• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Pictures of Western Icons?

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Alpha60 said:
There are two ancient baptistries at Ravenna: the Orthodox Baptistry and the Arian Baptistry.  The Byzantine artwork in the two, which were constructed by the Ostrogothic ruler to cater to the two groups and avoid a schism, is virtually identical; there is just one striking difference, that being that in the Arian Baptistry our Lord appears as a beardless young man, no older than 20, whereas in the Orthodox Baptistry he has a beard and His normal, mature, adult appearance.
Another striking difference is that in the orthodox mosaic Christ is modestly depicted and in the Arian one, not.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
The young fogey said:
Alpo said:
The young fogey said:
The point remains that Western Rite Orthodox should be adopting and cultivating this kind of art instead of adopting Byzantine art
Like Salus Populi Romani, San Damiano cross and about half of the paintings of churches in Italy.
Pretty much. The San Damiano crucifix is a good example. Similar to Byzantine but not Byzantine.
Good.  Because sometimes you gave me the impression of defending the Renaissance style, which is too sentimental and realistic for worship, having more to do with the Arian style of the Ravenna baptistry mosaics than with the orthodox one in the same city.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,709
Reaction score
230
Points
63
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
The young fogey said:
Why not in Eastern and Southern Europe? And the Melkites are based in the Middle East.
I'm from Eastern and Southern Europe, have been also to Greek Catholics, I know some such priests. So I just know their practices and mentality.

The Middle East - I'm at Arabic studies, so, again, I have some knowledge.

And the Melkites in the Middle East, and the Melkites abroad... it's quite a different story. But even the second one, I think, our Rapha from Brasil said, that because of being latinised most of Latin American Melkites lost their parishes, rite and memory about their roots, origins.
 

Jackson02

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
United States
Funny enough, there has been speculation that in what's known as the Arian baptistery the mosaics were made by Orthodox christians as the Ostrogoths were mostly Goldsmiths.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
Dominika said:
Volnutt said:
Oh yeah, I see the differences, the Arian has a representation of the Father, the Empty Throne, and a general background of green and gold, instead of dark blue. St. John is also on Christ's right with the Father on his left. I never knew there were two in the same place, thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_Baptistery#/media/File:Arian_Baptistry_ceiling_mosaic_-_Ravenna.jpg
I didn't know! It's interesting!

Volnutt said:
ETA: It's not letting me post the image for some reason.
It seems a system detecting heresies has been just implemented.
lol
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
The young fogey said:
I didn't know any Arian church buildings still existed. Thanks. "Verrrry interesting" as Arte Johnson says as his German-soldier character (he's a comedian from decades ago). A spiritual point: it looks almost like Catholicism and Orthodoxy but look at the details. (Each of the ancient sects like that claimed to be the true church just like we still respectively do.)

Does anybody actually care but liturgy nerds?
I can't find quotations but in other conversations on this board on this topic I recall the message of "liturgy is more important to us than to your church," lex orandi, lex credendi, so I tried to meet that challenge by imagining a culturally consistent Western Orthodoxy; this seems to contradict that. "Orthodoxy cares about liturgy"/"only liturgy nerds care about this."

Again, if you agree with John of Shanghai and San Francisco about not having to be Eastern to be Orthodox (and he didn't really implement that; the revived Gallican Rite was very byzantinized), then you'd mirror unlatinized Eastern Catholic churches by having authentically Western expressions of Orthodoxy in order to respect perfectly good rites and for your attempted witness to us.
Well, don't take my word for what the Orthodox think, but I always thought lex orandi was more about consonance with previous traditions.

A lot of East-West wrangling of this sort just kind of looks like nit-picking to me since the overall thrust of what's being portrayed and done is so similar. But apparently many of the Orthodox believe that there's significant differences in the theology being conveyed. I can't see it, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

My apologies for being flippant, though.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Dominika said:
The young fogey said:
Why not in Eastern and Southern Europe? And the Melkites are based in the Middle East.
I'm from Eastern and Southern Europe, have been also to Greek Catholics, I know some such priests. So I just know their practices and mentality.

The Middle East - I'm at Arabic studies, so, again, I have some knowledge.

