Author Topic: Strange icons  (Read 65800 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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:

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.



No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,433
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,433
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,556
  • 1951-2015 Memory Eternal Uncle Roy--40 Days of Mourning.
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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 »
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline qawe

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 302
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Strange icons
« 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?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαυμά!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,786
  • Ο Πάγκαλος
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA - Direct Archdiocesan District
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,990
  • "In those days I will pour out my Spirit..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #730 on: July 27, 2014, 02:49:53 PM »
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαυμά!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,786
  • Ο Πάγκαλος
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA - Direct Archdiocesan District
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,990
  • "In those days I will pour out my Spirit..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #734 on: July 28, 2014, 08:35:02 PM »

Offline Arachne

  • Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,673
  • Off to see the wizard!
  • Faith: Cradle Greek Orthodox. Cope.
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese, UK
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #735 on: July 28, 2014, 08:41:28 PM »
'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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!
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: Strange icons
« 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.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,433
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline kelly

  • UNSUBSCRIBED
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,428
  • St. Olga Nikolaevna
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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 »
"But we must live in the world, having peace in our soul. We must live amidst strangers; we must suffer, struggle, and firmly believe. We must seek our consolation in prayer and not doubt the love and compassion of God. He is above everyone and everything."

Offline Ekdikos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: Strange icons
« 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 "

Offline CopticDeacon

  • Αναγνώστης(Reader) in the God-loving Diocese of New York and New England
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 627
  • St. Macarius, the Spirit Bearer, Pray for Us!
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
"I see the heavens opened up, and the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God"
-St. Stephen the Archdeacon and Protomartyr

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline CopticDeacon

  • Αναγνώστης(Reader) in the God-loving Diocese of New York and New England
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 627
  • St. Macarius, the Spirit Bearer, Pray for Us!
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
"I see the heavens opened up, and the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God"
-St. Stephen the Archdeacon and Protomartyr

Offline JamesLesser

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: Strange icons
« 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.

No longer posting.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,433
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline Anna.T

  • Bond-slave to Christ Jesus
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,060
  • Κύριε, ἐλέησον!
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #746 on: August 01, 2014, 09:15:25 PM »
http://indigenousjesus.blogspot.com/2012/11/father-john-giuliani-painter-of-native.html



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.
Aγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς

Let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Offline Anna.T

  • Bond-slave to Christ Jesus
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,060
  • Κύριε, ἐλέησον!
Re: Strange icons
« 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.)
Aγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς

Let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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 »
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Όμηρίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
  • What does everyone look like?
  • Faith: More Neronov than Avvakum
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite Chapelist
Re: Strange icons
« 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 »
Quote from: The Life of Ivan Neronov
[Ecclesiastics] conspired against him because they hated his teaching for its zealous emphasis on proper Christian conduct: with great courage he denounced all whom he saw behaving in an ungodly fashion... [As such] he was deprived of his priestly rank, bound in iron chains, and broken down in jails.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Sam G

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 620
  • All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #751 on: August 01, 2014, 11:58:38 PM »


Is this the "Ancient of Days" or God the Father?
All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Όμηρίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
  • What does everyone look like?
  • Faith: More Neronov than Avvakum
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite Chapelist
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
Quote from: The Life of Ivan Neronov
[Ecclesiastics] conspired against him because they hated his teaching for its zealous emphasis on proper Christian conduct: with great courage he denounced all whom he saw behaving in an ungodly fashion... [As such] he was deprived of his priestly rank, bound in iron chains, and broken down in jails.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« Reply #753 on: August 01, 2014, 11:59:47 PM »


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

God the Father.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Sam G

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 620
  • All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.
Re: Strange icons
« 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?
All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: Strange icons
« 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?

Offline Sam G

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 620
  • All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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 »
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: Strange icons
« 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.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Όμηρίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
  • What does everyone look like?
  • Faith: More Neronov than Avvakum
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite Chapelist
Re: Strange icons
« 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 »
Quote from: The Life of Ivan Neronov
[Ecclesiastics] conspired against him because they hated his teaching for its zealous emphasis on proper Christian conduct: with great courage he denounced all whom he saw behaving in an ungodly fashion... [As such] he was deprived of his priestly rank, bound in iron chains, and broken down in jails.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Όμηρίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
  • What does everyone look like?
  • Faith: More Neronov than Avvakum
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite Chapelist
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
Quote from: The Life of Ivan Neronov
[Ecclesiastics] conspired against him because they hated his teaching for its zealous emphasis on proper Christian conduct: with great courage he denounced all whom he saw behaving in an ungodly fashion... [As such] he was deprived of his priestly rank, bound in iron chains, and broken down in jails.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • "Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,285
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Strange icons
« 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?
One hides amid pornography, angry music, television that shows the worst of mankind, misanthropic politics, an internet populace led by all the passions: and then one asks, "Where is God?"


This member is no longer active.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: Strange icons
« 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).

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,331
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Όμηρίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
  • What does everyone look like?
  • Faith: More Neronov than Avvakum
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite Chapelist
Re: Strange icons
« 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.
Quote from: The Life of Ivan Neronov
[Ecclesiastics] conspired against him because they hated his teaching for its zealous emphasis on proper Christian conduct: with great courage he denounced all whom he saw behaving in an ungodly fashion... [As such] he was deprived of his priestly rank, bound in iron chains, and broken down in jails.