Strange icons

[Michał Kalina]

You know, I caught myself doing this on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee... I was struggling to hang on to my squirmy one year old and bent to kiss the icon before I realized I had just venerated the Pharisee.  Oops.  At least Caitlin got it right. 

On American sites I've found two uncommon (at least for me) icons: icon for Sunday of the Prodigal Son and icon for Sunday of Publican and Pharisee.

Is it Greek or American Orthodox tradition? Are there any more icons which don't present Saints, events/persons from the Bible, events/persons from the Tradition but some unreal things?

Are they treated (venerated) as normal icons or are they just to illustrate pararels? Why the Publican has a halo despite being not canonised and even not real?

Sorry EofK for imposing your post but it made me think.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

[Orthodox11]

I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

You can buy it here

[Alveus Lacuna]

Why do the men have halos?  Are they disciples?

[Michał Kalina]

Why do the men have halos?  Are they disciples?

Yes, they're.

[Michał Kalina]

But this icon presents event from the Gospel, the REAL event. Not the story Jesus told His Disciples.

[CRCulver]

The church at which I worship in Romania has its walls completely covered with iconography and two levels of icons are depictions of Christ's parables. So, even "fictional" personages are depicted in iconography. The icon depicting the Parable of the Good Samaritan, however, features Christ in the role of the Good Samaritan.

[Michał Kalina]

Do you have any pictures?

[Fr. George]

On American sites I've found two uncommon (at least for me) icons: icon for Sunday of the Prodigal Son and icon for Sunday of Publican and Pharisee.

Is it Greek or American Orthodox tradition? Are there any more icons which don't present Saints, events/persons from the Bible, events/persons from the Tradition but some unreal things?

Are they treated (venerated) as normal icons or are they just to illustrate pararels? Why the Publican has a halo despite being not canonised and even not real?

Sorry EofK for imposing your post but it made me think.

There are a number of different icons that depict parables, and references.  An example is the icon of the ladder into heaven - an image of Jacob's (the Patriarch) dream, but the icon depicts Christ at the top with the Theotokos.  Or the icon of the Burning Bush, which sometimes depicts the Theotokos in the midst of the bush with the fire in her womb.

The icon of the Publican & Pharisee has a halo on the Publican after his prayer (not before) because in Christ's words "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God." (NIV)

[Michał Kalina]

Should they (that icons) be venerated?

[Fr. George]

Should they (that icons) be venerated?

I suppose so; the icon is still a reflection of a heavenly reality in earthly form, pointing to an example of Christian life.

[Michał Kalina]

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC

[Papist]

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC

Oh my.... 

[Rosehip]

That's awful, Mike! 

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this? Also the one of Christ knocking at the door-this too I've never seen as an icon. I think both pictures are very familiar and dear to most Protestants.

[Schultz]

That's awful, Mike! 

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this? Also the one of Christ knocking at the door-this too I've never seen as an icon. I think both pictures are very familiar and dear to most Protestants.

Do you mean an image like this as Christ as Good Shepherd?  I've seen this icon many times in Orthodox churches/suppliers and even bought one just like it for an ex-girlfriend once. 

[Papist]

That's awful, Mike! 

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this? Also the one of Christ knocking at the door-this too I've never seen as an icon. I think both pictures are very familiar and dear to most Protestants.

Do you mean an image like this as Christ as Good Shepherd?  I've seen this icon many times in Orthodox churches/suppliers and even bought one just like it for an ex-girlfriend once. 

I have this icon. 

[Rosehip]

Thanks, Shultz! No, I've never, ever seen it before! Never in a church and never anywhere else! It's very nice.

[LizaSymonenko]

One year we have given this icon of the Good Shepherd to the children who were going to their First Confession.



The soccer "icon" is very sad to see.  The Theotokos and Christ Child are beautiful....however, the soccer field...pppllllease.

I cannot imagine their clergy approve of it.

This is just another example where people lose the spiritual aspect of their Faith, and use their faith as just another custom, or tradition....no spiritual thinking behind it.
Quite sad.

[pensateomnia]

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this?

I have seen several modern Orthodox icons of the Good Shepherd. In the Roman Catacombs, there are something like 114 documented representations of the Good Shepherd, dating from the 2nd through 3rd century. There's also a very famous late antique/early Byzantine version of the Good Shepherd in Ravenna. Reproduced below:



Images of a shepherd with a lamb over his back were very popular -- and very symbolic -- in the Greco-Roman world for a number of centuries, especially in the second century. Most of the philosophical schools (among which Christianity was sometimes numbered) taught that right-living consisted of (1) piety toward God and (2) philanthropy/benevolence toward neighbors.

Piety was depicted by a man in an orans position (lifting up hands in prayer). Philanthropy by a man with a sheep over his shoulders. These twin images appear on many pagan (and Christian) sarcophagi, and were even made part of the State's iconography by particularly philosophically inclined emperors like Marcus Aurelius.

[Rosehip]

That's so interesting, pensateomnia! Thanks for that information! I'm a bit surprised I've never seen this icon in any Russian church. For some reason, I don't really like the cross in the back of the icon. I still think I prefer the "protestant" pictures of Christ, holding a lamb in His arms, and a staff in one of His hands, surrounded by sheep...don't know what it is, but that image strikes me as more "natural", although I do like the one Shultz posted-just not sure about the cross in the background.

[pensateomnia]

Oh, and lest we think this was just a Roman thing, there's also the Dura-Europos house church in Syria (the only extant house church we have), which has an image of the Good Shepherd from about 245.

[rwprof]

The soccer icon (seriously):

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/10/soccer-icon.html

[scamandrius]

That's so interesting, pensateomnia! Thanks for that information! I'm a bit surprised I've never seen this icon in any Russian church. For some reason, I don't really like the cross in the back of the icon. I still think I prefer the "protestant" pictures of Christ, holding a lamb in His arms, and a staff in one of His hands, surrounded by sheep...don't know what it is, but that image strikes me as more "natural", although I do like the one Shultz posted-just not sure about the cross in the background.

What's wrong with the cross in the background of the good shepherd icon of Christ?  He was as a lamb lead to slaugther, was he not?  What is it that makes you apprehensive about the cross?

[Rosehip]

That's so interesting, pensateomnia! Thanks for that information! I'm a bit surprised I've never seen this icon in any Russian church. For some reason, I don't really like the cross in the back of the icon. I still think I prefer the "protestant" pictures of Christ, holding a lamb in His arms, and a staff in one of His hands, surrounded by sheep...don't know what it is, but that image strikes me as more "natural", although I do like the one Shultz posted-just not sure about the cross in the background.

What's wrong with the cross in the background of the good shepherd icon of Christ?  He was as a lamb lead to slaugther, was he not?  What is it that makes you apprehensive about the cross?

I'm not used to such a highly stylized rendition of Christ the Good Shepherd, I guess. I just need to get accustomed to it. I always think of the picture of Christ walking naturally amongst a flock of sheep, with his staff in one hand, and holding a lamb in the other...

[Father H]

Here is a link to an article and several icons of the good shepherd:

http://www.pravmir.com/printer_604.html

[Rosehip]

Thanks so much, Father, for the fascinating article! I had wondered if Orthodox icons are more apt to portray actual events than they are to portray allegories, and if for this reason, we don't have icons of say, Christ knocking at the door, etc.

[LBK]

The image of Christ the Good Shepherd as reproduced in Schultz's post poses a couple of problems regarding its compatibility with Orthodox theology, iconographic tradition, and doctrine. The notion of Christ as the Good Shepherd is not, in itself, a, iconographic problem, any more than that of Christ the Sower of the good seed, or Christ the Creator of the universe.

Where the image Schultz posted falls short is in showing Christ with the wounds of His crucifixion, and with a cross in the background. Unlike much non-Orthodox painting and sculpture, Orthodox iconography limits the display of Christ's wounds to icons of the Crucifiction, the Deposition from the Cross, the Lamentation, and the events in time between His Resurrection and Ascension, such as the Incredulity of Apostle Thomas; i.e. those events which confirm and proclaim the Resurrection of Christ, as fully corporeal, and not as merely some sort of "spirit". There is no iconographic tradition of painting the wounds in pre-Crucifixion icons, nor in post-Ascension icons, such as Christ in Majesty, where He is shown enthroned, surrounded by seraphim, cherubim, and other heavenly hosts. There is no need to show the wounds in such icons, as the human body of Christ, through His sacrifice and resurrection, has been perfected and sanctified.

[Rosehip]

The wounds were something which bothered me too. While it is a beautiful icon, chronologically it seems confusing somehow.

[Schultz]

The image of Christ the Good Shepherd as reproduced in Schultz's post poses a couple of problems regarding its compatibility with Orthodox theology, iconographic tradition, and doctrine. The notion of Christ as the Good Shepherd is not, in itself, a, iconographic problem, any more than that of Christ the Sower of the good seed, or Christ the Creator of the universe.

Where the image Schultz posted falls short is in showing Christ with the wounds of His crucifixion, and with a cross in the background. Unlike much non-Orthodox painting and sculpture, Orthodox iconography limits the display of Christ's wounds to icons of the Crucifiction, the Deposition from the Cross, the Lamentation, and the events in time between His Resurrection and Ascension, such as the Incredulity of Apostle Thomas; i.e. those events which confirm and proclaim the Resurrection of Christ, as fully corporeal, and not as merely some sort of "spirit". There is no iconographic tradition of painting the wounds in pre-Crucifixion icons, nor in post-Ascension icons, such as Christ in Majesty, where He is shown enthroned, surrounded by seraphim, cherubim, and other heavenly hosts. There is no need to show the wounds in such icons, as the human body of Christ, through His sacrifice and resurrection, has been perfected and sanctified.

Was not this same 'perfected and sanctified' human body the same one shown to St Thomas, complete with wounds, though?  Is not the Resurrected Christ also the Good Shepherd?  Why do you constantly look for problems when none exist?  I understand your conservatism regarding iconography, but you make it sound as if a huge rulebook dropped out of heaven in AD33 with all the rules and canons about icons in them. 

The link FatherHLL posted earlier discusses this very icon and the symbolism behind it.

I normally respect your erudition on this topic, but this time I think you are just looking for something to complain about.

Is

[Irish Hermit]

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC

Frankly, strange things are seen in the Ukraine

See the headdress of Miss Ukraine 2008:

http://photo.for-ua.com/albums/23_06_2006_Cimbaluk/big/IMG_6019.jpg



and Miss Ukraine's holy corset:

http://www.rusidea.org/picts/forum/Foto_pro_MP/miss.jpg

[HandmaidenofGod]

The soccer icon (seriously):

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/10/soccer-icon.html

Ugh, why does it not surprise me there were Ukrainians behind this? *shakes head in amazement*

Sometimes us Ukies are pretty goofy... Lord have mercy on us all!

[Asteriktos]

and Miss Ukraine's holy corset:

http://www.rusidea.org/picts/forum/Foto_pro_MP/miss.jpg

Do you, by chance, have an image of her wearing it?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Was not this same 'perfected and sanctified' human body the same one shown to St Thomas, complete with wounds, though?