And the Melkites in the Middle East, and the Melkites abroad... it's quite a different story. But even the second one, I think, our Rapha from Brasil said, that because of being latinised most of Latin American Melkites lost their parishes, rite and memory about their roots, origins.
My guess, from knowing Greek Catholics from Eastern Europe, is historically they latinized themselves, ironic because that wasn't Rome's plan, to distinguish themselves from the Orthodox, a tendency that Communist persecution strengthened.

The founders of ACROD, the jurisdiction some members here belong to, were Catholics whose families had been so for centuries until the 1930s, and even after they switched to the Greeks they kept their latinizations for decades: the practice of having two Liturgies on a Sunday, calling it Mass, monsignors, and First Communion for 7-year-olds. Poignant. That schism breaks my heart: you don't have to do those things to be Catholic, but that schism was our fault (for trying to force priestly celibacy on new Greek Catholic priests in America) and ACROD's long retention of those practices points to the fact that at first they didn't want to leave us.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
I was recently at the Cleveland Museum of Art, and found it worthwhile to share this giant Crucifix they have on display.



Which led me to Google Crucifixes from Pisa, which gave me this image



They're both from the 12th-13th century, but very iconographic.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,709
Reaction score
230
Points
63
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
The young fogey said:
The founders of ACROD, the jurisdiction some members here belong to, were Catholics whose families had been so for centuries until the 1930s, and even after they switched to the Greeks they kept their latinizations for decades: the practice of having two Liturgies on a Sunday,
It's pretty common in large parishes in Poland and it happens in Romania, Russia...

The young fogey said:
calling it Mass,
It happenes among Polish Orthodox villigers.

The young fogey said:
monsignors, and First Communion for 7-year-olds. Poignant. That schism breaks my heart: you don't have to do those things to be Catholic, but that schism was our fault (for trying to force priestly celibacy on new Greek Catholic priests in America) and ACROD's long retention of those practices points to the fact that at first they didn't want to leave us.
And this, generally - I think it's above all, what we call in Polish "siła przyzwyczajenia" (stregth of the habit).
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Dominika, I think we're both right. I believe that at first ACROD was ambivalent about leaving. All they really wanted was to keep their customs as they had them at the time, the 1930s, and the Greeks have accommodated them that way. Longtime poster podkarpatska can tell you about growing up in that church in the 1950s and 1960s: "We're Orthodox Greek Catholics" as Fr. Dolhy said then. So you're right that a lot of it was habit/custom apart from beliefs. The generation that converted passed away and that church's bishop before the current one, Metropolitan Nicholas (Smisko), quietly stopped doing some of the Latin Catholic practices, so the recently promoted priests are protopresbyters, not monsignors anymore, for example.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
Source:
ROCOR Western Rite Liturgics Website, Liturgy of Saint Gregory
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/144b2c_20fb156e03c34f56a6dc312f73f9888d.pdf

Crucifixion:


Last Supper:


Entrance into Jerusalem:
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
These "black and white" pictures are called "line art," and they are typically in Traditional Missals.

I enjoy quite a few number of these, but one stood out to me that I'll share.



I never learned about the Typology of Christ and the Theotokos with the Burning Bush until I started learning about Orthodoxy - not once in my 12 years of Roman Catholic education was the Old Testament really at all looked at in terms of the symbolism of Christ's eventual entrance unto the world (which is a travesty).
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
LivenotoneviL said:
I never learned about the Typology of Christ and the Theotokos with the Burning Bush until I started learning about Orthodoxy - not once in my 12 years of Roman Catholic education was the Old Testament really at all looked at in terms of the symbolism of Christ's eventual entrance unto the world (which is a travesty).
Had I kept a list of the things that I learned in my studies on Orthodoxy, things that completely in line with the Catholic faith, that I had never heard or read in my whole life as a Catholic, it'd be a really long post.  All in all, such omissions made me feel deprived of the fullness of the life of the Church.

