Author Topic: Strange icons  (Read 470310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HaydenTE

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,275
  • Always honest, occasionally correct.
  • Faith: In theory RCC; in practice OCA
  • Jurisdiction: "Can't we all just get along?"
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1350 on: February 24, 2016, 08:11:14 AM »
The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.
Is there something wrong with my sources?
"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" - Mark 8:36 (DRA)

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1351 on: February 25, 2016, 01:50:21 AM »
The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.
Is there something wrong with my sources?
No. There's something wrong with your choice of reading material. One who's inquiring into the Orthodox faith as you claim usually doesn't read texts arguing against iconographic depictions of the Father.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1352 on: February 25, 2016, 12:48:11 PM »
Is there an icon of the Sign where Christ is bearing Mary in His womb?
This is vapid. Men do not contribute to life in this fashion, nor does God.

The position of the Unwedded Bride and Mother of God is much more complicated than that.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 12:52:03 PM by Antonis »
"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,945
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1353 on: February 25, 2016, 12:48:57 PM »
When I'm telling you what I think, do I really care how sound you think my objection? It's my objection, for cryin' out loud. ;)
I thought this was a discussion board, why did you make your post?
"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline HaydenTE

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,275
  • Always honest, occasionally correct.
  • Faith: In theory RCC; in practice OCA
  • Jurisdiction: "Can't we all just get along?"
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1354 on: February 25, 2016, 01:09:13 PM »
The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.
Is there something wrong with my sources?
No. There's something wrong with your choice of reading material. One who's inquiring into the Orthodox faith as you claim usually doesn't read texts arguing against iconographic depictions of the Father.
Well, as I was baptized a Roman Catholic, where depictions of God the Father are regular and common, as soon as I read in the first link that depictions of the Father are prohibited, I decided to research why. Are you saying that was wrong of me to do? To satisfy my natural curiosity? Or would it have been better for me to remain in my ignorance?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 01:09:40 PM by HaydenTE »
"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" - Mark 8:36 (DRA)

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,538
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1355 on: February 25, 2016, 02:52:52 PM »
^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved! :)

And what's about this one:


It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!
And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???
One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

But couldn't the same be said for this?


Why would the same be said for this? This isn't a common position for a man and his wife.

If it wasn't in such bad taste, I would post the photo of my mother clutching my father in his deathbed about thirty minutes after he breathed his last.  Plenty of men and their wives are put in that position. 

Frankly, if Christians see an image of Christ sitting next to and embracing his mother and immediately begin to think SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX, they probably need professional help and pastoral care. 

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,538
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1356 on: February 25, 2016, 03:58:01 PM »

Even this is problematic when you understand the weird bridegroom theology that came about heavily post-Schism. 



Then you get this.  Which gets you this:


Then to this:


Which is the same as this, theologically:



Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,671
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1357 on: February 25, 2016, 04:09:34 PM »

Even this is problematic when you understand the weird bridegroom theology that came about heavily post-Schism. 



Then you get this.  Which gets you this:


Then to this:


Which is the same as this, theologically:




ZOMG TEH GAYS!
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1358 on: February 25, 2016, 05:14:23 PM »
Neato.  Is that the icon of the conception of the church(es) in Antioch and/or Rome? 
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1359 on: February 25, 2016, 06:26:25 PM »
Something I have learned recently, when people "greet one another with a holy kiss", it used to be from mouth to mouth.  There was nothing gay about that in ancient Christian practice.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

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

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,538
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1360 on: February 25, 2016, 07:38:23 PM »
Neato.  Is that the icon of the conception of the church(es) in Antioch and/or Rome?

Why don't you tell me?

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1361 on: February 25, 2016, 08:12:16 PM »
Is there an icon of the Sign where Christ is bearing Mary in His womb?
This is vapid. Men do not contribute to life in this fashion, nor does God.

Not to mention paradoxical. Sort of like this book I remember from when I was little, in which a baby is reading a book whose cover has the same baby reading the same book, and so on ad infinitum. You wouldn't want something like that in an icon, would you?

