthodox saint, but the seventh council is something common among Catholics and Orthodox).  I have indeed found, not so much a different interpretation of the seventh council by Catholics, but an implied understanding that it included statues, such as the Pope of Rome at the time of that council who apparently owned a statue of St. Peter and a defended the seventh council against iconoclasts.  I'm sorry to say that all my sources are from the Catholic encyclopedia, but I the parts I selected seemed to be geared towards telling facts, not giving interpretive theology, which seems more plausible.

God bless.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 12:13:13 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2008, 10:07:41 PM »

It's not "honest" to pass off a non-Orthodox liturgy as if it were "Western Orthodox". It's also not the same thing to use a light bulb and a newly innovated liturgy.  The one innocently illumines a room, the other, well, we can all come to our own conclusions on...

All liturgies were new once, and I find your assertion flagrantly question-begging. Is not the liturgy of an Orthodox church by definition Orthodox? If you want to argue that the WR is not good liturgy, there is perhaps some hope for pressing that point, though it would be hard to persuade the disinterested (or for that matter Protestant) observer that it's bad Orthodox liturgy when one has withdrawn from the main Orthodox bodies.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2008, 10:20:58 PM »

Is not the liturgy of an Orthodox church by definition Orthodox?
Well, not necessarily.
Orthodox doesn't necessarily mean "of the Orthodox Church", because, by that definition, all heresies which arose in the Church would be "Orthodox". A liturgy can be introduced and used for a while which contains non-Orthodox teachings before being changed or abolished. But in this case, the only aregument I have seen against the Liturgy of St. Tikhon was that "it was originally written by heretics". Well, OK, but does that in itself make it "heretical"? Even the non-heretical writings of heretics anathamatized by the Church are accepted by the Orthodox Church (for example, some of the writings of Origen). What nyc-xenia & Suiaden need to show is that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is itself heretical, and so far, they have failed to do so.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2008, 11:56:14 PM »

All liturgies were new once,

Yeah...O.K.


Quote
and I find your assertion flagrantly question-begging.

Well, I honestly expected such, so "biggy" there.

Quote
Is not the liturgy of an Orthodox church by definition Orthodox?

Now we are treading thin ice.  Because in these days the belief of "where" and "what" the "Church" is varies.
Granted, we both believe we are members of the "Church", and we both believe our ecclesiastical stands are correct.

Nevertheless, let God judge. If for "beliefs" sake our churches remain separated, so be it. It's sort of an imitation vanilla, on the one hand you get the real thing; on the other , you get an imitation flavor extract.

But to change things that are not for 'us' to change, well, (I will stick to my gun) it's wrong.

The Western Orthodox Rites of the pre-schism West are what should be handed down to the faithful.  What is happening now is that many simply prefer innovation rather than the pre-schism (read: Orthodox) traditions and liturgies of the West.  Caught up in a nostalgic familiarity, this mind set opposes that which it is unfamiliar with.  Being unable to defend itself by matter of liturgical virtue, it defends itself by tearing apart those who defend the ancient traditions.

I believe that what some have called "abandoned liturgies" are not abandoned at all, except by the innovationists and modernists of our days, who refuse to accept that there are real living Western pre-schism traditions that God has deemed fit to resurrect and carry on today.

It's sad when people would prefer to invent something that is "supposed" to be Orthodox, instead of learning it's roots and traditions.  Be it the Orthodoxy of the East, or of the West.

Again, only 'till the rites were restored did that "economia" lay upon our shoulders.

Yet the time has come, that people would prefer to follow what is "new" and the innovated rather than traditions, and that, again is not only a problem for the West, but for the East as well.

SNIP>>>>
Logged
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 11, 2008, 12:01:09 AM »

Well, not necessarily.
Orthodox doesn't necessarily mean "of the Orthodox Church", because, by that definition, all heresies which arose in the Church would be "Orthodox". A liturgy can be introduced and used for a while which contains non-Orthodox teachings before being changed or abolished. But in this case, the only aregument I have seen against the Liturgy of St. Tikhon was that "it was originally written by heretics". Well, OK, but does that in itself make it "heretical"? Even the non-heretical writings of heretics anathamatized by the Church are accepted by the Orthodox Church (for example, some of the writings of Origen). What nyc-xenia & Suiaden need to show is that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is itself heretical, and so far, they have failed to do so.

First things first, nobody is calling the Liturgy of St. Tikhon heretical. The Russian synod called it, "colorless", but not "heretical".