I've always loved the Church Fathers and was captivated by their language and lives.  As a Catholic, I had to resign myself to the time that separates us and them and that quietens their voice in order to explain why the contemporary Catholic Church speaks with a different voice.  Then I learned that the Vatican officials in charge of the canonization process of St. Sharbel were amazed at the testimonies on his saintly life because they were as fantastic as those commonly read in the Desert Fathers, typically assigned to pious exaggerations by modern scholars.  Alas, as I found out, there still is a Church that speaks with the voice of the Fathers and gives an awesome prophetic witness of Christ in the world: the Eastern Orthodox Church.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,709
Reaction score
230
Points
63
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Mor Ephrem said:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/11/medieval-frescoes-in-long-lost-crypt.html
Wow, they're really beautiful (and so old)!
 

maneki_neko

Sr. Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
154
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Virginia
LivenotoneviL said:
Which led me to Google Crucifixes from Pisa, which gave me this image: They're both from the 12th-13th century, but very iconographic.
I have a small San Damiano (Byzantine style) cross in my icon corner. I guess this is improper since it's Roman Catholic? I bought it from the monks in Assisi when I visited their monastery in Italy as a relatively agnostic Protestant. Never had an occasion to use it until I became Orthodox and it lay in its wrappings for years.



http://www.zieglers.com/blog/the-san-damiano-cross-one-of-the-churchs-most-mysterious-gifts-explained/ 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
I see nothing improper in the San Damiano Cross. It seems quite holy to me.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
maneki_neko said:
LivenotoneviL said:
Which led me to Google Crucifixes from Pisa, which gave me this image: They're both from the 12th-13th century, but very iconographic.
I have a small San Damiano (Byzantine style) cross in my icon corner. I guess this is improper since it's Roman Catholic? I bought it from the monks in Assisi when I visited their monastery in Italy as a relatively agnostic Protestant. Never had an occasion to use it until I became Orthodox and it lay in its wrappings for years.



http://www.zieglers.com/blog/the-san-damiano-cross-one-of-the-churchs-most-mysterious-gifts-explained/
The only thing that I - from an Orthodox perspective - would find somewhat problematic is its direct connection to Francis of Assisi; that is, this is the Crucifix that apparently talked to Francis and told him to "restore my Church."

However, in terms of art - I'm of the opinion there's nothing intrinsically heterodox in its art.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,314
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
LivenotoneviL said:
The only thing that I - from an Orthodox perspective - would find somewhat problematic is its direct connection to Francis of Assisi...
By this standard, it's a wonder we have an Orthodox perspective at all. 
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
https://hnp.org/orthodox-church-francis-of-assisi-was-no-saint/
http://www.pravmir.com/church-unity-politics/
http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2014/10/prelest-of-francis-of-assisi.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/delusions-of-catholic-mystics.html

(P.S. It's an honor to have one of my quotes used by the almighty Mor.)
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
So you link to two articles by the same person, one article which is just a summary of another article you link to, and then some link by a schismatic group. When will your laziness come to an end?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,314
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
LivenotoneviL said:
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?
You're missing the point.  Whatever we might say about Francis of Assisi, his association with the "San Damiano" crucifix doesn't make its orthodoxy questionable.  Its faithfulness to Orthodox doctrine or lack thereof is what matters.  If something is questionable because it's associated with a questionable figure, then we've just lost the Bible, the Liturgy, the holy fathers, etc.   

(P.S. It's an honor to have one of my quotes used by the almighty Mor.)
Keep shining, star!
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
LivenotoneviL said:
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
https://hnp.org/orthodox-church-francis-of-assisi-was-no-saint/
http://www.pravmir.com/church-unity-politics/
http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2014/10/prelest-of-francis-of-assisi.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/delusions-of-catholic-mystics.html

(P.S. It's an honor to have one of my quotes used by the almighty Mor.)
There's been like 10 threads on Stigmata here over the years. Might want to search for them.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
Iconodule said:
So you link to two articles by the same person, one article which is just a summary of another article you link to, and then some link by a schismatic group. When will your laziness come to an end?
You got a point. Pray for my laziness to end.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
Mor Ephrem said:
LivenotoneviL said:
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?
You're missing the point.  Whatever we might say about Francis of Assisi, his association with the "San Damiano" crucifix doesn't make its orthodoxy questionable.  Its faithfulness to Orthodox doctrine or lack thereof is what matters.  If something is questionable because it's associated with a questionable figure, then we've just lost the Bible, the Liturgy, the holy fathers, etc.   
I think your logic is flawed - because the San Damiano Crucifix in of itself was never part of Orthodox Tradition.

