• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Heterodox images

Svartzorn

High Elder
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
761
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
33
Location
Brasília/DF, Brazil
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
?
Is it licit for us to venerate images made by heterodox (for example, catholic sculpture or coptic icons?)
I know there's a rule that forbids prayer with the heterodox, but if we visit their temple in a given situation, is it permissible to venerate the local images in particular prayer?
 

Arachne

Matriarch
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
13,061
Reaction score
764
Points
113
Age
50
Location
Camulodunum
Faith
Cradle Greek Orthodox. Cope.
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Archdiocese, UK
I have no qualms venerating OO icons. In other places of worship, I stick to lighting a candle, if available. YMMV.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Svartzorn said:
Is it licit for us to venerate images made by heterodox (for example, catholic sculpture or coptic icons?)
I know there's a rule that forbids prayer with the heterodox, but if we visit their temple in a given situation, is it permissible to venerate the local images in particular prayer?
If the images are of saints or scenes which are not compatible with Orthodox tradition, no.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Svartzorn said:
What about if it's a Theotokos' statue?
No. Orthodox do not venerate statues, and there are RC teachings and traditions about the Mother of God which do not conform to those of Orthodoxy.



 

Svartzorn

High Elder
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
761
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
33
Location
Brasília/DF, Brazil
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
?
I never knew statues were banned.
It seems that we don't have the custom of venerating statues, but I didn't know they were banned.
I wouldn't venerate an image portraying "the immaculate heart of Mary", but a statue in a heterodox temple... just gave me second thoughts.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Partially-overlapping
LBK said:
Svartzorn said:
Is it licit for us to venerate images made by heterodox (for example, catholic sculpture or coptic icons?)
I know there's a rule that forbids prayer with the heterodox, but if we visit their temple in a given situation, is it permissible to venerate the local images in particular prayer?
If the images are of saints or scenes which are not compatible with Orthodox tradition, no.
This is true. One time I "reverently" touched an icon of the Holy Family that had a young Joseph and too close hugging. It nearly destroyed my spiritual life. My only recourse was to bathe in ten cloves garlic, three quarts of vinegar, and 40 gallons icon-grade egg yolks.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Svartzorn said:
I never knew statues were banned.
It seems that we don't have the custom of venerating statues, but I didn't know they were banned.
I wouldn't venerate an image portraying "the immaculate heart of Mary", but a statue in a heterodox temple... just gave me second thoughts.
What do such statues express? Do they express what Orthodoxy teaches about Christ and the Mother of God through icons?

Also, these posts might help:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30277.msg813866/topicseen.html#msg813866

Because icons are painted to represent not what is earthly, temporal and eathbound, but what is heavenly, perfected and spiritual. The "inverse perspective", the absence of shadows, and the flatness of the compositions in icons are all ways of expressing what is not of this world.

It is a common misconception that the iconographers of the early Christian period “couldn’t draw or paint”, that this was a primitive or naïve art form. In this regard, it must be remembered that the Byzantines were the descendants of the Greeks and Romans who gave the world the physical perfection of Classical sculpture and murals (such as the sculptures of Praxiteles and Pheidias, or the frescoes of Pompeii), and where the development of geometry allowed the refinement of linear perspective in depicting three dimensions on a flat surface.

By contrast, icons attempt to express the opposite of earthly "realism".
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49648.msg926402.html#msg926402

The purpose of icons, which were, after all, the sole proper "art form" considered suitable for veneration (I include icons on other items such as Gospel books, etc, which, in themselves, are worthy of veneration), and in existence from the beginning of the Christian era when the Church was undivided, is quite different from the post-schism use of statues by the non-Orthodox.

Even icons painted in a naturalistic style, with linear perspective, shadows cast by the figures and features in the composition, and modeling which reproduces volume, are, strictly speaking, deficient as objects of veneration. These speak of time, place and space as seen through earthly eyes and parameters. Yet, in heaven, there is no time as we know it; there is no night and day, but the Light that never sets, the eternal Day that never ends, where all that is earthly, mortal and corruptible has been transfigured, transformed and perfected. It is these things, and more, which the icon seeks to portray and express, something which a 3D statue is manifestly incapable of doing.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,860
Reaction score
996
Points
113
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
The Orthodox have 2-D icons...mimicking the Icon Made Without Hands, which Christ left us.  Because we had seen Him, we may depict Him.

