Strange icons

[LBK]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

Oh, I've spoken well about quite a few on this thread. 

And what's about this one:

This one was posted some time ago, either in this thread, or in the Schlock Icons thread. I'll see if I can find the posts.

Here are the posts. Liza had posted the same or a very similar image, but it no longer shows up in her post.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19963.msg959616.html#msg959616

 

[LenInSebastopol]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

 

[hecma925]

The icon of the Dormition is much better when it comes to the love the Son has for his mother.

 

[LBK]

The icon of the Dormition is much better when it comes to the love the Son has for his mother.

Seconded. 

This motif in the Dormition icon is also completely theologically and doctrinally correct, unlike the image above.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

 

[LenInSebastopol]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

 

[RaphaCam]

This is the central dome of the Metropolitan Orthodox Cathedral, in São Paulo, the largest Orthodox church in Latin America. An amazing church, but isn't this portrayal of the Father Unorthodox?

 

[Deacon Lance]

This is the central dome of the Metropolitan Orthodox Cathedral, in São Paulo, the largest Orthodox church in Latin America. An amazing church, but isn't this portrayal of the Father Unorthodox?

There is no prohibition on the Ancient of Days.  The only problem with this one is the lack of the identifying IC XC.

 

[Volnutt]

This is the central dome of the Metropolitan Orthodox Cathedral, in São Paulo, the largest Orthodox church in Latin America. An amazing church, but isn't this portrayal of the Father Unorthodox?

There is no prohibition on the Ancient of Days.  The only problem with this one is the lack of the identifying IC XC.

The triangular halo denotes God the Father though, doesn't it?

 

[HaydenTE]

This is the central dome of the Metropolitan Orthodox Cathedral, in São Paulo, the largest Orthodox church in Latin America. An amazing church, but isn't this portrayal of the Father Unorthodox?

There is no prohibition on the Ancient of Days.  The only problem with this one is the lack of the identifying IC XC.

The lack of the identifying IC XC and the eight pointed slava instead of a cruciform halo, implies this is a Lord Sabaoth, not Ancient of Days. In fact, the inscription seems to translate to "Holy, holy, holy, O Lord Sabaoth." Depictions identified as Lord Sabaoth always are (erroneous) depictions of the Father, like in the Paternity 'icon' below.

 

[Iconodule]

Icons of God the Father as the Ancient of Days are quite common. Their legitimacy is a matter of dispute. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in The Rudder, comments on the canons of the 7th ecumenical council and says that icons of the Father as Ancient of Days are acceptable.

 

[Deacon Lance]

This is the central dome of the Metropolitan Orthodox Cathedral, in São Paulo, the largest Orthodox church in Latin America. An amazing church, but isn't this portrayal of the Father Unorthodox?

There is no prohibition on the Ancient of Days.  The only problem with this one is the lack of the identifying IC XC.

The lack of the identifying IC XC and the eight pointed slava instead of a cruciform halo, implies this is a Lord Sabaoth, not Ancient of Days. In fact, the inscription seems to translate to "Holy, holy, holy, O Lord Sabaoth." Depictions identified as Lord Sabaoth always are (erroneous) depictions of the Father, like in the Paternity 'icon' below.

Lord Sabaoth is a title of Christ.  And I have seen icons that incorporate the eight point slava and the cross.  Which leads one to wonder, if depictions of the Father are forbidden, who is the eight point slava for?

 

[Iconodule]

Which leads one to wonder, if depictions of the Father are forbidden, who is the eight point slava for?

Still a big if, in my opinion.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

 

[Volnutt]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

But couldn't the same be said for this?

 

[HaydenTE]

This is the central dome of the Metropolitan Orthodox Cathedral, in São Paulo, the largest Orthodox church in Latin America. An amazing church, but isn't this portrayal of the Father Unorthodox?

There is no prohibition on the Ancient of Days.  The only problem with this one is the lack of the identifying IC XC.

The lack of the identifying IC XC and the eight pointed slava instead of a cruciform halo, implies this is a Lord Sabaoth, not Ancient of Days. In fact, the inscription seems to translate to "Holy, holy, holy, O Lord Sabaoth." Depictions identified as Lord Sabaoth always are (erroneous) depictions of the Father, like in the Paternity 'icon' below.

Lord Sabaoth is a title of Christ.  And I have seen icons that incorporate the eight point slava and the cross.  Which leads one to wonder, if depictions of the Father are forbidden, who is the eight point slava for?

Lord Sabaoth is indeed a title of Christ, it just doesn't have a use in iconography. I have only see it used as a title for God the Father in uncanonical images. The eight point slava has no place in iconography either. It is a foreign as the figure it crowns.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Lord Sabaoth is indeed a title of Christ, it just doesn't have a use in iconography. I have only see it used as a title for God the Father in uncanonical images. The eight point slava has no place in iconography either. It is a foreign as the figure it crowns.

