Author Topic: The Sacred Heart  (Read 75121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #270 on: August 24, 2011, 08:15:41 PM »
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #271 on: August 24, 2011, 08:20:11 PM »
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.

Certainly, with respect to the variable parts of the liturgy.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #272 on: August 24, 2011, 08:25:55 PM »
Also on a related note, it seems to me that many Orthodox both writing for a print to paper media audience and here on the internet can't seem to differentiate between Catholic piety and Catholic spirituality.  There is a HUGE difference.  Catholic spirituality is liturgical and scriptural at its core, and depends on the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, saints and doctors of the Church.  Catholic piety is more often para-liturgical and sentimental, by design.  I often wonder if such a differentiation can be made in Orthodoxy.   Father Ambrose keeps writing that little squib about Toll Houses as something the peasants might do, but I don't see any peasants in Orthodoxy...everybody seems to be much further advanced than that.

Re the bolded part: In my five decades of direct Orthodox experience, spanning several jurisdictions and ethnicities, the "paraliturgical" and "sentimental" pious expressions in the Orthodox world are squarely rooted in post-schism western influence, particularly so that which dates from the 17th century onwards. If you know your history, EM, you'll know why this is the case.  ;)
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #273 on: August 24, 2011, 08:27:21 PM »
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.

Certainly, with respect to the variable parts of the liturgy.

I'm not talking about the daily variations specified in the Typikon (and its RCC equivalent), and you know it.  :P
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #274 on: August 24, 2011, 08:32:15 PM »
Quote
but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

Does this mean that different places in the RC world use different hymnography in their services? i.e. some more evocative, some more spare? This can be concluded from your post.

Certainly, with respect to the variable parts of the liturgy.

I'm not talking about the daily variations specified in the Typikon (and its RCC equivalent), and you know it.  :P

Sorry.  I answered your question as accurately as possible.  Small changes in music, hymns and variable prayers, to many who are not sensitive to the structure of the liturgy and the invariant prayers, make a HUGE difference in what they "see" in essentially the same liturgy.

I thought it was something like that toward which you were driving the discussion.

I plead innocence FWIW.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #275 on: August 24, 2011, 08:36:19 PM »
Also on a related note, it seems to me that many Orthodox both writing for a print to paper media audience and here on the internet can't seem to differentiate between Catholic piety and Catholic spirituality.  There is a HUGE difference.  Catholic spirituality is liturgical and scriptural at its core, and depends on the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, saints and doctors of the Church.  Catholic piety is more often para-liturgical and sentimental, by design.  I often wonder if such a differentiation can be made in Orthodoxy.   Father Ambrose keeps writing that little squib about Toll Houses as something the peasants might do, but I don't see any peasants in Orthodoxy...everybody seems to be much further advanced than that.

Re the bolded part: In my five decades of direct Orthodox experience, spanning several jurisdictions and ethnicities, the "paraliturgical" and "sentimental" pious expressions in the Orthodox world are squarely rooted in post-schism western influence, particularly so that which dates from the 17th century onwards. If you know your history, EM, you'll know why this is the case.  ;)

I consider the Paraklesis to the Theotokos and those to other saints to be paraliturgical prayer.  Also Moleben, and Akathist prayers are paraliturgical and form a kind of bridge between local devotional practices and full liturgical practice.

So I also consider certain paraliturgical services in the Catholic Church to also serve as a kind of formal bridge between the local grannies and their local practices and devotions.

Certainly not all of it has been cribbed from the west....really.

M.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #276 on: August 24, 2011, 08:57:00 PM »
Services such as akathists and molebens/parakleses can be considered "paraliturgical" only in the sense that "readers' services", including the DL, can be considered "paraliturgical". In other words, there are defined rubrics to these services according to whether they are served in a church by a priest, or as part of private, laymen's devotions. The difference in content between priestly and "private" versions of these services is minuscule, and essentially limited to ekphoneses at the ends of litanies, and, of course, in a reader's DL, there is no consecration of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the theological and doctrinal content specific to these services is identical.

Try again, Mary.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #277 on: August 24, 2011, 09:13:34 PM »
Services such as akathists and molebens/parakleses can be considered "paraliturgical" only in the sense that "readers' services", including the DL, can be considered "paraliturgical". In other words, there are defined rubrics to these services according to whether they are served in a church by a priest, or as part of private, laymen's devotions. The difference in content between priestly and "private" versions of these services is minuscule, and essentially limited to ekphoneses at the ends of litanies, and, of course, in a reader's DL, there is no consecration of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the theological and doctrinal content specific to these services is identical.

Try again, Mary.

What is wrong with you?  I am not trying anything.

I was trying to talk to you but apparently it is a contest and you are hiding the rule-book.

Play it out all on your own.

I'll tell you this much, you and I don't define liturgy the same way.

I've never heard an Orthodox priest say that Paraklesis, Akathist or Moleben are anything but paraliturgical...but that starts a whole other argument so...who cares...no skin off my Catholic nose.


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #278 on: August 24, 2011, 09:15:09 PM »

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)


We see the same in reverse on ByzantineCatholic.org and Catholic Answers Forum where Catholics, with  breathtaking assurance, can write a load of absolute tosh about Orthodoxy.

Here on OC.net things are complicated since many of us are converts from Roman Catholicism and reasonably well versed, but the older among us know virtually zilch about the Novus Ordo Church and remember the pre-Vatican II Church.   This is a recipe for miscommunication since contemporary Catholics of the younger generation do not know so much about the piety and ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church.  

We see an example in this thread where those of us who remember the days of heavy emphasis on the sufferings and the crucxifion (remember how that was drummed into all priests' subliminal consciousness every day, celebrating Mass with the page opposite the Canon and Words of Institution devoted to a full-sized graphic of Christ suffering on the Cross.)     But now it seems that things are moving towards a better balance of Cross and Resurrection.  Those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church before these changes started to occur do not really know about them.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #279 on: August 24, 2011, 09:23:35 PM »

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)


We see the same in reverse on ByzantineCatholic.org and Catholic Answers Forum where Catholics, with  breathtaking assurance, can write a load of absolute tosh about Orthodoxy.

Here on OC.net things are complicated since many of us are converts from Roman Catholicism and reasonably well versed, but the older among us know virtually zilch about the Novus Ordo Church and remember the pre-Vatican II Church.   This is a recipe for miscommunication since contemporary Catholics of the younger generation do not know so much about the piety and ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church.  

We see an example in this thread where those of us who remember the days of heavy emphasis on the sufferings and the crucxifion (remember how that was drummed into all priests' subliminal consciousness every day, celebrating Mass with the page opposite the Canon and Words of Institution devoted to a full-sized graphic of Christ suffering on the Cross.)     But now it seems that things are moving towards a better balance of Cross and Resurrection.  Those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church before these changes started to occur do not really know about them.