However, the whole "Thou shalt not make graven images", and idol worship, forbids us from 3-D objects.  This is why there are no statues in Orthodox churches, only icons.

OO icons are just fine. 
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Partially-overlapping
LizaSymonenko said:
The Orthodox have 2-D icons...mimicking the Icon Made Without Hands, which Christ left us.  Because we had seen Him, we
However, the whole "Thou shalt not make graven images", and idol worship, forbids us from 3-D objects.  This is why there are no statues in Orthodox churches, only icons.
Why would God restrict 3D?
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
33
NicholasMyra said:
LizaSymonenko said:
The Orthodox have 2-D icons...mimicking the Icon Made Without Hands, which Christ left us.  Because we had seen Him, we
However, the whole "Thou shalt not make graven images", and idol worship, forbids us from 3-D objects.  This is why there are no statues in Orthodox churches, only icons.
Why would God restrict 3D?
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?

It does not, however, seem to be the most common explanation; a more common one from the Orthodox apologists I've read is that the graven image prohibition was because the Incarnation had not happened yet, but things are different now. Under that interpretation there'd be nothing more wrong with 3D than 2D, since God became incarnate in a 3D rather than 2D form, after all.

If I remember correctly, some types of statues do predate the schism, but were very different from the type that eventually became common within the RC world, and not many have survived to the present. I suppose a statue that shared the same characteristics of icons (an "iconographic" statue, being of symbolic rather than photorealistic character, not overly emotional and not schlocky)  would hypothetically be fine within Western Rite Orthodoxy (probably not Byzantine Rite, because of the canons).

However, it might be difficult to design statues like that and there's not much of a history of doing so. The Greco-Roman sculpture tradition (as opposed to, say, African sculpture) was extremely photorealistic, so that might be one reason why the Fathers frowned on using them. 2D art on the other hand had not become photorealistic yet (perspective drawing had yet to be invented, and icons still don't use it).
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.

Here's more food for thought:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49648.msg928960.html#msg928960

Orthodox hymnography, particularly the hymns written to the Holy Trinity (troitsny, triadika) frequently refer to the Holy Trinity as the unwaning Light, Christ as the Radiance of the Father, and similar imagery. Christ was transfigured on Mt Tabor in a blaze of uncreated Light, brighter than the sun, and so bright that the three disciples who witnessed this could bear only a glimpse of it. Yet this display was only a fraction of the fullness of divine glory, as the hymns for the feast say.

Christ Himself also said to His disciples: You are the light of the world. Indeed, the words luminary, enlightener, radiant, and their variations, pepper the hymnography of saints. Saints are partakers of the Divine Light, and it is this Light which an icon portrays, the Light which comes from within, the all-encompassing Light where no shadow can be cast, and which, in an icon, culminates in the halo, usually golden, which surrounds the saint's face. A skilled iconographer can express this inner light by careful application of paint and leaf. Coupled with the flatness of the composition, the abstracted, non-naturalistic portrayal, and the deliberate use of inverse perspective which gives the opposite effect to linear perspective, a well-executed and well-composed icon is indeed capable of portraying and expressing heavenly realities.

By contrast, a statue is, by its nature, solid, opaque, volumetric, and, with its three dimensions, shadows are inevitable. It remains earthbound, of this world, not the next. A statue simply cannot portray the inner radiance of the saint as paint applied with skill to a gessoed board can. Indeed, in most non-Orthodox churches I have visited, the statues there are lit by spotlights or similar external illumination, an act which is surely the complete antithesis of the inner light which an icon easily and effortlessly expresses.
 