What does that even mean? 

 

[HaydenTE]

Lord Sabaoth is indeed a title of Christ, it just doesn't have a use in iconography. I have only see it used as a title for God the Father in uncanonical images. The eight point slava has no place in iconography either. It is a foreign as the figure it crowns.

What does that even mean?

That there are no canonical icons that use the eight point slava or use Lord Sabaoth as a title.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Lord Sabaoth is indeed a title of Christ, it just doesn't have a use in iconography. I have only see it used as a title for God the Father in uncanonical images. The eight point slava has no place in iconography either. It is a foreign as the figure it crowns.

What does that even mean?

That there are no canonical icons that use the eight point slava or use Lord Sabaoth as a title.

Forgive me, but your profile says you are considering conversion to Orthodoxy and you describe yourself as an inquirer.  Where did you pick up such certainty about what is and is not canonical iconography? 

 

[HaydenTE]

Lord Sabaoth is indeed a title of Christ, it just doesn't have a use in iconography. I have only see it used as a title for God the Father in uncanonical images. The eight point slava has no place in iconography either. It is a foreign as the figure it crowns.

What does that even mean?

That there are no canonical icons that use the eight point slava or use Lord Sabaoth as a title.

Forgive me, but your profile says you are considering conversion to Orthodoxy and you describe yourself as an inquirer.  Where did you pick up such certainty about what is and is not canonical iconography? 

I'm by no means an authority, but in my experience, and according to what I've read, my statement is correct. I've never seen either the title or slava unless it was on an icon identified as uncanonical.

 

[Deacon Lance]

Probably the best discussion I've read on the subject:

http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/letter-to-an-iconographer-on-the-ancient-of-days/

 

[Volnutt]

Probably the best discussion I've read on the subject:

http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/letter-to-an-iconographer-on-the-ancient-of-days/

So then, it is not necessary to interpret Daniel’s vision as two distinct Persons: the Father and the Son. It is completely consistent with our theological principles and dream language, to see that two aspects of the same person are “dramatically” represented. This interpretation also avoids a gross violation of the accepted rule that the Son reveals himself in the Old Testament. There is no other passage in the Old Testament in which it is said, by the Orthodox, that the Father became visible. And we know also that no other Biblical passage is sited by those who want to see the Ancient of Days as the Father to justify direct images of the Trinity.

Emphasis mine.

Where else in Scripture has that ever been the case? It sounds completely ad hoc. Yes, dreams do not always accord to human logic, but this dream is meant to be interpreted and as such the imagery needs to be consistent.

Also, who's "accepted rule" is this going by? Confession as we know it didn't exist for the first few centuries, not did the iconostasis, Znameny chant, the spoon, the forms of many icons, etc. Yes, these things reflect Scriptural truths, but they didn't always exist in that form.

NT Trinity icons have been around since the Middle Ages and have enjoyed the acceptance of countless faithful (including St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite) up to this day. How ancient does something have to be and how long does it have to last to become a tradition?

I do agree that the Ancient of Days being the Father would appear to challenge the "formerly unrevealed" argument for icons, but it's better to wrestle with that on it's own terms than use arguments on Daniel and on tradition that are weak in other ways.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

But couldn't the same be said for this?

Why would the same be said for this? This isn't a common position for a man and his wife.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Lord Sabaoth is indeed a title of Christ, it just doesn't have a use in iconography. I have only see it used as a title for God the Father in uncanonical images. The eight point slava has no place in iconography either. It is a foreign as the figure it crowns.

What does that even mean?

That there are no canonical icons that use the eight point slava or use Lord Sabaoth as a title.

Forgive me, but your profile says you are considering conversion to Orthodoxy and you describe yourself as an inquirer.  Where did you pick up such certainty about what is and is not canonical iconography? 

I'm by no means an authority, but in my experience,

How much experience do you have?

and according to what I've read,

How much and what have you read?

my statement is correct.

How much experience do you have, and how much and what have you read that you can be so certain in your correctness?

I've never seen either the title or slava unless it was on an icon identified as uncanonical.

Unless you're someone like Jaroslav Pelikan, who wrote whole scholarly works on the Eastern Christian tradition long before he was chrismated, you probably haven't read or experienced much if you're merely inquiring into Orthodoxy. Maybe, then, you should tone down the certitude on things you're still (supposedly) learning.

 

[Antonis]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

Considering the Theotokos is Christ's daughter, mother, and bride, I'm not sure this is a sound objection.

 

[HaydenTE]

My experience is confessedly very little, but I have read a fair bit. At the very least, enough to support my claim. I am still learning, and I don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything. Here are some links to some of the things I've read that have lead to my conclusion.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/God_the_Father

http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/con_error_icons_God_Father.shtml

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/09/08/show-us-the-father-how-the-father-may-or-may-not-be-depicted-in-orthodox-iconography/

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council#The_Decision_of_the_Council
(note how the text states that God cannot be shown in his eternal form, but only in his humanity.)

