Luke Warmodox

[LBK]

Just for understanding: Why exactly do you think these pictures cannot be considered icons?

The artist who has painted these images openly proclaims his wish to "bring iconography closer to modern art" to "make it more relevant" to present-day Orthodox, hence his adoption of impressionism and other artistic styles in his work. He also imposes his own creative interpretation on the subject matter of the "icon" he paints. The resulting paintings are not faithful to what the Church teaches and proclaims, and, therefore, cannot be considered to be icons suitable for veneration.

Some brief comments on these images:

On the Resurrection image:

In proper Resurrection icons, Christ is shown rising from Hades, pulling Adam and Eve from their graves. Standing on one side of Him are St John the Baptist, and the Old Testament prophets and righteous ones. On the other side are those who have come to know Christ through Him and His Apostles and their successors, i.e. the people of the Church of the New Testament period.

What do we see in this “icon”? Adam and Eve are recognizable, but the other haloed figures are generic, with no reference as to who they represent. And what are we to make of all the disembodied heads and the flocks of birds in the sky? What is their significance? Which are the scriptural and liturgical references corresponding to these motifs?

It bears repeating that an iconographer works as an instrument of the Church, the works of his hands rightly proclaiming the word of God’s truth. He is not an artist who has the luxury of giving free rein to his creative impulses. No-one, let alone an Orthodox priest, and one who has been called “an authority on iconography” has the right to strip out so much meaning and doctrine from any icon in order to indulge in fantasies of reinterpretation. This mangling of the icon of the Resurrection, the Feast of Feasts, deserves the strongest condemnation. This is no mistake made in honest ignorance. What on earth possessed this man to paint such an image and presume to call it an icon? It is the pictorial equivalent of taking creative liberties with Orthodox hymnography.

There have been instances of Roman Catholic priests performing baptisms in the name of the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer, instead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in an attempt to "modernize" the ceremony. Such baptisms have been investigated to determine the sacramental validity or otherwise of these baptisms. The ruling from the Vatican was that these baptisms had to be “regularised” using the correct Trinitarian formula. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Orthodox position on such baptisms would be exactly the same.

As it is improper to alter the words of liturgy or sacrament without ecclesiastical approval, so it is also for iconographers to allow “innovation” on the basis of political correctness or artistic licence. Hymnography and iconography are not artistic playthings. The hymnographer’s pen and the iconographer’s paintbrush must be picked up with humility, fear and trembling.

On the St Andrew image:

This painting brings to mind Vincent Van Gough's self-portraits during his more tormented periods. There is no stillness or spiritual calm here, nor does it express the Apostle's Christ-like acceptance of his impending death as a martyr as any good icon should, notably those of Christ's crucifixion, the supreme exemplar of selfless and willing sacrifice. Instead, we see a man engulfed in a whirl of gloom, turmoil and fear. There will be no victory in this Apostle's death, all the more ironic, as the hymnography for the saint is full of references to his bravery, andreia (courage, bravery, manliness) being the source of the name Andreas. The first-called apostle was known to have said: "if I feared the cross, I would not be preaching it". He truly lived up to his name. This painting speaks of just the opposite.

These paintings are an outrageous travesty, and the painter should be ashamed of himself.

[Gorazd]

"without ecclesiastical approval" might be a key phrase. Chambésy is not any place, it is the second official seat of the EP, after Istanbul. If the EP gives official permission of Fr. Stamatis' icons to be displayed and venerated in Chambésy, is that not quite a strong kind of approval?

[LBK]

"without ecclesiastical approval" might be a key phrase. Chambésy is not any place, it is the second official seat of the EP, after Istanbul. If the EP gives official permission of Fr. Stamatis' icons to be displayed and venerated in Chambésy, is that not quite a strong kind of approval?

Have you even read what I posted on the, er, doctrinal deficiencies of the image? It's no more kosher than the "iconographic" paintings of non-Orthodox people in the church of Holy Wisdom at New Skete. Or the painting of the Roman Catholic saint Anthony of Padua on the wall of the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church at Oxnard, CA.

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

[Achronos]

"without ecclesiastical approval" might be a key phrase. Chambésy is not any place, it is the second official seat of the EP, after Istanbul. If the EP gives official permission of Fr. Stamatis' icons to be displayed and venerated in Chambésy, is that not quite a strong kind of approval?

