Author Topic: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar  (Read 6093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #45 on: September 24, 2010, 03:45:05 PM »
All joking aside, this is one of the most ridiculous converstations I have ever read. Just sayin'.

I didn't expect it to get so many replies.
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #46 on: September 24, 2010, 03:48:29 PM »
just that w/o the Theotokos

Why should the Theotokos not be in the icon at all?  :-\

The way I've heard it explained is that the Theotokos represents the Church in icons (for example, in the Ascension icon), but in the Pentecost icon the Church is represented by the college of the apostles. Someone should correct me if that's wrong. I've already repeated one erroneous thing I heard today about boredom which turned out to be BS lol.

Why can't the Apostles with the three women collectively represent the Church?  :-\
wrong thread
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2010, 03:54:00 PM »
just that w/o the Theotokos

Why should the Theotokos not be in the icon at all?  :-\

The way I've heard it explained is that the Theotokos represents the Church in icons (for example, in the Ascension icon), but in the Pentecost icon the Church is represented by the college of the apostles. Someone should correct me if that's wrong. I've already repeated one erroneous thing I heard today about boredom which turned out to be BS lol.

Why can't the Apostles with the three women collectively represent the Church?  :-\
wrong thread


lol
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2010, 04:50:26 PM »
Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous alright.  ::)
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,580
  • Barlaam and Josaphat
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2010, 05:14:45 PM »
I've found this thread to be quite enlightening, personally. 8)
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2010, 05:23:28 PM »



I had no idea that there was anything wrong with it.  
Well at least the Apostle John is depicted as beardless, unlike those earlier Coptic icons presented  ;D

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #51 on: September 24, 2010, 05:32:58 PM »



I had no idea that there was anything wrong with it.  
Well at least the Apostle John is depicted as beardless, unlike those earlier Coptic icons presented  ;D

Bearded John is a pretty recent innovation in the Coptic church, from what I can tell:

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #52 on: September 24, 2010, 06:48:49 PM »
Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous alright.  ::)

Over the top, sure. Ridiculous even, if by ridiculous you mean something like laugh-able. But if you mean, unimportant, stupid, or pointless, I disagree. There is such a thing as serious silliness.

For example, I for one thought ialmisry's photo response to your question above was pretty funny.... But it was also a serious answer to your question, and a good critique of your line of thinking.

What is not serious or important about the correct making, veneration, and understanding of icons? These things are not matters of indifference, but of great importance.
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #53 on: September 24, 2010, 06:54:24 PM »
For example, I for one thought ialmisry's photo response to your question above was pretty funny.... But it was also a serious answer to your question, and a good critique of your line of thinking.

If it was serious then I would have to say that I think the idea that the three women along with the Apostles cannot represent the Church it totally ridiculous.

What is not serious or important about the correct making, veneration, and understanding of icons? These things are not matters of indifference, but of great importance.

I'm not saying the issue is not serious. I'm saying your perspective on it is ridiculous.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #54 on: September 24, 2010, 07:28:42 PM »
For example, I for one thought ialmisry's photo response to your question above was pretty funny.... But it was also a serious answer to your question, and a good critique of your line of thinking.

If it was serious then I would have to say that I think the idea that the three women along with the Apostles cannot represent the Church it totally ridiculous.
As I said already, you're implying a can't where there's only an isn't. Maybe you could represent the Church that way, but that isn't the way the Church has chosen to do it. And the Church's ideas about how best to do things are a lot more interesting to me than yours, frankly.
What is not serious or important about the correct making, veneration, and understanding of icons? These things are not matters of indifference, but of great importance.

I'm not saying the issue is not serious. I'm saying your perspective on it is ridiculous.

Unlike you, I haven't given my personal perspective. I've merely
pointed out the views of others, things I've read, heard, etc., within the Orthodox Tradition.
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #55 on: September 24, 2010, 07:33:08 PM »
As I said already, you're implying a can't where there's only an isn't. Maybe you could represent the Church that way, but that isn't the way the Church has chosen to do it. And the Church's ideas about how best to do things are a lot more interesting to me than yours, frankly.

Well, I know that the Church actually has chosen to represent the Church by the 12 Apostles and the 3 women.

Unlike you, I haven't given my personal perspective. I've merely
pointed out the views of others, things I've read, heard, etc., within the Orthodox Tradition.

Both you and ialmisry have expressed the opinion that it is improper to include the Theotokos in the Pentecost icon.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2010, 08:56:35 PM »
As I said already, you're implying a can't where there's only an isn't. Maybe you could represent the Church that way, but that isn't the way the Church has chosen to do it. And the Church's ideas about how best to do things are a lot more interesting to me than yours, frankly.

Well, I know that the Church actually has chosen to represent the Church by the 12 Apostles and the 3 women.


Do you know that? What of the OO icon mentioned in this thread as not having the Theotokos? Is that icon wrong and the ones you posted right simply because you prefer the latter? Your insistence on sitting in judgment above the Church (however you conceive of it, "Byzantine" or Coptic) is remarkable.
Quote
Both you and ialmisry have expressed the opinion that it is improper to include the Theotokos in the Pentecost icon.


The only personal opinion I expressed was that it seemed to me to be theologically richer and therefore better, w/o the Theotokos.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 09:24:13 PM by JLatimer »
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
    • Facebook
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #57 on: September 24, 2010, 09:05:52 PM »
As I said already, you're implying a can't where there's only an isn't. Maybe you could represent the Church that way, but that isn't the way the Church has chosen to do it. And the Church's ideas about how best to do things are a lot more interesting to me than yours, frankly.

Well, I know that the Church actually has chosen to represent the Church by the 12 Apostles and the 3 women.