Ainnir

Merarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
8,558
Reaction score
1,615
Points
113
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Does it make a difference whether the heterodox image in question was designed to be venerated?  Most Protestant churches, for example, will have a picture of Jesus on the wall somewhere.  But it was not put there with even the slightest idea that someone would ever venerate it.  Would venerating such an image be acceptable (spiritually, not socially)?  Interesting OP to ponder.
 

Svartzorn

High Elder
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
761
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
33
Location
Brasília/DF, Brazil
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
?
I get LBK.
So, in conclusion, it is licit to venerate icons in heterodox parishes, when they conform to orthodox teachings.
Statues should be avoided, althought there's no explicit prohibition. They differ from the icons on the matters abovementioned.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
LBK rehashes the same arguments against statues again and again. The weakness of her reasoning is borne out  in this thread among others: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Iconodule said:
LBK rehashes the same arguments against statues again and again. The weakness of her reasoning is borne out  in this thread among others: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
The foundations of these arguments are often no older than the 20th century and do not have Patristic basis.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
LBK said:
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.
Hammered gold is the product of hammering gold into thin sheets to apply to things like statues.  A reading of Exodus 25:18-20 makes clear the cherubim were 3-D not repousse or chasing.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Age
52
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Deacon Lance said:
LBK said:
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.
Hammered gold is the product of hammering gold into thin sheets to apply to things like statues.  A reading of Exodus 25:18-20 makes clear the cherubim were 3-D not repousse or chasing.

anything non flat can have have hammered gold layed over it.

it does not prove bas-relief anymore than it proves fully 3-D. 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Deacon Lance said:
LBK said:
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.
Hammered gold is the product of hammering gold into thin sheets to apply to things like statues.  A reading of Exodus 25:18-20 makes clear the cherubim were 3-D not repousse or chasing.
See also 2 Chronicles 3: 10. LBK's interpretation is completely novel and unsupported by the text. Also, bas-reliefs are fully three-dimensional. There is no such thing as 2.5 dimensional.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
DeniseDenise said:
Deacon Lance said:
LBK said:
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.
Hammered gold is the product of hammering gold into thin sheets to apply to things like statues.  A reading of Exodus 25:18-20 makes clear the cherubim were 3-D not repousse or chasing.

anything non flat can have have hammered gold layed over it.
"Non-flat" but not 3D. Okay, looks like at least two people here need some remedial geometry lessons.

it does not prove bas-relief anymore than it proves fully 3-D.
How many dimensions, pray tell, does a bas-relief have?
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
88
Points
48
Age
52
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
How many dimensions is irrelevant to what I was saying.


Hammered gold is not restricted to use on 360 degree sculpture but can also be used on 180 degree projecting carvings from a surface.


That's all I was saying. And thus the document of 'hammered gold' does not narrow the usage to 360 degree statues.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Eikon does not mean statue. It never has. The Greek language has distinct words for a flat painted or mosaic image (eikona), for a bas-relief (anaglypho), and for fully three-dimensional statues (aghalma, andrias). These terms in no way can be confused or conflated.

I imagine the Hebrew language also makes these distinctions.

 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
DeniseDenise said:
Deacon Lance said:
LBK said:
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.
Hammered gold is the product of hammering gold into thin sheets to apply to things like statues.  A reading of Exodus 25:18-20 makes clear the cherubim were 3-D not repousse or chasing.

anything non flat can have have hammered gold layed over it.

it does not prove bas-relief anymore than it proves fully 3-D.
No reading the text proves that.  Repousse cherubim can't spread their wings above, overshadow the seat with their wings or face the heads down.


Exodus 25:18-20. Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.




 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
10,177
Reaction score
1,354
Points
113
Age
25
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Faith
Big-O Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Exarchate of Gotham City
I have two statues in my closet: St. Michael the Archangel and St. Sebastian. But I don't venerate them as I do to the icons I keep in my one corner.

Oriental Orthodox icons: just fine.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
LBK said:
Eikon does not mean statue. It never has.
Simply untrue. Both eikon and agalma have been applied to statues.