I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1362 on: February 25, 2016, 08:44:29 PM »
Probably the best discussion I've read on the subject:

http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/letter-to-an-iconographer-on-the-ancient-of-days/
Quote
So then, it is not necessary to interpret Daniel’s vision as two distinct Persons: the Father and the Son. It is completely consistent with our theological principles and dream language, to see that two aspects of the same person are “dramatically” represented. This interpretation also avoids a gross violation of the accepted rule that the Son reveals himself in the Old Testament. There is no other passage in the Old Testament in which it is said, by the Orthodox, that the Father became visible. And we know also that no other Biblical passage is sited by those who want to see the Ancient of Days as the Father to justify direct images of the Trinity.

Emphasis mine.

Where else in Scripture has that ever been the case? It sounds completely ad hoc. Yes, dreams do not always accord to human logic, but this dream is meant to be interpreted and as such the imagery needs to be consistent.

Also, who's "accepted rule" is this going by? Confession as we know it didn't exist for the first few centuries, not did the iconostasis, Znameny chant, the spoon, the forms of many icons, etc. Yes, these things reflect Scriptural truths, but they didn't always exist in that form.

NT Trinity icons have been around since the Middle Ages and have enjoyed the acceptance of countless faithful (including St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite) up to this day. How ancient does something have to be and how long does it have to last to become a tradition?

I do agree that the Ancient of Days being the Father would appear to challenge the "formerly unrevealed" argument for icons, but it's better to wrestle with that on it's own terms than use arguments on Daniel and on tradition that are weak in other ways.
Did you continue to the comments from Fr John Whiteford:

The Octoechos, Tone 5, Midnight Office Canon to the Holy and Life Creating Trinity, Ode 4, first troparion:

“Daniel was initiated into the mystery of the threefold splendour of the one Dominion when he beheld Christ the Judge going unto the Father while the Spirit revealed the vision.” HTM Pentecostarion (which includes this text from the Octoechos), p. 270

The painting of holy images we take over not only from the holy fathers, but also from the holy Apostles and even from the person of Christ our only God… We therefore depict Christ on an icon as a man, since he came into the world and had dealings with men, becoming in the end a man like us except in sin. Likewise we also depict the Timeless Father as an old man, as Daniel saw him clearly….” (The Painters Manual. 87 (This is a standard Orthodox text on Iconography “compiled on Mt. Athos, Greece from 1730-1734 from ancient sources by Dionysius of Fourna)) Dionysius of Fourna (ca. 1734).
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1363 on: February 26, 2016, 02:27:21 AM »
Something I have learned recently, when people "greet one another with a holy kiss", it used to be from mouth to mouth.  There was nothing gay about that in ancient Christian practice.

Who said it was in any serious manner?

Neato.  Is that the icon of the conception of the church(es) in Antioch and/or Rome?

Why don't you tell me?
Does the similarity of two pairs of holy people kissing one another mean something extra?  In one icon it is a prelude to the conception of the Mother of God.  In another, it is a kiss of peace and reconciliation.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1364 on: February 26, 2016, 02:31:34 AM »

Is there an icon of the Sign where Christ is bearing Mary in His womb?
This is vapid. Men do not contribute to life in this fashion, nor does God.


Considering the Theotokos is Christ's daughter, mother, and bride, I'm not sure this is a sound objection.

So, Mary is not Christ's daughter in the same way she is his mother or his bride?

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1365 on: February 26, 2016, 09:42:32 AM »
Something I have learned recently, when people "greet one another with a holy kiss", it used to be from mouth to mouth.  There was nothing gay about that in ancient Christian practice.

I learned that it was not even a kiss but someone (pagan?) mistaking it for such.
Actually it was to blow air into each others mouth, a portion of which was the same air God blew into Adam's.

Yeah, yeah, nostrils, you pickers, but just consider it!
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,538
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1366 on: February 26, 2016, 01:01:56 PM »
Neato.  Is that the icon of the conception of the church(es) in Antioch and/or Rome?