You cannot play that with me.  I am your age...near enough.  Father Hal is older than you are by nearly 15 years and he says sometimes your "perspective" is pretty darn local.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #280 on: August 24, 2011, 09:25:50 PM »
Services such as akathists and molebens/parakleses can be considered "paraliturgical" only in the sense that "readers' services", including the DL, can be considered "paraliturgical". In other words, there are defined rubrics to these services according to whether they are served in a church by a priest, or as part of private, laymen's devotions. The difference in content between priestly and "private" versions of these services is minuscule, and essentially limited to ekphoneses at the ends of litanies, and, of course, in a reader's DL, there is no consecration of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the theological and doctrinal content specific to these services is identical.
They are also different as the rubrics/service books call for the parakleses to be offered as a service, for instance, during the Dormition Fast, as the Akathist is offered during Great Lent, etc. They are also incorporated into the common office of compline etc.

There are parakleses and Akathists to other saints etc., but they only differ in the hymns as far as specific subject, not structure.

Try again, Mary.
Please don't.  Time is precious.
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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #281 on: August 24, 2011, 09:29:19 PM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #282 on: August 24, 2011, 09:34:40 PM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?
Yes. Constantinople has a rite which contains the rituals of the divine services. The WRO have different rituals for the divine service.
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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #283 on: August 24, 2011, 09:44:07 PM »

Where I really see the imbalance is in Orthodoxy writing about Catholic piety and here on the Internet.  Most of the really bloody Sacred Heart images don't make it to the book stores... ;)


We see the same in reverse on ByzantineCatholic.org and Catholic Answers Forum where Catholics, with  breathtaking assurance, can write a load of absolute tosh about Orthodoxy.

Here on OC.net things are complicated since many of us are converts from Roman Catholicism and reasonably well versed, but the older among us know virtually zilch about the Novus Ordo Church and remember the pre-Vatican II Church.   This is a recipe for miscommunication since contemporary Catholics of the younger generation do not know so much about the piety and ethos of the pre-Vatican II Church.  

We see an example in this thread where those of us who remember the days of heavy emphasis on the sufferings and the crucxifion (remember how that was drummed into all priests' subliminal consciousness every day, celebrating Mass with the page opposite the Canon and Words of Institution devoted to a full-sized graphic of Christ suffering on the Cross.)     But now it seems that things are moving towards a better balance of Cross and Resurrection.  Those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church before these changes started to occur do not really know about them.

You cannot play that with me.  I am your age...near enough.  Father Hal is older than you are by nearly 15 years and he says sometimes your "perspective" is pretty darn local.

I watched my brother, very devout and in seminary after high school, try so hard to hold onto the old Church of the 1960s.  He kept it alive in his head and fought, successfully, to convince himself that the new Mass, as much as he detested it, still brought him a true Eucharist.  How he suffered as Peter, Paul and Mary took over the Mass and Protestant hymns became the norm, and the rosary was scoffed at by the priests and even Benediction too, and nuns who had been his friends took off their habits and went in search of themselves... while friends in the clergy were laicised and married the nuns.

But as the years and decades went by he could not keep the struggle up.  Memories of the old ways grew blurry.  All around him was the unrelenting reality and the dreary paucity of the Novus Ordo.  I would say he held it at bay for  over 15 years, until the 1980s, when he surrendered.

I know he was not alone in this sad process.....there were many fellow travellers.    I wonder if you and Father Hal went through anything similar?  Or did Fr Hal find his refuge in Byzantine Catholicism?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #284 on: August 24, 2011, 09:57:03 PM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 09:58:48 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #285 on: August 24, 2011, 11:44:21 PM »
Try again, Mary.
Please don't.  Time is precious.

Point taken, my dear friend.  :-*  :laugh: :laugh:
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,124
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #286 on: August 25, 2011, 12:29:40 AM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Perhaps my memory is not serving me at the moment, but I cannot recall seeing the word "ritual" used in an Orthodox context.  Is this word employed formally in Orthodoxy?  When I think of the word "ritual", I mostly think of negative appraisals of Orthodoxy by Protestants, as "ritualistic" or as being "all about ritual".  I cannot recall encountering the word "ritual" in an Orthodox service book or Orthodox context in generally.  If I am mistaken, perhaps someone could provide examples of its usage. 

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #287 on: August 25, 2011, 09:09:31 AM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?

All texts for the administration of the principle [seven] sacraments are rites.

There are no firm lines but it seems to me that one can begin to separate formal liturgy from ritual or para-liturgical services, by being able to distinguish rite from ritual.

In that light there are many more para-liturgical rituals in the eastern services than there are in the west.  Since there are fewer para-liturgical rituals in the western services then that gap tends to be filled in by public devotional prayers.

A paraliturgical ritual in the west for example would be Benediction, or the churching of women.

Public devotional prayer would be Novenas, or the Way of the Cross, for example, although I think a case could be made for the Way of the Cross being a paraliturgical ritual, which is why I say there are no hard and fast lines that I can see.

This has nothing to do with the truth-value or the theological worth of any of these public prayers.  It simply points out one of the things that I consider a real difference between east and west. 

The presences of Paraklesis, Akathist, and Moleben in the eastern services was one of the thing, perhaps the first primary thing, that attracted me to the east.  The one public ritual I miss is Benediction and Adoration, but it is not as though I could not go if I wanted to on the days when the local Roman rite parishes have Benediction after their morning liturgy.  But I tend not to be drawn to the more sentimental private devotions in the west [I don't consider the Way of the Cross to be sentimental and keep it as a private devotion] and I was seeking more community involvement in prayer back when I made the choice to transfer canonically to the east.

I suppose all of this is apropos of pretty much nothing and I reveal these things in the midst of hostility so I must be getting even more stupid in my old age.

M.


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #288 on: August 25, 2011, 09:28:49 AM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?

All texts for the administration of the principle [seven] sacraments are rites.

There are no firm lines but it seems to me that one can begin to separate formal liturgy from ritual or para-liturgical services, by being able to distinguish rite from ritual.

In that light there are many more para-liturgical rituals in the eastern services than there are in the west.  Since there are fewer para-liturgical rituals in the western services then that gap tends to be filled in by public devotional prayers.

A paraliturgical ritual in the west for example would be Benediction, or the churching of women.

Public devotional prayer would be Novenas, or the Way of the Cross, for example, although I think a case could be made for the Way of the Cross being a paraliturgical ritual, which is why I say there are no hard and fast lines that I can see.