Anyhow, better to stick with "real vanilla", not imitation "flava".  Tongue
Logged
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 11, 2008, 12:18:13 AM »

The Orthodox Church indeed has voiced its opinion on 3D statues versus 2D icons:

Act 7, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

“We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence...SNIP>>>


BTW, I wanted to thank you for posting this.  I had the same excerpt in mind, but I hadn't the time to post it.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 11, 2008, 12:19:05 AM »

Anyhow, better to stick with "real vanilla", not imitation "flava".  Tongue
In the search for the "real" Western Rite, we can go down two tracks:
"Real" means "authentic", but "authentic" what?
You can argue that the Sarum Rite is "authentic" because it was a western rite before the schism. But is it an authentic "Western Rite" if it's tradition was broken? The Sarum Rite was not a living tradition of the West, it was resurrected, so is it authentically "Western" as well as Orthodox if there was no living tradition of it in the West?
On the other hand, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is authentically Western because it comes from a Liturgy which has been practiced in the West for centuries and is still recognisable as such, and, as you say yourself, it is Orthodox. So the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is both authentically Western and Orthodox.
In the same way, statues are authentically Western, and can be made Orthodox.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 12:21:35 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 11, 2008, 01:10:24 AM »

I meant the canon, not the Rudder (yes, it wouldn't make sense to have a different interpretation of the Rudder from a non-Orthodox saint,

What?

No it wouldn't!  (Huh)

What has Christ to do with Baal?  Or the prophets of Baal to do with Elijah?

Quote
but the seventh council is something common among Catholics and Orthodox).

Indeed, and it SHOULD be.

Quote
I have indeed found, not so much a different interpretation of the seventh council by Catholics, but an implied

Implied?  How so?

Quote
understanding that it included statues, such as the Pope of Rome at the time of that council who apparently owned a statue of St. Peter and a defended the seventh council against iconoclasts.

Direct quote from the Catholic encyclopedia:

The first Iconoclast persecution
"The pope at that time was Gregory II (713-31). Even before he had received the appeal of Germanus a letter came from the emperor commanding him to accept the edict, destroy images at Rome, and summon a general council to forbid their use. Gregory answered, in 727, by a long defence of the pictures. He explains the difference between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already understand it. He describes the lawful use of, and reverence paid to, pictures by Christians. He blames the emperor's interference in ecclesiastical matters and his persecution of image-worshippers. A council is not wanted; all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing the peace of the Church. As for Leo's threat that he will come to Rome, break the statue of St. Peter (apparently the famous bronze statue in St. Peter's), and take the pope prisoner, Gregory answers it by pointing out that he can easily escape into the Campagna, and reminding the emperor how futile and now abhorrent to all Christians was Constans's persecution of Martin I. He also says that all people in the West detest the emperor's action and will never consent to destroy their images at his command (Greg. II, "Ep. I ad Leonem"). "

 
Quote
I'm sorry to say that all my sources are from the Catholic encyclopedia,

And are not from Orthodox interpretations at all...

However,

 
Quote
...the parts I selected seemed to be geared towards telling facts, not giving interpretive theology, which seems more plausible.

Perhaps, it would be better for any of us to "assume" things.

I believe St. Nicodemus was also telling "facts". Nevertheless, with the grace of God directing him, he was also able (unlike the Catholic Encyclopedia) to give a theological intrepretation. 

Many "modernist" can write an entry on a URL or "wiki", yet how many of them have been DECLARED saints?

Quote
God bless.

Amen.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #81 on: June 11, 2008, 01:20:29 AM »

On the other hand, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is authentically Western because it comes from a Liturgy which has been practiced in the West for centuries and is still recognisable as such, and, as you say yourself, it is Orthodox. So the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is both authentically Western and Orthodox.

She said it was "Orthodox"? Orthodox are reductionists? I thought she said the Russian Synod said it was "colorless". "Colorless" in their meanings was that Protestants and Catholics could recite the same prayers. That's not "Orthodox".  That's just "not heterodox". The proclamation of the Orthodox faith, as the Russian Synod complained, was missing. AND still is.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #82 on: June 11, 2008, 01:23:08 AM »

It's also not honest to claim to be Orthodox when in a schismatic group, but hey, that's not stopping anyone. Roll Eyes

Isn't who's in schism for another forum?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 11, 2008, 01:40:21 AM »

In the search for the "real" Western Rite, we can go down two tracks:
"Real" means "authentic", but "authentic" what?

"Real" & "Authentic", meaning, duh..."Orthodox"... Tongue

Sorry, just thought those were kind of obvious.  Grin


Quote
You can argue that the Sarum Rite is "authentic"....

Actually, "I", was not arguing about the "Sarum Rite" at ALL!


Quote
because it was a western rite before the schism.

Uh-huh...

Quote
But is it an authentic "Western Rite" if it's tradition was broken?

Here is a better question...

PLEASE:

Is it an "Orthodox" Rite, if the "rite" was never even "Orthodox"?

 Roll Eyes


Quote
The Sarum Rite was not a living tradition of the West, it was resurrected, so is it authentically "Western" as well as Orthodox if there was no living tradition of it in the West?

You know...That what your arguing makes no sense.

It's like me telling my kids they can't have a cookie before dinner.

Which goes like:

"Why not?"