Exactly!

[LBK]

My dear Schultz, you may well accuse me of conservatism in iconography, yet, I ask you to come up with any pre-18thC icon of Christ which shows the wounds of His crucifixion, other than in the examples I mentioned. Regarding the icon of Apostle Thomas, one only needs to look at the text of the Vigil to this feast to find it full of references to Christ's wounds, both literally, and in their spiritual significance in relation to Thomas' examination of them, as proof positive of his Lord's resurrection. Liturgy and iconography go hand in hand, my friend.

On the other hand, the image you posted is directly derived from non-Orthodox images of quite recent (two centuries or less) provenance.

As for the "patroness of soccer and sport" image (yet another sad addition to my schlock file) is a blasphemy and travesty. Yet, from the blog this image was drawn, we see supposed ecclesiastical approval for this image. According to the film footage on the blog: As best as I can make out the Ukrainian, it says that the icon was blessed by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishop Mykolaj (Simkaylo) and a priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev patriarchate). Some may regard what I have to say as arrogant, but it only goes to show that even clergy can make grave iconographic mistakes. What's the solution to this sort of problem? EDUCATION! of clergy and laity alike.

I once wrote this on another thread last year:

Iconography is the most visible and identifiable characteristic which sets apart the Orthodox Church from all others, yet, lapses continue to occur, often, it must be said, out of honest ignorance. However, be that as it may, it is imperative that distortions and assaults on the doctrinal, theological and liturgical integrity of this holy and priceless treasure are exposed and remedied. It is in this spirit that I post in the way that I do, not to lord it over people, nor to draw attention to myself (after all, I post anonymously), but to allow a greater understanding of the pitfalls of error.

[LBK]

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC

Frankly, strange things are seen in the Ukraine

See the headdress of Miss Ukraine 2008:

http://photo.for-ua.com/albums/23_06_2006_Cimbaluk/big/IMG_6019.jpg

and Miss Ukraine's holy corset:

http://www.rusidea.org/picts/forum/Foto_pro_MP/miss.jpg

Oyyyy!!!!!! 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Iconography is the most visible and identifiable characteristic which sets apart the Orthodox Church from all others.

Then what a relief that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church isn't a part of the Orthodox Church!

[LizaSymonenko]

from Kolomyia-Chernivtsi Diocese of UGCC

Frankly, strange things are seen in the Ukraine

With all due respect, Father, I have to tell you I am slightly offended by your statement.

Frankly, strange things are seen in ALL countries....I can easily surf the Web and find some rather offensive things occurring in other nations such as Russia, etc....however, I wouldn't post that and make a general statement that strange things are seen in those countries.  I wouldn't want someone to mistakenly think I might be degrading their homeland.

Let's not forget how many deeply faithful, God fearing, reverent and modest people live in Ukraine who are not strange at all....or the hundreds of Saints that come from Ukrainian lands.

Additionally.....why must everyone still call Ukraine, "the" Ukraine?  Is it accidental or intentional?  I'd like to know.

I honestly, mean no disrespect and forgive me for not "turning the other cheek"...but, that cheek's already red.

Peace and respect to all, and to all nations - for all nations are equal and none is better or worse than any other.

[BoredMeeting]

Weren't icons used to communicate Scripture to a largely illiterate public prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press?

Given that, icons of the parables would have a long history behind them (even if they are contemporary versions).

[ialmisry]

Do you have any pictures?

Of the Romanian Church, or something like this?

http://www.stinnocent.net/images/GoodSamaritan.JPG

[Michał Kalina]

Do you have any pictures?

Of the Romanian Church, or something like this?

http://www.stinnocent.net/images/GoodSamaritan.JPG

Of parables frescos. It depicts the one about poor Samaritan, doesn't it?

[Michał Kalina]

I like them: http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/artwork/religious.html

[Achronos]

The soccer icon (seriously):

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/10/soccer-icon.html

Wow can I buy one? 

[JamesRottnek]

That thing with the soccer ball is truly worse than anything the Romans have ever created - even clown masses.

[orthonorm]

That thing with the soccer ball is truly worse than anything the Romans have ever created - even clown masses.

Good for you!

[Cognomen]

Well, it's an icon and it's strange:


Cynocephalus St. Christopher.  One of several found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly

[biro]

Over at monachos.net, there's an entire thread on non-canonical icons. I'll post some of the pictures later. Just goes to show that Orthodox artists make mistakes, too. 

[LBK]

Over at monachos.net, there's an entire thread on non-canonical icons. I'll post some of the pictures later. Just goes to show that Orthodox artists make mistakes, too. 

There are several threads at monachos.net on non-canonical icons. They are very useful, detailed and instructive.

[biro]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.




This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.




This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....




'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male. 




'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus. 




There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.

[CBGardner]

The first one must have been done by MC Escher.

[That person]

This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....

It looks like God sneezed.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name  of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Well, it's an icon and it's strange:


Cynocephalus St. Christopher.  One of several found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly

I like that in the way it elaborates on the truly symobolic nature of religious imagery.  I was discussing of all things the merits of Egyptian icongraphy of strange and mismatched animal-men which some folks have said are representations of the Reptilian shape-shifting aliens as part of the said conspiracy.  I had to explain that religious imagery is not meant to be taken literal, the images are symbols.  Each abnormal or different representation takes on a symbolic significance, and I especially like to see the Dog-headed Saint Christopher icons to drive the point home.

Here are some eccentric Icons from the Ethiopian tradition:


That is Saint Tekle Haimanot, and yes, that is his leg there next to him on the ground, he stood in prayer for seven consecutive years until its said his leg simply fell off in order to make it easier to continue standing in prayer!


This is Saint Gebre Menfes Kidus, who rolled around perpetually with a crew of wild animals including these pairs of big cats.  Obviously he was an intimidating presence to the local governors in that in the Grace of God he could speak with and even command the wildest and most dangerous of animals!  Of course he was in fact a very kind natured monk-saint who only used his monastic agency (in Ethiopian tradition, recluse monks have the social authority to openly and even rudely criticize secular leaders without punishment whereas commoners would be whipped or even worse for much less an offense) when extremely pressed by notoriously corrupt leaders.


These classic Cherub (Kirubel in Ge'ez) can be a bit bewildering in their abundance and repetition, signifying the continuity of the Kingdom and Will of God which the angels fulfill.



Saint Abba Aregawi conquering the Serpent before founding the Debre Damo mountain top monastery, I couldn't find an online image of the traditional mural painting like we have in my parish where Abba Aregawi is not wrestling with the serpent, but rather is actually riding it up the mountain like a rope-swing elevator!

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Michał Kalina]

This one:

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/40603_137807409587808_100000756494006_166137_754393_n.jpg

Kinda drastic so don't click when you are sensitive.

[ag_vn]

[Asteriktos]

^ Would be a beautiful chapel with better icons... 

[LBK]

^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.

[Michał]

Here is a couple of unusual icons: http://goo.gl/T05OW

[Asteriktos]

Here is a couple of unusual icons: http://goo.gl/T05OW

Which ones? Every once in a while I see one that is unfamiliar (such as this one), but the rest ... *shrugs*

[Michał]

Which ones?

Those from the section titled 'Theological Icons' (pp. 38-41).

[jah777]

^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.

My first thought when I saw the icons on the iconostasis was "Night of the Living Dead".  They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.  If icons reflect the spiritual state of the iconographer, this work does not reflect well on the one who panted them.

[Michał Kalina]

@ag_vn : Where is that?

[Iconodule]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.

[Michał]

Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.

Actually, it's masonic: http://goo.gl/vZWb9

[LBK]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.

It's a Freemason painting.

[biro]

Oops. Well, it's odd enough.

[AZCatholic]

I have never seen an icon like this!

[FrChris]

@ag_vn : Where is that?

Yes....I'm curious too!

[Alveus Lacuna]

They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.

I was thinking about how creepy they looked too. I don't think I could make it through a service there.

[Hiwot]

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ? and how come the icons look like they are taken from somewherelse and posted there ? they did not look like byzantine to me, but are they? I see on the top the byzantine Trinitarian icon though even that is unusualy gray, but the bottom ones i mean the grey ones they do not look like they are.

[Hiwot]

LOL I am glad its not me alone who got spooked by them

[Joseph Hazen]

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ? and how come the icons look like they are taken from somewherelse and posted there ? they did not look like byzantine to me, but are they? I see on the top the byzantine Trinitarian icon though even that is unusualy gray, but the bottom ones i mean the grey ones they do not look like they are.

It is "St. Petka" in Bulgaria, built according to the wishes of and to honor a fortune teller and psychic "Baba Vanga". As far as I can tell it's not an Orthodox Church.

[ag_vn]

@ag_vn : Where is that?

Yes....I'm curious too!

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ?

This is the Saint Petka (Petka is Paraskevi in Bulgarian) church in Rupite, Bulgaria. It was built with donations from Vanga. The site was chosen by her.

As far as I can tell it's not an Orthodox Church.

Well, it is an Orthodox church. It was consecrated by the local Metropolitan, but at the time of consecration these icons weren't there. As far as I know they were put later.

[ag_vn]

^ They're horrible! The holy ones on the iconostasis look ghastly, emaciated, ravaged, with a deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes, bordering on naked terror. Might be OK in a medieval Gothic church, but there is no place for such travesties in an Orthodox church! Whoever painted these images has NO idea of what iconography is. Where is the gravitas, stillness, dignity, reverence and spiritual power that good and proper icons possess and proclaim? What a crying shame that a beautiful iconostasis, made by skilled hands, has been spoiled by these artistic flights of fancy. Shameful.

My first thought when I saw the icons on the iconostasis was "Night of the Living Dead".  They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.  If icons reflect the spiritual state of the iconographer, this work does not reflect well on the one who panted them.

These "icons" were painted by Svetlin Russev (Светлин Русев), a Bulgarian artist, so he is not an iconographer. He was a close friend of Vanga and is considered by many an Occultist.

Although a consecrated Orthodox church, for many it is mainly a place for veneration of Vanga. Her followers and fans regard her as a prophetess, while regular Orthodox faithful consider her an Occultist phenomenon or even witch. From what I know the existing of these "icons" is a scandalous among the faithful.

[Joseph Hazen]

Well, it is an Orthodox church. It was consecrated by the local Metropolitan, but at the time of consecration these icons weren't there. As far as I know they were put later.

Ah, all I could find was one website that I had to run through a translator, so the quality was very bad. Thanks for the correction.

[Alveus Lacuna]

It seems like there are two bishops' thrones there on either side, which is also strange.

[ag_vn]

^The one on the left is not exactly a bishop's throne, although it's a smaller throne with a pseudo-icon of Vanga "blessing" the people.

[ag_vn]

I have never seen an icon like this!

I like it. The mantle with so many stars is beautiful.

[Iconodule]

I have never seen an icon like this!

I think this would be a variant of "The Passion":


The difference being that Christ is carrying a big cross and spears instead of the angels carrying little ones.

[Michał]

I think this would be a variant of "The Passion":
[. . .]
The difference being that Christ is carrying a big cross and spears instead of the angels carrying little ones.