Why don't you tell me?
Does the similarity of two pairs of holy people kissing one another mean something extra?  In one icon it is a prelude to the conception of the Mother of God.  In another, it is a kiss of peace and reconciliation.

It seems that similarity means something to some here, given the opinions they've shared.  When SS Joachim and Anna embrace, it implies sex.  When Christ and the Theotokos embrace, it also implies sex.  In fact, you suggested that the latter embrace is "the same, theologically" as the former embrace.  Yet, when SS Peter and Paul are depicted engaging in the same action, it implies..."a kiss of peace and reconciliation"?  Why not sex?  Oftentimes, sex begins precisely with kisses of peace and reconciliation... 

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1367 on: February 26, 2016, 05:31:45 PM »
Neato.  Is that the icon of the conception of the church(es) in Antioch and/or Rome?

Why don't you tell me?
Does the similarity of two pairs of holy people kissing one another mean something extra?  In one icon it is a prelude to the conception of the Mother of God.  In another, it is a kiss of peace and reconciliation.

It seems that similarity means something to some here, given the opinions they've shared.  When SS Joachim and Anna embrace, it implies sex.  When Christ and the Theotokos embrace, it also implies sex.  In fact, you suggested that the latter embrace is "the same, theologically" as the former embrace.  Yet, when SS Peter and Paul are depicted engaging in the same action, it implies..."a kiss of peace and reconciliation"?  Why not sex?  Oftentimes, sex begins precisely with kisses of peace and reconciliation...

I am more than shocked at the above. I cannot tell you publicly how disturbing such "theology" is and rather repugnant.
The equivocation of such terms related to the actions depicted distorts what is pure, good, true, and beautiful, as is marital sex, as well friendship and imparting the divine knowledge of God to such a friend. To imply or state, "It's all one", is errancy.
I cannot help but think this is simply a ramification of living in a post-freudian POV and world, wherein all things are sexualized.
You are right, it is clear the first thing God had a couple do was a command to be fruitful and multiply however that was not the first thing God did with Adam. The first was to give him friendship in the form of animals, then to have him be a zoologist by naming thus categorizing them, then later He gifted him with his spouse, an equal. So when looked at in fact, there was no 'mother' involved in any of those activities. I am amazed such could be posted, truly.
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1368 on: February 27, 2016, 02:47:41 AM »
It seems that similarity means something to some here, given the opinions they've shared.  When SS Joachim and Anna embrace, it implies sex.  When Christ and the Theotokos embrace, it also implies sex.  In fact, you suggested that the latter embrace is "the same, theologically" as the former embrace.  Yet, when SS Peter and Paul are depicted engaging in the same action, it implies..."a kiss of peace and reconciliation"?  Why not sex?  Oftentimes, sex begins precisely with kisses of peace and reconciliation...

The source isn't Orthodox for the imagery of Christ and Mary enthroned, embracing.  The icons of SS Joachim and Anna (embracing/meeting with or without bed in background) or of Christ Extreme Humility (with or without Mary there) are different.  Like you mentioned to PtA, it's not uncommon for someone to hold their dead loved ones - so there is no misinterpretation of a Mother holding her dead Son.  There is confusion when Christ and His Mother are on the same throne, explicitly as the heterodox eroticized theology wants, as husband and wife.  The artists that created these paintings and mosaics were trying to express said theology in a very specific way.  There is no comparison, unless you really want it.  So, yeah, why not sex?  Why not anything?

So I get what you're writing, but how many of your kisses have led to sex?  If you're batting 1.000 or.000, something's going on.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1369 on: February 27, 2016, 02:49:55 AM »
To imply or state, "It's all one", is errancy.

Yes.

I cannot help but think this is simply a ramification of living in a post-freudian POV and world, wherein all things are sexualized.