The Bible, the Liturgy, and the Church Fathers have always been a part of Orthodox Tradition.

The San Damiano Crucifix is heterodox in origin, being made post-schism, which makes it permanently fixed with the Roman Catholic Church - and in addition to this, the only reason why this specific piece of art is popular in the Roman Catholic Church is BECAUSE of Francis of Assisi. If Francis of Assisi did not exist, we wouldn't be talking about the San Damiano Crucifix.

Does it make it unOrthodox as an art piece? No - it is still Byzantine in its style and it is what I call "iconographic" - being 2-dimensional, having symbolic colors, and trying to transcend the materialism of this world. It's a better art-piece for veneration than some certain Russian Orthodox artwork I'm thinking of.

However, you have to recognize the implications and the messages you are sending to people if you buy it from a Roman Catholic source, you pray using it with other people, and if you wear it as a Pendant.

If you wear it as a Pendant, the message you send to people is "I think Francis of Assisi is a good role model in his life," and the mere act of wearing it as a Pendant is a message to onlookers who are familiar with it is "I firmly believe that the Franciscans are role models to follow, obeying the authority of the Roman Church," simply because this art piece is firmly fixed with Francis of Assisi.


A more accurate comparison would be other heterodox devotions such as the Rosary or the Saint Michael Chaplet.

In the theology that is being prayed with the words on the paper themselves, are they heterodox? In my humble opinion, no (aside from the imagination that is encouraged by Roman Catholics, which is unacceptable).
The former is simply 5 Our Fathers, 50 Angelic Salutations, and 5 Lesser Doxologies, and it was even modified into a prayer rule by Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

However, if you encourage these devotions in of themselves - even if you remove the "imaginative" portions of these prayers - you have to recognize the Rosary's origins with the Roman Saint Dominic and it's direct attachments to Roman Catholic Marian Apparitions (Our Lady of Carmel, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, etc.), the latter which I think are completely unacceptable for an Orthodox to accept.

The same with the Saint Michael Chaplet - a long prayer that is extremely beautiful; it's a prayer in which you ask for the intercessions of Saint Michael and ALL the choirs of angels to help you live a more Christian life. You can find it here:

https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/chaplet-of-st-michael.htm

- but whose origin was a vision of Saint Michael to a heterodox nun who was promised by "Saint Michael" that they would be delivered from the "sufferings of Purgatory" if they recited it daily. By encouraging this prayer, you are encouraging a false theology simply by it's permanent attachment to this heretical apparition and a heterodox organization.

I consider the Cross of San Damiano the same way - is there anything wrong in of itself? No, but it's an alien to Tradition and should generally not be encouraged, lest - as Seraphim Rose would say - "the tombs of the mind are opened, in which all sorts of dead things and evil spirits crawl out of."
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,314
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
LivenotoneviL said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LivenotoneviL said:
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?
You're missing the point.  Whatever we might say about Francis of Assisi, his association with the "San Damiano" crucifix doesn't make its orthodoxy questionable.  Its faithfulness to Orthodox doctrine or lack thereof is what matters.  If something is questionable because it's associated with a questionable figure, then we've just lost the Bible, the Liturgy, the holy fathers, etc.   
I think your logic is flawed - because the San Damiano Crucifix in of itself was never part of Orthodox Tradition.

The Bible, the Liturgy, and the Church Fathers have always been a part of Orthodox Tradition.

The San Damiano Crucifix is heterodox in origin, being made post-schism, which makes it permanently fixed with the Roman Catholic Church - and in addition to this, the only reason why this specific piece of art is popular in the Roman Catholic Church is BECAUSE of Francis of Assisi. If Francis of Assisi did not exist, we wouldn't be talking about the San Damiano Crucifix.

Does it make it unOrthodox as an art piece? No - it is still Byzantine in its style and it is what I call "iconographic" - being 2-dimensional, having symbolic colors, and trying to transcend the materialism of this world. It's a better art-piece for veneration than some certain Russian Orthodox artwork I'm thinking of.

However, you have to recognize the implications and the messages you are sending to people if you buy it from a Roman Catholic source, you pray using it with other people, and if you wear it as a Pendant.