There are more differences. I don't think it is a variant of the Strastnaya icon. It is simply a different icon called Novonikitskaya. There is another one similar to it, known as Svyato-Krestovskaya:

[AZCatholic]

Icon at  the Monastery of Gelati.

[Cognomen]

Icon at  the Monastery of Gelati.

Doesn't Frederica Mathewes-Green use this for the cover to most of her books?  If not all, at least for the cover of her famous one: Gnashing Teeth!

[biro]

I bet there is no horsing around at mealtime at that monastery.

[jah777]

My first thought when I saw the icons on the iconostasis was "Night of the Living Dead".  They all look like zombies, absolutely hideous to behold.  If icons reflect the spiritual state of the iconographer, this work does not reflect well on the one who panted them.

These "icons" were painted by Svetlin Russev (Светлин Русев), a Bulgarian artist, so he is not an iconographer. He was a close friend of Vanga and is considered by many an Occultist.

Although a consecrated Orthodox church, for many it is mainly a place for veneration of Vanga. Her followers and fans regard her as a prophetess, while regular Orthodox faithful consider her an Occultist phenomenon or even witch. From what I know the existing of these "icons" is a scandalous among the faithful.

Thank you for the information, the “occultism” certainly does come through in the images. 

[Hiwot]

@ag_vn : Where is that?

Yes....I'm curious too!

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ?

This is the Saint Petka (Petka is Paraskevi in Bulgarian) church in Rupite, Bulgaria. It was built with donations from Vanga. The site was chosen by her.

As far as I can tell it's not an Orthodox Church.

Well, it is an Orthodox church. It was consecrated by the local Metropolitan, but at the time of consecration these icons weren't there. As far as I know they were put later.

thank you for the information ag_vn, and Joseph Hazen, I appreciate it, it certainly explains why they look so deathly pale, grotesque, and with eyes closed too not orthodox icons at all.

[Apostolos]

The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

[Aindriú]

ok I am very curious , where is this Church ? and how come the icons look like they are taken from somewherelse and posted there ? they did not look like byzantine to me, but are they? I see on the top the byzantine Trinitarian icon though even that is unusualy gray, but the bottom ones i mean the grey ones they do not look like they are.

Those are the ugliest icons I've ever seen... or hope to see. It's like something out of the Catholic 1970s.

[AZCatholic]

The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

I saw this icon in a video once and I could never find the name of it ! Thank you!

[AZCatholic]

Those are the ugliest icons I've ever seen... or hope to see. It's like something out of the Catholic 1970s.

As a Catholic I agree!

[Timon]

Those icons in that church's iconostasis are the most terrifying things ive ever seen.  ever.

[LBK]

The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I wish I could see the outside of the building better. This looks super occult from a distance. What is it depicting?

[Volnutt]

The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.

I think the one in Lipsi is wonderworking.

[Apostolos]

The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.

Indeed. The iconographer though keeps the Orthodox tradition and depicts her face in dispassion. The icon was written in the 1600's by monks from the Monastery of Patmos.

I think the one in Lipsi is wonderworking.

Yes it is. Since 1943, small branches of lillies with no roots are put on the icon in Spring, which bloom every 23rd August
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeH4Y1nAHvM

[LBK]

The Panagia of Charon (death), Lipsi islands, Dodecanese, Greece

This work is typical of the western religious art, and devotional practices, which came into various regions of Greece during Venetian rule.

OOOOPS!! Mods, could this post be shifted to the Theotokos of Charon thread? 

[J.M.C]

Icon at  the Monastery of Gelati.

I'm not sure what's so "strange" about that icon... it's a detail from the Icon of the Last Judgment. Any icon of the Last Judgment will have details like this at the bottom (and it can be clearly seen in the pic that this is just the bottom of a much larger fresco/icon), and most often appear on the Western wall of a chapel or church. i.e. you see it as you leave a service.

[Volnutt]

and most often appear on the Western wall of a chapel or church. i.e. you see it as you leave a service.

Joel Osteen would not approve!

I think it's fine as long as the figurative parts are explained.


Also, boob snakes . Yes, I'm a 5 year-old.

[myrrhbear]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.




This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.




This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....




'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male. 




'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus. 




There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.

I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.

[LBK]

I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.

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

There is nothing St John of Damascus can't answer.

[Dominika]

A refreshemnt of the old thread because of popularity of "Schlock icons". I prefer something more spirtual-benefit


I don't know if it's very strange, but I've seen first time in my life such type of icon of the Theotokos:

[LBK]

The above is known as The Multiplier of Wheat. Here's part of a post from an older thread:

The primary meaning of the iconographic mandorla is that it represents the Uncreated Light and Glory of God. Its presence around Christ makes perfect sense in icons of the Resurrection and Transfiguration (for obvious reasons), of the Ascension (proclaiming the full glorification of Christ's human nature and reiteration of His divinity, something mentioned many times in the hymnography of the feast), of Christ in Majesty (Christ enthroned in heaven, surrounded by seraphim and cherubim), and in icons of the Mother of God of the Sign (Platytera, Znamennaya), where Christ Emmanuel is shown over His mother's body, signifying most clearly the Incarnation of God as a Divine Child.

The presence of Christ in a mandorla in icons of the Dormition signify the mystical appearance of Christ, accepting the soul of His mother, to escort it to heaven. Normally, the souls of saints, represented as a babe in swaddling-clothes, in their dormition icons are taken to heaven by angels. Given the exalted status of the Mother of God, it is only fitting and proper that Christ Himself takes her soul. A "mere" angel simply won't do. And His holding her soul is also a lovely counterpoint to the iconography and hymnography of the Mother of God holding her Son.

There are images of the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla. Here is part of a post of mine from the "Canonical Icons" thread:

The Multiplier of Wheat shows the Mother of God surrounded by a mandorla, an oval motif of rays and stars which represents the uncreated light and glory of God. This is a major error in iconography, as the Virgin, while, of course, partaking of the glory and life of God, is not divine herself. She does not generate this light. Christ alone may be depicted in this light, such as in icons of Christ in Majesty (Christ enthroned, surrounded by the bodiless hosts), the Transfiguration, the Dormition of His mother (where He is seen holding her soul in the form of a babe in swaddling clothes, surely one of the loveliest of iconographic motifs, and truly loaded with theological meaning), and in icons of the Mother of God of the Sign, where He, as Christ Emmanuel, is surrounded by a circular mandorla over His mother's body as she holds her arms raised in supplication. By contrast, a mandorla is often seen in western images (paintings and statues) of the Virgin, notably in Our Lady of Guadelupe.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44905.msg754288.html#msg754288

[Nephi]

The above is known as The Multiplier of Wheat. Here's part of a post from an older thread:

Do all of the Multiplier of Wheat icons include the mandorla? I've seen this icon so many times that I never paid any attention, and can't remember now.

[LBK]

The above is known as The Multiplier of Wheat. Here's part of a post from an older thread:

Do all of the Multiplier of Wheat icons include the mandorla? I've seen this icon so many times that I never paid any attention, and can't remember now.

All the many versions I've seen have the mandorla.

[biro]

I have one that is similar to the Multiplier. It's Russian. I find it comforting, even though it looks unusual.

[Nephi]

Here's one without a mandorla, but this site calls it "Grower of Crops" instead of Multiplier of Wheat:

[Michał Kalina]

Here's one without a mandorla, but this site calls it "Grower of Crops" instead of Multiplier of Wheat[/img]

That's the same name, isn't it?

[Nephi]

That's the same name, isn't it?

You're probably right...

[Dominika]

[LBK]

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful. 

[That person]

Was it? I'm no expert, but a GIS indicates a lot of icons of the Visitation depict Christ and the Forerunner. I'd be curious to read up on that icon's origins, if you have a source. Because independent of whatever agenda it might be pushing, I kind of like it.

[Dominika]

I've posted it becasue I'm interested in its origin like That person and I've never seen such icon before.

As for anti-abortion icons, I've seen 3 types of it (I think). Of course the task of icon is different, but on the other hand, we know that Church should protect life, and some peopel find icons as an instrument for it, so, maybe in this case, it would be better if it was a kind of picutre, similar to icon?... I'm just thinking out loud

[LBK]

Was it? I'm no expert, but a GIS indicates a lot of icons of the Visitation depict Christ and the Forerunner. I'd be curious to read up on that icon's origins, if you have a source. Because independent of whatever agenda it might be pushing, I kind of like it.

There is only one historic instance I've come across of the fetuses being visible in a Visitation icon, in a fresco in Cyprus, IIRC 17thC. In this fresco, the unborns are not surrounded by a womb-like enclosure; they are painted in a similar style to the Christ of the 12th C Ustiug Annunciation. Be that as it may, the fact that the Cypriot Visitation and the Ustiug Annunciation are the only known examples of the portrayal of the unborn, this should give us pause before regarding such a representation as proper or canonical.

It is also a fact that the type of image posted by Dominika has been used in recent years, in violation of the spirit and purpose of iconography, as the mascot for various anti-abortion campaigns.

[That person]

A lot of More Spacious than the Heavens icons use the womb-type thing. Dunno how historic this practice is though.

[LBK]

A lot of More Spacious than the Heavens icons use the womb-type thing. Dunno how historic this practice is though.

The Mother of God of the Sign (Platytera, Znammeniye) icons show Christ Emmanuel surrounded by a radiant circle of Uncreated Light.

[BoredMeeting]

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful. 

Really? Can you document when and where it was first written?

[LBK]

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful.  

Really? Can you document when and where it was first written?

Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns. I have also seen the same composition painted by other artists, and used for the same purpose. The artist herself is on public record with this statement:

Every year we are in Washington D.C. at the ProLife Rally

And the artist has authorised that copies of this image are handed out during these rallies.

I repeat: the use of iconography to promote sociopolitical causes, even "good" ones, is a shameful debasement of what icons are and stand for.

[NicholasMyra]

It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.

[88Devin12]

I see nothing wrong with it, it's illustrating something 100% Orthodox and 100% Biblical. Who cares if its used in the campaign against infanticide. Should we also stop those who paint icons of Rachel's Lament?

[88Devin12]

It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.

What do you mean by this? You realize most icons in history aren't "portraits" of Saints like we have so mch of today, they are images from the Bible. The very first Christian images were precisely this sort of thing, a "snapshot" of a Biblical event.

[Michał Kalina]

I see nothing wrong with it, it's illustrating something 100% Orthodox and 100% Biblical. Who cares if its used in the campaign against infanticide. Should we also stop those who paint icons of Rachel's Lament?

Icons are supposed to be used for veneration.

[88Devin12]

I see nothing wrong with it, it's illustrating something 100% Orthodox and 100% Biblical. Who cares if its used in the campaign against infanticide. Should we also stop those who paint icons of Rachel's Lament?

Icons are supposed to be used for veneration.

You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome.

I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong, should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards? Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons? Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?

[Michał Kalina]

You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome.

I've read somewhere there is a difference between icons and icon-like paintings on other objcects like wall or vestments.

I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong,

It was created for that purpose.

should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards?