Freud wasn't there when Adam fell, neither was he there during the Schism.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1370 on: February 27, 2016, 04:47:28 AM »
It seems that similarity means something to some here, given the opinions they've shared.  When SS Joachim and Anna embrace, it implies sex.  When Christ and the Theotokos embrace, it also implies sex.  In fact, you suggested that the latter embrace is "the same, theologically" as the former embrace.  Yet, when SS Peter and Paul are depicted engaging in the same action, it implies..."a kiss of peace and reconciliation"?  Why not sex?  Oftentimes, sex begins precisely with kisses of peace and reconciliation...

The source isn't Orthodox for the imagery of Christ and Mary enthroned, embracing.  The icons of SS Joachim and Anna (embracing/meeting with or without bed in background) or of Christ Extreme Humility (with or without Mary there) are different.  Like you mentioned to PtA, it's not uncommon for someone to hold their dead loved ones - so there is no misinterpretation of a Mother holding her dead Son.  There is confusion when Christ and His Mother are on the same throne, explicitly as the heterodox eroticized theology wants, as husband and wife.  The artists that created these paintings and mosaics were trying to express said theology in a very specific way.  There is no comparison, unless you really want it.  So, yeah, why not sex?  Why not anything?

So I get what you're writing, but how many of your kisses have led to sex?  If you're batting 1.000 or.000, something's going on.
You seem misinformed about Catholic theology if you think that icon presents Christ and the Theotokos as husband and wife or that there is any theology of such.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1371 on: February 27, 2016, 04:53:55 AM »
It seems that similarity means something to some here, given the opinions they've shared.  When SS Joachim and Anna embrace, it implies sex.  When Christ and the Theotokos embrace, it also implies sex.  In fact, you suggested that the latter embrace is "the same, theologically" as the former embrace.  Yet, when SS Peter and Paul are depicted engaging in the same action, it implies..."a kiss of peace and reconciliation"?  Why not sex?  Oftentimes, sex begins precisely with kisses of peace and reconciliation...

The source isn't Orthodox for the imagery of Christ and Mary enthroned, embracing.  The icons of SS Joachim and Anna (embracing/meeting with or without bed in background) or of Christ Extreme Humility (with or without Mary there) are different.  Like you mentioned to PtA, it's not uncommon for someone to hold their dead loved ones - so there is no misinterpretation of a Mother holding her dead Son.  There is confusion when Christ and His Mother are on the same throne, explicitly as the heterodox eroticized theology wants, as husband and wife.  The artists that created these paintings and mosaics were trying to express said theology in a very specific way.  There is no comparison, unless you really want it.  So, yeah, why not sex?  Why not anything?

So I get what you're writing, but how many of your kisses have led to sex?  If you're batting 1.000 or.000, something's going on.
You seem misinformed about Catholic theology if you think that icon presents Christ and the Theotokos as husband and wife or that there is any theology of such.

Then inform me, please.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1372 on: February 27, 2016, 04:55:37 AM »
You seem misinformed about Catholic theology if you think that icon presents Christ and the Theotokos as husband and wife or that there is any theology of such.

Indeed. The image in question is from the dawn of the Renaissance, and an early version, if not the original, was painted by Cimabue. The problem with it from the Orthodox POV is not to do with sex, but the status of the Mother of God:


It is a copy of a triptych panel by the early Renaissance master Cimabue, and it represents the assumption of the Virgin. Other painters of the era painted similar compositions, with some showing both Christ and the Virgin seated on the same heavenly throne.

Here is Cimabue's work:



In reply to Liza's comment, even if an observer could identify the woman as the Mother of God, this image is still, erm, problematic from the Orthodox POV. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God after her death is accepted and mentioned, but not elaborated upon, in hymns and teachings. It is a mystery, and one which iconography has never portrayed, unlike non-Orthodox religious art.

What Orthodox iconography does show, and rightly so, is Christ mystically appearing at His Mother's dormition. He is surrounded by a mandorla of uncreated light in which are numerous seraphim, and He is holding the soul of His Mother, as a babe in swaddling-clothes. This beautifully and eloquently expresses the incomparable honor of the Virgin - as she gave birth and nurtured her Son and God, the Life of all, so He received her soul to escort it to heaven Himself, she being more honorable and more glorious than the hosts on high, as the hymn says. Allowing a "mere" angel to take her soul just would not do. The hymns of the Dormition must surely be the loveliest and most evocative of all the feasts of the Mother of God.