Also, introducing a new argument without acknowledging rebuttals of your previous ones is bad form.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,860
Reaction score
996
Points
113
Location
Detroit
Website
uocofusa.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Antonis said:
Iconodule said:
LBK rehashes the same arguments against statues again and again. The weakness of her reasoning is borne out  in this thread among others: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
The foundations of these arguments are often no older than the 20th century and do not have Patristic basis.
I'm not so sure about that.

The whole iconoclasm thing was in the 8th century, no?  We won back the use of icons...but, nowhere were statues mentioned.  On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (first Sunday of Great Lent) we stand in church reverently holding icons, not statues.

The oldest surviving Orthodox churches reveal bits and pieces of icons on their walls, either painted, or mosaics.  Even the catacombs still have ancient simple icons etched/painted on their walls.  No statues, if they existed, survive.

You would think that if the ancient churches utilized statues, they would still exist.  Roman Catholic ones do....where are the Orthodox statues of old?  Not in any museum that I have visited.

Makes one ponder the history of statues used in Orthodox churches, doesn't it?
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Iconodule said:
Simply untrue. Both eikon and agalma have been applied to statues.
Evidence, please.

Iconodule said:
Also, introducing a new argument without acknowledging rebuttals of your previous ones is bad form.
What rebuttals? A look at your posts in the various threads on statues and icons show plenty of inconsistencies and contradictions which you failed to address.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
LBK said:
Iconodule said:
Simply untrue. Both eikon and agalma have been applied to statues.
Evidence, please.
From Plato's Laws:

τῶν θεῶν ὁρῶντες σαφῶς τιμῶμεν, τῶν δ᾽ εἰκόνας ἀγάλματα ἱδρυσάμενοι, οὓς ἡμῖν ἀγάλλουσι καίπερ ἀψύχους ὄντας, ἐκείνους ἡγούμεθα τοὺς ἐμψύχους θεοὺς πολλὴν διὰ ταῦτ᾽ εὔνοιαν καὶ χάριν ἔχειν. πατὴρ οὖν ὅτῳ καὶ μήτηρ ἢ τούτων πατέρες ἢ μητέρες ἐν οἰκίᾳ κεῖνται κειμήλιοι ἀπειρηκότες γήρᾳ, μηδεὶς διανοηθήτω ποτὲ ἄγαλμα αὑτῷ, τοιοῦτον ἐφέστιον ἵδρυμα ἐν οἰκίᾳ ἔχων, μᾶλλον κύριον ἔσεσθαι, ἐὰν δὴ κατὰ τρόπον γε ὀρθῶς αὐτὸ θεραπεύῃ ὁ κεκτημένος.



Iconodule said:
Also, introducing a new argument without acknowledging rebuttals of your previous ones is bad form.
What rebuttals?
There have been several in this thread alone and it's quite short. The incoherence of your arguments are borne out in this thread (among others): http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
LizaSymonenko said:
Antonis said:
Iconodule said:
LBK rehashes the same arguments against statues again and again. The weakness of her reasoning is borne out  in this thread among others: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
The foundations of these arguments are often no older than the 20th century and do not have Patristic basis.
I'm not so sure about that.

The whole iconoclasm thing was in the 8th century, no?  We won back the use of icons...but, nowhere were statues mentioned.  On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (first Sunday of Great Lent) we stand in church reverently holding icons, not statues.

The oldest surviving Orthodox churches reveal bits and pieces of icons on their walls, either painted, or mosaics.  Even the catacombs still have ancient simple icons etched/painted on their walls.  No statues, if they existed, survive.

You would think that if the ancient churches utilized statues, they would still exist.  Roman Catholic ones do....where are the Orthodox statues of old?  Not in any museum that I have visited.

Makes one ponder the history of statues used in Orthodox churches, doesn't it?
To add to Liza's pertinent observations:

Orthodoxy has "baptized" or "Christianized" various elements of pre-Christian worship and devotional practice. Statuary are a most ancient art form, and integral to the religious expression of many a non-Christian culture. If the undivided Church would have seen it fit to allow statues as venerable objects as she allowed icons and bas-reliefs, this would have happened.