This has nothing to do with the truth-value or the theological worth of any of these public prayers.  It simply points out one of the things that I consider a real difference between east and west. 

The presences of Paraklesis, Akathist, and Moleben in the eastern services was one of the thing, perhaps the first primary thing, that attracted me to the east.  The one public ritual I miss is Benediction and Adoration, but it is not as though I could not go if I wanted to on the days when the local Roman rite parishes have Benediction after their morning liturgy.  But I tend not to be drawn to the more sentimental private devotions in the west [I don't consider the Way of the Cross to be sentimental and keep it as a private devotion] and I was seeking more community involvement in prayer back when I made the choice to transfer canonically to the east.

I suppose all of this is apropos of pretty much nothing and I reveal these things in the midst of hostility so I must be getting even more stupid in my old age.

M.



I have never heard the term "liturgy" used in Orthodoxy except to mean the Liturgy, the Eucharistic service, and "liturgical" refers only to that one unique service.

The wider use of "liturgy"  to include other services and to describe them as "liturgical" is part of the West's vocabulary.

Given Orthodoxy's restrictive use of "liturgical"  I don't think that "paraliturgical" has any meaning in the East.

I may be wrong?  But can anybody think when an Orthodox author has referred to Vespers as "liturgical" or to the Wedding service as a liturgical act, or to the serving of a moleben or Akathist as liturgical?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #289 on: August 25, 2011, 09:32:17 AM »
Does Orthodoxy differentiate between a rite and a ritual?

Yes, if speaking in a scholarly way.  But even our service books do not bother to maintain any firm distinction  and so we have

The Rite of Crowning

The Rite of a Second Marriage

The Rite of Ordaining a Deaconess.

Probably Catholics would prefer to label these as rituals rather than rites?

All texts for the administration of the principle [seven] sacraments are rites.

There are no firm lines but it seems to me that one can begin to separate formal liturgy from ritual or para-liturgical services, by being able to distinguish rite from ritual.

In that light there are many more para-liturgical rituals in the eastern services than there are in the west.  Since there are fewer para-liturgical rituals in the western services then that gap tends to be filled in by public devotional prayers.

A paraliturgical ritual in the west for example would be Benediction, or the churching of women.

Public devotional prayer would be Novenas, or the Way of the Cross, for example, although I think a case could be made for the Way of the Cross being a paraliturgical ritual, which is why I say there are no hard and fast lines that I can see.

This has nothing to do with the truth-value or the theological worth of any of these public prayers.  It simply points out one of the things that I consider a real difference between east and west. 

The presences of Paraklesis, Akathist, and Moleben in the eastern services was one of the thing, perhaps the first primary thing, that attracted me to the east.  The one public ritual I miss is Benediction and Adoration, but it is not as though I could not go if I wanted to on the days when the local Roman rite parishes have Benediction after their morning liturgy.  But I tend not to be drawn to the more sentimental private devotions in the west [I don't consider the Way of the Cross to be sentimental and keep it as a private devotion] and I was seeking more community involvement in prayer back when I made the choice to transfer canonically to the east.

I suppose all of this is apropos of pretty much nothing and I reveal these things in the midst of hostility so I must be getting even more stupid in my old age.

M.



I have never heard the term "liturgy" used in Orthodoxy except to mean the Liturgy, the Eucharistic service, and "liturgical" refers only to that one unique service.

The wider use of "liturgy"  to include other services and to describe them as "liturgical" is part of the West's vocabulary.

Given Orthodoxy's restrictive use of "liturgical"  I don't think that "paraliturgical" has any meaning in the East.

I may be wrong?  But can anybody think when an Orthodox author has referred to Vespers as "liturgical" or to the Wedding service as a liturgical act, or to the serving of a moleben or Akathist as liturgical?

This is quite surprising.  I had always understood the Holy Hours to be foundational liturgical prayer...east and west.

I first learned the word para-liturgical on the ustav list, so I assumed it was not an uncommon use in Orthodoxy.

Mary

PS: I should note that I prefer rite and ritual to liturgical and paraliturgical because paraliturgics, in modern parlance, often means corrupted liturgies, though that is not a necessary meaning of the term at all, so I will use it if I think it will not be misunderstood in that way.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 09:39:17 AM by elijahmaria »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #290 on: August 25, 2011, 09:46:00 AM »
This is quite surprising.  I had always understood the Holy Hours to be foundational liturgical prayer...east and west.

I first learned the word para-liturgical on the ustav list, so I assumed it was not an uncommon use in Orthodoxy.


Just sent off a query to that list.

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #291 on: August 25, 2011, 10:18:48 AM »
I don't have much experience in these matters, but for what it's worth: the only time I've run across the term "paraliturgical" in Orthodoxy is for special hymns—not themselves liturgical texts, but often based on them—which can be sung during the people's communion. Examples I am familiar with include "Receive me today", "Jesus remember me", "I give you my peace", etc.

Richard Toensing's Nativity carols, all based on liturgical texts, are also labeled as paraliturgical.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #292 on: August 25, 2011, 10:34:44 AM »
I don't have much experience in these matters, but for what it's worth: the only time I've run across the term "paraliturgical" in Orthodoxy is for special hymns—not themselves liturgical texts, but often based on them—which can be sung during the people's communion. Examples I am familiar with include "Receive me today", "Jesus remember me", "I give you my peace", etc.

Richard Toensing's Nativity carols, all based on liturgical texts, are also labeled as paraliturgical.

Yes.  My understanding too.  And  hymns or prayers pulled from liturgy or reaching through liturgy back to the Scriptural root of the liturgical prayer...I ask?....It seems to extend to that as well but I am not sure if that would be formally acceptable.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #293 on: August 25, 2011, 10:35:39 AM »
This is quite surprising.  I had always understood the Holy Hours to be foundational liturgical prayer...east and west.

I first learned the word para-liturgical on the ustav list, so I assumed it was not an uncommon use in Orthodoxy.


Just sent off a query to that list.

Yep...I saw that.  Looking forward to the responses.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,659
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #294 on: August 25, 2011, 11:25:50 AM »
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

I can buy this.  I grew up in a parish where there was a balance, but it was also a decidedly Novus Ordo parish (reverently celebrated, for the most part).  However, when I started visiting other, more "traditional" parishes in my 20s, I certainly noticed an imbalance.

Just my experience, which I like to think is more broad than the average RC.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #295 on: August 25, 2011, 11:40:14 AM »
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

I can buy this.  I grew up in a parish where there was a balance, but it was also a decidedly Novus Ordo parish (reverently celebrated, for the most part).  However, when I started visiting other, more "traditional" parishes in my 20s, I certainly noticed an imbalance.