If you wear it as a Pendant, the message you send to people is "I think Francis of Assisi is a good role model in his life," and the mere act of wearing it as a Pendant is a message to onlookers who are familiar with it is "I firmly believe that the Franciscans are role models to follow, obeying the authority of the Roman Church," simply because this art piece is firmly fixed with Francis of Assisi.


A more accurate comparison would be other heterodox devotions such as the Rosary or the Saint Michael Chaplet.

In the theology that is being prayed with the words on the paper themselves, are they heterodox? In my humble opinion, no (aside from the imagination that is encouraged by Roman Catholics, which is unacceptable).
The former is simply 5 Our Fathers, 50 Angelic Salutations, and 5 Lesser Doxologies, and it was even modified into a prayer rule by Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

However, if you encourage these devotions in of themselves - even if you remove the "imaginative" portions of these prayers - you have to recognize the Rosary's origins with the Roman Saint Dominic and it's direct attachments to Roman Catholic Marian Apparitions (Our Lady of Carmel, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, etc.), the latter which I think are completely unacceptable for an Orthodox to accept.

The same with the Saint Michael Chaplet - a long prayer that is extremely beautiful; it's a prayer in which you ask for the intercessions of Saint Michael and ALL the choirs of angels to help you live a more Christian life. You can find it here:

https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/chaplet-of-st-michael.htm

- but whose origin was a vision of Saint Michael to a heterodox nun who was promised by "Saint Michael" that the "sufferings of Purgatory" would be lessened if it was prayed. By encouraging this prayer, you are encouraging a false theology simply by it's permanent attachment to this heretical apparition and a heterodox organization.

I consider the Cross of San Damiano the same way - is there anything wrong in of itself? No, but it's an alien to Tradition and should generally not be encouraged, lest - as Seraphim Rose would say - "the tombs of the mind are opened, in which all sorts of dead things and evil spirits crawl out of."
You need to calm down.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
Mor Ephrem said:
LivenotoneviL said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LivenotoneviL said:
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?
You're missing the point.  Whatever we might say about Francis of Assisi, his association with the "San Damiano" crucifix doesn't make its orthodoxy questionable.  Its faithfulness to Orthodox doctrine or lack thereof is what matters.  If something is questionable because it's associated with a questionable figure, then we've just lost the Bible, the Liturgy, the holy fathers, etc.   
I think your logic is flawed - because the San Damiano Crucifix in of itself was never part of Orthodox Tradition.

The Bible, the Liturgy, and the Church Fathers have always been a part of Orthodox Tradition.

The San Damiano Crucifix is heterodox in origin, being made post-schism, which makes it permanently fixed with the Roman Catholic Church - and in addition to this, the only reason why this specific piece of art is popular in the Roman Catholic Church is BECAUSE of Francis of Assisi. If Francis of Assisi did not exist, we wouldn't be talking about the San Damiano Crucifix.

Does it make it unOrthodox as an art piece? No - it is still Byzantine in its style and it is what I call "iconographic" - being 2-dimensional, having symbolic colors, and trying to transcend the materialism of this world. It's a better art-piece for veneration than some certain Russian Orthodox artwork I'm thinking of.

However, you have to recognize the implications and the messages you are sending to people if you buy it from a Roman Catholic source, you pray using it with other people, and if you wear it as a Pendant.

If you wear it as a Pendant, the message you send to people is "I think Francis of Assisi is a good role model in his life," and the mere act of wearing it as a Pendant is a message to onlookers who are familiar with it is "I firmly believe that the Franciscans are role models to follow, obeying the authority of the Roman Church," simply because this art piece is firmly fixed with Francis of Assisi.


A more accurate comparison would be other heterodox devotions such as the Rosary or the Saint Michael Chaplet.

In the theology that is being prayed with the words on the paper themselves, are they heterodox? In my humble opinion, no (aside from the imagination that is encouraged by Roman Catholics, which is unacceptable).
The former is simply 5 Our Fathers, 50 Angelic Salutations, and 5 Lesser Doxologies, and it was even modified into a prayer rule by Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

However, if you encourage these devotions in of themselves - even if you remove the "imaginative" portions of these prayers - you have to recognize the Rosary's origins with the Roman Saint Dominic and it's direct attachments to Roman Catholic Marian Apparitions (Our Lady of Carmel, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, etc.), the latter which I think are completely unacceptable for an Orthodox to accept.