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Moscow_Sobor_of_1666–1667

 

[hecma925]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

Considering the Theotokos is Christ's daughter, mother, and bride, I'm not sure this is a sound objection.

Is there an icon of the Sign where Christ is bearing Mary in His womb?

 

[hecma925]

Even this is problematic when you understand the weird bridegroom theology that came about heavily post-Schism. 

Then you get this.  Which gets you this:

Then to this:

Which is the same as this, theologically:

For an academic RC perspective (which reveals how weird the beliefs associated with such theology, not to mention how such imagery pops up), "The Art of Theology:  Mary as Bride of Christ" by Mary Barker and Mervyn Duffy, Compass, A Review of Topical Theology, Autumn 2014 issue, Vol. 48, No. 1.

Link here:  http://compassreview.org/archive.html
Direct to article pdf: http://compassreview.org/autumn14/11.pdf

If Christ holding His Mother's soul while looking on His Mother's body is not enough love and tenderness, I'm not sure what you're looking for.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

Considering the Theotokos is Christ's daughter, mother, and bride, I'm not sure this is a sound objection.

When I'm telling you what I think, do I really care how sound you think my objection? It's my objection, for cryin' out loud.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

My experience is confessedly very little, but I have read a fair bit. At the very least, enough to support my claim. I am still learning, and I don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything.

Nobody said that you don't know anything. We only said or implied that you speak with a great certitude unbecoming an inquirer. One probably shouldn't be so quick to draw conclusions when one's primary task is to learn.

Here are some links to some of the things I've read that have lead to my conclusion.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/God_the_Father

http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/con_error_icons_God_Father.shtml

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/09/08/show-us-the-father-how-the-father-may-or-may-not-be-depicted-in-orthodox-iconography/

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council#The_Decision_of_the_Council
(note how the text states that God cannot be shown in his eternal form, but only in his humanity.)

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Moscow_Sobor_of_1666–1667

The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.

 

[HaydenTE]

The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.

Is there something wrong with my sources?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.

Is there something wrong with my sources?

No. There's something wrong with your choice of reading material. One who's inquiring into the Orthodox faith as you claim usually doesn't read texts arguing against iconographic depictions of the Father.

 

[Antonis]

Is there an icon of the Sign where Christ is bearing Mary in His womb?

This is vapid. Men do not contribute to life in this fashion, nor does God.

The position of the Unwedded Bride and Mother of God is much more complicated than that.

 

[Antonis]

When I'm telling you what I think, do I really care how sound you think my objection? It's my objection, for cryin' out loud.

I thought this was a discussion board, why did you make your post?

 

[HaydenTE]

The problem with inexperience is that one doesn't know what to read.

Is there something wrong with my sources?

No. There's something wrong with your choice of reading material. One who's inquiring into the Orthodox faith as you claim usually doesn't read texts arguing against iconographic depictions of the Father.

Well, as I was baptized a Roman Catholic, where depictions of God the Father are regular and common, as soon as I read in the first link that depictions of the Father are prohibited, I decided to research why. Are you saying that was wrong of me to do? To satisfy my natural curiosity? Or would it have been better for me to remain in my ignorance?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

^^Ah, an icon that LBK hasn't disapproved!

And what's about this one:

It is SO intimate, I can barely look........if I were to see the original, I'd probably squirt out of my eyes.
What a tender and comforting Icon!

And also easily misunderstood.

I know I understand dimly, but how may one misunderstand what one sees?
Just look at it.
I don't see tenderness, intimacy, comfort, human-ness?
???

One can just as easily see a man with his wife, much like the icon of Ss. Joachim and Anna. I don't think that an appropriate way to picture our Lord with his Mother.

But couldn't the same be said for this?

Why would the same be said for this? This isn't a common position for a man and his wife.

If it wasn't in such bad taste, I would post the photo of my mother clutching my father in his deathbed about thirty minutes after he breathed his last.  Plenty of men and their wives are put in that position. 

Frankly, if Christians see an image of Christ sitting next to and embracing his mother and immediately begin to think SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX, they probably need professional help and pastoral care. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Even this is problematic when you understand the weird bridegroom theology that came about heavily post-Schism. 

Then you get this.  Which gets you this:

Then to this:

Which is the same as this, theologically:

 

[Schultz]

Even this is problematic when you understand the weird bridegroom theology that came about heavily post-Schism. 

Then you get this.  Which gets you this:

Then to this:

Which is the same as this, theologically:

ZOMG TEH GAYS!

 

[hecma925]

Neato.  Is that the icon of the conception of the church(es) in Antioch and/or Rome? 

 

[minasoliman]

Something I have learned recently, when people "greet one another with a holy kiss", it used to be from mouth to mouth.  There was nothing gay about that in ancient Christian practice.