OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 05:44:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Strange icons  (Read 39877 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #720 on: July 22, 2014, 02:48:20 AM »

I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

Logged
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #721 on: July 22, 2014, 02:53:28 AM »


Where is your proof, LBK? You falsely claimed it was not canonical when Antonio's Presbytera gifted it to him.

The mere fact of the image being a gift from the wife of a priest does not confer canonicity upon it. Canonicity comes from an icon's ability to properly and faithfully proclaim theology and teachings. I made no false claim, so stop putting words in my mouth. It makes all your pleas for Christian charity and love ring hollow.



Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,305


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #722 on: July 22, 2014, 03:01:00 AM »

I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:


There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #723 on: July 22, 2014, 03:10:07 AM »

I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:


There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.

The matter of God the Father as an old man has been denounced time and time again across the centuries by the Church, yet people still persist in painting it. End of story.

Toll-houses have nothing to do with the matter at hand, neither does Christ's earthly genealogy. You're trying to muddy the waters, but it's not working.

Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,305


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #724 on: July 22, 2014, 03:34:55 AM »

I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.

That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.

The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.

Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:


There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.

The matter of God the Father as an old man has been denounced time and time again across the centuries by the Church, yet people still persist in painting it. End of story.

Toll-houses have nothing to do with the matter at hand, neither does Christ's earthly genealogy. You're trying to muddy the waters, but it's not working.



Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Apparently HOCNA condemns this paternity icon, but they left ROCOR and have endorsed several heresies after their departure from Orthodoxy, so I cannot trust what they teach.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,776


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #725 on: July 22, 2014, 04:43:46 AM »

My favorite icon is Christ Tempted in the Desert. Have any of you ever been able to come across one that's for sale? The iconographer at my parish offered to paint me one but I can't afford the $240 he charges.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #726 on: July 22, 2014, 05:05:28 AM »

Quote
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Theologoumenon? Not at all.

It was condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter of St Gregory II of Rome to the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, which was incorporated into the acts of that Council. An excerpt from this letter:

 “Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”


St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and in his In Defense of the Holy Images, and St Theodore of the Studion in his treatise on icons also condemn such imagery. They are by no means the only saints or Fathers who do the same.

Some selections from the Damascene:

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the color of the flesh...

If we made an image of the invisible God, we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled.

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure spirit, invisible, boundless, having neither form nor circumscription. How can we make an image of what is invisible? "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Jn. 1.18) And again, "No one shall see My face and live, saith the Lord." (Ex. 33.20)

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us," [94] our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature, language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.


It is worth noting that, in this treatise, St John refers constantly to his forebears among the saints and fathers to give authority to what he says.

Two more questions which should be asked:

1. Did God the Father become incarnate?

2. Does the Church celebrate any feasts dedicated to the Father alone?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 05:09:01 AM by LBK » Logged
qawe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 190


« Reply #727 on: July 22, 2014, 06:42:59 AM »

Quote
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Theologoumenon? Not at all.

It was condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter of St Gregory II of Rome to the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, which was incorporated into the acts of that Council. An excerpt from this letter:

 “Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”


St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and in his In Defense of the Holy Images, and St Theodore of the Studion in his treatise on icons also condemn such imagery. They are by no means the only saints or Fathers who do the same.

Some selections from the Damascene:

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the color of the flesh...

If we made an image of the invisible God, we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled.

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure spirit, invisible, boundless, having neither form nor circumscription. How can we make an image of what is invisible? "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Jn. 1.18) And again, "No one shall see My face and live, saith the Lord." (Ex. 33.20)

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us," [94] our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature, language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.


It is worth noting that, in this treatise, St John refers constantly to his forebears among the saints and fathers to give authority to what he says.

Two more questions which should be asked:

1. Did God the Father become incarnate?

2. Does the Church celebrate any feasts dedicated to the Father alone?

Then what about the Rublev icon depicting the Trinity, in which 1 of the men represents the Father?
Logged
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #728 on: July 22, 2014, 07:00:24 AM »

The Rublyev Trinity, like the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, show all three angels as equal. None of the angels are identified by name on either icon, and none bear the distinctive halo which we see in icons of Christ. The three mysterious men at the Oak of Mamre are a manifestation, not an incarnation. This distinction is extremely important.

Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,647


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #729 on: July 22, 2014, 10:06:37 AM »

Wow, what happened to this thread while I was sleeping?

1. We have gone way off track.

2. This seemingly obvious condemnation of depicting the Father in the Damascene's writings is not apparent to me.

3. I was always taught that the Trinity is very obviously distinguished in Rublev's depiction, despite their not literally being the Trinity. The Father wears orange, the Son wears blue and red (just like in icons of him, a very distinct color scheme), and the Spirit wears green (the color of the Holy Spirit). Further, while being seated equally at the table, both the Son and Holy Spirit are shown bending their heads to the Father.
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,967


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #730 on: July 27, 2014, 02:49:53 PM »

Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #731 on: July 27, 2014, 08:05:48 PM »



The apostles should be holding a model of a church, symbolic of them being the pillars and founders of the Church, as many a hymn to them proclaims. The church is there, but obscured behind the totally misplaced motif of a Eucharistic symbol.
Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,647


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #732 on: July 27, 2014, 08:16:01 PM »

I heard you like symbolism, so I put the Body of Christ in the Body of Christ so you can contemplate while you contemplate.
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,967


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #733 on: July 27, 2014, 08:21:04 PM »

I heard you like symbolism, so I put the Body of Christ in the Body of Christ so you can contemplate while you contemplate.



Do it.
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #734 on: July 28, 2014, 08:35:02 PM »

Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,557


Leave that no-account Oogie-Boogie out of this!


« Reply #735 on: July 28, 2014, 08:41:28 PM »


Looks as if someone's about to get his jabs (and a lolly afterwards?) Roll Eyes
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #736 on: July 28, 2014, 10:57:54 PM »



Someone has seriously over-egged the custard. Far too much frou-frou. And the Child looks like he's about to burst into tears: Mama! Please don't jab me!
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #737 on: July 28, 2014, 11:29:03 PM »

And the Child looks like he's about to burst into tears: Mama! Please don't jab me!

FWIW, I thought it kind of looked like he's about to sneeze.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,305


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #738 on: July 29, 2014, 12:33:42 AM »


FWIW, I thought it kind of looked like he's about to sneeze.

Yes, I agree as his eyes are partly closed and his mouth is slightly opened. Hardly a pose seen in Orthodox Christian icons.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from the world
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Genuine Kellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church *of* America
Posts: 1,665


She considereth a field, and buyeth it.


« Reply #739 on: July 29, 2014, 07:11:53 AM »



I get the same expression as Jesus right before I sneeze.

edit - I was beaten to this observation.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 07:12:19 AM by kelly » Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #740 on: July 29, 2014, 07:25:09 AM »

What on earth is this?



If you have higher resolution pic, I would be able to read Church Slavonic text, so far, I can only read few words.

"Purity of soul... .... of Our Lord Jesus Christ... Guardian angel... .... .... by the grace "
Logged

CopticDeacon
Αναγνώστης(Reader) in the God-loving Diocese of New York and New England
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 533


St. Macarius, the Spirit Bearer, Pray for Us!


« Reply #741 on: July 29, 2014, 08:18:50 AM »

What about the "ancient of days" icon? I'm pretty sure it's canonical but due to the aged appearance and the fact that such an icon does not appear in coptic iconography I'm not sure.
Logged

"I see the heavens opened up, and the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God"
-St. Stephen the Archdeacon and Protomartyr
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #742 on: July 29, 2014, 08:23:11 AM »

What about the "ancient of days" icon? I'm pretty sure it's canonical but due to the aged appearance and the fact that such an icon does not appear in coptic iconography I'm not sure.

The only acceptable Ancient of Days icon is of Christ, as clearly inscribed in this icon:



"Icons" of God the Father as a bearded old man are uncanonical and unsuitable for veneration.