Have you even read what I posted on the, er, doctrinal deficiencies of the image? It's no more kosher than the "iconographic" paintings of non-Orthodox people in the church of Holy Wisdom at New Skete. Or the painting of the Roman Catholic saint Anthony of Padua on the wall of the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church at Oxnard, CA.

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

Has anybody contacted a bishop about that painting at the Holy Trinity Church?

[LBK]

"without ecclesiastical approval" might be a key phrase. Chambésy is not any place, it is the second official seat of the EP, after Istanbul. If the EP gives official permission of Fr. Stamatis' icons to be displayed and venerated in Chambésy, is that not quite a strong kind of approval?

Have you even read what I posted on the, er, doctrinal deficiencies of the image? It's no more kosher than the "iconographic" paintings of non-Orthodox people in the church of Holy Wisdom at New Skete. Or the painting of the Roman Catholic saint Anthony of Padua on the wall of the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church at Oxnard, CA.

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

Has anybody contacted a bishop about that painting at the Holy Trinity Church?

According to this post, they have:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45909.msg782231.html#msg782231

[JamesR]

We need one for those Roman Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy and go on to say how their conversion was SOOOO difficult and hard, and take years to convert and then when they do convert, are real ecumenical  when it comes to the two Churchs' relationship with each other and still pray the Rosary.

[Fabio Leite]

The icon discussion is very interesting. An icon is to a paiting like Scripture is to a book. I, particularly, enjoy Bible-inspired stories and icon-inspired art. Just don't call your fiction Scritpture, nor your painting icon.

[Fabio Leite]

More:

[Achronos]

We need one for those Roman Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy and go on to say how their conversion was SOOOO difficult and hard, and take years to convert and then when they do convert, are real ecumenical  when it comes to the two Churchs' relationship with each other and still pray the Rosary.

You mean like the WRO?

[Fabio Leite]

More (the "Sunny Day" one, is a common issue here in Brazil. I suppose it is in other sunny places as well)

[Gorazd]

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

And who made you worthy to declare icons unworthy? Just wondering.

If you think you can reject what the EP has accepted, surely you must be greater than the EP?

[Fabio Leite]

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

And who made you worthy to declare icons unworthy? Just wondering.

If you think you can reject what the EP has accepted, surely you must be greater than the EP?

"Great patriarch, hmm? Patriarchates not make one great."

[vamrat]

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

And who made you worthy to declare icons unworthy? Just wondering.

If you think you can reject what the EP has accepted, surely you must be greater than the EP?

Did Moscow accept it?

[LBK]

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

And who made you worthy to declare icons unworthy? Just wondering.

If you think you can reject what the EP has accepted, surely you must be greater than the EP?

We do not believe our hierarchs are infallible.  

As for by what authority do I speak on iconography, please show me where I am in error in my critique of these images, from the historical, scriptural, conciliar, patristic, doctrinal and liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.

[LBK]

The icon discussion is very interesting. An icon is to a painting like Scripture is to a book. I, particularly, enjoy Bible-inspired stories and icon-inspired art. Just don't call your fiction Scripture, nor your painting icon.

Thank you for this, Fabio. These paintings I am criticizing are indeed fiction, one man's individualistic, idiosyncratic folly masquerading as iconography.

[podkarpatska]

Sad paradox: The Hyperdox Herman meme works best when people with actual hyperdox tendencies contribute them. Attempted memes like this fall flat because they are being contributed by people with the exact opposite tendencies and so come across as harsh. The only way to get a "let's make fun of liberal Orthodox" meme to work is to get "progressive" Orthodox to make fun of themselves. "Progressives" with enough of a sense of humor to make fun of themselves are rare.

The only solution is to get Jon Stewart to convert to Orthodox Christianity.

Agreed. Recognizing  the beam in your own eye is critical to calling out others. That's why I think Stewart is funny but Maher is a bore.

[podkarpatska]

Just because an image is present within the walls of an Orthodox church doesn't make it worthy of veneration.

And who made you worthy to declare icons unworthy? Just wondering.

If you think you can reject what the EP has accepted, surely you must be greater than the EP?

Did Moscow accept it?