I'd love that happen.

Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons?

We are not discussing here materials used for icons but icons being used for non-veneration actions, are we?

Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?

What they do?

[88Devin12]

You don't and can't "venerate" every icon, we offer them honor and veneration, but unless you are extremely tall, I doubt you can venerate the Pantocrator up in the dome.

I've read somewhere there is a difference between icons and icon-like paintings on other objcects like wall or vestments.

I'm simply saying that just because you use an icon in an anti-abortion campaign doesn't make it wrong,

It was created for that purpose.

should we stop putting photos of icons in books, calendars and cards?

I'd love that happen.

Why not take it further and stop people from printing icons on paper? Or stop them from painting on canvas and gluing them to the walls of churches? How far do we take this somewhat extreme legalism regarding icons?

We are not discussing here materials used for icons but icons being used for non-veneration actions, are we?

Do we take it as far as the Old Believers sometimes do?

What they do?

Is there evidence that this icon was created for the anti-infanticide campaign? Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion. The abortion issue IS a theological issue because those who say a fetus isn't a person are therefore blaspheming Christ.

It's all the same debate, what are icons and what purpose are they for.

The Old Believers take icon "veneration" to near worship and fall into pharisaism an legalism with regard to icons and other aspects of the faith.

I've never read that there is a difference between icons on boards and icons on walls.

[Shanghaiski]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.




This is 'Holy Silence.' Not exactly sure why it copies some elements of the Virgin of the Sign.




This is, somehow, the Ancient of Days and the Holy Spirit. Maybe. Er....




'Angel Countenance.' Angels are normally depicted as male. 




'Angel of the Sign.' With all respect, an angel did not give birth to Jesus. 




There were weirder ones. I would like to see a book on unusual icons, if only to show us what is not allowed and what is.

I'm not defending the Icon of Holy Silence as I don't know enough yet about icons so I do not intend to offend anyone or argue. However I watched the DVD "Theoria" which explains its meaning. It is based on the verses from Exodus 23:20 and refers to the Angel of God's Countenance, holding the sphere containing the Logos, the Name, the Word of God. It has to do with the Divine Revelation as it was to Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in delving deeper into the meaning of that one he should watch the dvd or contact the school which produced that particular one rather than criticize it right off the bat.

Just because an image, a feast, or anything else has some sort of deeper meaning derived from Scripture or anywhere else does not make it acceptable or traditional.

[Shanghaiski]

This image was produced for the purpose of using it as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Icons must never be used to promote social or political causes, even if such causes are good ones. God is above and beyond politics, and to turn a holy image into a sociopolitical mascot is nothing short of shameful. 

Are there Orthodox icons of the Visitation? That is, before the feast was added to the Western calendar? IIRC, it was a late addition and never made it on the Eastern calendar, except for the Eastern Catholics.

[Michał Kalina]

Is there evidence that this icon was created for the anti-infanticide campaign?

Read post #109. And the image posted here was painted by Christine Uveges, a Byzantine Catholic, and used in Right to Life marches and campaigns.

Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion. The abortion issue IS a theological issue because those who say a fetus isn't a person are therefore blaspheming Christ.

Political demonstrations are not "a holy purpose".

I've never read that there is a difference between icons on boards and icons on walls.

Uspyenski wrote about that.

[88Devin12]

1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg

[LBK]

1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg

And not a fetus in sight. As is the case with every single icon of this event I've seen, other than the single example I mentioned in post #109. Coincidence? I think not. There is nothing random or accidental in Orthodox tradition.

[LBK]

Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion.

This is precisely the reasoning used by Robert Lentz, William Hart McNichols, and their protegees, to justify their "icons".

[88Devin12]

1191AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Embrace_of_Elizabeth_and_the_Virgin_Mary.jpg

And not a fetus in sight. As is the case with every single icon of this event I've seen, other than the single example I mentioned in post #109. Coincidence? I think not. There is nothing random or accidental in Orthodox tradition.

I don't see how some of you think we should absolutely strictly adhere to iconographic depictions. By this, I mean that people seem to think that new types of icons or events that previously weren't depicted, or elements previously foreign to a a particular icon should be anathema.

If this were our attitude, we wouldn't have Rublev's Trinity or many other elements in our iconography. It's a living tradition whose canon is adhered to but can be expanded and evolved and added to.

I could imagine if we were discussing iconography 1800 years ago (with the mindset about icons of some living today) we'd be arguing whether or not the addition of a halo above Christs head was okay, or whether the depiction of Christ with long hair and a beard is okay, or whether the Emperor should be in an image with Christ. It didn't exist in Christian depictions of them before, so it shouldn't be done "now".

That kind of attitude is just silly, our iconographers aren't Amish-like, they are allowed to paint new things (within reason obviously).

Who cares if the fetus was t depicted before? Today we have to battle the heretical belief that you aren't a full human person until your birth. Is that not enough to show Christ was a full human person before his birth? We aren't just combating some regulation that is in favor of infanticide, we are combating heresy and blasphemy.

The prime function of icons isn't just for veneration or as windows to heaven, it is also to teach and show forth the Orthodox faith. Their FIRST function ever was as a teaching tool. We can point to this icon and say that no one can deny the full personhood of a fetus and be free of blasphemy.

[88Devin12]

Why does it matter if it was created for that? It is still an icon, and it created for a holy purpose, to help illustrate the undeniable theology fact that those are human beings in the womb and we are murdering them with abortion.

This is precisely the reasoning used by Robert Lentz, William Hart McNichols, and their protegees, to justify their "icons".

And you dismiss the argument because a few bad eggs use it? That isn't logical thought or reasoning and shows your argument as being weak.

Some of the most evil human beings to live had some really good points about some things, even points that they used to justify their evil. Should we therefore completely dismiss those points altogether or simply recognize the abuse of the points by ill-intentioned men?

You don't just dismiss something because a few bad guys use it. Even heretics like Nestorius and Arius got a lot of points right even if one or two was terribly wrong.

[Shanghaiski]

I suppose you haven't argued with LBK about iconography before.

[NicholasMyra]

It also has that "photo snap-shot" effect that pseudo-iconography often does.

What do you mean by this?

I mean that it looks like it caught figures in a moment of time, carrying some sort of nervous motion into the picture.

An icon, by contrast, is meant to re-capitulate the whole of the event or person depicted, not merely a snapshot of a particular second in time.

[LBK]

I don't see how some of you think we should absolutely strictly adhere to iconographic depictions. By this, I mean that people seem to think that new types of icons or events that previously weren't depicted, or elements previously foreign to a a particular icon should be anathema.

On the contrary:






Note the Chinese architecture in the icon of the Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion and in the life icon of St John of Shanghai and San Francisco. Note also in St John's icon the Capitol building in Washington DC, and a street with cars, representing the Paris street where St John once served a panikhida in memory of an Serbian archhduke who had been assassinated there, an act representative of his foolishness for Christ. The Capitol represents St John's traveling to Washington to petition the American government to allow his flock, stranded on Tubabao in the Philippines after escaping Shanghai in 1949, to emigrate to the US. All are perfectly proper elements in their respective icons.

If this were our attitude, we wouldn't have Rublev's Trinity or many other elements in our iconography. It's a living tradition whose canon is adhered to but can be expanded and evolved and added to.

See above.

The Holy Trinity icon that St Andrei of Radonezh (Andrei Rublyev) painted was based on the already ancient icon composition of the Hospitality of Abraham. St Andrei's icon is a distillation of the theology of the events at the Oak of Mamre. It is as profound an expression of Trinitarian theology as any theological treatise, and it is all there, in a single painted panel.

Who cares if the fetus was t depicted before? Today we have to battle the heretical belief that you aren't a full human person until your birth. Is that not enough to show Christ was a full human person before his birth? We aren't just combating some regulation that is in favor of infanticide, we are combating heresy and blasphemy.

The meaning behind proper icons of the Visitation is the recognition of both St Elizabeth and the unborn Forerunner of the unborn Child of the Virgin as their Lord and their God, something proclaimed, and frequently so, in scripture and in hymnography, the latter which truly expresses the Orthodox consensus patrum.

Moreover, there is only a single historical (12thC) icon of the Annunciation which shoes the unborn Christ, and, even then, the Child is shown over his Mother's body not enclosed in the womb, but in a manner similar to Of the Sign icons, minus the mandorla of Uncreated Light. Again, hymnographers in every Orthodox culture, some of them saints, have consistently omitted any depiction of an unborn Christ.

Attempting to associate this imagery with anti-abortion campaigns has no scriptural or liturgical basis. Icons are not political playthings.

Their FIRST function ever was as a teaching tool.

Not quite. The first icon was the Mandylion (Not Made By Hands), and its purpose was to mediate the miraculous healing of King Abgar. Christ could not travel to Edessa to personally heal the king, so He sent the image of His face imprinted on cloth in His stead. The holiness of an icon is derived from its association with the prototype.This is the first and foremost iconographic principle which not only permits their painting and veneration, but also insists on their veneration. All else flows from this.

This action also proclaims the Incarnation, that fallen matter has been redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection.

We can point to this icon and say that no one can deny the full personhood of a fetus and be free of blasphemy.

No, we cannot. This image, painted by Christine Uveges (who is not even Orthodox) and others like her, was created as a vehicle for the promotion of pro-life causes. This cannot be denied. And, in doing so, this image ceases to be an icon, and becomes a sociopolitical tool, a mascot for the cause.

[LBK]

And you dismiss the argument because a few bad eggs use it? That isn't logical thought or reasoning and shows your argument as being weak.

You may wish to reacquaint yourself with this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44810.0/all.html

Some of the most evil human beings to live had some really good points about some things, even points that they used to justify their evil. Should we therefore completely dismiss those points altogether or simply recognize the abuse of the points by ill-intentioned men?

For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14)

You don't just dismiss something because a few bad guys use it. Even heretics like Nestorius and Arius got a lot of points right even if one or two was terribly wrong.

While God Himself will ultimately judge their souls, the Church, through her sainted bishops, including St Nicholas of Myra, has decreed that both were heretics deserving of anathema. Good enough for me.

[88Devin12]

LBK, you don't really offer any real rational arguments here. Instead of trying to base your argument on rejection of these icons based on YOUR expectations of what an icon is, maybe you ought to step back and look at it historically.

Firstly, the story about the image of Christ being sent to King Abgar is indeed as you say, but you are forgetting about the history of this story. The story itself, of the king sending an emissary to Christ dates back to the Fourth Century. However, in all the accounts that record his interaction with Christ, no image is mentioned until the 5th Century when it wasn't a miraculous image but a painting by a court artist. The story that Christ himself made the image didn't come about until about the 7th Century. So there may have been an image, but it probably wasn't made by Christ himself.

Also, then you may point to St Luke (my patron), but again, while a nice tradition that can teach us something, it is somewhat unlikely. He probably could not have painted an image of Mary and Christ when he was a child. This just doesn't add up, especially since he lived pretty far away when Christ was young. Also, the icon(s) that were reported to be this image are all far too recent, and they could be argued to be as copies, but not stylistically since the style we see today really didn't arise until the era between 1100 and 1400.