Just my experience, which I like to think is more broad than the average RC.

I never went to a Tenebrae service according to the Vatican's old rubrics, but I went to many Lutheran ones, which I understand were not too different, decades after V II basically abolished the service. I've been to more joyous funerals.  In fact, nearly every funeral I've been to (with the notable exception of child's) was more joyous.
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 elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #296 on: August 25, 2011, 12:03:08 PM »
Quote
this was about the West "ignoring" the Resurrection in lieu of the Crucifixion.

I did not say the west ignored the Resurrection, I said it underemphasised it relative to the Crucifixion. I also said that its religious art overemphasised the physical suffering of Christ, as evident by the religious art (statues and paintings) depicting scenes or stages of the Passion of Christ.

By contrast, the Orthodox approach, in both hymnography and in iconography, strikes a balance between the suffering humanity of Christ, and His divine power and omnipotence. We do not see a ravaged corpse on the Cross, but the God-Man willingly enduring death in His love for mankind. Even in the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels, the reading of Luke's graphic account of Christ's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane is not one of them.

Food for thought.

Fair enough, but my main point (and directive about the subsequent bickering) still stands. 

(FWIW, I agree with you, for the most part, about the lack of balance in the West) :)

I don't see it in real parish life at all.  I see it in pockets of the universal Church in the world but in the main there is a clear balance in the liturgy that transcends local habits...or should...did...does in many places...might again in other places...etc.

I can buy this.  I grew up in a parish where there was a balance, but it was also a decidedly Novus Ordo parish (reverently celebrated, for the most part).  However, when I started visiting other, more "traditional" parishes in my 20s, I certainly noticed an imbalance.

Just my experience, which I like to think is more broad than the average RC.

I grew up in traditional parishes in two cities and a village, and there was no part of the Triduum that did not anticipate the Resurrection and Pentecost and the Ascension.  And I was close-cycled liturgically for almost 20 years, so most of it was the old missal and the later years were the interim and new missals.  There was no real change in emphasis for Holy Week in terms of an extra focus on the cross that then disappeared.  The focus on Good Friday was indeed the Cross but not at the expense of anticipation.

It is difficult to measure "imbalance" in any event.  So much of all of this is personal "reading" and personal preferences.  Hard to tell sometimes.

But I think I am comfortable with your impressions in the main.


Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,476
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #297 on: August 25, 2011, 01:32:32 PM »
Re the bolded part: In my five decades of direct Orthodox experience, spanning several jurisdictions and ethnicities, the "paraliturgical" and "sentimental" pious expressions in the Orthodox world are squarely rooted in post-schism western influence, particularly so that which dates from the 17th century onwards. If you know your history, EM, you'll know why this is the case.  ;)
Can you give us an example of the 17th century (= 1600 hundreds) onwards post-schism influence of "para liturgical" services please.

Offline Robb

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,537
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #298 on: August 25, 2011, 06:51:35 PM »
A see nothing wrong with para liturgical devotions.  They are part of our RC traditions.  I can't stand it when litnick loons try to downgrad or abolish them altogether in order to make things more "liturgically correct".  I think that way too much emphasis has been given in recnet decades to the liturgy and less to the more private, personal devotions which connect individuals to God.  The RC mas these days feels more like some sort of play (Or group therapy session) Which individualism is jettisoned at the expense of communalism.

I think that they could balance things out better without either viewpoint having to be ignored or rejected for the other.
Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #299 on: August 25, 2011, 07:28:23 PM »
A see nothing wrong with para liturgical devotions.  They are part of our RC traditions.  I can't stand it when litnick loons try to downgrad or abolish them altogether in order to make things more "liturgically correct".  I think that way too much emphasis has been given in recnet decades to the liturgy and less to the more private, personal devotions which connect individuals to God.  The RC mas these days feels more like some sort of play (Or group therapy session) Which individualism is jettisoned at the expense of communalism.

I think that they could balance things out better without either viewpoint having to be ignored or rejected for the other.
part of the problem with the Vatican's para liturgical devotions is that the laity ended up doing them as they were not involved in the mass with the priests.
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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #300 on: August 25, 2011, 10:28:44 PM »
On icons of the head of St John the Baptist:

I have only encountered such of Russian provenance, not of Greek or others, and they do appear to date no earlier than about the 17th century. 


The origin and timing of an icon's birth is fascinating.

For example, there were no icons of the Holy Trinity until the 10th century with the creation of the "Hospitality of Abraham."   Actually if we look at what Paul Azkoul says, he is not sure that the Hospitality of Abraham" even is an icon of the Holy Trinity and he points out that none of the patristic writings identify the event with the three angels and Abraham at the Oak of Mamre with the Holy Trinity (is he right about that?)

It is only in Russia in the 15th century that we can affirm that with the Trinity of Andrei Rublev we are looking at an icon which was intentionally created to represent the Trinity.

Btw, not "challenging" you but hoping that your vast knowledge of iconography will provide answers.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #301 on: August 25, 2011, 11:10:00 PM »
Quote
For example, there were no icons of the Holy Trinity until the 10th century with the creation of the "Hospitality of Abraham."

There are exceedingly few surviving icons of any type dating to before the 10th century, due to the ravages of time, and, notably, iconoclasm.

Quote
Actually if we look at what Paul Azkoul says,


Paul Azkoul makes several errors in his essay on the impermissibility of depicting the Holy Trinity in any form. He confuses manifestation with incarnation. As we know, only the second person of the Holy Trinity became incarnate, but, at times, the other Persons became manifest in various ways. This is a repeated motif in the hymnography of the Trinitarian feasts of Theophany, the Transfiguration, and Pentecost. The Holy Spirit became manifest (not incarnate) as a dove at the Baptism of Christ, and manifest as tongues of fire at Pentecost. Yet, the Spirit remains Spirit, bodiless and uncircumscribable.  If God the Father became manifest in the form of a voice, and as a rushing wind, and if it is permissible to paint angels and seraphim (which are bodiless and heavenly beings) in icons, then how could it be seen as improper to paint the prefigured Holy Trinity as it was manifested at the oak of Mamre?

Azkoul also distorts the ruling of the Great Council of Moscow of 1666:

Furthermore, there were two great Synods called in more recent Church history regarding this issue, as a result of the abuses of some in Russia through western, Renaissance and non-Traditional influence. These were the Great Council of Moscow in AD 1666 and the Council of Constantinople in AD 1780. The Moscow Synod emphatically taught:

“We synodically declare that the so-called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church from the Latins.”

Notice that not only is this incorrect iconography called “recent,” but also unacceptable. Doesn’t sound like the Orthodox Faith to me.