In Cimabue's painting, and its variants, while the Virgin is in a supplicatory posture, she is still seated at the same level as Christ. In iconographic deesis (supplicatory) panels which show Christ enthroned at the center, flanked by the Virgin and St John the Baptist (and others, in many cases), only Christ is enthroned. The Mother of God is indeed the most powerful of intercessors, but she is not, and never can be, equal to God. She was graced with divinity in the fullest sense, but she is not divine herself.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 04:56:34 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1373 on: February 27, 2016, 05:10:34 AM »
You seem misinformed about Catholic theology if you think that icon presents Christ and the Theotokos as husband and wife or that there is any theology of such.

Indeed. The image in question is from the dawn of the Renaissance, and an early version, if not the original, was painted by Cimabue. The problem with it from the Orthodox POV is not to do with sex, but the status of the Mother of God:


It is a copy of a triptych panel by the early Renaissance master Cimabue, and it represents the assumption of the Virgin. Other painters of the era painted similar compositions, with some showing both Christ and the Virgin seated on the same heavenly throne.

Here is Cimabue's work:



In reply to Liza's comment, even if an observer could identify the woman as the Mother of God, this image is still, erm, problematic from the Orthodox POV. The bodily assumption of the Mother of God after her death is accepted and mentioned, but not elaborated upon, in hymns and teachings. It is a mystery, and one which iconography has never portrayed, unlike non-Orthodox religious art.

What Orthodox iconography does show, and rightly so, is Christ mystically appearing at His Mother's dormition. He is surrounded by a mandorla of uncreated light in which are numerous seraphim, and He is holding the soul of His Mother, as a babe in swaddling-clothes. This beautifully and eloquently expresses the incomparable honor of the Virgin - as she gave birth and nurtured her Son and God, the Life of all, so He received her soul to escort it to heaven Himself, she being more honorable and more glorious than the hosts on high, as the hymn says. Allowing a "mere" angel to take her soul just would not do. The hymns of the Dormition must surely be the loveliest and most evocative of all the feasts of the Mother of God.

In Cimabue's painting, and its variants, while the Virgin is in a supplicatory posture, she is still seated at the same level as Christ. In iconographic deesis (supplicatory) panels which show Christ enthroned at the center, flanked by the Virgin and St John the Baptist (and others, in many cases), only Christ is enthroned. The Mother of God is indeed the most powerful of intercessors, but she is not, and never can be, equal to God. She was graced with divinity in the fullest sense, but she is not divine herself.
And yet there are Orthodox images of the Theotokos enthroned so I disagree that showing her as such is statement of equality with God. 
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,930
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1374 on: February 27, 2016, 05:16:37 AM »
^Like this?

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1375 on: February 27, 2016, 05:24:19 AM »
And yet there are Orthodox images of the Theotokos enthroned so I disagree that showing her as such is statement of equality with God.

Indeed there are. She is the Queen and Mother. However Christ enthroned surrounded by a mandorla of the uncreated Light is exclusive to Him as He is God. Canonical icons of the Mother of God enthroned do not show her surrounded by the Light, as she is not its origin. She is graced by divinity in that she bore God, but is not divine herself because of it.

Moreover, hymns to the Holy Trinity (troitsny, triadika) speak of the persons of the Trinity as co-eternal and co-enthroned. To place the Mother of God on the same throne as Christ elevates her to a status she does not have.