The fact it has not is most telling, and folks should be content with this.

 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Partially-overlapping
LBK said:
Orthodoxy has "baptized" or "Christianized" various elements of pre-Christian worship and devotional practice. Statuary are a most ancient art form, and integral to the religious expression of many a non-Christian culture. If the undivided Church would have seen it fit to allow statues as venerable objects as she allowed icons and bas-reliefs, this would have happened.

The fact it has not is most telling, and folks should be content with this.
So you're saying that if the whole Church allowed statues, then the whole Church allowed statues. The whole Church didn't allow statues. Therefore, the whole Church didn't allow statues.

Is that right?

 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
352
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Iconodule said:
From Plato's Laws:

τῶν θεῶν ὁρῶντες σαφῶς τιμῶμεν, τῶν δ᾽ εἰκόνας ἀγάλματα ἱδρυσάμενοι, οὓς ἡμῖν ἀγάλλουσι καίπερ ἀψύχους ὄντας, ἐκείνους ἡγούμεθα τοὺς ἐμψύχους θεοὺς πολλὴν διὰ ταῦτ᾽ εὔνοιαν καὶ χάριν ἔχειν. πατὴρ οὖν ὅτῳ καὶ μήτηρ ἢ τούτων πατέρες ἢ μητέρες ἐν οἰκίᾳ κεῖνται κειμήλιοι ἀπειρηκότες γήρᾳ, μηδεὶς διανοηθήτω ποτὲ ἄγαλμα αὑτῷ, τοιοῦτον ἐφέστιον ἵδρυμα ἐν οἰκίᾳ ἔχων, μᾶλλον κύριον ἔσεσθαι, ἐὰν δὴ κατὰ τρόπον γε ὀρθῶς αὐτὸ θεραπεύῃ ὁ κεκτημένος.
Translation, please.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Mor Ephrem said:
Iconodule said:
From Plato's Laws:

τῶν θεῶν ὁρῶντες σαφῶς τιμῶμεν, τῶν δ᾽ εἰκόνας ἀγάλματα ἱδρυσάμενοι, οὓς ἡμῖν ἀγάλλουσι καίπερ ἀψύχους ὄντας, ἐκείνους ἡγούμεθα τοὺς ἐμψύχους θεοὺς πολλὴν διὰ ταῦτ᾽ εὔνοιαν καὶ χάριν ἔχειν. πατὴρ οὖν ὅτῳ καὶ μήτηρ ἢ τούτων πατέρες ἢ μητέρες ἐν οἰκίᾳ κεῖνται κειμήλιοι ἀπειρηκότες γήρᾳ, μηδεὶς διανοηθήτω ποτὲ ἄγαλμα αὑτῷ, τοιοῦτον ἐφέστιον ἵδρυμα ἐν οἰκίᾳ ἔχων, μᾶλλον κύριον ἔσεσθαι, ἐὰν δὴ κατὰ τρόπον γε ὀρθῶς αὐτὸ θεραπεύῃ ὁ κεκτημένος.
Translation, please.
"[The ancient laws] of all men concerning the gods are two-fold: some of the gods whom we honor we see clearly, but of others we set up statues [agalmata] as images [eikonas], and we believe that when we worship these, lifeless though they be, the living gods beyond feel great good-will towards us and gratitude. So if any man has a father or a mother, or one of their fathers or mothers, in his house laid up bed-ridden with age, let him never suppose that, while he has such a figure as this upon his hearth, any statue could be more potent, if so be that its owner tends it duly and rightly."

This is just one example. Most examples of "eikon" in ancient Greek literature refer to statues.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
LizaSymonenko said:
Antonis said:
Iconodule said:
LBK rehashes the same arguments against statues again and again. The weakness of her reasoning is borne out  in this thread among others: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
The foundations of these arguments are often no older than the 20th century and do not have Patristic basis.
I'm not so sure about that.

The whole iconoclasm thing was in the 8th century, no?  We won back the use of icons...but, nowhere were statues mentioned.  On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (first Sunday of Great Lent) we stand in church reverently holding icons, not statues.