The image denounced by the Council is the so-called New Testament Trinity, showing the Father as an old man, Christ seated next to him, and a white dove hovering above them, NOT the one painted by Andrei Rublyev. In fact, St Andrei's icon was commended at that council as being a "God-revealed image". For Azkoul, an iconographer, to distort history by claiming the Council denounced the "three angels" icon is disturbing, if not shameful.

EDIT: Link to Paul Azkoul's essay: http://www.traditionaliconography.com, click on the link to "On the Hospitality of Abraham".
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 11:15:06 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #302 on: August 25, 2011, 11:21:51 PM »
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #303 on: August 25, 2011, 11:36:16 PM »
Quote
neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."4 But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, " The Lord appeared to him." And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, "The Lord," it says," appeared to Abraham." He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom. That place of Scripture demands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, but that it was Himself? since it is said, they say, of the Father, "To the only invisible God." And yet, I could still go on to demand, in what manner "He was found in fashion as a man," before He had taken our flesh, seeing that his. feet were washed, and that He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still "in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God "?' For, pray, had He already " emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man "? when we know when it was that He did this through His birth'of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He appear as one man to Abraham? or, was not that form a reality? I could put these questions, if it had been one man that appeared to Abraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men appeared, and no one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we not here understand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons? For, lest any one should think that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels; because, whereas three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord: Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate, by a contradiction, such future cogitations and opinions, when a little while-after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, "And the Lord went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; .and Abraham returned to his place."
St. Augustine, On the Trinity.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5uSws-OzZ-sC&pg=PA62&dq=But+under+the+oak+at+Mamre+he+saw+three+men,+whom+he+invited,+and+hospitably+received,+and&hl=en#v=onepage&q=But%20under%20the%20oak%20at%20Mamre%20he%20saw%20three%20men%2C%20whom%20he%20invited%2C%20and%20hospitably%20received%2C%20and&f=false

Justin Martyr has a rather confused argument with Trypho the Jew on this:
Quote
Justin: Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mamre, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said . . .' 'Abraham went up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrha, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.'

And when I had made an end of quoting these words, I asked them if they had understood them. And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things.

Justin: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them.

I quoted once more the previous passage.

Justin: Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre, as the Scripture asserts?

Trypho: Assuredly.

Justin: Was He one of those three whom Abraham saw, and whom the Holy Spirit of prophecy describes as men?

Trypho: No; but God appeared to him, before the vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent, and having accomplished his errand, went away.

Justin: How then does the one of the three, who was in the tent, and who said, 'I shall return to you hereafter, and Sarah shall have a son,' appear to have returned when Sarah had begotten a son, and to be there declared, by the prophetic word, God? But that you may clearly discern what I say, listen to the words expressly employed by Moses; they are these: 'And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian bond-woman, whom she bore to Abraham, sporting with Isaac her son, and said to Abraham, Cast out this bond-woman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not share the inheritance of my son Isaac. And the matter seemed very grievous in Abraham sight, because of his son. But God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman. In all that Sarah has said unto you, hearken to her voice; for in Isaac shall your seed be called.' Have you perceived, then, that He who said under the oak that He would return, since He knew it would be necessary to advise Abraham to do what Sarah wished him, came back as it is written; and is God, as the words declare, when they so speak: 'God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the son, and because of the bond-woman?'

Trypho: Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels.

Justin: If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.

Trypho: Assuredly, for up to this moment this has been our belief.

Justin: Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world—above whom there is no other God—has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.

Trypho: Prove now that this is the case, that we also may agree with you. For we do not understand you to affirm that He has done or said anything contrary to the will of the Maker of all things.

Justin: The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: 'The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.'

The fourth of those who had remained with Trypho: It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham.

Justin: It is not on this ground solely that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool,' as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Your kingdom: You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.' If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham.

Trypho: Prove this; for, as you see, the day advances, and we are not prepared for such perilous replies; since never yet have we heard any man investigating, or searching into, or proving these matters; nor would we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred everything to the Scriptures: for you are very zealous in adducing proofs from them; and you are of opinion that there is no God above the Maker of all things.

Justin: You are aware, then, that the Scripture says, 'And the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I truly conceive? For I am old. Is anything impossible with God? At the time appointed shall I return to you according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.' And after a little interval: 'And the men rose up from thence, and looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha; and Abraham went with them, to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, I will not conceal from Abraham, my servant, what I do.' And again, after a little, it thus says: 'The Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is great, and their sins are very grievous. I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to their cry which has come unto me; and if not, that I may know. And the men turned away thence, and went to Sodom. But Abraham was standing before the Lord; and Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt You destroy the righteous with the wicked?'

And so on, for I do not think fit to write over again the same words, having written them all before, but shall of necessity give those by which I established the proof to Trypho and his companions. Then I proceeded to what follows, in which these words are recorded:

Justin: 'And the Lord went His way as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and [Abraham] went to his place. And there came two angels to Sodom at even. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom;' and what follows until, 'But the men put forth their hands, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door of the house;' and what follows…

Justin: … And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrha the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 56. God who appeared to Moses is distinguished from God the Father; italic emphasis ours)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lvi.html

Irenaeus:
Quote
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Your God, has anointed You. For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God— both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods. He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God— that is, the Son Himself— has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not. But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, I have said, You are gods, and all sons of the Most High. To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103306.htm

The first of the Latin Fathers, Tertullian:
Quote
Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You or made You His Christ. Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre's royal power. Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: The Sabæans, men of stature, shall pass over to You; and they shall follow after You, bound in fetters; and they shall worship You, because God is in You: for You are our God, yet we knew it not; You are the God of Israel. For here too, by saying, God is in You, and You are God, he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in You, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Spirit. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. There was One who was, and there was another with whom He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand. And Isaiah says this: Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? Now he would most certainly have said Your Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations? If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then (I ask you) call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, I have said, You are gods, and you are children of the Most High; and again, God stands in the congregation of gods; in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one only Son of God. Very well! You say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views. God forbid, (is my reply). For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter for our faith. As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who had from the beginning caused plurality (in the Divine Economy), being the second from the Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference might be distinctly settled between the worshippers of One God and the votaries of polytheism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as children of light, adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as the light of the world. Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr’s sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father God, and invoke Jesus Christ as Lord. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. For I should give the name of sun even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

Novatian (a
Quote
Chapter 18. Moreover Also, from the Fact that He Who Was Seen of Abraham is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; But of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.