I also am a bit wrong about the first images being to teach, this became a function of icons, however the first function of Christian iconography was communication and simple depiction of Biblical events. It's a known historical fact that our idea of the "Icon" and its veneration didn't arise until the mid hundreds. The first images weren't venerated as those of today or treated in the same manner, though they are still considered iconography. They form the very basis of what icons have become. Yet to absolutely ignore the facts and refuse to see how much it has changed and evolved over time and insist on static uniformity and absolute legalistic conformity is to completely ignore the real history of it.

And why is the Byzantine style so prominent? The same reasons the liturgy of St John is. Because of the Byzantine synthesis and the power and influence the Greeks had over the whole Eastern Orthodox Church from Chalcedonian Alexandria to Russia. It's a wonderful tradition but it is not the only one and is not the only way.

Also, our iconography has evolved and changed profoundly over the centuries, just like our Liturgy, and to ignore this is to willingly be in ignorance about ones own Church and to do a great disservice to those who paint icons and work within that tradition.

As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.

[Michał Kalina]

I also am a bit wrong about the first images being to teach, this became a function of icons, however the first function of Christian iconography was communication and simple depiction of Biblical events.

I see some Protestant theories here.
y

As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.

OK, He must. Does that mean is it necessary to put Him on political banners? Don't think so.

[Jules_Grant]

Check this one out, made by an apparently homosexual Catholic priest. I have some liberal views on the issues outside of marriage before God (as in the Church marrying the couple, they can do what they want as long as the Church is not being forced to do it), but using an icon as a poster for supporting marriage, also being it's erotic, is inappropriate and not glorifying God.

[88Devin12]

Check this one out, made by an apparently homosexual Catholic priest. I have some liberal views on the issues outside of marriage before God (as in the Church marrying the couple, they can do what they want as long as the Church is not being forced to do it), but using an icon as a poster for supporting marriage, also being it's erotic, is inappropriate and not glorifying God.

This isn't a strange icon, it's schlock...
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.0.html

This discussion is more about canonical icons that are just a bit strange. Most icons by Mr. Lentz are uncanonical and schlock...

The only one of his schlock icons that I kind of like is his "Christ of Maryknoll". I think we should have a more canonical image painted of Christ in a camp, maybe with gulag prisoners/martyrs under the Soviet Union.

[sheenj]

I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

You can buy it here

I'm wondering, doesn't tradition hold that the child in Christ's lap was actually St. Ignatius of Antioch? So shouldn't the child in this icon have a halo around his head?

[88Devin12]

I was wondering the other day if there is an icon of the Lord with all of the children gathered around Him.  I know it's a familiar Protestant illustration for Sunday Schools and such, but I actually think that sort of icon would be really good for the Orthodox kiddos.

You can buy it here

I'm wondering, doesn't tradition hold that the child in Christ's lap was actually St. Ignatius of Antioch? So shouldn't the child in this icon have a halo around his head?

I think that is a later tradition as St Ignatius probably wasn't born until after Christ's resurrection. It's a pious belief and tradition that one can hold to, but I don't think it's by any means official, like the story about St Dismas and Christs family.

[Jules_Grant]

This isn't a strange icon, it's schlock...
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.0.html

This discussion is more about canonical icons that are just a bit strange. Most icons by Mr. Lentz are uncanonical and schlock...

The only one of his schlock icons that I kind of like is his "Christ of Maryknoll". I think we should have a more canonical image painted of Christ in a camp, maybe with gulag prisoners/martyrs under the Soviet Union.

Haha, I just realised. I missed the difference.

[LBK]

LBK, you don't really offer any real rational arguments here. Instead of trying to base your argument on rejection of these icons based on YOUR expectations of what an icon is, maybe you ought to step back and look at it historically.

Demanding rational arguments as the standard for the veracity of Christianity is not how Orthodoxy works.

Firstly, the story about the image of Christ being sent to King Abgar is indeed as you say, but you are forgetting about the history of this story. The story itself, of the king sending an emissary to Christ dates back to the Fourth Century. However, in all the accounts that record his interaction with Christ, no image is mentioned until the 5th Century when it wasn't a miraculous image but a painting by a court artist. The story that Christ himself made the image didn't come about until about the 7th Century. So there may have been an image, but it probably wasn't made by Christ himself.

The Orthodox Church celebrates the miracle of the Mandylion liturgically. If the Church has seen it fit to do so, who am I to argue? The feast day is August 16. Here is the text for Vespers and Matins:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/16august.htm

It's a known historical fact that our idea of the "Icon" and its veneration didn't arise until the mid hundreds. The first images weren't venerated as those of today or treated in the same manner, though they are still considered iconography.

Evidence, please.

And why is the Byzantine style so prominent? The same reasons the liturgy of St John is. Because of the Byzantine synthesis and the power and influence the Greeks had over the whole Eastern Orthodox Church from Chalcedonian Alexandria to Russia. It's a wonderful tradition but it is not the only one and is not the only way.

This simply refers to artistic style, for want of a better word. The Georgian church is very ancient, and developed its own distinctive "look", independent of Constantinople. But the matter you're disputing has nothing to do with painting styles, but with content.

Also, our iconography has evolved and changed profoundly over the centuries, just like our Liturgy, and to ignore this is to willingly be in ignorance about ones own Church and to do a great disservice to those who paint icons and work within that tradition.

Any evolution in iconography must be in harmony with the liturgical and patristic traditions of the Church. Individual self-expression, or the proclamation of a sociopolitical view has no part in such evolution. If a hymnographer were to pen hymns and prayers reflecting his own views or promoting a "cause", is this acceptable?

As I told you LBK, the abortion debate is not a political debate, it's theological. You MUST recognize this, because Christ MUST have been a human person from his conception. Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well, because he was the incarnate Word of God made flesh.

So you presume to know better than the multitudes of iconographers who have faithfully served the Church and proclaimed her teachings through the works of their hands? Are you now proclaiming yourself as a saint and Father?

Your shrill attempts at defending an image, painted by someone who is not Orthodox, and known to have been painted specifically to promote a particular sociopolitical cause, betrays your ignorance of what iconography is and stands for.

[88Devin12]

LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

[LBK]

LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.

You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

[88Devin12]

LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.

You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

You are trying to impose an ultra-pious, fanatical ridgidity on the Church that, THANK GOD does not exist except in schismatic groups.

[LBK]

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

And you know this how? Oh, please forgive me. I've only been Orthodox for 50 years. I must defer to your greater discernment.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

Because Fr Thomas Hopko, Jeannie Constantinou, Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell, and others influenced by a particular coterie at St Vladimir's say so?

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

Yet, for 2000 years, iconographers faithfully serving the Church have consistently done otherwise, while unfailingly and clearly expressing and proclaiming the full humanity of Christ. I'll take the testimony of the works of their hands over your shrill and mistaken insistence any day.

[88Devin12]

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

And you know this how? Oh, please forgive me. I've only been Orthodox for 50 years. I must defer to your greater discernment.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

Because Fr Thomas Hopko, Jeannie Constantinou, Dcn Brian Patrick Mitchell, and others influenced by a particular coterie at St Vladimir's say so?

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

Yet, for 2000 years, iconographers faithfully serving the Church have consistently done otherwise, clearly expressing and proclaiming the full humanity of Christ. I'll take the testimony of the works of their hands over your shrill and mistaken insistence any day.

It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

Or because the tradition of her dwelling in the temple doesn't date to the first few centuries and only appears prominently in hymnography which often is very allegorical?

I'd wager those people you mentioned are far more knowledgable than you on the subject, along with the support of historical evidence.

You argue that they have purposely not shown Christ as a fetus yet that is a fallacious argument, absence doesn't equal denial or rejection. Besides, I doubt any of them had to deal with a nation with majority Christians trying to justify state-sponsered or legalized infanticide.

Like I said before LBK, offer me a rational, logical arguments. If you can't defend your views without falling into logical fallacies, then you're is no argument at all. I don't try to twist reality to fit my view of Christianity or the Church. I don't try to make up excuses why something that didn't happen in fact did.

The earliest icons (keep in mind, iconography doesn't just mean your narrow definition) were symbols like a simple cross, the chi rho, the fish, Jesus as the Good Shepherd/sheep bearer, Jesus as sol invictus. These were images communicating a Christian message that would be Unrecognizable to non-Christians as being Christian.

The other images were done exactly as the Jews were doing at the time, depicting biblical stories, mainly on the walls of the tombs for their dead, and in the cavities themselves.

These images weren't kissed or venerated like those of later times.

[LBK]

Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.

It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me. 

[88Devin12]

Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.

It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  

Which jurisdiction are you a part of? And what jurisdiction were those iconographers and priests in?

If you say ROCOR, then there's no way I can take you seriously and I'll probably fall on my butt laughing.

[Asteriktos]

Things sure are getting heated in here. And over an actual theological topic for once!

[88Devin12]

Things sure are getting heated in here. And over an actual theological topic for once!

I don't feel any heat, except from my cup of tea. Which I'm casually sipping waiting to see if my shot in the dark was on the money.

I'd much rather fall in with the so-called "innovationists" and "intellectuals" of St. Vladimir's Seminary than with ROCOR or ultra-conservative Orthodoxy.

I know at least two of my Priests went to St. Vladimir's. If, like LBK suggests, they and those involved with them or in their tradition are wrong, I don't want to be right.

[Asteriktos]

Between this and the other thread, just in the last hour or so, I can remember people saying words like dumb, idiocy, and "no way I can take you seriously." If that's not heated then slap my butt and call me Susan! 

[88Devin12]

Between this and the other thread, just in the last hour or so, I can remember people saying words like dumb, idiocy, and "no way I can take you seriously." If that's not heated then slap my butt and call me Susan! 

I've tried to avoid using dumb and idiocy, did I use those without thinking? I am quite tired...

[William]

yo

[LBK]

Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.

It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  

Which jurisdiction are you a part of? And what jurisdiction were those iconographers and priests in?

If you say ROCOR, then there's no way I can take you seriously and I'll probably fall on my butt laughing.

The clergy and iconographers are of several ethnicities, several canonical jurisdictions, and several countries. Insularity is not a strong point of mine, unlike yourself, my volatile young friend.

[88Devin12]

Devin, you're sounding just like JamesRottnek in the "Should I destroy this icon?" thread. In your slavish defense of an image of heterodox tradition, you have blinded and deafened yourself to any attempt to show your error.

It doesn't matter how long you've been Orthodox. Length of time doesn't equal automatic authority.

I have resisted posting the following, but you give me no choice.

I have studied iconography for much longer than you've been alive. I have written monographs on iconographic subjects, including several on uncanonical and suspect images, and have held lectures and talks on such matters. I have made these available to some twelve Orthodox priests, of a variety of traditions, a bishop of metropolitan rank, and no fewer than six working iconographers, and urged them to offer correction and advice. None of them have seen it fit to correct anything I have written. My materials have been used by them for teaching and pastoral purposes.

Priests have sought my advice on the provision of icons for their churches. Iconographers have also approached me, and still do, for guidance on unusual commissions they have received.