The same with the Saint Michael Chaplet - a long prayer that is extremely beautiful; it's a prayer in which you ask for the intercessions of Saint Michael and ALL the choirs of angels to help you live a more Christian life. You can find it here:

https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/chaplet-of-st-michael.htm

- but whose origin was a vision of Saint Michael to a heterodox nun who was promised by "Saint Michael" that the "sufferings of Purgatory" would be lessened if it was prayed. By encouraging this prayer, you are encouraging a false theology simply by it's permanent attachment to this heretical apparition and a heterodox organization.

I consider the Cross of San Damiano the same way - is there anything wrong in of itself? No, but it's an alien to Tradition and should generally not be encouraged, lest - as Seraphim Rose would say - "the tombs of the mind are opened, in which all sorts of dead things and evil spirits crawl out of."
You need to calm down.
I didn't know that sharing a dissident opinion from another individual equivocates to rage and anger, such that I would need to be quote on quote "calmed down."
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
12th century is really not “post-schism.” Also, unless you mean to worship paint and wood, the provenance of an icon is not particularly important if what is depicted is orthodox.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,314
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
LivenotoneviL said:
I didn't know that sharing a dissident opinion from another individual equivocates to rage and anger, such that I would need to be quote on quote "calmed down."
I said nothing about "rage and anger".  There are more than two reasons why someone might need to calm down (e.g., "working oneself up into a frenzy over things about which one lacks sufficient knowledge and insight"). 
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
LivenotoneviL said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LivenotoneviL said:
Would you say that the majority of Orthodox theologians agree that the Stigmata is a sign of the Grace of God? Especially with the abundant amount of - I argue, whether its for good or bad - polemical works by the Orthodox Church members that criticize aspects of Francis of Assisi's sanctity?
You're missing the point.  Whatever we might say about Francis of Assisi, his association with the "San Damiano" crucifix doesn't make its orthodoxy questionable.  Its faithfulness to Orthodox doctrine or lack thereof is what matters.  If something is questionable because it's associated with a questionable figure, then we've just lost the Bible, the Liturgy, the holy fathers, etc.   
I think your logic is flawed - because the San Damiano Crucifix in of itself was never part of Orthodox Tradition.

The Bible, the Liturgy, and the Church Fathers have always been a part of Orthodox Tradition.

The San Damiano Crucifix is heterodox in origin, being made post-schism, which makes it permanently fixed with the Roman Catholic Church - and in addition to this, the only reason why this specific piece of art is popular in the Roman Catholic Church is BECAUSE of Francis of Assisi. If Francis of Assisi did not exist, we wouldn't be talking about the San Damiano Crucifix.

Does it make it unOrthodox as an art piece? No - it is still Byzantine in its style and it is what I call "iconographic" - being 2-dimensional, having symbolic colors, and trying to transcend the materialism of this world. It's a better art-piece for veneration than some certain Russian Orthodox artwork I'm thinking of.

However, you have to recognize the implications and the messages you are sending to people if you buy it from a Roman Catholic source, you pray using it with other people, and if you wear it as a Pendant.

If you wear it as a Pendant, the message you send to people is "I think Francis of Assisi is a good role model in his life," and the mere act of wearing it as a Pendant is a message to onlookers who are familiar with it is "I firmly believe that the Franciscans are role models to follow, obeying the authority of the Roman Church," simply because this art piece is firmly fixed with Francis of Assisi.


A more accurate comparison would be other heterodox devotions such as the Rosary or the Saint Michael Chaplet.

In the theology that is being prayed with the words on the paper themselves, are they heterodox? In my humble opinion, no (aside from the imagination that is encouraged by Roman Catholics, which is unacceptable).
The former is simply 5 Our Fathers, 50 Angelic Salutations, and 5 Lesser Doxologies, and it was even modified into a prayer rule by Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

However, if you encourage these devotions in of themselves - even if you remove the "imaginative" portions of these prayers - you have to recognize the Rosary's origins with the Roman Saint Dominic and it's direct attachments to Roman Catholic Marian Apparitions (Our Lady of Carmel, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, etc.), the latter which I think are completely unacceptable for an Orthodox to accept.