Do you know that? What of the OO icon mentioned in this thread as not having the Theotokos? Is that icon wrong and the ones you posted right simply because you prefer the latter? Your insistence on sitting in judgment above the Church (however you conceive of it, "Byzantine" or Coptic) is remarkable. That's all from me to you.

Clever twisting of the facts there.

I never expressed exclusion of icons that don't have the Theotokos.

On the contrary, you are the one who expressed exclusion of icons that do have her.
I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #58 on: September 24, 2010, 11:14:19 PM »
As I said already, you're implying a can't where there's only an isn't. Maybe you could represent the Church that way, but that isn't the way the Church has chosen to do it. And the Church's ideas about how best to do things are a lot more interesting to me than yours, frankly.

Well, I know that the Church actually has chosen to represent the Church by the 12 Apostles and the 3 women.


Do you know that? What of the OO icon mentioned in this thread as not having the Theotokos? Is that icon wrong and the ones you posted right simply because you prefer the latter? Your insistence on sitting in judgment above the Church (however you conceive of it, "Byzantine" or Coptic) is remarkable. That's all from me to you.

Clever twisting of the facts there.

Clever inability to read the thread there.

I never expressed exclusion of icons that don't have the Theotokos.

Perhaps.

On the contrary, you are the one who expressed exclusion of icons that do have her.

Wrong. I expressed no such thing.

Quote from: JLatimer
I'm guessing the "correct" version is a rather late development. Personally, I think it's richer (and the ecclesiology it conveys is shared by EOs and OOs alike as far as I know), but personally I don't think the one with the Theotokos is heretical, just that w/o the Theotokos  (and with St Paul, St Luke, and this Cosmos guy) is better.

How is that exclusionary?

Another thing I didn't do is call your opinion ridiculous.

That's actually all I have to say to you.
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,201
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2010, 11:32:00 PM »
My icon is better than yours because if you understand theology that way, it makes more sense.  So ne-nene-nene-ne!
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

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

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,395
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2010, 12:53:18 PM »
All joking aside, this is one of the most ridiculous converstations I have ever read. Just sayin'.
Well if it's any consolation, I like the Icon that you chose for your avatar.

Offline Salpy

  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,068
  • New Martyrs of Libya pray for us!
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2010, 01:07:55 PM »
I like it too.   :)

Offline Salpy

  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,068
  • New Martyrs of Libya pray for us!
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2010, 08:16:08 PM »
This is really interesting.  In the new Armenian Cathedral which was just consecrated a couple of weeks ago, there is an icon of Pentecost which does not have the Mother of God in it.  My friends and I thought that was weird, since you normally see her in it, like in this 14th century manuscript miniature:



I had no idea that there was anything wrong with it.  

A very kind person just put the Pentecost icon from the newly consecrated St. Leon Armenian Cathedral in Burbank, on flicker so that I could post it here:





http://www.flickr.com/photos/29444643@N03/page2/

Thank you, kind person.   :)
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 08:17:16 PM by Salpy »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2010, 08:59:11 PM »
This is really interesting.  In the new Armenian Cathedral which was just consecrated a couple of weeks ago, there is an icon of Pentecost which does not have the Mother of God in it.  My friends and I thought that was weird, since you normally see her in it, like in this 14th century manuscript miniature:



I had no idea that there was anything wrong with it.  

A very kind person just put the Pentecost icon from the newly consecrated St. Leon Armenian Cathedral in Burbank, on flicker so that I could post it here:





http://www.flickr.com/photos/29444643@N03/page2/

Thank you, kind person.   :)
Now THAT's an icon!
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #64 on: November 17, 2011, 02:21:01 PM »
just that w/o the Theotokos

Why should the Theotokos not be in the icon at all?  :-\

The way I've heard it explained is that the Theotokos represents the Church in icons (for example, in the Ascension icon), but in the Pentecost icon the Church is represented by the college of the apostles. Someone should correct me if that's wrong. I've already repeated one erroneous thing I heard today about boredom which turned out to be BS lol.

The Theotokos is seen as mother of the Church, at least in the Catholic Church.
Somewhere here Fr. Ambrose has posted the perplexity of the Melkites over this when the Vatican was debating it at Vatican II.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline J.M.C

  • Слава Богу за всё!
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • A Reader's Guide to Orthodox Icons
Re: The (surprise surprise) bad ecclesiology of Papist's avatar
« Reply #65 on: November 17, 2011, 05:22:35 PM »
Quote



http://www.flickr.com/photos/29444643@N03/page2/

Thank you, kind person.   :)
Now THAT's an icon!

Except it represents the Holy Spirit as a dove, doesn't have an empty "teacher's" seat in the centre, and puts what I assume is an image of the Burbank cathedral in the space where Cosmos should be depicted in darkness.  :P

On the Pentecost Icon, I do agree that the empty seat conveys the true structure of the Church better than if the Theotokos is sat there. The central seat is meant for the "head" of the assembly, and by having it empty it reminds us that the head is Jesus Christ, Who is invisibly present until the Second Coming. However, I can understand why some would put the Mother of God there. The Holy Spirit is the vicar (representative) of Christ on earth, Who dwells within Christians; the Mother of God represents the best example of what a true Christian is.

I don't think you can use the presence of the Mother of god in the centre of the Pentecost icon as an argument against the RC Church. What you can use is the fact that in no Icon of the Pentecost - East, West, North, or South, will you see St Peter sat on the central teacher's seat. Given that the Pope is meant to be the Vicar of Christ in Roman ecclesiology, they're actually missing a bit of a trick by not putting St Peter in the central seat of the Pentecost Icon. I suppose its an historical witness that the Pope as Vicar of Christ - and St Peter as first "Head" of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - is not to be found.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 05:22:57 PM by J.M.C »
IC XC
NI KA