Let's not go there. As Moscow has been rebuilding Churches destroyed or corrupted by the Communists over the past two decades- from the mighty Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow herself to small village parish church buildings, they have for the most part restored the iconographic styles which were prevalent at the time of the original construction. CSS is the prime example and that style was artistic and representational in a western sense. And one which was copied by Slavs of the 19th century across the planet - both of Orthodox and Greek Catholic derivation. You will find it in the ACROD, OCA and UOC  parishes in my town. The irony is that the local UGCC and BCC parishes - which were redecorated post 1990 and Vatican 2 are more representational of proper iconography that their Orthodox counterparts. Doesn't make it 'right' but it is what it is.....

[Gorazd]

Did Moscow accept it?

I am not aware of any formal protest from Moscow, even though MP delegates have participated in many meetings in Chambésy. Actually, it was traditionally Russia who came up with new kinds of icons. Ever been to St. Petersburg, or heard the term "academical icons"?

We do not believe our hierarchs are infallible.  

True. But we do not believe them to be irrelevant either.

As for by what authority do I speak on iconography, please show me where I am in error in my critique of these images, from the historical, scriptural, conciliar, patristic, doctrinal and liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Well, should I go through your criticism point by point? I hope that is not necessary. My impression is that you are bothered by these icons, because they are not what you are used to. The only real theological argument you make is about the "bravery" of St. Andrew. I guess it's brave enough to be martyred. But seriously, even one who does not fear life after death wouldn't exactly feel cool with the pain of the torture surrounding crucifixion.

Actually, the dogmatic defintions of icons are to be found in the 7th council. Do we have anything there that condemns the Chambésy icons?

[LBK]

Well, should I go through your criticism point by point? I hope that is not necessary.

Why not? You are the one who has voiced your disagreement with what I've had to say about these images. If you're so sure I'm wrong, show me the error of my words, from the historical, scriptural, conciliar, patristic, doctrinal and liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church. Show me where the Resurrection "icon" conforms with this tradition.

Actually, it was traditionally Russia who came up with new kinds of icons.

Not true. The Greeks were just as likely to do so, as were Orthodox who had come under heterodox influence through geography and conquest. And a good number of these "innovative" images that arose between the 16th and 19th centuries are unsatisfactory in conforming to Orthodox belief.

Ever been to St. Petersburg, or heard the term "academical icons"?

Academic icons from the Synodal period are largely indistinguishable from western religious art in artistic style, and, more to the point, content. IIRC, there's an Orthodox (not EC) church in the vicinity of Petersburg which has an "icon" on its iconostasis which shows the assumption to heaven of the Mother of God, which is straight out of Roman Catholic art.

The mere presence of an image in an Orthodox church does not, in itself, confer canonicity upon it. Would you regard the painting of St Anthony of Padua at the Oxnard church worthy of Orthodox veneration?

[LBK]

even one who does not fear life after death wouldn't exactly feel cool with the pain of the torture surrounding crucifixion.

A hallmark of iconographic portrayal is its dispassion, dignity and stillness. It is not concerned with what is earthbound, corrruptible and fleeting. The great example of this are icons of the Crucifixion, which show Christ's willing and loving sacrifice for the sake of humanity's salvation. Martyrs are the great imitators of Christ, are they not? The icon seeks not to show a ravaged, tortured, fearful person, but one who willingly gives everything, even his life, for the glory of God and for everlasting life in heaven.

Hymnography to martyr-saints also consistently, and unwaveringly, shows this selflessness, equanimity and love for God which is above earthly desires and needs. The painting of St Andrew by Fr Stamatis Skliris proclaims the complete opposite of what the Church teaches.

[Gorazd]

The mere presence of an image in an Orthodox church does not, in itself, confer canonicity upon it. Would you regard the painting of St Anthony of Padua at the Oxnard church worthy of Orthodox veneration?

Chambésy is not just a Church, it is a seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

As for myself, I really think that if somethng is not an icon in the EO Church, then it contradicts the dogmatic definitions of the 7th council. Everything else doesn't get to the point.

As for the "dispassion" etc., just look at ιδε ο ανθρωπος.

[LBK]

As for the "dispassion" etc., just look at ιδε ο ανθρωπος.