But, I guess I must defer to you, Devin. Your time in Orthodoxy is obviously vastly superior in knowledge and discernment than these experienced clergymen and iconographers, not to mention saints and Fathers, let alone a mere grumpy old fart like me.  

Which jurisdiction are you a part of? And what jurisdiction were those iconographers and priests in?

If you say ROCOR, then there's no way I can take you seriously and I'll probably fall on my butt laughing.

The clergy and iconographers are of several ethnicities, several canonical jurisdictions, and several countries. Insularity is not a strong point of mine, unlike yourself, my volatile young friend.

I find it odd that you accuse me of this, when just earlier you derided St Vladimirs Seminary and people like Dr Jeanni Constantinou and Fr Thomas Hopko. I've only seen such opinions (of SVS) from ultra-conservatives, primarily from ROCOR.

I simply cannot take ultra-conservative Orthodox seriously anymore.

Like I said, if St Vladimirs Seminary and people like Fr Thomas Hopko, Dr Jeannie Constantinou, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr John Romanides, Vladimir Lossky, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware are wrong, then I don't want to be right.
(I'm aware not all are "equal" or say the same things, but I feel all in some ways are scholars and intellectuals)

[LBK]

Not everything these people say or write is wrong, but neither is their every utterance right. Unfortunately, some modern Orthodox writers over-emphasize the "rational arguments" (a stance which explains why you have insisted I provide for my positions), and make claims such as "oh, there's no way the young Virgin could have possibly entered the Holy of Holies, let alone spent any length of time there". I'll not dwell further on that particular topic, as it is not the subject of this thread; suffice to say that this view flies in the face of what the Church teaches, and has taught, for many centuries.

[Michał Kalina]

88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

[88Devin12]

Not everything these people say or write is wrong, but neither is their every utterance right. Unfortunately, some modern Orthodox writers over-emphasize the "rational arguments" (a stance which explains why you have insisted I provide for my positions), and make claims such as "oh, there's no way the young Virgin could have possibly entered the Holy of Holies, let alone spent any length of time there". I'll not dwell further on that particular topic, as it is not the subject of this thread; suffice to say that this view flies in the face of what the Church teaches, and has taught, for many centuries.

That is where you're wrong because it hasn't taught that. That is from hymnography, which is very often allegorical. The Theotokos, during Holy Week, may be portrayed as knowing Christ will raise, but she didn't know this. Hymnography will add many lines of dialogue which never actually occurred, all of this and more is illustrated by an intellectual, rational study of the tradition and hymnology of the Church.

People who don't know better will conflate allegory and poetic language for communicating a literal factual truth.

In fact, many of these things you say the church has taught (like Mary and the Temple) weren't taught until the hymns were written many centuries after the events.

We know the Theotokos served at the Temple, or at least, that's the ancient tradition, but there's absolutely no evidence that she stepped past the court for the women, let alone was carried into the Holy of Holies, which would have been impossible.

Our hymns speak of people recognizing Mary and more especially Christ as the miraculous child, Gods Son. This was not at all the case, everyone assumed Mary was a normal girl and that Christ was a normal child who was the biological son of Joseph.

Again, it's like people who take the conflicting accounts in the Gospels and try to jump through hoops trying to justify that because they differ on what really is the same event, that there must have been two different but similar events. Then they assume the Church teaches this sort of flawed method of interpretation.

Iconography is no different, you're taking a post 5th/6th Century perspective on "icons" and projecting it all the way back to Christ which is wrong. It is true that we've always had iconography (not in the narrow sense many think of it today) and its been venerated (rather, respected), but it isn't the case that the correct, but more pronounced veneration after the 7th Council existed for the several centuries prior. In reality, what had existed before became magnified after iconoclasm and you began to have individual icons become much more popular, as well as bowing to them and kissing them.

Like I've said already before LBK, I'm going to listen to these Orthodox "intellectuals" before I'll listen to ultra-conservatives, no matter their jurisdiction.

[88Devin12]

88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

You confuse tradition with Tradition, things like Mary being carried into the Holy of Holies isn't Tradition, and I CAN choose to reject it as literal history. I accept its allegorical meaning and theological truth, but certainly not the false idea that its historical fact.

Like St George and the Dragon, which isn't historical fact either and isn't Tradition.

You REALLY don't like books do you Michal? Every post you reply to me somehow includes some denunciation of books or reading them.

Like I said, if SVS and the Orthodox intellectuals mentioned above are wrong, I don't want to be right, period. If it came to a choice between a ultra-conservative, ROCOR-esque faith and intellectual, rational, scholarly Orthodoxy, I'll choose the latter.

[Michał Kalina]

88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

You confuse tradition with Tradition, things like Mary being carried into the Holy of Holies isn't Tradition, and I CAN choose to reject it as literal history.

12 mayor feasts are not big-T. So what is left, then?

You REALLY don't like books do you Michal? Every post you reply to me somehow includes some denunciation of books or reading them.

I like books. However I do not believe I can read a few of them and claim I know everything. There is a world outside books, authors can be biased, they can err to, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

[LBK]

intellectual, rational, scholarly Orthodoxy

There's your problem right there, Devin. We are neither scholastics nor protestants.

[Shanghaiski]

LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.

You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

You are trying to impose an ultra-pious, fanatical ridgidity on the Church that, THANK GOD does not exist except in schismatic groups.

You used to be a shrill extremist on the conservative side. Now you are a shrill extremist on the liberal side. Either way, your problem is shrill extremism.

[Shanghaiski]

Things sure are getting heated in here. And over an actual theological topic for once!

I don't feel any heat, except from my cup of tea. Which I'm casually sipping waiting to see if my shot in the dark was on the money.

I'd much rather fall in with the so-called "innovationists" and "intellectuals" of St. Vladimir's Seminary than with ROCOR or ultra-conservative Orthodoxy.

I know at least two of my Priests went to St. Vladimir's. If, like LBK suggests, they and those involved with them or in their tradition are wrong, I don't want to be right.

Father Alexander Schmemann and Father Seraphim Rose both agree, you need to be slapped.

[LBK]

LBK, you're displaying something more akin to a zealous, fanatical fundamentalism rather than Orthodoxy, which does usually tend towards a more moderate position.

On the contrary. I am simply articulating what the Church teaches and proclaims about iconography. You, in your zeal to defend an image which is not part of Orthodox tradition, and used for sociopolitical ends, who is being fanatical. You have even presumptuously declared "Therefore it is right and venerable for us to depict Christ, not just as an adult, but as a fetus as well". By what authority do you make this claim?

I am supposing, based on your current method of arguing and your justification, that you may also believe in a literal 7 day creation, that Mary literally lived in the Temple and was taken into the Holy of Holies, and that St George literally fought a dragon.

On creation: A literal seven-day creation is not a dogma of the Church. Even early Fathers did not subscribe to it. To God, a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.

On the dwelling of the Mother of God in the Holy of Holies: Do not force me to embarrass you further by showing the great error of your line of thought.

You should know better than to assume everything said in our hymns is being portrayed as historical reality. It's not.

It takes many years to develop any sense of discernment of what is literal and what is not. You're also forgetting that God is quite capable of overturning the laws of nature if He so wishes.

Same for our iconography, and depictions within it. It seems you want a mindset and mode of existence more akin to the Amish, where we literally never change and only repeat what's been given to us. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case with the Orthodox Church, we've changed a lot /since the First Century, as has our iconography.

You still haven't answered my request for evidence that the earliest icons were not venerated.

You also seem to assume that the Seventh Century idea of icon veneration had existed since the First Century, which it had not, and this is extremely obvious unless you want to shut yourself off from all reason, intellect and logic.

The treatises of St John of Damascus and St Theodore of the Studion, to name but two iconophile saints, repeatedly quote their forebears, including very early Fathers, in terms which expose your assertion as false.

Devin, please don't embarrass yourself further. The image you are defending is not part of Orthodox tradition. Get used to it.

Your view is the extreme one, as I've said, your falling closer and close to the Old Believers and Old Calendarists than you are to historical & traditional Orthodoxy.

No, Mary NEVER dwelt in the Holy of Holies, that is a historical fact.

As for Christ depiction as a fetus, a fetus is still a FULL human person and the exact reason that Christ can and should be depicted is because of his incarnation, of him being human.

You are trying to impose an ultra-pious, fanatical ridgidity on the Church that, THANK GOD does not exist except in schismatic groups.

You used to be a shrill extremist on the conservative side. Now you are a shrill extremist on the liberal side. Either way, your problem is shrill extremism.

You beat me to it, Shanghaiski.

Not too long ago, he was a strident conservative. IIRC, he expressed a wish that certain people in history could be posthumously excommunicated for their support for non-Orthodox practices, including Tsar Peter the Great. He is also on record for stating pews are not Orthodox, and advocating the replacement of western-style iconography in churches with those of more traditional style (the latter I agree with, though, in most cases, much care needs to be taken to convince people out of their sentimental attachment to them - not easy).

Now we see him attempting to defend an image which is not from Orthodox tradition, painted by a non-Orthodox artist, who painted it for the purpose of people using it as a mascot for a sociopolitical cause.

I can understand a tempering of overdone and misplaced zeal, be that more young converts would do so. But the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the opposite direction.

[mabsoota]

i have only read page 4 (sorry), but in the coptic tradition we certainly do have an unbroken tradition of venerating icons, and were only minimally affected by the iconoclasm controversy and it's overturn. also in the ethiopian / eritrean tradition there have been found many very early icons.
eg. as early as 300's we find saint antony the great venerating the robe (woven from grass palm) of saint paul the first hermit, who had predeceased him. the dead boy on whom the robe was placed came back to life through the intercessions of saint paul and by the grace of God.

we have a less of a european 'renaissance' way of interpreting tradition than do some of the modern EO writers that 88devin12 (nice name by the way) quotes.
we are more asian / african in our approach to tradition, looking at what the Biblical and historical mysteries can teach us about our relationship with God, without stressing too much on the small details (for example; did saint mary really wear blue, or is it just symbolic?)

as someone raised in europe, i have found the less analytical approach to faith to be very helpful.

[mabsoota]

well, i went back through the thread and found this point on early veneration of icons had already been made on page 1:

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this?

I have seen several modern Orthodox icons of the Good Shepherd. In the Roman Catacombs, there are something like 114 documented representations of the Good Shepherd, dating from the 2nd through 3rd century. There's also a very famous late antique/early Byzantine version of the Good Shepherd in Ravenna. Reproduced below:



Images of a shepherd with a lamb over his back were very popular -- and very symbolic -- in the Greco-Roman world for a number of centuries, especially in the second century. Most of the philosophical schools (among which Christianity was sometimes numbered) taught that right-living consisted of (1) piety toward God and (2) philanthropy/benevolence toward neighbors.

Piety was depicted by a man in an orans position (lifting up hands in prayer). Philanthropy by a man with a sheep over his shoulders. These twin images appear on many pagan (and Christian) sarcophagi, and were even made part of the State's iconography by particularly philosophically inclined emperors like Marcus Aurelius.