The oldest surviving Orthodox churches reveal bits and pieces of icons on their walls, either painted, or mosaics.  Even the catacombs still have ancient simple icons etched/painted on their walls.  No statues, if they existed, survive.

You would think that if the ancient churches utilized statues, they would still exist.  Roman Catholic ones do....where are the Orthodox statues of old?  Not in any museum that I have visited.

Makes one ponder the history of statues used in Orthodox churches, doesn't it?
They do survive and Iconodule provided pictures of them further up the thread.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
LBK said:
Minnesotan said:
I've seen the 2D-3D interpretation of that passage expressed by some Orthodox before, although it's somewhat unsatisfying (why didn't the OT Jews make 2D icons? And what about the 3D cherubim on the ark)?
The artwork in the Temple as decreed by God's instructions were for bas-reliefs, not fully three-dimensional statues. The cherubim were made of "hammered gold", i.e. embossed. This has been discussed in other threads on statues vs icons.
Do you consider these to be statues?









Why or why not?
 

Seraffa

Sr. Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Location
Irving, TX
Faith
Coptic Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Diocese of the Southern U.S.
Svartzorn said:
Is it licit for us to venerate images made by heterodox (for example, catholic sculpture or coptic icons?)
I know there's a rule that forbids prayer with the heterodox, but if we visit their temple in a given situation, is it permissible to venerate the local images in particular prayer?
Svartzhorn.......take this up with your spiritual father; as you can see here, there are varieties of answers, from extremely hard theological replies to examples of what originally was expressed in Byzantium, the "Christian Kingdom."

I will say for myself, when I go back to the church (not Temple, mind you) where I was Baptised (since I was Chrismated into Orthodoxy later) I always ask God what He wishes me to do in such a place. Often I will sit before the images and pray to Him only, make the sign of the Cross, but not stand up and pray with hands "Orans" in front of these images. The Heterodox do know know in fullness what they worship, but we do; therefore, to pray reverently in such a place without imitating the Heterodox is all God expects us to do if we visit.  On the ledge of a stained glass window of St. George in very flat 2 D - yes, I have always left a flower at his feet, because it was St. George through that window that allowed me, as a child and teenager, to dream of what it would be like to be a bold witness for Christ.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Deacon Lance said:
LizaSymonenko said:
Antonis said:
Iconodule said:
LBK rehashes the same arguments against statues again and again. The weakness of her reasoning is borne out  in this thread among others: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55949.0.html
The foundations of these arguments are often no older than the 20th century and do not have Patristic basis.
I'm not so sure about that.

The whole iconoclasm thing was in the 8th century, no?  We won back the use of icons...but, nowhere were statues mentioned.  On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (first Sunday of Great Lent) we stand in church reverently holding icons, not statues.

The oldest surviving Orthodox churches reveal bits and pieces of icons on their walls, either painted, or mosaics.  Even the catacombs still have ancient simple icons etched/painted on their walls.  No statues, if they existed, survive.

You would think that if the ancient churches utilized statues, they would still exist.  Roman Catholic ones do....where are the Orthodox statues of old?  Not in any museum that I have visited.

Makes one ponder the history of statues used in Orthodox churches, doesn't it?
They do survive and Iconodule provided pictures of them further up the thread.
Great numbers of icons were destroyed during the iconoclastic periods, yet a good many ancient icons are with us to this day. Where are the comparable numbers of ancient Orthodox statues?

A figure here and a figure there does not speak of an established tradition of veneration. And Liza's point on the writings of the iconophile saints and the liturgical deposit only speak of icons as venerable, not statues.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
The Orthodox Church is rich with icons, both 2D  and 3D (statues) according to the following article on 3D Orthodox icons. Further, the article gives a picture of a 3D statue  of the Virgin Mary with Christ Child which rests in the  Holy Incarnation Antiochian Orthodox Church – Lincoln Park, MI.
The author says: "There are a significant number of modern Orthodox churches which are embracing their heritage via three-dimensional Orthodox iconography."
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/3d-orthodox-icons/
 
Top