And what do we see in this icon? The Theanthropos, accepting his impending death, with equanimity, complete willingness, and love. There are no histrionics, no grand displays of emotion, His body isn't covered in blood and wounds.

By contrast, RC statues of Christ at the whipping post and other scenes from His Passion, particularly those from Hispanic origin, are often so graphic as to be frightening.

[LBK]

Chambésy is not just a Church, it is a seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, IIRC the seat of the Patriarch of Moscow, bears an unmistakeably uncanonical painting of the Holy Trinity in its central cupola. It also contains a painting of St Juliana Olshanskaya with her right hand raised, and the fingers of that hand arranged in the IC-XC clerical blessing. These images are simply wrong, irrespective of the status of the church they are found in.

And I'd like to hear your answer to my earlier question:

Would you regard the painting of St Anthony of Padua at the Oxnard church worthy of Orthodox veneration?

[podkarpatska]

Chambésy is not just a Church, it is a seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, IIRC the seat of the Patriarch of Moscow, bears an unmistakeably uncanonical painting of the Holy Trinity in its central cupola. It also contains a painting of St Juliana Olshanskaya with her right hand raised, and the fingers of that hand arranged in the IC-XC clerical blessing. These images are simply wrong, irrespective of the status of the church they are found in.

And I'd like to hear your answer to my earlier question:

Would you regard the painting of St Anthony of Padua at the Oxnard church worthy of Orthodox veneration?

Not to quibble, but the style of all of the iconography to which I am referring ( I am using the term  colloquially- not academically) is surely western and not portrayed in a traditional manner. What is one then to make of it?

I know that there are folks whom I would put into a category of 'iconographic iconoclasts' who would remove all such depictions regardless of historical context or centuries of veneration by the faithful - laity and clergy alike whether such be found in 'Holy Mother Russia', Mount Athos or anywhere else on the planet. If my parish church, God forbid, were to burn down and need to be rebuilt, I would be the first to urge a traditionalist styling of iconography, but I know better than to push buttons and cause division within by challenging the honest and pious faith of generations of worshippers by seeking to redecorate the existing Church.

[Fabio Leite]

More

[Fabio Leite]

More

[Dominika]

More:

This one about Judas is the greatest. So instructive

[Fabio Leite]

More

[Fabio Leite]

More

[Fabio Leite]

More

[podkarpatska]

I said this some months ago on Hyperdox's thread and most thought I was being a bore. I have been thinking about this in relation to both threads and I will break the Forum rules and quote at length something that both those who think Hyperdox or Warmadox is descriptive of the faith of others and somehow makes one feel superior to either one.The same post is going up on Hyperdox's as well. We Christians get mocked enough in this world by those who lack Faith, we ought not to be mocking each other.

The Publican and the Pharisee from GOARCH.org....

This is the story of two men, one a Pharisee, a member of a Jewish sect known for its diligent observance of the Law, and the other a Publican, a government official charged with the responsibility of collecting taxes.
Both men enter the temple, and the Pharisee stands openly and prays, thanking God that he is not like other men, specifically extortioners, the unjust, adulterers, “or even this tax collector” (v. 11). He then begins to list his religious accomplishments by stating, “I fast twice a week, and I give tithes of all that I possess” (v. 12).
In direct contrast to the pride of the Pharisee, the Publican goes to a place where he will not be noticed by others and beats his breast saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (v. 13).
Having told this story, Jesus affirms that it was the Publican who returned home justified and forgiven rather than the Pharisee. He states, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (v. 14).
The theme of this parable is repentance. Repentance is the door through which we enter Lent, the starting-point of the journey to Pascha. To repent signifies far more than self-pity or futile regret over things done in the past. The Greek term metanoia means “change of mind.” To repent is to be renewed, to be transformed in our inward viewpoint, to attain a fresh way of looking at our relationship with God and with others. The fault of the Pharisee is that he has no desire to change his outlook; he is complacent, self-satisfied, and so he allows no place for God to act within him. The Gospel depicts him as a man that is pleased only with himself who thinks that he has complied with all of the requirements of religion. But in his pride, he has falsified the meaning of true religion and faith. He has reduced these to external observations, measuring his piety by the amount of money he gives.
The Publican, on the other hand, truly longs for a “change of mind.” He humbles himself, and his humility justifies him before God. He becomes, in the words of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3), “poor in spirit.” He acknowledges that he is a sinner, and he knows that salvation is only found in the mercy of God. Here we find an example of true humility, an essential aspect of repentance. A “change of mind” and the transformation of our lives can only happen when we humble ourselves before God, acknowledge our willingness to turn from sin, and receive His grace into our lives.  http://lent.goarch.org/publicanpharisee/learn/

