Topic: Strange icons

[Jules_Grant]

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

[sheenj]

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

You can buy it here

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

[88Devin12]

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

You can buy it here

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

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

[Jules_Grant]

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

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

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

Haha, I just realised. I missed the difference.

[LBK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

[LBK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LBK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LBK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Asteriktos]

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

[Asteriktos]

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

[William]

yo

[LBK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I simply cannot take ultra-conservative Orthodox seriously anymore.

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

[LBK]

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

[mike]

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mike]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LBK]

intellectual, rational, scholarly Orthodoxy

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

[Shanghaiski]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shanghaiski]

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

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

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

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

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

[LBK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You beat me to it, Shanghaiski.

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

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

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

[mabsoota]

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

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

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

[mabsoota]

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

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

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



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

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

[88Devin12]

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AustralianDiaspora]

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

[Shanghaiski]

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

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

[Dominika]

Just a little strange -I mean this beard

[LBK]

Just a little strange -I mean this beard

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

[mabsoota]

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

 

[That person]

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

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

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

[mike]

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

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

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

ty

[LizaSymonenko]

So, what about this one?

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

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

Does it seem strange to anyone else?



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

[LizaSymonenko]

...as compared to this one...

[NicholasMyra]

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

[mike]

So, what about this one?

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

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

Does it seem strange to anyone else?



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

Yes, something's wrong with that.

[LBK]

So, what about this one?

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

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

Does it seem strange to anyone else?



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

Yes, something's wrong with that.

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

[choy]

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

Or being cleansed from Original Sin at the moment of conception