The same with the Saint Michael Chaplet - a long prayer that is extremely beautiful; it's a prayer in which you ask for the intercessions of Saint Michael and ALL the choirs of angels to help you live a more Christian life. You can find it here:

https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/chaplet-of-st-michael.htm

- but whose origin was a vision of Saint Michael to a heterodox nun who was promised by "Saint Michael" that they would be delivered from the "sufferings of Purgatory" if they recited it daily. By encouraging this prayer, you are encouraging a false theology simply by it's permanent attachment to this heretical apparition and a heterodox organization.

I consider the Cross of San Damiano the same way - is there anything wrong in of itself? No, but it's an alien to Tradition and should generally not be encouraged, lest - as Seraphim Rose would say - "the tombs of the mind are opened, in which all sorts of dead things and evil spirits crawl out of."
Woooooow, you're really drinking deep of the cup of convertitis, aren't you?

Given that Elder Joseph the Hesychast was actually baptized "Franciscos" and there's at least one Orthodox Church from the 13th Century with an icon of him of the wall, and Fr. Lazarus Moore's story of him appearing in a dream to a French woman and telling her to go Orthodox--Francis at least seems to be a bit of a grey area.

That doesn't mean he should be canonized by the Orthodox Church or that everything he said or that has been said in his name is good, but it is food for thought.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LivenotoneviL said:
I think - for many good reasons - I'm going to take a break from these forums, which have been somewhat of an idol to my relationship with God.

I want to ask a question though as a sinful, bastard lamb whose unsure to follow the Shepherd or the Lion dressed up as the Shepherd who is crying for help - how do I discern between God and Satan, and I'm asking from those who have experienced God?

Pray for me.

Who do I listen to? Who is really Christ?

LivenotoneviL said:
I think your logic is flawed - because the San Damiano Crucifix in of itself was never part of Orthodox Tradition.

The Bible, the Liturgy, and the Church Fathers have always been a part of Orthodox Tradition.

The San Damiano Crucifix is heterodox in origin, being made post-schism, which makes it permanently fixed with the Roman Catholic Church - and in addition to this, the only reason why this specific piece of art is popular in the Roman Catholic Church is BECAUSE of Francis of Assisi. If Francis of Assisi did not exist, we wouldn't be talking about the San Damiano Crucifix.

Does it make it unOrthodox as an art piece? No - it is still Byzantine in its style and it is what I call "iconographic" - being 2-dimensional, having symbolic colors, and trying to transcend the materialism of this world. It's a better art-piece for veneration than some certain Russian Orthodox artwork I'm thinking of.

However, you have to recognize the implications and the messages you are sending to people if you buy it from a Roman Catholic source, you pray using it with other people, and if you wear it as a Pendant.

If you wear it as a Pendant, the message you send to people is "I think Francis of Assisi is a good role model in his life," and the mere act of wearing it as a Pendant is a message to onlookers who are familiar with it is "I firmly believe that the Franciscans are role models to follow, obeying the authority of the Roman Church," simply because this art piece is firmly fixed with Francis of Assisi.


A more accurate comparison would be other heterodox devotions such as the Rosary or the Saint Michael Chaplet.

In the theology that is being prayed with the words on the paper themselves, are they heterodox? In my humble opinion, no (aside from the imagination that is encouraged by Roman Catholics, which is unacceptable).
The former is simply 5 Our Fathers, 50 Angelic Salutations, and 5 Lesser Doxologies, and it was even modified into a prayer rule by Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

However, if you encourage these devotions in of themselves - even if you remove the "imaginative" portions of these prayers - you have to recognize the Rosary's origins with the Roman Saint Dominic and it's direct attachments to Roman Catholic Marian Apparitions (Our Lady of Carmel, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, etc.), the latter which I think are completely unacceptable for an Orthodox to accept.