[Fabio Leite]

Note for the Luke Warmodox who are offended by the above. I actually appreciate most of the art above. Yes, even the Chibi Jesus, and the honest paintings by RCs who, after all, believe they are Orthodox. It's simply not correct to name every kind of poetry as sonnet, nor any kind of religious or religious inspired art as icons, even if it's good art or if it was done in a prayerful way.

[Fabio Leite]

I don't think you are a bore. I think that you don't get it.

Both Herman and Luke exist in each of us. Since my previous background before being Christian was rather liberal, I quite get why current Lukes think the way they do. I still have some of it in me - as I mentioned above, I'm not nearly as shocked by icon-based art as those in whom Herman is predominant. I even like the idea of manga Jesus, and I *can* see the meaningfulness of comparing Christianity and Budhism in a modern context and I find comics an instigating and innovative way of doing it. Said that... it's not an icon. Showing the saints human side through modern art? I truly find it very inspiring. But... it's not an icon. It does not achieve the aims and effects an icon does.

The only reason that I came up with Luke was precisely because I thought that just like Herman is a healthy dose of self-criticism on our stricter tendencies, it is necessary to have the same self-criticism on our looser side. People feel more shocked that the "Luke" side is criticized because in our time and age the "inner Luke" has been raised to an idol status. Kicking "Herman" is just the usual, it's kicking a "dead dog" as they say. But showing the dangerous side of "Luke"? That is the true heresy today. But he is not God. He is not sacred. He is not untouchable.

Herman and Luke are two spoiled brothers we carry in ourselves, each trying to be more important than God. And both can and must be made to behave and, sometimes, laughing at them is enough. My Herman and Luke look at these memes and say "I hope I never get to that point". That's the idea. If that doesn't work for you, well then, don't read te threads.

I said this some months ago on Hyperdox's thread and most thought I was being a bore. I have been thinking about this in relation to both threads and I will break the Forum rules and quote at length something that both those who think Hyperdox or Warmadox is descriptive of the faith of others and somehow makes one feel superior to either one.The same post is going up on Hyperdox's as well. We Christians get mocked enough in this world by those who lack Faith, we ought not to be mocking each other.

The Publican and the Pharisee from GOARCH.org....

This is the story of two men, one a Pharisee, a member of a Jewish sect known for its diligent observance of the Law, and the other a Publican, a government official charged with the responsibility of collecting taxes.
Both men enter the temple, and the Pharisee stands openly and prays, thanking God that he is not like other men, specifically extortioners, the unjust, adulterers, “or even this tax collector” (v. 11). He then begins to list his religious accomplishments by stating, “I fast twice a week, and I give tithes of all that I possess” (v. 12).
In direct contrast to the pride of the Pharisee, the Publican goes to a place where he will not be noticed by others and beats his breast saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (v. 13).
Having told this story, Jesus affirms that it was the Publican who returned home justified and forgiven rather than the Pharisee. He states, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (v. 14).
The theme of this parable is repentance. Repentance is the door through which we enter Lent, the starting-point of the journey to Pascha. To repent signifies far more than self-pity or futile regret over things done in the past. The Greek term metanoia means “change of mind.” To repent is to be renewed, to be transformed in our inward viewpoint, to attain a fresh way of looking at our relationship with God and with others. The fault of the Pharisee is that he has no desire to change his outlook; he is complacent, self-satisfied, and so he allows no place for God to act within him. The Gospel depicts him as a man that is pleased only with himself who thinks that he has complied with all of the requirements of religion. But in his pride, he has falsified the meaning of true religion and faith. He has reduced these to external observations, measuring his piety by the amount of money he gives.
The Publican, on the other hand, truly longs for a “change of mind.” He humbles himself, and his humility justifies him before God. He becomes, in the words of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3), “poor in spirit.” He acknowledges that he is a sinner, and he knows that salvation is only found in the mercy of God. Here we find an example of true humility, an essential aspect of repentance. A “change of mind” and the transformation of our lives can only happen when we humble ourselves before God, acknowledge our willingness to turn from sin, and receive His grace into our lives.  http://lent.goarch.org/publicanpharisee/learn/

[podkarpatska]

I don't think you are a bore. I think that you don't get it.