Logged
CopticDeacon
Αναγνώστης(Reader) in the God-loving Diocese of New York and New England
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 533


St. Macarius, the Spirit Bearer, Pray for Us!


« Reply #743 on: July 29, 2014, 08:35:10 AM »


The only acceptable Ancient of Days icon is of Christ, as clearly inscribed in this icon:



"Icons" of God the Father as a bearded old man are uncanonical and unsuitable for veneration.



That's what I thought.  Thank you.
Logged

"I see the heavens opened up, and the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God"
-St. Stephen the Archdeacon and Protomartyr
JamesLesser
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian
Posts: 34


« Reply #744 on: July 29, 2014, 12:06:06 PM »

In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,305


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #745 on: July 31, 2014, 03:04:00 PM »

http://indigenousjesus.blogspot.com/2012/11/father-john-giuliani-painter-of-native.html

Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Anna.T
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 784


Lord have mercy! Κύριε, ἐλέησον!


« Reply #746 on: August 01, 2014, 09:15:25 PM »


This reminds me of a ceramic Nativity set I painted some years ago, featuring a tepee and Native American children, a buffalo and wolf, etc. I always had very mixed feelings about it.

I think something that really bothers me is exchanging the dove as a representation of the Holy Spirit for a hawk/eagle. Kind of reverses the entire symbolism.

I do like the almost linking/intertwining of the hands of both of the human portrayals and the wings of the bird.

Ah, and in typing that last sentence it hit me. I did not want to call them "the Father and Christ" so I was seeking a term to use. I settled on calling them both "humans". But while Christ became man, the Father did not.
Logged

Christ is in our midst!

My replies should not be taken as representing Orthodox teaching - I am only just learning myself.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Anna.T
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 784


Lord have mercy! Κύριε, ἐλέησον!


« Reply #747 on: August 01, 2014, 09:18:40 PM »

In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.



Can it be Christ, if He is also being held by the Theotokos in the same icon? And he does look old. Is Christ ever painted that way?

(Not trying to answer you because I don't know, just my observations and I am asking.)
Logged

Christ is in our midst!

My replies should not be taken as representing Orthodox teaching - I am only just learning myself.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #748 on: August 01, 2014, 10:50:25 PM »

In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

Can it be Christ, if He is also being held by the Theotokos in the same icon? And he does look old. Is Christ ever painted that way?


(Not trying to answer you because I don't know, just my observations and I am asking.)

If the bearded old man is Christ as the Ancient of Days, there should be an inscription of IC-XC around him. Given that the iconographer who produced this is Michael Damaskinos, it is almost certain that the old man is God the Father.

Damaskinos was a 16th century iconographer of the Cretan School, who traveled extensively through Italy, and lived in Venice for some years. His work borrows heavily from religious painting of the Renaissance, both in composition and painterly style.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 10:51:00 PM by LBK » Logged
Hawkeye
Дїѡни́сїй Качема́ческїй, Oнома́тодоѯологъ
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Belief?
Jurisdiction: Antiochian?
Posts: 641


"Петр [Мартюшев] говорит им: иду ловить рыбу."


« Reply #749 on: August 01, 2014, 11:27:03 PM »

In the icon of Moses receiving the Tablets, is it portraying Christ as the Ancient of Days or is the Father?  I believe it is Christ.

Can it be Christ, if He is also being held by the Theotokos in the same icon? And he does look old. Is Christ ever painted that way?

(Not trying to answer you because I don't know, just my observations and I am asking.)

If the bearded old man is Christ as the Ancient of Days, there should be an inscription of IC-XC around him. Given that the iconographer who produced this is Michael Damaskinos, it is almost certain that the old man is God the Father.

He may not have the IC-XC inscription around him but he likewise lacks anything labeling him as God the Father (such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish). Indeed, with closer inspection, you can make out the cruciform halo unique to Christ rather than the eight-point or triangle halos that images of God the Father as the Ancient of Days often sport.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 11:31:00 PM by Hawkeye » Logged

LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #750 on: August 01, 2014, 11:37:40 PM »

The point is that the only proper iconographic portrayal of the Ancient of Days is one which clearly marks the old man as Christ. All three Persons of the Holy Trinity are eternal and timeless (which is what the idea of Ancient of Days expresses), but only one of the Persons became incarnate as Man, while remaining God.