Behold, the same Moses tells us in another place that God was seen of Abraham. And yet the same Moses hears from God, that no man can see God and live. If God cannot be seen, how was God seen? Or if He was seen, how is it that He cannot be seen? For John also says, No man has seen God at any time; and the Apostle Paul, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. But certainly the Scripture does not lie; therefore, truly, God was seen. Whence it may be understood that it was not the Father who was seen, seeing that He never was seen; but the Son, who has both been accustomed to descend, and to be seen because He has descended. For He is the image of the invisible God, as the imperfection and frailty of the human condition was accustomed sometimes even then to see God the Father in the image of God, that is, in the Son of God. For gradually and by progression human frailty was to be strengthened by the image to that glory of being able one day to see God the Father. For the things that are great are dangerous if they are sudden. For even the sudden light of the sun after darkness, with its too great splendour, will not make manifest the light of day to unaccustomed eyes, but will rather strike them with blindness.

And lest this should occur to the injury of human eyes, the darkness is broken up and scattered by degrees; and the rising of that luminary, mounting by small and unperceived increments, gently accustoms men's eyes to bear its full orb by the gentle increase of its rays. Thus, therefore, Christ also— that is, the image of God, and the Son of God— is looked upon by men, inasmuch as He could be seen. And thus the weakness and imperfection of the human destiny is nourished, led up, and educated by Him; so that, being accustomed to look upon the Son, it may one day be able to see God the Father Himself also as He is, that it may not be stricken by His sudden and intolerable brightness, and be hindered from being able to see God the Father, whom it has always desired. Wherefore it is the Son who is seen; but the Son of God is the Word of God: and the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. What in the world is the reason that we should hesitate to call Him God, who in so many ways is acknowledged to be proved God? And if, moreover, the angel meets with Hagar, Sarah's maid, driven from her home as well as turned away, near the fountain of water in the way to Shur; asks and learns the reason of her flight, and after that offers her advice that she should humble herself; and, moreover, gives her the hope of the name of mother, and pledges and promises that from her womb there should be a numerous seed, and that she should have Ishmael to be born from her; and with other things unfolds the place of his habitation, and describes his mode of life; yet Scripture sets forth this angel as both Lord and God— for He would not have promised the blessing of seed unless the angel had also been God. Let them ask what the heretics can make of this present passage. Was that the Father that was seen by Hagar or not? For He is declared to be God. But far be it from us to call God the Father an angel, lest He should be subordinate to another whose angel He would be. But they will say that it was an angel. How then shall He be God if He was an angel? Since this name is nowhere conceded to angels, except that on either side the truth compels us into this opinion, that we ought to understand it to have been God the Son, who, because He is of God, is rightly called God, because He is the Son of God. But, because He is subjected to the Father, and the Announcer of the Father's will, He is declared to be the Angel of Great Counsel. Therefore, although this passage neither is suited to the person of the Father, lest He should be called an angel, nor to the person of an angel, lest he should be called God; yet it is suited to the person of Christ that He should be both God because He is the Son of God, and should be an angel because He is the Announcer of the Father's mind. And the heretics ought to understand that they are setting themselves against the Scriptures, in that, while they say that they believe Christ to have been also an angel, they are unwilling to declare Him to have been also God, when they read in the Old Testament that He often came to visit the human race. To this, moreover, Moses added the instance of God seen of Abraham at the oak of Mature, when he was sitting at the opening of his tent at noon-day. And nevertheless, although he had beheld three men, note that he called one of them Lord; and when he had washed their feet, he offers them bread baked on the ashes, with butter and abundance of milk itself, and urges them that, being detained as guests, they should eat. And after I this he hears also that he should be a father, and learns that Sarah his wife should bring forth a son by him; and acknowledges concerning the destruction of the people of Sodom, what they deserve to suffer; and learns that God had come down on account of the cry of Sodom. in which place, if they will have it that the Father was seen at that time to have been received with hospitality in company with two angels, the heretics have believed the Father to be visible. But if an angel, although of the three angels one is called Lord, why, although it is not usual, is an angel called God? Unless because, in order that His proper invisibility may be restored to the Father, and the proper inferiority be remitted to the angel, it was only God the Son, who also is God, who was seen by Abraham, and was believed to have been received with hospitality. For He anticipated sacramentally what He was hereafter to become. He was made a guest of Abraham, being about to be among the sons of Abraham. And his children's feet, by way of proving what He was, He washed; returning in the children the claim of hospitality which formerly the Father had put out to interest to Him. Whence also, that there might be no doubt but that it was He who was the guest of Abraham on the destruction of the people of Sodom, it is declared: Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For thus also said the prophet in the person of God: I have overthrown you, as the Lord overturned Sodom and Gomorrha. Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God was the guest of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this the Son of God, The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire. And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself. Moreover, says the Scripture, the same Angel and God visits and consoles the same Hagar when driven with her son from the dwelling of Abraham. For when in the desert she had exposed the infant, because the water had fallen short from the pitcher; and when the lad had cried out, and she had lifted up her weeping and lamentation, God heard, says the Scripture, the voice of the lad from the place where he was. Having told that it was God who heard the voice of the infant, it adds: And the angel of the Lord called Hagar herself out of heaven, saying that that was an angel whom it had called God, and pronouncing Him to be Lord whom it had set forth as an angel; which Angel and God moreover promises to Hagar herself greater consolations, in saying, Fear not; for I have heard the voice of the lad from the place where he was. Arise, take up the lad, and hold him; for I will make of him a great nation. Why does this angel, if angel only, claim to himself this right of saying, I will make of him a great nation, since assuredly this kind of power belongs to God, and cannot belong to an angel? Whence also He is confirmed to be God, since He is able to do this; because, by way of proving this very point, it is immediately added by the Scripture: And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of running water; and she went and filled the bottle from the well, and gave to the lad: and God was with the lad. If, then, this God was with the Lord, who opened the eyes of Hagar that she might see the well of running water, and might draw the water on account of the urgent need of the lad's thirst, and this God who calls her from heaven is called an angel when, in previously hearing the voice of the lad crying, He was rather God; is not understood to be other than angel, in like manner as He was God also. And since this cannot be applicable or fitting to the Father, who is God only, but may be applicable to Christ, who is declared to be not only God, but angel also, it manifestly appears that it was not the Father who thus spoke to Hagar, but rather Christ, since He is God; and to Him also is applied the name of angel, since He became the angel of great counsel. And He is the angel, in that He declares the bosom of the Father, as John sets forth. For if John himself says, that He Himself who sets forth the bosom of the Father, as the Word, became flesh in order to declare the bosom of the Father, assuredly Christ is not only man, but angel also; and not only angel, but He is shown by the Scriptures to be God also. And this is believed to be the case by us; so that, if we will not consent to apprehend that it was Christ who then spoke to Hagar, we must either make an angel God, or we must reckon God the Father Almighty among the angels…

Chapter 26. Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.