"Because your hungry, you need REAL food?"


"Why?"

"Because your body WANTS real food! Don't eat that stupid cookie, put it down now and eat real food in a few!"

Anyhow, the post-schism services used in some "Western Orthodox" parishes now a days are handing out cookies.  Yet, some of those same people embroidered within the hems of modern "Orthodoxy" are the very ones who argue for their "cookies", instead of restoring a "Truly Orthodox" tradition.

Oh!  Things that make you go, "Hmm....(?)"  Shocked

Was that quite "simple" and "plain" enough for everyone to get???

Quote
On the other hand, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is authentically Western because it comes from a Liturgy which has been practiced in the West for centuries and is still recognisable as such, and, as you say yourself, it is Orthodox.

Nope, sorry, can't say that. 

Ya know why? 

LOL, 'cause I never actually "said" that.


 Har-har-har.  laugh


Quote
So the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is both authentically Western and Orthodox.

And that is....

Your conclusion? Undecided

Quote
In the same way, statues are authentically Western, and can be made Orthodox.

I'm an iconographer....NO WAY. 

Nothing happening.

NOT even CLOSE.

I love Mozarabic Icons, though, by some "Easterners", they are as "criticized" just as the Ethiopian style iconography, because they are so crude and "raw"....

But I find that they are something else.  They reflect a very simple "spiritual" reality, which while sometime is not so "pleasant" to the eye, speaks the truth far louder than words.

Yet, I am strongly opposed to anything against what the Holy Fathers say.  Why? Because they are far closer to Christ than I am nor to any "Modern Day Scholar".  So, they are "real vanilla flava" for me.


NEXT!



« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 01:48:27 AM by nyc_xenia » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 11, 2008, 01:53:34 AM »

She said it was "Orthodox"? Orthodox are reductionists? I thought she said the Russian Synod said it was "colorless". "Colorless" in their meanings was that Protestants and Catholics could recite the same prayers. That's not "Orthodox".  That's just "not heterodox". The proclamation of the Orthodox faith, as the Russian Synod complained, was missing. AND still is.
The difference between a Sacred object/ritual which is Orthodox and one which is "non-heterodox" is what precisely?


Is it an "Orthodox" Rite, if the "rite" was never even "Orthodox"?
"Is" is present tense. "Was" is past tense. Smiley

It's like me telling my kids they can't have a cookie before dinner.

Which goes like:

"Why not?"

"Because your hungry, you need REAL food?"


"Why?"

"Because your body WANTS real food! Don't eat that stupid cookie, put it down now and eat real food in a few!"

Anyhow, the post-schism services used in some "Western Orthodox" parishes now a days are handing out cookies.  Yet, some of those same people embroidered within the hems of modern "Orthodoxy" are the very ones who argue for their "cookies", instead of restoring a "Truly Orthodox" tradition.
This analogy only works if one buys the argument that Orthodox statues and the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are not "real food". You've yet to prove that.


Nope, sorry, can't say that. 
That's funny, I thought I just did say that. See my response to "Suiaden" earlier in this post, perhaps you can answer the question as well.


I'm an iconographer....NO WAY. 
So what if you paint icons? I'm a psychologist, and believe me, you don't want to hear my opinion.

Yet, I am strongly opposed to anything the Holy Fathers say. 
You said it.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #85 on: June 11, 2008, 01:57:54 AM »


Yet, I am strongly opposed to anything against what the Holy Fathers say.  Why? Because they are far closer to Christ than I am nor to any "Modern Day Scholar".  So, they are "real vanilla flava" for me.


You do realise that we are in the 21st century and not in the time of the Holy fathers?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #86 on: June 11, 2008, 02:01:16 AM »

The difference between a Sacred object/ritual which is Orthodox and one which is "non-heterodox" is what precisely?

The difference between an altar and a gallon of milk.

So what if you paint icons? I'm a psychologist, and believe me, you don't want to hear my opinion.
You said it.

Well, I sure don't. You certainly have acted way too subjective to be worth dealing with objectively.

By the way, my mother is a psychologist.  And I still think she's odd.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 02:01:54 AM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #87 on: June 11, 2008, 02:02:47 AM »

You do realise that we are in the 21st century and not in the time of the Holy fathers?

For an ORTHODOX, this 21st century of yours is just as much the time of the Holy Fathers as before.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #88 on: June 11, 2008, 02:03:59 AM »

For an ORTHODOX, this 21st century of yours is just as much the time of the Holy Fathers as before.

No it isn't. We are not going through the things the holy fathers did and vice versa.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 02:04:07 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #89 on: June 11, 2008, 02:05:41 AM »

No it isn't. We are not going through the things the holy fathers did and vice versa.

Ah, yes. I forgot we've conquered sin.  And now orange juice is available from concentrate. For shame.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Tags: icons Western Rite statues 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   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 0.194 seconds with 72 queries.