[88Devin12]

well, i went back through the thread and found this point on early veneration of icons had already been made on page 1:

A question that came to my mind recently was pertaining to the frequently depicted in the west image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. I don't know if I've ever seen this presented as an icon in the Orthodox Church-why is this?

I have seen several modern Orthodox icons of the Good Shepherd. In the Roman Catacombs, there are something like 114 documented representations of the Good Shepherd, dating from the 2nd through 3rd century. There's also a very famous late antique/early Byzantine version of the Good Shepherd in Ravenna. Reproduced below:



Images of a shepherd with a lamb over his back were very popular -- and very symbolic -- in the Greco-Roman world for a number of centuries, especially in the second century. Most of the philosophical schools (among which Christianity was sometimes numbered) taught that right-living consisted of (1) piety toward God and (2) philanthropy/benevolence toward neighbors.

Piety was depicted by a man in an orans position (lifting up hands in prayer). Philanthropy by a man with a sheep over his shoulders. These twin images appear on many pagan (and Christian) sarcophagi, and were even made part of the State's iconography by particularly philosophically inclined emperors like Marcus Aurelius.

I don't think the ancient origin and presence of iconography is being disputed. I think we all know its existed since the Apostles since it was inherited from Judaism.

What I was saying earlier, was that the way iconography was viewed and treated evolved over the first few hundred years and that they weren't kissing and bowing before the iconography until a few hundred years later.

However, just because such a kind veneration wasn't there to begin with doesnt mean its wrong, I mean we almost had them ripped from our hands for good, and it makes sense that we'd hold it as more dear after almost losing it altogether.

I assure you LBK and Michal, I'm not an extreme liberal. You can find others out there, especially popular Orthodox scholars, writers and speakers who agree with me on many of those things.

My mistake was not taking their advice and not confronting someone with it when they don't agree. I just feel offended when I'm told that I have to hold a strict view of icons, or that I must not be fully Orthodox because of my views. But of course, this is, unfortunately how the Internet works, and anyone who brings up any Orthodox topic on the net can almost guarantee that someone will eventually question their Orthodoxy.

I was wrong to bring the subject into public rather than keeping it among like-minded folk, and confronting someone directly who I knew wouldnt agree with what I was saying. There is a place within Orthodoxy for scholarly study, inquisitive and critical analysis, logical reasoning and exercise of intellect. We have a long history of Orthodox Intellectuals going back to St. Basil and even before him, but my mistake is trying to push the views of those whose opinions I value onto those who I know may even be afraid of such line of thinking.

Lastly Michal, I didn't get these from books, or at least not entirely. With the hundreds of books in English out there, there are also hundreds of podcasts and talks that are available for free which are done by people who are well respected by the Orthodox community and who even may have had prominence in our seminaries and organizations.

I must, however, bow out of this discussion and attempt to limit my activity from here on. My spiritual guides have never told me I am un-Orthodox in the ideas I hold, but they've given some advice to avoid discussion websites because they can get so offensive and to the unhealthy point of even doubting the Orthodoxy of others in the church. I hadn't heeded their words until now, and I feel that I should finally make an effort wife it seems these Orthodox websites have done nothing but cause scandal whenever any opinion is expressed at all, no matter how okay it may seem. This is nothing against the creators of this site, but just a statement on how these sort of things always work, whether they are Orthodox or not.

[AustralianDiaspora]

Apologies if this has been talked about already (couldn't see it skimming through), but has anyone else seen the Icon depicting Christ as a child learning to walk?

[Shanghaiski]

Apologies if this has been talked about already (couldn't see it skimming through), but has anyone else seen the Icon depicting Christ as a child learning to walk?

It doesn't strike me that that would be a traditional icon, but rather a piece of art.

[Dominika]

Just a little strange -I mean this beard

[LBK]

Just a little strange -I mean this beard

Every single icon I've seen (dozens) of St Maximus the Greek all show him with a gigantic beard. It's impossible to mistake him for any other saint. He must have been quite a sight when he was alive!   

[mabsoota]

i bet he had to carefully wash and examine his beard on the last day before great lent, to make sure there were no particles of cheese or fish hidden inside!

 

[That person]

88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

Just an English FYI: When you have a count noun like "books," you would use "fewer" instead of "less." "Less" is used for things that can't be exactly quantified, like "water," although you could have fewer liters of water. Native speakers screw this up pretty often, and it's not a huge deal,  but it's a personal annoyance, and I thought you might appreciate learning the distinction.

[Michał Kalina]

88Devin12, I often argue with LBK, I agree in some cases she has unreal and idealistic views on iconography, however in this case I support her. You can't chose things from the Tradition you like or not, Orthodox faith is not some kind of jigsaw. Either you accept it, or not.

And please, read less books. They do not help learn faith either.

Just an English FYI: When you have a count noun like "books," you would use "fewer" instead of "less." "Less" is used for things that can't be exactly quantified, like "water," although you could have fewer liters of water. Native speakers screw this up pretty often, and it's not a huge deal,  but it's a personal annoyance, and I thought you might appreciate learning the distinction.

ty

[LizaSymonenko]

So, what about this one?

It seems strange to me only because Joachim and Anna are embracing....and above them is the Theotokos - as if she existed prior to them conceiving her.

It also looks like they are praying to her, in order to conceive a child.

Does it seem strange to anyone else?



Maybe, I am just reading too much in to it.

[LizaSymonenko]

...as compared to this one...

[NicholasMyra]

I guess the Theotokos is their thought/desire bubble in that icon.

[Michał Kalina]

So, what about this one?

It seems strange to me only because Joachim and Anna are embracing....and above them is the Theotokos - as if she existed prior to them conceiving her.

It also looks like they are praying to her, in order to conceive a child.

Does it seem strange to anyone else?



Maybe, I am just reading too much in to it.

Yes, something's wrong with that.

[LBK]

So, what about this one?

It seems strange to me only because Joachim and Anna are embracing....and above them is the Theotokos - as if she existed prior to them conceiving her.

It also looks like they are praying to her, in order to conceive a child.

Does it seem strange to anyone else?



Maybe, I am just reading too much in to it.

Yes, something's wrong with that.

What is also problematic is the presence of the marital bed in the background. It is unnecessary, and a feature that is practically absent from the traditional historic iconography of this feast. It seems to have appeared only in recent years. I have also seen this feature in some contemporary icons of the Conception of St John the Baptist.

[choy]

I guess the Theotokos is their thought/desire bubble in that icon.

Or being cleansed from Original Sin at the moment of conception

[LBK]

...as compared to this one...

The presence of Christ blessing, not the Mother of God, in the upper border is a great improvement on the first composition. However, there are a couple of errors in this one as well: St Joachim was an aged man at the time, so his hair and beard should be white or gray, not brown. The same error is seen in the first image, which also shows St Anna as youthful. The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" is frequently used liturgically and in the lives of saints), such as seen in icons of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste, or in icons of other martyrs where an angel is seen holding a crown above the saint's head. Sts Joachim and Anna lived to old age, they did not die as martyrs.

[NicholasMyra]

I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

[LBK]

I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

Understandable, but not the case. The usual iconographic way of showing someone is of noble birth is by their clothing: elaborate cuffs and necklines, and sometimes decorated outer garments. People of high birth who forsake their wealth and privilege for a life of poverty or monasticism are shown wearing plain outer garments in drab colors, while the neckline and cuffs of their inner tunic are decorated.

[LizaSymonenko]

Wow!  LBK, you are so smart!  I never knew that about the crowns.

You are definitely my go-to person when it comes to icons!

[Maria]

I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

Understandable, but not the case. The usual iconographic way of showing someone is of noble birth is by their clothing: elaborate cuffs and necklines, and sometimes decorated outer garments. People of high birth who forsake their wealth and privilege for a life of poverty or monasticism are shown wearing plain outer garments in drab colors, while the neckline and cuffs of their inner tunic are decorated.

However, were not Anna and Joachim of the line of David?

[LBK]

I assumed the crowns represented that their house would become associated with royalty.

Understandable, but not the case. The usual iconographic way of showing someone is of noble birth is by their clothing: elaborate cuffs and necklines, and sometimes decorated outer garments. People of high birth who forsake their wealth and privilege for a life of poverty or monasticism are shown wearing plain outer garments in drab colors, while the neckline and cuffs of their inner tunic are decorated.

However, were not Anna and Joachim of the line of David?

Joachim was from David's line, Anna from Aaron's. Being that as it may, the crowns in the second image posted speak of martyrdom, not of noble birth. Their presence in the image distorts what the Church teaches about these two saints.

Here are examples of historic icons of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste which show martyr's crowns floating in mid-air:

[LizaSymonenko]

....so, what about this one?




....and is it okay for the Theotokos to wear the "crown"?  I've heard that is a RC invention, and that the Orthodox shun away from placing a crown on her head?

Is that true?

[LBK]

That one was posted recently in the Schlock Icons thread, starting with this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg893114.html#msg893114

[LizaSymonenko]

Got it!  Thanks!

I'm glad the "crown" is allowed.  We've got a really pretty icon in our church, where she's wearing a crown.

[LBK]

Got it!  Thanks!

I'm glad the "crown" is allowed.  We've got a really pretty icon in our church, where she's wearing a crown.

It's not that crowns are actually prohibited, but they are an unnecessary addition which adds nothing useful or edifying to what is being expressed in the icon. In some cases, the combination of an elaborately-decorated riza/oklad and sumptuous crowns on both the Virgin's and Child's heads, turns the icon into a gaudy, glittering bauble, rather than a work of gravitas, stillness, and spiritual power. The covering of all but the faces and hands of the Virgin and Child also robs the icon of much of the detail which expresses and proclaims what the Church teaches.

[LizaSymonenko]

Here's another question I have - why is her cheek bleeding?

[biro]

Very good question. 

[LizaSymonenko]

...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.



I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

[biro]

I believe the globe thing with the Cross sticking out of it was a symbol of royalty in some countries. You see it in old tapestries of kings of England, for instance.

[Orthodox11]

I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world

Globus cruciger

[LBK]

Here's another question I have - why is her cheek bleeding?

The Iveron (Iverskaya) icon, named after the Athonite monastery, also known as Portaitissa (of the Portal) has quite a colorful history. During the ninth century, Emperor Theophilus, who was an iconoclast, ordered the wholesale destruction of icons, wherever they were. His troops would raid churches, houses, and anywhere they thought icons could be found. A soldier saw this icon of the Mother of God at a woman's house, and stabbed it with his sword. The Virgin's face immediately began to bleed, and the soldier fled in fright.

How this woman's icon found its way to Mt Athos is another, and wonderful, story.  

There are other icons of the Mother of God which have bled after being attacked. The Cypriot Makhairas (Of the Dagger) icon is one, where, IIRC, a Saracen attacked the icon, which bled. This miracle not only led him to repent of his act, but he was also later baptized into the Christian faith.

[LBK]

...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.



I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.

[LizaSymonenko]

Wow!  Nice.