But from this occasion of Christ being proved from the sacred authority of the divine writings not man only, but God also, other heretics, breaking forth, contrive to impair the religious position in Christ; by this very fact wishing to show that Christ is God the Father, in that He is asserted to be not man only, but also is declared to be God. For thus say they, If it is asserted that God is one, and Christ is God, then say they, If the Father and Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father. Wherein they are proved to be in error, not knowing Christ, but following the sound of a name; for they are not willing that He should be the second person after the Father, but the Father Himself. And since these things are easily answered, few words shall be said. For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, Let us make man in our image and our likeness; and that after this it was related, And God made man, in the image of God made He him? Or when he holds in his hands: The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? Or when he reads (as having been said) to Christ: You are my Son, this day have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the heathens for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession? Or when also that beloved writer says: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I shall make Your enemies the stool of Your feet? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord? Or when he reads: I came not down from heaven to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me? Or when he finds it written: Because He who sent me is greater than I? Or when he considers the passage: I go to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me? Or when the voice from heaven is: I have both glorified Him, and I will glorify Him again? Or when by Peter it is answered and said: You are the Son of the living God? Or when by the Lord Himself the sacrament of this revelation is approved, and He says: Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in heaven? Or when by Christ Himself it is expressed: Father, glorify me with that glory with which I was with You before the world was made? Or when it was said by the same: Father, I knew that You hear me always; but on account of those who stand around I said it, that they may believe that You have sent me? Or when the definition of the rule is established by Christ Himself, and it is said: And this is life eternal, that they should know You, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. I have glorified You upon the earth, I have finished the work which You gave me? Or when, moreover, by the same it is asserted and said: All things are delivered to me by my Father? Or when the session at the right hand of the Father is proved both by apostles and prophets? And I should have enough to do were I to endeavour to gather together all the passages whatever on this side; since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows Him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that He always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father Himself permitted to Him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that He is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if He be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 11:49:13 PM by ialmisry »
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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #304 on: August 25, 2011, 11:38:52 PM »
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.

Thanks.  Provenance?  Saint John of Damascus?  8th century?  Not Saint John but later?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #305 on: August 25, 2011, 11:45:56 PM »
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.

In this case there can be no argument against portraying God the Father as an enfleshed angel in iconography.  Ditto for the Holy Spirit.  Ditto for the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.  It is obviously, in the case of the Father and the Spirit, their preferred material manifestation.


About the Stoglav?  Is it true that it forbids portarying the Spirit as a dove?



Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 11:49:55 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #307 on: August 26, 2011, 12:02:41 AM »
The Stoglav Council specified that the Holy Spirit is to be iconographically portrayed as a dove only in icons of the Baptism of Christ, and only as tongues of fire in icons of Pentecost, as it is in these respective forms at these respective events that the Spirit manifested itself. Therefore, it is not correct to show the Spirit as a dove in other icons, as is, for example, seen frequently but erroneously, in icons of the Annunciation.

The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature, nor is it a tongue of fire by nature. But, at specific times and specific incidents, it has become manifest in these forms.

The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), Moscow, 1551

Chapter 41, question 1:

On the icons of the Holy Trinity, some represent a cross in the nimbus of only the middle figure, others on all three. On ancient and on Greek icons, the words "Holy Trinity" are written on the top, but there is no cross in the nimbus of any of the three. At present, "IC XC" and "The Holy Trinity" are written next to the central figure. Consult the divine canons and tell us which practice one should follow.

The Reply: painters must paint icons according to the ancient models as the Greeks painted them, as Andrei Rublev and other renowned painters made them. The inscription should be "The Holy Trinity." Painters are in no way to use their imagination.

The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

Chapter 43: On the Iconographer and the Lord Sabaoth:

We decree that a skilled painter, who is also a good man (from the ranks of the clergy) be named monitor of the iconographers, their leader and supervisor. Let the ignorant not mock the ugly and badly-painted holy icons of Christ, of His Mother, His saints. Let all vanity of pretended wisdom cease, which has allowed everyone habitually to paint the Lord Sabaoth in various representations according to his own fantasy, without an authentic reference ...

We decree that from now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh. Only Christ was seen in the flesh, and in this way He is portrayed, that is, in the flesh and not according to His divinity. Likewise, the most holy Mother of God and other saints of God ...

To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth (that is, the Father) with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is altogether absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity. Indeed, the Father has no flesh, and it is not in the flesh that the Son was born of the Father before all ages. And if the Prophet David says, "from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you" [Ps 109/110: 31], such generation is certainly not corporeal, but unutterable and unimaginable. For Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospel, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

In chapter 40, Isaiah asks: "What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble His?" Likewise, the holy Apostle Paul says in chapter 17 of Acts: "Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought." St. John of Damascus likewise says: "Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety" [On the Heavens, Book IV, "On the Image"]. St. Gregory Dialogos forbade it in a similar way. This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.

And the Holy Spirit is not, in His nature, a dove: He is by nature God. And no one has ever seen God, as the holy evangelist points out. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the holy baptism of Christ in the Jordan; and this is why it is proper to represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, in this context only. Anywhere else, those who have good sense do not represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, for on Mount Tabor He appeared in the form of a cloud, and in another way elsewhere. Besides, Sabaoth is not the name of the Father only, but of the Holy Trinity. According to Dionysius the Areopagite, Sabaoth is translated from the Hebrew as "Lord of Hosts." And the Lord of Hosts is the Trinity. And if the Prophet Daniel says that he has seen the Ancient of Days sitting on the throne of judgment, that is not taken to mean the Father, but the Son at His Second Coming, who will judge all the nations with His fearsome judgment.

Likewise, on icons of the Holy Annunciation, they paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent. This is why we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 12:03:28 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #308 on: August 26, 2011, 12:19:28 AM »
The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

A remarkable Council because it settled once and for all the question of whether Roman Catholics should be baptized.

It prohibited baptism, a prohibition which is in force today since the canon has not been annulled.

The [Council] referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching and decreed:

"Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons" (Chapter 6)

Acts of the Moscow Councils 1666-1667, Moscow, 1893

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch2.html#foot64



Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #309 on: August 26, 2011, 12:30:19 AM »
Just a couple of examples of Orthodox hymnography confirming the Trinitarian nature of the visitation at the Oak of Mamre:

Of old thou didst clearly manifest Thyself unto Abraham in three Hypostases, one in the essence of divinity; and in images thou didst reveal the utter truth of theology. Thee do we hymn with faith, the three-Sunned God who alone hath dominion. (Octoechos, Tone 1, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 3.)