EDIT: Here's an example, from the Pentecost services:

Come, O peoples, let us worship the Godhead in three persons, the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begat the Son, co-eternal and co-enthroned, and the Holy Spirit was in the Father, glorified with the Son; one power, one essence, one Godhead, whom we all worship as we say: Holy God, who created all things through the Son, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. Holy Mighty, through whom we have come to know the Father, and through whom the Holy Spirit came into the world. Holy Immortal, the Advocate Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. Holy Trinity, glory to You.[

The revered and august mouth spoke: For you, My friends, there will be no absence. For I, once seated on My Father’s highest throne, will pour out the abundant grace of the Spirit to shine on those who yearn./i]
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 05:31:24 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1376 on: February 27, 2016, 06:45:44 AM »
O most awesome marvel!  She who bore in her womb the uncontainable King is now placed into a tomb.  The assembly of angels and apostles buries her with reverence.  Jesus, her son and the Savior of our souls has exalted her God-bearing and precious body, and He has enthroned her in heaven.  (Post-festive Aposticheron for the Dormition)
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1377 on: February 27, 2016, 06:57:20 AM »
O most awesome marvel!  She who bore in her womb the uncontainable King is now placed into a tomb.  The assembly of angels and apostles buries her with reverence.  Jesus, her son and the Savior of our souls has exalted her God-bearing and precious body, and He has enthroned her in heaven.  (Post-festive Aposticheron for the Dormition)

Is the Mother of God co-enthroned with Christ? Icons of the Mother of God of the Sign show the mandorla surrounding Christ over her body, but the Light does not surround her.

More on divine co-enthronement:

I confess You as one God in Trinity, a single essence unconfused in persons, co-enthroned and co-ruling, and I sing to You, "Holy! Holy! Holy!" Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This is by no means the only Orthodox hymn which expresses this truth.

The Virgin is indeed the Queen and Mother, closer than anyone else to the ear of God, and rightly exalted above even the hosts on high. But the fact remains that she does not share the throne of God.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1378 on: February 27, 2016, 07:26:22 AM »
No, she is not, nor is that what the icon is showing.  She is clearly in a posture of supplication and consolation and is being surrounded by Christ's mandorla just as she is in the Dormition icon.  The Byzantines emphasizes her Dormition, the Latins her Assumption.  The Oriental Orthodox seem to strike a balance between both.  Byzantine must stop applying their rules to other traditions.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1379 on: February 27, 2016, 07:35:13 AM »
No, she is not, nor is that what the icon is showing.  She is clearly in a posture of supplication and consolation and is being surrounded by Christ's mandorla just as she is in the Dormition icon.  The Byzantines emphasizes her Dormition, the Latins her Assumption.  The Oriental Orthodox seem to strike a balance between both.  Byzantine must stop applying their rules to other traditions.

Deacon Lance, as I understand it, your church is supposed to used the same liturgical texts as do the EO, the point of difference being the liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome. I also understand that EC iconography should be indistinguishable in content from Orthodox iconography, reflecting liturgical and doctrinal origins in common with Orthodoxy.

In the light of the hymns I have posted, and they are just a couple of the hymns which express the same teachings, how can an image of the Virgin enthroned with Christ on the same throne be justified doctrinally and theologically?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 07:36:25 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1380 on: February 27, 2016, 08:21:17 AM »
No, she is not, nor is that what the icon is showing.  She is clearly in a posture of supplication and consolation and is being surrounded by Christ's mandorla just as she is in the Dormition icon.  The Byzantines emphasizes her Dormition, the Latins her Assumption.  The Oriental Orthodox seem to strike a balance between both.  Byzantine must stop applying their rules to other traditions.

Deacon Lance, as I understand it, your church is supposed to used the same liturgical texts as do the EO, the point of difference being the liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome. I also understand that EC iconography should be indistinguishable in content from Orthodox iconography, reflecting liturgical and doctrinal origins in common with Orthodoxy.

In the light of the hymns I have posted, and they are just a couple of the hymns which express the same teachings, how can an image of the Virgin enthroned with Christ on the same throne be justified doctrinally and theologically?
It is and am not suggesting that image displace the standard Dormition icon.  I am suggesting the Latins and others not be held to our rules.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,538
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1381 on: February 27, 2016, 12:47:23 PM »
The source isn't Orthodox for the imagery of Christ and Mary enthroned, embracing.  The icons of SS Joachim and Anna (embracing/meeting with or without bed in background) or of Christ Extreme Humility (with or without Mary there) are different. 