Both Herman and Luke exist in each of us. Since my previous background before being Christian was rather liberal, I quite get why current Lukes think the way they do. I still have some of it in me - as I mentioned above, I'm not nearly as shocked by icon-based art as those in whom Herman is predominant. I even like the idea of manga Jesus, and I *can* see the meaningfulness of comparing Christianity and Budhism in a modern context and I find comics an instigating and innovative way of doing it. Said that... it's not an icon. Showing the saints human side through modern art? I truly find it very inspiring. But... it's not an icon. It does not achieve the aims and effects an icon does.

The only reason that I came up with Luke was precisely because I thought that just like Herman is a healthy dose of self-criticism on our stricter tendencies, it is necessary to have the same self-criticism on our looser side. People feel more shocked that the "Luke" side is criticized because in our time and age the "inner Luke" has been raised to an idol status. Kicking "Herman" is just the usual, it's kicking a "dead dog" as they say. But showing the dangerous side of "Luke"? That is the true heresy today. But he is not God. He is not sacred. He is not untouchable.

Herman and Luke are two spoiled brothers we carry in ourselves, each trying to be more important than God. And both can and must be made to behave and, sometimes, laughing at them is enough. My Herman and Luke look at these memes and say "I hope I never get to that point". That's the idea. If that doesn't work for you, well then, don't read te threads.

I said this some months ago on Hyperdox's thread and most thought I was being a bore. I have been thinking about this in relation to both threads and I will break the Forum rules and quote at length something that both those who think Hyperdox or Warmadox is descriptive of the faith of others and somehow makes one feel superior to either one.The same post is going up on Hyperdox's as well. We Christians get mocked enough in this world by those who lack Faith, we ought not to be mocking each other.

The Publican and the Pharisee from GOARCH.org....

This is the story of two men, one a Pharisee, a member of a Jewish sect known for its diligent observance of the Law, and the other a Publican, a government official charged with the responsibility of collecting taxes.
Both men enter the temple, and the Pharisee stands openly and prays, thanking God that he is not like other men, specifically extortioners, the unjust, adulterers, “or even this tax collector” (v. 11). He then begins to list his religious accomplishments by stating, “I fast twice a week, and I give tithes of all that I possess” (v. 12).
In direct contrast to the pride of the Pharisee, the Publican goes to a place where he will not be noticed by others and beats his breast saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (v. 13).
Having told this story, Jesus affirms that it was the Publican who returned home justified and forgiven rather than the Pharisee. He states, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (v. 14).
The theme of this parable is repentance. Repentance is the door through which we enter Lent, the starting-point of the journey to Pascha. To repent signifies far more than self-pity or futile regret over things done in the past. The Greek term metanoia means “change of mind.” To repent is to be renewed, to be transformed in our inward viewpoint, to attain a fresh way of looking at our relationship with God and with others. The fault of the Pharisee is that he has no desire to change his outlook; he is complacent, self-satisfied, and so he allows no place for God to act within him. The Gospel depicts him as a man that is pleased only with himself who thinks that he has complied with all of the requirements of religion. But in his pride, he has falsified the meaning of true religion and faith. He has reduced these to external observations, measuring his piety by the amount of money he gives.
The Publican, on the other hand, truly longs for a “change of mind.” He humbles himself, and his humility justifies him before God. He becomes, in the words of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3), “poor in spirit.” He acknowledges that he is a sinner, and he knows that salvation is only found in the mercy of God. Here we find an example of true humility, an essential aspect of repentance. A “change of mind” and the transformation of our lives can only happen when we humble ourselves before God, acknowledge our willingness to turn from sin, and receive His grace into our lives.  http://lent.goarch.org/publicanpharisee/learn/

Sorry, I didn't get your point of view and I think more than a few here thought you were serious and unlike me, they like the perspective. I think that if anyone 'sympathizes' with either Warmadox or Hyperdox then perhaps they have to look inward. And if like most of us, you see a little of yourself in both memes, well - I can see where that's the point. Perhaps memes are a generational thing.... I usually don't get political ones either! 