As a sojourner, Abraham was vouchsafed mystically to receive the one Lord in three Hypostases, made manifest in the forms of men. (Octoechos, Tone 3, Midnight Office Canon, Ode 6)

I'm sure they are not the only examples.

Thanks.  Provenance?  Saint John of Damascus?  8th century?  Not Saint John but later?

The Midnight Office canons to the Trinity are attributed to St Metrophanes of Smyrna (+910).
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #310 on: August 26, 2011, 01:05:01 AM »
The Stoglav Council specified that the Holy Spirit is to be iconographically portrayed as a dove only in icons of the Baptism of Christ, and only as tongues of fire in icons of Pentecost, as it is in these respective forms at these respective events that the Spirit manifested itself. Therefore, it is not correct to show the Spirit as a dove in other icons, as is, for example, seen frequently but erroneously, in icons of the Annunciation.

The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature, nor is it a tongue of fire by nature. But, at specific times and specific incidents, it has become manifest in these forms.

The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), Moscow, 1551

Chapter 41, question 1:

On the icons of the Holy Trinity, some represent a cross in the nimbus of only the middle figure, others on all three. On ancient and on Greek icons, the words "Holy Trinity" are written on the top, but there is no cross in the nimbus of any of the three. At present, "IC XC" and "The Holy Trinity" are written next to the central figure. Consult the divine canons and tell us which practice one should follow.

The Reply: painters must paint icons according to the ancient models as the Greeks painted them, as Andrei Rublev and other renowned painters made them. The inscription should be "The Holy Trinity." Painters are in no way to use their imagination.

The Great Council of Moscow, 1666-1667

Chapter 43: On the Iconographer and the Lord Sabaoth:

We decree that a skilled painter, who is also a good man (from the ranks of the clergy) be named monitor of the iconographers, their leader and supervisor. Let the ignorant not mock the ugly and badly-painted holy icons of Christ, of His Mother, His saints. Let all vanity of pretended wisdom cease, which has allowed everyone habitually to paint the Lord Sabaoth in various representations according to his own fantasy, without an authentic reference ...

We decree that from now on the image of the Lord Sabaoth will no longer be painted according to senseless and unsuitable imaginings, for no one has ever seen the Lord Sabaoth (that is, God the Father) in the flesh. Only Christ was seen in the flesh, and in this way He is portrayed, that is, in the flesh and not according to His divinity. Likewise, the most holy Mother of God and other saints of God ...

To paint on icons the Lord Sabaoth (that is, the Father) with a white beard holding the only-begotten Son in His lap with a dove between them is altogether absurd and improper, for no one has ever seen the Father in His divinity. Indeed, the Father has no flesh, and it is not in the flesh that the Son was born of the Father before all ages. And if the Prophet David says, "from the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you" [Ps 109/110: 31], such generation is certainly not corporeal, but unutterable and unimaginable. For Christ Himself says in the Holy Gospel, "No one knows the Father except the Son."

In chapter 40, Isaiah asks: "What likeness will you find for God or what form to resemble His?" Likewise, the holy Apostle Paul says in chapter 17 of Acts: "Since we are God's offspring, we ought not to believe that the Godhead is the same as gold, silver, or stone shaped by human art and thought." St. John of Damascus likewise says: "Who can make an imitation of God the invisible, the incorporeal, the indescribable, and unimaginable? To make an image of the Divinity is the height of folly and impiety" [On the Heavens, Book IV, "On the Image"]. St. Gregory Dialogos forbade it in a similar way. This is why the Lord Sabaoth, who is the Godhead, and the engendering before all ages of the only-begotten Son of the Father must only be perceived through our mind. By no means is it proper to paint such images: it is impossible.

And the Holy Spirit is not, in His nature, a dove: He is by nature God. And no one has ever seen God, as the holy evangelist points out. Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the holy baptism of Christ in the Jordan; and this is why it is proper to represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, in this context only. Anywhere else, those who have good sense do not represent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, for on Mount Tabor He appeared in the form of a cloud, and in another way elsewhere. Besides, Sabaoth is not the name of the Father only, but of the Holy Trinity. According to Dionysius the Areopagite, Sabaoth is translated from the Hebrew as "Lord of Hosts." And the Lord of Hosts is the Trinity. And if the Prophet Daniel says that he has seen the Ancient of Days sitting on the throne of judgment, that is not taken to mean the Father, but the Son at His Second Coming, who will judge all the nations with His fearsome judgment.

Likewise, on icons of the Holy Annunciation, they paint the Lord Sabaoth breathing from His mouth, and that breath reaches the womb of the Most Holy Mother of God. But who has seen this, or which passage from Holy Scripture bears witness to it? Where is this taken from? Such a practice and others like it are clearly adopted and borrowed from people whose understanding is vain, or rather whose mind is deranged or absent. This is why we decree that henceforth such mistaken painting cease, for it comes from unsound knowledge.


Aprops... this Council provides a wonderful example of the Orthodox process of ratification and reception of a Council and its teachings and decrees.

As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 01:06:08 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #311 on: August 26, 2011, 04:15:00 AM »
Quote
As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.

Piety? Honest ignorance in centuries past, perhaps, with an avalanche of influence from outside the Orthodox world. These days, where literacy is the norm? More a case of wilfulness over obedience, in many cases.  :(

« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 04:15:53 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #312 on: August 26, 2011, 06:09:41 AM »
Quote
As the centuries have rolled by since 1666 it has become clear that the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church has not brought it to acquiesce in the Council's requirements on painting the Trinity.  The piety of the Church and her iconographers has allowed the 1666 decrees to fall into abeyance.

We see a primary example of this in the sacred monastery of the Holy Trinity at Jordanville where the Trinity icon (forbidden by the Council) is a major focus of veneration.

Piety? Honest ignorance in centuries past, perhaps, with an avalanche of influence from outside the Orthodox world. These days, where literacy is the norm? More a case of wilfulness over obedience, in many cases.  :(



Oh, I wish you had not said that.  Now I am having bad thoughts about all the holy abbots of Jordanville as well as the holy Metropolitans who have censed it and kissed it, and all the holy Jordanville monks...

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,552
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #313 on: August 26, 2011, 07:24:37 AM »
Oh, I wish you had not said that.  Now I am having bad thoughts about all the holy abbots of Jordanville as well as the holy Metropolitans who have censed it and kissed it, and all the holy Jordanville monks...

Do you feel the same way about the eyes in triangles at Athos and elsewhere?  ;)
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: The Sacred Heart
« Reply #314 on: August 26, 2011, 07:53:34 AM »
Which individualism is jettisoned at the expense of communalism.

I can't remember, are you a Christian?

Individualism > Communing != Christianity