Of course, this begs the question about how canonical images become canonical.  At some point, there wasn't an "Extreme Humility" icon, and then someone painted one.  He created it because that's what artists do.  Honestly, if you think about what you are looking at, it looks bizarre.  But because we can explain it in a way that makes sense and we kept painting it that way for long enough, we say it's acceptable, canonical, etc.  What else is there to the process of reception? 

Whenever we have these discussions, it's hard not to suspect that the real argument is "Byzantine = Orthodox".

BTW, since you brought it up, what is the history of depicting SS Joachim and Anna with a bed behind them?  How far back in history does that go?  The only icons I've ever seen with that particular element are all fairly recent, and my suspicion thus far has been that this is a modern depiction with a modern agenda.  All the older icons I've seen show them meeting at the Golden Gate in Jerusalem...

Quote
Like you mentioned to PtA, it's not uncommon for someone to hold their dead loved ones - so there is no misinterpretation of a Mother holding her dead Son.  There is confusion when Christ and His Mother are on the same throne, explicitly as the heterodox eroticized theology wants, as husband and wife.  The artists that created these paintings and mosaics were trying to express said theology in a very specific way.  There is no comparison, unless you really want it.  So, yeah, why not sex?  Why not anything?

A Catholic clergyman in this thread disputes this, so can you substantiate your claims about "heterodox eroticized theology"?  What does this theology teach?

Quote
So I get what you're writing, but how many of your kisses have led to sex? 

Not nearly enough.

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1382 on: February 27, 2016, 01:17:58 PM »
Can we talk about the Reigning Mother of God icon that was uncovered in Russia in 1917? Are you guys saying it's not canonical? I know of a Russian parish that is named after it.
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1383 on: February 27, 2016, 04:09:55 PM »
To imply or state, "It's all one", is errancy.

Yes.

I cannot help but think this is simply a ramification of living in a post-freudian POV and world, wherein all things are sexualized.

Freud wasn't there when Adam fell, neither was he there during the Schism.

But the person who posted is under this geist.
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline HaydenTE

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,275
  • Always honest, occasionally correct.
  • Faith: In theory RCC; in practice OCA
  • Jurisdiction: "Can't we all just get along?"
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1384 on: February 27, 2016, 10:46:34 PM »


I don't think I've ever seen Saints Peter and Andrew together in the same way as Saints Peter and Paul. Nor have I ever seen them with their respective crosses in the corner.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" - Mark 8:36 (DRA)

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,395
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1385 on: February 28, 2016, 01:24:21 AM »
That is interesting. I haven't seen the crosses in the corners either.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,590
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1386 on: February 28, 2016, 05:39:10 AM »

Of course, this begs the question about how canonical images become canonical.  At some point, there wasn't an "Extreme Humility" icon, and then someone painted one.  He created it because that's what artists do.  Honestly, if you think about what you are looking at, it looks bizarre.  But because we can explain it in a way that makes sense and we kept painting it that way for long enough, we say it's acceptable, canonical, etc.  What else is there to the process of reception? 


New iconographic compositions must conform with Orthodox teaching. The "creativity" of the artist is reined in by the absolute necessity of conforming to those teachings. In practically all cases, the icon is a direct counterpart to scriptural and/or hymnographic content. Iconographers are not free agents, but are instruments in obedience to the Church and what she believes and proclaims.

The Extreme Humility (Nymphios, Bridegroom) icon of Christ wearing the crown and thorns, red cloak, and hands tied, is straight out of scripture. The related icon, posted earlier, showing Christ standing in the tomb with the Mother of God grieving, is the analogue to many a hymn from the latter part of Holy Week, including this hymn from Holy Saturday:

Weep not for me, Mother, as you see in a tomb the Son whom you conceived in your womb without seed; for I shall arise and be glorified, and I shall exalt in glory without ceasing those who with faith and love magnify you.


 what is the history of depicting SS Joachim and Anna with a bed behind them?  How far back in history does that go?  The only icons I've ever seen with that particular element are all fairly recent, and my suspicion thus far has been that this is a modern depiction with a modern agenda.  All the older icons I've seen show them meeting at the Golden Gate in Jerusalem...