Lord Sabaoth simply means Lord of (heavenly) Hosts. The Lord in question is the Holy Trinity.

The shape of the halo in Damaskinos' work is irrelevant in this case.
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 619


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #751 on: August 01, 2014, 11:58:38 PM »



Is this the "Ancient of Days" or God the Father?
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Hawkeye
Дїѡни́сїй Качема́ческїй, Oнома́тодоѯологъ
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Belief?
Jurisdiction: Antiochian?
Posts: 641


"Петр [Мартюшев] говорит им: иду ловить рыбу."


« Reply #752 on: August 01, 2014, 11:59:20 PM »

Lord Sabaoth simply means Lord of (heavenly) Hosts. The Lord in question is the Holy Trinity.

True, but every figure I've seen marked as such on icons (including on several I own) was clearly intended to be God the Father.

The point is that the only proper iconographic portrayal of the Ancient of Days is one which clearly marks the old man as Christ. All three Persons of the Holy Trinity are eternal and timeless (which is what the idea of Ancient of Days expresses), but only one of the Persons became incarnate as Man, while remaining God.
...
The shape of the halo in Damaskinos' work is irrelevant in this case.

If the cruciform halo is unique to Christ, wouldn't it then mark the figure bearing it as none other?

I'm just not convinced the old man up top is meant to be God the Father and not God the Son, whatever Damaskinos may have done elsewhere.

Funny thing about that IC-XC inscription, the Christ in the Theotokos' lap seems to lack it too.
Logged

LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #753 on: August 01, 2014, 11:59:47 PM »



Is this the "Ancient of Days" or God the Father?

God the Father.
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 619


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #754 on: August 02, 2014, 12:02:21 AM »

Is it the shape of the halo that gives it away? No cross or XC IC?
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #755 on: August 02, 2014, 12:02:29 AM »

(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 619


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #756 on: August 02, 2014, 12:03:53 AM »

(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

The Old Rite Church in Erie PA features no icons of God the Father to my knowledge.
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #757 on: August 02, 2014, 12:11:56 AM »

Quote
True, but every figure I've seen marked as such on icons (including on several I own) was clearly intended to be God the Father
.

And this is precisely the problem with such portrayals.

Quote
If the cruciform halo is unique to Christ, wouldn't it then mark the figure bearing it as none other?

The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

Quote
I'm just not convinced the old man up top is meant to be God the Father and not God the Son, whatever Damaskinos may have done elsewhere.

Damaskinos' works, and that of his contemporary, Emmanuel Tzannes, are replete with imagery straight out of Renaissance art, which had long broken any connection with the forms and traditions of iconography. The works of these two men are interesting and skilfully-painted, but fall quite short of what iconography is and stands for.

Quote
Funny thing about that IC-XC inscription, the Christ in the Theotokos' lap seems to lack it too.

... and the standard inscription for the Mother of God is also absent. She is bearing only one star of ever-virginity, which is also a common feature of Roman Catholic art.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 12:12:52 AM by LBK » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #758 on: August 02, 2014, 12:16:25 AM »

(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition? Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

The Old Rite Church in Erie PA features no icons of God the Father to my knowledge.

It may have at some point, or possibly not - many parishes don't come close to having every "standard" icon.
Logged
Hawkeye
Дїѡни́сїй Качема́ческїй, Oнома́тодоѯологъ
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Belief?
Jurisdiction: Antiochian?
Posts: 641


"Петр [Мартюшев] говорит им: иду ловить рыбу."


« Reply #759 on: August 02, 2014, 12:21:21 AM »

(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition?

Among certain groups it seems. The priestless Chasovennye tradition ("Chapelist") to which I belong seems to accept it wholeheartedly. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the central icon of my parish's iconostasis, a large painting of the "New Testament Trinity" with Christ and God the Father seated and the Holy Spirit as a dove between them.