[Fabio Leite]

Sorry, I didn't get your point of view and I think more than a few here thought you were serious and unlike me, they like the perspective. I think that if anyone 'sympathizes' with either Warmadox or Hyperdox then perhaps they have to look inward. And if like most of us, you see a little of yourself in both memes, well - I can see where that's the point. Perhaps memes are a generational thing.... I usually don't get political ones either! 

We all have to look inward, whether we like them or not. It's good to have both because dialetics is the basic path for any investigation.

[LBK]

Chambésy is not just a Church, it is a seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, IIRC the seat of the Patriarch of Moscow, bears an unmistakeably uncanonical painting of the Holy Trinity in its central cupola. It also contains a painting of St Juliana Olshanskaya with her right hand raised, and the fingers of that hand arranged in the IC-XC clerical blessing. These images are simply wrong, irrespective of the status of the church they are found in.

And I'd like to hear your answer to my earlier question:

Would you regard the painting of St Anthony of Padua at the Oxnard church worthy of Orthodox veneration?

Not to quibble, but the style of all of the iconography to which I am referring ( I am using the term  colloquially- not academically) is surely western and not portrayed in a traditional manner. What is one then to make of it?

I know that there are folks whom I would put into a category of 'iconographic iconoclasts' who would remove all such depictions regardless of historical context or centuries of veneration by the faithful - laity and clergy alike whether such be found in 'Holy Mother Russia', Mount Athos or anywhere else on the planet. If my parish church, God forbid, were to burn down and need to be rebuilt, I would be the first to urge a traditionalist styling of iconography, but I know better than to push buttons and cause division within by challenging the honest and pious faith of generations of worshippers by seeking to redecorate the existing Church.

And, yet, a good number of old Orthodox churches, even in the city where I live, are indeed being "redecorated" using good, canonical iconography. Only a month or so ago, I was approached by a priest for advice on replacing an old "icon" of the NT Holy Trinity which had hung in the altar of his church for some 40 years. This painting will be removed, and an icon of the Mother of God will be put in its place. I have seen iconostases remodeled and the western-style icons replaced with well-painted traditional icons. I have seen the removal of the "eye in the triangle" motif over the Royal Doors and its replacement with an icon of the Mystical Supper in at least three local churches.

Corrections like this can, and do, happen. It takes careful education, of clergy and laity alike. Sentimental attachment to such images must never override doing the right thing. It takes time and effort to uproot the understandable sentimental attachment many folks have for these images, but it can be done, and it is certainly worth the effort.

[Fabio Leite]

Los Tres Amigos Contra El Sharko Diablo
http://www.jibjab.com/view/ulzAxoNfPuHQcafsgrLt

[Fabio Leite]

More

[LBK]

More

Hehehe. I've just been corresponding with a dear Canadian friend whose place of abode regularly hits 20 below in midwinter.

[Fabio Leite]

More

Hehehe. I've just been corresponding with a dear Canadian friend whose place of abode regularly hits 20 below in midwinter.

Whent it's 20 above I already feel cold.

[Fabio Leite]

Since the thread has also touched on the issue of humor, I thought I could share a very inspiring lecture on creativity by no other than John Cleese of Monty Python's fame. A bit long for Internet standards (37 min) but well worth it.

http://vimeo.com/18913413

"Serious things can be discussed with humor".

[Fabio Leite]

Luke visits RC in Brazil. During a Novena for the Virgin Mary, the Entrance of the New Testament.

[Fabio Leite]

In Elseworlds, super-heroes are put in alternate dimensions where their stories happened in different ways.

In Holy Terror, Cromwell's revolution was victorious, the US never got independent and the British Puritan Commowealth is a worldwide Theocracy.

Bruce Wayne discovers his parents were murdered by the clerical state just before his ordination. He then vows to preach the word of Jesus during the day as a priest and fight the dictatorial bishops at night as the Batman.


(see excellent review of the story here: http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/2703872.html )

[Fabio Leite]

More

[Fabio Leite]

More

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Luke Warmodox