Strange icons

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
LBK said:
Antonis said:
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.
That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.
The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.
Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
Where is your proof, LBK? You falsely claimed it was not canonical when Antonio's Presbytera gifted it to him.
The mere fact of the image being a gift from the wife of a priest does not confer canonicity upon it. Canonicity comes from an icon's ability to properly and faithfully proclaim theology and teachings. I made no false claim, so stop putting words in my mouth. It makes all your pleas for Christian charity and love ring hollow.



 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
LBK said:
Maria said:
LBK said:
Antonis said:
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.
That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.
The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.
Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
LBK said:
Maria said:
LBK said:
Antonis said:
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.
That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.
The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.
Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.
The matter of God the Father as an old man has been denounced time and time again across the centuries by the Church, yet people still persist in painting it. End of story.

Toll-houses have nothing to do with the matter at hand, neither does Christ's earthly genealogy. You're trying to muddy the waters, but it's not working.

 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
LBK said:
Maria said:
LBK said:
Maria said:
LBK said:
Antonis said:
I would say the burden of proof lies with you, as my spiritual father, the abbots of at least two monasteries, and at least two Orthodox metropolitans here in America accept it as perfectly fine.

And if you're going to do so, I would ask that you please cite sources, instead of long soliloquies that we are just supposed to accept because you are you.
That's not an answer to my question. I do not speak from myself, but from the traditions of the Church, and I do provide sources from Tradition to back what I write. If I am so wrong in my criticism of this image, then, please enlighten us all with the reasons why it is suitable for veneration.
The burden of proof falls on you, as you were the one who said it was not canonical.
Do you consider the Paternity image canonical? Because the painting of the holy women is its counterpart.

Paternity:

There is division regarding the Paternity image just like there is no unanimous ruling on Toll Houses.

Apparently some iconographers consider it canonical while others yell "heresy."

Christ has no human father, yet interestingly his genealogy mentiones the line of David.
The matter of God the Father as an old man has been denounced time and time again across the centuries by the Church, yet people still persist in painting it. End of story.

Toll-houses have nothing to do with the matter at hand, neither does Christ's earthly genealogy. You're trying to muddy the waters, but it's not working.
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?

Apparently HOCNA condemns this paternity icon, but they left ROCOR and have endorsed several heresies after their departure from Orthodoxy, so I cannot trust what they teach.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
My favorite icon is Christ Tempted in the Desert. Have any of you ever been able to come across one that's for sale? The iconographer at my parish offered to paint me one but I can't afford the $240 he charges.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?
Theologoumenon? Not at all.

It was condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter of St Gregory II of Rome to the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, which was incorporated into the acts of that Council. An excerpt from this letter:

“Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”


St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and in his In Defense of the Holy Images, and St Theodore of the Studion in his treatise on icons also condemn such imagery. They are by no means the only saints or Fathers who do the same.

Some selections from the Damascene:

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the color of the flesh...

If we made an image of the invisible God, we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled.

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure spirit, invisible, boundless, having neither form nor circumscription. How can we make an image of what is invisible? "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Jn. 1.18) And again, "No one shall see My face and live, saith the Lord." (Ex. 33.20)

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us," [94] our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature, language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.


It is worth noting that, in this treatise, St John refers constantly to his forebears among the saints and fathers to give authority to what he says.

Two more questions which should be asked:

1. Did God the Father become incarnate?

2. Does the Church celebrate any feasts dedicated to the Father alone?
 

qawe

High Elder
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
583
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Not end of story. It apparently remains a theologumenon. That is why it keeps on being painted. I would not buy one or commission one, but have you seen any canons condemning it?
Theologoumenon? Not at all.

It was condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter of St Gregory II of Rome to the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, which was incorporated into the acts of that Council. An excerpt from this letter:

“Why do we neither describe nor represent the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Because we do not know what He is ... And if we had seen and known Him as we have seen and known His Son, we would have tried to describe Him and to represent Him in art.”


St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and in his In Defense of the Holy Images, and St Theodore of the Studion in his treatise on icons also condemn such imagery. They are by no means the only saints or Fathers who do the same.

Some selections from the Damascene:

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the color of the flesh...

If we made an image of the invisible God, we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled.

It is impossible to make an image of God, who is a pure spirit, invisible, boundless, having neither form nor circumscription. How can we make an image of what is invisible? "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Jn. 1.18) And again, "No one shall see My face and live, saith the Lord." (Ex. 33.20)

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us," [94] our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature, language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.


It is worth noting that, in this treatise, St John refers constantly to his forebears among the saints and fathers to give authority to what he says.

Two more questions which should be asked:

1. Did God the Father become incarnate?

2. Does the Church celebrate any feasts dedicated to the Father alone?
Then what about the Rublev icon depicting the Trinity, in which 1 of the men represents the Father?
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Rublyev Trinity, like the icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, show all three angels as equal. None of the angels are identified by name on either icon, and none bear the distinctive halo which we see in icons of Christ. The three mysterious men at the Oak of Mamre are a manifestation, not an incarnation. This distinction is extremely important.

 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow, what happened to this thread while I was sleeping?

1. We have gone way off track.

2. This seemingly obvious condemnation of depicting the Father in the Damascene's writings is not apparent to me.

3. I was always taught that the Trinity is very obviously distinguished in Rublev's depiction, despite their not literally being the Trinity. The Father wears orange, the Son wears blue and red (just like in icons of him, a very distinct color scheme), and the Spirit wears green (the color of the Holy Spirit). Further, while being seated equally at the table, both the Son and Holy Spirit are shown bending their heads to the Father.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
The apostles should be holding a model of a church, symbolic of them being the pillars and founders of the Church, as many a hymn to them proclaims. The church is there, but obscured behind the totally misplaced motif of a Eucharistic symbol.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I heard you like symbolism, so I put the Body of Christ in the Body of Christ so you can contemplate while you contemplate.
 

Arachne

Toumarches
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
12,003
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Camulodunum
Nephi said:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6189/6119423031_3031df71a0_z.jpg
Looks as if someone's about to get his jabs (and a lolly afterwards?) ::)
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nephi said:
Someone has seriously over-egged the custard. Far too much frou-frou. And the Child looks like he's about to burst into tears: Mama! Please don't jab me!
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
LBK said:
And the Child looks like he's about to burst into tears: Mama! Please don't jab me!
FWIW, I thought it kind of looked like he's about to sneeze.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Nephi said:
FWIW, I thought it kind of looked like he's about to sneeze.
Yes, I agree as his eyes are partly closed and his mouth is slightly opened. Hardly a pose seen in Orthodox Christian icons.
 

kelly

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
3,812
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Nephi said:
I get the same expression as Jesus right before I sneeze.

edit - I was beaten to this observation.
 
Top