Other groups, such as the Pomortsy, are better about that sort of thing and eschew depicting either God the Father or the Holy Spirit, except perhaps in those icons where it is canonical. As Sam G noted, the Church of the Nativity in Erie, which came from the Pomortsy tradition, likewise seems to lack those elements.

Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

That last image of the Ancient of Days given by Sam G seems pretty representative. He is often depicted as the Ancient of Days with a halo consisting of two overlapping diamonds (often with one red and the other blue) and bearing the "Lord Sabaoth" inscription.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 12:34:28 AM by Hawkeye » Logged

Hawkeye
Дїѡни́сїй Качема́ческїй, Oнома́тодоѯологъ
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Belief?
Jurisdiction: Antiochian?
Posts: 641


"Петр [Мартюшев] говорит им: иду ловить рыбу."


« Reply #760 on: August 02, 2014, 12:23:06 AM »

The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.
Logged

Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #761 on: August 02, 2014, 12:24:40 AM »

(such as "Lord Sabaoth" as used at my local Old Rite parish).

Interesting. Is God the Father a standard part of Old Rite iconographic tradition?

Among certain groups it seems. The priestless Chasovennye tradition ("Chapelist) to which I belong seems to accept it wholeheartedly. No where is this more obvious that in the central icon of my parish's iconostasis, a large painting of the "New Testament Trinity" with Christ and God the Father seated and the Holy Spirit as a dove between them.

Other groups, such as the Pomortsy, are better about that sort of thing and seem to eschew depicting either God the Father or the Holy Spirit, except perhaps in those icons where it is canonical. As Sam G noted, the Church of the Nativity in Erie, which came from the Pomortsy tradition, likewise lacks that sort of thing.

Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

That last image of the Ancient of Days given by Sam G seems pretty representative. He is often depicted as the Ancient of Days with a halo consisting of two overlapping diamonds (often with one red and the other blue) and bearing the "Lord Sabaoth" inscription.

But aren't red and blue the colors of the Christ?
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,634



« Reply #762 on: August 02, 2014, 12:29:31 AM »

Among certain groups it seems. The priestless Chasovennye tradition ("Chapelist) to which I belong seems to accept it wholeheartedly. No where is this more obvious that in the central icon of my parish's iconostasis, a large painting of the "New Testament Trinity" with Christ and God the Father seated and the Holy Spirit as a dove between them.

Other groups, such as the Pomortsy, are better about that sort of thing and eschew depicting either God the Father or the Holy Spirit, except perhaps in those icons where it is canonical. As Sam G noted, the Church of the Nativity in Erie, which came from the Pomortsy tradition, likewise seems to lack those elements.

Are there any other particulars/standards when he's depicted in icons?

That last image of the Ancient of Days given by Sam G seems pretty representative. He is often depicted as the Ancient of Days with a halo consisting of two overlapping diamonds (often with one red and the other blue) and bearing the "Lord Sabaoth" inscription.

Pretty neat, thanks. The Chapelists just got a +1 in my book (God the Father/NT Trinity icons have long  been a guilty pleasure of mine).
Logged
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,266


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #763 on: August 02, 2014, 12:34:37 AM »

The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.

Not moot at all. Icons must be faithful to what the Church teaches, and the fact remains that the Father never became incarnate.
Logged
Hawkeye
Дїѡни́сїй Качема́ческїй, Oнома́тодоѯологъ
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Belief?
Jurisdiction: Antiochian?
Posts: 641


"Петр [Мартюшев] говорит им: иду ловить рыбу."


« Reply #764 on: August 02, 2014, 12:45:36 AM »

The cruciform halo expresses what and who God is. Yet it is only the Son and Word who became incarnate.

It's sort of a moot distinction if only Christ is ever depicted with it.

Not moot at all. Icons must be faithful to what the Church teaches, and the fact remains that the Father never became incarnate.

Exactly, which is why depictions of the Ancient of Days with the cruciform halo, yet without the explicit IC-XC inscription, must be of the Son.
Logged

Tags: iconography 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.154 seconds with 72 queries.