The same with the Saint Michael Chaplet - a long prayer that is extremely beautiful; it's a prayer in which you ask for the intercessions of Saint Michael and ALL the choirs of angels to help you live a more Christian life. You can find it here:

https://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/chaplet-of-st-michael.htm

- but whose origin was a vision of Saint Michael to a heterodox nun who was promised by "Saint Michael" that they would be delivered from the "sufferings of Purgatory" if they recited it daily. By encouraging this prayer, you are encouraging a false theology simply by it's permanent attachment to this heretical apparition and a heterodox organization.

I consider the Cross of San Damiano the same way - is there anything wrong in of itself? No, but it's an alien to Tradition and should generally not be encouraged, lest - as Seraphim Rose would say - "the tombs of the mind are opened, in which all sorts of dead things and evil spirits crawl out of."
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
I want to say this though:

My doubt has been going on for more than a month now, and I decided - out of my despair - to skip the Divine Liturgy and attend the Tridentine Mass, because I felt that this is a question that ultimately I have to rely on my soul to answer. If this was just emotional nostalgia that I needed to get out, I ought to get it out.

Although I didn't pray anything in the Tridentine Mass that would've contradicted both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, I asked God for peace - just for proof in my soul that this is where God wants me.

When the Eucharist was consecrated, I personally asked Christ Himself "if you are truly present literally right in front of me, in this bread and wine, grant me peace by your Presence. I just want peace in my soul." This was not out of a demand for a sign, but just a request for help in discerning good from evil.

I have faith in the Real Presence of Christ, and just this Bloodless Sacrifice alone can bring one to intimate Love with God.

My response....nothingness.

Nothingness. My soul was disturbed and shaken just as it was before Christ being in the consecration.

My soul has been moved with fear and peace by the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church - which, from a Catholic perspective, means nothing, as the Orthodox have Valid Sacraments from the Orthodox perspective.

In addition, there have been certain things in my life - conversations I've had with Catholic priests, listening to Catholic preachers, listening to the children of this Catholic community talking to each other about the Pope - that for me, I firmly believe God placed there because He wants me in His Orthodox Church, because God is Love.

I asked God for help, and I asked for help from my Guardian Angel.

And I listened to a certain message from a certain person on this forum and thought about the Papacy one final time about EVERYTHING I know about Church History, and I've come to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is Truth. There's no way around it.

For me, the definitive moment was this: when I look at the holiness of a family, a mother, a father, their children - and how they interact with the vices and virtues of this world; when it comes to asking God for help, for praise, when it comes to dealing with the tragedy of suffering and death, when it comes to happiness -

For spiritual comfort, did God want these people to find spiritual comfort in one universal, visible king of this world, or to find comfort in their own community's bishop?

And the answer was there.

I also came to the realization that the entire Matthew 16:18 argument of the Papacy was contradicted by the Book of the Apocalypse. Period. There is no way around it (that is, the New Jerusalem was built on stones with the 12 Apostles, and the Key of David was given specifically by Christ to the Church of Philadelphia)


So what I'm fickle, and maybe in three months I will be as melodramatic - but for now, I've gotten out all of my feelings of doubt.


And what will that say about you? When I am feeling despair and lost, where were you in helping your brother - whether you like me or not? Whether you want me to burn in hell or not? Did you merely rolled your eyes on my passion for Christ, or did you give a heartfelt message?

At least on the Catholic forum I'm on, people - dealing with WAY MORE melodrama from me than me - still, out of love, wanted to help me. What does it say about the state of your soul, and all those who read and moved on from this melodramatic message?

Am I fickle? Yes. Deal with it. I'm a human being, who questions things; consider it a flaw of human nature.
 

LivenotoneviL

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
23
Location
United States
Mor Ephrem said:
LivenotoneviL said:
I didn't know that sharing a dissident opinion from another individual equivocates to rage and anger, such that I would need to be quote on quote "calmed down."
I said nothing about "rage and anger".  There are more than two reasons why someone might need to calm down (e.g., "working oneself up into a frenzy over things about which one lacks sufficient knowledge and insight").
Then maybe you ought to try to attack my argument than tell me I'm not qualified to give an opinion.

Should I say that you have no right to an opinion about Russian politics and the world, when you probably couldn't even name Vladimir Putin's political party without Googling it? Or perhaps you even couldn't name the Prime Minister of Russia (which, if you couldn't, I would say that that would be sad).
 
Top