We have a similar icon in our church.  I was told the story, that a man was driving his cart along a back road, and encountered a woman carrying a child, walking in the mud.  Feeling sorry for her, he stopped and offered to give her a ride.  She and her little boy, got in the back of the cart.

As he was driving along the oxen slowed, and he pulled out his whip to give them some encouragement.  As he reached back to get some speed, he felt that he had hit the woman in the back.  Fearing he had hurt her, he immediately stopped and jumped out to take a look.....she was gone, and in her place was an icon of the Mother of God, holding the Christ Child....with a bleeding cheek, where the whip had snapped at her.

[LizaSymonenko]

...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.



I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.

Thank you.  I had thought the same thing....but, wanted to make sure it wasn't the Ukrainian in me imagining things. 

[Michał Kalina]

The Iveron (Iverskaya) icon...

Very poor copy...

[LBK]

The Iveron (Iverskaya) icon...

Very poor copy...

I've seen many western-style icons that are far more saccharine and mawkish. 

[LBK]

...and one more that was just posted on Facebook by a priestly friend.



I understand it's Tzar Nicholas, but, why is he holding the world, and why the crown of thorns?  It's as if he's being depicted as Christ.    .... I did notice the tiny crown above his head, and now know what that means thanks to LBK's post above!  

The crowns above the buildings on the left and right are a motif expressing martyrdom (the expression "crown of martyrdom" ...

Ah, yes, another product of the fevered imaginations of Russian ultranationalist ultramonarchist brigade, who regard the assassination of Tsar Nicholas as a "redeeming sacrifice", in the same way Christ's sacrifice redeems mankind. Vile, heretical rubbish. Schlock of the worst kind.

Thank you.  I had thought the same thing....but, wanted to make sure it wasn't the Ukrainian in me imagining things. 

I've posted another image in similar vein in the "Schlock icons" thread, as is more appropriate  :

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg896367.html#msg896367

[Dominika]

From the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church. I have no idea who is depicted here.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

....so, what about this one?




....and is it okay for the Theotokos to wear the "crown"?  I've heard that is a RC invention, and that the Orthodox shun away from placing a crown on her head?

Is that true?

Wow! That's beautiful.

We have Icons portraying St. Mary with a crown in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Selam

[LBK]

From the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church. I have no idea who is depicted here.

http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo!

[Nephi]

http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo!

Saint Sarah, also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]

This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.

[Dominika]

http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo!

Saint Sarah, also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]

This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.

Thank you for these quotations.

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.

[LBK]

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.

St Mary of Egypt is one.

[Antonis]

http://www.ortodoksi.net/index.php/Musta_Saara

I tried a machine translation of the page this image was on, but it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Calling Alpo!

Saint Sarah, also known as Sara-la-Kali ("Sara the Black", Romani: Sara e Kali), is the mythic patron saint of the Roma (Gypsy) people. The center of her veneration is Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a place of pilgrimage for Roma in the Camargue, in southern France. Legend identifies her as the servant of one of the Three Marys, with whom she is supposed to have arrived in the Camargue.[1]

This is apparently her - the two statues on the Wiki and the page you linked are the same.

And it seems scholars don't like her that much:

Some authors have drawn parallels between the ceremonies of the pilgrimage and the worship of the Hindu goddess Kali, subsequently identifying the two.[4] Ronald Lee (2001) states:
If we compare the ceremonies with those performed in France at the shrine of Sainte Sara (called Sara e Kali in Romani), we become aware that the worship of Kali/Durga/Sara has been transferred to a Christian figure... in France, to a non-existent "sainte" called Sara, who is actually part of the Kali/Durga/Sara worship among certain groups in India.

Thank you for these quotations.

So now it explains the earrings in this icon (or "icon"  ), but it stills not being explained why there is no headcovering (I can' bring now any example of a canonical icon that there is a woman without any headcovering). And I wonder what's written here.

I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

[LBK]

I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

Quite true. Many ancient icons and mosaics of St Catherine (and other female saints of noble birth or regal rank) show her wearing earrings, though they are far less obvious and distracting than those in the icon you posted. A famous one is from St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, from the 13th century:

[Antonis]

I have seen icons of St. Katherine the Great Martyr depicted with earrings. It's not my favorite, but it's certainly not rare.

Quite true. Many ancient icons and mosaics of St Catherine (and other female saints of noble birth or regal rank) show her wearing earrings, though they are far less obvious and distracting than those in the icon you posted. A famous one is from St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, from the 13th century:

Yea, most of the ones I have seen (such as the one on my church's iconostasis) show the earrings as smaller and more akin to the one you posted.

[yeshuaisiam]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

I know it was an old post but -
Is this actually even an EO icon?

It looks COMPLETLY masonic.... Never seen one like this in an EO church or elsewhere...
Just curious.

[Michał Kalina]

Another one hypercolor.

[LBK]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

I know it was an old post but -
Is this actually even an EO icon?

It looks COMPLETLY masonic.... Never seen one like this in an EO church or elsewhere...
Just curious.

Not an icon at all, and has never been considered as one. It's a masonic painting.

[LBK]

Another one hypercolor.

The Restoration of the Icons, the festal icon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Nothing at all strange about it.

Hypercolor? What do you mean? 

[Michał Kalina]

Hypercolor? What do you mean? 

Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.

[LBK]

Hypercolor? What do you mean?  

Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.

The icon you posted has been painted on a church wall. How an icon shows up on a computer screen is often not how it looks in its actual surroundings. Image processing, the settings on one's computer screen, and even the type of computer monitor can affect color perception. CRTs (picture tubes) are superior to flat screens in reproducing accuracy of color, shade, saturation, etc.

A good iconographer will examine the size of a church and the light which enters it, how much light, and where it falls, and select his palette (range of colors) accordingly. A large church which is well-lit by natural light can accept a bolder, stronger intensity of colors; a smaller church with diffuse lighting would be better served with a softer, warmer color range.

EDIT: The icon posted is probably also very large in real life, very likely several yards/meters across. What makes its way onto a computer monitor is a more highly-saturated version of the actual icon, due to the much smaller size of the digital image relative to the original.

[Elisha]

Hypercolor? What do you mean?  

Sweet pastel infantile coloristics. I'm not saying it's bad. I just don't like it.

The icon you posted has been painted on a church wall. How an icon shows up on a computer screen is often not how it looks in its actual surroundings. Image processing, the settings on one's computer screen, and even the type of computer monitor can affect color perception. CRTs (picture tubes) are superior to flat screens in reproducing accuracy of color, shade, saturation, etc.

A good iconographer will examine the size of a church and the light which enters it, how much light, and where it falls, and select his palette (range of colors) accordingly. A large church which is well-lit by natural light can accept a bolder, stronger intensity of colors; a smaller church with diffuse lighting would be better served with a softer, warmer color range.

EDIT: The icon posted is probably also very large in real life, very likely several yards/meters across. What makes its way onto a computer monitor is a more highly-saturated version of the actual icon, due to the much smaller size of the digital image relative to the original.

I would venture to guess that this acrylic painted either on canvass and glued onto the wall or possibly acrylic painted directly on the wall.  While I'm not an artist and don't really know jack, my parish is in the process (a long at that - pay as you go and I hope the iconographer is healthy enough in his life to finish the church) of real frescoes on the walls.  Real frescoes (if it is not the following, then it is just a mural) have the base painting done in about a 12-hour window directly on wet plaster.  The plaster itself is the binder for the pigment and when totally dry becomes chemically the same as marble.  The details are added in the following days, where the initial period (12-24 hours approx after the 12-hour window) can be in between fresco and secco, while afterwards is secco I think using egg tempera.  This is the time-tested method for painting churches that are hundreds of years old with enduring frescoes.  At least currently in America, most "frescoes" and even panel icons are done in acrylic, with the wall panels usually done on canvas in a studio then glued onto the walls.  From what I have been told, painting in acrylic can be done much faster than traditional methods like fresco and egg tempera, allowing the iconographer to "produce" a lot more work.  Unfortunately, as Michal says, since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish (although I'm told it can be made more subdued if intended) in comparison to traditional methods.  There is a beautiful Serbian church in the Sacramento area that I have sung a couple of concerts at.  It appears they did acrylic directly on dry-plastered walls and there is damage, I believe from water/rain leaks, in the pendentives.  Frescoes would be resistant from this type of water leaks for the most part.

[LBK]

since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish

Do not think that egg tempera is automatically more subdued in tone than acrylics. We are used to seeing old tempera icons under a layer of darkened olifa varnish, and centuries-old frescoes and murals (any painting, not just iconography) under decades or centuries of soot and grime, whether or not a top coat of varnish has been applied. The work of art restorers and conservators constantly proves this.

[rakovsky]

I wish I could see the outside of the building better. This looks super occult from a distance. What is it depicting?

I was watching a Russian show this evening called Battle of the Prophets (Around minute 30 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK2iK-hFD6Q), which compares various modern day prophets.
It compared/contrasted the canonized Matrona of Moscow with Vanga of Bulgaria, noting that they were both blind. It said that Vanga had a large following, was treated very well by the government even during the era promoting scientific materialism. Patriarch Alexei II presided at her funeral and a little body part(?) from her that was specially kept did not decay.

It adds that she was not canonized due to the issue with the ikons that you and others posted on page two of this thread. They (or at least the Trinity one) were considered Masonic ikons and that there was a religious problem with the depiction of the Trinity as a result. A person interviewed who was close to Vanga claimed that the  (or his backers?) took people's money donations and built the ikons in this way without people or Vanga expecting this. It claims towards the end of the clip (about minute 37) that the clergy were forced to consecrate the chapel/church after refusing to do so.

MK was here

[LBK]

They (or at least the Trinity one) were considered Masonic ikons and that there was a religious problem with the depiction of the Trinity as a result.

There is no need for the existence of a masonic connection in the origin and painting of these images, There is a multitude of things wrong with all of them, not just the one of the Trinity, to render them completely and utterly unsuitable for veneration as icons.

[rakovsky]

This is somehow supposed to be the Trinity. I think.

Are you sure that's supposed to be an Orthodox icon? Looks like an alchemical emblem.

Actually, it's masonic: http://goo.gl/vZWb9

Checkerboard floor is a giveaway, FYI. No idea why.

In the movie I mentioned above, it shows Nostradamus' tomb by a checker floor too.

[Elisha]

since acrylic is a synthetic paint that is only 50 or so years old, it is not time tested and moreso, looks rather bright and garish

Do not think that egg tempera is automatically more subdued in tone than acrylics. We are used to seeing old tempera icons under a layer of darkened olifa varnish, and centuries-old frescoes and murals (any painting, not just iconography) under decades or centuries of soot and grime, whether or not a top coat of varnish has been applied. The work of art restorers and conservators constantly proves this.

LBK,

Actually, for the most part, I am used to seeing relatively young (or brand new) egg tempera icons.  Nearly all of the icons in my church that are not the frescoes are painted by either our Matuschka (Mat. Anne Margitich) or Fr. Patrick Doolan, both of whom studied under Leonid Ouspensky in Paris before he reposed.  Nearly every acrylic icon I have seen has looked bright and garish in comparison (most notably those at the Antiochian parish where I grew up).