There are plenty of icons showing a bed of Sts Joachim and Anna, and of Sts Zachariah and Elizabeth, in icons of the conception of their respective children from as far back as the 16th century, so its presence couldn't really be called "modern".

However, I agree with Mor that it is a problematic inclusion. It's unnecessary. Interestingly, I do not recall coming across any Greek icons which include the bed, only Russian ones.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1387 on: February 28, 2016, 08:00:41 AM »
No, she is not, nor is that what the icon is showing.  She is clearly in a posture of supplication and consolation and is being surrounded by Christ's mandorla just as she is in the Dormition icon.  The Byzantines emphasizes her Dormition, the Latins her Assumption.  The Oriental Orthodox seem to strike a balance between both.  Byzantine must stop applying their rules to other traditions.

Deacon Lance, as I understand it, your church is supposed to used the same liturgical texts as do the EO, the point of difference being the liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome. I also understand that EC iconography should be indistinguishable in content from Orthodox iconography, reflecting liturgical and doctrinal origins in common with Orthodoxy.

In the light of the hymns I have posted, and they are just a couple of the hymns which express the same teachings, how can an image of the Virgin enthroned with Christ on the same throne be justified doctrinally and theologically?
It is and am not suggesting that image displace the standard Dormition icon.  I am suggesting the Latins and others not be held to our rules.

Indeed.  Byzantinization is as bad as Latinization.  Imagine if there was Syriacization; if HH Mor Ignatius Aphrem II suddenly became the most powerful bishop, I expect several people might not unreasonably object if he demanded the Byzantine Church replace most of its litanies with bo'outho hymns.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 08:05:14 AM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,888
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1388 on: February 28, 2016, 08:25:32 PM »


I don't think I've ever seen Saints Peter and Andrew together in the same way as Saints Peter and Paul. Nor have I ever seen them with their respective crosses in the corner.
That particular icon hangs in the Phanar.  It was commissioned in honor of the lifting of the excommunication so by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline HaydenTE

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,275
  • Always honest, occasionally correct.
  • Faith: In theory RCC; in practice OCA
  • Jurisdiction: "Can't we all just get along?"
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1389 on: February 28, 2016, 11:00:53 PM »
Oh, I didn't know that! What a great history!
"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" - Mark 8:36 (DRA)

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,370
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1390 on: February 28, 2016, 11:30:09 PM »


I don't think I've ever seen Saints Peter and Andrew together in the same way as Saints Peter and Paul. Nor have I ever seen them with their respective crosses in the corner.
That particular icon hangs in the Phanar.  It was commissioned in honor of the lifting of the excommunication so by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras.

Are there any other icons of St. Andrew and St. Peter embracing like this? The only ones I have seen are those where St. Peter and St. Paul do so. 
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1391 on: February 28, 2016, 11:36:23 PM »
Can we talk about the Reigning Mother of God icon that was uncovered in Russia in 1917? Are you guys saying it's not canonical? I know of a Russian parish that is named after it.
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,062
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1392 on: February 29, 2016, 04:14:37 PM »
Can we talk about the Reigning Mother of God icon that was uncovered in Russia in 1917? Are you guys saying it's not canonical? I know of a Russian parish that is named after it.


As far as I can tell, only one person, of dubious authority, is saying that.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,726
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1393 on: February 29, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »
Can we talk about the Reigning Mother of God icon that was uncovered in Russia in 1917? Are you guys saying it's not canonical? I know of a Russian parish that is named after it.


As far as I can tell, only one person, of dubious authority, is saying that.


isn't everyone here of dubious authority? Its the internet.
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #1394 on: February 29, 2016, 04:17:02 PM »
Can we talk about the Reigning Mother of God icon that was uncovered in Russia in 1917? Are you guys saying it's not canonical? I know of a Russian parish that is named after it.
I am not saying that.

I am also not an authority on it at all.
God bless!